So... will it be the same excuse AGAIN?

[DeadlyDynasty]

I have done it for years now...flipped it on its head and back over again. I guess I'm just burnt out.

I also get paid on the regular to post on ST.

Yeah, we could beat this dead horse till there's nothing but a bloody, gooey mess. I agree with Dr. House though on his last post...let's see how these next 2 years play out to determine who was the real winner of this decade.

[spursfan09]

Ok, let's break this down...
1. They forgot there were other games because "they played the Spurs so hard" The Spurs were done in 5 games and we were beaten by the better team. Boston was the best team in the NBA wire-to-wire that year and they exposed our lack of rebounding and interior D (something SA was unable to do).
2. "gang up on the last team you beat to make yourself feel better as fans of a team that came in second." WTF are you talking about? If you don't like the back and forth banter than don't participate. How can we gang up on you ON YOUR OWN SITE?!
3. "Ok I'm done because it's not easy trying to argue with the Laker fans who refuse to use logic."--don't run away from defending your asinine comments with, "ok i'm done, but i'll give one last parting shot." Please explain the logic of which you speak, because you clearly aren't using any in this argument.

"PS. I'm a woman"--If I'd have known that last week I would've sent you a custom Lakers jersey for Valentine's Day.

Damn you I should be studying for my accounting test!

1. Glad to see you admitted to losing to a better team. And the Spurs did also. I think the Lakers did play hard against the Spurs to win, if you don't then that just shows what I already know. You don't have respect for the Spurs which is fine. My point was that its fun to see the Lakers lose EVEN IF THEY BEAT THE SPURS THAT YEAR.

2. maybe "gang up" was the wrong word, but come on, its not like you are in Boston's site talking . It just seems alot of Laker fans like to come in here and taunt us, even though the Lakers couldn't finish the job. And if you Laker fans claim to no respect us or are scared, you sure do spend alot of time in here.

3. I would burn that jersey because being a Laker fan would never appeal to me. A big market team, that is treated by fans and media like they are en led to everyting. No thanks

[DeadlyDynasty]

no I understand. I just meant that I don't feel like that at all, but facial expressions and other reactions get lost through the internets. Speaking of being on a spurs forum, well will the obession stop and when will you leave?

I prefer to post on the opponent's forum in b-ball, football, and baseball. What's the interest in just agreeing with everybody on your own site about how good you are? Rival posting livens up the conversation on any board and offers a different perspective other than unabashed homerism.

"when will you leave?"

When my time here is through

[Agloco]

IMHO in order to be considered a dynasty the minimum requirement must be that your team was at least the best team of that decade.

The 90's Bulls can say that, the Showtime Lakers can say that, the Russell Celtics can say that.

The '00 3-peat Lakers can't say that and neither can the Spurs. There are two seasons left to determine who is the team of THIS decade and ultimately which team we can consider to be a dynasty.

One could consider 94-04 or even 97-07. What then? How does 3 straight compare to 4 out of 7 in that limit? Duration vs rate

[DeadlyDynasty]

Damn you I should be studying for my accounting test!

1. Glad to see you admitted to losing to a better team. And the Spurs did also. I think the Lakers did play hard against the Spurs to win, if you don't then that just shows what I already know. You don't have respect for the Spurs which is fine. My point was that its fun to see the Lakers lose EVEN IF THEY BEAT THE SPURS THAT YEAR.

2. maybe "gang up" was the wrong word, but come on, its not like you are in Boston's site talking . It just seems alot of Laker fans like to come in here and taunt us, even though the Lakers couldn't finish the job. And if you Laker fans claim to no respect us or are scared, you sure do spend alot of time in here.

3. I would burn that jersey because being a Laker fan would never appeal to me. A big market team, that is treated by fans and media like they are en led to everyting. No thanks

1-2. I very much respect the Spurs. I'm a big Tim Duncan fan--the guy is a class act and quite possibly the best PF ever. Afterall, you are the closest thing we have to a rival, and the feeling is reciprocated. The Suns were never your rivals, just like the Kings and Blazers were never ours because they were one-sided contests.

3. I think the thought of burning the jersey would cross your mind, but ultimately, holding that symbol of decades-long excellence in your arms would make you quiver and suc b to the Lakers charm

Go do your accounting sweetheart

[DeadlyDynasty]

One could consider 94-04 or even 97-07. What then? How does 3 straight compare to 4 out of 7 in that limit? Duration vs rate

Keep in mind that this decade is not through and the Lakers may very well take the le this year (gotta be the favorites as of now).


LA won 3 straight from 2000-2002 and has been to 5 NBA Finals in 8 years. SA has won 4 in 9 years, but never defended their crown. We could argue this the live long day, but like Dr. House said--let's see how these next 2 years play out then we'll see who won the decade

[spursfan09]

When my time here is through

What's the interest in just agreeing with everybody on your own site about how good you are?

Good point, but Spur fans do a great job of coming down hard on the team. Read this forum after a loss. Or perhaps read a Tony Parker thread after a loss. I guarantee to you no Laker fans would ever say things like that about Kobe.

[Brazil]

http://www.faniq.com/nba-photo/Jun-_...2,collected,1/

[DeadlyDynasty]

Good point, but Spur fans do a great job of coming down hard on the team. Read this forum after a loss. Or perhaps read a Tony Parker thread after a loss. I guarantee to you no Laker fans would ever say things like that about Kobe.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that...he was a bas yesterday with his 1-on-1 obsession with Posey. Good thing he snapped out of it in time and it didn't cost us

[DeadlyDynasty]

http://www.faniq.com/nba-photo/Jun-_...2,collected,1/

congrats, one man's opinion about a 10-year period that's not even over yet

[lefty]

IMHO in order to be considered a dynasty the minimum requirement must be that your team was at least the best team of that decade.

The 90's Bulls can say that, the Showtime Lakers can say that, the Russell Celtics can say that.

The '00 3-peat Lakers can't say that and neither can the Spurs. There are two seasons left to determine who is the team of THIS decade and ultimately which team we can consider to be a dynasty.

We're the best of the 2000's decade

4 les

Lakers: 3

And I don't think the Lakers will win before 2010


Thanks for making my point

[Brazil]

congrats, one man's opinion about a 10-year period that's not even over yet

sports illustrated = one man's opinion ?

[DeadlyDynasty]

We're the best of the 2000's decade

4 les

Lakers: 3

And I don't think the Lakers will win before 2010


Thanks for making my point

"We're the best of the 2000's decade"

Considering it's not even over yet maybe you should stop making those claims.


"And I don't think the Lakers will win before 2010"

Thanks, no need to play the next 2 years then. While you're looking in the crystal ball, can I have tonight's lotto #'s?

[DeadlyDynasty]

sports illustrated = one man's opinion ?

Jack McCallum

[lefty]

"we're the best of the 2000's decade"

considering it's not even over yet maybe you should stop making those claims.


"and i don't think the lakers will win before 2010"

thanks, no need to play the next 2 years then. While you're looking in the crystal ball, can i have tonight's lotto #'s?

9 20 8 21 12 40 15 5

[DeadlyDynasty]

9 20 8 21 12 40 15 5

that's too many...I'll seriously play them if you drop 1. If I win then I'll agree with you that the spurs will be the best of the 00's and you'll never hear from me on this site again (so pick well, cause I know that's an offer you like)

[lefty]

that's too many...I'll seriously play them if you drop 1. If I win then I'll agree with you that the spurs will be the best of the 00's and you'll never hear from me on this site again (so pick well, cause I know that's an offer you like)

Then I'm dropping Bonner (# 15 )

[Spur-Addict]

9 20 8 21 12 40 15 5

[Agloco]

One could consider 94-04 or even 97-07. What then? How does 3 straight compare to 4 out of 7 in that limit? Duration vs rate

Keep in mind that this decade is not through and the Lakers may very well take the le this year (gotta be the favorites as of now).


LA won 3 straight from 2000-2002 and has been to 5 NBA Finals in 8 years. SA has won 4 in 9 years, but never defended their crown. We could argue this the live long day, but like Dr. House said--let's see how these next 2 years play out then we'll see who won the decade

You missed the boat......

I proposed that assessing any "decade" is a dynamic process versus a static one, sorta like sliding a ruler which measures out 10 years along a timeline. Decades are never "through", it's a continuous thing. In your mind's eye decades can only exist within a 00 to 09 or 80 to 89, etc, frame. You can't compartmentalize time like that, it's not a discrete en y. Read my quote above closely.

[DrHouse]

Actually in sports when we talk about decades we specifically are referring to static en ies (i.e. 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's) with strictly defined start/stop years.

Nobody ever talks about decades in sports the way you are describing (i.e. 1997-2007).

So when we say team of the decade it is known universally that we are referring to the 2000-2010 time frame.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Actually in sports when we talk about decades we specifically are referring to static en ies (i.e. 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's) with strictly defined start/stop years.

Nobody ever talks about decades in sports the way you are describing (i.e. 1997-2007).

So when we say team of the decade it is known universally that we are referring to the 2000-2010 time frame.

Spur logic

[TD4THREE]

Spur logic

Oh yes, silly spurs fans for considering the last ten years a decade. .

[Man In Black]

Bird's Celtics are considered a dynasty? I disagree. They were a great team but I would not call them dynastic, most especially since they were unable to repeat. By definition, Dynasty is the dominance or rule of one family (or team in this case) over a particular era. The 80's belonged to the Lakers: Five les, 8 appearances (including a repeat). The 60's Celtics were a dynasty (the greatest in sports history), as were the 90s Bulls. The late 40s and most of 50s belong to the Minneapolis Lakers. The 70s were a grab bag of teams, nobody owning that decade.

In the 00's, it's a wash, but that'll be a moot point when LA takes #4 in 6 appearances during a 9-year span. All those teams mentioned above, including this decade's Lakers, have defended their le. The Spurs have had 4 chances to defend their le but could never play with the bullseye on their back

Typical of the Laker fan who has Celtic envy because he knows that LA CANNOT pass the Celtics in the Kobe era.
I mean , Those Minneapolis les that you guys claim takes the cake. I remember the season that Sacto pushed the LAL to the brink and tons of Laker fans were saying that the Kings Franchise is a never had a le team, WHEN IN FACT, the franchise has one when they were based in Rochester. Except, Kings fans don't claim that like Laker fans claim Minneapolis.

If the Spurs were based in New York, then it would be talked about as a dynasty. It's a location issue, nothing more, nothing less.

You ask anyone relevant in Pro Basketball, like I have, Lets say Bob Lanier or Doctor J, or even the late great Chick Hearn... I've talked to all 3 and all of them have told me the same thing. The Bird Celtics' are a dynasty, and Doctor J and Big Bob told me that the Spurs are a dynasty as well.

2 NBA legends 1
Laker fan blowhards zero

I'm still the King

[mrpuente]

now that manu has a injured knee and prolly will make a come back before the season ends and for the playoffs and with that notion the spurs AS A TEAM will get their asses handed to them by the los angeles lakers will the same excuse arise from die hard spurs fans that "Manu's Hurt thats why we lost! will you spurs fans actually cough that tired old excuse again? just as much as the ref excuse? and fisher piggy backing brent barry excuse?


if thats so..

in the event that we lose can we say we didnt have BYNUM? ..



ing pathetic....

Well it was more like Laker fans rubbing it in Spurs fans faces that they beat us, because they are the better team.

Spurs fans argument was that we werent 100%. If Lakers beat us 100% then there wouldve been no excuses.

Look at how pathetic you are coming into a SPURS forum talking .
Come in the bees nest you bound to get stung

[DeadlyDynasty]

Typical of the Laker fan who has Celtic envy because he knows that LA CANNOT pass the Celtics in the Kobe era.
I mean , Those Minneapolis les that you guys claim takes the cake. I remember the season that Sacto pushed the LAL to the brink and tons of Laker fans were saying that the Kings Franchise is a never had a le team, WHEN IN FACT, the franchise has one when they were based in Rochester. Except, Kings fans don't claim that like Laker fans claim Minneapolis.

If the Spurs were based in New York, then it would be talked about as a dynasty. It's a location issue, nothing more, nothing less.

You ask anyone relevant in Pro Basketball, like I have, Lets say Bob Lanier or Doctor J, or even the late great Chick Hearn... I've talked to all 3 and all of them have told me the same thing. The Bird Celtics' are a dynasty, and Doctor J and Big Bob told me that the Spurs are a dynasty as well.

2 NBA legends 1
Laker fan blowhards zero

I'm still the King

Please, Kings fans DID claim the Rochester Royals one so right off the bat you're full of . I remember that vividly when I used to talk smack on the forum (btw, what happened to that board?)

"You ask anyone relevant in Pro Basketball, like I have, Lets say Bob Lanier or Doctor J, or even the late great Chick Hearn... I've talked to all 3 and all of them have told me the same thing. The Bird Celtics' are a dynasty, and Doctor J and Big Bob told me that the Spurs are a dynasty as well."

Yeah? well I talked to Otis at the local exxon, Betty from Citizen's Bank, and Jimbo from the Quaker Steak and Lube and they don't get how you can call the Spurs a dynasty when they couldn't sack up and defend any of their les. Also, how can you be considered a dynasty when there's another team that's been to the finals 5 times w/ 3 les in the same era--and most likely gonna garner #4 to cap the decade. Here's an easy way to settle this argument: wait till the decade is over and tally the results.

" I'm still the King"
don't break your neck trying to fellate yourself