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

[DeadlyDynasty]

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

The Lakers weren't 100% either...

You guys had your chances...you were up 20 in 2 different games but were too mentally weak to hold on. Once again, your repeat bid ends at the hands of us. What could have been SA...

[mrpuente]

The Lakers weren't 100% either...

You guys had your chances...you were up 20 in 2 different games but were too mentally weak to hold on. Once again, your repeat bid ends at the hands of us. What could have been SA...

Ahh...The age old argument Laker fans beat into their skulls. Bynum to Lakers = Manu to Spurs. HAHA

[DeadlyDynasty]

Ahh...The age old argument Laker fans beat into their skulls. Bynum to Lakers = Manu to Spurs. HAHA

Ahh, the age old excuses Spurs fans pass on to future geneations of whiners: "We never get beat, it's always injuries or the officiating."

[mrpuente]

Ahh, the age old excuses Spurs fans pass on to future geneations of whiners: "We never get beat, it's always injuries or the officiating."

Says a Laker fan..............:

[DeadlyDynasty]

Says a Laker fan..............:

FAIL

I've never blamed either for a Laker loss. Thanks for playing

Next

[mrpuente]

FAIL

I've never blamed either for a Laker loss. Thanks for playing

Next

my bad i guess youre in that 1%.

[DrHouse]

at Spur fan crying about Manu being hurt last season while completely ignoring the fact that both Bynum and Ariza did not play. The playing field was equal in that series and the better team won. Had Bynum and Ariza been available to play you're looking at a 4-0 sweep. At least Manu played, and was good enough to win you one game.

I don't believe the Spurs can call themselves a dynasty until they can prove they were the best team in this decade. It's that simple. If the Lakers don't win this season or next the Spurs can call themselves the team of the decade and a dynasty for all I care. But there is no way on this planet that any Spur fan can annoint their team a dynasty when another team was better than them and accomplished more in the same ing decade. That's ludicrous.

[timaios]

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.

FYI a decade is 1-->10

2001-2010 is a decade not 2000-2010 (11 years)
The 1st year of christian calendar was "year 1" not "year 0"
The 1st decade of christian calendar was 1-10 (count on your fingers : 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10)
1st century 1-100
1st millenium 1-1000
2nd millenium 1001-2000
3rd millenium 2001... (yes the beginning of 3rd millenium was the 1st day of 2001 not the 1st day of 2000 !!!)

1st decade of 3rd millenium is 2001-2010

But a decade is also a 10-year period. (i.e. 1999-2008 is a decade)

[Man In Black]

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.

How many seasons of NBA pro hoops have they played?


MIB + 2 NBA Legends =3
Dead DieNasty=0

RECOGNIZE...It's simple math. When someone said, in this decade, it's linguistically correct to just go back ten years FROM THAT POINT. Since it's 2009 now, you just go back 10 years. 1999 to 2008-2009 season is 10 seasons. Since the 09 playoffs have yet to be determined, the score still stands at Spurs 4-Lakers 3.
Easy Math.

Now again, I AM THE KING

Why is it that you like to talk about Auto-Fellatio? You must have personal experience

[underdawg]

at Spur fan crying about Manu being hurt last season while completely ignoring the fact that both Bynum and Ariza did not play. The playing field was equal in that series and the better team won. Had Bynum and Ariza been available to play you're looking at a 4-0 sweep. At least Manu played, and was good enough to win you one game.

I don't believe the Spurs can call themselves a dynasty until they can prove they were the best team in this decade. It's that simple. If the Lakers don't win this season or next the Spurs can call themselves the team of the decade and a dynasty for all I care. But there is no way on this planet that any Spur fan can annoint their team a dynasty when another team was better than them and accomplished more in the same ing decade. That's ludicrous.

I didn't watch a lot of laker games last year, but you can't tell me that Bynum and Ariza were as important to the lakers last year as Manu was to the Spurs. Manu was having probably his best season of his career, while Bynum and Ariza were just starting to play. That's where the difference was and it showed in the playoffs - period.

[timaios]

How many seasons of NBA pro hoops have they played?


MIB + 2 NBA Legends =3
Dead DieNasty=0

RECOGNIZE...It's simple math. When someone said, in this decade, it's linguistically correct to just go back ten years FROM THAT POINT. Since it's 2009 now, you just go back 10 years. 1999 to 2008-2009 season is 10 seasons. Since the 09 playoffs have yet to be determined, the score still stands at Spurs 4-Lakers 3.
Easy Math.

Now again, I AM THE KING

Why is it that you like to talk about Auto-Fellatio? You must have personal experience

Hum... no!

1998-1999 (1) Spurs
1999-2000 (2) Lakers
2000-2001 (3) Lakers
2001-2002 (4) Lakers
2002-2003 (5) Spurs
2003-2004 (6) Pistons
2004-2005 (7) Spurs
2005-2006 (8) Heat
2006-2007 (9) Spurs
2007-2008 (10) Celtics
2008-2009 (11) ???

Again,
1999-2008 is a decade.
2000-2009 is a decade.

1999-2009 is a 11-year period.

So the 1st "post Jordan" decade is 1999-2008 :
4 les for the Spurs
3 les for the Lakers
1 le for the Pistons
1 le for the Heat
1 le for the Celtics
= 10 les

The "official" decade is 2001-2010
3 les for the Spurs
2 les for the Lakers
1 le for the Pistons
1 le for the Heat
1 le for the Celtics
= 8 les
+2009 ???
+2010 ???

[Man In Black]

http://booksetall.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2009
Rethinking San Antonio
For years people have been trying to articulate exactly what the San Antonio Spurs are. Are they thorough, or just downright boring, or both? Can they be considered anything less than the most dominant force in the NBA for the past decade, at least insofar as they seem to be in complete control of whether they win or loose, each year? Is their defense the source of their dominance, or their offense? Is there, in fact, nothing at all worthy considering about them?

During the playoffs last year a freedarko blog suggested that the Spurs were important for the NBA as a kind of litmus test against which the potentially dominant teams in the league might test themselves (i.e. you are not a legit team until you can beat the Spurs in a best-of-seven series). It was an argument so clearly stated that it was unavoidable, a point so thoroughly manifest-although not obvious- that one had to agree. The Onion ran a headline just before the Spurs/Cavs Finals that indirectly prefigured this idea: "Tim Duncan Rooting for Cavaliers for Good of NBA." The Spurs swept the series and Sports Illustrated ran a headline that I thought at the time was either insulting because it was too appropriate, or appropriate because it was too insulting: "The Quiet Dynasty." Initially I took "quiet" to, at the very least, strongly suggest the fact that no one watched the Finals, or even more so that most people felt as though the best part of the Finals was that it wasn't another Pistons/Spurs series.

When I watched the Christmas Day game against the Suns-one of three games I've watched this whole year- I reconsidered that headline. Greg Poppovich's beard, Tim Duncan's overwhelming rationality, Tony Parker's belligerently effeminate tear drop all began to recede in the background as the game progressed, got interesting, then got really close towards the end and the one overwhelming mood that washed over me was the newly indelibly manifest demonstration of how little they give a about anyone trying to figure them out, criticize them, praise them. And then I realized what it is that they are, which had been hitherto so elusive. The Spurs are laconic.

Laconic derives from the Greek word "Lacadaemon." The Lacadaemonians are more commonly known as the Spartans, men and women who were known in ancient times just as much for their quietude as their prowess on the battlefield. Silence was for ancient writers, like Herodotus, Plutarch, Xenophon and Plato, often the most salient characteristic of the Spartans. The only rival characteristic to their reluctance to speak was, of course, their military skill. The word "laconic" consequently carries with it the alarming suggestion that the person not speaking could- without any large production- throw a spear through your head.

The way the Spurs play right now, and the way they played against the Suns on Christmas day, is, if you take the time to consider it, scary. While a loud, wild, crazy person with a gun freaks the out of you, a calm, quiet and determined person with a gun is horrifying. This is why no one is scared to play the Warriors, or the Nuggets from last year. The Spurs quietly amassed the second best record in a weird and unpredictable and offensively explosive conference, and continue to turn young guards and "what-could-only-be-described-as-a-San-Antonio-draft-pick" players into shockingly consistent role players.

The Spurs are often boring, but they are only boring in the way that a conversation with a Spartan would be boring. The point is that the Spartans didn't waste their time having conversations because they were too busy trying to be excellent, virtuous men and women. A testament to this is the fact that we don't have books by Spartans about Spartans, or any books at all by Spartans. The Spurs' quiet dynasty is important for the NBA precisely because of what it is: it is not "personal chemistry" or smothering defense that makes a team dominant. Those things help a team win. Dominance comes from a communal obsession with virtue, an unwavering (and thereby seemingly dull) commitment to what Plato called "the good." Such things are rare, especially in the NBA. Rarity itself is not a virtue, but virtue is.
POSTED BY MAXWELL KUH

[Man In Black]

Hum... no!

1998-1999 (1)
1999-2000 (2)
2000-2001 (3)
2001-2002 (4)
2002-2003 (5)
2003-2004 (6)
2004-2005 (7)
2005-2006 (8)
2006-2007 (9)
2007-2008 (10)
2008-2009 (11)

Again 1999-2008 is a decade.
2000-2009 is a decade.

1999-2009 is a 11-year period.

Okay...So in 11 years, it's still Spurs 4, Lakers 3.

Thanks

[manufor3]

You can't pinpoint when you want to start NBA history. The NBA did not start in 1999.

Going undefeated in the Finals doesn't mean anything. It's just a sad rationalization that Spur fan uses to convince himself that somehow 4 rings and 4 Finals appearances are better than 14 rings and 29 Finals appearances.

You'll recognize the greatness of the Laker franchise as you begin to pick up the pieces of what is left of the San Antonio Spurs. You'll see just how hard it is to rebuild in this league. It took the Celtics over 2 decades to just get back to the Finals.

so you make it 29 time out of a longer history, and only win 14. thats less than .500

[manufor3]

this has got to be one of the most unintelligent threads ive ever read. drhouse being the main idiot of the thread

[ClingingMars]

Whenever I die on Gears of War, I say the sun was in my eyes. Try that one.

who still plays that game? (other than Horde mode)

[rascal]

One thing is for damn sure. If the Spurs lose, their whiny fans will find a way to come up with any excuse other than the fact that the better team won. They are simply incapable of admitting they lost to a better team.

You are right. I can't stand those type of spur fans and many of them are here on this board. After the lakers stole Gasol in the rip off deal they passed the Spurs as the better team. Pop even agrees the Lakers are better.

[TampaDude]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RodiAAns6Jk

Great miracle shot, but it was all for nothing. The Lakers got assraped by the Pistons in the Finals.

[Spursfan092120]

Great miracle shot, but it was all for nothing. The Lakers got assraped by the Pistons in the Finals.

And if the guy running the clock wasn't a complete re , the shot wouldn't have counted anyway.

[mrpuente]

You are right. I can't stand those type of spur fans and many of them are here on this board. After the lakers stole Gasol in the rip off deal they passed the Spurs as the better team. Pop even agrees the Lakers are better.

Sure they have more talent, but its how you use that talent. Pop knows how to do this. Change Pop for Phil and Lakers would win last years ship, this years ship, and a couple to follow.

[silk]

http://booksetall.blogspot.com/2009_02_01_archive.html
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2009
Rethinking San Antonio
For years people have been trying to articulate exactly what the San Antonio Spurs are. Are they thorough, or just downright boring, or both? Can they be considered anything less than the most dominant force in the NBA for the past decade, at least insofar as they seem to be in complete control of whether they win or loose, each year? Is their defense the source of their dominance, or their offense? Is there, in fact, nothing at all worthy considering about them?

During the playoffs last year a freedarko blog suggested that the Spurs were important for the NBA as a kind of litmus test against which the potentially dominant teams in the league might test themselves (i.e. you are not a legit team until you can beat the Spurs in a best-of-seven series). It was an argument so clearly stated that it was unavoidable, a point so thoroughly manifest-although not obvious- that one had to agree. The Onion ran a headline just before the Spurs/Cavs Finals that indirectly prefigured this idea: "Tim Duncan Rooting for Cavaliers for Good of NBA." The Spurs swept the series and Sports Illustrated ran a headline that I thought at the time was either insulting because it was too appropriate, or appropriate because it was too insulting: "The Quiet Dynasty." Initially I took "quiet" to, at the very least, strongly suggest the fact that no one watched the Finals, or even more so that most people felt as though the best part of the Finals was that it wasn't another Pistons/Spurs series.

When I watched the Christmas Day game against the Suns-one of three games I've watched this whole year- I reconsidered that headline. Greg Poppovich's beard, Tim Duncan's overwhelming rationality, Tony Parker's belligerently effeminate tear drop all began to recede in the background as the game progressed, got interesting, then got really close towards the end and the one overwhelming mood that washed over me was the newly indelibly manifest demonstration of how little they give a about anyone trying to figure them out, criticize them, praise them. And then I realized what it is that they are, which had been hitherto so elusive. The Spurs are laconic.

Laconic derives from the Greek word "Lacadaemon." The Lacadaemonians are more commonly known as the Spartans, men and women who were known in ancient times just as much for their quietude as their prowess on the battlefield. Silence was for ancient writers, like Herodotus, Plutarch, Xenophon and Plato, often the most salient characteristic of the Spartans. The only rival characteristic to their reluctance to speak was, of course, their military skill. The word "laconic" consequently carries with it the alarming suggestion that the person not speaking could- without any large production- throw a spear through your head.

The way the Spurs play right now, and the way they played against the Suns on Christmas day, is, if you take the time to consider it, scary. While a loud, wild, crazy person with a gun freaks the out of you, a calm, quiet and determined person with a gun is horrifying. This is why no one is scared to play the Warriors, or the Nuggets from last year. The Spurs quietly amassed the second best record in a weird and unpredictable and offensively explosive conference, and continue to turn young guards and "what-could-only-be-described-as-a-San-Antonio-draft-pick" players into shockingly consistent role players.

The Spurs are often boring, but they are only boring in the way that a conversation with a Spartan would be boring. The point is that the Spartans didn't waste their time having conversations because they were too busy trying to be excellent, virtuous men and women. A testament to this is the fact that we don't have books by Spartans about Spartans, or any books at all by Spartans. The Spurs' quiet dynasty is important for the NBA precisely because of what it is: it is not "personal chemistry" or smothering defense that makes a team dominant. Those things help a team win. Dominance comes from a communal obsession with virtue, an unwavering (and thereby seemingly dull) commitment to what Plato called "the good." Such things are rare, especially in the NBA. Rarity itself is not a virtue, but virtue is.
POSTED BY MAXWELL KUH

sorry but this article comparing Spurs and Spartans is too spot on and well written to no be at least quoted

I admit i'm kind of biased, any article associating spurs and plato is to be great

[Spursfan092120]

Sure they have more talent, but its how you use that talent. Pop knows how to do this. Change Pop for Phil and Lakers would win last years ship, this years ship, and a couple to follow.

Agreed. Pop is the best coach in the league every year. Couldn't believe Doc Rivers got it. I love Doc..he was a Spur...but there is no way in he deserved coach of the year. Before Garnett and Allen, Doc led them to a blistering 24-58 record. Come on..this is obviously not a team that wins because of coaching. And Phil is the same situation. He always coached the team with the best player. He had a chance to coach the Knicks a while back..the team he played for, and bring them back up, and turned it down, saying he didn't want to coach anymore, and that he'd never coach Kobe again. What's he doing now? Pop is a MUCH better coach.

[Lakers999]

okay its time to bring this one back.......




btw.... GO LAKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!


BEAT SA

[Horse]

First of all, it's not his knee. Thanks for keeping up with the NBA. Second of all, MAN that is one long sentence! Congrats on making something not only long, but also completely stupid and devoid of structure. And and and.

So if you guys lose you won't use it as an excuse. Bookmark this thread plz.

Also the Fisher foul wasn't an excuse. Unless you think the League Office was making excuses for the Spurs. Because they came out and actually said the call was blown. How often does that happen?

And how bout the fact that it is impossible to catch the ball, take a dribble, turn and and shoot in 4 tenths of a second.

[slayermin]

Join Date
11-22-2008

Typical front running, bandwagon Laker fan. Why wasn't your punk ass on this forum last season talking ?

You better be here during the playoffs.