Reply With Quote
best team of this decade has been the spurs.. however the best team assembled this decade is in my opinion the 01 lakers.
Lakers
Spurs
'99 doesn't count if we're talking about team of the decade.
Even without that le, it's still the Spurs, unless the Lakers win it all this year.
best team of this decade has been the spurs.. however the best team assembled this decade is in my opinion the 01 lakers.
lakers lost to detroit in the finals, spurs beat detroit in the finals.....spurs>lakers
Lakers eliminated the Spurs from the playoffs 4 times this decade, compared to the Spurs 1. Lakers > Spurs.
p.s. The Lakers were riddled with injuries in the finals against Detroit. Use your brain.
Exactly 21....Lakers and Spurs have same amount of les this decade but LA has 2 more appearances and has owned SA in head-to-head matchups
Rockets woohoo!
does a lottery team really have any claim to best of decade???? you have to atleast make the playoffs every year.
Team of the Decade thus far is the Spurs.
Best individual team of the decade is the 2000-01 Lakers. I've never seen an elite team annihilated the way the Spurs were annihilated by that Laker team in the WCF.
It's the Spurs, right now. Lakers have time to make this the P&G's.
Why? Or are you just sucking up?
No, brah. I just think those three years of sucking are what made the difference. If the Lakers win one more le, 4>3 determines it.
wrong, but thanks for trying to set the parameters on what YOU feel is the criteria. We are 3/5 and you are 3/3 this decade. Furthermore, we have repeated and the Spurs have shown an inability to defend a le--why is this?
Lastly, stop ignoring the fact that Phil Jackson owns Gregg Popovich: 4-1.
How bout we just agree to wait for this year to play out (and watch Phillip best Pop for a fifth time) to make a final judgment...how does that sound?
The 2001 Lakers will never be considered as good as the 2002 Lakers and here's why:
2001 Lakers were better than any team this decade.
I still love that moment in Game 2 where Phil gets ejected and is on his way off the court when a Spurs fan acts like a dumbass trying to get his attention. Phil looks at him, gives him a smug smile, then laughs his way off the court. From that point on LA controlled that game. You thought Game 6 for LA was bad last year? Games 3 and 4 of that 2001 series made that loss to Boston look like a nail-biter
Final Appearances mean -nada-nothing. Only Championships mean something... Also, regular season games mean nothing, in case you want to pretend you won a Larry for having the best regular season record too...
At least other Laker fans are realistic and truthful. You should try to take their lead it makes for a more interesting debate. lol...
haha spurs have more les in the last decade aka the last ten years. and the spurs were rattled by injuries as well...use your brain. point is 4>3. if not for shaq they would have never won those 3
2001 was a great year...as soon as Fish came back LA's only loss was Game 1 of the Finals in overtime. was a stretch of around 25 games I think.
Samaki Walker made the 2002 Lakers the 2001 Lakers on steroids. People say the Lakers haven't won a le since Shaq left, but the truth is they haven't won a le since Samaki Walker left.
4-1...it's a Lakers-Spurs argument right? 4-1 es, you aint got nothin' on that. Pure Ownage
Hate to hurt the argument I agree with but the same can be said for the Spurs and Duncan.
If the Spurs never had Duncan, they wouldn't have any.
ok, so if not for Duncan, the spurs wouldn't have any either?
Best team of a decade isn't decided like, dip . 99 is not in the 00's, dip .
I know your joking, but still, that 2001 Lakers team was one of the best 3 teams ever.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
