Reply With Quote
is this a serious question? i mean really????
The Lakers have won back-to-back western conference championships. It got me thinking. Is it impressive to accomplish that feat even if say you don't win in the NBA Finals? Do you give props to teams like the Malone-Stockton Jazz in the 90s, the Jason Kid Nets in 2002 and 2003, and the Pistons from 2004 and 2005 for having back-to-back trips to the Finals?
is this a serious question? i mean really????
Just wow...
of course it's an accomplishment, it's just as good as winning the Finals. but it is the next best thing.
Not winning a back to back is a sign of a weak champion. And the Spurs were just that. They could only win it when the Lakers had a down year.
Why mention the Spurs when thread was started by Mav Fan?
sons if ESPN tells us that it is great .... then it is
Stupid in thread
When did you turn into some pussy ass conspiracy theorist?
Grow a sack, son.
son LMAO at you! ... you are an admitted proud sexual man. nothing wrong with that AT ALL ... but I am sick of you talking about my sack.
Yes I do!
Although the Nets were in a time where the East was VERY ty.
I don't think winning back to back wcf is a big deal..winning back to back nba les is better.
A weak champion...the dumbest criticism I've heard ever.
Spurs are the last Western Conference team to win a le. Oh three of them in the last six years.
So regardless if you get them in a row or over a period of time...you are still a multiple champion.
By the way, the Larry Bird led Celtics won three championships during his career. 1981, 1984, and 1986 and no one considered them weak champions because they didn't win them in a row.
Winning championships is a great accomplishment...but winning multiple les different years is a great accomplishment as well.
It's a serious question. Some people don't think it's that great to win back-to-back conference championships unless you win the championship. That's all I was saying.
Also, you keep leaving out facts.
Spurs beat Shaq and Kobe in 2003 and that wasn't a down year for the Lakers.
I'm surprised you can even type without your massive vagina getting in the way.
Your Hornets show their true scrub colors and all the sudden the NBA is rigged. LOL at your in vagina.
lakers didnt seem to care so why should we
Refs gifted the Nuggets 58 ing points
Curious why you added the 2004/2005 Pistons when they actually won a le one of the times.
I added the 2004/2005 Pistons because they did win back-to-back eastern conference championships. They just had better luck than the Jazz and the Nets.
But in your original post you asked: "Is it impressive to accomplish that feat even if say you don't win in the NBA Finals?"
LOL son you are such a choking vagina.
I would rather win 5 championships every other year than only 3 in a row during say a 10 year period...that's just me.
trying to stir up Spurs fans.
Bottom line and ALL that matters is the Spurs have won championships!
spurs fans don't argue and get into semantics...just sir back and chuckle....we have nothing to be jealous about......
In the case of the Nets, it doesn't mean . If LA loses the finals, it won't mean either. Obviously them winning it all would completely change that, and Detroit deserves huge props as they were one quarter from repeating.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
