It's not even a debate. Hasn't been for awhile. The Spurs are barely even relevant anymore.
More les, 6 finals and the Lakers owned the sit out of SA head to head in the playoffs.
WTF are you talking about? Before this year, you guys haven't won a ring since 2002. So then the Lakers can't even be close to the team of the decade, so I guess they haven't been relevant since then...guess they aren't the team of the decade either.
So let me get this straight..we're deciding who the team of the decade is in 2009, but 1999 doesn't count? How the does this work? Last time I checked, a decade lasts 10 years...either the 1999 le counts for SA, or the team of the decade isn't decided until 2010...which is next year...see you in the playoffs, LA.
Is the team of the decade dispute over now?...probably not because this same question will be brought up every ing season....
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
Looks like 10 years to me.
Like team of each decade, the 70's, 80's, 90's. 00's.
So therefore 1999 would be part of the 90's, 09 was part of the 00's. Team of this decade, not team of the last ten years. The whole thing is just stupid anyways cause some think the first Lakers le was last decade cause it was the 1999 season so whatever. It's either the Spurs or Lakers, both have done great things.
Spurs could have easily been 4-2 in the head to head. In fact if we played you in 05-07 it could have even been 6 or 7-2 if we played you in those years or at the very least 4-4. Take away 0.4 and the Gasol trade even with Manu injured there is a good chance you probably lose to the Spurs both those seasons.
The only way you can truly use head to head is if we played you every single season in the playoffs for the whole decade. It sucks that we didn't get to play you in between 05-07.
Even in 2002 the Spurs had the lead in every 4th quarter of the game of that series and we choked it up. You didn't own . I also look at the actual games and how they played out rather than the end of the series to see how close it actually was. Were you even a Lakers fan back then?
The only season I will say the Lakers owned us was in 2001. We got our butts whipped in those games. Of course if we had Derek Anderson our second leading scorer with out a separated shoulder we may have played a better series.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. You sound like a Suns fan.
All I'm going to say is that I think the Spurs have the slight edge and the Lakers fans should think their team have the slight edge. No team is the clear cut favorite for the team of the decade.
It's the truth if you don't like it leave. Your team didn't own the Spurs like you think they did.
I guess you forgot all the beatdowns you got in 05-07, like I said you didn't get to play us in the playoffs those years.
01 is the only season I will give you ownage.
I think it goes to the Spurs despite the number of champions. The Spurs have had their same roster through out the 00s where Lakers blew up and rebuilt etc....
Yeah asshole, but we're talking about the 99-09 decade you imbecile. And we didn't show our ass with too terrible losses in the NBA Finals like your little La La Land Faker team. The Spurs prefer not to allow 7 years in-between championships. Anyway, congrats to your girlieboy team. You do need to get some better fans...not the kind your team presently has that overturns cars, sets things on fire, injures police officers, etc. Is everyone in La La Land so immature and childish?
dec·ade(d
k
d
, d
) KEY
NOUN:
- A period of ten years.
- A group or series of ten.
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, a group of ten, from Old French, from Late Latin decas , decad-, from Greek dekas, from deka, ten; see dekin Indo-European roots
80's - Lakers (5 NBA championships, 8 Finals appearances)Yeah asshole, but we're talking about the 99-09 decade you imbecile. And we didn't show our ass with too terrible losses in the NBA Finals like your little La La Land Faker team. The Spurs prefer not to allow 7 years in-between championships. Anyway, congrats to your girlieboy team. You do need to get some better fans...not the kind your team presently has that overturns cars, sets things on fire, injures police officers, etc. Is everyone in La La Land so immature and childish?
dec·ade
NOUN:
- A period of ten years.
- A group or series of ten.
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, a group of ten, from Old French, from Late Latin decas , decad-, from Greek dekas, from deka, ten; see dek
90's - Bulls (6 NBA championships, 6 Finals appearances)
00's - Lakers (4 NBA championships, 6 Finals appearances
Clearly he is referring to the 00s 1999 is not in the 00 therefore you are wrong.
it doesnt end in 2009-2010.
60's=60 to 69
70's=70 to 79
80's=80 to 89
and so on and so forth.
But i still think the spurs are probably team of the decade. of course, by Spurs Fan's logic, the Lakers are the Team of NBA History. Not the most championships, but the highest win percentage, and the most playoff appearances ever.
Lakers=Team Of NBA History
2000-2009 is ten years dumb .
1. 2000
2. 2001
3. 2002
4. 2003
5. 2004.
6. 2005
7. 2006.
8. 2007
9. 2008
10. 2009
Yeah almost...too bad almost doesnt count
Wrong??? Nope!!! I, like 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% of ALL the posters on SpursTalk.com, agree that Nurse Doublewide Trailer House is always wrong. I'm talking about the fact that a 'Decade' is ANY Ten (10) Year Period.....PERIOD!!! Buy yourself a Dictionary, son! Besides everyone in the National Media, coaches, players, GM's, and owners of virtually every pro team in each of the four major pro sports have deemed the San Antonio Spurs as the Best Franchise the past decade. We just celebrated the 10 year anniversary of the 1999 NBA Championship. We did NOT lose a championship during that period...the Lakers lost twice. But, like I have stated on other threads on this subject, I'm on board with several Lakers and Spurs fans that SA & LA are Co-TOD...Enuf on this silly subjecy!
Nurse DoubleWide Trailer House????
Pretty sure no one cares. Mavfan, sunfan, bullsfan, nbafan could care less what lakerfan and spursfan thinks is the team of the decade.
I could go with that. I won't dispute the Lakers all time winning percentage as it is the best. Spurs are second in that category.
Of course it doesn't count, but head to head shouldn't really be used in the team of the decade like I said because we never got to play you when we were clearly the better team. I was also saying we didn't get stomped in the head to head like that other guy was saying. It could have went either way a couple of those series.
This thread is quite possibly the biggest display of self-fellatio I have ever seen. Another DrHouse classic.
Enjoy your arbitrary, imaginary le.
Dr house has shown himself to have a 2 inch penis after creating threads like this
The lakers got snubbed by a .500 record in 04-05
You are right, Head to Head shouldn't count. But hearing "we had the lead MOST of the game" sound idiotic
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
