Is the team of the decade dispute over now?

[carrao45]

Dr house has shown himself to have a 2 inch penis after creating threads like this

I agree. Even Us Laker fans know he is a got

[DrHouse]

Los Angeles Lakers - 4 NBA les, 6 Finals appearances
San Antonio Spurs - 3 NBA les, 3 Finals appearances

Thanks for playing guys, it's been great but the facts are the facts. And well, I'm right and you're wrong.

/thread

[ehz33satx]

Man, your a played out record. Why don't your retire this DrHouse profile? Start fresh with a new persona. This one is getting lame. No joke.

[MambaJuice2408]

the whole "decade" thing is totally arbitrary.

The Spurs won 4 les in 9 years.

The Lakers won 4 les in 10 years.

I'd rather have 4 in 9 than 4 in 10.

4 les and 6 finals appearances isn't all too shabby. pointless thread tho. This thread wreaks insecurity

[cobbler]

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.

Laughing at the moron you are.

So if you are asked to name the best song of the 60's.... your going to name a tune from 1959? Really?

You are correct though... a decade lasts 10 years.

Let me count them for you...

1-2000, 2-2001, 3-2002, 4-2003, 5-2004, 6-2005, 7-2006, 8-2007, 9-2008, 10-2009

If you wish to be called the team of the 1/10 90's and 9/10 00's...... then have at it you FRIGGEN RE

[KidCongo]

Man I think House was on the news streaking. Must of been a big night.

[KidCongo]

Its obvious who owns this decade. To create a dynasty in the first half of the decade, and start from scratch and do it again in the same decade is something no team has ever done. And dont tell me Jordan did it because his team was already in place.

1 le=dynasty?

MJ did as the only constant was Scottie and PJ.

Like Kobe with Fisher and PJ.

[TheManFromAcme]

Laughing at the moron you are.

So if you are asked to name the best song of the 60's.... your going to name a tune from 1959? Really?

You are correct though... a decade lasts 10 years.

Let me count them for you...

1-2000, 2-2001, 3-2002, 4-2003, 5-2004, 6-2005, 7-2006, 8-2007, 9-2008, 10-2009

If you wish to be called the team of the 1/10 90's and 9/10 00's...... then have at it you FRIGGEN RE

Well put.

I've been trying to explain to Spurs fan exactly this ^ for so long. It seems like they want to pick their own decade based on their math. A traditional decade is referenced by 10's (i.e. 70's, 80's, 90's etc). The 90's ended in 1999 yet they want to include '99 in the new 00 decade.

If they want to play that way, then as a Laker fan I'll pick my own time frame. Who has the most championships the last 30 years?

Lakers.


Spurs fan:

Get on your knees and pay homage to
the Lakers x15 and we will leave it alone.

Deal?

[redzero]

In the long run, the Spurs really don't have anything on the Lakers, so I don't know why Lakers fans bother with setting a ten year time line anyway.

[King]

Why does anyone fight so hard for this arbitrary le, anyway?

[stretch]

I'd say the Spurs are still the team of the decade. They have been legit le contenders (barring injuries) every season this decade. They were constantly a team that people would not have liked to face going into the playoffs. And the team they are now, is almost completely revamped from the team they were coming into the decade, yet still never lost their ability to contend for les for a moment in that time period.

On the other hand, there was a 3 year window in which the Lakers sucked .

Spurs > Lakers

[stretch]

Its obvious who owns this decade. To create a dynasty in the first half of the decade, and start from scratch and do it again in the same decade is something no team has ever done. And dont tell me Jordan did it because his team was already in place.

Oddly, the only players that remained from the Bulls first three-peat, for the second go-around were MJ and Scottie.

[KidCongo]

Oddly, the only players that remained from the Bulls first three-peat, for the second go-around were MJ and Scottie.

Yep Laka fan makes up stuff as usual.

[ginobili's bald spot]

In the long run, the Spurs really don't have anything on the Lakers, so I don't know why Lakers fans bother with setting a ten year time line anyway.

You're right. But the reason Laker fans are bringing up these arbitrary time lines now is because these are the criteria that Spurfan made up to try to make themselves feel superior to the Lakers. It's just a way to own them with their own desperate ass argument. Before we won this championship they loved playing the "team of the decade" or "___ championships in ___ years" card. As if anyone gives a . But that's what they do, since it's so difficult to win an argument for them and they feel so insecure they make up all this arbitrary bull in an attempt to spin things and make themselves look better. Not every spurfan does this but a handful of idiots on this site are pretty relentless. To see a good example of what I'm talking about scroll down and look at the thread by benefactor.

[Spursfan092120]

Laughing at the moron you are.

So if you are asked to name the best song of the 60's.... your going to name a tune from 1959? Really?

You are correct though... a decade lasts 10 years.

Let me count them for you...

1-2000, 2-2001, 3-2002, 4-2003, 5-2004, 6-2005, 7-2006, 8-2007, 9-2008, 10-2009

If you wish to be called the team of the 1/10 90's and 9/10 00's...... then have at it you FRIGGEN RE

Wow...you must have missed most of my posts on this thing..I've said even if you take out '99, we still have it. Better record, never missed the playoffs...we were just the better team, period, even if you don't count 99. And who the pissed in your Cheerios that made you decide to call me a moron and a re ? I didn't say two words to you. Why don't you go wack off to the highlights from Game 5?

[Spursfan092120]

Its obvious who owns this decade. To create a dynasty in the first half of the decade, and start from scratch and do it again in the same decade is something no team has ever done. And dont tell me Jordan did it because his team was already in place.

I'm sorry...what makes you a dynasty twice in one decade? You won 3 rings in the first part, yes...but how does one championship make you a dynasty? If that's the case, the Spurs have 4 dynasties..not just one.

[21_Blessings]

I'd say the Spurs are still the team of the decade. They have been legit le contenders (barring injuries) every season this decade. They were constantly a team that people would not have liked to face going into the playoffs. And the team they are now, is almost completely revamped from the team they were coming into the decade, yet still never lost their ability to contend for les for a moment in that time period.

The Lakers were in SIXTY percent of this decade's finals. If the Spurs were 'legit' contenders every season they would have been there more. And if they were the team of the decade they would have more rings and wouldn't have constantly lost to the Lakers in the playoffs.

Claiming the Spurs are team of the decade would be like claiming Portland was team of the decade in the 90s since the Bulls sucked 99.

On the other hand, there was a 3 year window in which the Lakers sucked .

One year because of the injuries and the other two teams probably would have stomped the pathetic 08/09 Spurs that choked on their s in the 1st round to a pathetic Mavericks team that was 3 seeds lower.

[ElNono]

There was never any dispute, and there's nothing to dispute, IMO.
The only team that has been a perennial contender the last decade, making the playoffs every season and winning 4 championships in the process, along with having the best winning percentage on any professional sport is undeniably the team of the decade.
Alas, I think those times are probably over for the Spurs. They might still have a run or two in them, but they're going to need more help, and it will be very difficult to keep winning at the rate they did the past 10 years.

[Leetonidas]

@ Laker fans in this topic. Pretty ing pathetic that you guys are so desperate for the team of the decade le. And in the last DECADE (meaning ten years), Spurs have 4 les and so do the Lakers. While the Spurs are 4-0 in those Final appearances, The Lakers are 4-2, with those two losses being the result of MASSIVE choke jobs.

And all you really have to defend yourself is a picture of Kobe that you've posted 9348973 times already this forum?

Weak.

A team with that many rings has a really insecure fanbase. Is it because you realize that the majority of those les are bull (Minneapolis Lakers, give me a ing break) and the only reason your team is worth talking about right now is because of the collusion that was allowed last year?

the Lakers and their fans.

[Leetonidas]

And let's not forget the absence of the REAL Manu Ginobili, both this year and last, and not to mention the Barry-Fisher no call...

[JustBlaze]

The difference between YOUR team's trophies and OUR team's trophies is that our's were won the right way, with skill and class and pride. Lakers get their trophies handed to them. We also have to fight the refs and Stern to get our trophies. Plus we don't tear up our city, steal from our stores, or beat up our fellow citizens when we win.

^This.

[Leetonidas]

Oh and one more thing.

[stretch]

The Lakers were in SIXTY percent of this decade's finals. If the Spurs were 'legit' contenders every season they would have been there more. And if they were the team of the decade they would have more rings and wouldn't have constantly lost to the Lakers in the playoffs.

Claiming the Spurs are team of the decade would be like claiming Portland was team of the decade in the 90s since the Bulls sucked 99.



One year because of the injuries and the other two teams probably would have stomped the pathetic 08/09 Spurs that choked on their s in the 1st round to a pathetic Mavericks team that was 3 seeds lower.

No. Spurs have won 50+ games and been contenders EVERY year. The Lakers had a 3 year span in which they ing sucked, and missed the playoffs even. If you are going to use the injury excuse, the Spurs have dealt with 100x more injuries than the Lakers, yet still were constantly a feared contender.

[DrHouse]

It's all about rings.

Lakeshow has more rings in the '00's then the Spurs. That settles it for me.

[21_Blessings]

Yup. And Dallas fan wouldn't know anything about rings. So stop talking.