"Team of the Decade" was made by Spurs fans so they can feel good about themsleves and do not want to count anything before the year 1999 as legit. Too bad the Lakers killed thier " le" of team of the decade.
So to make it up to Spurs fans...i say you are the "Team of 2003-2007". Happy?
haha, Lakerfan will never understand. This just doesn't get to us spurs fans. We watched you win many championships. Maybe this would have meant something then.
Now that we have four of our own, watching you win another one doesn't phase us a bit. In fact, nothing affects us.
consistently sustained greatness + rings = supremacy.
greatness with huge stains in between + rings = less supremacy.
spurs>lakers
good one
math looks right to me. A+
Laker fan is conveniently ignorant...
One doesn't start counting at zero... decades start at 1.
2001 LA Lakers
2002 LA Lakers
2003 SA Spurs
2004 Detroit Pistons
2005 SA Spurs
2006 Miami Heat
2007 SA Spurs
2008 Boston Celtics
2009 LA Lakers
As it stands the Spurs and the Lakers both have 3 les this decade... next year (the final year of the current decade) can serve to break the tie.
3>4
fact
so when you say you were you born in the 80's...if you were born in 1980, you would really be born in the 70's right? Damnit..i had it wrong this whole time.
No you are incorrect.
We are talking about team of the 80's/90's/00's/etc. This is how it is ALWAYS done in sports. Which means the 2010 season DOES NOT COUNT in the '00 decade.
It's 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
What's with the huge debate over an accolade that doesn't even exist? It's ing re ed.
technically, its not the 2010 season. its the 2009-2010 season. just like its not the 2000 season, its the 1999-2000 season. if we really wanna get technical, 2010 has a lot more of a right to be considered part of the decade as opposed to 1999.
The bottom line is LA > SA
/thread
Yup. It's ALWAYS been dumb.
my point exactly..I said that earlier.
...or the absense of Ariza and Bynum last year and Malone in 2004.
Blah blah blah blah
Nobody pissed in my cheerios... I just really happen to think you're a moron and a re . Aren't all Cowboy fans?
Then the Lakers shouldnt be Team of the Decade either because they missed the Playoffs entirely in 2005 and then were bounced two years in a row in the FIRST ROUND (2006, 2007) by the sorry ass Suns.
yeah...lol...that's it...Laker fan insulting another team's fanbase...
Why don't you move to Greece? You'd be better off there. Texas fans cheer and congratulate when they win les...LA fans riot, steal, break , and tear up their town. Yeah..LA fans are so much better than Cowboys fans...lol...you're hilarious.
Yeah well its too bad we don't have a clear cut definition of what the requirements are to consider a team "team of the decade".
And how about we put an asterisks by any team that Kobe wins with because that scrub should be someones in prison right now instead of out on the basketball court.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Again... you are CLUELESS
Riot Follows Super Bowl
XXVII Parade
The Dallas riot began as a massive midday civic celebration and parade on Tuesday, Feb. 9. The crowd was estimated as high as 400,000—far more than authorities had anticipated—and several city high schools reported absentee rates of more than 50% as young people from many neighborhoods thronged the downtown area. They looted liquor stores, stripped vendors of Super Bowl memorabilia and did about $50,000 worth of damage to city buses, the same buses that had provided free rides to the parade site.
The report of a task force that investigated the roots of the riot said the violence had "some racial overtones" and went on: "Post-parade disturbance, assaults and 'wilding' activities were generated by the combination of a sports-excitement atmosphere, the lack of sufficient police presence and mob psychology by groups—and therefore, by race."
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/fox...per_Bowl_XXVII
Last edited by cobbler; 06-16-2009 at 09:28 PM.
ok...so both teams fans rioted..still not sure what you, in your infinite wisdom, believe makes all Cowboys fans re ed...
Get over it.... I'm giving you grief and bantar over your stupid comments that 1999 is part of the 2000 decade. I hate the cowboys just like you hate the Lakers and since you are an obvious fan... well... even you can figure it out... I think. I'll leave you alone... for now... you seem overly sensitive.
spurs fan owned
If people are going to try so hard to include 1999 Spurs in the decade discussion - explain how there have been ten (10) championships SINCE the 1999 championship.
99-00 - Lakers (1)
00-01 - Lakers (2)
01-02 - Lakers (3)
02-03 - Spurs (4)
03-04 - Pistons (5)
04-05 - Spurs (6)
05-06 - Heat (7)
06-07 - Spurs (8)
07-08 - Celtics (9)
08-09 - Lakers (10)
If there have been ten champs, that means ten seasons, right? Ten seasons in ten years? Ten years being a decade? Right?
1999 wasn't even in this century, people.
And decades are started at 0, for whoever said that. http://www.unit5.org/cjhsimc/hotlist...cades_main.htm
And I'm a Spurs fan.
And again, why does anybody care about being the 'team of the decade?'
whoa whoa whoa...never said I hated the Lakers...don't flatter yourself..not everyone hates your team. I dislike Laker FANS who think their team is the greatest of all time and deserves to be handed the le every year. and I never said that 1999 is part of the 2000 decade. I said that a decade is 10 years, and until the last time I checked, it's still 2009, which is 10 years after 1999. If you want to be technical, 1999 is still within the decade of the year we're in. But at the same time, I also said I still believe the Spurs had a better decade than LA overall even without the 99 season.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
