I just rewatched 2001 WCF and 2002 WCSF of Lakers/Spurs

[ambchang]

So, like every single thread in this forum, it has turned into a Kobe is the greatest debate.

[gaKNOW!blee]

Derek Anderson was the !

[Culburn369]

And in the end you all look like fools and your team gets face ed in the 1st round by a pathetic Dallas team.

Jack is correct here, you guys did end up looking God awful. Just own up to it.

[gaKNOW!blee]

Jack is correct here, you guys did end up looking God awful. Just own up to it.

You didn't commit suicide yet?


That's a shame.

[scanry]

I think Kobe would have flourished no matter where he ended up playing. His skills transcend Shaq, and I think he proved that when he won a championship without him.

Spur fans just don't like admitting that Kobe is good and that he was one of the main reasons they never repeated in their run. So what they try to do is keep repeating the same tired mantra that Shaq was the only reason the Lakers won and Kobe rode his coattails to 3 rings. And then they repeated the same tired drivel for years that Kobe could never win a ring without Shaq. And he did.

And in the end you all look like fools and your team gets face ed in the 1st round by a pathetic Dallas team.

Kobe was no longer Shaq's sidekick from 2003 onwards, but he did benefit a lot from Shaq's presence (same with D Fish, Fox & Horry) before that. Kobe played hurt in 2000, and they still won that year (Luckily he wasn't that hurt in the Portland series, otherwise they wouldn't have advanced). You really think Rick Fox would've been relevant for another franchise?

[Culburn369]

Now that you mention, Shaq and Kobe were both childish and helped them sell papers. BTW you can't discount Phil, he had to chip in to soothe his ego..

Yes, Phil had a heavy hand in it, and I'll tell you something else: Kobe was the cleanest of the three (until he ratted out Daddy in Denver years later), but, at the time, Kobe was absolutely correct on all of his indictments of Daddy. It just made Phil look weak when Kobe went public with them, and Phil took the easy way out. Once Daddy scratched in the Indy Finals he went "Hollywood."

I've said countless times on countless Boards: watch him in the immediate aftermath of the Indy Finals as he searches the crowd for his people. It's a sobering sight as relief mixed with such anguish is registered on O'Neal's face. It takes a lot of the joy of the moment away as you realize what that meant to him. He's been a pompous ass more or less ever since that nite.

[Culburn369]

Kobe was no longer Shaq's sidekick from 2003 onwards, but he did benefit a lot from Shaq's presence (same with D Fish, Fox & Horry) before that. Kobe played hurt in 2000, and they still won that year (Luckily he wasn't that hurt in the Portland series, otherwise they wouldn't have advanced). You really think Rick Fox would've been relevant for another franchise?

Kobe was never Shaq's sidekick. And Kobe's adamant refusal to be "Gilligan" to Daddy's "Skipper" killed O'Neil. He couldn't understand it, or reconcile the rejection in his mind. Made him bitter and he acted out accordingly.

---

And you're dead on about Kobe and that Portland series save. That was Kobe who started us back from the edge of calamity. We lose that series and they'd a come for Daddy first, pitchforks, tar & feathers, etc. They'd a got around to Kobe a little later, but, Daddy woulda been high tech lynched on the spot. I get shaky just talkin' about it like this. That was the biggest series victory since the Finals of '85 to this present day. No question, but, it's given short shrift because it denied Media there chance to torture Daddy and then Kobe.

[SpursFanInAustin]

Spurs 1995 and 2001

Knicks 1993

Cavs 2009

Lakers 1986

Suns in 2005

Heat in 2005

Pistons in 2006

Celtics in 1988

Blazers in 1991

Pacers in 1999 and 2004

Kings in 2002

Pistons in 2003 and 2007

TWolves in 2004

Seems as if the team with the homecourt advantage in the Conference Finals losing has become a commontheme since the post Jordan Bulls era (1998). The only years it didn't happen between then and now were 2000 and 2008 where both teams with homecourt advantage in each conference finals have advanced.

[lefty]

Damn you Juwan Howard

[MarHill]

I think Kobe would have flourished no matter where he ended up playing. His skills transcend Shaq, and I think he proved that when he won a championship without him.

Spur fans just don't like admitting that Kobe is good and that he was one of the main reasons they never repeated in their run. So what they try to do is keep repeating the same tired mantra that Shaq was the only reason the Lakers won and Kobe rode his coattails to 3 rings. And then they repeated the same tired drivel for years that Kobe could never win a ring without Shaq. And he did.

And in the end you all look like fools and your team gets face ed in the 1st round by a pathetic Dallas team.

As a Spurs fan, I have always respected Kobe the basketball player and in those two series in 2001 & 2002 was the difference in my opinion. The Lakers deserve to win those series....because they had better team at that time.

Now.....again (like most) you make the silly argument about the Spurs not repeating even though they have won 3 of the last 6 championships. I will give the Lakers credit for winning three-in-a-row but when your rival for best team of the decade has won three championships as well.......makes that argument silly and pointless.

Lastly, the Spurs lost in the 1st round of playoffs for the first time in 9 years. And between 2005-2007, the Lakers had first round playoff losses and didn't even make the playoffs one of those years.

Let's have some perspective...instead of taking a cheap shot without the proper context. No team is going to win a championship every year.....

[Culburn369]

As a Spurs fan, I have always respected Kobe the basketball player and in those two series in 2001 & 2002 was the difference in my opinion. The Lakers deserve to win those series....because they had better team at that time.

Now.....again (like most) you make the silly argument about the Spurs not repeating even though they have won 3 of the last 6 championships. I will give the Lakers credit for winning three-in-a-row but when your rival for best team of the decade has won three championships as well.......makes that argument silly and pointless.

Lastly, the Spurs lost in the 1st round of playoffs for the first time in 9 years. And between 2005-2007, the Lakers had first round playoff losses and didn't even make the playoffs one of those years.

Let's have some perspective...instead of taking a cheap shot without the proper context. No team is going to win a championship every year.....

Until you repeat, Mar, yer less than quality.

[MarHill]

Until you repeat, Mar, yer less than quality.

That makes no sense.....

3 championships out of the last 6!!

That makes your argument pointless!!!

I could see if the Spurs had only one le.

I don't care how you win multiple championships!!!!!

[MarHill]

Until you repeat, Mar, yer less than quality.

Championships won are championships won!!

Boston won championships in '81, '84, and '86.

It doesn't make their championships any less revelant. They won three les in a six-year period.

And they along with the Lakers were considered the best two teams of the '80s.

Doesn't matter if they won them in a row or not.....

They are still multiple championship winners!!!

Same for the Spurs!

[Culburn369]

That makes no sense.....

3 championships out of the last 6!!

That makes your argument pointless!!!

I could see if the Spurs had only one le.

I don't care how you win multiple championships!!!!!

But, you failed after each of the four les. Sure, Media pimped that every other year thingy, but, that was just to cover for your chronic inep ude until you could repeat. That's never going to happen now with Duncan glued to the hardwood, and Manu's body compromised.

Sure, Media will still carry your water for you, but, the snickers will grow louder.

[MarHill]

But, you failed after each of the four les. Sure, Media pimped that every other year thingy, but, that was just to cover for your chronic inep ude until you could repeat. That's never going to happen now with Duncan glued to the hardwood, and Manu's body compromised.

Sure, Media will still carry your water for you, but, the snickers will grow louder.

Again....you are making a pointless argument!!

The Spurs still have three les out of the last 6. You can snicker all you want.....but they won those les. So they didn't get them back-to-back-to-back.....those rings are the same as the Lakers 2000-2002 rings.

I will give the Lakers and Bulls credit for doing the three-peat. That is an accomplishment. But the Spurs and Celtics of the '80s three championships in six years are good as well and will go down in the history books as multiple championship winners.

Please don't overlook the obvious by trying to slam the Spurs for not repeating.

If winning championships was so easily....why did the take the Lakers seven years to win another one.

Why?

Because no team is guarantee a championship (even the mighty Lakers) and when you get to the finals you have to cash in. Well, the Spurs are 4 for 4 in that regard...even though they didn't win them in a row.

Championships won are championships won!!!

[Culburn369]

You can chase your elbow round your asshole till the cows come home, but, until you go back-to-back, you're are fart catcherPERIOD

[TheMACHINE]

If winning championships was so easily....why did the take the Lakers seven years to win another one.

Is that suppose to be an insult?

[Ditty]

whats the big deal about wininng back to back championship IMO

you won a cahmpionship

if duncan dosent get hurt in 2000 who know what could of happened

if fisher dosen't make that shot in 2004 what could of happened

if ginobili dosent foul dirk we porbaly do win back to back

lot of ifs lakers havent repeated since 2002 which is a remarkable thing and i will give lakers credit but i know if lakers dont repeat this year the laker fans will still be dogging how they had the greatest le run in one year

[TheManFromAcme]

No no son, the Lakers were the best team in the 80's, there are no two, just one. Give Boston credit of at least getting back to try and defend their crown. You ers cant even get it up.

Exactly.

We root for "our" teams to have bragging rights against our rivals. He with most marbles is the best. A concept many of us in here with normal childhoods still carry with us. It's a compe ive thing.

The Lakers are the "Team of the Decade" They won the most in the 80's. This is written in a plethora of articles and mentioned in sports T.V. channels.
If Boston would have won 5 and the the Lakers 5 then the comment of "Those were the 2 best teams of the decade" would be applicable.

Look, I usually stay away from this topic but I must add; I respect the Spurs franchise and it's players and it's history but come on man! You got to defend your le at least once. Once! Doing that just propels your legacy just a little more and to another level. Not taking away the Spurs LOB's. They are all well deserved and won by some legendary teams but again, You GOTTA WIN AT LEAST ONE BACK TO BACK. If the Spurs happen to split this decade with the Lakers or surpass the Lakers, I will be the first extend the hand out and congratulate your team and give you the decade. I think that's where a special clause exists if and when you don't at least get a back to back. If you don't split the decade and fall short without a back to back, it kind of demeans, in a informal way and with die hard sports fans, your other championships. Got to have at least one defense of the le guys!

My opinion only.

[mingus]

1 + 0 + 1 + 0 +1 = 3
1 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 = 3

[TheManFromAcme]

1 + 0 + 1 + 0 +1 = 3
1 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 = 3

Your math equation equates to a acceptable answer. Your right. They both equal 3. That's not the basis of this discussion.

I am assuming the 1+1+1+0+0 = 3 equation is the Lakers right? In all reality your missing one more +1 in there but I'll let that go.

Do you not understand the "legacy" aspect of this? The Spurs cannot be mentioned (actually they're not at least anything I've read or heard in the media) as "one of the greatest" teams in basketball. I know they are. They have fielded some great teams but your not going to get the "respect" tag from the the rest of the shmoes out there. Spurs fan cares and won't ever accept it. I know of 100's of threads in here on how the Spurs get no love nationally. Well, maybe it's because they haven't repeated or really established a aura of dominance. Repeats do that...they establish a extended aura of dominance in a tangible way. Your teams F.O. holds 2 LOB trophies covering a 24 month span. You want that so that you can establish your team. Hey, I get it. 3 is 3 is 3 is 3 and so on. I am not taking ANYTHING away from the Spurs. Nothing. Linking them (championships) for extended period of times makes them greater. I know you know this. Money says if the Spurs had defended at least once your stance would be exactly like my stance. You would lobby your point on how defending a championship is a must. Since your team hasn't, I understand your defense on "how not defending" is not that big of a deal.

[mingus]

Your math equation equates to a acceptable answer. Your right. They both equal 3. That's not the basis of this discussion.

I am assuming the 1+1+1+0+0 = 3 equation is the Lakers right? In all reality your missing one more +1 in there but I'll let that go.

Do you not understand the "legacy" aspect of this? The Spurs cannot be mentioned (actually they're not at least anything I've read or heard in the media) as "one of the greatest" teams in basketball. I know they are. They have fielded some great teams but your not going to get the "respect" tag from the the rest of the shmoes out there. Spurs fan cares. I know of 100's of threads in here on how the Spurs get no love nationally. Well, maybe it's because they haven't repeated or really established a aura of dominance. Repeats do that...they establish a extended aura of dominance in a tangible way. Your teams F.O. holds 2 LOB trophies covering a 24 month span. You want that so that you can establish your team. Hey, I get it. 3 is 3 is 3 is 3 and so on. I am not taking ANYTHING away from the Spurs. Nothing. Linking them (championships) for extended period of times makes them greater. I know you know this. Money says if the Spurs had defended at least once your stance would be exactly like my stance. You would lobby your point on how defending a champiobship is a must. Since your team hasn't, I understand your defense on "how not defending" is not that big of a deal.

i don't care about dynasties. it's a side converstaion, mental masturbation. it's an arbitrary ranking concept.

[mingus]

also, the Larry Bird Celtics are mentioned more in the media as being one of the great basketball teams of all time, despite having won no consecutive championships, than the Pistons or Rockets, who both won consecutive championships.

and i believe that the reason the media doesn't talk about the Spurs is because they've been around for so long, demonstrating success. people expect it; there's nothing to report about. when it's all said and done, and people get a better grasp of history, i think people will look back and categorize the Spurs with the greats.

[urunobili]

There's something we have accomplished the Lakers WILL NEVER be able to... 100% winning percentage on Finals

[BadOdor]

There's something we have accomplished the Lakers WILL NEVER be able to... 100% winning percentage on Finals

That's because you made so few of those