“We weren’t beating the Lakers, even if we were whole,” Popovich said.

[Man In Black]

I can't imagine how it'll be once a Kobe Bryant led team becomes the first Phil Jackson coached team to NOT REPEAT. Oh the humanity! You es will then do the following

TOD doesn't stand for Team Of The Decade(note:you're missing the "the" in your abbreviation, DUH!

For LAL fans, it stands for Totally Obstinate Dumbasses

[Strike]

"but ,but ,but if manu was healtyyyyyyyy" = spur fan.

"But, but but if Bynum was healthyyyyyyyy" = Laker fan, 2008

[DrHouse]

In this decade:

Lakers - 4 les, 6 Finals appearances, 4-1 head-to-head matchup with Spurs
Spurs - 3 les, 3 Finals appearances, 1-4 head-to-head matchup with Lakers

It's pretty much settled who the better team is in this decade going by the stats.

[BlackBellamy]

"but ,but ,but if manu was healtyyyyyyyy" = spur fan.

BadOdor = Simple Jack.

[Shastafarian]

In this decade:

Lakers - 4 les, 6 Finals appearances, 4-1 head-to-head matchup with Spurs
Spurs - 3 les, 3 Finals appearances, 1-4 head-to-head matchup with Lakers

It's pretty much settled who the better team is in this decade going by the stats.

Who gives a ?

[Culburn369]

In this decade:

Lakers - 4 les, 6 Finals appearances, 4-1 head-to-head matchup with Spurs
Spurs - 3 les, 3 Finals appearances, 1-4 head-to-head matchup with Lakers

It's pretty much settled who the better team is in this decade going by the stats.

The good Dr. returns from a symposium on [Anal Retentive Spurs Fandom] to lodge the perfect post.

[BlackBellamy]

The good Dr. returns from a symposium on [Anal Retentive Spurs Fandom] to lodge the perfect post.

Wouldn't it be dislodge?

And I'm not too sure that claiming that your buddy has been going to any kind of anal symposium is the best way to defend him.

[Culburn369]

Wouldn't it be dislodge?

And I'm not too sure that claiming that your buddy has been going to any kind of anal symposium is the best way to defend him.

The good Doctor's hypocractic oath to the AMA overides his sacred oath to his Lakers Fandom, Black.

[BlackBellamy]

The good Doctor's hypocractic oath to the AMA overides his sacred oath to his Lakers Fandom, Black.

I think he would see that as the opposite, Cul. However, you prolly know better than I as to how the Doctor operates (given the knowledge of anal escapades).

[TheMACHINE]

I can't imagine how it'll be once a Kobe Bryant led team becomes the first Phil Jackson coached team to NOT REPEAT. Oh the humanity! You es will then do the following

TOD doesn't stand for Team Of The Decade(note:you're missing the "the" in your abbreviation, DUH!

For LAL fans, it stands for Totally Obstinate Dumbasses

LOL @ you trying to change topics. I guess when you're losing the "team of the decade" arguement, you need to bring up Kobe. When in fact, you're making yourself look like a fool by showing how awesome a dynasty can rebuild from being a lottery team to back on top in the same decade.

Now go buy some halo-halo and be happy your team is atleast 2nd to the Lakers this decade. Us lakers fans will be more than willing to give you the "team of 2003-2007" le.

[TheMACHINE]

Who gives a ?

obvioulsy who ever is in this thread.

[SpurCharger]

Believe What You Want.... That Was Past Tense, Whole New Year Now. What Happened In the Past Means Nothing.

[BadOdor]

Believe What You Want.... That Was Past Tense, Whole New Year Now. What Happened In the Past Means Nothing.

Finally, a spur fan who recognizes his team's 2007 le is already obsolete and means nothing in the present.

Lakers defending champs is all that matters baby!

[Shastafarian]

obvioulsy who ever is in this thread.

What's the le of this thread?

[Trainwreck2100]

The good Dr. returns from a symposium on [Anal Retentive Spurs Fandom] to lodge the perfect post.

Actually he was at summer camp

[BlackBellamy]

Let's just be a bit more diplomatic here. I mean, without the Lakers existence the Spurs would have had a Bulls-esque decade (at least the early portion, and most likely a re-peat in there), so we gotta give you credit there. And yes, the Lakers were able to form a champ team out of a lottery team (but given the piece of real estate that you're parked on that makes sense), still give 'em credit. However, the Spurs have always remained relevant (if not elite) in the decade, that has never failed. We set the bar that forced alot of teams in the league to create their rosters a certain way to make match-up problems for us (much as the league is currently and in the early portion of the decade had to do with the Lakers) for a certain chunk of the decade. In just constantly being in the running, and winning les within that period, and being from one of the smallest markets in the league could potentially give us reason to claim team of the decade, you can't deny us that. All that I'm saying is that stats and heads-up match-ups don't tell the whole tale, and that's not the homer Spurs fan talking in me. I think that this one is a very debatable topic that will prolly never take clear resolution. We both have the right to claim it as fans of our respective teams, but opinion is almost impossible to make fact.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Is he talking about this season or 2008?

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

obvioulsy who ever is in this thread.

How? This thread has nothing to do with team of the decade.

[BlackBellamy]

Is he talking about this season or 2008?

This season, but prolly both.

[Texas_Ranger]

Is he talking about this season or 2008?

This postseason.

[BadOdor]

Let's just be a bit more diplomatic here. I mean, without the Lakers existence the Spurs would have had a Bulls-esque decade (at least the early portion, and most likely a re-peat in there), so we gotta give you credit there. And yes, the Lakers were able to form a champ team out of a lottery team (but given the piece of real estate that you're parked on that makes sense), still give 'em credit. However, the Spurs have always remained relevant (if not elite) in the decade, that has never failed. We set the bar that forced alot of teams in the league to create their rosters a certain way to make match-up problems for us (much as the league is currently and in the early portion of the decade had to do with the Lakers) for a certain chunk of the decade. In just constantly being in the running, and winning les within that period, and being from one of the smallest markets in the league could potentially give us reason to claim team of the decade, you can't deny us that. All that I'm saying is that stats and heads-up match-ups don't tell the whole tale, and that's not the homer Spurs fan talking in me. I think that this one is a very debatable topic that will prolly never take clear resolution. We both have the right to claim it as fans of our respective teams, but opinion is almost impossible to make fact.

What is this "relevant" crap? being relevant at least gets you back into the finals after a le, spurs didn't even make consecutive finals, let alone managed to defend a le.

In the end, les and finals are all that matter.

[BlackBellamy]

What is this "relevant" crap? being relevant at least gets you back into the finals after a le, spurs didn't even make consecutive finals, let alone managed to defend a le.

In the end, les and finals are all that matter.

Ok, buddy. You keep sayin' whatever it is that you're attempting to prove on this board.

[TheManFromAcme]

I can't imagine how it'll be once a Kobe Bryant led team becomes the first Phil Jackson coached team to NOT REPEAT. Oh the humanity! You es will then do the following

TOD doesn't stand for Team Of The Decade(note:you're missing the "the" in your abbreviation, DUH!

For LAL fans, it stands for Totally Obstinate Dumbasses

And the possibility that that could happen exists. Nothing is guaranteed we both know that. However, the Lakers are built to contend a bit longer than the Spurs. Not to mention that the Laker somehow, someway will persevere to assure they contend regardless of how that perseverence comes, crooked or not, stolen or not. If we all really thought this game was fixed and that larger markets have a significant advantage, NOBODY would be on this board but because we really know that's not what's happening we spew this malarky. It is what it is. The Lakers always find a way to assure their dominance in this league. Prior to '99 and the Spurs first championship ask yourself, "Where were the Spurs before that?". You had some good teams in the mid 90's but I don't think you really want to reference or visit your teams history back to the 80's, it was a mess and a road of broken hearts.

I would love the repeats and as many as we can get but;....even if we don't there is a calmness to it all because I know this franchise ALWAYS does what it needs to do to contend. R.C Buford has done one of a job with the Spurs F.O. but prior to R.C., the Spurs were not synonymous with "assuring contention". This is a recent phenomenon for this franchise.

.....So what if a Kobe led team doesn't repeat. The Lakers will be contending long after Kobe and this squad. It's a L.A. Lakers thing....

[BlackBellamy]

Actually he was at summer camp

Was he was being a good little bubala at his Hebrew Day School?

[024]

at the lakertrolls desperately clinging to their "team of the decade" notion. NBA goes by eras and the one it is currently is the shaq/duncan/kobe era, just like 1991-1998 is known as the jordan era. the jordan era ended in 1998 when jordan retired. this era isn't over yet just because it's suddenly 2009, all 3 players are still playing and on contenders.

i've said this before and lakertroll conveniently forgot to respond but boston won 11 NBA championships from 1957-1969, including 8 consecutive ones from 1959-1966. no NBA fan or historian will cut off the boston dynasty at 1960 and claimed that boston only won 9 championships during that "decade." their era spanned from 1957-1969. "team of the decade" is completely arbitrary because you know dynasties/eras don't end just because it hits a certain year. i know lakertroll is still too handicapped to respond to this logical post.