Reply With Quote
Well I can say I liked when Nets played Spurs in the finals, we won one game that year, Lakers not so much
This isnt homerism. This seems like an extreme case of mental re ation.
If anyone knows this poster please get him help.
Well I can say I liked when Nets played Spurs in the finals, we won one game that year, Lakers not so much
*(Spurs swept the Lakers and closed down the Forum.)
Then how come the Lakers couldnt make it to the championship?
Both teams fattened up on the weak East. Clearly.
Blame the weaker teams in the east for being weaker than the stronger teams in the west.
This thread has reached new depths of mediocrity. Spurs = Lakers last 11 years. Call it a draw as Magic Johnson did. The 3 One hit wonders; Detroit, Miami, and Boston, all done, but Spurs and Lakers are still in the mix. Worry about the next good team to put together a run and crash the party...Portland, OKC, whereever LeBron jumps to next year....
The East teams that made the Finals in the 2000's were all a joke except for the 2005 Pistons and 2008 Celtics. So both the Spurs and Lakers won les against JV East teams.
You can only play the teams in front of you.
Trying to make an argument that somehow a team is unworthy of a championship because their road to the le was "easy" or "easier" than in past years is both incredibly stupid and difficult to actually prove. Once you walk down that path you have to examine every single variable that can affect the outcome of a series.
IMHO, barring a major cheating scandal, every NBA champion is equally deserving of their le.
What exactly is a JV League?
The East below Jordan from 1991-98 and the East without Jordan from 1998-2003.
True, but at least the Spurs can say they beat a REAL Eastern Conference opponent during the 00's. The Lakers never did. The first time LA came up against a good Eastern Conference opponent they got dominated from start to finish. It reminded me of Rocky III. The Lakers got fat on easy weaksauce set-ups from the Eastern Conference and thought they could just show up in the Finals and win until Detroit "Clubber Lang" Pistons came in and beat the snot out of their soft, Hollywood asses
+10000
Great Comparison. Great post.
L.A. beat outstanding Portland and Sacramento teams in the WC Playoffs, teams that were arguably as good or better than the 2004 Pistons.True, but at least the Spurs can say they beat a REAL Eastern Conference opponent during the 00's. The Lakers never did. The first time LA came up against a good Eastern Conference opponent they got dominated from start to finish. It reminded me of Rocky III. The Lakers got fat on easy weaksauce set-ups from the Eastern Conference and thought they could just show up in the Finals and win until Detroit "Clubber Lang" Pistons came in and beat the snot out of their soft, Hollywood asses
It doesn't matter. No team that wins a Championship has to apologize for anything.
As for the conferences, the West top-to-bottom was better than the East from 1991 until 2008 IMO. No one in the East besides Jordan's Bulls could have won the Finals in the '90s. I am NOT sold on today's West below the Lake Show though.
I think most of you miss the point I was only officially discrediting one le I was merely making the observation that the east was considered a JV league when the Spurs were winning....and when the Lakers were winning that wasn't the prevailing thought of the day around the league. I don't know why folks get so dam emotional about it anyway...
Bull .
You started the thread, IIRC.I don't know why folks get so dam emotional about it anyway...
I beg to differ. I can agree with '91 and '92. No one but the Bulls were beating the Lakers and the Blazers. In '93 I do believe the Knicks could have beaten the Suns. They had no one to match up with Ewing and NY's interior toughness makes things tough on Barkley. The '96 Magic had more than enough firepower to match with the Sonics. Same goes for the '97 Heat with Zo, Tim Hardaway, PJ Brown, Mashburn, and Majerle if they were to go against the Utah Jazz. The Pacers in '98 would have been a nice match-up with the Jazz as well. All of those Finals could have been great. Too bad we'll never know.
Not too bad for Bulls fans.
How old are you? It was the prevailing thought of the day. The Western Conference Finals were called the real NBA Finals whether it was in 2001 or 2003. No one gave Philly, Indy, or New Jersey a chance, or even the 04 Pistons, until they surprised everyone and nutted all over the "4 Hall of Famers" Lakers.
You are simply a ing moron.
Stop posting.
If your argument is correct, would you rather win against a JV league? Or would you rather lose to a JV league? 2004 No Super-Star Pistons vs. 5 HOF Lakers!!!!
You decide...
we raped the east too. the nets werent even worthy. i dont know how they took the spurs 6 games a yr later and iverson had to have a career game just for them to win 1 game
How did the Jailblazers take the 65-17 Lakers to 7 games when the Spurs swept those thugs a year earlier?
ing yeah. The Spurs beat the same team that berstomped the super Laker team of 042004 Lakers lost to Pistons
2005 Spurs beat Pistons
Did you forget that you also lost in the '04 playoffs to the team that got "curbstomped"?
One player usually can't manage to lose a series by himself, but Turkeyglue proved us all wrong, showing that once a King, always a King.
Maybe it's not all true, Parker was garbage the last 4 games of that series as well.
It's all good, though. I don't think the Spurs beat the Pistons anyhow.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
