Reply With Quote
Your screen name is very appropriate.
2001 Lakers weren't an option.
Again I'm not looking at the cir stances, and how they played against what was expected from the team.
2002 Lakers were back to back champions and almost swept the entire playoffs the year before.Compared to that almost everything you do the year after will be worse.
Still the team was pretty much the same as in 2001, it was still Shaq and Kobe getting along and playing to win, the rest of team was the same with big shot makers like Horry and Fisher.
One team doesn't go from great in 2001 to not great in the year after, unless serious roster or coaching changes happens or off court issues.
Your screen name is very appropriate.
dont be smug, make a point.
Spurs never conquered Shaq so I don't see how they would do it againt Shaq and Zo and the rest, not to mention Wade who was out of his mind.
ice, with the butthurt
sup bro
So basically your entire argument is that all teams are ty and played ty compe ion, but you pick as the best champion of the last 10 year the team who won the most rigged finals and of all teams was probably the one who was the least amount of time in contention for a championship.
OK.
You certainly are a dope.
Pat Riley said the next season that the Spurs were probably one foul away from the Championship. We would have beaten Miami. The Championship series was the Spurs Vs Mavs. It's not our fault the Mavs screwed up in the finals.
And what is this bull post of yours a few pages up about all these teams in the last 10 seasons being average. What great comp did the Bulls beat in the 90s. Those Utah teams the Bulls had to get a last second push off shot from Jordan to win against a team the Spurs routinely destroyed by 20 from '99 onwards.
I don't think games are rigged. I think they're officiated horribly and
inconsistently. That doesn't make them rigged.
Pat Riley, he just saying whatever. One foul, bull , who cares.
Point is, you couldn't beat Shaq on LA, how could you beat him and Wade?
Make a legitimate argument.
As for the decade at large, it's a fact that there was an imbalance in
talent. It took Garnett and Allen leaving the west to win just one
championship.
Is it not a fact there are no HOFamers on that Piston's team?
As for the Bulls, it was definitely special cir stances. Jordan's greatness
skews an entire generation.
Call him however you'd like. I don't believe in rigged games as well, I just said it to make a point that the outcome of those finals were clearly influenced by bad officiating.
The Heat weren't contenders prior to that year and stopped being contenders the next year. And yet they are the greatest champions of the decade
What are you on about. We beat Shaq 3 times.
'99 in LA
'03 in LA
'08 in Phoenix
We had no trouble with Shaq in LA. We played Shaq better than anyone in his prime, but Kobe was the one that hurt us the most because it's darn hard to shut both those guys down. As good as D-wade was he is not better than Kobe and Dallas had no one at all to guard him. No one even in the same stratosphere as Bruce Bowen. There is no way we let him go off on us like he did against Dallas.
I shouldn't have to explain this, I actually thought you knew something.
Listen, it's hard. I'm just thinking of matchups, and Shaq cancels himselfCall him however you'd like. I don't believe in rigged games as well, I just said it to make a point that the outcome of those finals were clearly influenced by bad officiating.
The Heat weren't contenders prior to that year and stopped being contenders the next year. And yet they are the greatest champions of the decade
out. I don't think these new laker teams could beat them, the Celtics,
Pistons got lucky, no HOFamers there. Mavs, probably not. That leaves
the Spurs, and I don't see it. Could be wrong, but I don't see Duncan
out muscling Shaq and Zo and whoever else for a series, and Wade at that
time, there was no answer for him. There really wasn't an answer for him
against the Mavs this year.
Just think of it like this, Steve Nash won two MVPs, gimme a ing break.
Sometimes these things don't make sense.
Duncan was a total beast in the playoffs that season. Even though the Spurs screwed up he was the best player in the playoffs. Dallas screwed up, they should have won. Who the did they have to guard Shaq? No one and they still should have won.
Spurs had Tim, Nazr and Rasho to throw at O'neal.
Who do you consider a good team? Who is your favorite player?
That's it. This is basically my reasoning as to why the Lakers were the most dominant champion in the last decade.
The 2005 Spurs had something similar, but obviously not as good with Duncan and Ginobili. When Duncan had trouble against Ben Wallace and that amazing Pistons defense Ginobili took over.
But because Ginobili is not on the same level as Kobe, they get #2 imo.
So you definitely don't know the history of either the Spurs or the Lakers.
The 02 Lakers were running on fumes. Still a great accomplishment that they won it all, but they were a tired bunch. 01 was great, it would have been one of the best teams of all time, but that does not apply to the 02 Lakers.
The Spurs beat that same team in 2003 though with a rookie Manu. If they had Manu and Sjax in 2002 playing in the rotation they probably beat the 2002 Lakers as well.
Much like your posts.
Spurs fans out of all teams should know how hard it is to repeat since we never did it.
The 2002 Lakers were on route to a 3 peat. That involves playing until June 3 years in a row, every team they face knows how they play. It was still the same roster and the same coach.
Bottom line is Shaq and Kobe in their primes playing together, without off court issues or Kobe wanting to be the man over Shaq, were damn near unbeatable.
So how many times did the Spurs beat LA when they won 3 straight les?
Teach me, I'm hear to learn.
Last on the list, that's for sure. Not trolling at all, either.
No they weren't darn near unbeatable.
2000 - Portland was up 15 in the 4th at home in game 7 and choked it. They also never had to play the Spurs because TD was injured who swept them the year before.
2001 - They won it fair and square
2002 - Kings had them and choked game 7 at home missing a load of free throws handing the game to LA.
Lakers could have very easily come out of that with 1 ring instead of 3.
Listen, we can only go by what happened, not should, would, or could,
no wishes, just what happend. Who is your answer for Wade? And Tim and Nazr on Shaq, what about Zo?
My favorite player was LeBron, till last year. A good team, I think the
Lakers are a good, or were. I didn't see an answer for them, except the
Mavs, just because I've seen them beat LA at home a few times. Still,
I think the matchups in the paint should favor the Lakers.
Tim would have destroyed all of them. I don't think you actually watched those playoffs.
Answer for Wade? I already told you defensively, offensively Manu and TP could have easily matched him together if he was still somehow able to play at a high level with Bruce on him. I say he wouldn't have with Bruce guarding him. Bruce would have found a way to get in his head or at least slow him down more than anyone on Dallas could.
Dallas also would have won that series with ease if they got the same officiating as they did in the Spurs series. In the finals James Posey and Haslem were draped all over Dirk, pushing, pulling, grabbing with no fouls called. In the Spurs series we weren't allowed to get anywhere near as physical with him as the refs allowed Miami to. Dallas really did get screwed over in the finals, but I didn't care as I thought we got similar treatment against them.
Anyway. Miami was one of the worst Championship teams in a long time so there is no need to continue this. Enjoy your Miami Heat.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions