Rank the 2010-2011 Mavs in comparison to the other champions in the last 10 seasons.

[ogait]

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.

So what? Are you just stating causalities? Anyone can play that game.

I can also say that if the Spurs faced the Mavs in 2007 they would've probably lost.

I can also say that if Shaq and Kobe continued getting along and playing together the lakers could've won more than the 3 peat.

I can also say that if it wasn't 0,4 shot in 2004 and one of the most unlikely and one's in 2006 the Spurs could've won in those years.

What does it matter?

My point is that the Kobe Shaq core was the best.
The Spurs big 3 core after 2004 was close but not as good.
The Celtics big 3 core after 2008 was good but not as good.
The Pistons core who went to 7 straight eastern finals was good but not as good.

Could've, would've don't really matter.

[ohmwrecker]

So what? Are you just stating causalities? Anyone can play that game.

I can also say that if the Spurs faced the Mavs in 2007 they would've probably lost.

I can also say that if Shaq and Kobe continued getting along and playing together the lakers could've won more than the 3 peat.

I can also say that if it wasn't 0,4 shot in 2004 and one of the most unlikely and one's in 2006 the Spurs could've won in those years.

What does it matter?

My point is that the Kobe Shaq core was the best.
The Spurs big 3 core after 2004 was close but not as good.
The Celtics big 3 core after 2008 was good but not as good.
The Pistons core who went to 7 straight eastern finals was good but not as good.

Could've, would've don't really matter.

That's settled. Let's all go home!

[Ice009]

What does it matter?

Well I am mainly responding to you saying they were darn near unbeatable. I don't think they were at all. They just got luckier than all those other teams you mentioned.

when they only won it once convincingly then I don't call that unbeatable. If they won it convincingly all three times then I would agree with you, but they didn't and I don't.

[davethedope]

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.

I have nothing to gain, either way. I don't give a about the Heat.
I knew they weren't going to win this year.

But just saying Timmy would've destroyed all of them doesn't sound right,
you make him sound like he was Wilt Chamberlin, scoing 50 a game and .

As for all the woulds and coulds, they're irrelevant. The question boils
down to were the Shaq lakers better than the Shaq heat and is Kobe
better than Wade? And how those teams match up.

[Ice009]

The question boils
down to were the Shaq lakers better than the Shaq heat and is Kobe
better than Wade? And how those teams match up.

I don't know what to say if you even have to ask that question. Pretty much everyone knows the answer to that.

[davethedope]

I don't know what to say if you even have to ask that question. Pretty much everyone knows the answer to that.

What's the answer?

[ohmwrecker]

This is absolutely mind numbing.

[elbamba]

2005 Spurs/2001 Lakers
2004 Pistons
2002 Lakers
2003 Spurs
2008 Celtics/2007 Spurs
2011 Mavs
2010/2009 Lakers
2006 Heat

[ambchang]

So how many times did the Spurs beat LA when they won 3 straight les?
Teach me, I'm hear to learn.

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.

So how does "Spurs never conquered Shaq" equates to "Spurs never beat LA when they won 3 straight les"?

Teach me, I'm HERE to learn.

[ambchang]

A simple question like that shows which fans didn't start watching basketball until 2008.

[DubMcDub]

2004 Pistons
2005 Spurs
2008 Celtics
2002 Lakers
2007 Spurs
2011 Mavericks
2010 Lakers
2003 Spurs
2009 Lakers
2006 Heat

I'd put the 11 Mavs ahead of the 07 Spurs pretty easily. But the rest of this seems right. I think 05 Spurs and 08 Celtics is probably a tie.

Oh also, 03 Spurs ahead of 10 Lakers. League was much better in 10 but I'm fairly certain the 03 Spurs defense would have smothered that Lakers team.

[Axe Murderer]

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.

Thank you

Other than a couple of interchangeable end of the bench scrubs, the 01 Lakers and 02 Lakers were the exact same team. And it's not like Kobe/Shaq were going downhill

When you keep the same team eventually other teams will build to beat you and catch up. 03 Spurs and 11 Mavs come to mind.

The Kings just had a lot going for them that season. Outside of Sacramento, LA still raped the other three series they played, going 11-1.

[Barfunk]

2005 Spurs - The emergence of Ginobili. Game 5 of the finals was worth the price of admission alone.

2003 Spurs - For me at least. The 110-82 beating/dethroning at LA in front of the bandwagoning movie stars (sans Jack) was especially nice. This was Tim Duncan's masterpiece run. He was basically a 30 point, 20 rebound, 5 assist, 5 block threat night in and night out. Tim Duncan with the near quadruple double (21, 20, 10, 8) in game 6 of the finals to seal the deal.

2011 Mavs - Tough run. Two flashy and trendy teams in LA and Miami get beat by the Mavs. 36 and the .

2004 Pistons - D Fence.

2007 Spurs - Nash, scorers table. Lebron James, Saturday night live.

2002 Lakers - Sacramento Kings.

2008 Celtics - Game 7's. Annnyyyythinng is possssiiiiiblllleee!

2010 Lakers

2009 Lakers

2006 Heat - lol "How dare Dirk's chest get in the way of D-Wade's Fist" - comment on Youtube vid Phantom Foul 5

[Amaso]

2005 Spurs - The emergence of Ginobili. Game 5 of the finals was worth the price of admission alone.

2003 Spurs - For me at least. The 110-82 beating/dethroning at LA in front of the bandwagoning movie stars (sans Jack) was especially nice. This was Tim Duncan's masterpiece run. He was basically a 30 point, 20 rebound, 5 assist, 5 block threat night in and night out. Tim Duncan with the near quadruple double (21, 20, 10, 8) in game 6 of the finals to seal the deal.

2011 Mavs - Tough run. Two flashy and trendy teams in LA and Miami get beat by the Mavs. 36 and the .

2004 Pistons - D Fence.

2007 Spurs - Nash, scorers table. Lebron James, Saturday night live.

2002 Lakers - Sacramento Kings.

2008 Celtics - Game 7's. Annnyyyythinng is possssiiiiiblllleee!

2010 Lakers

2009 Lakers

2006 Heat - lol "How dare Dirk's chest get in the way of D-Wade's Fist" - comment on Youtube vid Phantom Foul 5

lol i hope you're trolling with the spurs having the 2 best teams of the decade

[JamStone]

2008 Celtics won the NBA Finals in 6 games. I think it's actually a good point that those Celtics teams kind of struggled in the first three rounds as a reason to drop them down the list. I forgot about that. But I do temper that with the fact that it was their first playoff run together as a core. I think they were trying to figure things out on the fly during their playoff run. They still had to beat what was perceived as a dominant LeBron led Cavs team that had gone to the Finals the year before and a very experienced Pistons team. And then they beat one of the better Finals opponents in the Kobe-Pau Lakers than most of the other 9 NBA champions over the 10 previous champs. I wouldn't put them in the bottom 5 of the last 10. But perhaps in the 3-5 range.

As far as the 2002 Lakers, they were in large part the same team as 2001 as far as personnel goes, but I still don't believe they were nearly as good. Might not be a huge difference, but Horace Grant not being on that team did make things tougher as far as front court depth. Robert Horry went from playing half the game to having to play nearly 40 MPG in the playoffs because the third big was Samaki Walker. It's not like Horace was crucial to their success, but his absence did make things different. I also think that team was on the verge of collectively feeling the toll of the three consecutive deep championship runs. And it seems right around then was when Shaq started not caring as much in terms of his conditioning because he pretty much figured all he had to do was show up and they'd win a le. That's really conjecture on my part though. The biggest thing is that I do think the WCF against Sacramento and what we now know as rigged officiating does go a long way in staining or diminishing how great that team was. At least enough that I would argue they weren't the best of the last 10 champions.

[Barfunk]

lol i hope you're trolling with the spurs having the 2 best teams of the decade

I'll admit this one was biased. However, I would bet on the 2005 Spurs against any team in the last decade. We had a young Parker, prime Duncan and Ginobili, Big Shot Rob, Brent Barry, Bruce Bowen, Nazr, and Rasho. They could beat you 125 - 120 or 80 - 70, take your pick. The rest of the list I probably messed up, but imo, the 2005 Spurs could beat any of the last champions since 2002.

[JoeTait75]

They still had to beat what was perceived as a dominant LeBron led Cavs team that had gone to the Finals the year before.

Cleveland only won 45 games that year.

[mindcrime]

2008 Celtics won the NBA Finals in 6 games. I think it's actually a good point that those Celtics teams kind of struggled in the first three rounds as a reason to drop them down the list. I forgot about that. But I do temper that with the fact that it was their first playoff run together as a core. I think they were trying to figure things out on the fly during their playoff run. They still had to beat what was perceived as a dominant LeBron led Cavs team that had gone to the Finals the year before and a very experienced Pistons team. And then they beat one of the better Finals opponents in the Kobe-Pau Lakers than most of the other 9 NBA champions over the 10 previous champs. I wouldn't put them in the bottom 5 of the last 10. But perhaps in the 3-5 range.

As far as the 2002 Lakers, they were in large part the same team as 2001 as far as personnel goes, but I still don't believe they were nearly as good. Might not be a huge difference, but Horace Grant not being on that team did make things tougher as far as front court depth. Robert Horry went from playing half the game to having to play nearly 40 MPG in the playoffs because the third big was Samaki Walker. It's not like Horace was crucial to their success, but his absence did make things different. I also think that team was on the verge of collectively feeling the toll of the three consecutive deep championship runs. And it seems right around then was when Shaq started not caring as much in terms of his conditioning because he pretty much figured all he had to do was show up and they'd win a le. That's really conjecture on my part though. The biggest thing is that I do think the WCF against Sacramento and what we now know as rigged officiating does go a long way in staining or diminishing how great that team was. At least enough that I would argue they weren't the best of the last 10 champions.

This for the most part. Who cares if they struggled initially in the playoffs. First playoffs together and adjustments had to be made. In game 4 of the finals they rallied back from a 24 point half time deficit to defeat the Lakers in LA. In game 6 we witnessed one of the greatest smackdowns in finals history . The 08 Celts were a great team and are top 3 easy.

[Ice009]

This for the most part. Who cares if they struggled initially in the playoffs. First playoffs together and adjustments had to be made. In game 4 of the finals they rallied back from a 24 point half time deficit to defeat the Lakers in LA. In game 6 we witnessed one of the greatest smackdowns in finals history . The 08 Celts were a great team and are top 3 easy.

If they were in the West they may not have even made the finals. I am sure a lot of the teams in the West would have beaten Cleveland and Atlanta in less than 7. The East was pretty weak outside of Detroit so there was no one to make them pay.

I think they were good and all, probably 4th but I just feel they are overrated just a little bit. Also, if you took away homecourt I don't think they would have won jack . They really, really needed that homecourt advantage to win those series.

I always rate teams higher that can win on the road.

The 2002 Lakers, 2005 Spurs, 2003 Spurs, 2004 Pistons could all win any game anywhere at anytime in the most hostile of environments. Those teams didn't need a heavy dose of home court to win games on their way to the Championship.

[pass1st]

Right in the middle, strong team but teams like the 04 Pistons and 08 Celtics were the best teams in the decade by a fair margin.

[Jacob1983]

The Mavs are the only Western Conference team of the bunch to win the Finals without HCA. Duncan's Spurs or Kobe's Lakers never did it. And the Mavs had to deal with 2006 in their heads. Mavs are definitely in the top 3 or top 5 of the bunch.

[sribb43]

Better yet who had the toughest road to win their championship. Off the top of my head would be Mavs. Taking out all the poster boys of the league in one Playoffs = EPIC

[Leetonidas]

I'd put the 11 Mavs ahead of the 07 Spurs pretty easily. But the rest of this seems right. I think 05 Spurs and 08 Celtics is probably a tie.

Oh also, 03 Spurs ahead of 10 Lakers. League was much better in 10 but I'm fairly certain the 03 Spurs defense would have smothered that Lakers team.

Nah. As a team those Spurs were better. I'm going based on their post season success and how well I think they'd match up together. The 2007 Spurs had Duncan/Ginobili/Parker all in some variation of their primes (Duncan near the end, Ginobili in the middle, Parker entering) along with Horry and Bowen still playing at high levels defensively along with the expert craftiness of Oberto. Really, Tim still being able to play at an elite level is what does it for me. The 2011 Mavs' best player is better than the 2007 Spurs' best player but the Spurs had 3 guys capable of taking the game over at any point while the Mavericks only have Dirk and Terry if he gets hot. Plus the 2007 Spurs' defense is better.

You're probably right about that last one. The Spurs team in 2003 was weak outside of Duncan but he was playing at such a high level and the players around him did just enough for him to carry them. It was quite beautiful to watch. Almost like what Dirk did this postseason minus the incredible defense/rebounding/assists.

[Leetonidas]

I do think a case could be made for the 2005 Spurs as the best team, they definitely had a tough road and they played some tough, tough ball against the defending champs. That was the only time besides LA v. Boston in 2010 that the champs from the previous two years faced off in quite awhile and that defending champion Piston team was deep and extremely good defensively, one of the best ever. I honestly think those Piston teams are severely underrated. Them not having a true star or go-to scorer normally would be a problem but they had their offense covered in every aspect in their starting lineup. And the Wallace tandem in the middle was just sick.

[davethedope]

You're just looking at them in the context of their season and the opponent they eventaully beat. The idea is to compare the champions. '05 Spurs were good, fine, but how does it match up against other champions, could it beat the '06 Heat, could it beat the '02 Lakers, and so on.