Reply With Quote
2005>2007>1999>2003
I'm still hoarse from the 4th quarter of game 7 in 2005!
2005>2007>1999>2003
dude where is the link to all the nice pictures
2005 was the best overall to me, for the same reasons Darrin brought up
2003 was the most talented team; plus it was supposed to be a transition season, with D-Rob retiring and all the new players
1999...well the 1st le, plus the best defensive Spurs team
2007 was the sweetest; everybody wrote us off: too old, unathletic, Mavs are the , we need a trade....... lololololololololol
Here's the thing about the '99 team - they had to overcome the reputation, gained over the previous two decades - of being a playoff choker. Yes, before '99 the Spurs were basically the Mavs wearing black. On top of that, they destroyed everyone in the postseason, only losing two freaking games in the playoffs. I can put the '05 team over them but not the others.
Adding Duncan obviously helped to overcome that;
Heck, I don't think we were choking before drafting him; it's just that the team around David Robinson wasn't good enough
No disrespect to AJ, Vinny Del Negro or even Sean Elliott (sacrilege), but Robinson wasn't going to win with those guys
Even in 98, if Timmy didn't get injured during the Jazz series, we would have lost to the Bulls in the Finals
But adding Steve Kerr and Mario Elie, who had already won multiple les while making big big clutch shots respectively with the Bulls and the Rockets really helped us in crunch time
I didn't take them seriously when I was watching them. Now, I was all of 15-years-old and could barely tell you the playoff bracket system, but I remember the '95 Robinson-Olajuwon MVP Conference Finals. I really had no love for the Spurs back then. I wanted the Blazers to win that series, I laughed when they lost to Minnesota and thought the Regular-season beasts were going to blow it again. New York was my favorite in the Finals. I just couldn't see this second-year player, who I barely knew, and the Admiral, at his age, winning an NBA le. I agreed with Damon Stoudamire.
But they hit clutch-shot after clutch-shot. They would put the beat-down on teams and never let them off the mat. That's why Phil Jackson's comment about the asterisk, considering how many times he has seen mental toughness win basketball games, was baffling.
In later years now that I have gotten ahold of games, they were just tougher than any other team they faced. Teams could gear-up for a stretch or two, but San Antonio was always in their face. It was incredible.
99, no question.
The best defense there ever was, coupled with ample outside shooting, inside scoring, strong rebounding, a true sense of teamwork, and clutch shooting.
That team is one of the top ten teams of all time.
1. 2003 - MVP Duncan
2. 1999 - Young Duncan
3. 2005 - almost-MVP Duncan
4. 2007 - post-MVP Duncan
As Duncan goes, so go the Spurs.
The 2007 championship team was all luck guys. The Spurs stopped being a dominant contender 2006, when we lost to the Mavs in a 7 game thriller (Ginobili...I still love you though).
We weren't better than the Suns (Donaghy refed along with the controversial suspensions that saved our ass), Dallas was knocked out by GSW due to mismatching and possible "cheating" by Don Nelson, and we faced against mediocre playoff teams (young Jazz, the AI-Melo Nuggets, and Cleveland).
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Definitely felt 2007 was more about luck. The 2008 team might have been good enough if the Lakers hadn't got Gasol. Basically the Spurs stopped being dominant when Pop started getting outcoached by guys not named Phil Jackson.
2003 would beat the three others in seven game series, imo
prob 03 over 99 still had 5-0 and timmy together plus manu and tony
You might remember him
As Joe the policeman
From tha What's Going Down episode of That's My Mama
Aaaladies and gentleman
Aaaaaput ya hands togetha
FAA mista
RANDYYY WWWWWATSON
2005, 2003, 1999, 2007
Hate to say it but I think the 99 team is the best just because the defense was so impenetrable. Nobody was gonna score on those guys.
After that, I'd go with 2005, because big three was at the height of their powers.
Then 2007. Pretty underrated group.
Finally 2003. Very deep team, but less than the sum of its parts because Robinson was too old and Tony and Manu were too young.
The 05 Spurs would have easily been the #1 Spurs team of all-time had Duncan not turned both ankles. That was a 65 win team if they stayed healthy. Also, I think the 04 team would have completely destroyed the 07 team in a series.
I agree, but it depends on what day you caught them on. The 1999 team was very consistent. The 2003 team was brilliant in stretches, but they played themselves out of almost as many games as they played back into.
1999 team was the best. You have to compare the team with the other teams in the league at the time and the Spurs were clearly the best team in 1999 and destroyed everyone in the playoffs with Duncan and Robinson on the frontline.
Agreed. The 2004-2005 Spurs still won 59 games, despite the big three missing 26 games combined. They were definitely a 65+ win team that year. Like it was said before they could win 80-65 or 121-117, take your pick.
In my opinion the list is:
1) 2005
1b) 1999
2) 2003
3) 2007
Everytime this question is asked the majority seems to go with 2003 and it always baffles me tbh. Timmy absolutely dominated, but team wise despite some big names the Spurs werent all that talented. Manu, Tony, and Jack were still very green and Robinson was on his last wheels. Theres a reason so many people compare Timmys dominance in 03' to Dreams in 95', because both of them carried their respective teams on their back. I think if the Spurs were to have faced a dominant defensive frontline that year and Timmy was held to under superhuman numbers like they did in the 05' Finals, the Spurs wouldve been in deep .
Also a stat about the 99' team that always sticks with me is the fact that they started 6-8 and ended up with a 37-13 record. Those s won 31 of their last 36 games. Add their 15-2 playoff record and the Spurs finished off the season 46-7 after the poor start. Thats kind of good tbh. Id go:
1a.2005
1b.1999
3.2007
4.2003
2005 (59-23, 16-7 playoffs)
1999 (37-13, 15-2 playoffs)
2003 (60-22, 16-8 playoffs)
2007 (58-24, 16-5 playoffs)
My reasoning is that Duncan in 03 outweighs everything else. Also, Ginobili wasn't really a true "rookie" as he had already played professionally before the NBA. Even Parker played like a veteran in the 03 playoffs. And their defense was just as good as any other year.
03' was probably Duncans best year, but he was still one of the if not the best players on the planet during the other three les as well. I dont think theres a big difference between any of the Duncans. The difference between 03' Manu&Parker and 05'/07' Manu&Parker is pretty big. Sure they had their moments, but they were nowhere close to being all-stars at that point in their careers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
