Reply With Quote
I agree about 99 spurs being better.homer mavfan
The 05' and 99' Spurs would bend the 11' Mavs over. Dont remember enough about the back2back Rockets other than Dream making DRob his .
Duncan and Robinson were dominant inside.
1994 Rockets
1995 Rockets
1999 Spurs
2003 Spurs
2005 Spurs
2007 Spurs
2011 Mavs
No he wasn't.
I agree about 99 spurs being better.
The 05' and 99' Spurs would bend the 11' Mavs over. Dont remember enough about the back2back Rockets other than Dream making DRob his .
Duncan and Robinson were dominant inside.
2005 Spurs. Ginobili and Duncan in their collective primes.
LBJ last year was still in his scared phase.The Mavs caught them at the right time.
Oh right, he played baseball then jumped in 3/4 of the way through wearing 45.
Still weak.
Which is more than they can't say about us. We didn't meet in the post season, so I don't see your point."we beat him in the regular season
"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSa5HiPeQz02003 Spurs team was stacked
The 2003 spurs were so talented,young and athletic.Watching this video shows Spurs at their peak were deadly.Parker/Claxton was a lethal combo.
lol your team conveniently sucked playoff every year except Baseball Jordan and 45 Jordan, and that's Chicago'a fault
lol your team conveniently sucked playoff every year except Baseball Jordan and 45 Jordan, and that's Chicago'a fault
The 2005 Spurs were pretty stout. That's who I voted for.
2011 Mavs. That team did not quit and was one of the hungriest teams in NBA history. And let's not forget that Dirk and Terry also had to fight the demons of the 2006 Finals. Kidd had to fight the demons of losing the Finals in 2002 and 2003.
Good job talking about the 2003 and 2007 teams SA faced in the Finals when everyone's talking about the 2005 Spurs as the best Spurs team. Fail argument.son I agree, keep layin down those truth bombs
The Mavs didn't beat any team the caliber of the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.
They beat the Lakers, sure, but a ty, failing Lakers team with a lazy coach who didn't want to coach anymore, a soft Gasol, a chucking Kobe, and a depressed Odom.
lame Blazers, soft Lakers team, soft Thunder team, and only decent opponent was the Heat in the Finals. And even then, the 2005 Pistons (defending champs), were better than last year's hastily thrown together Heat team.
2012 Thunder.
I think you meant to say a dangerous blazers team who was the toughest first round opponent anyone faced that year outside of maybe memphis, a defending 2 time champ lakers team, a thunder team that kicked your ass and made it to the finals, and a miami heat team that looks dominant right now.
Portland 2011 > Denver 2005
Lakers 2011 > Seattle 2011
Suns 2005 >>> OKC 2011
Pistons 2005 > Heat 2011
It's a toss up between the Mavs & Spurs and being a homer i would take the Spurs in 2005 over the Mavs.
But IMO the best Texas NBA Champion would have definitely been the Rockets in 1995 had the NBA Finals not been a sweep. That series ruined their amazing run.
arrow argument, nice. i beg to differ on the last 2 btw, just because you put a few extra arrows doesn't make it convincing.
11 okc is more or less the same team as 12 okc, a legitimate le contender. don't forget 2010 okc almost beat the eventual champion lakers, they were one last second tip in by the ostrich from forcing OT. nobody else outside of boston gave them such a scare. lets not pretend oklahoma is only good this year and never was until now
In a way i agree, but it's like comparing tlhem to the Chicago Bulls back in the 80s. All they did was tweak a little to their roster and people suddenly thought they became dominant.arrow argument, nice. i beg to differ on the last 2 btw, just because you put a few extra arrows doesn't make it convincing.
11 okc is more or less the same team as 12 okc, a legitimate le contender. don't forget 2010 okc almost beat the eventual champion lakers, they were one last second tip in by the ostrich from forcing OT. nobody else outside of boston gave them such a scare. lets not pretend oklahoma is only good this year and never was until now
You underestimate the chemistry and more importantly the experience factor from losing close games. The one thing Chicago had that no other championship teams have had consistently was poise down the stretch. The Rockets in 1995, the Spurs in 1999 & 2005, Lakers in 2000 & 2001, and the Mavs in 2011 had it, but they couldn't sustain in over a period of time like the Bulls.
That's one reason why OKC can dominate the next decade. They are relentless and can close very effectively down the stretch.I'll give credit to the Mavs though, they beat them convincingly unlike the Lakers in 2010.
This. It was with Hakeem that I started looking at stats not just with the career/prime comparisons, but adding another element of peak. I've never seen another peak like Hakeems from 92-93 through 95-96. Many people thought Hakeem should have won MVP in 92-93, and then he went on to win in 93-94 and then have his best year offensively in 94-95 and a nice near-repeat year to close out.Akeem/Hakeem played at an elite level for most of his career but there was a 2-3 year stretch where he was just going bonkers. It's inexplicable, but it is what it is.
His 17 year career averages are 21.8 ppg, 11.1 rpg, 2.5 apg, 3.1 bpg and 1.7 spg.
His 12 year prime averages are 24.2 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 2.8 apg, 3.8 bpg and 2.0 spg.
His 5 year non-prime averages are 12.9 ppg, 8.3 rpg, 1.9 apg, 1.9 bpg, 1.4 spg.
His 4 year peak averages are 26.8 ppg, 11.6 rpg, 3.5 apg, 3.6 bpg, 1.7 spg.
Often times there's no noticeable distinction in the prime years. There might be some up and down, but there's seldom another prolonged level where already better numbers take another radical jump, with with Hakeem his career just had three different tiers, including the peak tier within the prime tier.
If you saw Hakeem during his peak, you saw some of the great low-post-to-elbow inside-out offense ever from a big man during an area of many HOF big men. It was truly amazing.
I had the (mis?)fortune of seeing the '95 WCFs in person. Just a horrifying experience as a Spurs fan.
But man did he put on a clinic out there. Never seen anything like it before or since.
I say 95 Rox and 99 Spurs
The reason I say 99 over 2005 spurs is David was much more of a factor. Plus what little hops Duncan had was at it's peak 1999.
2011 Mavs were a great team. No fluke bull- . But both those teams foul our Tyson Chandler. And then it's Haywood on Dream or Duncan because Dirk has no shot in guarding either guy. 1995 rox can have a young Horry chase Dirk Spurs would have problems with dirk but I thin david would make him work.
95 rockets and 2003 spurs
95 had a <50 win team sweep the Finals
03 had Super Duncan
1999 Spurs would lock down all of those teams tbh. I'd go with them.
You are asking it in a Spurs forum tbh....
BTW, I voted 2005 Spurs with 2011 Mavs a close second. Yup, I'm ing bias like everyone else.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
