2014 team is the best. They had to win the le twice, once on the floor and also the battle in their head. And when the Finals test came, the Spurs didn't just beat the Heat, they obliterated them, breaking up the Heat and changing the landscape of an entire conference and the entire league. How many champions can say that?
Where point differential in the regular season is looked at as a sign of strength, the 2014 Spurs set the record for Finals point differential, breaking numerous shooting percentage records along the way.
They inspired people and teams, including the juggernaut that is the Warriors. Everyone wants to play like the Spurs. IMO, no Spurs team will ever surpass 2014, because that team will always come with overcoming the heartbreak of 2013.
Last edited by Old School 44; 04-03-2016 at 05:48 AM.
i think it's more a reflection of a strange decrease in the level of the west. Could still be, of course.
personally, its my opinion this has been the deepest Spurs roster in history
Probably...but they still gotta ring.
Yep, I don't know how you can consider any team from any sport the franchise's best without a championship. (assuming they have won les in other years) Think 2007 Patriots near perfect season, I doubt many Patriot fans would call that team their best ever after losing in the Super Bowl to the Giants.
Great teams are made in the playoffs. Only thing we can say right now is that it's been the best regular season so far, but mostly due to how weak the West has become. This team's greatness revolves around getting out of the West. Many times in the past I was a bit underwhelmed by the regular season (as I am this year despite the record), sometimes the team clicked in the postseason, sometimes it didn't.
The 2016 Spurs would have to be great against GSW in the WCF to top the 2014 Spurs, still the most beautiful basketball I've ever seen.
It sure doesn't feel like the best Spurs team ever.
I have never seen basketball as good as the 2014 Spurs. That team felt like an oiled machine, from top to bottom. "Team" being the operative word here. I was confident going into that playoffs as I've ever been... before or since. This team feels like we got an awesome duo, but the team doesn't feel as cohesive or well-oiled as 2014. Not even close. Doesn't mean we can't win it all...we definetly can. It's just that 2014 was a joy to watch, best played basketball ever, from anyone...imho
This, tbh
/thread
Sorry but the ring argument is dumb IMO...or at least, letting that be the sole deciding factor is dumb.
Winning a le isn't just about how good you are - it's about the surrounding cir stances as well. When did any of the other le teams have to play a 70+ win team that has an argument for being a top 3-5 team of all-time like GS? Do you guys really think the '03 team would beat this year's Warriors (although it would be amazing watching prime Tim completely demolish Draymond)?
Take GS out and replace them with a typical contender (i.e. 2014 Thunder or someone like that). This team would almost certainly win in that scenario. So we have the exact same team, but they suddenly get considered better because they were lucky enough to not have to play a juggernaut like GS? That doesn't make much sense to me. It's the exact same team in both scenarios. One just had the luxury of not going up against a GOAT-tier team.
I get that the playoffs are what matters. But as long as the Spurs look impressive in the first 2 rounds and then give GS a run for their money (i.e. lose in 7 games and give GS a bigger challenge than anyone else does), I'll most likely be considering them the best Spurs team ever. I mean the Thunder this year are better than any team the 2007 squad faced at any point
You're absolutely correct, but this franchise has won 5 les. I just don't see how you can put the 2016 team over all of them if they don't win the le, especially the 2014 team.
qftSorry but the ring argument is dumb IMO...or at least, letting that be the sole deciding factor is dumb.
Winning a le isn't just about how good you are - it's about the surrounding cir stances as well. When did any of the other le teams have to play a 70+ win team that has an argument for being a top 3-5 team of all-time like GS? Do you guys really think the '03 team would beat this year's Warriors (although it would be amazing watching prime Tim completely demolish Draymond
Take GS out and replace them with a typical contender (i.e. 2014 Thunder or someone like that). This team would almost certainly win in that scenario. So we have the exact same team, but they suddenly get considered better because they were lucky enough to not have to play a juggernaut like GS? That doesn't make much sense to me. It's the exact same team in both scenarios. One just had the luxury of not going up against a GOAT-tier team.
I get that the playoffs are what matters. But as long as the Spurs look impressive in the first 2 rounds and then give GS a run for their money (i.e. lose in 7 games and give GS a bigger challenge than anyone else does), I'll most likely be considering them the best Spurs team ever. I mean the Thunder this year are better than any team the 2007 squad faced at any point
The Warriors are a great team, sure, but they are on the verge of becoming legendary only because the league is so weak, especially bigs. Can you imagine Draymond vs Shaq during the showtime Lakers era? That Warriors team would be a 45-to-50 wins team, and Draymong would be crying to his mamma after Shaq has landed on his face a couple of times.Sorry but the ring argument is dumb IMO...or at least, letting that be the sole deciding factor is dumb.
Winning a le isn't just about how good you are - it's about the surrounding cir stances as well. When did any of the other le teams have to play a 70+ win team that has an argument for being a top 3-5 team of all-time like GS? Do you guys really think the '03 team would beat this year's Warriors (although it would be amazing watching prime Tim completely demolish Draymond
The 2014 team destroyed Miami in the playoffs and that was a tough team to beat. If the 2016 Spurs can't at least beat the Warriors (at which point a ring sounds quite likely) then no they aren't better than the 2014 Spurs.
This is the deepest team ever, which gives the Spurs a huge advantage in the regular season, but not so much in the playoffs. The best team in terms of winning in the playoffs was probably 2003 or 2005.
I don't think the league is weak. I think it has changed. There are a lot of great players and good teams in the NBA, but it has turned into a small ball league with three point shooting and not enough back to the basket bigs have passed through.
The 2014 team and championship is also my fave so far, but let's not pretend they were not one bad shooting game/dejuan blair kick away from getting eliminated in the 1st round, tbh...
That game 7 against Dallas was ultimately the catalyst that really flipped a switch.
Yes, but if you're a le contender and don't win it all, it means jack. Ask mavs fan if they prefer the '07 or '11.
Current #7 and #8 seeds in the West are sitting at .500 exactly. Sorry but that's the weakest the West has been in a while, probably in the whole Duncan era actually.
No.
Poorly constructed NBA league with piss poor balance, two teams 10+ games up on the field (entire field). That doesn't make sense in an 82 game season that two teams would separate themselves from the peleton by 10+ games. You had two teams in April with no home losses, in the same conference. It just doesn't scream out "greatest team" to me. Best results thus far, sure, but the 2006 Mavericks won like 66 games and lost in the 1st round. I'd not call them the best Mavericks team ever.
Other than Curry and the retirement of cancer this season, the focus seemed to have been on who can land the 1st overall pick. It's become a tanking league because the current players like CP3 and Melo are overblown by press coverage and haven't done anything to back it up. The fanbase is dying for some real juggernaut talent to step from the cesspool.
People romanticize the past so much
This is easily the greatest Spurs team ever with only the 2014 team having a legit argument imo.
Yes but it's not unusual or historically weak to have the bottom two seeds of either conference at below .500. The east has been that way the entire Duncan era, it seems. But the East looks much better this year. And every year it was obvious that there was two powerhouses in the league and a few teams that were borderline contenders, and tgen the rest had no shot. That's just true every year for the last 25 years or more. This year it's no different. There are three power houses and two or three teams that could contend and the rest are blah.
It's pretty simple. If we beat a 70+ win team in the playoffs and ring, then you can make the case. If not, then no.
Premature thread. The "real" tests (where they rank among historically great teams) come in the Playoffs, and so you can only have this debate after that fact. One of the reasons for that is because that's when the fiber of a team gets tested, it's when we find out if their balls shrink or not under pressure. I don't/can't rank unless I have testicular measurements.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
