Reply With Quote
Even thought they lost game one to the non-finals worthy Sixers?
The 2007 Spurs went through the playoffs 16-4, one of the better showings in NBA history. The whole trip was pretty easy, with only Phoenix being a nuisance.
The only time the Spurs were ever behind in a series was when they were down 0-1 versus Denver.
They came back against Denver, and won 3 solid games, then blew 'em out in game 5, and never looked back.
The Cavs, someone here claimed were one of the worst teams to ever be in the finals?
Bunk!
The Cavs were 12-4 coming into the finals, the same as the Spurs.
Even thought they lost game one to the non-finals worthy Sixers?
2003 Duncan > Duncan in all other championship years.
That's why i gotta rank the 2003 team better than the other championship teams. If Duncan was fully healthy in 2006, then I think the 2006 Spurs team is probably the best one of our decade. We just ran into a tough matchup in Dallas.
2003 was clutch though.
xtremesteven guy must have made a bit of an error there saying the 06 team was the best. probly the best spurs team would've been the 2005, they really couldn't have been stopped, but i don't think there was truly ever a season that the mavericks were actually better than the spurs, even in 2006. spurs could have won that game 7 if bowen didn't foul dirk, but hey, no excuses right?2006 Mavericks > 2006 Spurs
Therefore the Mavericks are a better team than any of the spurs championship winning teams, and they didn't have to even win a championship, which shows how pathetic the Spurs really are.
2006 team best in terms of the perfect mix of prime playing and experience.
Manu was still in 2005 mode and Duncan was still a beast. Bowen was as good as ever and Parker was still good.
the 2006 team also had the best Spurs record in franchise history....some of yall forgot that also right?
it was manu
The 99 twin towers, together, were way better than the 03 version.
Avery in 99 was better than Parker in 03. Parker couldn't even finish the games.
Jaren Jackson was pulling SJax style 3 point heroics throughout the whole playoffs on an even larger level.
Ninja and Ellie were solid in defense and scoring.
In 03 Bowen often sat on the bench during the 4th quarter because of SJax's solid play, so I don't think he was the same factor as he was in 05.
In 03 Ginobili was not close to the same dominance he showed in 05.
I'm still with the 99 squad.
'99 Spurs and '03 Spurs were better than that team.
Surely you jest.
You should befor a comment like that.
Plus 80% of the past NBA Champions would've gone 8-1 against the 2007 Cavs and Jazz
Gimme a break
The Cavs and Jazz had a combined playoff record when not playing the Spurs of 20 wins and 8 losses.
Plus 80% of the past NBA Champions would've gone 8-1 against the 2007 Cavs and Jazz
Gimme a break
Against the Spurs they were 1-8.
Damn, picking a top 3 is tough:
1. 82-83 Sixers
2. 84-85 Lakers
3. 91-92 Bulls
1 vs 2 is really a coin flip IMO, and I hate to leave the 85-86 Celtics and the 66-67 Sixers off the list.
it was really a joke more than anything.
the Mavericks had a of a team, and i think, had they won the le that year, their confidence would have been MUCH higher, and they wouldn't have ed up against golden state the next year. they very possibly could have repeated. unfortunately their psyche wasnt the same after that finals loss.
however, I do honestly think that the 2006 spurs team was the best of all spurs teams as well, they just ran into a damn good dallas team that matched up extremely well with them, much like the 2007 Mavericks were a damn good team that faced a GS team that matched up really well with them also.
basketball is a game of matchups and confidence.
Good post. The Lakers teams with Magic were far better teams than the Spur teams of the 2000s. Just because the Lakers didn't sweep the finals doesn't mean anything other then maybe they were playing a very good opponent.
The 1999 spurs team was their best team. That team was special with Robinson still a force.
Pippen would have guarded Kobe and the Bulls three headed monster would have kept O'Neal on the line. Jordan would have destroyed Kobe, Fisher, Fox and whoever they would have thrown at him. Heck, the 1989 Pistons would have beat up that entire squad but you can't take away from the Lakers, to me that's their best team in the entire 3 peat run they had. They absolutely destroyed the Spurs, the memory still lingers in my mind especially when I thought we would have won that series, but the flaws and injuries killed the Spurs at the worst time.
After considering the facts, my vote is 99.
It may have not been the most talented team, however, they were playing the best basketball.
You forget Robinson was a far better player in 99.
That's all fine and dandy, but standing alone, it's not exactly a basis to conclude that either team was particularly good.
The 2007 Jazz squeaked through a 7 game first round series against Houston, only to find themselves the immediate beneficiaries of the biggest upset in the history of the NBA playoffs: they had home court advantage (something their seeding normally wouldn't have allowed) and they drew a Warriors team that had just slayed Dallas, that had finished the regular season a mere 2 games over .500 and still has the fewest regular season wins of any West playoff qualifier since 2000, that had massive matchup problems with everyone other than Dallas, and that was playing with house money. That Utah beat them 4-1 isn't exactly a mark of greatness.
The 2007 Cavs, meanwhile, started those playoffs against a Washington Wizards team had finished .500 in the regular season and that played the entire series without Gilbert Arenas and Caron Butler -- their 1st and 3rd leading scorers. After that, the Cavs drew a Nets team that finished the regular season at .500 and which reached the 2nd round only by sneaking past the Baby Raptors. I'm not sure that any team in the history of the league has ever gotten to a conference final by playing worse teams.
Context. There's always context -- unless you're talking to Galileo.
Also, there's no doubt in my mind that the best single team of the 2000's is, was, and will always be that 2001 Lakers' team. That team absolutely dismantled really good teams from Sacramento and San Antonio on the way to the Finals. Other teams have had dominant runs through the playoffs but even those teams suffered some bad losses along the way -- the '03 Spurs got crushed in LA in Game 3; the '04 Pistons suffered a 15-point loss to the Pacers and were beaten badly a couple of times by the Nets; the '05 Spurs got smoked in Seattle in Game 4 and were throttled by the Pistons a couple of times in the Finals; the '06 Heat got blown out by the Bulls in one game in their first round series; the '07 Spurs got s acked in Salt Lake City in Game 3 and thumped in Game 2 in Phoenix as well; the '08 Celtics got smacked by the Pistons and the Cavs.
The '01 Lakers lost once, in overtime.
crappy teams make the playoffs every year. Your research has turned up nothing new.
Right, but the fact that one team handles (relatively, speaking) a couple of crappy teams and then gets beaten by a better team does not provide proof that the better team is historically dominant, as you seem to suggest here.
You have an interesting way of excising context from most of your analysis.
It wasn't that many years ago that several sub-.500 teams made the playoffs, including some teams 10 games or more below .500.
Take a look at the history of sub-.500 teams in the first round against elite teams. They usually won at least one game.
They may have been 12-4, but that was going through a HORRIBLE Eastern Conference. Whoever came out of the East was going to get smashed.
yah, i guess it was, bowen was defending him though, i remember being very dissapointed in him when dirk was fouled. oh well, you learn something new everyday.it was manu
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
