NBA: 2011 Mavs vs 2013 Spurs

[Durant82]

2011 Heat had Joel Anthony and the corpse of Mike Bibby playing meaningful minutes in the Finals. If Im not mistaken Miller and Haslem were hobbled and fresh off some injuries as well. And obviously as Ive said The Kings choke helped the Mavs alot as well. Mavs caught a load of breaks that year, werent really dominant...similar to this years Spurs imo. If the Spurs pull it off you wont hear me call my 2013 Espurs one of the best le teams ever like mav homers do thats for sure.

But the Mavs would not be denied
Dirk and his 41% FG% were unstoppable

when LeBron sucks against Dallas it's because he's choking, when he sucks against San Antonio it's because of a perfectly executed gameplan that was constructed by a genius

[Jacob1983]

This Spurs team has been inconsistent as in the Finals. That 2011 Mavs was consistently clutch and consistently doing the right things in pretty much every category. I can't say that about this year's Spurs team. Manu has disappeared. Parker and Duncan have been extremely inconsistent. Dirk was a beast in the 2011 playoffs and was great in the clutch in the Finals. His shooting percentage does not do him justice.

[Sean Cagney]

2005 Spurs vs the 2011 Mavs......... Who cares! Just enjoy your le! Why need to compare all the time we will never know?

BTW 99 SPURS would beat the living outta the Spurs this year or the Heat this year, period end of Story and I know this.

[FkLA]

Is this a joke?

They lost their second best scorer for 2/3 of the season and the entire playoffs, lost Dirk and Chandler both for an extended period of time, and had chemistry issues trying to incorporate Roddy into the starting lineup, when they should have just let Stevenson continue starting as he was doing a great job in his role. IIRC they were on pace to win around 65+ games before all the injuries hit. They still won 57 games despite their challenges.

lol load of breaks

Most people don't say that the 2011 Mavs were one of the greatest champions ever. Most people say that it was one of the more impressive runs you will see, considering how poorly they finished the regular season, and were widely considered underdogs in basically every series they played in, played very tough compe ion, but persevered through it all and did so in a pretty dominant manner.

Shut the up, homer. You know as well as I do that if Butler didnt get injured Dallas wouldnt have won . As DoK so eloquently put it, if Tuff Juice was out there doing jab steps for 15 seconds before putting up a long, contested two it wouldve bogged down the ball movement. The shooters wouldnt have gotten the shots they got, Marion wouldnt have gotten his touches in the post, and the Puerto Rican MJ wouldnt have gotten a chance to shine.

Unexpected does not equal impressive btw.

Not a Mavs homer, but I don't see how this even makes sense. They played the defending champion Lakers, Thunder, and the Heat, all three teams were healthy....were are these breaks you speak of?

The Kings choke is the most important. After that the Thunder were barely hitting puberty (if Im not mistaken they were a 4th seed that won their first playoff series' that year one of which came against the 8th seeded Grizz), and the Heatles had Joel Anthony and Bibby playing meaningful Finals minutes. They didnt catch breaks in the sense that teams were injured, but they definitely caught the Heatles and Thunder before they reached the level they are at today...and in the Lakers case on the level they were at before they were running on fumes after making 3 consecutive trips to the Finals.

when LeBron sucks against Dallas it's because he's choking, when he sucks against San Antonio it's because of a perfectly executed gameplan that was constructed by a genius

Link where I said The King was struggling because of the Spurs perfectly executed gameplan?

Game 4 is the only game where The King played up to his potential and unsurprisingly the Heatles won. Nobody can stop The King when he doesnt play like a pussy and choke, and that includes my Espurs. The 2011 Mavs are no exception.

[DAF86]

Not a Mavs homer, but I don't see how this even makes sense. They played the defending champion Lakers, Thunder, and the Heat, all three teams were healthy....were are these breaks you speak of?

Well, just to name one. The best player of the number one team of the conference (and might add, the team that had knocked the Mavs off the playoffs the previous year) got injured one game before the playoffs and had to play with a broken elbow the entire playoffs.

[BUMP]

The Kings choke is the most important. After that the Thunder were barely hitting puberty (if Im not mistaken they were a 4th seed that won their first playoff series' that year one of which came against the 8th seeded Grizz), and the Heatles had Joel Anthony and Bibby playing meaningful Finals minutes. They didnt catch breaks in the sense that teams were injured, but they definitely caught the Heatles and Thunder before they reached the level they are at today...and in the Lakers case on the level they were at before they were running on fumes after making 3 consecutive trips to the Finals.

a lot of revisionist history in here imho. In hindsight, it's cool to say the Lakers were running on fumes, Thunder were barely hitting their puberty but the Lakers were widely favored to beat the Mavs and the Thunder series was about 50/50.

And yes, the Heat had a tier supporting cast than this year's Heat, but they also had a much better Wade than this year's team.

We can go round and round on this tbh imho. I think you can say any championship team in history caught some sort of 'break' if you wanna twist it that way.
(07 Spurs didn't face Dallas, Bulls never faced Olajuwon, Rockets didn't face Jordan etc) but the point is that the 11 Mavs didn't catch any more breaks than any other championship team

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Spurs in 6

[Bill_Brasky]

This Spurs team has been inconsistent as in the Finals. That 2011 Mavs was consistently clutch and consistently doing the right things in pretty much every category. I can't say that about this year's Spurs team. Manu has disappeared. Parker and Duncan have been extremely inconsistent. Dirk was a beast in the 2011 playoffs and was great in the clutch in the Finals. His shooting percentage does not do him justice.

The Spurs right now are 14-4 this postseason, the Mavs on their run were 16-5, pretty similar.

[FkLA]

a lot of revisionist history in here imho. In hindsight, it's cool to say the Lakers were running on fumes, Thunder were barely hitting their puberty but the Lakers were widely favored to beat the Mavs and the Thunder series was about 50/50.

And yes, the Heat had a tier supporting cast than this year's Heat, but they also had a much better Wade than this year's team.

We can go round and round on this tbh imho. I think you can say any championship team in history caught some sort of 'break' if you wanna twist it that way.
(07 Spurs didn't face Dallas, Bulls never faced Olajuwon, Rockets didn't face Jordan etc) but the point is that the 11 Mavs didn't catch any more breaks than any other championship team

How is that revisionist history? Its actually more dishonest to say 'they beat the Heat and Thunder' while acting like those teams were as good as they are today imo. The Lakers looked shaky all season against elite teams that year IIRC, the writing was on the wall for them. Im not saying the Mavs were some lower level champions though, theyre good champs. I just dont agree that theyre one of the best ever and that they 'just would not be denied that year'. Like I told stretch, just because it was unexpected doesnt mean theyre a dominant or impressive team.

[scroteface]

Dammit what the beeaner

[BUMP]

How is that revisionist history?

I already explained it tbh. you can't sit here and act like everybody wasn't picking the two time defending champion Lakers (who were 20-6 going into the playoffs) to beat Dallas in the 2nd round. That's why it's revisionist history to say "Well obviously they weren't the same team.

Its actually more dishonest to say 'they beat the Heat and Thunder' while acting like those teams were as good as they are today imo. The Lakers looked shaky all season against elite teams that year IIRC, the writing was on the wall for them. Im not saying the Mavs were some lower level champions though, theyre good champs. I just dont agree that theyre one of the best ever and that they 'just would not be denied that year'. Like I told stretch, just because it was unexpected doesnt mean theyre a dominant or impressive team.

I think it's funny how they beat the defending champs, yet they're 'running on fumes' and then beat the two teams who would meet in the Finals the next year when they're just 'not as good'. So Dallas beat the current champs, and then the two teams who were pretty much next in line yet it somehow magically fell into place that the three teams were either 'too old' or 'not experienced enough yet'. How convenient

[jag]

That still doesn't make any sense you stupid .

[Samuel Eto'o]

Well, just to name one. The best player of the number one team of the conference (and might add, the team that had knocked the Mavs off the playoffs the previous year) got injured one game before the playoffs and had to play with a broken elbow the entire playoffs.

OH MY GOD GUYS HE WAS JUS TROLLIN US THE WHOLE TIME

[DAF86]

OH MY GOD GUYS HE WAS JUS TROLLIN US THE WHOLE TIME

Are you still alive?

[Durant82]

I just dont agree that theyre one of the best ever and that they 'just would not be denied that year'.

WHO THE SAYS THIS?????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????

name me anybody on this forum who says the 2011 Mavs are one of the greatest teams of all time. Nobody ing says that you dip , your hatred has mixed with your jacking off to shemale porn, creating an alternate universe in your own mind where people say that.

What people say is that Dallas' 2011 playoff run is one of the most impressive playoff runs. Which it is. To beat the teams they beat, the way they beat them, was incredibly impressive. It doesn't mean that the 2011 Mavs are a top 10 team of all time, not even top 20. It just means that they had a difficult playoff run and still managed to go all the way.

Stop with the ing strawmans and dishonest fake arguments.

[Killakobe81]

This Spurs team has been inconsistent as in the Finals. That 2011 Mavs was consistently clutch and consistently doing the right things in pretty much every category. I can't say that about this year's Spurs team. Manu has disappeared. Parker and Duncan have been extremely inconsistent. Dirk was a beast in the 2011 playoffs and was great in the clutch in the Finals. His shooting percentage does not do him justice.

That is exactly why you need to watch the games.

[Lincoln]

WHO THE SAYS THIS?????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????

name me anybody on this forum who says the 2011 Mavs are one of the greatest teams of all time. Nobody ing says that you dip , your hatred has mixed with your jacking off to shemale porn, creating an alternate universe in your own mind where people say that.

What people say is that Dallas' 2011 playoff run is one of the most impressive playoff runs. Which it is. To beat the teams they beat, the way they beat them, was incredibly impressive. It doesn't mean that the 2011 Mavs are a top 10 team of all time, not even top 20. It just means that they had a difficult playoff run and still managed to go all the way.

Stop with the ing strawmans and dishonest fake arguments.

Durant goin HAM

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Also 2013 Heat >>> 2011 version

2011 had no bench and no chemistry.

[FkLA]

I already explained it tbh. you can't sit here and act like everybody wasn't picking the two time defending champion Lakers (who were 20-6 going into the playoffs) to beat Dallas in the 2nd round. That's why it's revisionist history to say "Well obviously they weren't the same team.

I think it's funny how they beat the defending champs, yet they're 'running on fumes' and then beat the two teams who would meet in the Finals the next year when they're just 'not as good'. So Dallas beat the current champs, and then the two teams who were pretty much next in line yet it somehow magically fell into place that the three teams were either 'too old' or 'not experienced enough yet'. How convenient

That doesnt make any sense imo. Is anything of what Im saying not true?. The Heatles were worse than they are today as were the Thunder. The Heatles filled out their roster with key, cheap pieces nicely and the Thunders Big 3+Ibaka made some big strides since then. They did catch these teams while they were going through puberty, dont see how thats just being 'convenient'.

WHO THE SAYS THIS?????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????

name me anybody on this forum who says the 2011 Mavs are one of the greatest teams of all time. Nobody ing says that you dip , your hatred has mixed with your jacking off to shemale porn, creating an alternate universe in your own mind where people say that.

What people say is that Dallas' 2011 playoff run is one of the most impressive playoff runs. Which it is. To beat the teams they beat, the way they beat them, was incredibly impressive. It doesn't mean that the 2011 Mavs are a top 10 team of all time, not even top 20. It just means that they had a difficult playoff run and still managed to go all the way.

Stop with the ing strawmans and dishonest fake arguments.

Most mav homers on here place the Mavs really high up for best champs since 2000. Im sure you can find the thread if you look for it tbh.

If you wanna say they had an impressive run in the sense that that it was surprising because they were underdogs I agree. They werent an impressive, dominant team though. Not weak either just not great imo.

[Sportstudi]

I already explained it tbh. you can't sit here and act like everybody wasn't picking the two time defending champion Lakers (who were 20-6 going into the playoffs) to beat Dallas in the 2nd round. That's why it's revisionist history to say "Well obviously they weren't the same team.




I think it's funny how they beat the defending champs, yet they're 'running on fumes' and then beat the two teams who would meet in the Finals the next year when they're just 'not as good'. So Dallas beat the current champs, and then the two teams who were pretty much next in line yet it somehow magically fell into place that the three teams were either 'too old' or 'not experienced enough yet'. How convenient

Here have the media picks of that Mavs-Lakers series in 2011

[Durant82]

I just dont agree that theyre one of the best ever

Most mav homers on here place the Mavs really high up for best champs since 2000.

lol moving the goalposts

[FkLA]

Ok, I guess I exaggerated with that. The point remains that they are really overrated by mavfan.

[The Reckoning]

damn where has mavfan gone besides those who are banned?

[BUMP]

That doesnt make any sense imo. Is anything of what Im saying not true?. The Heatles were worse than they are today as were the Thunder. The Heatles filled out their roster with key, cheap pieces nicely and the Thunders Big 3+Ibaka made some big strides since then. They did catch these teams while they were going through puberty, dont see how thats just being 'convenient'.

What you're saying is purely subjective. Is there any evidence that the Thunder were any worse than they were a year later? They pretty much had the same team. tbh if you watched any of the games you'd know that Dirk going God-mode in game 1/game 4 was a pretty big reason why they won the series. It's not like the Thunder choked it away.

I do agree that the 2011 Heat are worse than 2013, but they were still a damn good team that beats any other WCF team that year

Here have the media picks of that Mavs-Lakers series in 2011

rofl pretty much puts an end to det debate

[midnightpulp]

I already explained it tbh. you can't sit here and act like everybody wasn't picking the two time defending champion Lakers (who were 20-6 going into the playoffs) to beat Dallas in the 2nd round. That's why it's revisionist history to say "Well obviously they weren't the same team.




I think it's funny how they beat the defending champs, yet they're 'running on fumes' and then beat the two teams who would meet in the Finals the next year when they're just 'not as good'. So Dallas beat the current champs, and then the two teams who were pretty much next in line yet it somehow magically fell into place that the three teams were either 'too old' or 'not experienced enough yet'. How convenient

Surprised FKLA took that line since it's the same Lakers fans have used to discredit the Spurs beating them in '03.

"Shaq and Kobe were feuding! And the Lakers were running on fumes from their 3 peat!"

Never mind the fact most "experts" picked the Lakers to win the series and that the Lakers were an Horry 3 away from likely winning that series. It's not like the Spurs rolled over a lethargic Lakers team that had no fight in them.