Reply With Quote
I would say no because this team doesn't have prime Duncan.
I agree. And 99 and 2003 were better than the two you mentioned, so there's that. The 2006 team should have won the le easily but Pop lost his smallmall-loving mind in the playoffs. Damn you, Nazr for shooting that three.
I would say no because this team doesn't have prime Duncan.
And as for this team compared to the 2014 team, can I have the 2014 Danny Green for a while before I decide?
Why only the Spurs and Dubs if it's so bad? Why not, say, Cleveland or OKC are setting records?
Then why make statements that you yourself dont believe? You think Danny is a top 10 sg...???
Just make sure you have the 09 and 10 Lakers topping that list
Those teams beat no one. (Old Man 50 win Celtics team missing Kendrick Perkins).
I backed it up, which is more than you have done so far. Defensively he's probably top 5. His struggles are entirely offense-related. There's two sides to the floor.
Cleveland isn't that good. For the first time in years, a Lebron led team isn't a lock to make the finals. OKC lacks depth to be a serious contender + they have Enes Cancer.
And Danny's been about 90% Icy, 10% hot this season.
Manu is my hope here. I don't trust D-League and House against the Warriors (I do trust Danny on defense, however).
DG has been very inconsistent defensively. You really don't know what DG is going to show up from game to game.
My main issue with the argument that the league is so weak just this season is that the Dubs were destroying teams last season too... and I don't think we heard that much last season how the league was weak. IMO, that's an indicator that the Spurs did have a measurable improvement this season.Cleveland isn't that good. For the first time in years, a Lebron led team isn't a lock to make the finals. OKC lacks depth to be a serious contender + they have Enes Cancer.
Have you see the list of 'best' SG lately? Guys like Jimmy Butler became scorers and their defense took a complete . Most of the other ones don't defend at all (Harden, DeRozan, Wade, Red )... He's probably top 3 on defense by default..
I think the Spurs need to go at least 69-13 in the regular season to be considered better than the 2005 or 2014 Spurs. There are too many teams who have won 64-67 games in a season ('08 Celtics, '09 Cavs, '13 Heat, '07 Mavericks, '15 Warriors) who were not that great, so regular season doesn't mean much.
I think the 2014 team was better. I mean no one would call the 2000 Lakers better than the 2001 Lakers just because the 2000 team won 67 games. A lot of regular season wins is nice, but it doesn't make you an all time great team. The 72 Celtics, 96 Sonics, 98 Jazz, 06 Pistons, 07 Mavs, and 09 Cavs won a ton of games too.
I understand if theis the ultimate validator, tbh... I can respect that opinion
This team has been a monster all season, but I haven't seen them really get it together like that 2014 team. After the first six games of the Dallas series they were just beating the out of everyone. But for some reason this team is way better at home than on the road.I understand if the
I think this is definitely the team with the most talent overall.
I'm not sure I'd call this team the best until I see what they're capable of doing in the playoffs.
I think that those 05-06-07 Spurs teams were the best we've had.
The badness is mostly on the west side so Cleveland plays a tougher schedule. As for OKC, they're a team that didn't make the playoffs last year, probably isn't as good, and is in third place.
I think the separating factor would be that they beat a (probably) record-setting team on the way to a le
If they dont ring, you cant even ask, you gotta ring to be considered GREAT.
To bum's point, this team doesn't really have any impressive road wins this year. Great teams win on the road. They'll get their chance in the postseason but I still have doubts about the team's mental for ude tbh.
The Warriors were a great team last year but a number of teams took a giant step backwards this year... Houston, Memphis, Clippers, NOH, Portland, Phoenix, Bulls, Wizards and bucks. 7 western conference teams won 50 games last year and 5 won 55+ games. I'm not saying the Spurs aren't great but historically great is a stretch without beating the favored Warriors.
Is his top 3 defense by default good enough though if he a zero on offense? Pop had him sitting on the bench to close the game tonight and this wasn't the first time this season he's found himself on the bench in crunch time. His transition D has been great but His man to man D's been insufferable at times. How many friggin times is he going to bite on the pump fake for crying out loud. Other times, he bites on penetration leaving his defender wide open for an uncontested jump shot. DRPM is a flawed stat and I'm not sure how much of it is dependent on the players that share the court with him.
Fair enough.
I just started another thread about this, tbh... IMO, the SG position it's the weakest it's been in many years. We're on a transition period where you still have the old dogs producing well enough and very young up and coming kids that are not there yet (Harden is likely the exception). That's why a slumping Green hasn't affected us (obviously, the fact that he plays with high scorers like LMA and Kawhi helps).
You're not wrong, but look at it a different way. Last year the Warriors had three losing teams in their division and the Spurs had five playoff teams, four with 50-win records in theirs. The Spurs did have a measurable improvement, but last year's Spurs team was better than their 55 wins, and this year's probably isn't quite as good as whatever their record turns out to be.
If they don't ring, they're not even in the conversation, no matter how many regular season games they win, or even if they go 41-0 at home. Without that
When you're talking about GOAT teams, rings matter.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions