Was this the Spurs' last chance to repeat?

[DirkAB]

Again you missed the point.... though it's quite funny that you pompously promoted your claim to understanding my first post when you really don't get the premise for the comparison.... If your simpleton mind cannot comprehend what I am saying then perhaps there is no point in trying to explain the analogy.

But here it goes again.

I was not comparing the Spurs to the 80's Lakers nor trying to rank their place in all-time lore.... I was comparing the fact that both lost their series on an unfortunate bounce and that like the Lakers I know that the Spurs will be able to come back and win some more les.... Coach Pop posed the question this way, "How much more athletic does one need to get to get one more point"... the point being that yeah, the Spurs were eliminated, but there is no reason to think that they are done.

If your Kings want to count out the Spurs as a contender then they will do so at their own peril.

What's the le of the thread?

I answered it with a no. The Spurs' haven't lost their chance to repeat.

No one counted on the Spurs winning the Championship in '03... why would they? They had been humiliated by the Shaq-Kobe Lakers in back-to-back years... (as were the Kings )... But we won.

We were a Derek Fisher time/physics defying shot from advancing and repeating but that didn't happen.

And yet we win the whole thing again in 2005.

We are not out of the hunt just yet. This will give them even more motivation to stake their legacy as the team of the Decade... King fans be damned....

Peace BAkriD!!!

Ironic, because you missed the point. Teams that repeat have more than one all-time great player, their best player is in his absolute prime, or the compe ion is down. Do the Spurs as cons uted right now have more than one great player? No, absolutely not. They have two very good players in Manu and Parker. Is Duncan in his absolute prime? No, he is at the end of his prime but his best couple of years are behind him. Lakers had arguably 2 of the top 5 players of all-time, plus a lot of other talent. So why do you think that the Lakers were able to repeat after losing to the Rockets the year before? And why do you think that the Spurs have a chance of doing the same thing? Do they have 2 of the top 5 players of all-time on their team?

This isn't even taking into consideration the compe ion that the Spurs have to face is much closer to their level. The Lakers didn't have to face the same Rockets team the next two years because Sampson went down with injuries and the Celtics began to fall apart also. Do you think that the Mavericks are going away? How about the Heat and Pistons? What about the Suns when they get Amare back? Did you even consider how much more talented the Lakers were than the rest of the compe ion? Do you think that might have anything to do with a teams ability to actually pull off the repeat?

Do you have any real reasons that would lead anybody to believe that the Spurs are able to do anything of the sort? Is there anything besides the fact that the Spurs lost in the playoffs this year, and the Lakers did too in '86, that makes you think they will do the same thing? Is that it? The Lakers lost in '86 and won it the next 2 years, so the Spurs will too.

Do really believe that the Spurs chances of winning it are any better next year or the year after than what they were this year? Seriously, this was their best chance and they blew it. I think that they can definitely win another le but this would have been an easier road than what they are facing in the future.

[Phenomanul]

Ironic, because you missed the point. Teams that repeat have more than one all-time great player, their best player is in his absolute prime, or the compe ion is down. Do the Spurs as cons uted right now have more than one great player? No, absolutely not. They have two very good players in Manu and Parker. Is Duncan in his absolute prime? No, he is at the end of his prime but his best couple of years are behind him. Lakers had arguably 2 of the top 5 players of all-time, plus a lot of other talent. So why do you think that the Lakers were able to repeat after losing to the Rockets the year before? And why do you think that the Spurs have a chance of doing the same thing? Do they have 2 of the top 5 players of all-time on their team?

This isn't even taking into consideration the compe ion that the Spurs have to face is much closer to their level. The Lakers didn't have to face the same Rockets team the next two years because Sampson went down with injuries and the Celtics began to fall apart also. Do you think that the Mavericks are going away? How about the Heat and Pistons? What about the Suns when they get Amare back? Did you even consider how much more talented the Lakers were than the rest of the compe ion? Do you think that might have anything to do with a teams ability to actually pull off the repeat?

Do you have any real reasons that would lead anybody to believe that the Spurs are able to do anything of the sort? Is there anything besides the fact that the Spurs lost in the playoffs this year, and the Lakers did too in '86, that makes you think they will do the same thing? Is that it? The Lakers lost in '86 and won it the next 2 years, so the Spurs will too.

Do really believe that the Spurs chances of winning it are any better next year or the year after than what they were this year? Seriously, this was their best chance and they blew it. I think that they can definitely win another le but this would have been an easier road than what they are facing in the future.

After you blew all that hot air... you still admit that it is possible. And that is all I have been saying...

[dknights411]

No doubt about that. Although I would add this, as much as I hate the Lakers they have to also be considered the team of the decade, even though they have fell off. They have as many championships, and falling off can be expected when you trade a player like Shaq, it would be like trading Duncan.

However, the Lakers haven't been a contender past '04 like the Spurs have, and barring a KG move, they don't seem like they'll have another legitimate le shot for the next few seasons. My point is that the Spurs are poised to be a legitimate le contender throughout the ENTIRE decade, which is something that the Lakers can't do, even with their three-peat.

[DirkAB]

However, the Lakers haven't been a contender past '04 like the Spurs have, and barring a KG move, they don't seem like they'll have another legitimate le shot for the next few seasons. My point is that the Spurs are poised to be a legitimate le contender throughout the ENTIRE decade, which is something that the Lakers can't do, even with their three-peat.

Amen, and god help us if they get KG. But I don't see them having the chips to land KG, because I don't think that Kevin M. is desperate to completely desperate sink that franchise.

I understand your point about the Spurs being better as far as remaining at the top and being more consistant, but the Lakers are still just as much the team of the decade. They have as many championships as the Spurs, they have one more finals appearance, and they 3-peated.

[Man In Black]

Classic!!!

Repeats, possible but it ain't neccesary.

Larry Legend NEVER wen't back-to-back and his les are revered.

Spurs fans should look at theirs the same way. If anything, whether they do repeat or not, they still kicked enough ass along the way to gain those les. So many people just to get ONE of their own.

All Sacto fan can claim is 1 NBA le when the team was in ROCHESTER, NY.

[strangeweather]

Amen, and god help us if they get KG. But I don't see them having the chips to land KG, because I don't think that Kevin M. is desperate to completely desperate sink that franchise.

I understand your point about the Spurs being better as far as remaining at the top and being more consistant, but the Lakers are still just as much the team of the decade. They have as many championships as the Spurs, they have one more finals appearance, and they 3-peated.

The Spurs need at least one more le to be called team of the decade; two would seal it.

Having said that, things like repeating as champions and being considered the team of the decade are for when Tim retires and we look back on everything the Spurs accomplished with him playing. Right now, it's time to figure out how to improve the team and play for a le in 2007.

[DirkAB]

After you blew all that hot air... you still admit that it is possible. And that is all I have been saying...

Of course I admit it is still possible, what do you think I'm an idiot? And no that isn't what you've been saying, not even close! You drew a parallel between the 80s Lakers and the Spurs! Winning another le (possible but not likely) and coming back to win back-to-back les (never happen) isn't even close to the same thing. Obviously you don't appreciate the significance of what it means for a team to repeat, or you wouldn't just loosely throw the idea around like you do.

It's possible but not likely they will win another. Unless they pull off a stunner of a move in the next couple of seasons they are no longer the odds on favorite to win the le, conference, or even division anymore. The way I see it they are stuck with this lineup for better or worse, and you know which one I think it is.

You claim to be an informed basketball fan! You don't even appreciate what a repeat means to the sport! Or what Magic's Lakers mean to the sport! You are a Spurs HOMER, not a fan of basketball, there is a huge difference. Seriously there is nothing wrong with being such a HOMER as long as you know it. If the Spurs franchise disappeared your supposed love for the game would probably disappear right with it.

[DirkAB]

Classic!!!

Repeats, possible but it ain't neccesary.

Larry Legend NEVER wen't back-to-back and his les are revered.

Spurs fans should look at theirs the same way. If anything, whether they do repeat or not, they still kicked enough ass along the way to gain those les. So many people just to get ONE of their own.

All Sacto fan can claim is 1 NBA le when the team was in ROCHESTER, NY.

Then again the Spurs have never made 4 consecutive NBA Finals, or 5 out of 7 years. They also didn't have to go through probably the greatest NBA team of all-time to get their rings. There is no way that you can compare the Spurs to the 80s Celtics, either. The Celtics were also a better team.

[Man In Black]

Of course I admit it is still possible, what do you think I'm an idiot? And no that isn't what you've been saying, not even close! You drew a parallel between the 80s Lakers and the Spurs! Winning another le (possible but not likely) and coming back to win back-to-back les (never happen) isn't even close to the same thing. Obviously you don't appreciate the significance of what it means for a team to repeat, or you wouldn't just loosely throw the idea around like you do.

I've been watching the game long enough to remember a time when repeats weren't as prevalent. The Spurs most certainly could win again, and with their keen drafting and smart fiscal management, a repeat isn't impossible. Improbable maybe but impossible, not at all. They are just as good as any team active today.

History refresher-
Year Winner Runner-up
1970-71 Milwaukee Bucks Baltimore Bullets
1971-72 Los Angeles Lakers New York Knicks
1972-73 New York Knicks Los Angeles Lakers
1973-74 Boston Celtics Milwaukee Bucks
1974-75 Golden State Warriors Washington Bullets
1975-76 Boston Celtics Phoenix Suns
1976-77 Portland Trail Blazers Philadelphia 76ers
1977-78 Washington Bullets Seattle SuperSonics
1978-79 Seattle SuperSonics Washington Bullets
1979-80 Los Angeles Lakers Philadelphia 76ers
1980-81 Boston Celtics Houston Rockets
1981-82 Los Angeles Lakers Philadelphia 76ers
1982-83 Philadelphia 76ers Los Angeles Lakers
1983-84 Boston Celtics Los Angeles Lakers
1984-85 Los Angeles Lakers Boston Celtics
1985-86 Boston Celtics Houston Rockets
1986-87 Los Angeles Lakers Boston Celtics

80-87 provided us with many of the best players of their era.

Tim Duncan and his team's are in good company indeed.

It's possible but not likely they will win another. Unless they pull off a stunner of a move in the next couple of seasons they are no longer the odds on favorite to win the le, conference, or even division anymore.

Pure conjecture on your part I know but hey, I guess you were on a roll.

The way I see it they are stuck with this lineup for better or worse, and you know which one I think it is.

Let's see, considering that the core had won 2 of the last 4 les, and was within a few luck plays of playing today, I'll GUESS BETTER. Plus the fact that they kicked your team to the curb...makes me feel even better.

You claim to be an informed basketball fan! You don't even appreciate what a repeat means to the sport!

What does it mean exactly? Care to elaborate? To me it means that a team was able to make it through 2 season, get to the playoffs, and beat all teams it played en-route to 2 les. Yes, long seasons. Yes, stuggles...but again...since you talked about Larry Legend, ask the general public if he thinks his no repeat les are diminished.

Or what Magic's Lakers mean to the sport! You are a Spurs HOMER, not a fan of basketball, there is a huge difference. Seriously there is nothing wrong with being such a HOMER as long as you know it. If the Spurs franchise disappeared your supposed love for the game would probably disappear right with it.

Pure conjecture again on your part for that guys allegiance to his team. Why don't you just stick to your own Purple Dinosaur of a team? Maybe you will appreciate them more once they move to Vegas?

[DirkAB]

Let's see, considering that the core had won 2 of the last 4 les, and was within a few luck plays of playing today, I'll GUESS BETTER. Plus the fact that they kicked your team to the curb...makes me feel even better.

^^^^^^^^^^Without a doubt my favorite part of that post! Classic! A couple of lucky plays! Depending on how you look at it they were a couple of lucky plays away from even making a game seven. Yeah, that's right, if anything the Spurs were lucky to make game 7. They got outplayed by the Mavs.

Where am I saying that the Spurs weren't any good? Your reply acts as if I said the Spurs sucked. Obviously they're better than my team. They were obviously the best team in '99, '03, and '05. Apparently you can't handle me stating the painful truth, they in no way compare to the 80s Celtics or Lakers.

And you're talking about my conjecture? My whole envolvement in this thread began because of somebody elses conjecture! Get your conjecture meter out and give me a reading on this one:

I said this in another post....

I will liken this to the year the Lakers lost to a last second tip-in by Ralph Samson of the Rockets... in '86.

They came back and took the trophy in '87, '88 and were a Magic Johnson hamstring injury from taking it again in '89....

That's about a 10 ain't it? I mean really, ain't it a beaut?

since you talked about Larry Legend, ask the general public if he thinks his no repeat les are diminished.

Please show me where I indicated in anyway that the Spurs les were diminished because they weren't able to repeat. I didn't. As matter of a fact, don't you think that has to do with my point? Instead of diminishing from a team that wins it one year, it adds to a team that is able to repeat and three-peat. I think it is ridiculous how people take repeats and three-peats as lightly as they do. Obviously based on the number of people in this thread that feel confident that the Spurs can still repeat, they are not look at with enough respect.

Why don't you just stick to your own Purple Dinosaur of a team? Maybe you will appreciate them more once they move to Vegas?

Yet another highlight of your post. Maybe to put in perspective how pathetic it sounded for you to make the excuse of "within a few luck plays of playing today," I should do something similar about the 2002 playoffs. But then again, why would I want to be a pathetic piece of and make sorry ass excuses? I wouldn't because luck is part of the game, and the team that deserves to win the series always does. Aside from that, go ahead and try to take your little cheap shots to avoid the real topics at hand. The Spurs lost their chance to repeat. Plus, your team doesn't hold a candle to Bird's Celtics or Magic's Lakers.

[Phenomanul]

Of course I admit it is still possible, what do you think I'm an idiot? And no that isn't what you've been saying, not even close! You drew a parallel between the 80s Lakers and the Spurs! Winning another le (possible but not likely) and coming back to win back-to-back les (never happen) isn't even close to the same thing. Obviously you don't appreciate the significance of what it means for a team to repeat, or you wouldn't just loosely throw the idea around like you do.

It's possible but not likely they will win another. Unless they pull off a stunner of a move in the next couple of seasons they are no longer the odds on favorite to win the le, conference, or even division anymore. The way I see it they are stuck with this lineup for better or worse, and you know which one I think it is.

You claim to be an informed basketball fan! You don't even appreciate what a repeat means to the sport! Or what Magic's Lakers mean to the sport! You are a Spurs HOMER, not a fan of basketball, there is a huge difference. Seriously there is nothing wrong with being such a HOMER as long as you know it. If the Spurs franchise disappeared your supposed love for the game would probably disappear right with it.

Which is why I have been watching every series.... up to wee hours of the night... right.

I am foremost a fan of the sport... You have no right to question my loyalties but have every right to question my opinions. I can respect that.

You just happened to bark up the wrong tree. I know about the 80's Lakers.... And if comparing them to other champions is disrespectful well... you're just going to have to learn to accept it.

The Spurs have a legit chance at being considered the team of the decade... why? because they keep contending for les year after year after year... With Duncan as the cornerstone. And whether or not you consider Manu and Parker stars or chumps is besides the question.... the fact of the matter is that they are capable of contending still. They have been over the hump and they know what it takes to get there, what is required of them... Plus I disagree with your assessment that they are washed up. They still got a couple of very strong years left in them.

Don't forget that there is an element of luck involved in all Championship runs... Magic, Erving, Larry, Isaiah, Jordan, Robinson have all mentioned this... the ball just didn't bounce our way this year. That by no means negates the fact that the current Spurs core cannot contend for a le next year or the year after next... I'm not discrediting the 80's Lakers by saying the Spurs can learn from history. Using them as an example demonstrates I understand the relevance of their similar cir stances... whether you choose to accept it or not is not my problem.

[DirkAB]

Which is why I have been watching every series.... up to wee hours of the night... right.

I am foremost a fan of the sport... You have no right to question my loyalties but have every right to question my opinions. I can respect that.

You just happened to bark up the wrong tree. I know about the 80's Lakers.... And if comparing them to other champions is disrespectful well... you're just going to have to learn to accept it.

The Spurs have a legit chance at being considered the team of the decade... why? because they keep contending for les year after year after year... With Duncan as the cornerstone. And whether or not you consider Manu and Parker stars or chumps is besides the question.... the fact of the matter is that they are capable of contending still. They have been over the hump and they know what it takes to get there, what is required of them... Plus I disagree with your assessment that they are washed up. They still got a couple of very strong years left in them.

Don't forget that there is an element of luck involved in all Championship runs... Magic, Erving, Larry, Isaiah, Jordan, Robinson have all mentioned this... the ball just didn't bounce our way this year. That by no means negates the fact that the current Spurs core cannot contend for a le next year or the year after next... I'm not discrediting the 80's Lakers by saying the Spurs can learn from history. Using them as an example demonstrates I understand the relevance of their similar cir stances... whether you choose to accept it or not is not my problem.

Really, I can respect and agree with most of what you just posted there. But the only problem is, that it really has nothing to do with your original comment, the Spurs being able to come back and repeat like the '87 and '88 Lakers.

Never once did I say that Manu and Parker were chumps, I said that they were very good players. I did say however that they were not as good as the Lakers 2nd and 3rd options.

I never said that the Spurs wouldn't compete for a le next 2 seasons. I didn't say that they wouldn't have "very strong years" left with the current core of players. I said that I didn't believe that they would win another championship with these players. Competing for it and being the odds on favorites to win it, like they have been the last couple of years, are miles apart.

As far as you using an example to "demonstrate you understand the relevance of a similar cir stance," you are just plain wrong. In what way are their cir stances similar? Serioulsy you have yet to explain this to me. Aside from losing in the playoffs the previous season, what does next years Spurs team and the '87 Lakers have in common?

[polandprzem]

If Shaq and Kobe are the top5 alltime then I'm a big cookie

[DirkAB]

If Shaq and Kobe are the top5 alltime then I'm a big cookie

If that is in response to something you read in my post, specifically this:

Lakers had arguably 2 of the top 5 players of all-time, plus a lot of other talent.

Then you need to follow the thread closer, because I was refering to Magic and Kareem.

[Phenomanul]

Really, I can respect and agree with most of what you just posted there. But the only problem is, that it really has nothing to do with your original comment, the Spurs being able to come back and repeat like the '87 and '88 Lakers.

Never once did I say that Manu and Parker were chumps, I said that they were very good players. I did say however that they were not as good as the Lakers 2nd and 3rd options.

I never said that the Spurs wouldn't compete for a le next 2 seasons. I didn't say that they wouldn't have "very strong years" left with the current core of players. I said that I didn't believe that they would win another championship with these players. Competing for it and being the odds on favorites to win it, like they have been the last couple of years, are miles apart.

As far as you using an example to "demonstrate you understand the relevance of a similar cir stance," you are just plain wrong. In what way are their cir stances similar? Serioulsy you have yet to explain this to me. Aside from losing in the playoffs the previous season, what does next years Spurs team and the '87 Lakers have in common?

And that is your opinion... and we will have to agree to disagree... But calling people out as a blind HOMERs in capital letters is not the best way to engage in meaningful discussion on an another team's board.

And to answer your last question...

1) Whenever you have a legit superstar... and there's really only about five in the league give or take 1... you always have a chance at a championship. Our superstar is Duncan. 'Nuff said.

2) Whenever you have excellent team chemistry... focus is easier to come by. Compe iveness is synergetically instilled on your teammates. The 80's Lakers had and the current Spurs boast excellent team chemistry. This factor should never be thrown out the window.

3) The core of the Spurs will now have 3-4 years experience playing with each other and in the system. The 80's Lakers; self-explanatory. In fact we struggled this year because we were forced to play outside of our system... and Pop was really close to pulling it off... He walked the fine line of being a Genius or being stubborn.

4) Like the '87 Lakers, the Spurs will be very hungry next year. Someone mentioned it takes pain to gain an edge. They will be very sharp next year. Count on it.

[Man In Black]

Did I touch a nerve?

Bird's Celtics have how many les? 3
Duncan's Spurs have how many les? 3
Magic's Lakers have 5 with only 1 repeat.

Is it really a stretch to compare these teams?


Next-

I love this game.

Hegamboa...good points...SOLID!

[DirkAB]

Did I touch a nerve?

Bird's Celtics have how many les? 3
Duncan's Spurs have how many les? 3

Is it really a stretch to compare these teams?


Next-

I love this game and your juvenille perspectives make me chuckle.

My juvenille perspectives! Nice. How juvenille for me to give consideration to the compe ion that Bird's Celtics were winning les against, plus 2 other finals appearances. Do the Spurs have any compe ion that they can put in the same ballpark as Magic's Lakers? Have they accomplished 4 finals in a row? Or 5 out of 7? Just some juvenille considerations.

[greens]

The Spurs are in their prime right now! Of course, this was not the last time that we would have the chance to win a championship. It's not like Dallas came and beat us 4-0 without any effort. This was a hard 7 game series with lots of bad stuff happening as well...such as bad/embarassing foul calls in Dallas against San Antonio that even media reporters had the guts to talk about the awful calls.

Even look at Game 7, we ALMOST had it...right there, before Manu got overexcited and ruined his amazing three point shot all by himself...I mean, we were able to come back from loosing from as much as over twenty points to Dallas in the first half...But we fought, and got back and EVEN had the lead in the last few seconds...This wasn't like we were completely defeated...This was just a bad error in Manu's judgement...And that's fine because we're all human and we make mistakes. The Spurs are no superheros. They are bound to make mistakes.

The most important thing we need to know is that they were more than capable of not only beating Dallas, but also, of winning this year's championship. To say that we can't truly win again, it's not correct at all...

Can we repeat, meaning win two years in a row, who knows? No one knows for sure. Because it looks like Spurs have a system to win in odd years, never two in a row...lol...But can we win, period? Of course, no doubt about it.

We have an AMAZING core players who are here to stay for a long time. We've got Timmy at the heart of it all...We've got the best defensive player there is, Bruce. We've got a magnificant worrier in Manu, who's only biggest compe or is himself...We've got Tony who is already amazing and yet he is so young and still has so much to learn...We've got Horry making his big shots! I mean as long as we keep our core: Tim, Tony, Horry, Manu, and Bruce...+Finley...We're unstoppable...

2007-Odd year...here we come! GO SPURS GO!

[DirkAB]

And that is your opinion... and we will have to agree to disagree... But calling people out as a blind HOMERs in capital letters is not the best way to engage in meaningful discussion on an another team's board.

And to answer your last question...

1) Whenever you have a legit superstar... and there's really only about five in the league give or take 1... you always have a chance at a championship. Our superstar is Duncan. 'Nuff said.

2) Whenever you have excellent team chemistry... focus is easier to come by. Compe iveness is synergetically instilled on your teammates. The 80's Lakers had and the current Spurs boast excellent team chemistry. This factor should never be thrown out the window.

3) The core of the Spurs will now have 3-4 years experience playing with each other and in the system. The 80's Lakers; self-explanatory. In fact we struggled this year because we were forced to play outside of our system... and Pop was really close to pulling it off... He walked the fine line of being a Genius or being stubborn.

4) Like the '87 Lakers, the Spurs will be very hungry next year. Someone mentioned it takes pain to gain an edge. They will be very sharp next year. Count on it.

You make some very nice points. I especially like the team chemistry and experience aspects that you included, very valid points. I would of also included Popavich, having a coach with multiple rings.

The things I see as being the being the biggest difference is the obviously the talent level and the compe ion. The Lakers were so much more stacked compared to everyone else, except for the Celtics most years, and then is '88 the Pistons were close. But as a whole the league has a lot more parity now, and the Spurs aren't completely stacked like the Lakers were.

The top 4 teams in the West next year could all be serious contenders, making the second and third round of the playoffs harder than ever. The road to a le in the West is a rough one, it is a luxuary to be in the East, if you are a contender you shouldn't have to get beat up until the conference finals.

[Man In Black]

My juvenille perspectives! Nice. How juvenille for me to give consideration to the compe ion that Bird's Celtics were winning les against, plus 2 other finals appearances. Do the Spurs have any compe ion that they can put in the same ballpark as Magic's Lakers? Have they accomplished 4 finals in a row? Or 5 out of 7? Just some juvenille considerations.

Bird's comp, Magic's comp...all you can do is play the teams you're scheduled against. If anything, the fact that Tim's teams have perenially been compe ive is a testament to how well his team is. Need I remind you best winning percentage in ALL OF PRO SPORTS since he became a SPUR?

Bring it on Rochester Royal...Kings haven't won anything unless you consider Pacific Division les something

[polandprzem]

If that is in response to something you read in my post, specifically this:



Then you need to follow the thread closer, because I was refering to Magic and Kareem.

That what I thought while posting it.

But the 2000 LA team put a 3-peat with those 2 superstars.


And yes I didn't look up close enough your post

[DirkAB]

Bird's comp, Magic's comp...all you can do is play the teams you're scheduled against. If anything, the fact that Tim's teams have perenially been compe ive is a testament to how well his team is. Need I remind you best winning percentage in ALL OF PRO SPORTS since he became a SPUR?

Bring it on Rochester Royal...Kings haven't won anything unless you consider Pacific Division les something

Hey, I'm not the one throwing out ridiculous comparisons. So instead of changing the subject, why don't you either do one of two things 1) try and back up your weak and ridiculous argument, or 2) just admit that you were wrong.

Who is juvenile? Keep throwing your little digs out there about the Kings, when I've already clearly stated that your Spurs were a much better team. It's your fail-safe, you can fall back on that when you lose the debate about your Spurs being any match for Bird's Celtics.

[Man In Black]

Bakrid huh..70 posts strong... I love these battles.
Been watching this game fo about 30 years now...I can say that there are some Spurs teams that can match Bird's Celtics. It's just basketball.

Team style of play, tough defense, emphasis on ball control. Championship teams do that. Why is it you place Bird's team on such a high pedestal when in reality, all they did was do what the Spurs have done so far. Win 3 les, no repeats?

[ducks]

Guess What Spurs Could Land Another Player Like Duncan
No One Thought They Would Land Someone Like Big Dave They
Did
The Era With Duncan Is Closing But Not The Spurs

[DirkAB]

Bakrid huh..70 posts strong... I love these battles.
Been watching this game fo about 30 years now...I can say that there are some Spurs teams that can match Bird's Celtics. It's just basketball.

Team style of play, tough defense, emphasis on ball control. Championship teams do that. Why is it you place Bird's team on such a high pedestal when in reality, all they did was do what the Spurs have done so far. Win 3 les, no repeats?

I've already began to make my case and all you have done is thrown out digs at my Kings, claimed I was drawing unreasonable conclusions, and passed the ball back to my court. When are you going to offer up any kind of insights of your own? It's pretty easy to sit there and point out my post count and claim my points are conjeture, but do you have anything to bring to the table?

The Celtics were a team that had the best of both worlds, IMO. They were able to play finesse on the offensive end and able to get tough on the defensive end. They moved the ball as well as any team has ever in the history of the game, they were so unselfish that is was a joy to watch. They were great inside and out. Yet they knew how to punish a team and get physical on the defensive end.

They had solid inside players in Parish and McHale, they would have been great against Duncan. Not that they would really render Duncan ineffective but they most definitely could effect his game more than anybody on the Spurs would have done to Bird. Was anyone ever able to negate Bird's effectiveness? No, the guy did it all, he contributed in every aspect of the game, he was all hustle and brains. I've actually seen Duncan struggle in games, I never seen Bird struggle. Again, McHale is a better second option than Manu or Parker. Parker wouldn't have dominated the match-up with Dennis Johnson, he was athletic and quick enough to stay with him. Ainge would have frustrated Manu just like Manu frustrate players. But that would be the Spurs biggest advantage, the Ainge/Manu matchup.

Basically I don't even think that it is comparable, the more I think about it the less comparable I think the two teams are. The Celtics would kill them.