Who in the West can take down the Spurs?

[cash459]

cool your jets you ass clown...

i wasnt talking , YOU were. I was just giving you a slap of reality of your high horse that the lakers arent all that.

EVERYONE in here that talks about who can win, whos going to win,.....its all TALK. let the games play out and then we can talk smack to each other.

all this wasted time and energy. get involved in actual engaging conversation. not "what if" or What was BS.

[DazedAndConfused]

Agreed, but a lot of Spurs fans here refuse to acknowledge that the Lakers beat them in 2004. Instead it was a lucky 0.4 second shot that won the series for the Lakers. You all sound like Suns fans whining about Amare and Diaw being suspended being the reason they lost last year.

[cash459]

the spurs lost that series. yes. i know that.

yes, Duncans shot before fishers may have been lucky.

But if you compare the 2 shots to each other, there is NO way that you can say that Tim's was as lucky or luckier than fishers.

Fishers shot should have never gotten off. it was time keeper error. but yes, the spurs should have been able to get past it.

it had been talked about & proven year after year that a player could not get a shot off after catching & shooting with less than .5 sec. let alone catch, fake one way, turn and then shoot in .4

[Gino]

To answer the question, I could see the Lakers, Suns, Hornets and Jazz all taking out he Spurs this year. I just don't see the Spurs coming out of the west.

[DazedAndConfused]

the spurs lost that series. yes. i know that.

yes, Duncans shot before fishers may have been lucky.

But if you compare the 2 shots to each other, there is NO way that you can say that Tim's was as lucky or luckier than fishers.

Fishers shot should have never gotten off. it was time keeper error. but yes, the spurs should have been able to get past it.

it had been talked about & proven year after year that a player could not get a shot off after catching & shooting with less than .5 sec. let alone catch, fake one way, turn and then shoot in .4

Again you're only proving my point. You still won't admit that the Lakers were the better team and deserved to win that series.

105-81 (24 pt win)
98-90 (8 pt win)
74-73 (1 pt win)
88-76 (12 pt win)

The Lakers won 4 straight against SAS by an average margin of 11 pts. They figured out how to stop Parker and that was all it took. Now ing man up and admit the Lakers were the better team that year and deserved to win.

[Mr. Body]

Lakers got destroyed by Detroit in the Finals that year. Absolutely destroyed.

[JK2]

Lakers
Mavs
Suns
Jazz
Hornets
Nuggets
Warriors
Rockets

[mexicanjunior]

Again you're only proving my point. You still won't admit that the Lakers were the better team and deserved to win that series.

105-81 (24 pt win)
98-90 (8 pt win)
74-73 (1 pt win)
88-76 (12 pt win)

The Lakers won 4 straight against SAS by an average margin of 11 pts. They figured out how to stop Parker and that was all it took. Now ing man up and admit the Lakers were the better team that year and deserved to win.

I'll admit they won the series but I don't believe they were the better team, just the more fortunate. Losing a game on your home court on a last .4 second shot is demoralizing to a team and the Spurs were not able to recover from it. Call it weak minded if you want but I don't think that cons utes your team being better. Besides, the Finals proved out the Lakers were not the best team in the league that year anyway, they were absolutely scorched in the Finals...

[rascal]

So apparently the Spurs were so good in '04 that they allowed one shot to completely destroy their confidence and cause them to lose two games in a row? That means they WEREN'T as good as you thought they were because if they were they wouldn't have crumbled and folded. Go back and hide under your rock idiot.

Championship teams rise to the occasion when called upon. The Spurs didn't do it in '04 and did not deserve to be champions that year.

I agree with you if the spurs were really that good they still would have won. That shot was just 1 game, the spurs lost 3 others in that series and were not that good that year. Its more of an excuse by some spur fans who think the Fisher shot cost them a championship.

[spursfan09]

Agreed, but a lot of Spurs fans here refuse to acknowledge that the Lakers beat them in 2004. Instead it was a lucky 0.4 second shot that won the series for the Lakers. You all sound like Suns fans whining about Amare and Diaw being suspended being the reason they lost last year.

Well we ignore the fans that talk all that about last season, and they are the ones that come here. You come to a Spurs board, why don't you trying your best to ignore it and leave then?

[DazedAndConfused]

^^It's not just some small sect of Spurs fans that believe they got cheated out of the 2004 WCF.

[mavsfan1000]

Lakers and Mavs. That's it.

[spursfan09]

^^It's not just some small sect of Spurs fans that believe they got cheated out of the 2004 WCF.

I think that shot was BS. However Spurs still lost 3 games, so believe me I know they lost for a reason that wasn't the shot alone. Don't put me in that category.

[cash459]

Again you're only proving my point. You still won't admit that the Lakers were the better team and deserved to win that series.

105-81 (24 pt win)
98-90 (8 pt win)
74-73 (1 pt win)
88-76 (12 pt win)

The Lakers won 4 straight against SAS by an average margin of 11 pts. They figured out how to stop Parker and that was all it took. Now ing man up and admit the Lakers were the better team that year and deserved to win.

i wont admit that ANY team DESREVES to win a series. thats BS. and if "better" means b/c they found a way to win and the spurs clammed up, then it is what it is. and the lakers arent the all amazing, unbeatable team either, the spurs have handled them before and could do it again. the lakers and spurs & mavs/spurs series are usually always epic battles because all those teams play well against each other.

but like i said before, worrying about what could happen is pointless

[Allanon]

105-81 (24 pt win)
98-90 (8 pt win)
74-73 (1 pt win)
88-76 (12 pt win)

I don't remember the cir stances that led up to .4 but I do remember th 105-81 win in the first game. That was a shocker and I knew from that game that the series was over and I am sure the Lakers would have won regardless of .4 that year.

This year, the line between teams in the West is so blurred, everybody has issues.
1) Spurs have problems on offense and no bench (no Manu isn't a bencher)
2) Lakers are injured in their key Center position on defense
3) Hornets have no experience and streaky bench
4) Jazz can't win consistently on the road
5) Amare and Nash can't play defense
6) Rockets are injured at the Center position
7) Mavericks can't beat .500+ teams because they're still finding rhythm
8) Too streaky

Kryptonite teams...ones that will play much better versus certain teams:

Spurs are Kryptonite for Hornets/Rockets
Lakers are Kyptonite for #8 seed, Jazz
Jazz are Kryptonite for any team without HCA, and Hornets no matter what seed
Suns are Kryptonite for the Spurs, Hornets
Mavericks are Kryptonite for the Spurs
#8 seed can be lethal for any team that laughs at them

I'd love to see the Jazz take care of the Hornets in the 2nd round. D-Will takes "Allstar CP3 and MVP candidate" VERY personally.

[Girasuck]

I'll say this...

Last year we had NO SHOT at beating the Spurs...NONE!! The series was over before it started. This year we have a shot but I still don't think we can win 4 out of 7 against SA. If we do meet this year I'm pretty confident we can take you guys to 7 games.

[cash459]

I don't remember the cir stances that led up to .4 but I do remember th 105-81 win in the first game. That was a shocker and I knew from that game that the series was over and I am sure the Lakers would have won regardless of .4 that year.

This year, the line between teams in the West is so blurred, everybody has issues.
1) Spurs have problems on offense and no bench (no Manu isn't a bencher)
2) Lakers are injured in their key Center position on defense
3) Hornets have no experience and streaky bench
4) Jazz can't win consistently on the road
5) Amare and Nash can't play defense
6) Rockets are injured at the Center position
7) Mavericks can't beat .500+ teams because they're still finding rhythm
8) Too streaky

Kryptonite teams...ones that will play much better versus certain teams:

Spurs are Kryptonite for Hornets/Rockets
Lakers are Kyptonite for #8 seed, Jazz
Jazz are Kryptonite for any team without HCA, and Hornets no matter what seed
Suns are Kryptonite for the Spurs, Hornets
Mavericks are Kryptonite for the Spurs
#8 seed can be lethal for any team that laughs at them

I'd love to see the Jazz take care of the Hornets in the 2nd round. D-Will takes "Allstar CP3 and MVP candidate" VERY personally.

do you not think that there are any teams in the west that are "kryptonite" for the lakers?

[Allanon]

Not in the West Playoffs. If Blazers and Memphis were in the Playoffs, yes. Lakers match up well with every West Playoff team.

Celtics and Cavs are the Lakers Playoff Kryptonite but both are in the East. Pistons won't bother Lakers much.

[Sense]

So apparently the Spurs were so good in '04 that they allowed one shot to completely destroy their confidence and cause them to lose two games in a row? That means they WEREN'T as good as you thought they were because if they were they wouldn't have crumbled and folded. Go back and hide under your rock idiot.

Championship teams rise to the occasion when called upon. The Spurs didn't do it in '04 and did not deserve to be champions that year.

No they were....

and we all saw how powerful that shot was..
Everyone knew that was it after that shot... everyone did.. but I'm over arguing about it because the Lakers got owned by the Spurs mirror image team in the East.

[bresilhac]

Derek's shot won the game, but it DIDN'T win the series like you morons claim. There were still games left to be played and the Spurs lost ALL OF THEM after that.

You guys are ing and moaning like the Suns did last year saying that if Amare wasn't suspended they would have won. The Spurs lost fair and square to a better team, ing man up and admit it.

Drop it man. It's old news already. You Laker fans should now be concerned with how you'll survive these upcoming playoffs. If the Lakers should meet the Spurs this postseason the results of a series played four years ago will have absolutely no bearing on the results of a potential 2008 matchup.

[DazedAndConfused]

You're argument makes absolutely no sense. If the Spurs were as good as you say they were they would not have let one shot affect them like that. If they were meant to be champions they would have bounced back and won the next game.

The Lakers won 4 straight against SAS. Once they figured out how to stop TP the series was over.

[cash459]

You're argument makes absolutely no sense. If the Spurs were as good as you say they were they would not have let one shot affect them like that. If they were meant to be champions they would have bounced back and won the next game.

The Lakers won 4 straight against SAS. Once they figured out how to stop TP the series was over.

if the lakers were as good as you say they were that year, what happened in the finals?

............??................... now STFU. Neither team won it that year, so it doesnt friggin matter.

Whats the point of getting to the finals if you blow the opportunity? ask mavs fans.

[DazedAndConfused]

I never said the Lakers deserved to or should have beaten the Pistons. The Pistons were a better team than the Lakers. I admit that.

You and many other Spurs' fans won't admit that the Lakers were a better team than the Spurs that year. Instead it was a lucky ass shot by Derek Fisher that lost them the series.

[cash459]

I never said the Lakers deserved to or should have beaten the Pistons. The Pistons were a better team than the Lakers. I admit that.

You and many other Spurs' fans won't admit that the Lakers were a better team than the Spurs that year. Instead it was a lucky ass shot by Derek Fisher that lost them the series.

no team DESERVES to win anything