Reply With Quote
Um, the Lakers also went 15-1 in the playoffs.
That was the asterisk season, that does not count, anyone knows that.
wrong again. spurs swept the shaq/kobe lakers in 99.
what ever made you think that lakers fan is right about which team is better? relatively speaking, you could argue they were better against their compe ion, but even that is debatable. only one team has gone 15-1 in the playoffs.
Um, the Lakers also went 15-1 in the playoffs.
That was the asterisk season, that does not count, anyone knows that.
LOL what an idiot. Lakers went 15-1 losing a joke game to Philly in the Finals. Asterik seasons don't count.
I told him that the Spurs were not the only team that went 15-1...duh!
I agree to a point. The 80's Celtics, led by Bird, were an extraordinary bunch and were one of the dominant teams of that decade. After all, they did win 3 les in six years. However, the Magic-led Fakers were better and proved it by besting them 2-1 in the NBA Finals matchups. That team won 5 les during the decade, including a repeat, to prove they were indeed a dynasty.
Speaking of dynasties, it kills me that many of these so-called NBA pundits claim the Spurs aren't a dynasty because they've never repeated. OK fine. Well, the 80's Celtics never repeated either, yet people always refer to the Bird-era Celtics as a dynasty. Go figure!
The Spurs are most definitely a dynasty. 4 les in 7 years = dynasty. Doesn't matter if they were back-to-back or not.
One of the more underrated facts about the Spurs is that almost no organization that I can think of has had classier players and coaches. Guys that absolutely represent the game of basketball in the right way. The 01-03 Lakers may have been better talent wise, but the Spurs embody team basketball in a much better way IMHO.
Clearly. Thanks for taking the time to ensure you spelled my name right, by the way.
You mean the Spurs offense that scored 120 points per game against Phoenix when Pop let Manu and Parker run the court as they wished? It's sad that even other Spurs fans are blinded by big offensive statistics that they think a potent offense means scoring 110+ ppg to be effective. That's the Suns strategy. The same one the Lakers employed. Run the court as much as possible. It inflates stats and makes teams look better than they are.The Spur's offense pales in comparison to what the Showtime Lakers could do.
Wow, do you actually read what other people post?You talk about nobody stopping Parker, who the is gonna guard 6'10" Magic Johnson or Kareem's skyhooks? The skyhook is the most unguardable shot in the history of the NBA. Fabricio and Elson are great role players but they would get murdered by Kareem the same way the Spurs got murdered by a prime Shaq. The Showtime Lakers just had too many weapons to throw at you, Bowen can't guard everyone.
Gee, I wonder who said that?When talking about the 80s Cs and 80s Lakers, it's not that I feel this Spurs team could shut them down over an entire game. No way in .
So Kareem would throw his entire weight into them, knock them 3 feet backwards when they're completely set and vertical on defense, dunk the ball, and get a foul called on the defender?.Fabricio and Elson are great role players but they would get murdered by Kareem the same way the Spurs got murdered by a prime Shaq.
Please take a course in math. 4 > 3. Staying consistently dominant over a decade is every bit as hard or harder than winning back to back championships.Again, this Spurs dynasty was definitely bested by the 01-03 Lakers.
Just curious, Mr. Peabody. Where did you get your wayback machine and how did you get teams from this decade to go play against the Lakers from the 80s?Homers here need to realize that losing 4-1 against a team in the playoffs is called getting your ass beat down. Homers here need to realize that losing 4-1 against a team in the playoffs is called getting your ass beat down.
CryHakok I mean no disrespect, no need to get testy. I stand by my statement that the 01-03 Lakers in their prime were a flat out better team than the current Spurs dynasty team. The facts prove it.
Here's how the dynasties rank:
1. 90's Bulls
2. 80's Lakers
3. Spurs of the Duncan era
There really aren't any other real dynasties than those three.
60's Celtics? Oh I'm sure it was very difficult to win a championship in a league of 13 teams...
If it was that easy how come it was so hard for the other 12 to win?
Gotta throw in the 01-03 Lakers. 3 championships in a row. 4 Finals visits in 5 years. In the modern NBA that has to be considered a dynasty team.
What facts? That the Lakers beat the Spurs 3 times back when the Spurs didn't have any offense?
The current Spurs team would match up very well with the 00-02 Lakers.
BTW, the Spurs ultimately led to the dismantling of the Lakers (signing of Malone and Payton).
So what is your explanation for the 80's Celtics, and Shaq/Kobe Lakers not being a real dynasty?
The dismantling of the Lakers had nothing to do with the Spurs. It was all about egos and the fact that Shaq and Kobe could not coexist with each other. Plus Shaq wanted a 30 million dollar extension.
The current Spurs team would still have no answer for Shaq. He would do the same thing to this Spur's team that he did back in 01-03. Kobe is an even better perimeter player now than he was during the 01-03 3-peat. They would be unstoppable if paired together in their primes. And the Spurs would lose.
that's what i was talking about. the 2001 lakers went 15-1 and the only team that came close to that in the 80's was the sixers, not the lakers. is reading comprehension difficult for you? i mean, do you understand... er, do you know what i am saying?
asterisk as in shaq the last time shaq was swept? you forgot 2007.That was the asterisk season, that does not count, anyone knows that.
spurs went 15-2 in 1999. lakers are the only team to go 15-1. next time, try using your internet access to do a little research.
Whoever said the "Old School" players would just knock Ginobili on his ass to take him out of the game....
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?!?! Have you seen what happens when the other team hits Ginobili? You practically have to give him a black-eye, at least what would be a black-eye on any other inferior human, to get Ginobili to even wake-up. You hit Ginobili, he hits back......with 30 pts.
Careful. If you say ANYTHING positive about our chances against the Lakers of the 80s, they'll begin asking for your ID to make sure you're of age and then call you a homer.
If the Spurs can finally repeat this year I think it will cement their status as one of the best dynasties of all time in the NBA. I feel that this season and next season are probably the last shot the Spurs have at a le with this current squad. Injuries are starting to become a problem and a good portion of the Spur's bench will probably retire by next season.
You know, considering you are too blind to correct simple mistakes, I'm fairly certain that invalidates many of your opinions about the NBA. No disrespect intended when I call you blind.
Kobe now >> Kobe then
Tony Parker now >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tony Parker then.
Manu Ginobili now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manu then.
Wow, yeah, I see your point. Only Kobe has improved of all the players on both teams.
The key matchup was always with Shaq. Spurs had no answer for him then and they wouldn't have one for him now. He literally had his way in the paint against SAS and damn near every other team during those years. No amount of improvement to Manu or Tony would have stopped that.
You know, considering you are too blind to correct simple mistakes, I'm fairly certain that invalidates many of your opinions about the NBA. No disrespect intended when I call you blind.
Kobe now >> Kobe then
Tony Parker now >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tony Parker then.
Manu Ginobili now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manu then.
Wow, yeah, I see your point. Only Kobe has improved of all the players on both teams.
Look you can argue all you want but the proof is in the pudding. From 2000-2005, when the 01-03 team was in tact, the Spurs lost 4 series out of 5.
We didn't play the Lakers 5 times in that timeframe, Einstein. 2000 was a wipe out with Tim's knee. If you count the entire time that Shaq and Kobe were paired, we are 2-3, winning in 1999 and 2003, and losing in 2001, 2002 and 2004. Each team won two les after beating the other during that time frame, but the Lakers failed to trophy in 2004, and won in 2000 without facing us.
I didn't know the 01-03 team was intact for 5 years. Last I checked, 01-03 was only 3 years long, so that would be tough to have a team for 5 years in that timeframe.
There is no "proof". The Lakers never played a team that's at the level of the Spurs are now. Manu and Tony didn't really mature until the '05 season.
Bandy about "key matchups" all you want. But it gets really old when you talk about how you just "know" these complete opinions of yours to be fact.
my bad, I thought you were arging against the Lakers and said the Spurs had the 15-1 record. I was correcting you by saying that LA had gone 15-1. Are you agreeing with me about the 80's Lakers?
i
The 80's Celtics aren't a dynasty. Nor were the Kobe/Shaq Lakers. They had very small windows of dominance.
The Spurs have been at the top, or at least 2nd best, of the West since 1999.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions