Spurs Dynasty ranks behind Lakers, Celtics and Bulls

[exstatic]

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.

5 Finals appearances in 7 years is a short window? Go play your drums.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

The Spurs and 80s Celtics aren't dynasties, IMO.

[exstatic]

The Spurs and 80s Celtics aren't dynasties, IMO.

Don't be jealous because the Pistons never had a 'D'...

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

It's not jealousy.

Spurs dynasty: Another team won four out of five WC les during their run and they lost to two teams that ended up losing in the Finals. Never won the WC in consecutive years. They haven't even dominated the WC, let alone the entire NBA.

They simply don't hold a candle to either of the last two true dynasties, IMO. If they win a le this year, I'll use the term dynasty when talking about the Spurs. As it stands now, they have a pretty weak case, IMO.

[daslicer]

All of the spurs le teams are better then the Shaq Kobe lakers le teams. I really do believe that. Cry Havoc whatever your name is did you ever watch those series to see why the spurs lost to the lakers. It was KOBE KOBE the fvcking reason the spurs couldn't win against the Lakers in '01 and '02 and not Shaq. Shaq usually got his numbers but couldn't dominate the spurs like he could do to other teams at will. In those series Shaq would always run out of gas by the time the 4th quarter would start and from that point on it was Kobe that would take over doing all the damage.

During that time period the spurs had nobody who could guard Kobe and equal his offensive out put. They eventually got Bowen who could lock him down and then Tony and Manu developed into players that could make up the offense to equal the gap in that department.

Lakers of '01-'03 has gotta to be the worst team to threepeat ever. Outside of Kobe, Shaq that team was pretty much garbage with exception of good play from Horry. Dfish was a mediocre starting PG who did well in the triangle system, along with Rick Fox who was also pretty ty but could hit the open shot and was good at starting up scuffles with players ala Pippen,Peja,Christie. The Lakers team make up consisted of 2 superstars, 1 real good role player in Horry, and a bunch of average mediocre players.

The fact they won les during that period goes to show you how weak the league was during those 3 years. The teams that challenged them were sorry. I love that blazer team in '00 but honestly they had no superstar on that team but was team filled with a bunch of above average players which really had no go to guy. The Kings had talent but had soft players who choked they should have won but couldn't get it done. Outside of the Kings I can't really name any teams the lakers played that were loaded with talent. in the finals they had it easy to with the pacers,sixers, nets. Its no wonder they got their ass whooped when they played detroit in '04 because it was the first time they faced a highly talented team that wasn't scare or intimidated of them in the finals. Detroit really exposed how sh1tty LA was.

[DazedAndConfused]

All of the spurs le teams are better then the Shaq Kobe lakers le teams. I really do believe that. Cry Havoc whatever your name is did you ever watch those series to see why the spurs lost to the lakers. It was KOBE KOBE the fvcking reason the spurs couldn't win against the Lakers in '01 and '02 and not Shaq. Shaq usually got his numbers but couldn't dominate the spurs like he could do to other teams at will. In those series Shaq would always run out of gas by the time the 4th quarter would start and from that point on it was Kobe that would take over doing all the damage.

During that time period the spurs had nobody who could guard Kobe and equal his offensive out put. They eventually got Bowen who could lock him down and then Tony and Manu developed into players that could make up the offense to equal the gap in that department.

Lakers of '01-'03 has gotta to be the worst team to threepeat ever. Outside of Kobe, Shaq that team was pretty much garbage with exception of good play from Horry. Dfish was a mediocre starting PG who did well in the triangle system, along with Rick Fox who was also pretty ty but could hit the open shot and was good at starting up scuffles with players ala Pippen,Peja,Christie. The Lakers team make up consisted of 2 superstars, 1 real good role player in Horry, and a bunch of average mediocre players.

The fact they won les during that period goes to show you how weak the league was during those 3 years. The teams that challenged them were sorry. I love that blazer team in '00 but honestly they had no superstar on that team but was team filled with a bunch of above average players which really had no go to guy. The Kings had talent but had soft players who choked they should have won but couldn't get it done. Outside of the Kings I can't really name any teams the lakers played that were loaded with talent. in the finals they had it easy to with the pacers,sixers, nets. Its no wonder they got their ass whooped when they played detroit in '04 because it was the first time they faced a highly talented team that wasn't scare or intimidated of them in the finals. Detroit really exposed how sh1tty LA was.

Hahaha.......put away your hash pipe man. If your actually serious about what you wrote then you need to go back and watch the last 20 years of NBA history all over again. I don't even know where to begin in your homeristic inaccurate post.

[DazedAndConfused]

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.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. That's how losers talk. Parker and Manu would have no answer for the 01' Lakers. The Lakers lost a lot of key role players in the 02-03 championship, so I agree this current Spurs team could have compete with them. But no Spurs team was beating the 01' Lakers.

Shaq
Kobe
Fox
Horace Grant
Rider
Shaw
Horry
Harper
Fisher

That is one of a team and don't even talk about the Lakers having weak role players. Horry, Fox, Grant, Shaw, Harper, and Rider were great role players.

[Dave McNulla]

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?

no. i'm saying that laker fan who things the 80's lakers could beat the 2001-3 lakers really have no idea. that team was cooking.

i just gotta go with the compe ion is who the compe ion is. you can't bring the modern team back in time, you can't bring the teams of the past forward. you wouldn't even know which rules to enforce. and the spurs front office would be stupid to create a team that would compete well under 80's rules and against 80's players.

how they played against their compe ion - that's the only way i judge dynasties. i think the 80's lakers dynasty is better than the spurs dynasty (if you want to call it a dynasty), but the spurs is better than the 80's celtics.

[daslicer]

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. That's how losers talk. Parker and Manu would have no answer for the 01' Lakers. The Lakers lost a lot of key role players in the 02-03 championship, so I agree this current Spurs team could have compete with them. But no Spurs team was beating the 01' Lakers.

Shaq
Kobe
Fox
Horace Grant
Rider
Shaw
Horry
Harper
Fisher


That is one of a team and don't even talk about the Lakers having weak role players. Horry, Fox, Grant, Shaw, Harper, and Rider were great role players.

Again the best Kobe Shaq team still doesn't compare to any of the greatest spurs team. Reality is Fox was crap don't give me that sh1t of him being a good defender all that guy did was foul hard and scare the out of soft players like Peja,Christie. Shaw was also crap I can't recall him having one good game besides having that fluke game against the Blazers back in '00 that was the key. Rider was crap to the guy had talent to be great but he never did squat with LA. Also I never said Horry was crap if you read my post. Fisher was also crap when a came to competing against the top PG's and don't give me that sh1t about '01 he pretty much lit up an old ass spurs team in which Porter and AJ were way past their prime.

Lets compare the greatest role players all the Shaq-Kobe laker teams to DUncan spurs and I willing to bet it wouldn't even be close. Jax,Claxton,AJ,Elliott,Elie, Kwill, Kerr,Kersey,Perdue,Horry,Finley,Barry, Antonio Daniels, Malik Rose, Glen Robinson,Massenburg,Rasho, Nazr,Ferry,Steve Smith, I will even put in Jaren Jax he did light up the Lakers in '99, '03 David Robinson > Harper,Grant,Fox,Shaw,Rider,Horry,Dfish,AC Green, Medvedenko,Foster.

Plus when we factor in the the star power I take Duncan,Ginobilli,Parker>Shaq, Kobe or '99 Robinson, Duncan draws to even with Shaq,Kobe but our '99 team when healthy owned the Lakers so that would be the clincher.

[Dave McNulla]

The Spurs and 80s Celtics aren't dynasties, IMO.

i think you could go further and add the 89-90 pistons, 94-95 rockets, 70's knicks, 70's lakers, and 70's celtics.

i think if the spurs win this year, it's a dynasty, as good as the 80's lakers.

[m33p0]

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!

celtics front office destroyed bird's career overplaying him way too much. couple that with bird's win-at-all-cost at ude = shortened career.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

i think you could go further and add the 89-90 pistons, 94-95 rockets, 70's knicks, 70's lakers, and 70's celtics.

i think if the spurs win this year, it's a dynasty, as good as the 80's lakers.

They'd still be behind the 80s Lakers in my eyes, but they would indeed be a dynasty.

[DazedAndConfused]

Again the best Kobe Shaq team still doesn't compare to any of the greatest spurs team. Reality is Fox was crap don't give me that sh1t of him being a good defender all that guy did was foul hard and scare the out of soft players like Peja,Christie. Shaw was also crap I can't recall him having one good game besides having that fluke game against the Blazers back in '00 that was the key. Rider was crap to the guy had talent to be great but he never did squat with LA. Also I never said Horry was crap if you read my post. Fisher was also crap when a came to competing against the top PG's and don't give me that sh1t about '01 he pretty much lit up an old ass spurs team in which Porter and AJ were way past their prime.

Lets compare the greatest role players all the Shaq-Kobe laker teams to DUncan spurs and I willing to bet it wouldn't even be close. Jax,Claxton,AJ,Elliott,Elie, Kwill, Kerr,Kersey,Perdue,Horry,Finley,Barry, Antonio Daniels, Malik Rose, Glen Robinson,Massenburg,Rasho, Nazr,Ferry,Steve Smith, I will even put in Jaren Jax he did light up the Lakers in '99, '03 David Robinson > Harper,Grant,Fox,Shaw,Rider,Horry,Dfish,AC Green, Medvedenko,Foster.

Plus when we factor in the the star power I take Duncan,Ginobilli,Parker>Shaq, Kobe or '99 Robinson, Duncan draws to even with Shaq,Kobe but our '99 team when healthy owned the Lakers so that would be the clincher.

Phil Jackson didn't come to the Lakers until 2000. The Laker 3-peat dynasty starts with him the helm. Therefore your 1999 asterisk season really doesn't count IMHO.

From 2000-2005 the Lakers bested the Spurs 3-1 in the playoffs when they matched up. They beat them 4-0, 4-1, and 4-1. They lost one series 4-2 to the Spurs. That's utter domination no matter how you slice it. Nice try homer.

The 01' Laker team was flat out better than any Spurs team to date. They had a 15-1 playoff record and dominated the Spurs in the most lopsided conference final in NBA history. Did you know the 01' Lakers beat the Spurs by an average point differential of 20 pts in that series? Kind of hard to say the Spurs are the best after that kind of performance eh?

I'm done arguing with you, if your gonna claim Rick Fox, Horry, Shaw, etc. are garbage players you're nothing but a homer who doesn't know his basketball history. And FYI the compe ion back then was way better than the garbage no-defense Suns and pathetic sub .500 Cavs the Spurs have faced in the playoffs.

[Dave McNulla]

Phil Jackson didn't come to the Lakers until 2000. The Laker 3-peat dynasty starts with him the helm. Therefore your 1999 asterisk season really doesn't count IMHO.

From 2000-2005 the Lakers bested the Spurs 3-1 in the playoffs when they matched up. They beat them 4-0, 4-1, and 4-1. They lost one series 4-2 to the Spurs. That's utter domination no matter how you slice it. Nice try homer.

if we get to pick and choose, i don't want to count the years that drob had back problems, or the years that timmy lost a parent during the playoffs, or the years where coattailers joined the lakers to try to get a championship. that makes the spurs 2-0 over the lakers, utter domination.

[DazedAndConfused]

if we get to pick and choose, i don't want to count the years that drob had back problems, or the years that timmy lost a parent during the playoffs, or the years where coattailers joined the lakers to try to get a championship. that makes the spurs 2-0 over the lakers, utter domination.

It's not picking and choosing. The head coach is equally as important as any of the players. The Lakers weren't winning anything without Phil just like the Spurs wouldn't have won anything without Pop.

[callo1]

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.

It had everything to do with the Spurs. Those egos were fine and dandy when they were winning rings. The second the Spurs ended their reign in '03 THEN the egos came to the forefront.

Did you not see Timmy make Shaq look foolish in the '03 series...especially in the series closer? The Lakers trie that lets put Shaq on TD routine in the 4th and Timmy abused him ugly.

[callo1]

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.

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.

'01 and '02 Spurs teams had no bench and slow, aged perimeter players that could not put the ball on the floor when the Lakers closed out on the 3pt line (Terry Porter and Steve Smith). They also had a point guard that didn't have to be guarded out on the floor because he had no outside game to speak of (AJ). the Lakers packed in the D and dared the shooters to beat them, and if the ball swung out to the old shooters they ran at them. By '03 with the additions of SJax, Manu, and TP all that was a memory and the Lakers became the unathletic looking team. Shaq was still putting up excellent numbers in '03 and the Spurs ended that dynasty.

This arguement can go on. It all comes down to opinions. There are no FACTS. Unless you can invent a time machine and have the '03 Spurs warp back and play the '81 Lakers.

[DazedAndConfused]

Well the Spurs still lost to the Lakers in 04' with the loaded team they have now. 0.4 seconds remind you of anything? Your arguments hold no weight given the way history has gone down.

[callo1]

Well the Spurs still lost to the Lakers in 04' with the loaded team they have now. 0.4 seconds remind you of anything? Your arguments hold no weight given the way history has gone down.

"0.4 seconds remind you of anything?" Yes, your IQ

And who the are you to say what holds weight?

Prolly some pencil pushing fantasy league prick that has never played a game of basketball.

you and your arrogant know it all ass !!

People posting opinions here and you sit there and spout off like your damn opinions are better or more educated that anyone elses?

[DazedAndConfused]

And who the are you to say what holds weight?

Prolly some pencil pushing fantasy league prick that has never played a game of basketball.

you and your arrogant know it all ass !!

People posting opinions here and you sit there and spout off like your damn opinions are better or more educated that anyone elses?

I'm the only one here attempting to backup opinion with fact. When I say the 01-03 Lakers were better than the Spurs I back it up with the facts that they beat them 3-1 from 2000-2005. I'm not trying to say I'm more educated than anyone else, don't know where you got that idea.

[callo1]

I'm the only one here attempting to backup opinion with fact. When I say the 01-03 Lakers were better than the Spurs I back it up with the facts that they beat them 3-1 from 2000-2005. I'm not trying to say I'm more educated than anyone else, don't know where you got that idea.

And as I asked before, do you have a time machine that allows us to see the '05 spurs play the '01-'03 Lakers???

Using the '01, '02 Spurs teams in your arguement has no bearing whatsoever on the matchup of the '05 Spurs versus the '01-'03 Lakers. Have the '05 Spurs played the '01-'03 Lakers? I DIDN'T THINK SO.

I tell you what, since you know it all, please tell me what time you suit up for the game tonight and I'll be glued to my set watching you play.

After reading how you respond to other posters you come off as an arrogant disrespectful ass that needs to be taken down a notch...nothing more

[DazedAndConfused]

The 04-05 Spurs lost to a hobbled Laker team. If that squad couldn't do it against the worst of the 3-peat Lakers there is no way they were beating the 01 Lakers.

[Dave McNulla]

It's not picking and choosing. The head coach is equally as important as any of the players. The Lakers weren't winning anything without Phil just like the Spurs wouldn't have won anything without Pop.

the whole thread went "shaq and kobe" and suddenly it's "shaq and kobe and phil". well, i got "duncan and parker and ginobili" for the spurs and it's 1-1 against the lakers with those three guys who helped the spurs get three les.

keep picking and choosing. whatever makes you feel better.

[LilMissSPURfect]

SPURS R A DYNASTY anyway u wanna cut it! come on BASKETball fans ....

[m33p0]

the whole thread went "shaq and kobe" and suddenly it's "shaq and kobe and phil". well, i got "duncan and parker and ginobili" for the spurs and it's 1-1 against the lakers with those three guys who helped the spurs get three les.

keep picking and choosing. whatever makes you feel better.