Lakers
Spurs
this is all pointless becasue the '95 Houston Rockets would have beat anyone haha.
So do the 2 losses that the Lakers in the Finals this decade help or hurt their case? Is it possible to say that they were the best team in the West in 2003-2004 and 2007-2008 but just played a better team in the Finals? You could say that the Spurs' are the better team but the Lakers were probably more dominant.
The 2008 Celtics are one of the most overrated teams to ever win the NBA championship. The Atlanta Hawks, who were 37-45, took them to 7 games. A great team would have swept that Hawks' team. And let's not forget that the Celtics also struggled against the Cavs in the second round last year too.
LOL at calling me homer, you couldn't be more wrong.
Anyway, Spurs 4 championship trips and 4 wins > Lakers 5 trips 3 wins
Spurs contenders every year > Lakers not contenders every year.
LOL, the point was that the Lakers played weak teams too. They lost against the two really good teams.Thats right I forgot they went to 5 championship games this decade. Man the Lakers are cleary the best team of the decade in two ways, no arguement what so ever. They have the single greatest team of the decades, the 2001 Kobe/Shaq Lakers and have been to 5 championship games.
See you even agree with me, two Laker trips to the finals without a championship are for kids.Silly rabbit, trips are for kids.
Stern handed the Spurs game 6. Time to accept reality.
Just the facts. Heres another fact: Donaghy fixed NBA games, including game 3 of that series. You lose.
Look how stupid you are. Can't even count.
Actually, the count is correct: Spurs 3, Lakers 2.
Any decade begins with the '1' year and ends with the '0' year. It's like counting to ten: You never start with '0', you start with '1', and end with '10'. The Lakers 99-00 LoB was last decade.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)