I've heard of that guy named Michael Jordan, dip . Bill Russell too.So yes obv that's what I meant--didn't think I needed to clarify that but you're a special kind of stupid so I guess I shouldve.
80s Lakers and 90s Bulls aren't modern era?
"we are only going to count the past 15 years as being part of the modern era, which happens to be the 15 years that the Spurs have had their fantastic run! "
I've heard of that guy named Michael Jordan, dip . Bill Russell too.So yes obv that's what I meant--didn't think I needed to clarify that but you're a special kind of stupid so I guess I shouldve.
Considering you said only the Patriots are in the same company, obviously you didn't mean that at all. If you did, then you would have acknowledged the fact that Jordan's Bulls and Magic's Lakers had unquestionably superior runs during their stretches.
smh stretch the regard strikes again
Yeah the Yankees haven't been contenders for 20 straight years. Nor the Red Wings. I'd say the Spurs are the Red Wings of the NBA since both orgs are similar in their ways and they're not located in a big market. Except our fans outclass the got cliff divers from upstairs.
Please prove your point.
I didn't even bother thinking about Hockey or Baseball, considering how in basketball alone, there have been several teams that have had better runs than the Spurs. Even teams in the more "modern" era. But somehow logic tends to elude certain individuals who constantly has to tell everyone on the forum how smart they are with their UTSA pedigree, and refer to themselves as "STs finest" to make themselves seem less stupid.
I've always seen the Devils as a better NHL comparison for the Spurs, tbh....
Why? Red Wings have had collective greatness for over a decade. Devils are close but wishy washy.
They haven't been nearly as consistently good as the Spurs though
The Devils and Spurs have both had quasi-dynasties where they never repeated, they both have been built around low-key superstars (Brodeur and Duncan), Lou is kind of the Pop/Buford figure, both have had a lot of success despite being in a non-glamorous market with not a lot of money to spend, and both choked in epic fashion in their most recent trip to the Finals (Steve Bernier, 6)....
Is repeating necessarily a requisite for a dynasty? I'd have to say the Duncan-Spurs are more of a dynasty than the Dream Rox or Bad Boy Pistons were
You're on a roll, man.
But for me it's
80s Lakers
90s Bulls (even despite the "Jordan Rules")
99-14 Spurs
Comparing current era teams to the Russell Celtics would be unfair. Like comparing a great scorer of the modern era to Wilt's 50 ppg.
The Superfriends could be up there one day if they continue to win for years to come. As it stands right now, They're just three all stars that came together to dominate a pathetic conference over a three year span. If They're still relevant even 5 years from now, they'll be a legit dynasty.
They're in the Bad Boy Pistons, Houston Rockets tier atm except those teams didn't have to buy their championships
I agree completely. Which is why when he adjusted to modern era, I said that the Lakers and Bulls still should keep their spot, as opposed to only the Patriots being on par with the Spurs success.
So you think Ive never heard of MJ or what? Like I said youre a special kind of stupid.
These last 15 years nobody, not just in basketball but in any sport, has done what my Spurs have. That was the point of that post not to suggest that the Spurs are the greatest team in the history of all sports.
I never said that once. As usual, you are getting your feelings hurt too easily.
Don't try to change what you said. You weren't just talking about the past 15 years. Your quote below -
That was in response to other teams in history such as the Bulls and Rockets that have repeated as champions. So it was very clear the conversation was involving multiple eras.
I never said that was your point nor did I think that was your point. My initial reply was to make it clear that other teams have had comparable extended periods of success, unlike your belief that no one in any sport ever has. Not only that, but I was pointing out that other teams had extended periods of success that were unquestionably superior to the Spurs run of the past 15 years.
As I've made clear many times, you take offense to anything that isn't "go-Spurs-go!" and feel that it is a slight against them. Then you take it upon yourself to defend them, and usually end up 1) only hurling baseless claims and insults and 2) making yourself look like an emotional got. I wasn't trying to dismiss them and their absolutely incredible achievements. In fact, I even said that they are the 3rd best franchise in NBA history. I was only trying to dismiss your (typically) incorrect claims.
I would expect more from such a well educated person like yourself. Perhaps you should start a few more threads telling everyone how smart you are with your UTSA education and how stupid everyone else on the forum is.
It is extremely easy to prove that the Spurs arent the greatest team in the history of all sports.
So with that said why would I make that claim, imbecile ?
good thread, man.. 7 pages of non-stop butthurtness from Spurs fans within a day
You ever met a you won't suck?
Have you ever gone a day without talking about sucking another man's genitalia?
Probably not. I'd have to go back to my childhood to know for sure.
Again, I never said or implied in any way, shape, or form that you made that claim. Nor was the point of my rebuttal to make a claim that the 80's Lakers or 90's Bulls aren't the greatest team in the history of all sports.
Why are you getting your feelings hurt again?
You're too stupid to realize how stupid you are tbh.
Oh well that's a completely original way to wave the white flag.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)