According to who? & who do you have ahead of them?
Bulls
Spurs
Celtics
...they'll already be the 4th best franchise in NBA history
Not bad for a team with a shade over 25 years of existence, and one that was ring-less this time 8 years ago.
According to who? & who do you have ahead of them?
Bulls
Spurs
Celtics
1. Celtics
2. Lakers (even though LA has been more relevant than the Celtics throughout NBA history, they own us and have the ring count)
3. Bulls
4. Heat (better core, better opponents)
5. Spurs
Dont expect Spurs to beat them this year.
Enrique's defense has gotten worse, Danny Green won't catch them off guard, Oden will shutdown Duncan and Wade/Lebron/Bosh have improved their jumpshot.
Spurs can beat Miami, tbh, the problem for the Spurs is beating OKC..
The Spurs are the only team in the West that matches up well against the Heat IMO..unfortunately, OKC stands in the way..
Stop it. They could of last year. The Spurs have the better coach but the Heat the two best players. After Timmy Bosh (this season) is probably better than anyone on the Spurs who are far less healthy this year.
All praise goes to Pop, but Spurs may push another 7 but Heat will 3peat.
If I were Spurfan I would not worry about OKC. Westbrook is still holding them back, especially now that he's not 100% healthy. I fully expect them to implode and choke in the WCF if not sooner, like they always do. Durant is amazing but he still hasn't figured out how to push Westbrook into his rightful role as a supporting player and second banana.
Wade isn't better than Parker tbh, provided Parker finds last year's form. Its Lebron >>> Parker >> Wade = Duncan > Bosh > ...
thats a stretch
if Parker is 2 >'s higher than Wade (which he isnt), then Lebron should be at least 8 to 9 >'s higher than Parker.
i c what u did there
Parker>>wade
Hgh wade >Parker
Last year's TP was arguably the third best player in the league while Wade has been having trouble staying on the court. Might be about equal this season tho. I agree about Lebron, should be more like >>>>>>.
3/4 Finals opponents were embarrassing.
2007 Cavs - worst Finals team in NBA history
2003 Nets - Horrible, punchless, probably the fifth best team in the NBA in those B2B Finals years
1999 Knicks - 8th seed, stillbirth of a season
Lakerfan acting as if we just played one team to make the finals..
Miami finals opponents were far from a murderers row. And they don't have to play anyone to get to the finals
Heat by far had better opponents in the Finals than the Spurs ever faced in the Finals. The only quality Finals team the Spurs faced was Detroit. The rest blew. 06 Mavs, 12 Thunder, 13 Spurs were far better than the Knicks, Nets, or Cavs, and arguably all better than the 05 Pistons team.
But in the rounds leading up to the finals, the Spurs had a couple pretty tough teams they beat in Shaq/Kobe Lakers, and Nash/Marion/Stoudemire Suns. Those were some REALLY good teams that the Spurs pretty much dominated.
and all 4 times, they made the playoffs, and won their last game
Meh, to get there the Spurs had to go through the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, prime Dirk and a solid Mavs team, and the SSOL Suns. All of those teams would've beaten the Heat except maybe the Suns.
2006 Mavs, 2012 Thunder, and 2013 Spurs take a wet on 3/4 of the Spurs Finals opponents, and you know it
Also, 2007 was the path of least resistance in NBA history to a Finals, so not sure you wanna bring that up
Miami has faced some pretty solid teams, make no mistake. They beat the 06 Pistons, the same team the Spurs faced a year earlier in the Finals. In in their recent runs, they have had some tough teams they faced in the Celtics, Bulls, and Indy.
I still think that beating the Shaq/Kobe Lakers in 03 and those run/gun Suns in 05 was probably more impressive than anything Miami did, outside of their 2 most recent finals wins. OKC and SA were two fantastic teams.
Well aren't you smart...nobody's arguing what you just said. The argument is that if the Heat win this year they'll be more impressive than SA. Which is true. Better players, better Finals opponents, better ratings, were mentally tough enough to defend their le like all true dynasties have, etc
No one is saying their championships are meaningless. The discussion is simply about quality of opponents. The Spurs (like nearly every team that ever won a championship) faced their fair share of snoozer opponents. But they still went out and won, and they certainly deserve credit for that. No one is taking that credit away. Quit being so sensitive
Phillip, you should give a lot more credit to your Mavs. They were right there with the Spurs and Suns in the mid 2000s.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)