The San Antonio Spurs have never repeated....vol LOL LOL LOL
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by young halo,
- Start date
- 29,630
- 1,863
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
he went for cuban. has nothing to do with hard physical defense. the spurs would have won
- 943
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
Originally Posted by TCERDA
Wrong.Originally Posted by CP1708
TCERDA wrote:
.4 second shot by Derek Fisher to beat the Spurs in 04 and Dirk's and1 to send the game in OT in game 7 of the conference Finals. Those 2 plays literally cost the Spurs from winning 5 Championships in a row.
I guess these two plays keep them out of Dynasty talk
While big plays and series changers, there is ZERO guarantee that the Spurs just go on winning. Sac won game 5 against us in 02, we won game 6 and 7. No reason we couldn't have done that to the Spurs in 04 if Fisher's shot missed.
And Wade shot 750 free throws a game vs the Mavs no defense playing team. We would still be watching the 2006 finals live with the amount of free throws Wade would get with Bruce Bowen and the Spurs playing him in 06.
So what you're saying is pointless as me saying that if Horry hits the 3 in game 5 in 03 we would have gone to 5 straight finals and won 4 of them etc etc etc.
Door swings both ways. Don't get carried away.
As for the actual topic at hand, Spurs, great franchise/run but not dynasty. They are not some team that simply can not be vanquished, every other year someone knocks them out. Usually us.
Havent we argued in the boxing forum before??? Anywho, Please dont compare Bruce Bowens defense to any of the Mavs defense that year. I think you're getting carried away yourself. While I admit. My post was pretty bold, but not far fetched. You and me both know this.
I know Im gonna ruffle some feathers in here, but since we are talking about Dynasties...............Didnt LA miss the playoffs in 2004-2005 and get knocked in the first round the following year? Since we are pretty much talking about the last decade, Dont those two crappy years the Lakers had count for something negative in this Conversation. IJS
- 943
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
Originally Posted by CP1708
Me? No sir, I pay very little attention to Boxing. Used too when there were more boxers and bigger names, not so much anymore.
What I was saying is Bruce is more physical then Dallas by a zillion miles, ie he woulda had 11 fouls a game.
- 15,762
- 517
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2005
I know Im gonna ruffle some feathers in here, but since we are talking about Dynasties...............Didnt LA miss the playoffs in 2004-2005 and get knocked in the first round the following year? Since we are pretty much talking about the last decade, Dont those two crappy years the Lakers had count for something negative in this Conversation. IJS
Well you have the same argument with the '94-'95 Bulls. Did that 2 year hiatus of missing the Finals take away from their "dynasty"?
- 943
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
Well you have the same argument with the '94-'95 Bulls. Did that 2 year hiatus of missing the Finals take away from their "dynasty"?
Bulls didnt have Jordan. The Lakers still had kobe.
- 12,536
- 39
- Joined
- May 5, 2009
Bulls didnt have Jordan. The Lakers still had kobe.
granted. but that bulls team still had the majority of their nucleus including phil as their coach. while the Lakers were completely a new team that year and their coach rudy t left after halfway through the season.
the spurs are a dynasty even without repeating. but c'mon they werent going to win 5 in a rowTCERDA wrote:
.4 second shot by Derek Fisher to beat the Spurs in 04 and Dirk's and1 to send the game in OT in game 7 of the conference Finals. Those 2 plays literally cost the Spurs from winning 5 Championships in a row.I guess these two plays keep them out of Dynasty talk
TCERDA wrote:
I know Im gonna ruffle some feathers in here, but since we are talking about Dynasties...............Didnt LA miss the playoffs in 2004-2005 and get knocked in the first round the following year? Since we are pretty much talking about the last decade, Dont those two crappy years the Lakers had count for something negative in this Conversation. IJS
Well you have the same argument with the '94-'95 Bulls. Did that 2 year hiatus of missing the Finals take away from their "dynasty"?
Bulls didnt have Jordan. The Lakers still had kobe.
And Smush.......
What the Lakers did is unprecedented. We took a title team, tore it to SHREDS, fired everybody but Kobe, and of all people, Devan George and Luke Walton. () and then 9 new guys.
NINE.
3 years later, we were back in contention. Nobody does that. Nobody.
Same as Lebron, same with Shaq, it wasn't JUST Shaq leaving, it was Fox, Fish, Horry the year before, GP and Malone, Phil, EVERYBODY was kicked out, we started with Kobe, and 2 scrubs.
- 15,762
- 517
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2005
Bulls didnt have Jordan. The Lakers still had kobe.
Granted, but who's to say that the Bulls would have won 8 straight titles?
- 7,696
- 4,390
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
Spurs are a dynasty
cedric ceballos 1995 lakers
Banned
- 10,833
- 11
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2009
Bulls didnt have Jordan. The Lakers still had kobe.
winning 3 titles in a row and another title at the end of that decade, being in the finals more then half the decade, and beating the team that won the 2nd most titles that decade 4 of the 5 times they met in the playoffs makes 1 injury plagued season irrelveant.
- 8,322
- 335
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2006
The Lakers took their championships
- 3,236
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
i could have sworn this was already debated back in '07
- 33,681
- 29,006
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
The spurs are the best run organization in basketball period, it's not even a question, they are the model by which all should be defined about how to run an effective basketball organization.
They play in San Antonio, it's not like LA where the market instantly attract free agents no matter how bad the team is.
They play in San Antonio, it's not like LA where the market instantly attract free agents no matter how bad the team is.
- 14,370
- 243
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- 18,759
- 10,157
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
Spurs were a dynasty but don't get it twisted.
The Spurs 4 championships is not better than the 3peat Lakers last decade who made it to the Finals 4 out of 5 years. Also the Lakers 2000-2001 title where they went 15-1 in the playoffs puts the Lakers 3 peat dynasty better than the Spurs dynasty.
Also Spurs fan & Laker haters hate hearing this but you can't change the facts that the Spurs 1999 championship came in a strike shortened season.
The Spurs 4 championships is not better than the 3peat Lakers last decade who made it to the Finals 4 out of 5 years. Also the Lakers 2000-2001 title where they went 15-1 in the playoffs puts the Lakers 3 peat dynasty better than the Spurs dynasty.
Also Spurs fan & Laker haters hate hearing this but you can't change the facts that the Spurs 1999 championship came in a strike shortened season.
- 4,911
- 165
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2006
So, what are you trying say? That '99 chip didn't mean anything, that an asterisk should be placed beside the year. From what I saw, every team was battling through the playoffs, every team had to play the same number of games and if the Knicks would have won it, that asterisk WOULDN'T be a topic of discussion. The fact that the Spurs won another 3 titles discounts that fact. It wasn't a fluke. A fluke was the Miami v. Dallas finals
- 943
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
Realest post in a while!
cedric ceballos 1995 lakers
Banned
- 10,833
- 11
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2009
Originally Posted by T21D
So, what are you trying say? That '99 chip didn't mean anything, that an asterisk should be placed beside the year. From what I saw, every team was battling through the playoffs, every team had to play the same number of games and if the Knicks would have won it, that asterisk WOULDN'T be a topic of discussion. The fact that the Spurs won another 3 titles discounts that fact. It wasn't a fluke. A fluke was the Miami v. Dallas finals.
i hate defending the spurs but here i go.
THE 1999 TITLE IS LEGIT. EVERY TEAM PLAYED 50 GAMES THAT YEAR SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY ADVANTAGE OVER ANYONE ELSE.. THE SPURS SWEPT 2 OF THE BEST TEAMS IN THE WEST AND WON EVERY PLAYOFF SERIES HANDILY THAT YEAR. THE WAY THE SPURS PLAYED AFTER THAT 6-8 START IN 1999 NOBODY WAS BEATING THEM THAT YEAR.
- 44,205
- 2,535
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
Whoa, whoa, whoa... let's not get carried away.Originally Posted by 23ska909red02
DipsetGeneral:
The Spurs have the most championships than any other club of the last decade.
How are they not a dynasty OP?
LAKERS
00-01
01-02
08-09
SPURS
02-03
04-05
06-07
That 1999 Spurs championship is from what would have been the 98-99 season.
And does the 99-00 Lakers championship count as the last title of the 90s or the first title of the 00s? Because if it counts as the last title of the 90s (meaning it doesn't count for last decade), then the 09-10 counts as the last title of the 00s, so the Lakers have 4 for the decade.
The Lakers 00' does count.
&
I coulda sworn the Spurs won four. Who won the championship in 99'? Spurs right?
- 44,205
- 2,535
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
theyre a dynasty no doubt but most championship of the last decade? i hope that happens to be just a plain math mistake.
My fault, yeah it was a mistake.
- 44,205
- 2,535
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
I say we count 99' as apart of the decade
- 12,005
- 12,975
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
This really has nothing to do with the Spurs, but this thread just reminded me that Phil Jackson won ALL of his championships within TWO decades.
11/20.
However, you can't downplay the greatness of the Spurs during the past decade because they didn't repeat, they were indeed a dynasty;
and perhaps the most underrated one.
11/20.
However, you can't downplay the greatness of the Spurs during the past decade because they didn't repeat, they were indeed a dynasty;
and perhaps the most underrated one.
- 4,911
- 165
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2006
That can't be denied nor questioned. Phil Jackson is
Yes, I'm a Spurs fan. I said it.
- 4,584
- 53
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2004
You win, then all the other teams adapt and become better for the most part to beat you. That's the formula every year. I commend anyone who can be outsmarted only to outsmart again and again and again, especially with something "so up in the air" like basketball
