- 90,915
- 124,598
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2010
late 90s to about 2007 was pretty mediocre-bad looking back.
OFFICIAL 2010-2011 NBA PLAYOFFS THREAD : VOL. MOST. ANTICIPATED. PLAYOFFS. EVER?
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by bigmike23,
- Start date
- 2,573
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
That logic up top makes zero sense. Terrible logic AMP.
Lakers beat Pacers, 76ers, Nets. Big whoop.
I do see what you're saying big picture wise, but you can't use their title opponents as evidence
You can still have an all-time great team even by winning your titles against that same list of oppoenents.
The true test is how competitive the West was during their title run.
- 1,796
- 16
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
anyone hear that the celtics bus was robbed? jsut heard it on ESPN radio
How were the Pistons pretty weak foes? They were so damn close to beating em. Do we use this same logic for the Lakers beating up on chump teams too? Look at the teams they beat out West during their runs, that HAS to count for something.
And Pop needed to play Splitter more for the sole fact that he would at least be a big body to size up with Gasol/Zach. You can't keep trotting out an ineffective Blair.
BTW, top 15 defense = not a shred of defense?
And Pop needed to play Splitter more for the sole fact that he would at least be a big body to size up with Gasol/Zach. You can't keep trotting out an ineffective Blair.
BTW, top 15 defense = not a shred of defense?
- 1,211
- 10
- Joined
- May 2, 2011
- 2,573
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
Conley's terms over the next 5:
6.5, 7, 8, 8.5, 9
Hmm, I think I might have jumped the gun a bit calling Memphis out for that
Numbers not fit for an All-Star, which I don't think Conley will ever be, but fair at least. Others convinced, not convinced yet?
6.5, 7, 8, 8.5, 9
Hmm, I think I might have jumped the gun a bit calling Memphis out for that
Numbers not fit for an All-Star, which I don't think Conley will ever be, but fair at least. Others convinced, not convinced yet?
Originally Posted by ex carrabba fan
That logic up top makes zero sense. Terrible logic AMP.
Lakers beat Pacers, 76ers, Nets. Big whoop.
I do see what you're saying big picture wise, but you can't use their title opponents as evidence
You can still have an all-time great team even by winning your titles against that same list of oppoenents.
The true test is how competitive the West was during their title run.
Lakers also tore thru the Blazers each year, the Spurs a couple times, and the Kings each year. All were 50 and 60 win teams.
The East Finals teams were weak, yes. But to get there, was not.
Pro, the Pistons were good, sure, but really good? You remember that squad?
Doo, you can cry all you want, go ahead and show me the elite players and teams during the mid 2000's. List them out, and lets look at them. Then go ahead and try and say how stupid I am.
- 11,980
- 18
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
I'm not hyping up the Lakers either. The Post-Jordan era mainly sucked, the only great team imo was the 2001 Lakers squad that had 1 loss throughout the whole playoffs. That period sucked and why many lost interest in the league. I'm not condemning the Spurs, and I'm not applauding the Lakers, the era sucked. I mean the Nets got to the finals twice in a rowOriginally Posted by ex carrabba fan
That logic up top makes zero sense. Terrible logic AMP.
Lakers beat Pacers, 76ers, Nets. Big whoop.
I do see what you're saying big picture wise, but you can't use their title opponents as evidence
You can still have an all-time great team even by winning your titles against that same list of oppoenents.
The true test is how competitive the West was during their title run.
And while I enjoyed those Piston teams, they still remain the only team in NBA history to really win without a real Franchise type player. Amazing but still...
- 2,573
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
All I'm saying is, who did the Spurs beat in the west on the way to their titles? I honestly am too lazy to refresh my memory.
Lakers beat a ton of powerful/talented teams in the west, I think they deserve a bit of applause
Not to mention one year they didn't lose one game until the finals
I see what you're saying once again AMP, but come on both SA and LAL deserve more credit than that
Lakers beat a ton of powerful/talented teams in the west, I think they deserve a bit of applause
Not to mention one year they didn't lose one game until the finals
I see what you're saying once again AMP, but come on both SA and LAL deserve more credit than that
CP, what are we comparing the Pistons team to? EC 90's teams? Then no, not better than those teams. But still, an extrememly solid team 1-8/9 that really has no business being mentioned in the same terms as those Nets, Knicks, Pacers, 76ers or Cavs teams that the Spurs/Lakers beat in the Finals.
I'll just say that the era was weak for sure but both teams went through tough battles in the WC to somewhat make up for it.
I'll just say that the era was weak for sure but both teams went through tough battles in the WC to somewhat make up for it.
- 90,915
- 124,598
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2010
It's only a "bad contract" in my eyes because I believe they could have extended him for cheaper had they just waited until the summer. The new CBA will likely favor a team like the Grizzlies to keep their talent plus there are not that many teams with cap space that are looking for a PG. Maybe the Kings but even then that's not a good fit.Originally Posted by ex carrabba fan
Conley's terms over the next 5:
6.5, 7, 8, 8.5, 9
Hmm, I think I might have jumped the gun a bit calling Memphis out for that
Numbers not fit for an All-Star, which I don't think Conley will ever be, but fair at least. Others convinced, not convinced yet?
In the end, it doesn't matter if Conley is an All Star or perceived to be a top 10 PG or whatever as long as he does what's being asked of him in Memphis. I'm not his biggest fan, but he's improved the past three years and should only get better. It's just a matter of consistency with him.
- 8,332
- 216
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
If Spurs titles are "fraudulent" or less merited, then the Lakers first 3 titles are just as bad.
No title outside of the 1980s would get much play if we are using the reasoning stated...
No title outside of the 1980s would get much play if we are using the reasoning stated...
- 2,573
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
All that really needs to be said concerning the LA/SA runs
- 11,980
- 18
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
And the Suns were one of the better teams that didn't win. Horrible luck, Amar'e injury one year, Joe Cool injury the other, than the suspensions. I believe if not for the suspensions they would have won in '07 but that is obviously playing what-ifs.
But for instance I also believe the Pacers would have won in '05 if not for the brawl. So IMO, the Spurs got two huge breaks those year that catapulted them to the title. Without those the story would be written a little differently but hey, Duncan & Pop have 4 rings that no one can take away from them. Best Coach & Best PF ever, I sure would trade my meager existence as a Knick fan for those titles in an instant
.
But for instance I also believe the Pacers would have won in '05 if not for the brawl. So IMO, the Spurs got two huge breaks those year that catapulted them to the title. Without those the story would be written a little differently but hey, Duncan & Pop have 4 rings that no one can take away from them. Best Coach & Best PF ever, I sure would trade my meager existence as a Knick fan for those titles in an instant
- 1,211
- 10
- Joined
- May 2, 2011
What is this...I don't even...
So you think beating the 2000 Blazers team, the 01 Spurs AND Kings on the road, and the 02 Kings as well as Spurs, is the same as what the Spurs took on in 05 and 07?
The biggest win the Spurs had was us in 03, coming off 3 straight deep playoff runs, and running outta gas.
Not to even get into, LA repeated, and then did it again, the Spurs? Could never make runs back to back. Sorta says something, does it not?
Spurs went thru a Dirk Mavs team. A Nash Suns team, and a team comin off 3 straight finals runs. I mean, things sorta broke their way no?
- 2,573
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
I mean I think at this point, that's what the better discussion is.Originally Posted by Proshares
I have a feeling all you want to hear is that the Lakers were the better team during the era. But, you would never admit it
I would give the edge to LA. Like I said, when they ran through the playoffs undefeated and lost in OT in game 1 to Philly... I mean that was their only loss of the entire post season.
Who does that?
- 25,494
- 653
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
Originally Posted by CP1708
(why do I have a feeling I'm about to be ripped apart for this comment?)
wil the same go for the lakers?
- 8,332
- 216
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
^1983 sixers...
I think it's an exaggeration to say the early 2000 teams were far better than the mid 2000s teams. Singularly, the Lakers were the better team. Their best was better than SAS beat. But in totality, during that 8 year stretch? Depends. 3 in a row or 4 of 8? Immediate domination or consistent success? Long Term Capital Management or Bridgewater associates?
I think it's an exaggeration to say the early 2000 teams were far better than the mid 2000s teams. Singularly, the Lakers were the better team. Their best was better than SAS beat. But in totality, during that 8 year stretch? Depends. 3 in a row or 4 of 8? Immediate domination or consistent success? Long Term Capital Management or Bridgewater associates?
Are you talkin about me? If you are, then NO, not even close. I could care less what anyone thinks about us. I already know we get a bad rap like the Yankees, or Duke, etc etc.Originally Posted by Proshares
I have a feeling all you want to hear is that the Lakers were the better team during the era. But, you would never admit it
Here are the teams the Spurs beat their 3 runs.
03, Suns, Lakers, Mavs. That was the Marbury team, right? They sucked. LA, comin off 3 straight finals. Their biggest and most impressive series win of the decade, and it wasn't close to even in terms of legs and what not. Mavs with Nash and Dirk. Solid win.
05, Nuggets, Sonics, Suns.
07, Nuggets, Suns, Jazz. Melo all alone still, Nash Suns, and baby Deron Jazz. Followed by baby Bron's Cavs.
Where in this list, do you see the 2000 Blazers 1-10 squad? Do you see the Chris Webber Kings in there anywhere? Do you see a David/Tim Duncan style Spurs type team in there?
The Mavs beat them in 06, then choke in 07, so no rematch.
Lakers beat them 8-1 in 01, 02, in 03 the Spurs win, in 04 LA comes right back and beats them again.
Each time they win a title, they can't get back the next year. Hell, even the Nets and Pistons made return trips to the finals guys. I mean, damn.
They faced less comp then teams before, and after them. Boston in 08 stuffed us, and we murked the Spurs. I wish the Spurs coulda faced that Celtics team, they woulda been swept.
You think I'm wrong, fine, show me the teams that I just named that were SOLID, STAR driven type teams, that were great. Just show me those teams, prove me wrong. Here is all the info, now go show me how wrong I am. That's all I'm askin.
Which ones? 00, or 2010 era?Originally Posted by Bigmike23
Originally Posted by CP1708
(why do I have a feeling I'm about to be ripped apart for this comment?)
wil the same go for the lakers?
See my post above this, and tell me if they are the same in your opinion.
- 25,494
- 653
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
so when the lakers won the title it was a good year in the 00 era but when the spurs did it was a down year.....................
- 4,973
- 19
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
Have you guys seen this pic? Didn't know KD had tattoos. From Yahoo! Sports pictures.
