|
Official 2006-2007 NBA Season Thread (pg. 71)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Rockabye |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kapedan
We were about to win it last year too, just for a stupid call (sorry Rockabye). |
No prob. We got our stupid calls in the Finals. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| LeopoldStotch |
I think Bill Simmons put it best saying this is the best Spurs championship team during this stretch of championships they have won. they can match up with practically any team in the nba, up or down tempo, and there is no mismatches from top to bottom.
if i can spot a weakness on the spurs at the moment, i would say the closest is the center position, because of the elson/oberto combination. they are playing very well in my opinion, and the closest to best centers they could get since robinson's retirement. if only mohammad could have stayed. nesterovic was crap. |
|
|
| verndogs |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kapedan
We were about to win it last year too, just for a stupid call (sorry Rockabye). |
you mean the foul when dirk made the 3 last year?
that was a foul. ginobili screwed up that play. he's more than making up for it this year. |
|
|
| verndogs |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rockabye
the Spurs are DYNASTY... DYNASTY... DYNASTY!!! |
nope. have to win more to be a dynasty |
|
|
| Kapedan |
| quote: | Originally posted by verndogs
nope. have to win more to be a dynasty |
4? 5? 6? 10? Well, I think the Spurs can get this one and another one. After that, I will be surprised. |
|
|
| verndogs |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kapedan
4? 5? 6? 10? Well, I think the Spurs can get this one and another one. After that, I will be surprised. |
after they win this one, win the next 2 in a row
then i'll label them a dynasty
edit: another title next year then the spurs have a case, win the next 2 titles in 08 and 09 and they'll cement their legacy |
|
|
| Rockabye |
| quote: | Originally posted by verndogs
after they win this one, win the next 2 in a row
then i'll label them a dynasty |
lol... 3 championships since 2000 aren't a dynasty?
so you wouldn't call the Pats a dynasty? or the Cowboys in the 90's? |
|
|
| verndogs |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rockabye
lol... 3 championships since 2000 aren't a dynasty?
|
(Side note: I really hate the Lakers and would take a Spurs title over the Lakers winning it all anyday)
When the Lakers also won 3 titles and in succession in that span? When the Spurs lost to the Lakers in the 2001, 2002 and 2004 playoffs? When the Lakers have been in more NBA finals than the Spurs since 2000?! You gotta be kidding me. The Lakers and the Spurs are pretty much tied for the team of the decade.
Calling the Spurs up to this point a dynasty is a slap in the face to the early Minneapolis Lakers of the 50s, the Boston Celtics of the 60s and the Chicago Bulls of the 90s.
However, they have a chance to join the coveted few.
| quote: | | Originally posted by Rockabye so you wouldn't call the Pats a dynasty? or the Cowboys in the 90's? |
absolutely not for each team.
edit: at least in the super bowl era, there have been no dynasties. the steelers in the 70s are not a dynasty, and the 49ers of the 80s are definitely not a dynasty either, but that's a different discussions for another day.
edit 2: have to alter opinion about the steelers. for some reason, I thought they won the SB in 1971 and thought they had a longer gap between the first and last super bowls in the 70s. they're pretty much the closest thing to a dynasty in the super bowl era. |
|
|
| Viber |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kapedan
Well wait a second. When the Suns play, the Spurs are exciting because the Suns play high powered offence. So its always the Spurs that are boring, not everyone else. It s not like Cleveland is putting such a great performance. For goodness sake, they are in the Finals, they need to start playing like they are in the Finals.
Also, where is Lebron? I know that he is 22, but you guys need to top making him sound like MJ. MJ had 36 points in his first finals game.
All I am saying is that people are always going to complain on how boring the Spurs are. They win everything. We were about to win it last year too, just for a stupid call (sorry Rockabye). We have the best player in basketball, one of the best point guards, and manu. You guys expect the Spurs to play like the Suns. Well, unless you dont want to win championships, you cant play like the Suns, even Dallas realized that. There are not a lot of exciting teams out there. Blame NBA, not the Spurs. |
They are also very dirty, i mentioned many reasons for hating the Spurs in the past...:) :)
i dont love the Suns too to be honest, i actually really appreciate a good defensive effort - i enjoyed watching the Pistons in their Championship season so its not about the Spurs style on play.
i think the playoffs last year was very exciting and this year im not even sorry i missed it,it looks booring like the regular season.
I think that if The Blazers,Lakers,GS,Mavs,Heat,Pistons,Toronto and teams like that will be on top we could have a better league - i dont care if the level will be a bit(!) lower.
after all 'March Madness' for example is not so good because of the high level of play - its good bcz its competitive. |
|
|
| LeopoldStotch |
i'll just repeat what i told vern earlier. lol.
the Spurs in my opinion are a "mini" dynasty, like the Lakers from 1999-2004. The Spurs dynasty started in 2001, and it's still going (may end either next year or 2009, depending on the status of some key nucleus guys).
the spurs won the finals in 2003, 2005, and this year(yes i am counting this year. call me a swami. i see the spurs in 4 games).
in 2002, the spurs didn't have ginobli, a key part in the dynasty.
in 2004, the spurs ended the regular season winning 12 straight games. they swept the grizzlies in the first round(4 games), and won the first 2 games against the lakers. so before breaking down in the series, and getting owned the next 4 games, they won 18 straight games. that's pretty good. they also won 61 games that year. also, if it wasn't for fisher's last second shot in game 5, the spurs motivation could have been there for game 6. keep in mind in game 5, duncan had 21 points and 20 rebounds, and shot what should have been the GW shot in game 5.
in 2006, they had a solid year. yet, in my opinion, dallas clearly had the slight edge over san antonio in the series. they were leading the series 3-1, before san antonio won games 5 and 6, and after that we saw the epic game 7. that series could have went either way.
so basically, we could have saw the spurs win 5 straight championships(03-07), if it wasn't for 2 "snafus".
this dynasty all started with the spurs drafting ginobli in the 2nd round in 1999, and parker in the first round in 2001. everything else fell in place for them.
f.y.i. - when the spurs got dominated by the lakers in the 2002 playoffs, tim duncan averaged 28.4 points, 17.2 rebounds, 4.6 assists, and 3.2 blocks in that series. :eyes: |
|
|
| jupiterone |
| Cavs are gonna get swept like nothing |
|
|
| Rockabye |
| quote: | Originally posted by jupiterone
Cavs are gonna get swept like nothing |
most boring finals ever. where is your Michael LeBron Jordan James? :conf: Wasn't this the game he had to really step up? :conf:
rating drop down 25% from last year. :rolleyes:
with the superstars of the future being in Portland, Seattle and Cleveland this league is more than dead. :rolleyes: |
|
|
|
|
