Spurs Championships Are Pretty Weak

[SilkkTheShocker]

99- Beat an injured Knicks team.
03- Beat Jason Kidd's Nets
05- Beat a very good Pistons team
07-Beat the least talented Finals team in NBA history.

Not very impressive :confusedshrug: :confusedshrug:

[DMV2]

Their real competition was in the West.

[DMAVS41]

99- Beat an injured Knicks team.
03- Beat Jason Kidd's Nets
05- Beat a very good Pistons team
07-Beat the least talented Finals team in NBA history.

Not very impressive :confusedshrug: :confusedshrug:

99 - Beat Shaq/Kobe
03 - Beat Shaq/Kobe
05 - Beat a championship Pistons team
07 - Easiest title I can remember

I'm kind of just playing around above. The Spurs have lucked out a bit on their titles. Kobe wasn't ready in 99. Dirk got hurt in 03. Competition was pathetically weak in 07.

[SpecialQue]

So's your trolling as of late. Get on the ball, Silkk. :facepalm

[SCdac]

Lakers played the Nets and Pistons in the Finals too :confusedshrug: ... Not to mention those were great teams.

Even if we're going off star players, in championship runs Spurs went through teams starring Lebron, Kobe & Shaq, Garnett, Nowitzki, Nash & Amare, Gasol, Sheed & Big Ben, Allen & Lewis, Carmelo & Camby, D. Wiliams & Boozer, etc.

[Magic 32]

99 - Beat Shaq/Kobe


http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/105/1/0/not_convinced_by_qwistie-d4wazxz.gif

[SilkkTheShocker]

So's your trolling as of late. Get on the ball, Silkk. :facepalm

legit topic, brah. They beat a bunch of shit teams in the Finals.

[T_L_P]

I'm literally laughing at the idea of '03 being a weak championship.

Call it an easy Finals match-up if you want (though I'm not exactly sure what that makes 2011 for LeBron), but that Spurs team had no business winning it in the first place...thus it is impressive.

[ImKobe]

Never repeated as champs, lost 4, won 2 series against the Lakers since 99.

[T_L_P]

Never repeated as champs, lost 4, won 2 series against the Lakers since 99.

You're acting like the Spurs, not the Lakers, are unanimously considered the best team of the 2000s. :oldlol:

[Magic 32]

I'm literally laughing at the idea of '03 being a weak championship.

Call it an easy Finals match-up if you want (though I'm not exactly sure what that makes 2011 for LeBron), but that Spurs team had no business winning it in the first place...thus it is impressive.

No Dirk though.

The impressive thing about that run was almost completely centered around the Lakers series.

And Robert Horry almost buried them.

[ImKobe]

I'm literally laughing at the idea of '03 being a weak championship.

Call it an easy Finals match-up if you want (though I'm not exactly sure what that makes 2011 for LeBron), but that Spurs team had no business winning it in the first place...thus it is impressive.

A lot of things just went right for them that year. Duncan was at his very best, Lakers were coming off a 3-peat and Shaq just wasn't as good as he was in his other years, faced a young Suns team in the 1st round, faced the best offense in the league in Dallas, but Dirk and Nash were neutralized in that series, both shot 43% from the field, the Nets team just had 0 answer for Duncan, just like they had no answer for Shaq & Kobe the year prior (both had their best Finals series in 2002).

The Spurs weren't that great on the offensive end, but their defense was ranked top 3 in the league, and along with Duncan that carried them all the way to the Finals, where the opposing team really didn't have an answer for Duncan. Also a fun fact, every series the Spurs won in 6 games.

[davehos]

:biggums:

Beating Shaq + Kobe was something I could do with a pickup group at the park.

[rmt]

Another fun fact is that they've won a different way each time - 5, 6, 7, and 4 game series.

Spurs have won with a completely different roster than earlier. They've rebuilt while for the most part keeping under the luxury tax. They do that with smart scouting, player development and choosing their players wisely. They don't have the luxury of a great city to attract free agents or tons of money to pay players. That they're still contending after 16 years is amazing - their consistency is excellent. The fact that they've won 4 rings with not that much talent overall (compared to other teams) is to be admired - not put down.

If you take a good look at the team, (not counting Duncan and Manu who are sooooo old), there's really only Parker and Leonard who are good. Green was a scrub who was bouncing around the league, Tiago is sooooft - most of their players (except Diaw) are one-dimensional. They make up for that with chemistry, playing smart - the intangibles. Unfortunately, that's not enough come playoff time when talent rules and EVERYBODY is trying hard.

[ImKobe]

You're acting like the Spurs, not the Lakers, are unanimously considered the best team of the 2000s. :oldlol:

The best team on the 2000s never even won championships in consecutive years :oldlol:

[J Shuttlesworth]

It's all about the WCF for the Spurs, silkk

[ArbitraryWater]

Thought about that as well.

1999-50 Game Season/Knicks in Finals without Best Player.
2003-Beat Mavericks in WCF because their Best Player/Dirk is out&injured after G3.
2005-Beat the Pistons in 7. Okay. Duncan had a piss poor finals, barely came away with the Win.
2007-Weakest Spurs Team of the 4. Beat the Suns mainly because of a horribly officiated G3 and that the Suns 2nd Best Player/Stoudemire was suspended for G5. Then in the Finals beat one of the worst finals teams ever, arguably the worst.


However, on the other side the Spurs were a couple of bounces away from winning it all in 2004 (Fisher 0.4) , 2006 (Dirk And-One), 2008 (Barry foul not called), 2012 (Refs turn WCF G6 in OKC's Favor), 2013 (Missed FT's/Rebounds/Allen 3/etc.).... they were in the hunt for winning almost every year.

I think 1999 has the biggest asterisk over it, they only won because Bulls/Jordan retired a year too soon.

[T_L_P]

The best team on the 2000s never even won championships in consecutive years :oldlol:

But that's what I'm saying.

The Lakers are the team of the 2000s, no question about it. That the Spurs managed to win 4 titles in an 9 year span is nothing short of amazing.

You know it, I know it.

[T_L_P]

Duncan had a piss poor finals

21/14/2/2 going up against some of the league's best defenders whilst anchoring an entire defense is piss poor?

It wasn't a good series for Duncan by any means, but it's better than what most players can even dream of doing.

[Joyner82reload]

When the Eastern Conference loses in the Finals, they usually have an absolute SCRUB of a team playing. Just look at the past 20 years

2011 Heat
2010 Celtics
2009 Magic
2007 Cavs
2005 Pistons
2003 Nets
2002 Nets
2001 Sixers
2000 Pacers
1999 Knicks
1995 Magic
1994 Knicks

Absolute GARBAGE. The 95 Magic is probably the best of the bunch, followed by the 2011 Heat. Then I don't even know what...it's so bad

[tpols]

When the Eastern Conference loses in the Finals, they usually have an absolute SCRUB of a team playing. Just look at the past 20 years

2011 Heat
2010 Celtics
2009 Magic
2007 Cavs
2005 Pistons
2003 Nets
2002 Nets
2001 Sixers
2000 Pacers
1999 Knicks
1995 Magic
1994 Knicks

Absolute GARBAGE. The 95 Magic is probably the best of the bunch, followed by the 2011 Heat. Then I don't even know what...it's so bad
Bolded teams are faaaar from scum. All five would whoop OKC's ass

[DMAVS41]

But that's what I'm saying.

The Lakers are the team of the 2000s, no question about it. That the Spurs managed to win 4 titles in an 9 year span is nothing short of amazing.

You know it, I know it.

Nobody is saying it isn't impressive, but to act like they didn't get some lucky breaks and play weaker than normal competition in championship runs is disingenuous.

Take the 03 Spurs. They of course should not have won with that roster. But they got a break when Dirk got hurt. I wouldn't use that year against them at all...and the greatness of Duncan in 03 was amazing, but it's a lucky break regardless.

05 was super impressive and anyone that says otherwise is a fool

But 07? It was a joke year. The Mavs would have given them a great series and that should have been the real title series, but the Mavs got upset and the Spurs avoided really having to play anyone that year.

It's just the way it goes, but try to imagine the Spurs having to play a team like the 06 Heat or 08 Celtics in 2007...do they still win? Maybe, but it's a lot ****ing harder than playing the 07 Cavs.

I'm a huge Duncan/Spurs guy even as a Mavs fan, but given the competition the Spurs faced in some years...the Mavs would have at least 1 more title. Like I said, imagine the 06 Mavs playing a team like the 07 Cavs in the finals. It's just good luck or bad luck...one is a for sure win...the other is a real test.

Same thing with the 08 Lakers...they easily beat the 07 Cavs and they have a 3 peat.

I think stuff like that is what people are getting at...and just more reasons why putting so much emphasis on titles for players is an extremely flawed way of thinking.

[Joyner82reload]

Bolded teams are faaaar from scum. All 4 would whoop OKC's ass

:roll:

95 Magic would be a good series. Celtics get rolled due to athleticism differential. 2011 get trashed in the Finals by Durant. 94 Knicks were probably the worst offensive team to EVER make the Finals.

[JohnFreeman]

:roll:

95 Magic would be a good series. Celtics get rolled due to athleticism differential. 2011 get trashed in the Finals by Durant. 94 Knicks were probably the worst offensive team to EVER make the Finals.
Okc would get killed by 11 Heat

[DMAVS41]

:roll:

95 Magic would be a good series. Celtics get rolled due to athleticism differential. 2011 get trashed in the Finals by Durant. 94 Knicks were probably the worst offensive team to EVER make the Finals.

God....shut up.

The 11 Heat, 10 Celtics, and 05 Pistons were all great teams. And the 00 Pacers are seriously under-rated as well.

[tpols]

:roll:

95 Magic would be a good series. Celtics get rolled due to athleticism differential. 2011 get trashed in the Finals by Durant. 94 Knicks were probably the worst offensive team to EVER make the Finals.

Yea like when the 2012 Celtics took Miami to 7 being even older and slower than before.:

Miamis not athletic at all though right?:rolleyes:


And no 2011 Heat dont get trashed by Durant because the only reason Bran dissapeared is because he got punked by a group of vets. When facing little bro KD the very next year he took a shit on him.

Bran can be intimidated.. not by OKC though.:oldlol:

[ArbitraryWater]

21/14/2/2 going up against some of the league's best defenders whilst anchoring an entire defense is piss poor?

It wasn't a good series for Duncan by any means, but it's better than what most players can even dream of doing.

Yes, 42% is poor. Kobe gets killed for that, why shouldnt Duncan?

[Joyner82reload]

Okc would get killed by 11 Heat

The only chance they would have would be Wade playing Hero ball. The Heat were +1.6 with LeBron on the court in the 2011 playoffs, and +16.3 with him on the bench :roll:

[Magic 32]

Yes, 42% is poor. Kobe gets killed for that, why shouldnt Duncan?

Can anyone find a superstar who posted good FG% against the 2004-2006 Pistons or the 2008-2010 Celtics.

[JohnFreeman]

Joyner confirmed to have only just started watching bball

[Joyner82reload]

Joyner confirmed to have only just started watching bball

Apr 2013 :coleman:

[J Shuttlesworth]

God....shut up.

The 11 Heat, 10 Celtics, and 05 Pistons were all great teams. And the 00 Pacers are seriously under-rated as well.
I swear joyner just started watching in 2013 :lol

[J Shuttlesworth]

Apr 2013 :coleman:
Jan 2014 :coleman:

[JohnFreeman]

Durant wouldnt have made it out of the 2011 ECF let alone finals

[Joyner82reload]

Jan 2014 :coleman:

Must be new here. I've been here since 2008

[Uncle Drew]

Yes, 42% is poor. Kobe gets killed for that, why shouldnt Duncan?
Neither should. That Piston team is one of the elite defensive teams of ALL TIME.

[T_L_P]

Yes, 42% is poor. Kobe gets killed for that, why shouldnt Duncan?

So he had a piss poor shooting series, not a piss poor series.

It was a defensive series, and Duncan was our most valuable/best defender. Put two and two together and. . .

[Demitri98]

The West was a dogfight and the fact they came out on top of it all 4 times is pretty damn impressive.

[tpols]

So he had a piss poor shooting series, not a piss poor series.

It was a defensive series, and Duncan was our most valuable/best defender. Put two and two together and. . .

If you look at the 2010 Celtics Lakers series, Kobe was placed on Rondo and did a great job limiting him.. Rondo went OFF in earlier rounds and was

14/8 45% shooting in the Finals against LA

Against Brans Cavs?

21/12 54% shooting :oldlol:


Kobe was cutting Rondo off and taking the paint completely away from him.. just like he did Westbrook in the first round.

Kobe grabbed 8 boards a game as well...

Shot 53TS to Duncans 47TS



But all we hear is Kobe's a chucker.

[ArbitraryWater]

Can anyone find a superstar who posted good FG% against the 2004-2006 Pistons or the 2008-2010 Celtics.

No lol. Everybody shot poorly against them. Kobe, LeBron, Duncan.

But I can find you players who posted a good FG% against the 2011 Celtics (Wade 53%, LeBron 47% which is above average) and 2012 Celtics (LeBron 53%), those teams werent much different.

[Artillery]

Shot 53TS to Duncans 47TS

But all we hear is Kobe's a chucker.

What is the relevance of this comparison? You pulled Duncan's stats against the Pistons and comparing it to Kobe stats against the Celtics. Two different teams. How about comparing it to Kobe's stats against the Pistons?

[tpols]

What is the relevance of this comparison? You pulled Duncan's stats against the Pistons and comparing it to Kobe stats against the Celtics. Two different teams. How about comparing it to Kobe's stats against the Pistons?

Im talking about the double standards set.. 05 Pistons were better defensively than the 10 Celtics.. but not by a lot. They were both great defensive teams.

Both leaders shot poorly.. for Duncan? Its oh but he played great defense! It was a defensive series!

But so was LA BOS.. it was a total dog fight and not pretty at all. Just as muchy won on defense and rebounding as the spurs did. And Kobe was instrumental in playing great defense on a guy who had been torching teams in earlier rounds. And he grabbed a shit ton of rebounds for a SG.

But somehow that never comes up when discussing those Finals.. its just 6-24 LOL

But they neglect to tell you Paul Pierce went 5-15, ray allen 3-14, Pau 6-16, Metta 7-18.. everyone was shooting like shit

[Artillery]

Can anyone find a superstar who posted good FG% against the 2004-2006 Pistons

Shaq was dominant against 'em. 26.6 ppg on .61 TS%. Problem is he only took 84 FGAs that series. Kobe took the majority of the shots(113 FGAs) and shot piss poor for the most part(.45 TS%)

[mr.big35]

there championship were legit. back then western conference was stacked from to to bottom. winning the western conference was same as winning it all

[tragicbronson]

:wtf:
OP prolly some salty suns fan.
To add, trolls like this one should be completely ignored. :sleeping

[SCdac]

Neither should. That Piston team is one of the elite defensive teams of ALL TIME.

This.

The Lakers entire team shot 41.6% against the Pistons in 2004 Finals

Historically strong defense and should be no surprise various players struggled against them.

Duncan did average 23.3 ppg / 14.5 rpg in the 4 wins against Pistons though.

... and keep in mind it was a low scoring (~85 ppg), grind it out series

[Magic 32]

But I can find you players who posted a good FG% against the 2011 Celtics (Wade 53%, LeBron 47% which is above average) and 2012 Celtics (LeBron 53%), those teams werent much different.

No Tony Allen or James Posey though.

And two prime superstars in hard to handle after 3 postseason runs (2011).

And the 2012 Celtics barely beat the 76ers.

[tpols]

No Tony Allen or James Posey though.

And two prime superstars in hard to handle after 3 postseason runs.
And the 2011 Celtics were nowhere near as good as the 2010 playoff version.

[ArbitraryWater]

And the 2011 Celtics were nowhere near as good as the 2010 playoff version.

nowehere near as good? Disagreed, they were a hair away from taking G4&G5 from Miami... only a Pierce GW Miss at the Buzzer and LeBron going GOD MODE prevented Celtics having the upper hand on the series.

[DMAVS41]

Im talking about the double standards set.. 05 Pistons were better defensively than the 10 Celtics.. but not by a lot. They were both great defensive teams.

Both leaders shot poorly.. for Duncan? Its oh but he played great defense! It was a defensive series!

But so was LA BOS.. it was a total dog fight and not pretty at all. Just as muchy won on defense and rebounding as the spurs did. And Kobe was instrumental in playing great defense on a guy who had been torching teams in earlier rounds. And he grabbed a shit ton of rebounds for a SG.

But somehow that never comes up when discussing those Finals.. its just 6-24 LOL

But they neglect to tell you Paul Pierce went 5-15, ray allen 3-14, Pau 6-16, Metta 7-18.. everyone was shooting like shit


It goes both ways...comparing Kobe's defense to Duncan's is also laughable...

Just like it's laughable to claim Kobe was bad in the 10 Finals

But I'm interested in why Kobe fans and specifically you...continue to compare Kobe to Duncan as if they are remotely the same player. All I hear from the Kobe side is a bunch of arguments about how Kobe is the better offensive player...which I have yet to see anyone dispute

I'll say it again though. Comparing Kobe and Duncan...and not firstly talking about Duncan's defense would be like talking about Kobe and ignoring his scoring

Duncan's defense and rebounding...especially in his prime...was his greatest asset

So if you are going to compare them...at least start with that.

Kobe funneling Rondo (a guy that can't shoot) into his frontline should never be compared to what Duncan does a defensive anchor

[r0drig0lac]

lol, trying to diminish the merits of a franchise that won four times in nine years

[Magic 32]

Shaq was dominant against 'em. 26.6 ppg on .61 TS%. Problem is he only took 84 FGAs that series. Kobe took the majority of the shots(113 FGAs) and shot piss poor for the most part(.45 TS%)

That don't explain box scores like this:

http://oi39.tinypic.com/ohljix.jpg

[TMT]

This kid didn't even watch basketball during these years. Let alone know who the Spurs played along the way.

The only one I would say was semi-easy was 2007 because Don Nelson basically had the complete blueprint of the Mavs gameplan and how to stop them. They were dominant during the regular season that year. But Stephen Jackson shut down Dirk, and Baron played out of his mind.

The Suns were the only other team that could have made it out of the West that year, and you can say Robert Horry worked a little magic in that series by getting himself suspended along with Amare, but in reality the Spurs were the better team as they demonstrated in years prior and years after that.

Then the Pistons who were pretty much at the end of the road as far as competing for championships, were thumped by Lebron and had no answer for him defensively. I'm pretty sure this was the year that Ben Wallace got sent to the Bulls, and Chris Webber/Rasheed Wallace were playing center for them if I'm not mistaken? Either way they weren't the dominant defensive team that they had been from 2004-06. Spurs proved that when they turned the perception that Lebron was a defense destroyer by shutting him down in the Finals.

[SCdac]

Amare put 38 points and 12 rebounds in the final game of the 2007 series (in other words, he wasn't suspended). Nash had 18 points and dished 14 assists.

They had their chance to extend or win the series, yet they still lost despite their best players playing about as good as they can play.

Spurs just had the Suns number. They beat the Suns 4-1 the very next playoffs, and it was the 3rd time Spurs had beaten a team with Shaq on it.

[tpols]

It goes both ways...comparing Kobe's defense to Duncan's is also laughable...

Just like it's laughable to claim Kobe was bad in the 10 Finals

But I'm interested in why Kobe fans and specifically you...continue to compare Kobe to Duncan as if they are remotely the same player. All I hear from the Kobe side is a bunch of arguments about how Kobe is the better offensive player...which I have yet to see anyone dispute
r
Kobe was much better than Duncan offensively in this comparison

21ppg on 47TS versus 29ppg on 53TS

Theyre not even remotely comparable.

Just like Duncan's defense anchoring against Detroit was more valuable than Kobe's defense on Rondo, Kobe's offense was vastly better than Duncans even though they both played poorly for their standards on that end. Overall they both played good well rounded series except Kobe gets a ton of hate for his and theres nothing for Duncan.

[Grey Dawn]

legit topic, brah. They beat a bunch of shit teams in the Finals.

But as said it's not all about the Finals, you have to get there too, so no, titles not weak.

[DMAVS41]

Kobe was much better than Duncan offensively in this comparison

21ppg on 47TS versus 29ppg on 53TS

Theyre not even remotely comparable.

Just like Duncan's defense anchoring against Detroit was more valuable than Kobe's defense on Rondo, Kobe's offense was vastly better than Duncans even though they both played poorly for their standards on that end. Overall they both played good well rounded series except Kobe gets a ton of hate for his and theres nothing for Duncan.

I never said Duncan was as good offensively...so I don't follow.

And you know the reason Kobe gets hate for that series...it's about game 7. His 6-24 performance.

I've seen you compare it to Duncan's, but it's actually demonstrably worse.

You think that is a double standard, but it actually isn't. This is my point...they were comparable offensively (although Duncan was clearly better)...and then, as you said, comparing Kobe's defense to Duncan's is silly.

Nobody would have said anything about that series...other than praise of course...if Kobe had not played game 7 like that. Again...it's more than 6-24...it's how he played the first 3 qtrs....forces, selfishness...etc.

When Duncan's shoots 10/27 (way better than 6 of 24 mind you)...he gets more of a pass because of what he brings as a defensive anchor...I think that is the point you are missing

[tpols]

You think that is a double standard, but it actually isn't. This is my point...they were comparable offensively (although Duncan was clearly better)...and then, as you said, comparing Kobe's defense to Duncan's is silly.

huh? 8 more ppg on 6TS better.. I dont follow anything youre saying. Kobe was very clearly better offensively in this comparison. Its not even remotely close.


You're making your full judgement for the series based on one game.. youre no better than a mindless troll with that type of reasoning.:confusedshrug:

[Anaximandro1]

The Spurs have lucked out a bit on their titles. Kobe wasn't ready in 99. Dirk got hurt in 03. Competition was pathetically weak in 07.
Kobe ended up making the All NBA third team in 1999.


It goes both ways

00 - Duncan missed the playoffs with a knee injury
04 - Fisher's miracle shot
06 - Manu's foul on Dirk
13 - ....


Lakers were very lucky throughout the playoffs in 2000 (Duncan's injury, Blazers monumental collapse), 2002 (Kings) and 2009 (KG's injury)




All I hear from the Kobe side is a bunch of arguments about how Kobe is the better offensive player...which I have yet to see anyone dispute
Kobe better offensive player than Duncan? Sure, after the NBA changed the rules.

Kobe had terrible ORtg, FG%, eFG% and TS% throughout the playoffs (1999 - 2004)



Spurs have won with a completely different roster than earlier. They've rebuilt while for the most part keeping under the luxury tax. They do that with smart scouting, player development and choosing their players wisely. They don't have the luxury of a great city to attract free agents or tons of money to pay players. That they're still contending after 16 years is amazing - their consistency is excellent. The fact that they've won 4 rings with not that much talent overall (compared to other teams) is to be admired - not put down.

This.

[JUDGE WITNESS]

indeed they are not very impressive

[NumberSix]

if you don't repeat, it's a fluke.


4 flukes.

[JUDGE WITNESS]

if you don't repeat, it's a fluke.


4 flukes.
for someone who doesnt like kobe this reasoning essentially justifies all of kobes championships

[NumberSix]

for someone who doesnt like kobe this reasoning essentially justifies all of kobes championships
It's a joke Mr. President.

[JUDGE WITNESS]

It's a joke Mr. President.
My mistake Mr. President.

[rmt]

if you don't repeat, it's a fluke.


4 flukes.

I wonder if you thought Lebron's only championship was a fluke when Spurs were 28 seconds away from their 5th.

[NumberSix]

I wonder if you thought Lebron's only championship was a fluke when Spurs were 28 seconds away from their 5th.
No. That was legit. The Spurs being up 5 with :28 to go was the fluke. Obvi.

[kennethgriffin]

Their real competition was in the West.

1999 = before prime kobe/dumb shaq/no phil
2003 = kobe torn knee and shoulder ( colorado surgery )
2005 = lakers rebuilding
2007 = lakers rebuilding


spurs might have just 1 semi legit victory during a time when lakers were actual contenders.


compared to the lakers who won 4 titles during a spurs contending year... only 1 year was duncan hurt

[T_L_P]

1999 = before prime kobe/dumb shaq/no phil
2003 = kobe torn knee and shoulder ( colorado surgery )
2005 = lakers rebuilding
2007 = lakers rebuilding


spurs might have just 1 semi legit victory during a time when lakers were actual contenders.


compared to the lakers who won 4 titles during a spurs contending year... only 1 year was duncan hurt

:oldlol:

2000 - Kobe was a role player on the whole
2002 - Rigged all the way
2009 - Past prime Tim Duncan
2010 - Past prime Tim Duncan

[kennethgriffin]

:oldlol:

2000 - Kobe was a role player on the whole
2002 - Rigged all the way
2009 - Past prime Tim Duncan
2010 - Past prime Tim Duncan


2000 - kobe was 1st team all defense, top 5 all around player, 23/5/5, single handedly won them game 4 of the finals.

2002 - there wasnt a spurs game in question. it was against the kings. and they got all the calls at home just as the lakers did. the league always extends great series to 7 games. even phil said it multiple times while getting fined

2009 - spurs were contenders... and lol@ the agenda flip flop.. when theres a kobe/duncan thread. their fans say duncan was great all the way till last year. now hes past his prime as of 6 years ago? ok I'L REMEMBER THAT FOR THE NEXT KOBE/DUNCAN THREAD LMAO

2010 - ditto



but forget just when they won.. kobe 4-2 vs duncan in the playoffs head to head lmao

[T_L_P]

2000 - kobe was 1st team all defense, top 5 all around player, 23/5/5, single handedly won them game 4 of the finals.

2002 - there wasnt a spurs game in question. it was against the kings. and they got all the calls at home just as the lakers did. the league always extends great series to 7 games. even phil said it multiple times while getting fined

2009 - spurs were contenders... and lol@ the agenda flip flop.. when theres a kobe/duncan thread. their fans say duncan was great all the way till last year. now hes past his prime as of 6 years ago? ok I'L REMEMBER THAT FOR THE NEXT KOBE/DUNCAN THREAD LMAO

2010 - ditto



but forget just when they won.. kobe 4-2 vs duncan in the playoffs head to head lmao

2000 - 21/5/5 in the Playoffs that year; 16/5/4 in the Finals and his team still won convincingly.

2002 - Rigged series, no title without the refs help therefore this wouldn't be a conversation

2009 - No Manu in the Playoffs

2010 - 9th in Off Rtg, 8th in Def Rtg, real contenders.

[tpols]

2000 - 21/5/5 in the Playoffs that year; 16/5/4 in the Finals and his team still won convincingly.

2002 - Rigged series, no title without the refs help therefore this wouldn't be a conversation

2009 - No Manu in the Playoffs

2010 - 9th in Off Rtg, 8th in Def Rtg, real contenders.
:biggums: you reachin

[T_L_P]

:biggums: you reachin

So the Spurs were contenders with Michael Finley as their third best player?

[VIP2000]

Nobody is saying it isn't impressive, but to act like they didn't get some lucky breaks and play weaker than normal competition in championship runs is disingenuous.

Take the 03 Spurs. They of course should not have won with that roster. But they got a break when Dirk got hurt. I wouldn't use that year against them at all...and the greatness of Duncan in 03 was amazing, but it's a lucky break regardless.

05 was super impressive and anyone that says otherwise is a fool

But 07? It was a joke year. The Mavs would have given them a great series and that should have been the real title series, but the Mavs got upset and the Spurs avoided really having to play anyone that year.

It's just the way it goes, but try to imagine the Spurs having to play a team like the 06 Heat or 08 Celtics in 2007...do they still win? Maybe, but it's a lot ****ing harder than playing the 07 Cavs.

I'm a huge Duncan/Spurs guy even as a Mavs fan, but given the competition the Spurs faced in some years...the Mavs would have at least 1 more title. Like I said, imagine the 06 Mavs playing a team like the 07 Cavs in the finals. It's just good luck or bad luck...one is a for sure win...the other is a real test.

Same thing with the 08 Lakers...they easily beat the 07 Cavs and they have a 3 peat.

I think stuff like that is what people are getting at...and just more reasons why putting so much emphasis on titles for players is an extremely flawed way of thinking.

You're also forgetting that the Mavs took 7 games to beat the Kings, and C-Webb went down with an injury after game 2.

[TheMan]

I love the fact that a Bron stan made this thread disparaging the Spurs championship runs when his idols title years competition have also been less than impressive.

His first title, gets past a weak EC in general but has to go 7 games vs an old Celtics team a shadow of their former selves, then beats one of the youngest teams to make the NBA Finals.

His second NBA title run, gets past an ever weaker EC with every contender dealing with major injuries but not before needing 7 games to get past Indiana and playing an old ass Spurs team in the Finals. Again, they need 7 games against a Spurs team nowhere near the 07 version. 07 Spurs would beat last year's Heat in 5 games easily.

Two can play that game, fakkit.

[sportjames23]

I love the fact that a Bron stan made this thread disparaging the Spurs championship runs when his idols title years competition have also been less than impressive.

His first title, gets past a weak EC in general but has to go 7 games vs an old Celtics team a shadow of their former selves, then beats one of the youngest teams to make the NBA Finals.

His second NBA title run, gets past an ever weaker EC with every contender dealing with major injuries but not before needing 7 games to get past Indiana and playing an old ass Spurs team in the Finals. Again, they need 7 games against a Spurs team nowhere near the 07 version. 07 Spurs would beat last year's Heat in 5 games easily.

Two can play that game, fakkit.


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[houston]

A champion is a champion regardless

[Young X]

I BEEN saying this. Besides 05 when have they actually beat an elite team?

[Dizzle-2k7]

LMAO at the haters in this thread.


THE WESTERN CONFERENCE playoffs were basically NBA finals every year... Spurs whooped on countless ELITE teams including lakers, mavs, SUNS (super stacked), nuggets, prime twolves (kg), etc etc

yall salty as fukkk
http://blogimages.thescore.com/tbj/files/2013/06/tim-duncan-in-front-of-banners.jpg

[JohnFreeman]

Tim Dizzle best PF :bowdown:

[BigMacAttack]

They were literally one Ray Allen shot away from beating Miami last year, I guess that would of been another weak one?

[VIntageNOvel]

agree silkk,
kobe and bran >> duncan

[DMAVS41]

So the Spurs were contenders with Michael Finley as their third best player?

He thinks so. He's on record claiming that Kobe would have won with the Spurs roster in 09. That's how delusional he is...

[The Iron Fist]

He thinks so. He's on record claiming that Kobe would have won with the Spurs roster in 09. That's how delusional he is...
Kobe won with worse in 09. He'd carry that Spurs team to an easier title.

[riseagainst]

Im talking about the double standards set.. 05 Pistons were better defensively than the 10 Celtics.. but not by a lot. They were both great defensive teams.

Both leaders shot poorly.. for Duncan? Its oh but he played great defense! It was a defensive series!

But so was LA BOS.. it was a total dog fight and not pretty at all. Just as muchy won on defense and rebounding as the spurs did. And Kobe was instrumental in playing great defense on a guy who had been torching teams in earlier rounds. And he grabbed a shit ton of rebounds for a SG.

But somehow that never comes up when discussing those Finals.. its just 6-24 LOL

But they neglect to tell you Paul Pierce went 5-15, ray allen 3-14, Pau 6-16, Metta 7-18.. everyone was shooting like shit

this is such a great post. Unfortunately, agenda-driven people are just going to ignore this.

[rmt]

I don't get a Lebron fan disparaging Spurs' championships - if not for Spurs monumental mess up (a gift), Lebron would be the most criticized superstar in the world. That choke virtually saved Lebron's career - if not, there'd be no talk of GOAT, no talk of top 10 (or top 4 or whatever he's saying these days). Instead the news would be of 1 in 4 Finals, there'd be much gnashing of teeth and the media would have a field day. Lebron fans should be sending Spurs team flowers.

[rmt]

Kobe won with worse in 09. He'd carry that Spurs team to an easier title.

Other than Parker and Duncan:

2009 Playoffs
Michael Finley 8 pts / 1 asst 44.1%FG 35 years old
Drew Gooden 7.3 pts / 3.8 rebs 33.3%
Roger Mason 6.6 pts 37.5%

Also had a 37 year old Bruce Bowen, a 36 year old Kurt Thomas, a 33 year old Oberto.
So you're telling me that Kobe would take that to a title. Sure, pull the other leg.

[JohnFreeman]

Other than Parker and Duncan:

2009 Playoffs
Michael Finley 8 pts / 1 asst 44.1%FG 35 years old
Drew Gooden 7.3 pts / 3.8 rebs 33.3%
Roger Mason 6.6 pts 37.5%

So you're telling me that Kobe would take that to a title. Sure, pull the other leg.
:applause:

[TheMan]

I don't get a Lebron fan disparaging Spurs' championships - if not for Spurs monumental mess up (a gift), Lebron would be the most criticized superstar in the world. That choke virtually saved Lebron's career - if not, there'd be no talk of GOAT, no talk of top 10 (or top 4 or whatever he's saying these days). Instead the news would be of 1 in 4 Finals, there'd be much gnashing of teeth and the media would have a field day. Lebron fans should be sending Spurs team flowers.
This guy gets it:applause:

The Spurs titles are legit as any teams, and really, Bron stans should be grateful that the Spurs practically gifted LeBron's second ring...1/4 NBA titles for LeBron would've killed his legacy.

[Lebron23]

In fairness to them they beat some quality teams in the conference finals. And I personally think that the 2013 Spurs were better than the 2012 OKC Thunder, and the 2nd best spurs team of all time.

[DMAVS41]

Kobe won with worse in 09. He'd carry that Spurs team to an easier title.

The sick thing is...I actually think you believe this.

[Big#50]

Lakers three peat were weak. 2000 Duncan is injured in the playoffs. 2001 The Spurs suck. 2002 The Spurs suck. Kings get ****ed over. 2004 The Pistons got lucky they didn't play The Spurs. 2006 The Heat were gifted a ring. The Spurs would have beat them if it weren't for Manu foul and POP sucking. 2008 The Celtics formed a super team. 2009 The Lakers were lucky KG got injured. 2010 Lakers were lucky Perkins went down. 2011 league sucks. 2012 league sucks. 2013 short season. HEAT WERE LUCKY MANU WAS TRADED TO THEM BEFORE GAME SIX. PARKER SHOWED WHY HE IS ****ING A PRODUCT OF DUNCAN. POP SHOWED HE IS A ****ING DRUNK ********** THAT WAS CARRIED BY DUNCAN SINCE DUNCANS ROOKIE YEAR.
Championships are weak. Why play the finals??