If the entire Spurs team/staff were in Lakers uniforms, would they still be "boring"?

[Tarik One]

Hypothetically, what if the Spurs, particularly during Tim Duncan's era, had accomplished everything they had, only difference is that it was in L.A. Laker uniforms.

Would their overall perception of fans have been different?

[IncarceratedBob]

i think a championship is a championship regardless of what uniform u r wearing

san antonio is a shit hole and los angeles is a cool place tho so maybe that means something

[sammichoffate]

i think a championship is a championship regardless of what uniform u r wearing

san antonio is a shit hole and los angeles is a cool place tho so maybe that means something"Gotta get them Big Ole' Women in San Antonio"-Charles Barkley :roll:

[IGOTGAME]

Yes...it would be very different. It's silly to call teams with Parker and Ginobili boring.

[russwest0]

Yes...it would be very different. It's silly to call teams with Parker and Ginobili boring.

Harden = Ginobli with more FT's and less defense and apparently people think he's exciting to watch.

[Uncle Drew]

http://puu.sh/7vEbd.gif

[CelticBaller]

yes

[absalom]

If Timmy D wear a lakers uni, there would be duncan stans not kobe stans here. :banana:

[Smook A.]

Harden = Ginobli with more FT's and less defense and apparently people think he's exciting to watch.
Because he's black

[kNicKz]

The spurs aren't boring and your thread is a failure

:confusedshrug:

[sd3035]

When your star player in nicknamed "the big fundamental", you know you have problems in the excitement area

[Lakers Legend#32]

Spurzzzzzzz:sleeping

[no pun intended]

The spurs aren't boring and your thread is a failure

:confusedshrug:
by "boring", he's referring to worldwide popularity of the team. and it's pretty evident that there's relatively lower viewership when the spurs win the championship

http://i.imgur.com/Jjf7G4c.png

[SpecialQue]

The only reason why people call the Spurs boring is because Tim Duncan is the face of that team and he's as boring as watching flies fvck. Make Duncan the leader of any team and that team instantly becomes "boring."

Why do the Lakers have their cocky asshole reputation? Because Kobe's been the face of this team since Shaq left, and Shaq wasn't exactly humble either. It has nothing to do with how they actually play. It's the team leader's personality that dictates the team's reputation.

[Artillery]

When your star player in nicknamed "the big fundamental", you know you have problems in the excitement area

Nowhere near as embarrassing as The Servant or as corny as Black Mamba. There's nothing more narcissistic than a player choosing his own nickname.

[Milbuck]

Harden = Ginobli with more FT's and less defense and apparently people think he's exciting to watch.
I like the spirit of what you're saying, but you're selling Manu short.

Manu is much more than just less FTs and more defense. He is so much better than James Harden that it's just laughable to compare the two. 3x champion to a grade-A fat girl.

[JohnFreeman]

Only dirty neck beard casuals think Spurs are boring

[J Shuttlesworth]

If Timmy D wear a lakers uni, there would be duncan stans not kobe stans here. :banana:
lol @ you thinking that most of these guys root for Kobe because he's on the Lakers, and not vice versa.

[JohnFreeman]

lol @ you thinking that most of these guys root for Kobe because he's on the Lakers, and not vice versa.
Exactly. They would rather a turnaround jumper from 40 ft then proper fundamentals.

[Artillery]

I like the spirit of what you're saying, but you're selling Manu short.

Manu is much more than just less FTs and more defense. He is so much better than James Harden that it's just laughable to compare the two. 3x champion to a grade-A fat girl.

Stamina and durability is important though and Harden has that in spades over Manu. If Manu was able to play as many minutes as Harden, he'd have been regarded as the best SG in the league during the mid 2000s(yes, even over Kobe)

[Milbuck]

Stamina and durability is important though and Harden has that in spades over Manu. If Manu was able to play as many minutes as Harden, he'd have been regarded as the best SG in the league during the mid 2000s(yes, even over Kobe)
Nope.

[JohnFreeman]

Manu > Harden
Not even an argument to be had.

[sammichoffate]

Small-market also has a factor in the Spurs being referred to as "boring".

[Artillery]

Nope.

Yes. Manu's impact stats are insane. Better than Kobe's thoughout the 2000s. Only players more impactful than him over the decade are Lebron, Duncan, and Garnett. He'd be a helluva amazing player if he had the ability to play 40 mpg.

[Milbuck]

Yes. Manu's impact stats are insane. Better than Kobe's thoughout the 2000s. Only players more impactful than him over the decade are Lebron, Duncan, and Garnett. He'd be a helluva amazing player if he had the ability to play 40 mpg.
You're honestly telling me that if you had the chance to replace a healthy, 36-40mpg capable Manu with peak Kobe on those Spurs teams, you wouldn't do it? Leave your biases out of it.

[davehos]

by "boring", he's referring to worldwide popularity of the team. and it's pretty evident that there's relatively lower viewership when the spurs win the championship


Wasn't last years Finals one of the stop rated in history? I live in Bay Area and GS Warrior regular season games always have like 15-20% Spurs fans in the stands. They may not bring in TV ratings but they rake in cash for the clubs even as visitors.

[Artillery]

You're honestly telling me that if you had the chance to replace a healthy, 36-40mpg capable Manu with peak Kobe on those Spurs teams, you wouldn't do it? Leave your biases out of it.

Would Kobe's game translate successfully outside of the triangle? The past few years has shown us that Kobe's been unable to adapt to other coach's systems. He had problems playing next to a defensive big in Howard. A year later, Howard is having a career resurgence playing next to a Ginobili-style player in Harden.

I don't think Kobe-Duncan would be as great a fit as a 40 mpg Manu playing alongside TD. Would Ginobili score 35 ppg like Kobe? Hell no. But he'd be a much better fit next to other star players because of his range, off ball game, consistent defense, and great balance. The ultimate team player. Mid-2000 Spurs had enough headaches with Parker chucking them out of games from time to time. Not so sure they need another high usage chucker on that team.

[Milbuck]

Would Kobe's game translate successfully outside of the triangle? The past few years has shown us that Kobe's been unable to adapt to other coach's systems. He had problems playing next to a defensive big in Howard. A year later, Howard is having a career resurgence playing next to a Ginobili-style player in Harden.

I don't think Kobe-Duncan would be as great a fit as a 40 mpg Manu playing alongside TD. Would Ginobili score 35 ppg like Kobe? Hell no. But he'd be a much better fit next to other star players because of his range, off ball game, consistent defense, and great balance. The ultimate team player. Mid-2000 Spurs had enough headaches with Parker chucking them out of games from time to time. Not so sure they need another high usage egomaniac in that locker room.
It didn't help at all that with the Lakers, Dwight Howard was primarily a defensive player, playing for a coach that didn't give a shit about defense. Or the fact that he was coming off back surgery, and had a torn labrum during the season. Or the fact that their 3 other big pieces in Nash, Gasol, and MWP were either grandpa-age, injury prone, or frustratingly inconsistent.

As for other coaches, who are these phenomenal coaches he's played with since the triangle? Mike Brown? Mike D'Antoni? Mike Brown is a decent coach, if you give him defensive minded players and a few years to build their chemistry. But when you have him for a season and 4 games, it's pretty hard to be successful with him. Like I said earlier, D'Antoni just flat out sucks.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I honestly believe Kobe Bryant would've been a more complete, better overall basketball player if he was coached and developed by Pop. He would be a more dominant off-ball player, he'd be more trusting and cooperative with his teammates, and he would probably be able to exert more energy on other areas of the game (specifically defense in his later years) because of Pop's masterful minute-management and rotation building. To assume that he'd be the same exact player he was in LA with the Spurs is just ludicrous. Do you really think Pop would have no influence on what kind of player he would be? You're selling his coaching skills very short.

[JohnFreeman]

It didn't help at all that with the Lakers, Dwight Howard was primarily a defensive player, playing for a coach that didn't give a shit about defense. Or the fact that he was coming off back surgery, and had a torn labrum during the season. Or the fact that their 3 other big pieces in Nash, Gasol, and MWP were either grandpa-age, injury prone, or frustratingly inconsistent.

As for other coaches, who are these phenomenal coaches he's played with since the triangle? Mike Brown? Mike D'Antoni? Mike Brown is a decent coach, if you give him defensive minded players and a few years to build their chemistry. But when you have him for a season and 4 games, it's pretty hard to be successful with him. Like I said earlier, D'Antoni just flat out sucks.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I honestly believe Kobe Bryant would've been a more complete, better overall basketball player if he was coached and developed by Pop. He would be a more dominant off-ball player, he'd be more trusting and cooperative with his teammates, and he would probably be able to exert more energy on other areas of the game (specifically defense in his later years) because of Pop's masterful minute-management and rotation building. To assume that he'd be the same exact player he was in LA with the Spurs is just ludicrous. Do you really think Pop would have no influence on what kind of player he would be? You're selling his coaching skills very short.
Kobe would bitch and moan about being second to Duncan.

[DonDadda59]

The media would've crowned them the new 'Showtime Lakers' a long time ago.

[Artillery]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I honestly believe Kobe Bryant would've been a more complete, better overall basketball player if he was coached and developed by Pop. He would be a more dominant off-ball player, he'd be more trusting and cooperative with his teammates, and he would probably be able to exert more energy on other areas of the game (specifically defense in his later years) because of Pop's masterful minute-management and rotation building. To assume that he'd be the same exact player he was in LA with the Spurs is just ludicrous. Do you really think Pop would have no influence on what kind of player he would be? You're selling his coaching skills very short.

Ok, when you put it this way, your argument makes sense. I thought you were talking about a hypothetical scenario where the Kobe we all know was transported to the Spurs. That would be a mess IMO. An alternate universe Kobe taught by Pop his entire career would have been interesting.

[mr.big35]

The media would've crowned them the new 'Showtime Lakers' a long time ago.

it helps to play for big market team

[T_L_P]

I get the boring reputation from Duncan's arrival through to Manu's and Parker's breakout (around '05-'06), because the Spurs epitomized the grind-it-out, offense-beats-defense style of play up until that point, along with the Pistons. And people have always disliked Duncan's style of play (even though I don't know why).

The thing is, since that time the team has been among the funnest to watch in the entire league. Perhaps that reputation carried over because our core has remained the same.

[niko]

They are not boring now. They were boring. That 2005 team, that beat the Pistons, that was hideous to watch. Pulling teeth basketball. Now they are one of the most free flowing teams in the league.

[T_L_P]

They are not boring now. They were boring. That 2005 team, that beat the Pistons, that was hideous to watch. Pulling teeth basketball. Now they are one of the most free flowing teams in the league.

'05 Finals was among the best I've ever seen. Every point was so meaningful. :confusedshrug:

I can see why people hated it though, I guess.

[Random_Guy]

is this really a hard question?
the spurs are boring because they dont have a flashy superstar, casual fan loves superstars. timmy is probably the most boring (or one of the) of all time,no disrespect but that casual fan dont like that post shit. Timmy doesnt score in flashy ways

[rmt]

it helps to play for big market team

As Parker said, "If Spurs were in NY, Timmy would be a god."