Like it or not the Warriors will go down as a historically great team

[1987_Lakers]

67-15 record
#1 Defense (#1 in Opp FG%)
#2 Offense (#1 in FG%)
+10.1 Point Differential

- MVP on the team (Curry)
- 2nd option is an All-Star who averaged 21+ points (K. Thompson)
- DPOY candidate in D. Green (Finished 2nd in DPOY Voting)
- DPOY candidate in Bogut (Elite rim protector)
- 6th man Andre Iguodala won Finals MVP (One of the best all-around players in the NBA)
- Best bench in the NBA (Iggy, Speights, Lee, Livingston, Barbosa, Ezeli)

Like it or not history will look at this team as historically great, clearly not top 5 though.

[SouBeachTalents]

Not to anybody who watched them

[navy]

Agreed. Now let's see if they can do it again.:cheers:

[RRR3]

Struggled with LeBron led dleague team :oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

And deservedly so.

Playing 6 bad qtrs in the finals doesn't change the fact that they wrecked the league from start to finish.

It's hard to place them accurately because they didn't have to play elite teams in the playoffs, but it's also not fair to penalize them for that.

And you had clowns earlier this week saying the 10 Celtics were clearly better and only an idiot thinks this Warriors team was on par with them.

Just stupid how historically under-rated this Warriors team was.

[Funktion]

83-20

[Legends66NBA7]

Third all-time in wins (regular season and playoffs) behind the 96 and 97 Bulls.

Definitely deserving. Can they get better in the future is now a more intriguing test.

[1987_Lakers]

Struggled with LeBron led dleague team :oldlol:

Even the Bad-Boy Pistons lost 2 games vs Michael Jordan with dleague players around him.

[Heavincent]

Since I've started watching, only the 3 peat Lakers were better.

[ChrisKreager]

This Warrior team will be remembred for a long time.

They combined the best attributes of many past champions.

The three-point threat of last year's Spurs. The unselfishness of the '77 Blazers.

You know what other NBA champions finished 67-15? The 1986 Celtics and 1992 Bulls.

That's elite company.

People talk about those teams with reverence, and this team will be remembered thus.

[RRR3]

Since I've started watching, only the 3 peat Lakers were better.
Lol. 2012 or 2013 Heat prison rapes these Warriors

[IGOTGAME]

And deservedly so.

Playing 6 bad qtrs in the finals doesn't change the fact that they wrecked the league from start to finish.

It's hard to place them accurately because they didn't have to play elite teams in the playoffs, but it's also not fair to penalize them for that.

And you had clowns earlier this week saying the 10 Celtics were clearly better and only an idiot thinks this Warriors team was on par with them.

Just stupid how historically under-rated this Warriors team was.

Last 25 years...how many championship teams lose to the Warriors

[navy]

They have an historical amount of depth. I cant think of a deeper team.

But I think they can be beaten by other teams.

[1987_Lakers]

Lol. 2012 or 2013 Heat prison rapes these Warriors

Miami is obviously more top heavy with LeBron & Wade, but the Warriors have superior role players and an MVP of their own in Curry. It would be an interesting series, but to me the Warriors are a more complete team with less flaws.

[Legends66NBA7]

They have an historical amount of depth. I cant think of a deeper team.

But I think they can be beaten by other teams.

They definitely can be beaten. But they arent getting stomped like people have been suggesting for months on here.

[ChrisKreager]

Lol. 2012 or 2013 Heat prison rapes these Warriors

Lack of depth/role players

Don't present the threat of a three

[1987_Lakers]

They have an historical amount of depth. I cant think of a deeper team.

They can go 11 deep, that is not an exaggeration.

[Legends66NBA7]

Lack of depth/role players

Don't present the threat of a three

The 13 Heat definitely have a threat of a three.

Guys like Miller, Battier, Chalmers, Cole and Allen made huge shots in that run.


12 Heat maybe not as much, but they can definitely hit them come playoff time.

[RRR3]

Lack of depth/role players

Don't present the threat of a three
not even close to true.

If a past prime Bran with scrubs pushed them to 6, you seriously think peak Bron with a good team doesn't win? lol

[asd]

Struggled with LeBron led dleague team :oldlol:


Warriors won the last three in a row. You call that a struggle?

[1987_Lakers]

not even close to true.

If a past prime Bran with scrubs pushed them to 6

Since when is being 30 considered past your prime?

You do realized LeBron just averaged 36|13|9 in these Finals right?:oldlol:

[DMV2]

Warriors won the last three in a row. You call that a struggle?
including a blow out in Cleveland.

tonight was a semi-blow out only because JR Smith made some lucky ass shots in the end.

Plus, Klay was a no-show in 5 of the 6 games.

[RRR3]

Since when is being 30 considered past your prime?

You do realized LeBron just averaged 36|13|9 in these Finals right?:oldlol:
he's already played as long as Larry Bird did

[oh the horror]

not even close to true.

If a past prime Bran with scrubs pushed them to 6, you seriously think peak Bron with a good team doesn't win? lol



This. You dudes are fu*king insane.



I know everyone is still high from the ride this evening but they were given some fits by an older Bron and his lovable band of losers.


You gonna tell me a healthy Bosh, Wade, peak Bron plus their role players couldn't beat this team?


STOOOOOOOP :roll:



They're an amazing team but let's relax a bit here

[RRR3]

This. You dudes are fu*king insane.



I know everyone is still high from the ride this evening but they were given some fits by an older Bron and his lovable band of losers.


You gonna tell me a healthy Bosh, Wade, peak Bron plus their role players couldn't beat this team?


STOOOOOOOP :roll:



They're an amazing team but let's relax a bit here
:applause:

[1987_Lakers]

he's already played as long as Larry Bird did

Yes, but Bird was 35 when he retired. Try again.

[navy]

Since when is being 30 considered past your prime?

You do realized LeBron just averaged 36|13|9 in these Finals right?:oldlol:
When you are on the wrong side of 30. Lebron literally had prime shaq paint numbers and near unlimited stamina. He's past his prime. I think he will be better next year though if he regains weight though.

[1987_Lakers]

including a blow out in Cleveland.

tonight was a semi-blow out only because JR Smith made some lucky ass shots in the end.

Plus, Klay was a no-show in 5 of the 6 games.
:applause:

[oh the horror]

This happens every time too.


Last year we were calling that Spurs team one of the Goat teams ever.



Let's chill, wait awhile and see how it pans out before NEXT years GOAT team
Pops up

[1987_Lakers]

This happens every time too.


Last year we were calling that Spurs team one of the Goat teams ever.

It's not an overreaction. How many teams in NBA History have won 67 games and had a +10.0 point differential?

[RRR3]

When you are on the wrong side of 30. Lebron literally had prime shaq paint numbers and near unlimited stamina. He's past his prime. I think he will be better next year though if he regains weight though.
Yeah, seriously. Prime LeBron with his current attacking mentality wins this series.

[Legends66NBA7]

This happens every time too.


Last year we were calling that Spurs team one of the Goat teams ever.



Let's chill, wait awhile and see how it pans out before NEXT years GOAT team
Pops up

But I don't see what there is to wait on about after the season they had. It really was great and all evidence points to that.


Should we wait on what they do in the future or how they stack to other teams in another 5-10 years ?

[Funktion]

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHrCHSJW8AAdV4s.png

[DMV2]

Warriors clearly didn't even play their best basketball the first 3 games and still won decisively the final 3 games. Game 4 blow out on the road. Game 5 won by 13. Tonight was a blowout for 47 minutes.

And this was with Klay being a no show for 5 of 6 games.

[Young X]

They have phenomenal depth and team defense, so even when their offense isn't clicking or their best players aren't playing well they can still beat elite teams by relying on their defense and role players stepping up. Their offense is the icing on the cake...once Curry and Thompson start lighting it up they just destroy opposing teams.

This game was a perfect example...Thompson was invisible and Curry didn't really play that well but they had guys like Iggy, Livingston and Ezeli step up and give them good minutes while playing good team defense. That's what separates them from every other team in the league - they can play at a B or C level and still win crucial games.

I would rank the '08 Celtics, '14 Spurs and maybe the '13 Heat above them in terms of recent teams though.

[navy]

But I don't see what there is to wait on about after the season they had. It really was great and all evidence points to that.


Should we wait on what they do in the future or how they stack to other teams in another 5-10 years ?
Like I said they are all time great in depth, have the greatest shooter of all time, and lots of elite defenders.

But they are a team that can be shut down because Curry can be slowed down and the rest of the guys can be straight up stopped.

All time great team. But I dont think they are the third best team of all time like their win loss record suggest.

[1987_Lakers]

All time great team. But I dont think they are the third best team of all time like their win loss record suggest.

Look at the OP where I clearly said they are not top 5 ever.

[Legends66NBA7]

Look at the OP where I clearly said they are not top 5 ever.

I don't think he meant that at you. He's probably to my post where I said they had the 3rd highest wins ( regular season and playoffs combined) behind the 96 and 97 Bulls.

[navy]

Im not sure what we are arguing anymore to be honest.

[DMV2]

Im not sure what we are arguing anymore to be honest.
OP is looking at it from overall perspective. Regular season, playoffs, Finals, individual awards, award votings, etc.

Its kinda like saying the 2008 Celtics werent all-time great team because they barely snuck by the 1st and 2nd round if we're only looking at one series or two.

They're an All-Time great team. Top 5...no...Top 10 maybe...Top 15 most likely.

[Cleverness]

watched every single minute. very special team. 83-20 in the west, WOW.

vastly underrated coaching staff that got the most out of every player. Also used the deep bench to create favoring matchups that won games all year long.

[1987_Lakers]

yep

[SCdac]

Definitely a great team :bowdown: ... Not a fluke win by any means. Hell they had a former #1 pick on their team in Bogut and he's not even one of their top 2-3 best players. Curry is the man and Thompson is excellent too...Having said that, I would have loved to seen a season / post season with a healthy Durant + Westbrook, Love + Irving, etc. But that's all circumstantial stuff NBA enthusiasts will discuss, casual fans of GSW have to no reason to give a shit. I'd be partying.. like I was last season around this time.. But yea the combination of elements necessary to win a championship is perpetually changing and shifting - clearly the Warriors had that combo this season and some. Imo 3 of the last 4 championship teams had a clear emphasis on ball movement and team work (Spurs, Warriors, Mavs) vs. a few big stars clearly heading a great team (Heat).

[nba_55]

Hard to tell how great they actually were, their road to championship was really easy.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

But I don't see what there is to wait on about after the season they had. It really was great and all evidence points to that.


Should we wait on what they do in the future or how they stack to other teams in another 5-10 years ?

They're a great team, but I have no doubt Miami in '12 or even '13 beat them. I can name a handful from the last several years that would've beaten them as well.

[Legends66NBA7]

They're a great team, but I have no doubt Miami in '12 or even '13 beat them. I can name a handful from the last several years that would've beaten them as well.

I don't disagree with that. Only thing I disagree with like others (not you) have said in here or in past threads, that they would get swept or crushed. No team in history IMO is dominating them in a series.

[ralph_i_el]

Not to anybody who watched them

They literally have changed the way teams look at offense. I won't give them credit for the innovative turbo-switching defense, because Jason Kidd was doing that in Brooklyn......but this team is one of the best of all time.

Lets see:
#1 seed by a mile in a hyper-competative west where most teams were fighting for the playoffs all year
MVP and #1 back court
Top 3 defense, innovative strategy
Deepest bench in the league
Most versatile team in the league.
Best passing team in the league (arguable with spurs and hawks imo)
Best shooting team in the league.


yup, they'll be remembered for a long long time.

[Da_Realist]

Not to anybody who watched them

:applause:

/thread

[ralph_i_el]

he's already played as long as Larry Bird did

and if Bird's back didn't give out, don't you think his prime would have lasted much longer? :facepalm

[OldSchoolBBall]

Not to anybody who watched them

This. They aren't even a top 10 team - maybe not even top 15. Teams I would EASILY take over this year's GS include:

At least 1-2 of Russell's Celtics teams
'71 Bucks
'72 Lakers
'80 Lakers
'83 Sixers
'84-'86 Celtics
'85-'88 Lakers
'88-'91 Pistons
'91 and '92 Blazers
'93 Knicks
'93 Suns
'90-'93 and '96-'98 Bulls
'00-'03 Lakers
'04 Pistons
'99, '03 and '05 Spurs
'12 and '13 Heat

Hell, I'd probably take the Durant/Westbrook/Harden Thunder over them in a series. So maybe they crack the top 20 teams of all time. Maybe.

[chips93]

Its not really fair, but it depends on how they do in coming years, that will shape how people view them.

Its not the warriors fault that they didnt have to beat another great team in the playoffs, but I know im not who wasnt that impressed with this warriors team in the playoffs.

The cavs played very good, but not great (I dont think that they had the personnel to be great) defense and made the warriors look very beatable. I dont care that the rockets beat them, I think the spurs or clippers could have beaten this warrior team.

They were a phenomenal regular season team, but they didnt look all time great in the playoffs.

But if they go out and win a 60 games, and a title, next year that will change how this years team is seen.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Asterisks

1st round-Jrue and Reke injured
2nd round-Conley and Tony injured
WCF-Bev and DMo injured
Finals-Love, Kyrie, Andy injured
when was the last time something like this happened:biggums: and they still looked beatable :biggums:

[Wade's Rings]

Asterisks

1st round-Jrue and Reke injured
2nd round-Conley and Tony injured
WCF-Bev and DMo injured
Finals-Love, Kyrie, Andy injured
when was the last time something like this happened:biggums: and they still looked beatable :biggums:

IMO they wouldn't have beaten a healthy Memphis.

[1987_Lakers]

This. They aren't even a top 10 team - maybe not even top 15. Teams I would EASILY take over this year's GS include:

At least 1-2 of Russell's Celtics teams
'71 Bucks
'72 Lakers
'80 Lakers
'83 Sixers
'84-'86 Celtics
'85-'88 Lakers
'88-'91 Pistons
'91 and '92 Blazers
'93 Knicks
'93 Suns
'90-'93 and '96-'98 Bulls
'00-'03 Lakers
'04 Pistons
'99, '03 and '05 Spurs
'12 and '13 Heat

Hell, I'd probably take the Durant/Westbrook/Harden Thunder over them in a series. So maybe they crack the top 20 teams of all time. Maybe.


This just shows your Jordan homerism.:oldlol:

[Cold soul]

Warriors are great team suburb depth, great coaching, best shooting backcourt in NBA history and have best shooter ever in Curry. I'll take these recently teams over current Warrios 14 Spurs, 12/13 Heat, 09 Lakers, and 08 Celtics.

[1987_Lakers]

They literally have changed the way teams look at offense. I won't give them credit for the innovative turbo-switching defense, because Jason Kidd was doing that in Brooklyn......but this team is one of the best of all time.

Lets see:
#1 seed by a mile in a hyper-competative west where most teams were fighting for the playoffs all year
MVP and #1 back court
Top 3 defense, innovative strategy
Deepest bench in the league
Most versatile team in the league.
Best passing team in the league (arguable with spurs and hawks imo)
Best shooting team in the league.


yup, they'll be remembered for a long long time.
yes

[DMAVS41]

They're a great team, but I have no doubt Miami in '12 or even '13 beat them. I can name a handful from the last several years that would've beaten them as well.

You should have doubt....especially about the 13 Heat...probably the most over-rated champion ever on here.

I have no idea who wins those series, but they would definitely have been in doubt.

[DMAVS41]

This. They aren't even a top 10 team - maybe not even top 15. Teams I would EASILY take over this year's GS include:

At least 1-2 of Russell's Celtics teams
'71 Bucks
'72 Lakers
'80 Lakers
'83 Sixers
'84-'86 Celtics
'85-'88 Lakers
'88-'91 Pistons
'91 and '92 Blazers
'93 Knicks
'93 Suns
'90-'93 and '96-'98 Bulls
'00-'03 Lakers
'04 Pistons
'99, '03 and '05 Spurs
'12 and '13 Heat

Hell, I'd probably take the Durant/Westbrook/Harden Thunder over them in a series. So maybe they crack the top 20 teams of all time. Maybe.

Why do people continue to act like the 13 Heat were a great team in the playoffs? And if it's not only about the playoffs...then the Warriors have a great argument over a lot of these teams.

The 03 Lakers shouldn't be on this list.

The 02 Kings, for example, were way better than both the 13 Heat and 03 Lakers.

I don't know exactly where I'd rank this Warriors team and I agree with a lot above, but the lack of respect for this team has to stop. They had it all...from great coaching to great players to depth to versatility to great offense to great defense...they could do it all.

Very few teams, even championship teams, played elite on both sides of the ball like this warriors team did.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

You should have doubt....especially about the 13 Heat...probably the most over-rated champion ever on here.

I have no idea who wins those series, but they would definitely have been in doubt.

The '13 Spurs would have beaten them too.

More importantly, why are you always looking to debate about something? The point is there are a handful of teams I would take over them. I don't care to argue about 1 or 2 that you don't feel would ala the '08 / '10 Celtics thread.

[DMAVS41]

The '13 Spurs would have beaten them too.

Why are you always looking to argue about something? The point is there are a handful of teams I would take over them. I don't care to disagree about 1 or 2 that you don't feel would.

Because I disagree with what you say.

You want me not to respond when you say something at all?

That is how this is supposed to work?

And no, the 13 Spurs would not have beaten them. An injured Parker would have been utterly destroyed by Curry/Warriors.

Stop giving teams that didn't win and don't have an overwhelming advantage the benefit of the doubt over a Warriors team that just wrecked the league.

As for the 08 Celtics. I never said they were worse. I said the 08 Celtics were better.

The 10 Celtics, again, just no...it's debatable, but really no sound reasoning to act the way you guys all did in that thread.

This Warriors team is way better than you guys are giving them credit for.

[warriorfan]

First time in NBA history an MVP was able to lead a team with 0 HoF or future HoF players to a championship.

AMC

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Because I disagree with what you say.

You want me not to respond when you say something at all?

That is how this is supposed to work?

And no, the 13 Spurs would not have beaten them. An injured Parker would have been utterly destroyed by Curry/Warriors.

Stop giving teams that didn't win and don't have an overwhelming advantage the benefit of the doubt over a Warriors team that just wrecked the league.

No I don't care to re-hash arguments we've already agreed to disagree on. We've established that I feel you over-rate the Warriors.

I'll throw you a bone and say, technically, there's little doubt I would have with the '13 Heat (needed miracle three from Ray Allen to extend their series vs SA) beating the Warriors.

[6 for 24]

First time in NBA history an MVP was able to lead a team with 0 HoF or future HoF players to a championship.


I think you are underselling Curry if you don't think he'll make the HOF. He's still pretty young and is one of the better shooter's the league has seen. Still, for Iggy to dominate the Finals with only one potential HOF sidekick vs LeBron with potentially two (assuming Love & Kyrie make it) is quite the accomplishment.

[DMAVS41]

No I don't care to re-hash arguments we've already agreed to disagree on. We've established that I feel you over-rate the Warriors.

I'll throw you a bone and say, technically, there's little doubt I would have with the '13 Heat (needed miracle three from Ray Allen to extend their series vs SA) beating the Warriors.

then don't respond to me.

if i see you post something i disagree/agree with and i'm interested in it...i'm going to post back.

i am free, just like you, to post anything i want.

if you way something about the 10 Celtics, 13 Spurs/Heat..."having little doubt" they'd beat the Warriors. I'm gonna post on it because I think that claim can't be backed up by much at all given the evidence.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

then don't respond to me.

if i see you post something i disagree/agree with and i'm interested in it...i'm going to post back.

i am free, just like you, to post anything i want.

if you way something about the 10 Celtics, 13 Spurs/Heat..."having little doubt" they'd beat the Warriors. I'm gonna post on it because I think that claim can't be backed up by much at all given the evidence.

You're getting your posters mixed up. While I feel the '10 Celtics, '13 Spurs/Heat would have beaten these Warriors, I never said it would be easy. They would all be close series IMO.

Hell, I even said the '10 Celtics is debatable if we're accounting for injuries.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11470222&postcount=93

I'm always down for a debate, but not about shit that we've discussed ad nauseam.

[DMV2]

Speaking of that 2013 playoff run. The Warriors nearly took a 2-0 lead against the Spurs if they didn't choke Game 1 in San Antonio. Their inexperience cost them that series. First-time this core pf Warriors ever been in the playoffs and they nearly took out the team that should have been champions if Pop didn't take Duncan out on that Bosh-Ray miracle play.

I think people somehow thinks this Warriors team was an overnight success with the luckiest run in playoffs history. Not really....they have been building this up for 3 years now.

All of their playoff runs so far have been impressive.
2013 - upset the Nuggets. nearly took a 2-0 lead vs Spurs. All without Lee.
2014 - took the heavily favorite Clippers to 7 games without Bogut. DAJ beasted this series.
2015 - Champions

They actually haven't choked once so far.

[sixer6ad]

This Warrior team will be remembred for a long time.

They combined the best attributes of many past champions.

The three-point threat of last year's Spurs. The unselfishness of the '77 Blazers.

You know what other NBA champions finished 67-15? The 1986 Celtics and 1992 Bulls.

That's elite company.

People talk about those teams with reverence, and this team will be remembered thus.

Could not disagree more.
- After 3 games, a large percentage of true basketball people would have said that a far less talented team was outworking and out executing them. That doesn't happen to Elite.
- The unselfishness? Game 6 - YES! Most games...dribble...dribble...dribble...ball fake...amazing make by an incredible shooter.
- their 2nd best player laid an egg
- they beat a team that played James Jones and Matthew Dellavodova a ton of minutes and that was missing two studs - and still struggled in the series.

2015 Champions? Hell yes. Fun team to watch and fun fans? Incredible. Can they shoot? As well as any team. Elite? Not close.

Don't look at records. Look at Spurs championship teams...look at Bulls in the 90's...look at film from the 82-83 sixers and the lakers/celtics 80's teams. That's elite.

[DMV2]

You're getting your posters mixed up. While I feel the '10 Celtics, '13 Spurs/Heat would have beaten these Warriors, I never said it would be easy. They would all be close series IMO.

Hell, I even said the '10 Celtics is debatable if we're accounting for injuries.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11470222&postcount=93

I'm always down for a debate, but not about shit that we've discussed ad nauseam.
2010 Celtics were overrated as hell. They had no offense and that's why they lost that series. People forgot they crawled their way into the playoffs. They hit the switch at the perfect time during their playoff run.

I'll give them credit for willpower, that's pretty much how their made that Finals a 7 game series. It shouldn't have gone that long if Gasol showed up in the Boston games.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

I think you are underselling Curry if you don't think he'll make the HOF. He's still pretty young and is one of the better shooter's the league has seen. Still, for Iggy to dominate the Finals with only one potential HOF sidekick vs LeBron with potentially two (assuming Love & Kyrie make it) is quite the accomplishment.

:lol

No signature?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

2010 Celtics were overrated as hell. They had no offense and that's why they lost that series. People forgot they crawled their way into the playoffs. They hit the switch at the perfect time during their playoff run.

I'll give them credit for willpower, that's pretty much how their made that Finals a 7 game series. It shouldn't have gone that long if Gasol showed up in the Boston games.

I judge them for their playoff run, and they turned it up like few ever did; but yes, still a lite version of their predecessors.

That '08 team was sick AF. Real oldschool too.

[Droid101]

I think you are underselling Curry if you don't think he'll make the HOF. He's still pretty young and is one of the better shooter's the league has seen. Still, for Iggy to dominate the Finals with only one potential HOF sidekick vs LeBron with potentially two (assuming Love & Kyrie make it) is quite the accomplishment.
Ah, so this ****ing retard has moved on from pure Kobe hating garbage, to hating on Curry too.

Stupid, played out, retarded schtick. Time to move on.

[6 for 24]

hating on Curry too.


I thought I was being quite complementary of Curry by calling him one of the better shooters the league has seen. His shot selection is also exemplary, rivaling even the (self-proclamed) Mamba's at times

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LFPXkW8AZyg/hqdefault.jpg

Although in this particular case, he made the shot, which isn't really in the Mamba's playbook (Kobe is usually going for the "Kobe assist" in these cases). Still plenty of time for Curry to mix & match strategies. Perhaps I was premature calling him a HOF-candidate this early. Although, in my defense, he has already matched Bean's MVP tally and we all know Kobe is at least a 2nd-ballot HOFer.

We Kobe stans / Warrior fans need to stick together!

Warmest regards,

Ayotunde Ndiaye

[DMAVS41]

You're getting your posters mixed up. While I feel the '10 Celtics, '13 Spurs/Heat would have beaten these Warriors, I never said it would be easy. They would all be close series IMO.

Hell, I even said the '10 Celtics is debatable if we're accounting for injuries.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11470222&postcount=93

I'm always down for a debate, but not about shit that we've discussed ad nauseam.


You just got done saying you'd have "no doubt" that the 12/13 Heat and I guess now you are including the 13 Spurs...would beat the Warriors.

If you don't have any doubt...that implies some things. Does it not?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

You just got done saying you'd have "no doubt" that the 12/13 Heat and I guess now you are including the 13 Spurs...would beat the Warriors.

If you don't have any doubt...that implies some things. Does it not?

Nah I just think those guys beat them 100%.

Don't know how many games, could go the full 7 in each series, but in an alternate reality, I would be confident in betting against GS.

[YouGotServed]

I thought I was being quite complementary of Curry by calling him one of the better shooters the league has seen. His shot selection is also exemplary, rivaling even the (self-proclamed) Mamba's at times

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LFPXkW8AZyg/hqdefault.jpg

Although in this particular case, he made the shot, which isn't really in the Mamba's playbook (Kobe is usually going for the "Kobe assist" in these cases). Still plenty of time for Curry to mix & match strategies. Perhaps I was premature calling him a HOF-candidate this early. Although, in my defense, he has already matched Bean's MVP tally and we all know Kobe is at least a 2nd-ballot HOFer.

We Kobe stans / Warrior fans need to stick together!

Warmest regards,

Ayotunde Ndiaye

:roll:

[KG215]

Since I've started watching, only the 3 peat Lakers were better.
And the 2014 Spurs, 2012 Heat (maybe 2013 Heat, too), and 2008 Celtics.

Or, at least those are teams I'd pick over the 2015 Warriors in a playoff series.

[DMAVS41]

Nah I just think those guys beat them 100%.

Don't know how many games, could go the full 7 in each series, but in an alternate reality, I would be confident in betting against GS.

Okay, that's fine, but does the Warriors vs Spurs series in 2013 not give you some pause?

Like...will you admit that this Warriors team is considerably better than that 13 Warriors team? I'm going to assume you will.

Well, if you remember that series, the Warriors pretty much played them even...and that was with Curry hurt most of the series with his glass ankles. I think Bogut was injured as well most of that series, but I honestly can't remember the details...but I do know Curry was not right.

I mean...worse team, worse coach, worse version of pretty much every player...and they really did test those Spurs. Warriors could have, and probably should have...gone up 2-0 in that series.

So, I mean, what are you basing it on? What gives you the "no doubt"?

Because I just think all the evidence would at least one to admit there is doubt about that team beating this Warriors team.

[DMAVS41]

And the 2014 Spurs, 2012 Heat (maybe 2013 Heat, too), and 2008 Celtics.

Or, at least those are teams I'd pick over the 2015 Warriors in a playoff series.

I think the 14 Spurs beat them...obviously don't think the 13 Spurs beat them.

08 Celtics and 12 Heat are not locks by any means, but I'd slightly favor them...although it would depend on who had home court.

As for the 3 peat Lakers? I don't think the 00 Lakers win for sure...especially if Kobe isn't right...the 01 and 02 teams do though.

[Hey Yo]

Struggled with LeBron led dleague team :oldlol:
THIS

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Okay, that's fine, but does the Warriors vs Spurs series in 2013 not give you some pause?

Like...will you admit that this Warriors team is considerably better than that 13 Warriors team? I'm going to assume you will.

Well, if you remember that series, the Warriors pretty much played them even...and that was with Curry hurt most of the series with his glass ankles. I think Bogut was injured as well most of that series, but I honestly can't remember the details...but I do know Curry was not right.

I mean...worse team, worse coach, worse version of pretty much every player...and they really did test those Spurs. Warriors could have, and probably should have...gone up 2-0 in that series.

So, I mean, what are you basing it on? What gives you the "no doubt"?

Because I just think all the evidence would at least one to admit there is doubt about that team beating this Warriors team.

Those are all valid points, but I think Miami would have also slowed the game down. The difference being LeBron was better in '12 and '13, and Wade/Bosh were better than any second and third options he had in this series.

Their offense was better (more shooters along with offensive playmakers) and their defense would at least be comparable. Just a more experienced team all-around.

Again, this is all predicated on the fact Cleveland is missing Kyrie and Love.

[DMAVS41]

Those are all valid points, but I think Miami would have also slowed the game down. The difference being LeBron was better in '12 and '13, and Wade/Bosh were better than any second and third options he had in this series.

Their offense was better (more shooters along with offensive playmakers) and their defense would at least be comparable. Just a more experienced team all-around.

Again, this is all predicated on the fact Cleveland is missing Kyrie and Love.

That post was solely talking about the 13 Spurs. You just said the 13 Spurs would win, and I'm curious as to why you think this given the evidence we have. Could they? Sure, but you seem to be insinuating that you don't have much doubt.

As for the Heat. I think the 12 Heat win, but the 13 Heat lose. The 13 Heat, imo at least, are a really over-rated team. They were absolutely great when they were healthy, but they basically slumped their way to the title. The Spurs were worn down in the finals and Lebron was doing his standard finals thing of clanking shot after shot. It took a borderline miracle for them to win that series and I don't think they get that lucky against a Warriors team with no health problems at all.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

That post was solely talking about the 13 Spurs. You just said the 13 Spurs would win, and I'm curious as to why you think this given the evidence we have. Could they? Sure, but you seem to be insinuating that you don't have much doubt.

As for the Heat. I think the 12 Heat win, but the 13 Heat lose. The 13 Heat, imo at least, are a really over-rated team. They were absolutely great when they were healthy, but they basically slumped their way to the title. The Spurs were worn down in the finals and Lebron was doing his standard finals thing of clanking shot after shot. It took a borderline miracle for them to win that series and I don't think they get that lucky against a Warriors team with no health problems at all.

Manu dealt with injuries that entire year, and especially in the playoffs. If you remember during the 2014 finals, the narrative was that guy was finally healthy, and played a great series to redeem himself.

Curry's ankle injury was a common thing a few years back. Dude was spraining them so often people thought he was injury prone. Fact is though, he played for the rest of the series and the Spurs, who were banged up themselves, took care of business and handled the last 2 games of that series by an average of 15 points.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

It comes down to trust honestly. Simply put, I trust the Spurs' system and less erratic play over this Warriors team.

It would be a helluva series though. I know that much.

[DMAVS41]

Manu dealt with injuries that entire year, and especially in the playoffs. If you remember during the 2014 finals, the narrative was that guy was finally healthy, and played a great series to redeem himself.

Curry's ankle injury was a common thing a few years back. Dude was spraining them so often people thought he was injury prone. Fact is though, he played for the rest of the series and the Spurs, who were banged up themselves, took care of business and handled the last 2 games of that series by an average of 15 points.

Yep...and that 13 Warriors team was nowhere near as good as the 15 Warriors team.

Like...a homeless man's version of this team.

The Warriors were injured, not well coached, and just weren't close to the two way force they are now.

If that shell of a Warriors team that won 47 games and didn't have a top 10 offense or defense could legit give the Spurs trouble...I don't see how one could claim there don't have much of a doubt that the 13 Spurs beat the 15 Warriors.

It just doesn't make much sense given all the evidence.

[DMAVS41]

It comes down to trust honestly. I simply trust the Spurs' smart and less erratic play over this Warriors.

It would be a helluva series though. I know that much.

So why the "no doubt" on this stuff? Because the 13 Heat weren't any better than a healthy 13 Spurs team.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yep...and that 13 Warriors team was nowhere near as good as the 15 Warriors team.

Like...a homeless man's version of this team.

The Warriors were injured, not well coached, and just weren't close to the two way force they are now.

If that shell of a Warriors team that won 47 games and didn't have a top 10 offense or defense could legit give the Spurs trouble...I don't see how one could claim there don't have much of a doubt that the 13 Spurs beat the 15 Warriors.

It just doesn't make much sense given all the evidence.

The 2008 Hawks took the Celtics to 7 games, and for that, I say it still doesn't take away from the fact Boston was much, much BETTER. At the time, and historically.

[DMAVS41]

The 2008 Hawks took the Celtics to 7 games, and for that, I say it still doesn't take away from the fact Boston was much, much BETTER. At the time, and historically.

And? They clearly matched up well against them. So you'd have no doubt that if you made the Hawks twice as good and replayed that series that the Celtics would still win?

Because that is essentially what you are saying. Which of course makes no sense.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

So why the "no doubt" on this stuff? Because the 13 Heat weren't any better than a healthy 13 Spurs team.

I'm not following. I think they're both better than this Warriors team. :confusedshrug:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

And? They clearly matched up well against them. So you'd have no doubt that if you made the Hawks twice as good and replayed that series that the Celtics would still win?

Because that is essentially what you are saying. Which of course makes no sense.

The Hawks, who were relatively healthy in the playoffs, would lose that series every single time they played.

Boston played down to them. Just look at the disparities during home games. They were roasting those Birds.

[DMAVS41]

I'm not following. I think they're both better than this Warriors team. :confusedshrug:

LOL...I know you do, but I'm trying to figure out why. I'm trying to figure out why you think this so strongly when there really isn't much supporting you on this.

You said you trust them more, but that same Spurs team you trust so much had the worst collapse in finals history probably in game 6.

I just don't see the case other than you repeating your opinion.

[DMAVS41]

The Hawks, who were relatively healthy in the playoffs, would lose that series every single time they played.

Boston played down to them. Just look at the disparities during home games. They were roasting those Birds.

I agree with this.

You ignored what I said.

I said...what if you made that Hawks team twice as good.

You are missing that part of it. The Warriors in 15 were about twice as good as the 13 Warriors.

If the 13 Warriors could make it a series like they did with the 13 Spurs...logic pretty much demands that a far better version of the Warriors...a team that would have home court....would cause one to have "doubt" as to whether the Spurs would win.

[DMAVS41]

Kuniva. Just found this when looking for some info on that Spurs vs Warriors series in 13.

Zach Lowe wrote this today:

The San Antonio Spurs

Every time someone whacked the Warriors with the

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yeah they collapsed against the Heat who I feel are better than the Warriors. :oldlol: And lets be honest, that choke job is something you don't ever see on that stage. Up 5 with 30 seconds and change, close-out championship game, yet you lose? God damn that still gives me nightmares.

Explain what kind of evidence and/or support you're looking for. :confusedshrug:

[SpecialQue]

Struggled with LeBron led dleague team :oldlol:

Stop.

Also, damn fine avy there. :bowdown:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I agree with this.

You ignored what I said.

I said...what if you made that Hawks team twice as good.

You are missing that part of it. The Warriors in 15 were about twice as good as the 13 Warriors.

If the 13 Warriors could make it a series like they did with the 13 Spurs...logic pretty much demands that a far better version of the Warriors...a team that would have home court....would cause one to have "doubt" as to whether the Spurs would win.

Nope. Because they don't have the personnel or system/culture akin to the Warriors. Apples and oranges basically.

Understand there are such things as playing down to competition, matchups (Pop would adjust to this version of the Warriors faster than he would the '13 team, because he'd know what they were capable of during exhibition games in the regular-season). Little things pretty much - but everything matters.

[Mr Feeny]

OP is looking at it from overall perspective. Regular season, playoffs, Finals, individual awards, award votings, etc.

Its kinda like saying the 2008 Celtics werent all-time great team because they barely snuck by the 1st and 2nd round if we're only looking at one series or two.

They're an All-Time great team. Top 5...no...Top 10 maybe...Top 15 most likely.


Please tell me you don't think the 2008 Celtics are one of the top 10 teams of all time.

[DMAVS41]

Nope. Because they don't have the personnel or system/culture akin to the Warriors. Apples and oranges basically.

Understand there are such things as playing down to competition, matchups (Pop would adjust to this version of the Warriors faster than he would the '13 team, because he'd know what they were capable of during exhibition games in the regular-season). Little things pretty much - but everything matters.

What are you talking about?

It's merely an example you brought up. If you made that Hawks team take a similar jump like the 13 Warriors did to the 15 Warriors...there would absolutely be "doubt" as to whether the Celtics would win that damn series.

And if you don't like that series...just use the 08 Cavs series. You are telling me that you'd have no doubt that the 08 Celtics would beat the 08 Cavs if you gave the Cavs a much better team and coach? Are you serious?

Just like there is serious doubt as to whether the 13 Spurs or 13 Heat would win. Would they? Perhaps. Could they? Of course.

But you have taken a very firm...you have "no doubt" stance.

And it's that stance I don't think you can support...and you haven't at all.

What evidence? Basically anything. Anything telling me that a broken down 13 Heat team or a 13 Spurs team that struggled with a much worse Warriors team would "without a doubt" beat the Warriors.

[DMAVS41]

Yeah they collapsed against the Heat who I feel are better than the Warriors. :oldlol: And lets be honest, that choke job is something you don't ever see on that stage. Up 5 with 30 seconds and change, close-out championship game, yet you lose? God damn that still gives me nightmares.

Explain what kind of evidence and/or support you're looking for. :confusedshrug:

But the team you are propping is the team that choked that game away. And you just used "trust" as a big part of your argument.

Why does the team that has a "choke job you don't ever see on that stage" get the benefit of "trust" from you?

This does not make sense.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

What are you talking about?

It's merely an example you brought up. If you made that Hawks team take a similar jump like the 13 Warriors did to the 15 Warriors...there would absolutely be "doubt" as to whether the Celtics would win that damn series.

You're claiming the Warriors are twice as good this year than in 2013, therefor they beat the Spurs. Right?

I'm saying you cannot apply that same hypothetical to the Hawks just because they took Boston to 7 games. The Warriors/Spurs series was a lot closer and the personnel/coaching is just different.

Twice as good? While keeping the same core? No. I don't think they beat Boston.

Why twice as good though? That's your measure. How exactly are you measuring that?

You are basically asking me to provide evidence to support my opinion, but I don't see anything on your end aside from meaningless hypotheticals that stray away from the main topic at hand.

:confusedshrug:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

But the team you are propping is the team that choked that game away. And you just used "trust" as a big part of your argument.

Why am I propping up teams that I feel are better regardless of them choking against each other?

Tell me why I shouldn't...

[DMAVS41]

You're claiming the Warriors are twice as good this year than in 2013, therefor they beat the Spurs. Right?

I'm saying you cannot apply that same hypothetical to the Hawks just because they took Boston to 7 games. The Warriors/Spurs series was a lot closer and the personnel/coaching is just different.

Twice as good? While keeping the same core? No. I don't think they beat Boston.

Why twice as good though? That's your measure. How exactly are you measuring that?

You are basically asking me to provide evidence to support my opinion, but I don't see anything on your end aside from meaningless hypotheticals that stray away from the main topic at hand.

:confusedshrug:


A few things:

1. I'm not claiming anything about wins or losses. I'm claiming that there should absolutely be "doubt" for the series we are talking about. I think the Hawks vs Celtics series is applicable as an example, but I do agree that the Warriors vs Spurs in 13 was even closer despite it only going 6.

2. What evidence do I have? For starters, the 13 Warriors vs 13 Spurs series. That series is rock solid evidence that a much improved Warriors team would at least by 50/50 to beat them. That alone gives me the "doubt"...

But I could go on and on about how historically good this Warriors team all year...but you'll just ignore that and talk about randomness and things like "trust"...even though if there is one team out of all of these teams that should be trusted the least....it's the Spurs.

3. Do you really want me to make the case? Warriors would have home court. They were better offensively and about as good defensively. They'd have the best player in the series. They could go small and really stick with the Spurs ball movement on defense because of their versatility. They wouldn't have to double Duncan in the post and guys like Splitter/Diaw would not have favorable matchups.

There is a reason why the Warriors had a historical season. It wasn't some fluke. You don't go 83-20 in a loaded conference en route to the title with one of the best scoring differentials ever.

No doubt the 13 Spurs beat them? Come on...get off it.

[DMAVS41]

Why am I propping up teams that I feel are better regardless of them choking against each other?

Tell me why I shouldn't...

You shouldn't tell me that a big reason you'd take the Spurs over the Warriors this year is "trust"...when the Spurs are the one team in this group that absolutely does not deserve to be trusted.

As you said...they had like a once in a lifetime collapse in the finals. Why would you trust that team more than a team like the Warriors? Makes no sense.

Again, I know you "feel" they were better...but why?

Nothing supports it. The Warriors actually won the title. They played better all year. They were more versatile. They'd have the best player in the series. They could neutralize so much of what the Spurs like to do by going small...they could make Duncan and Splitter almost worthless on defense by going small.

Did you watch that series in 13? I mean...again, there is a reason Zach Lowe wrote about it today. It was not a fluke...the writing was on the wall man.

And you don't have a doubt? It doesn't make sense and you aren't defending it at all.

[navy]

I guess the question is which version of these teams do we get? If you take into account the fatigue/injury factor of the playoffs then some would be worse off than how the team was overall.

[1987_Lakers]

It seems to me that the people picking the Spurs over Warriors are just judging their Finals performances, people talk about how dominant the Spurs looked in last years Finals and how Golden State struggled in the beginning of these Finals and come up with the conclusion that the Spurs would beat the Warriors. It's really stupid to just look at one series and determine which team is better, you guys are aware that there is an 82 game regular season & 3 rounds of basketball you have to look at to evaluate both teams right?

[navy]

It seems to me that the people picking the Spurs over Warriors are just judging their Finals performances, people talk about how dominant the Spurs looked in last years Finals and how Golden State struggled in the beginning of these Finals and come up with the conclusion that the Spurs would beat the Warriors. It's really stupid to just look at one series and determine which team is better, you guys are aware that there is an 82 game regular season & 3 rounds of basketball you have to look at to evaluate both teams right?

I think it would be close. More dependent on Popovich vs Kerr and who wins the chess match. I mean popovich wouldnt even do the obvious and bench parker this year.

[DMAVS41]

It seems to me that the people picking the Spurs over Warriors are just judging their Finals performances, people talk about how dominant the Spurs looked in last years Finals and how Golden State struggled in the beginning of these Finals and come up with the conclusion that the Spurs would beat the Warriors. It's really stupid to just look at one series and determine which team is better, you guys are aware that there is an 82 game regular season & 3 rounds of basketball you have to look at to evaluate both teams right?

Yea...we were debating the 13 Spurs, but you are right...you don't see anyone talking about the 14 Spurs needing 7 to beat a Mavs team in the first round last year.

Nor should they....it's just 1 series and they closed it out comfortably.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

A few things:

1. I'm not claiming anything about wins or losses. I'm claiming that there should absolutely be "doubt" for the series we are talking about. I think the Hawks vs Celtics series is applicable as an example, but I do agree that the Warriors vs Spurs in 13 was even closer despite it only going 6.

2. What evidence do I have? For starters, the 13 Warriors vs 13 Spurs series. That series is rock solid evidence that a much improved Warriors team would at least by 50/50 to beat them. That alone gives me the "doubt".


But I could go on and on about how historically good this Warriors team all year...but you'll just ignore that and talk about randomness and things like "trust"...even though if there is one team out of all of these teams that should be trusted the least....it's the Spurs.

3. Do you really want me to make the case? Warriors would have home court. They were better offensively and about as good defensively. They'd have the best player in the series. They could go small and really stick with the Spurs ball movement on defense because of their versatility. They wouldn't have to double Duncan in the post and guys like Splitter/Diaw would not have favorable matchups.

But you are claiming one team is twice as good as the other. Again how do you measure that?

Your reasoning is not "evidence" BTW. The 13 Warriors =/= 15 Warriors. An older version playing them close doesn't mean an upgraded iteration would win by default.

By your logic, do we assume the '91 Bulls beat the '86 Celtics? Jordan was pretty close in every game during the '86 series (by himself) - so with a better version of Jordan and the Bulls, that means they beat them? Right?

Nah. That isn't how sports work...

As for the Spurs? I can talk about the them having better coaching and playing more team oriented basketball. Or the competition they faced out west. Hell, how about their evolution per offensive and defensive strategies? From top to bottom, they would match up VERY well with this Warriors team.

And my explanation? I would like for you to tell us how "trust" would rear its ugly head. The Spurs have never choked a game like that, in their history, so why would they do it versus Golden State who I feel is clearly inferior? Please explain.

I'm laughing at some of your reasons. You do realize SA of all teams have proven they're fully capable of winning on the road, right? Another team having homecourt wouldn't faze them one bit. You're reasoning now is the Warriors would have favorable matches upfront - and yet, they (Spurs) swept the Grizzlies who arguably had the best front-court. :oldlol:

But if you STILL think that's the case, what is stopping the Warriors from beating the Spurs in 2014? They have favorable matchups all over the place - the only difference really is Manu's health.

I hope you don't think he's providing THAT much more impact to swing the series. We're talking about a worse Duncan and a MUCH worse Parker.


Look.. nobody is saying the Warriors championship is a fluke. I just think there are better champions out there.

Whatever "Zach Lowe" is saying has no relevance to me. I literally couldn't care less about his opinion.

[DMAVS41]

Kuniva.

You are totally straw manning here.

I never said they would win for sure...hell, I never even said they would win.

I said there should be "doubt" based on all the evidence.


If you look at it objectively...the 2015 Warriors did just about everything better than the 13 Spurs. They were better in both the regular season and playoffs...had the best player between the two teams...and were actually a little deeper. They had a historic scoring differential and straight up dominated teams. They played better in the playoffs and won a title.

If that isn't enough...a much worse version of the Warriors in 13 really showed a lot against the 13 Spurs (the team in question)....this doesn't mean the Warriors win...it means that there is good reason to think the series would be in doubt for your Spurs.

All I have said is that you shouldn't say there is "no doubt" about this stuff. And you still aren't providing any real arguments.

Your post above doesn't even address my arguments and is a combination of red herrings and straw man arguments.

Oh...and just no. The Grizzlies can't go small. My argument was that the Warriors being able to go small would throw the Spurs off. And it would. You bringing up the Grizzlies...ROFL...you don't get it. The Grizzlies can't play like the Warriors...they are Randolph/Gasol...grit and grind. The Warriors can go with some absurd lineups that would stretch out the Spurs and make Duncan/Splitter struggle immensely. And because they can go small and still play great defense...that Spurs ball movement wouldn't have it's normal impact.

Again though...please stop straw manning my arguments. I never said they win for sure...I just said there should be doubt as to the outcome.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Kuniva.

You are totally straw manning here.

I never said they would win for sure...hell, I never even said they would win.

I said there should be "doubt" based on all the evidence.


If you look at it objectively...the 2015 Warriors did just about everything better than the 13 Spurs. They were better in both the regular season and playoffs...had the best player between the two teams...and were actually a little deeper. They had a historic scoring differential and straight up dominated teams. They played better in the playoffs and won a title.

If that isn't enough...a much worse version of the Warriors in 13 really showed a lot against the 13 Spurs (the team in question)....this doesn't mean the Warriors win...it means that there is good reason to think the series would be in doubt for your Spurs.

All I have said is that you shouldn't say there is "no doubt" about this stuff. And you still aren't providing any real arguments.

Your post above doesn't even address my arguments and is a combination of red herrings and straw man arguments.

Oh...and just no. The Grizzlies can't go small. My argument was that the Warriors being able to go small would throw the Spurs off. And it would. You bringing up the Grizzlies...ROFL...you don't get it. The Grizzlies can't play like the Warriors...they are Randolph/Gasol...grit and grind. The Warriors can go with some absurd lineups that would stretch out the Spurs and make Duncan/Splitter struggle immensely. And because they can go small and still play great defense...that Spurs ball movement wouldn't have it's normal impact.

Again though...please stop straw manning my arguments. I never said they win for sure...I just said there should be doubt as to the outcome.

You never answered the questions I asked.

Why do you think the 14 Spurs win, but in 2013, you just have "no idea"? They were seconds away from winning a title if not for a fluke choke, a choke that I would bet my life savings on never happening again, at least with the Spurs.

Not only that, but how were the Warriors better in the playoffs when they faced clear worse competition?

SA faced a healthy Grizzlies and Miami team. Both better than anything GS (healthy enough in 2013) faced in the postseason this year. Get real dude.

You're repeatedly referencing the 2013 GS team, but continuously fail to mention that games aren't played on paper. The Warriors have a better group, but so do the '91 Bulls compared to the '85 version.

Do '91 Bulls beat the Celtics who struggled to stave off Jordan in the 80s? That isn't straw-man. It's essentially the same hypothetical you're presenting.

About the small ball stuff. The Heat ran it all year in 2013 when they alternated Anderson's minutes. The Spurs were one Ray Allen 3 away from taking care of that... Hell they redeemed themselves and did it masterfully in 2014.

Please explain your position clearly. You haven't provided any evidence to make me suggest otherwise.

[Cleverness]

I thought I was being quite complementary of Curry by calling him one of the better shooters the league has seen. His shot selection is also exemplary, rivaling even the (self-proclamed) Mamba's at times

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LFPXkW8AZyg/hqdefault.jpg

Although in this particular case, he made the shot, which isn't really in the Mamba's playbook (Kobe is usually going for the "Kobe assist" in these cases). Still plenty of time for Curry to mix & match strategies. Perhaps I was premature calling him a HOF-candidate this early. Although, in my defense, he has already matched Bean's MVP tally and we all know Kobe is at least a 2nd-ballot HOFer.

We Kobe stans / Warrior fans need to stick together!

Warmest regards,

Ayotunde Ndiaye

going 2 for 1 to end the half

[DMAVS41]

You never answered the questions I asked.

Why do you think the 14 Spurs win, but in 2013, you just have "no idea"? They were seconds away from winning a title if not for a fluke choke, a choke that I would bet my life savings on never happening again, at least with the Spurs.

Not only that, but how were the Warriors better in the playoffs when they faced clear worse competition?

SA faced a healthy Grizzlies and Miami team. Both better than anything GS (healthy enough in 2013) faced in the postseason this year. Get real dude.

You're repeatedly referencing the 2013 GS team, but continuously fail to mention that games aren't played on paper. The Warriors have a better group, but so do the '91 Bulls compared to the '85 version.

Do '91 Bulls beat the Celtics who struggled to stave off Jordan in the 80s? That isn't straw-man. It's essentially the same hypothetical you're presenting.

About the small ball stuff. The Heat ran it all year in 2013 when they alternated Anderson's minutes. The Spurs were one Ray Allen 3 away from taking care of that... Hell they redeemed themselves and did it masterfully in 2014.

Please explain your position clearly. You haven't provided any evidence to make me suggest otherwise.

The position is very clear. There should be doubt on all of it. I said I thought the 14 Spurs would win, but I have serious doubt. Why do I think they would win and not the 13 Spurs?

Easy... The 14 Spurs reached a level the 13 Spurs did not. Would they against the Warriors? Not sure... I have doubts.

My position is as clear as can be.... Very few teams in NBA history deserve the..."would beat the Warriors without a doubt" label.

The other stuff is a straw man. I never said they win for sure... I said there should be doubt. The Bulls vs Celtics.... Absolutely there is way more doubt as who wins that series of its the 91 Bulls. What the **** are you talking about?

[tpols]

The position is very clear. There should be doubt on all of it. I said I thought the 14 Spurs would win, but I have serious doubt. Why do I think they would win and not the 13 Spurs?

Easy... The 14 Spurs reached a level the 13 Spurs did not. Would they against the Warriors? Not sure... I have doubts.

My position is as clear as can be.... Very few teams in NBA history deserve the..."would beat the Warriors without a doubt" label.

The other stuff is a straw man. I never said they win for sure... I said there should be doubt. The Bulls vs Celtics.... Absolutely there is way more doubt as who wins that series of its the 91 Bulls. What the **** are you talking about?

There's really not much difference between the 13 and 14 spurs.. the only thing that changed was Miami's overall play went to shit in 2014 while they were still top notch in 2013.

13 spurs had the same historic shooting breaking shooting records, insane passing, duncan rewinding, same core and bench basically.. only difference was the heat just fell apart in 2014 especially wade, who was very good in 2013 but total ass the next year. None of the heat role players played inspired either, they basically laid down where as in the previous year they made some of the ballsiest shots and plays ever

[niko]

Was this done prior to playoffs? At that point, maybe. Struggling against Lebron with his 2nd best player being JR Smith, not quite so much. They got lucky with matchups, faced a bunch of teams with injuries. No hate (they're the champs) but historically great? NO.

[tpols]

Was this done prior to playoffs? At that point, maybe. Struggling against Lebron with his 2nd best player being JR Smith, not quite so much. They got lucky with matchups, faced a bunch of teams with injuries. No hate (they're the champs) but historically great? NO.

They did have it very easy.. spurs at least had to face a still deadly 13 heat team.. young OKC had to face a peak prime heat team.. golden state didn't see anything like that.

[keep-itreal]

no they're not.

08 Celtics, 09 Lakers, and 14 Spurs would kill this warriors team

[DMAVS41]

There's really not much difference between the 13 and 14 spurs.. the only thing that changed was Miami's overall play went to shit in 2014 while they were still top notch in 2013.

13 spurs had the same historic shooting breaking shooting records, insane passing, duncan rewinding, same core and bench basically.. only difference was the heat just fell apart in 2014 especially wade, who was very good in 2013 but total ass the next year. None of the heat role players played inspired either, they basically laid down where as in the previous year they made some of the ballsiest shots and plays ever

I'm not saying there is a big difference. I do think the Parker injury and improvement in Leonard and the choke put the 14 team as better, but it's all close.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

The position is very clear. There should be doubt on all of it. I said I thought the 14 Spurs would win, but I have serious doubt. Why do I think they would win and not the 13 Spurs?

Easy... The 14 Spurs reached a level the 13 Spurs did not. Would they against the Warriors? Not sure... I have doubts.

My position is as clear as can be.... Very few teams in NBA history deserve the..."would beat the Warriors without a doubt" label.

The other stuff is a straw man. I never said they win for sure... I said there should be doubt. The Bulls vs Celtics.... Absolutely there is way more doubt as who wins that series of its the 91 Bulls. What the **** are you talking about?

And yet I'm still not doubting any of my picks.

Again, one team winning a championship against the d-league Cavs vs. another losing to LeBron/Wade/Bosh and the reigning champs isn't "evidence".

It's not championship or bust if we're taking into account parody and competition.

What's more, the hypothetical I presented is not straw-man at all. Do you really not get that I'm just flipping your question and merely switching the teams around? You don't claim to know which team wins over the other, but under your "twice as good" theory, I'm asking you how the '91 Bulls don't beat the '86 Celtics.

Please answer.


There's really not much difference between the 13 and 14 spurs.. the only thing that changed was Miami's overall play went to shit in 2014 while they were still top notch in 2013.

13 spurs had the same historic shooting breaking shooting records, insane passing, duncan rewinding, same core and bench basically.. only difference was the heat just fell apart in 2014 especially wade, who was very good in 2013 but total ass the next year. None of the heat role players played inspired either, they basically laid down where as in the previous year they made some of the ballsiest shots and plays ever

Exactly.

[warriorfan]

Not as stacked as the other historic All Time Great Teams.

How many All Time Great Teams have only 1 Hall of Fame Player?

The fact Steph Curry can drag a team with zero fellow Hall of Famers to such great heights is nothing short of incredible. :applause:

[DMAVS41]

And yet I'm still not doubting any of my picks.

Again, one team winning a championship against the d-league Cavs squad vs. another losing to a LeBron/Wade/Bosh and the reigning champs isn't "evidence".

It's not championship or bust if we're taking into account parody and competition.

What's more, the hypothetical I presented is not straw-man at all. Do you really not get that I'm just flipping your question and merely switching the teams around? You don't claim to know which team wins over the other, but under your "twice as good" theory, I'm asking how the '91 Bulls not beat the '86 Celtics?

Please answer.



Exactly.

I already answered. I said I've of course have serious doubt about the outcome in that series. You are making my point for me.

You have the burden of proof. I've provided plenty of legit reasons why there is doubt as to who would win.

You haven't made any arguments.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I already answered. I said I've of course have serious doubt about the outcome in that series. You are making my point for me.

You have the burden of proof. I've provided plenty of legit reasons why there is doubt as to who would win.

You haven't made any arguments.

Which would you have "serious doubts" on? The 2013 Spurs or the 2014 version?

And no, you haven't provided anything that I already haven't taken apart, piece by piece.

Simply saying the 2014 Warriors got it done and the Spurs didn't....doesn't mean anything. It's apples and oranges if we're actually going by competition.

[HOoopCityJones]

DMAV thinks this Warriors Team was better than the 2010 Celtics so his sentiments doesn't surprise me.

Thing with today compared to yesteryear, when the 2001 Lakers went 15 and 1 in the playoffs, no one was saying they were better than the 90's Bulls just because it was a more dominant post season. These reactions we have today are that of mere children.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

That being said, I'm over the "debate".

I'll yield for the reason being I don't see this going anywhere. We're both just repeating the same shit. :oldlol:

[Kargo]

no they're not.

08 Celtics, 09 Lakers, and 14 Spurs would kill this warriors team

Mavs 2011>>>Spurs 2014

The Mavs beat 3 great,completely healthy teams in their title run:

Miami(Lebron/Wade/Bosh)
Lakers(Kobe/Pau/Bynum/Phil Jackson)
Thunder(Durrant/Westbrook/Ibaka/Harden)

and also Portland.

The Spurs squeeked by the Mavs,beat Portland,beat the Thunder basically because Ibaka was injured in the first 2 games and played one great series against the Heat.

The vastly inferior Mavs 2014 took the Spurs to 7 games...Mavs 2011 would beat them in 6.

To make things clearer in contrast,how good,how motivated and how impressive their playoff run was,imagine the Warriors sweeping the Spurs(the previous champion),beating a healthy Thunder team and then beating the Cavs with healthy Kyrie and Love.

I'm very glad the Warriors beat the Cavs but they had a incredibly weak/fortunate playoff run to be claimed a ''historic'' team.

[DMAVS41]

Which would you have "serious doubts" on? The 2013 Spurs or the 2014 version?

And no, you haven't provided anything that I already haven't taken apart, piece by piece.

Simply saying the 2014 Warriors got it done and the Spurs didn't....doesn't mean anything. It's apples and oranges if we're actually going by competition.

I'd have doubts on all of them... As anyone with a brain would.

Taken apart? You've done nothing of the sort.

You are even providing hypotheticals that make my points for me.

Your stance defies all logic.
The fact that you continue to say you'd have no doubt the 13 Spurs beat this Warriors team is absurd.

Yea, please yield... It's getting really annoying with you saying nothing.

[DMAVS41]

DMAV thinks this Warriors Team was better than the 2010 Celtics so his sentiments doesn't surprise me.

Thing with today compared to yesteryear, when the 2001 Lakers went 15 and 1 in the playoffs, no one was saying they were better than the 90's Bulls just because it was a more dominant post season. These reactions we have today are that of mere children.

The fact that you think it's controversial to takes the Warriors over a flawed 10 celtics team says so much to how biased and ignorant you are.

[navy]

DMAV thinks this Warriors Team was better than the 2010 Celtics so his sentiments doesn't surprise me.

Thing with today compared to yesteryear, when the 2001 Lakers went 15 and 1 in the playoffs, no one was saying they were better than the 90's Bulls just because it was a more dominant post season. These reactions we have today are that of mere children.
The Warriors had the number 1 offense and defense, deep bench, mvp, 67 wins, +10 point differential and actually won the campionship. Why is them being better than that celtics team so crazy? Remember how Rondo reliant they became and how tired Garnett use to get?

[1987_Lakers]

DMAV thinks this Warriors Team was better than the 2010 Celtics so his sentiments doesn't surprise me.

:biggums:

[HOoopCityJones]

The Warriors had the number 1 offense and defense, deep bench, mvp, 67 wins, +10 point differential and actually won the campionship. Why is them being better than that celtics team so crazy? Remember how Rondo reliant they became and how tired Garnett use to get?

So wait, that's not even alittle bit skewed by all the injuries the Teams they faced were going though, especially in the Finals? :roll:


Ni99as acting like they steamrolled everyone. Curry hasn't even had to face off against any of the legit opposing PGs in the league. Gimmie a break man, you guys see certain stats and get wet.

[HOoopCityJones]

:biggums:

Let me guess, is it the greatest post you've ever seen?

[navy]

So wait, that's not even alittle bit skewed by all the injuries the Teams they faced were going though, especially in the Finals? :roll:


Ni99as acting like they steamrolled everyone. Curry hasn't even had to face off against any of the legit opposing PGs in the league. Gimmie a break man, you guys see certain stats and get wet.
Non of that was related to their playoff run.

They did steamroll everyone. People were talking about the most stacked western conference of all time and they won 67 games with a 10 differential. That was insane.

lots of teams struggle in the playoffs. 08 Celtics got taken 7 by the Hawks and the Cavs. Does that take away from their run?

[HOoopCityJones]

Non of that was related to their playoff run.

They did steamroll everyone. People were talking about the most stacked western conference of all time and they won 67 games with a 10 differential. That was insane.

lots of teams struggle in the playoffs. 08 Celtics got taken 7 by the Hawks and the Cavs. Does that take away from their run?

Nope it doesn't. But just because they're high scoring offense was designed to do exactly that, put up numbers , doesn't mean they're greater than the Teams of yesteryear. You guys were just saying the 14' Spurs were one of greatest of all time. Like literally just last year. If anything I'm more impressed by Gsw's defense more than anything else.


You people forget shit so easily, The Celtics before the Big three declined was an all time great Team. Certainly held Lebron at bay for awhile.

[DMAVS41]

Nope it doesn't. But just because they're high scoring offense was designed to do exactly that, put up numbers , doesn't mean they're greater than the Teams of yesteryear. You guys were just saying the 14' Spurs were one of greatest of all time. Like literally just last year. If anything I'm more impressed by Gsw's defense more than anything else.


You people forget shit so easily, The Celtics before the Big three declined was an all time great Team. Certainly held Lebron at bay for awhile.

The 08 team was. They were hurt in 09.

And they were old and flawed in 10....still great in 10, but absolutely no better than this Warriors team.

[HOoopCityJones]

The 08 team was. They were hurt in 09.

And they were old and flawed in 10....still great in 10, but absolutely no better than this Warriors team.

Your logic is if they lost = they're flawed :roll:

They were essentially the same Team with Rondo being two years better than he was in 08 unless you're saying Eddie House, Posey and Leon Powe were game changers. :oldlol:

[Legends66NBA7]

Your logic is if they lost = they're flawed :roll:

They were essentially the same Team with Rondo being two years better than he was in 08 unless you're saying Eddie House, Posey and Leon Powe were game changers. :oldlol:

Um, Posey was a game changer (in the sense of what he brought off the bench). His defense was huge for them, really nice player overall. Better than anybody on the 10 Celtics bench.

I've always wanted Leon Powe to get more minutes for that team, but he was playing behind KG. House made bigs shots at times. Even PJ Brown had his moments.


08 team had better depth and the peak of the big 3. They weren't essentially the same Team in 10, not really.

[HOoopCityJones]

Um, Posey was a game changer. His defense was huge for them, really nice player overall.

I've always wanted Leon Powe to get more minutes for that team, but he was playing behind KG. House made bigs shots at times. Even PJ Brown had his moments.


08 team had better depth and the peak of the big 3. They weren't essentially the same Team in 10, not really.

Better than Tony Allen? :biggums:

Yea, they were alittle older no doubt , but Rondo was better and if there was a "Big four" at any point during their run, it was that year. I wonder how some of you would rate that Team if they actually managed to beat us, either way, I just don't think it's logical to compare competition like that, especially when the Teams are so similar.

14 & 13 Spurs are a good example of what I mean in regards to the 08, 09, 10 Celtics. Yes, KG being out in 09 changed their fortunes, definitely but it happens as we went through ourselves with Bynum and Trevor in 08 and this past Finals with Love and Kyrie.

[Legends66NBA7]

Better than Tony Allen? :biggums:

Yea, they were alittle older no doubt , but Rondo was better and if there was a "Big four" at any point during their run, it was that year. I wonder how some of you would rate that Team if they actually managed to beat us, either way, I just don't think it's logical to compare competition like that, especially when the Teams are so similar.

14 & 13 Spurs are a good example of what I mean in regards to the 08, 09, 10 Celtics. Yes, KG being out in 09 changed their fortunes, definitely but it happens as we went through ourselves with Bynum and Trevor in 08 and this past Finals with Love and Kyrie.

Posey was much better than Allen that year (infact, Posey at his best than Allen at his best). Allen barely played in those playoffs. Posey is also a threat from 3, where as Allen struggles on offense.

And my thoughts on this team have remained the same. Great team, they can be beaten by another great team all-time, but they aren't getting "owned" or swept like some of them have said in the past.

[DMAVS41]

Your logic is if they lost = they're flawed :roll:

They were essentially the same Team with Rondo being two years better than he was in 08 unless you're saying Eddie House, Posey and Leon Powe were game changers. :oldlol:

No it's not... Like at all.

My logic is that they were older, couldn't rebound, had like 2 guys that could make 3's, and heavily relied on big baby and Perk.

Nobody thinks the 10 Celtics were close to as good as the 08 Celtics...just stop it.

[Cleverness]

The Warriors took the HCA Spurs to 6 games in 2013 with zero healthy all-stars wow. Their only all-star that year was David Lee, who completely tore his right hip flexor before the series. And Andrew Bogut was still recovering from a broken ankle.

This Warriors team is WAY better now.

'15 Warriors > '13 Spurs = '14 Spurs > '13 Warriors

[niko]

They did have it very easy.. spurs at least had to face a still deadly 13 heat team.. young OKC had to face a peak prime heat team.. golden state didn't see anything like that.
I agree. I don't think this is hating or anything, but to be considered "historically great", you have to do something uber special. They were on the way regular season but post season I can't call that special.