I think the '14 Spurs were the best team since '86 Celtics

[JohnnySic]

Better than '87 and '01 Lakers
Better than '08 Celtics
Or any other of the Spurs title teams

Top 5 team all time, at least the way they ended the season

Just that.

[IGOTGAME]

Then everyone said Golden State was better...it will continue

I would put them top 5...I can see some serious matchup problems with other teams. I think the Lakers beat them. Maybe even the Kobe lakers.

[Rocketswin2013]

They pretty much faced bad defenses every round.

[StephHamann]

That Spurs team was so great, it nearly lost in the first round against Calderon Vince Carter Marion and Dalembert.

[sportjames23]

Better than '87 and '01 Lakers
Better than '08 Celtics
Or any other of the Spurs title teams

Top 5 team all time, at least the way they ended the season

Just that.


Jun 2006 :facepalm

[raprap]

They looked invincible in the finals for sure.


Now im wondering if they can beat the 90's bulls.

[Alamо]

This 2016 team is looking even more talented and deep than that one. And apparently Parker is back in 2013 shape and ginobili said thats he's motivated to win one last title before he hangs it up. But this is a new team and the competition has gotten tougher since then so we'll see what happens.

[BIZARRO]

I'm normally not one for cutting down somebody's post in an offensive way.

But this thread may be the most ridiculous thing I've seen on the internet this (month?)....Was gonna say year...But there's some pretty ridiculous things out there....

I saw the '87 Lakers (and as a Bulls Fan, and also an 80's Celtics fan)....They were the greatest team I ever saw.....Saw both and I'd slightly take the '87 Lakers over the '86 Celtics....

Magic, who avg'd 24, 6, and 12 that year, Worthy, Kareem, Scoot, Cooper, Mychal Thompson......That is a legendary team, playing at their highest level.....

Secondly, you really think that Spurs team is a beating a PRIME Jordan team?....Scratch that, ALL 6 Jordan led Bulls teams?.....the 72-10 team?

GTFO. :facepalm

[JohnnySic]

I'm normally not one for cutting down somebody's post in an offensive way.

But this thread may be the most ridiculous thing I've seen on the internet this (month?)....Was gonna say year...But there's some pretty ridiculous things out there....

I saw the '87 Lakers (and as a Bulls Fan, and also an 80's Celtics fan)....They were the greatest team I ever saw.....Saw both and I'd slightly take the '87 Lakers over the '86 Celtics....

Magic, who avg'd 24, 6, and 12 that year, Worthy, Kareem, Scoot, Cooper, Mychal Thompson......That is a legendary team, playing at their highest level.....

Secondly, you really think that Spurs team is a beating a PRIME Jordan team?....Scratch that, ALL 6 Jordan led Bulls teams?.....the 72-10 team?

GTFO. :facepalm
The '87 Lakers are overrated. They were a great team but not all-time great, not top-5 for sure. They had the easiest road to the Finals since NBA went to 4 rounds (beating 3 teams with combined records under .500 lol, then needed 6 games to beat a Celtics team decimated by injuries -the '86 Celtics would have swept the '87 Celtics). I honestly dont even think they were the best Lakers team; I think that the '85 and '01 teams were better, and a few other Lakers teams arguably better.

And yeah, I should have not overlooked the Bulls. In particular '92, '93, and '96 teams were epic.

[imdaman99]

That Spurs team was so great, it nearly lost in the first round against Calderon Vince Carter Marion and Dalembert.
Just because you get taken to a game 7, doesn't mean you almost lost a series. Especially since they won by 50 in game 7.

Ibaka being injured helped them more.

[West-Side]

01' Lakers obliterated the 01' Spurs that were better then the 14' Spurs. :oldlol:
Great logic OP.

[SouBeachTalents]

01' Lakers obliterated the 01' Spurs that were better then the 14' Spurs. :oldlol:
Great logic OP.

:biggums:

[StephHamann]

Just because you get taken to a game 7, doesn't mean you almost lost a series. Especially since they won by 50 in game 7.

Ibaka being injured helped them more.

Boxscore watcher detected. The Mavs had the lead in game 1 until the last few minutes could have easily won it.

Dejuan Blair got suspended in game 5 for a lousy reason. The Spurs had no answer for Blair in the series, with him game 5 might have gone the other way.

Game 7 was the only game the Spurs dominated, the other games were all close till the final minute.

[Derka]

Just because you get taken to a game 7, doesn't mean you almost lost a series. Especially since they won by 50 in game 7.

Ibaka being injured helped them more.

Agreed on that first point.

Blaming the Spurs for going 7 against Dallas that year pretty much takes all credit away from Dallas for playing a damn good series.

[Psileas]

The '87 Lakers are overrated. They were a great team but not all-time great, not top-5 for sure. They had the easiest road to the Finals since NBA went to 4 rounds (beating 3 teams with combined records under .500 lol, then needed 6 games to beat a Celtics team decimated by injuries -the '86 Celtics would have swept the '87 Celtics). I honestly dont even think they were the best Lakers team; I think that the '85 and '01 teams were better, and a few other Lakers teams arguably better.

And yeah, I should have not overlooked the Bulls. In particular '92, '93, and '96 teams were epic.

65-17 during the r.s without even caring in the last 2 games (they could have matched the '86 Celtics' decade record if they did). Posted an SRS (which adjusts for strength of schedule) miles better than any other Showtime Lakers version. Magic at his peak, AC Green and Mychal Thompson would rest Kareem and Rambis. Bench had Thompson, Rambis, Cooper. All their core players, healthy. This team is easily an all-time great, regardless of who they faced in the playoffs. After all, last time I checked, the '86 Celtics didn't exactly match with powerhouses in the playoffs, either: 30 win Bulls (let's say, a 50% level team with Jordan, who scored 112 pts in his first 2 games against the Celtics), 50 win Atlanta, 57 win Milwaukee, which, however, played with an unready Moncrief in the playoffs (so, not the equivalent of a 57 win team) and a 51 win team in the Finals that they needed 6 games to beat. That's not necessarily in order to make a comparison to the Lakers' path (although the Lakers' SRS reveals they were dominant regardless of schedule), but on an all-time scale, their own playoff road wasn't exactly the stuff of legend, either.

[T_L_P]

This 2016 team is looking even more talented and deep than that one. And apparently Parker is back in 2013 shape and ginobili said thats he's motivated to win one last title before he hangs it up. But this is a new team and the competition has gotten tougher since then so we'll see what happens.

http://i.imgur.com/Bl0pRx1.jpg

Let's hope he comes back in even better shape.

[T_L_P]

01' Lakers obliterated the 01' Spurs that were better then the 14' Spurs. :oldlol:
Great logic OP.

01 Spurs minus their second option > 14 Spurs? :biggums:

Their backcourt consisted of Antonio Daniels, 35-year-old Avery, 37-year-old Porter, and 34-year-old Ferry. :oldlol:

[ArbitraryWater]

01' Lakers obliterated the 01' Spurs that were better then the 14' Spurs. :oldlol:
Great logic OP.

:biggums: :biggums: :biggums:

[ShawkFactory]

01' Lakers obliterated the 01' Spurs that were better then the 14' Spurs. :oldlol:
Great logic OP.
Yea....naaaaahhh

[NBAplayoffs2001]

As much as I like the '01 Lakers, they were pretty overrated. Beyond Shaq and Kobe, they really didn't have much besides some above average role players.

[NBAplayoffs2001]

01' Lakers obliterated the 01' Spurs that were better then the 14' Spurs. :oldlol:
Great logic OP.

That '01 team was injury riddled at the SG position... and no way they were better than the 14 Spurs.

By the way can you guys imagine a 2003 Duncan/Robinson on the 14 team. Now that's an arguable team better than the legendary '86 Celtics squad.

[jayfan]

I'm normally not one for cutting down somebody's post in an offensive way.

But this thread may be the most ridiculous thing I've seen on the internet this (month?)....Was gonna say year...But there's some pretty ridiculous things out there....

I saw the '87 Lakers (and as a Bulls Fan, and also an 80's Celtics fan)....They were the greatest team I ever saw.....Saw both and I'd slightly take the '87 Lakers over the '86 Celtics....

Magic, who avg'd 24, 6, and 12 that year, Worthy, Kareem, Scoot, Cooper, Mychal Thompson......That is a legendary team, playing at their highest level.....

Secondly, you really think that Spurs team is a beating a PRIME Jordan team?....Scratch that, ALL 6 Jordan led Bulls teams?.....the 72-10 team?

GTFO. :facepalm

Mychal Thompson was a stiff. Just saying.


.

[Kvnzhangyay]

In terms of finals performances, the 14 spurs are right up there.

[West-Side]

2001 Spurs: 58-24 - 7.92 point difference (highest in the league)
2014 Spurs: 62-20 - 8.00 point difference (highest in the league)

But now you must consider their competition.

2001' Lakers
2001' Kings
2001' Blazer
2001' Sixers
2001' Jazz
2001' Mavs
2001' Bucks


2014' Heat
2014' Pacers
2014' Thunder
2014' Clippers

2014 Spurs are so overrated; I don't see how they beat Lakers, Kings, or even Blazers from the 2001 season.

The league in 2014 was far weaker than in 2001.

2001 Spurs had a 98.0 defensive rating and 106.6 offensive rating.
2014 Spurs had a 102.4 defensive rating and 110.5 offensive rating.

Notables:

Leonard, Duncan, Parker, Manu, Belinelli, Green, Splitter, Mills.

Vs.

Duncan, Robinson, Anderson, Daniels, Elliot, A. Johnson, Rose, Porter.

I have a hard time seeing a front court of Robinson and prime Duncan losing. 2014' Spurs were an excellent team, similar to 2004 Pistons; but they had no go to guy like 01' Spurs did with Duncan.

That team defense was sensational on the 2001 Spurs; they had to face far better teams to win 58 games in 2001 than SA did in 2014. They had the highest point differential out of all the teams.

Would it really surprised anyone if the 2001 Blazers beat 2014 Spurs?
I know damn well 2001 Kings were capable of doing so.

The way the Lakers played in the 2001 playoffs (in particular Kobe & Shaq), I don't see 2014 Spurs winning more than 1 game.

By the way I obviously mean a healthy 2001 Spurs team.

[rmt]

For me, it's very hard to describe the 2013-14 Spurs. On the one hand, they had a very high point differential in the regular season, but they struggled mightily against every contender. And in the playoffs, they had the record point differential in the Finals but struggled against DAL (going 7) and OKC (being blown out in 2 games).

The last 3 games of the Finals were MAGNIFICENT. Here's Riley's take:

"They found their nirvana through their adversity," Riley says. "That doesn't happen often like that, when you lose the way they did in 2013. It usually destroys a team, makes them go the other way, especially when there's aging. They played three of the greatest games that anybody has ever played. That's what it takes. It takes that kind of adversity and great players and, most importantly, mature, grown-up individuals who have been in the profession a long time, who can take the game of basketball to another level. But that's what they did."

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2015/story/_/page/PresentsSpursHeat/how-spurs-2014-finals-performance-changed-nba-forever

Compared to all-time teams, the 2014 Spurs did not have the big men to defend against teams with dominant big men. An old Duncan, Splitter (who can only play limited minutes) and an inexperienced Baynes - not enough against prime Shaq, Hakeem, Wilt, etc. but plenty against the teams of today (the same could be said of 2015 GSW). And against 86 Celtics, McHale and Parrish would be too much for 2014 Spurs' big men. The 2005 Spurs would have a much better chance - they had a prime Duncan, Rasho, Nazr and Horry.

[ShawkFactory]

2001 Spurs: 58-24 - 7.92 point difference (highest in the league)
2014 Spurs: 62-20 - 8.00 point difference (highest in the league)

But now you must consider their competition.

2001' Lakers
2001' Kings
2001' Blazer
2001' Sixers
2001' Jazz
2001' Mavs
2001' Bucks


2014' Heat
2014' Pacers
2014' Thunder
2014' Clippers

2014 Spurs are so overrated; I don't see how they beat Lakers, Kings, or even Blazers from the 2001 season.

The league in 2014 was far weaker than in 2001.

2001 Spurs had a 98.0 defensive rating and 106.6 offensive rating.
2014 Spurs had a 102.4 defensive rating and 110.5 offensive rating.

Notables:

Leonard, Duncan, Parker, Manu, Belinelli, Green, Splitter, Mills.

Vs.

Duncan, Robinson, Anderson, Daniels, Elliot, A. Johnson, Rose, Porter.

I have a hard time seeing a front court of Robinson and prime Duncan losing. 2014' Spurs were an excellent team, similar to 2004 Pistons; but they had no go to guy like 01' Spurs did with Duncan.

That team defense was sensational on the 2001 Spurs; they had to face far better teams to win 58 games in 2001 than SA did in 2014. They had the highest point differential out of all the teams.

Would it really surprised anyone if the 2001 Blazers beat 2014 Spurs?
I know damn well 2001 Kings were capable of doing so.

The way the Lakers played in the 2001 playoffs (in particular Kobe & Shaq), I don't see 2014 Spurs winning more than 1 game.

By the way I obviously mean a healthy 2001 Spurs team.
Maybe if you analyze the players and competition like that, then sure they may not look as good.

But analyzing the level of basketball they played in the playoffs, particularly in the finals? Yea that's an amazing basketball team. They shot 42% as a team from 3 in the playoffs...

[Harison]

Better than '87 and '01 Lakers
Better than '08 Celtics

:wtf: :no:

Jordan also wants to have a word with you.

[ralph_i_el]

Last year's warriors were the best team I've seen since I started watching seriously in 2002.

[Lebron23]

2013 Heat beat the Same team. Both Wade and Bosh struggled in the NBA Finals in 2014.

The 2016 Cavaliers are so stack next year if they bring back Tristan Thompson. A much deeper team compared to the 2012 and 2013 Heat.

[Fire Colangelo]

I think any Miami team from 11-13 could've challenged them.

[Gotterdammerung]

The 2014 Spurs were a great team, but their greatness is predicated on matchups more than straight dominance. They did not dominate the playoffs the same way they did in the regular season, and only in the Finals did they absolutely demonstrate greatness - in a 3 game demolition of the back to back titlist. That alone puts the hypothetical ranking in doubt.
:hammerhead:
Instead of comparing the Spurs to the teams of the 80s or the 90s, which involved a different brand of basketball, and it would depend on which team imposed their will on the game first, and which adjusted best, it would behoove comparing them to the championship teams of the same era.

2013 Miami Heat: They were not as good as the 2012 edition (Battier and Wade were worse, and Bosh turned into a three point specialist) although they added Ray Allen and the Birdman. Plus Mike Miller could still hit from outside. The 2014 Spurs were deeper than the 2013 version (Patty Mills and Bellinelli), and give Diaw more minutes than he got in the 2013 Finals (16 minutes per) by starting him over Splitter, and Manu Ginobili was healthier as well. Pop will outcoach Spoelstra as a result.
Spurs in 6

2012 Miami Heat: Without Ray Allen or Birdman, the Heat still had a red-hot Shane Battier and Mike Miller. The 2012 edition was the thinnest of all the 4 versions of the Superfriends, given that Bosh was injured. The difference between '12 LBJ and '14 LBJ, besides from coasting during the regular season? LBJ looked even better but he got tired quicker. The '14 Spurs would force Spoelstra to bench Haslem because he would neither guard Duncan straight up or stay with Diaw on the perimeter.
Spurs in 6

2011 Dallas Mavericks: Naturally you might be thinking the obvious - "hey if the 2014 Dallas Mavericks took them to 7, wouldn't the 2011 version wipe the floor with 'em?" Obviously, the '11 Mavericks weren't the same team besides Dirk and Shawn Marion. After all they had a superior backcourt in Jason Kidd, Lance Stevenson, and Jason Terry over Devin Harris, Jose Calderon, and Monta Ellis. They had trouble with ultraquick guards like Wade. Yes, Parker isn't as good as Wade was in 2011, but if Tyson Chandler got in foul trouble, it'll be a clinic. If Tiago Splitter guarded Dirk as well as he did in 2014 (staying home, be physical without fouling, not buying all those fakes), then the Spurs will beat the 2011 Mavericks.
Spurs in 7

2010/2009 LA Lakers: It would be a dead heat between the '14 Spurs and the '09 Lakers, but the '10 Lakers would lose. It all comes down to the basic question: the Lakers' perimeter defense. The Lakers could stick Derek Fisher on Danny Green, just like how he guarded Ray Allen in the 2010 Finals. Kobe on Kawhii Leonard. Odom on Diaw. Gasol on Duncan. Bynum on Splitter.

Sure, Leonard would force Kobe to work for every bucket, but once Leonard got into foul trouble, it would tip into the Lakers' favor. Green had the height and length, but not the strength to guard Kobe on post-ups. Lakers were younger (most of their guys could go 40 minutes a game) and while Duncan and Manu Ginobili could for a game or two, they couldn't maintain for 7 games.

The '10 Lakers would have more problems because Ron Artest and Derek Fisher weren't quick enough to guard point guards. No, you can't stick Kobe on them for 40 minutes. Thus Parker would run amok like opposing point guards did in the 2010 Playoffs. Moreover, the '10 Lakers were older, losing that elasticity and stamina edge from the previous year.
Spurs over 2010 Lakers in 6
Spurs/2009 Lakers: PICK
:kobe:

2008 Boston Celtics: This would be the all-time finals matchup if it happened. Elite offense versus Elite defense. 60 plus win teams. Probably another Mexican Standoff. Both teams were deep, loaded with veterans with top notch coaches. Rondo vs Parker. Allen vs Green. Leonard vs Pierce. Duncan vs KG.
The Spurs had far more chemistry on their side than the 08 Celtics had at this time, because they had been playing together for 3 years. However the Celtics were slightly more talented and younger.
PICK

The best way to stop the Spurs?

Stay on their shooters, force their veterans to beat you one on one, expand more energy. You must have an athletic rim defender to stop Tony Parker's Layup Machine act.

A championship caliber team that could defend the three point shooters and stop point guard penetration has the best shot at beating those Spurs. :cheers:

[jayfan]

Last year's warriors were the best team I've seen since I started watching seriously in 2002.

Top 5, maybe.

[LAZERUSS]

65-17 during the r.s without even caring in the last 2 games (they could have matched the '86 Celtics' decade record if they did). Posted an SRS (which adjusts for strength of schedule) miles better than any other Showtime Lakers version. Magic at his peak, AC Green and Mychal Thompson would rest Kareem and Rambis. Bench had Thompson, Rambis, Cooper. All their core players, healthy. This team is easily an all-time great, regardless of who they faced in the playoffs. After all, last time I checked, the '86 Celtics didn't exactly match with powerhouses in the playoffs, either: 30 win Bulls (let's say, a 50% level team with Jordan, who scored 112 pts in his first 2 games against the Celtics), 50 win Atlanta, 57 win Milwaukee, which, however, played with an unready Moncrief in the playoffs (so, not the equivalent of a 57 win team) and a 51 win team in the Finals that they needed 6 games to beat. That's not necessarily in order to make a comparison to the Lakers' path (although the Lakers' SRS reveals they were dominant regardless of schedule), but on an all-time scale, their own playoff road wasn't exactly the stuff of legend, either.

THIS.

I would carry it even further. I would take ANY Laker team from '84 thru '87 over ANY Celtic team in that same time frame. The Lakers just had too many match-up problems for Boston.

The reality was, LA was a BETTER team in '84 (even Bird himself admitted that the Lakers should have SWEPT Boston that year); they won four of the last five in the '85 Finals, including a retribution game for the first game massacre, and then a road win in Boston to clinch; and they annihilated the Celtics in '87. They routed Boston in three of those games, and should have swept them. The Celtics only outplayed them in one game in that series.

BTW, Magic just DESTROYED Boston in '87. In their two regular season H2H's he averaged... get this... 37 ppg! And he murdered them in the Finals with one of the GOAT Finals in NBA history (26-8-13 .541, .960.)

[JohnnySic]

THIS.

I would carry it even further. I would take ANY Laker team from '84 thru '87 over ANY Celtic team in that same time frame. The Lakers just had too many match-up problems for Boston.

The reality was, LA was a BETTER team in '84 (even Bird himself admitted that the Lakers should have SWEPT Boston that year); they won four of the last five in the '85 Finals, including a retribution game for the first game massacre, and then a road win in Boston to clinch; and they annihilated the Celtics in '87. They routed Boston in three of those games, and should have swept them. The Celtics only outplayed them in one game in that series.

BTW, Magic just DESTROYED Boston in '87. In their two regular season H2H's he averaged... get this... 37 ppg! And he murdered them in the Finals with one of the GOAT Finals in NBA history (26-8-13 .541, .960.)
Anyone who brings up '87 is a knucklehead Lakers homer; the Celtics were decimated by injuries that year, it isn't even worth discussing.

And no Lakers team ever was better than the '86 Celtics. Only the '96 Bulls and maybe the '83 Sixers have an argument here.

[LAZERUSS]

Anyone who brings up '87 is a knucklehead Lakers homer; the Celtics were decimated by injuries that year, it isn't even worth discussing.

And no Lakers team ever was better than the '86 Celtics. Only the '96 Bulls and maybe the '83 Sixers have an argument here.

NOPE.

Player-for-player, the Lakers were a better team. Not even a question. AND, the Lakers had "the Bird-Killer" in Cooper, as well.

[ArbitraryWater]

The 4 best Spurs teams are rather clearly the 2005, 2006 (massive drop off in 2007), 2013, 2014 ones...

the 2001 version is their worst outside of the 2009-2011 years.

[BIZARRO]

Mychal Thompson was a stiff. Just saying.


.


11 and 5 while shooting 56%, and 16 and 10 in the clinching game is not a stiff. And he wasn't that season. He was important for them to reduce Kareem's load and provided the extra type of ingredient Walton had the year before.

I'll say it again, for those of you who weren't watching back then, I was a big Bird/Celtics fan in the 80's and Bulls in the 90's. But the 1987 Lakers were the best team I ever saw.

You can tell me all you want, but if you weren't watching back then, you really have no idea. Btw, the 83 Sixers and 89 Pistons were pretty awesome too.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Like '86 Celtics, Spurs could not repeat.

[RidonKs]

if there were ever a foil for bird/mchale, it'd be leonard/duncan

mchale would have a really hard time against virtually any age duncan... too fundamental.

[riseagainst]

96 Bulls?
:confusedshrug:

[rmt]

The best way to stop the Spurs?

Stay on their shooters, force their veterans to beat you one on one, expand more energy. You must have an athletic rim defender to stop Tony Parker's Layup Machine act.

A championship caliber team that could defend the three point shooters and stop point guard penetration has the best shot at beating those Spurs. :cheers:

This. The absolute worse way to defend the Spurs is the way the Heat did - with swarming defense. Then quick, decisive ball movement beats that every time - especially since the Spurs' big men are all good passers. If you just stick to your man and force the big 3 to create/score, none of them are good enough to carry a team for a game - much less a series. For the Spurs, the whole is greater than the sum of their parts.

[JimmyMcAdocious]

As much as I like the '01 Lakers, they were pretty overrated. Beyond Shaq and Kobe, they really didn't have much besides some above average role players.

So beyond two top 10-ish players, both in their primes (one arguably the mde), some above average role players, and maybe the best coach ever, they didn't really have much. You're right. Terrible roster makeup.

[rmt]

As much as I like the '01 Lakers, they were pretty overrated. Beyond Shaq and Kobe, they really didn't have much besides some above average role players.

Must be why they went 15-1 in the playoffs :banghead:

[1987_Lakers]

The 2014 Spurs & 2015 Warriors will probably go down as one of the best teams of all-time as time passes. The Spurs for their high IQ and team play that hasn't been seen in a few decades and the Warriors for having the #1 scoring offense, #1 defense, plus winning 67 games.

But I don't agree with the OP, Spurs were great but I would have a hard time putting them above the '87 Lakers or the '96 Bulls.

To me the '86 Celtics are still currently the GOAT team, they had an offense ALMOST as deadly as the Showtime Lakers, they also had the #1 defense and were #1 in rebounding, they had without question the greatest frontcourt of all time and the greatest collection of talent for a single season. 4 HOF players in the starting line-up (Bird, McHale, Parish, DJ) and another HOF player off the bench (Walton), not fair.

[Spurs m8]

2014 spurs > 2015 warriors

warriors struggled against half a cavs team and had the easiest run to the finals anyone has ever seen lmao

[1987_Lakers]

NOPE.

Player-for-player, the Lakers were a better team. Not even a question. AND, the Lakers had "the Bird-Killer" in Cooper, as well.

IDK about that...

Bird > Magic
McHale > Worthy
Parish < Kareem (I'm being kind here, Kareem was declining by '87)
DJ > Scott
Ainge > Green (Ainge killed it in the '86 postseason)
Walton < Cooper (Walton was more impactful, but Cooper wins for the minutes that he played)

[RidonKs]

yeah spurs would go down to the bulls, duncan wasn't enough of a post presence and harper would dominate at pg



if u emphasize team in the thread title, op def has a point

[ralph_i_el]

2014 spurs > 2015 warriors

warriors struggled against half a cavs team and had the easiest run to the finals anyone has ever seen lmao
They beat every player on the NBA first team

[Dbrog]

05' Spurs are definitely better than the 14' Spurs. Prime Duncan/Gino/Parker >>>> Oldman Duncan/Kawhi Artest :lol. I agree with the poster who discussed 05' Spurs competing against the great teams in history. I guarantee they would beat some of Jordan's teams. Different league though so kinda hard to compare...

[ArbitraryWater]

05' Spurs are definitely better than the 14' Spurs. Prime Duncan/Gino/Parker >>>> Oldman Duncan/Kawhi Artest :lol. I agree with the poster who discussed 05' Spurs competing against the great teams in history. I guarantee they would beat some of Jordan's teams. Different league though so kinda hard to compare...

The '05 Spurs were almost beaten by the SONICS lol..

That Sonics team Ray had around him was worse than what Kobe had at the time :lol

far from prime Parker, too..

don't know what you mean by 'Artest'

[AnaheimLakers24]

Lol.they played agaisnt LeLittle. Not hard to look like a goat team against that small loser

[sportjames23]

05' Spurs are definitely better than the 14' Spurs. Prime Duncan/Gino/Parker >>>> Oldman Duncan/Kawhi Artest :lol. I agree with the poster who discussed 05' Spurs competing against the great teams in history. I guarantee they would beat some of Jordan's teams. Different league though so kinda hard to compare...


:oldlol:

I guarantee you they wouldn't.

None of the teams after the 90s are touching MJ's Bulls.

[Dbrog]

The '05 Spurs were almost beaten by the SONICS lol..

That Sonics team Ray had around him was worse than what Kobe had at the time :lol

far from prime Parker, too..

don't know what you mean by 'Artest'

Kawhi was basically prime artest in '14. Prime parker probably came two years later but still, he was great in 05. 05 spurs also beat the spectacular Pistons team along with an alltime great Suns team. I don't really know where you are getting "almost beaten" from anyway. They beat the Sonics in 6 :confusedshrug:

[JellyBean]

Better than '87 and '01 Lakers
Better than '08 Celtics
Or any other of the Spurs title teams

Top 5 team all time, at least the way they ended the season

Just that.

Good list. But I am still taking that 1985 Lakers squad over the '14 Spurs. That Lakers squad had 7 players getting double figures in points. They passed the ball well. And if that Lakers team put that 1-3-1 defense on you, with Kareem at the top of the zone. B-Scott, Magic, and Worthy (as the 3) in the middle and Bob McAdoo (state high jumper and 6'9") in the back of the zone, you had nightmares!! Also they could score in bunches. They dropped 136 on that '85 Boston team, their Big 3, and their defense.

[Dbrog]

:oldlol:

I guarantee you they wouldn't.

None of the teams after the 90s are touching MJ's Bulls.

Spurs had the Bulls main weakness which was a dominant post-big. Why do you think MJ was always talking about not being sure if he could beat Hakeem. Duncan is just a better Hakeem or AT LEAST as good. I'm not saying Spurs would win the majority of the series against the various Bulls teams but I think they could have beaten the 91 bulls or 98.

[Spurs m8]

They beat every player on the NBA first team

Yeah, basketballs a team sport, champ and they copped the easiest playoff road. In top of those teams being hit with important injuries.
Aint no denying that.

Cheers

[SHAQisGOAT]

They definitely showed some tremendous basketball but I don't think so...

Imo, they would've definitely got beaten by:

1987 Lakers
1989 Pistons
1992 and/or 1996 Bulls
2001 Lakers

I'd probably throw the 2008 Celtics there too, even the 2004 Pistons...
Would've loved to see them vs the 2015 Warriors, but maybe we'll get a "taste" of it this next season.

They did remind me some of the 1986 Celtics yea, especially/mostly that overall passing game.



NOPE.

Player-for-player, the Lakers were a better team. Not even a question. AND, the Lakers had "the Bird-Killer" in Cooper, as well.

Not even a question :rolleyes: :lol :facepalm

Pretty close but the '86 Celtics were a better team, as in they would've won vs them in 7-games series more often than not.

Shit, we've been through this before but in '87 the Celtics still took them to 6 games, with:
-Walton and Wedman "gone". Virtually no bench.
-McHale on a broken foot.
-Parish and Ainge with injuries too, not even close to 100%.
-Bird already showing some "health problems".


And this dude still saying shit like Michael Cooper "the Bird-killer" :rolleyes:
You realize that for the '84 Finals, when Larry was mostly guarded by Coop (who was playing 37 MPG), Bird put up 27.4/14.0 on 48.4% FG, one of his two best Finals.
Who "killed" who?

For the '87 Finals, you DIDN'T have Cooper but rather Worthy mostly on Bird because they had to throw size at him.
Even if Coop still guarded him plenty though, playing 30 MPG here - still much less than in '84, still considerably less time guarding Larry.
(won't mention the '85 Finals because Bird was severely injured there)

And I even AGREE that Coop was the best Bird defender (think LB even said the same), he used to totally smother him (or everyone else) on the perimeter, could trouble him in the post, riled him up plenty, never backed down and talked shit too, had every little trick...
He even had Bird shooting below 40% from mid-range for the '84 Finals... But Larry was considerably bigger and knew how to use his size, and calling him "the Bird-killer" is just dumb.

Your knowledge of the game goes very little beyond raw (selected) stats, tbh...

[Young X]

Every championship Bulls team was better.

[JohnnySic]

Spurs had the Bulls main weakness which was a dominant post-big. Why do you think MJ was always talking about not being sure if he could beat Hakeem. Duncan is just a better Hakeem or AT LEAST as good. I'm not saying Spurs would win the majority of the series against the various Bulls teams but I think they could have beaten the 91 bulls or 98.
http://h-4.abload.de/img/0070_pq3p.gif

[Mr Feeny]

Spurs had the Bulls main weakness which was a dominant post-big. Why do you think MJ was always talking about not being sure if he could beat Hakeem. Duncan is just a better Hakeem or AT LEAST as good. I'm not saying Spurs would win the majority of the series against the various Bulls teams but I think they could have beaten the 91 bulls or 98.Don't think Duncan was better than Hakeem. He's had greater longevity, Greater team success and a greater overall career though. But not many would argue that he was a better basketball player than the Dream.

[Dbrog]

Don't think Duncan was better than Hakeem. He's had greater longevity, Greater team success and a greater overall career though. But not many would argue that he was a better basketball player than the Dream.

I think there's plenty that would argue that. There's a reason Duncan has never had a season under 50 wins AND has almost always taken scrubs to success, which is something Hakeem only did much later in his career. This speaks to Duncan being a better basketball player. He certainly was a better leader by all accounts.

[Gotterdammerung]

I think there's plenty that would argue that. There's a reason Duncan has never had a season under 50 wins AND has almost always taken scrubs to success, which is something Hakeem only did much later in his career. This speaks to Duncan being a better basketball player. He certainly was a better leader by all accounts.

I agree with Mr Feeny, that while Duncan was the better leader and better teammate, and has the superior career, he wasn't the better basketball player at his prime than Hakeem was during the 1993-1996 seasons. :bowdown:

This is another example of the greater player versus the better player, like Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain respectively.