Date ended: Monday, September 25thTopic: Which is the best NBA championship team, post-Bulls (single season, not dyanasty)?Rules: Keep it clean, No need to throw put instults and harmful remarks. You guys can just go at it unti the due date, Debate like crazy. If you both agree with the topic, See if you can prove your opponents points wrong, If you agree to the extent where there is nothing to debate about, Then say something and we will get you a new topic. Remember: This contest is about your debate skills and how you can defeat your opponent while persuading them, and the judges, that your point is correct. It is NOT about what side you choose as it is how you prove your points.Good luck!
I'm gonna go with the 2000-2001 lakers. They were the definition of a powerhouse. With a 56-26 regular season record and an UNHEARD of 15-1 playoff record, this is the obvious choice. They really did dominate every round of the playoffs.Not to mention the best duo of the post Jordan era. Both scored 28+ ppg and were virtually unstoppable. They were the ideal inside/outside combo in the league. Shaq was very dominant in the post and Kobe was tearing it up from the outside. This team not ONCE lost three games in a row. I mean, their first playoff lost was in the NBA Finals!Let's walk through the playoffs for the '00-'01 lakers:First round, Lakers defeat portland. winning each game by an average of over 15 points. This was basically expected in a first round match-up, but let's not underestimate the victory. Portland was pretty stacked with talent. Rasheed Wallace, Bonzi Wells, Damon Stoudamire off the top of my head. Also scottie pippen and Steve Smith. This team was no pushover.Second round, the lakers show no signs of slowing down as they plow the kings. But this time Shaq and Kobe really step up. Each finished the series with atleast 33 ppg, not to mention 9 rpg from kobe, and get this, 17 rpg from Shaq! If that's not flat out domination, then I don't know what is. Lakers win each game by an average of about 9 ppg.On to the Conference finals, against a spurs team that was champions just two years earlier? you'd expect a good series, right? wrong. 4-0 sweep, again. the lakers win this one by an average of 21 points. That's insane for a conference finals. Escpecially against a team with Tim Duncan, David Robinson, and Derek Anderson in his prime.And now the NBA Finals. After losing the first game to the Philadelphia 76ers, the Lakers flat out dominated the rest of the series. If Iverson didn't blow up for 48 points in Game 1, it likely would've been a sweep. The lakers were even expected to win against a team that boasted the league MVP award (Allen Iverson), the Coach of the Year award (Larry Brown), the Sixth Man of the Year award (Aaron McKie) and a multiple Defensive Player of the Year winner (Dikembe Mutumbo).Stepping away from the specifics here, the Lakers had almost the ideal team. Not only did they have two top 10 players in the league, but they had great role players as well. While Shaq and Kobe dominated the scoring for the most part, LA had Derek Fisher to play defense and shoot from the outside, Robert Horry to bring energy and hit open shots (not to mention a veteran presence), Rick Fox to play great defense, Devean George to play very good defense and bring energy, Horace Grant to rebound and play defense. This, paired with arguably the best coach of all-time is practically a shoe-in for a title appearance.
well dogma, u know I am going to have to go with my 2004-2005 San Antonio Spurs.You make great points of how the Lakers were a very dominant team, and how they had two great players in Shaq and Kobe, but it doesn't even matter. Most of your arguement was defending the strength of their schedule when it doesn't even come close to what the Spurs had to face on their way to the finals, AND in the finals. 1st Round: When you look at the Denver Nuggets, they have more talent then the 2001 Portland Trailblazers. The Trailblazers team didnt have an actual leader. They were filled with headcases playing off of sheer talent. Their team was "led" by Rasheed Wallace who has led the team with techinals for god knows how long. That isnt somebody that the team can look up to when they need him. Sure, he was a talented player then, but is that somebody that can honestly put up a good fight against a team with Shaq and Kobe? I dont think so. The Nuggetts have Carmelo Anthony, Andre Miller, Kenyon Martin (a healthy one at that), Marcus Camby, and one of the best bench players in the league at the time in Earl Boykins who had a killer series. Talent wise, leadership wise, attitude wise, and coaching wise, the Denver Nuggets had a better ball club.2nd Round: Seattle SupersonicsFor the San Antonio Spurs, this was the worst round for them. They played agaisnt a weaker Sonics team without Rashard Lewis for half of the series and Vladimir Radmonivic. Yet, when you look at the difference of how the Sonics played WITH Rashard rather than WITHOUT Rashard, they played much better without him. Sure, the Spurs were playing at home when they had their first 2 victories, but they utterly outclassed the sonics by over 18 in both games. When you look at how the Sonics did when they did not have Rashard, they played MUCH better. In game 3, Rashard played 9 minutes less then he did in game 2, and the Sonics came out with the victory. He had a bad game shooting 3 for 10 from the field, yet they came out on top? This shows that they did not need him in order to succeed. Also, when players like Jerome James go 7 for 7, it helps as well. My point is, you cant blame the series on Rashard's injury. The Spurs could have very well done better against the Sonics if they did have Lewis for the final 3 games.3rd Round: This Suns team was the most talented team in the playoffs despite having an injured Joe Johnson in the first 2 games. The Spurs showed that they could play a different style of ball and beat the Suns at their own game. The Spurs put up over 100 points in every game in order to beat a VERY talented suns team in 5 games. Amare was playing phenominal, and they had this years MVP in Steve Nash. Also, the best 3rd option in the league that year in Shawn Marion, by far the best 4th option in Joe Johnson, and the best 3 point shooter in the league in Quenton Richardson. This team was stacked and the spurs went out there and beat them at their own game. That shows signs of a true champion.The Spurs team that season didnt have anything special what so ever. Sure, they won the championship only two years earlier, but that is when David Robinson could still play decently well, AND when they had all of thier role players which made them a good team. They lost players like Mario Ellie, Jaren Jackson(who in the 99 finals, had two big games agaisnt the lakers for over 20 points), a better Sean Elliot, and other players as well. And you say that one of their best 3 players was "a prime Derek Anderson". WRONG, Derek Anderson was out for the entire season due to a fatal blow from Karl Malone in the first round. So, the Spurs were down one of their best 3 players which left them with an over the hill pg in Avery Johnson, an over the hill David Robinson, and Tim Duncan. That doesn't even come close to what the 2004-2005 Spurs had to overcome in the WCF agaisnt the Phoenix Suns.Finals: There is no comparion what so ever.....The Detroit Pistons were obviously better than the Sixers. The Sixers had Allen Iverson, and thats it. You say Dikembe Mutumbo, yet you are forgetting that his defensive skillset isnt going to be effective at all and wasn't effective what so ever against the dominate Shaq. Aaron McKie. He was a role player. And it stops there. I cant think of anyone else on that roster. And you say "Coach of the Year in Larry Brown" when in fact he is one of the most overrated coaches in NBA history. He wins when he is given a team. He made it to the finals that season because there was no competition in the Eastern Conference. Not because he is that good of a coach. He is a worse coach than both Greg Popovich and Phil Jackson by far. It is not even close. The Detroit Pistons on the other hand had one of the best starting 5's since I can remember. They all played defense well, and they could all score. They had one of the best bench men of that season also in Antonio McDyess. And not to mention, this team beat the Lakers in the finals the previous year in a landslide series. And guess what, that lakers team was not much different then the Lakers of 01'. Shaq might have gone down just a little bit(not much), and Kobe stayed the same. Besides that, they had Karl Malone and Gary Payton. SO, the rest of their team was actually better.So, even though the lakers won in a better fashion in the sense that they won by a landslide in every series, the Spurs played better competition in just about every single round.NOW, lets look at the roster of the Spurs in 05. You have one of the best PF's of all time in Tim Duncan if not the best. A point guard who just started to become very good, an All Star in Emanuel Ginobili, and a load of role players that new how to get it done. Robert Horry stepped up big in game 5 of the finals and totally killed the Detroit Pistons. Sure, he played a big role for the Lakers all thos years, but it was in the sense that he made one shot when he needed to. He never EVER game that kind of performance. Lets also look at another factor. Kobe and Shaq didnt and dont get along! If the Lakers had to play a remotley tough team that year in the playoffs, the character of Kobe Bryant and Shaq would have been tested. This is why they lost so miserabley to the Pistons in the 04 finals. Because they finally played a tough team and they fell apart when they needed to. Not because of talent, but because of leadership. If the Lakers played a team even close to the caliber of the Pistons or even the Suns, the leadership of the Lakers would have been tested greatly. Im not saying that they would have lost, but it would have been a good series.Well, thats about all.
[quote name='ballerman2112' post='161945' date='Sep 20 2006, 08:00 PM']well dogma, u know I am going to have to go with my 2004-2005 San Antonio Spurs.You make great points of how the Lakers were a very dominant team, and how they had two great players in Shaq and Kobe, but it doesn't even matter. Most of your arguement was defending the strength of their schedule when it doesn't even come close to what the Spurs had to face on their way to the finals, AND in the finals. 1st Round: When you look at the Denver Nuggets, they have more talent then the 2001 Portland Trailblazers. The Trailblazers team didnt have an actual leader. They were filled with headcases playing off of sheer talent. Their team was "led" by Rasheed Wallace who has led the team with techinals for god knows how long. That isnt somebody that the team can look up to when they need him. Sure, he was a talented player then, but is that somebody that can honestly put up a good fight against a team with Shaq and Kobe? I dont think so. The Nuggetts have Carmelo Anthony, Andre Miller, Kenyon Martin (a healthy one at that), Marcus Camby, and one of the best bench players in the league at the time in Earl Boykins who had a killer series. Talent wise, leadership wise, attitude wise, and coaching wise, the Denver Nuggets had a better ball club.[/quote]Most of my argument was how the lakers dominated those teams. I wouldn't be defending them if I said that they were dominated in a playoff series.Rasheed Wallace IS a leader. He may get alot of technicals, but it's bc of his immense emotion. He is a born leader. The Pistons wouldn't have sniffed a championship without him. NOt to mention that this guy was all-star material, getting about 20/10. This team wasn't full of headcases. Rasheed had an attitude problem and Bonzi Wells had some problems with the staff. Guys like Damon Stoudamire, Steve Smith, and Scottie Pippen have been known for their great teamwork and attitudes. by you saying that this team couldn't "ut up a good fight against a team with Shaq and Kobe", you helped me prove my point of how dominating this lakers team really was. Talent wise, leadership wise, the portland team had a better squad. Kenyon Martin is close to useless in a playoff environement, the nuggets can't play in a half-court set, they aren't a playoff team. much better suited for the regular season. They also played against a team that struggled to win 35 games bc they can't playa lick of defense. SUre the sonics had their little run fueled by lights out shooting, but in the end, when a team can't play defense, they won't go far in the playoffs. the only exception is the suns, bc they had so much talent on the other end. Jerome James going 7 for 7 hurts your case, as a trash player was able to have a killer series against the spurs. I agree, the spurs played very well in this series. They were able to show they can score with the best of them. But they also gave up 37 ppg to amare and 23 to Nash. but regardless, they still got the job done.but I want to say that most of this can be placed on the shoulders of shawn marion. he was simply a no show. sure, bowen played good defense on him, but his assertiveness was embarrassingly low. It's like he didn't even try to make an impact. regardless of who was injured, the spurs were still good enough to reach the conference finals, and they still had one of the best players in the league at the time, and possibly the best PF of all time in his prime. okay, the pistons were better than the sixers, but the spurs/pistons series cam down to the last 3 minutes in game seven. The lakers/sixers series ended in five games. The sizers still had the mvp and the coach of the year. how is mutumbo's defensive skillset not useful? he had alot of strength to guard shaq (or to try and guard shaq) and the blocking ability to keep kobe out of the lane (or try to keep kobe out of the lane). yet, it wasn't enough to stop LA.and yes, the 01 lakers were different than the 04 lakers. they were the most dominant team in the league in 01 and alot more team oriented. 04 was when things were pulling apart between kobe and shaq. the camraderie was nowhere near what it was in 01. Sure, the spurs had Tim Duncan, but Shaq is arguably the most dominant player in the HISTORY OF THE LEAGUE in arguably his best season. you can't get much better than that. you throw an all-star out there in manu, I give you a superstar in kobe. Parker was hardly more effective as Fisher was. The rest was about even. But solely on the fact that the lakers had two sure-fire Hall of Famers in the midst of their primes blows this spurs team away.In 01, Shaq and Kobe DID get along. Kobe's ego became a problem in about 03, when the lakers started deteriorating. How can you question the character of Sahq and Kobe? Both of these guys are winners. They get the job done, they play well in the clutch, they do everything they are asked to do and more. "they finally played a tought team" in the pistons in 04? they played plenty of tough teams in that span! they beat your spurs in six games then a stacked t-wolves team in the WCF's that year. And the Kings team wasn't tough? try they had Chris Webber in his prime, getting 27 and 11, and an uprising peja stojakovic scoring 20 a night. Not to metnion arguably the best passing center of all time in Vlade Divac and a very good defensive specialist in Doug Christie. That team made the WCFs the next year I believe, losing to the lakers in 7 games, on a buzzer beating game winner by Robert Horry. The sixers team had AI in his best season (not necessarily statistically, but as a leader and as a team), Dikembe Mutumbo who was a beast on defense, averaging 10/13, aaron mckie who was a great shooter, and eric snow, who did all the little things a contender would want him to do. Sure, this team did not have much talent, but the lakers still dominated them.
Rasheed Wallace is not the kind of leader that any team wants to have. That is why when he was the best player on his team, and he was the so called "leader of the team", they got absolutley dominated in the playoffs. Do you think that his teammattes looked up to him while he was getting those 20 points a game when along with those stats, he was getting technicals in half the games? I dont think so...Also, Rasheed and Bonzi were not the only headcases on that team. You had Shawn Kemp, Rod Strickland, and even their PG, Damon Stoudemire had drug problems. This team was full of guys with bad attitudes and problems off the court. I don't see how that team is going to get by ANY team in the playoffs. Not to mention, they got swept by the Spurs in 99 when their roster wasnt that stacked what so ever. An unprime Tim Duncan, a downhill David Robinson, and role players...As for the nuggets, they didnt need to really play in a half court offense. Their guards played very well agaisnt the spurs and that is because the played in a more fast paced game. Earl Boykins tore the spurs up. Kenyon Martin would run with them and he got ALOT of buckets off of fast break dunks, alley oops, and even mid range jumpshots. He wasnt that injury prone at the time so he was still useful.That season, it didnt matter that the Sonics couldnt play defense. They won over 50 games by playing their style of basketball and it seemed to work. The reason they played so poorly this past season was because the other teams started to catch on. Sure, their defense is absolutley awful, but it didnt effect them in the 05 regular season, so why would it make a difference in their series agaisnt the spurs? It obviously didnt...They were an offensive power house that year and even without Rashard for 3 games, they still had enough weapons to do so. As for Jerome James, he had one good game. Its not like he did that for the entire series. Each team has a mental lapse at some point in time.The spurs knew that they could win the series by shutting Shawn Marion down, and they did that. Sure, they gave up 37 a game to Amare, yet they won the series in 5 games. I am not going to argue that they let him score, because he was unstoppable....but dont u think the spurs realized that if Amare scored 37 a game, and the spurs still won, that they were fine with that? As for Shawn Marion, that just shows that the spurs had a lockdown defender. It has nothing to do with his assertivness. When there is a player that harrasses you for an entire series, it totally takes everything away from a player. And that is what Bruce Bowen did. He played lockdown defense and shut down one of the most explosive and versatile players in the NBA.They were good enough to reach the conference finals because there were only a few good teams in the west at that time. Sure, the Spurs had one of the best PF's of all time in his prime, but you still need a supporting cast in order to win. Their only other scoring option on that team was an over the hill David Robinson. How do you expect them to even put up a series? It had nothing to do with the Lakers being that great, but more to do with the Spurs not having the firepower to compete with any championship caliber team from any year.Regarless if it came down to the last 3 minutes of the series...they were playing a championship caliber team in the pistons when the lakers were playing with a team that didnt deserve to be in the finals. That Pistons team could have put up one hell of a series against the 01' lakers. The ONLY difference was that Shaq was just a little bit better. There were problems in LA ever since Kobe got there. He wanted to be the star of the team and everyone knew that he would never be the star while Shaq was there. He was the leader of that team and it drove Kobe crazy. Its not like one day Shaq and Kobe just started hating each other. It is something that is built up overtime. Dikembe Mutumbo couldnt have just been waiting in the lane to stop Kobe when he has his hands full with Shaq. He wouldnt have had any time to leave his man or else it would have been 2 points for a dunk. As for Larry Brown, he won coach of the year because basically Allen Iverson had a career year. Allen Iverson won that trophy for Larry Brown just like all of his players do for him.Ok, Shaq is the most dominant in NBA history and Tim Duncan is the best PF in NBA history. Shaq is a little bit more effective from his size but not by that much. Yes, Kobe is obviously better than Manu but Manu did things for the spurs that not alot of players do. He got loose balls, steals, clutch 3 pointers when he needed do, and he is a versatile player that threw alot of teams off. He is no Kobe Bryant but it got the job done for the Spurs. Also, Derek Fisher averaged about 9 points per game while Tony averaged around 14 or 15. Its not a big difference but 6 points is 6 points. As for the rest of the team, I will just mention one player. Robert Horry. Sure, he made a big shot or two for the lakers, but he NEVER had a game where he went off and had over 20 points in a game, while shooting a ridiculous percentage, AND making the game winner. They just had a better supporting cast then the Lakers did. The Lakers had the big two, while the Spurs had a team.What do you mean they started disliking each other in 03? Kobe wanted to be the leader of that team ever since he entered in and that bothered Shaq. Kobes ego didnt belong on that team and after the Lakers didnt win a championship for one year, that was enough for the team to fall apart. The team fell apart because they didnt like each other. They didnt start disliking each other because the team started to fall apart. Phil Jackson left because he didnt want to be apart of that team. Yes, the lakers played some good teams on there way to making it to the finals of that year. But they wouldnt have been in the finals if it wasnt for Derek Fishers last suck heroic shot. That totally switched the momentum of the team. And I will use what you were saying earlier....These were all close series'. It shows that when the Lakers play good teams, they are competitive, but not necessarily the best. They were AS GOOD as the Spurs that season, but not any better. That series was determined by one shot. If the Spurs would have won that game off of Duncan's lucky shot, then they would have been the team most likely in the finals that year.
[quote name='ballerman2112' post='162497' date='Sep 21 2006, 07:26 PM']Rasheed Wallace is not the kind of leader that any team wants to have. That is why when he was the best player on his team, and he was the so called "leader of the team", they got absolutley dominated in the playoffs. Do you think that his teammattes looked up to him while he was getting those 20 points a game when along with those stats, he was getting technicals in half the games? I dont think so...Also, Rasheed and Bonzi were not the only headcases on that team. You had Shawn Kemp, Rod Strickland, and even their PG, Damon Stoudemire had drug problems. This team was full of guys with bad attitudes and problems off the court. I don't see how that team is going to get by ANY team in the playoffs. Not to mention, they got swept by the Spurs in 99 when their roster wasnt that stacked what so ever. An unprime Tim Duncan, a downhill David Robinson, and role players...As for the nuggets, they didnt need to really play in a half court offense. Their guards played very well agaisnt the spurs and that is because the played in a more fast paced game. Earl Boykins tore the spurs up. Kenyon Martin would run with them and he got ALOT of buckets off of fast break dunks, alley oops, and even mid range jumpshots. He wasnt that injury prone at the time so he was still useful.[/quote]you are overrating the technical aspect. Technicals DO NOT tear a team apart. The point was, this team had alot of talent, and the lakers just walked all over them. an "unprime" tim duncan? what? he came into the league averaging around 20/10. This same denver team is the one that can't get past the first round of the playoffs bc they can't play the halfcourt set game. Kenyon Martin had bad knees then like he has now. it was only 2 seasons ago, you know. and honestly, talking about a player that isn't special getting "ALOT of buckets" isn't exactly helping your case. plus, he averaged 12 and 6, compared to 15 and 7 in the regular season. Exactly! that all offensive approach is NOT playoff basketball! It's good for winning games in the regular season, but we all know that those teams can't go very far in the playoffs. exception again: the suns. that team had too much talent. why would it make a difference? bc regular season basketball is different than playoff basketball. you can't just run wildly in the playoffs. The game is slowed down and the game is played in the halfcourt. If you can't play defense, you're team is obviously not going to win in this atmosphere. It's the same thing with the Nuggets. They had enough weapons? oh please, Antonio Daniels was the 2nd leading scorer in that series. And by letting James have a good game, that's not a mental lapse. It's not like they just forgot how to guard him. they just couldn't. oh please, it had nothing to do with Marion's assertiveness? It had almost everything to do with it! He was a no-show! period. Sure, Bruce Bowen played good defense on him, I'm not denying that, but Marion is also way more athletic than bowen. If he really wanted to make a difference in that series, he would have. He just wasn't assertive enough.The West was still very good back then. TD prime, KG prime, CWebb prime. Alot of very very good players. and teams. and you keep talking about an 'over the hill' david robinson, but it's not such a bad thing. Robinson was still a good player in 2000-2001, good for about 15 and 9. Anmd honestly, the spurs have never had overwheliming talent (in comparison to other contenders), it's always been their defense and discipline that helped them prevail. it was no different in 2001. "it had nothing to do with the lakers being that great".. are you kidding me? this is one of the most talented teams in our era! honestly, Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant together, midprime. Both were arguably top 5 back then. How is that not great? The only difference was that shaq was a little better? give me a break. Kobe and Shaq got along then. Kobe was not a problem like you are saying. you're making up lies that never happened until a few years later. Kobe was a rising star, and it was obvious that he took second hand in the finals when shaq completely dominated. "There were problems in LA ever since Kobe got there". what a blatant lie. Things didn't get sour until around 2004, the shaq/kobe combo was never a problem until then.Allen Iverson had a career year? umm, no he didn't. at all. He actually had better numbers this season, when they missed the playoffs. He had better numbers whil also shooting a better percentage. Shaq was "a little more effective"? no. try he averaged over 30 points and 15 rebounds for half those playoffs. you say manu got loose balls. so did rick fox, so did robert horry, so did horace grant. Hustle plays don't make up for being a superstar. It's undeniable that Kobe made a much more positive effect on the game for his team. Where did you get 9 ppg? in the regular season, derek fisher averaged 11.5 ppg, and in the playoffs he stepped it up to about 15 ppg. so that is scoring as much as tony. you netion how robert horry never had a 20 point outburst for the lakers, well, it's bc he didn't have to. They had enough offensive stability that they didn't need a role player to explode. and as a matter of fact, Derek Fisher was the same way, only 20 points wasn't necessarily an outburst for him. It was just a good game. In the conference finals he averaged 17 ppg. are you kidding me? the camraderie was EXCELLENT in 2001. honeslty, Shaq and kobe got along in 2001. period. Kobe's ego was not a problem at all. He knew he was the second option and he was fine with that, atleast then. There was noticeable tension in 2003, but not before that.how do you know that they wouldn't have been in the finals? the series was tied before that game. the lakers already had momentum bc they had won the two previous games. and besides, that's a completely different year. why are you talking about the 04 lakers?Not necessarily the best? they won the championship! they lost ONE game in the playoffs! how much better do you have to get. seriously, you've brought up the 03-04 lakers more than you've talked about the 01 lakers. that was a different team.
Alright I've read this over, I have a winner! NBA Dogmatist Great points man, I loved how you brought out the overration of technicals, the players of that era, etc. You both are hells of debaters, and I think that either one of you could win it if you werent versing in the semi's. But I gotta give this one to dogma, you defended your points well. Hell you did everything well.
yeah I know, but I wasnt even f*cking home when he posted that. and u werent either. whatever, I guess I had time to repost but I was just gonna do it when I got home considering I read earlier today that we had until 10 oclock. ill take whatever the judges have to say. I know I won it until the last post. well at least IMO.
I said it in debate discussion I believe on Saturday....you had enough time, anyway. Most of these debates are decided by the 2nd reply of each debator, anyway.
Odd, I could have swore I said 9pm, but whatever. And I said that on Sunday, early, early morning (aka Saturday night). But yeah, there really isn't mcuh more to say in the debate, if you feel you need to add 1 last post, be my guest, although I highly doubt it will change anyone's minds.
Its cool man. If I reply, its gonna take me a long time. I take too much damn time in my replys anyways. just let the judges do what they want. my hands hurt right now anyways. haha
