In 1999 The San Antonio Spurs won there first NBA Championship and in 2004 the Detroit Pistons won there 1st NBA title since the Bad Boyz era back in the 80's. My question is if these two team's were to meet in a best of 7 series who do you think would win it all? I think The Wallace Brothers vs The Twin Towers would be an amazing matchup along with many others. It would definitally go to 7 games imo.
I really cannot comment on the spurs of 1999 because I didn't watch them. But those 2004 pistons were the best defensive team I've seen . It wasn't even that they were all great individual defenders. What made their defense so good was the schemes LB came up. The team held 5 straight teams to below 70 points. They held the pacers to 2 straight 65 point games in the ECF. Completley embarassed the lakers in the 2004 finals and shut down kobe bryant. No superstar in the league would be able to carve up that defense.If someone has watched the spurs of 1999 in detail I would like to know if their defense matches up against the pistons.
Pistons easily. Spurs had less competition, and they weren't nearly as dominant defensively as the Pistons. The Pistons could shut down just about anyone they wanted, and offensively were good as well. The Spurs just wouldn't have enough firepower.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Sep 14 2006, 06:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Pistons easily. Spurs had less competition, and they weren't nearly as dominant defensively as the Pistons. The Pistons could shut down just about anyone they wanted, and offensively were good as well. The Spurs just wouldn't have enough firepower.</div>Though my pick is the Pistons, I disagree with your "less competition" comment. TD alone had to handle every team. There were the Utah Jazz, who had Karl Malone and John Stockton, the Los Angeles Lakers, who were building up on Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O' Neal, and a few other teams. Maybe the Pistons had more competition, I agree, but the Spurs had enough to be killed off of the title spot.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Illosophee @ Sep 19 2006, 10:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Though my pick is the Pistons, I disagree with your "less competition" comment. TD alone had to handle every team. There were the Utah Jazz, who had Karl Malone and John Stockton, the Los Angeles Lakers, who were building up on Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O' Neal, and a few other teams. Maybe the Pistons had more competition, I agree, but the Spurs had enough to be killed off of the title spot.</div>The Spurs were 11-1 in the conference playoffs, beating a much less talented T-Wolves team, a Lakers team that were still that one piece (pHil Jackson) away, and beat a Portland team where no player averaged more than 13PPG. Pistons had to face easy first round matchup in the Bucks, a very tough NJ team that won 2 straight ECF, the best team record-wise in the pacers, and then the Lakers who were on a roll and who were stacked.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Sep 19 2006, 09:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Spurs were 11-1 in the conference playoffs, beating a much less talented T-Wolves team, a Lakers team that were still that one piece (pHil Jackson) away, and beat a Portland team where no player averaged more than 13PPG. Pistons had to face easy first round matchup in the Bucks, a very tough NJ team that won 2 straight ECF, the best team record-wise in the pacers, and then the Lakers who were on a roll and who were stacked.</div>dude, the spurs had just as much competition as the Pistons did....The timberwolves were just as good as a first round opponent as the Bucks were and the team that the Pistons had to play to get to the finals were very marginal. The nets are one of the most overrated teams in the NBA. They dont have a big man what so ever. Also, go look at the fashion that the Spurs did it in. They played very well together and the comeback that they had against the Portland Trailblazers in game 2 or 3 (I cant remember) where they came from 18 points down in the 4th quarter to win the game. The Pistons were easily the better team, but it had nothing to do with competition. They were just better because the Spurs didnt have anybody good on the team besides an amazing Tim Duncan and a declining David Robinson. Their team was filled with role players. Now, those players filled their roles very well but they couldnt do nearly as much agaisnt the pistons. It has nothing to do with "competition".
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ Sep 19 2006, 11:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>dude, the spurs had just as much competition as the Pistons did....The timberwolves were just as good as a first round opponent as the Bucks were and the team that the Pistons had to play to get to the finals were very marginal. The nets are one of the most overrated teams in the NBA. They dont have a big man what so ever. Also, go look at the fashion that the Spurs did it in. They played very well together and the comeback that they had against the Portland Trailblazers in game 2 or 3 (I cant remember) where they came from 18 points down in the 4th quarter to win the game. The Pistons were easily the better team, but it had nothing to do with competition. They were just better because the Spurs didnt have anybody good on the team besides an amazing Tim Duncan and a declining David Robinson. Their team was filled with role players. Now, those players filled their roles very well but they couldnt do nearly as much agaisnt the pistons. It has nothing to do with "competition".</div>T-Wolves were actually better than the Bucks IMO, but NJ was VERY tough. KMart? He was amazing for the Nets, and then you had JKidd, RJ, and some very good role players. If it wasn't for a clutch shot in game 6 by Rip (a game I was at) the Nets would have beaten the Pistons. They were only team to push the Pistons to 7 games, and went on like a 15 game winning streak during season once Byron Scott left. Theyw ere the reigning 2 time EC champs, so no they are not overrated.I was just using competition as one of the points, as the Pistons beat the 2 very best teams in league (LA and Pacers) and also the reigning 2 time EC champs. Spurs had fairly easy matchups in the playoffs, and Knicks were an 8 seed that caught fire but were overmatched by the Spurs.
Nitro is right.The Pistons had a tough run. The Spurs won in the lock-out year, if that season was the full 82 games then I have no doubt that Utah would have won the West. That year wasn't long enough for all the teams to develope a rhythm. That year just sucked. And it should be forgotten.
I don't get it. Whose first taste of the trophy? Are we gonna compare the 47-48 Baltimore Bullets and the 46-47 Philly Warriors since those were the first taste of ANYONE getting a trophy? Leave out the "both their first tastes", especially since Detroit has 2 trophies prior to 2004.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 19 2006, 11:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nitro is right.The Pistons had a tough run. The Spurs won in the lock-out year, if that season was the full 82 games then I have no doubt that Utah would have won the West. That year wasn't long enough for all the teams to develope a rhythm. That year just sucked. And it should be forgotten.</div>That is the biggest load of sh*t I have ever heard. What do u mean that doesn't count? The Spurs had just as much time to develope as any team. And why would the Jazz need more time to develope? There top player had been together forever. Think before u say something
I didn't say SA's title shouldn't count. I just said that 1999 was a bad year. Teams finish differently after 50 games than they would after 82.
dude, how do you know that the Spurs wouldnt have gotten better? honestly, it doesn't matter that it was a shortened season. The Spurs had to deal with the same things as others. And to add to that....they killed every single team that they faced. They lost one game to the t-wolves, swept the lakers and the trailblazers, and lost one game in the finals. I dont think that playing 30 more regular season games would do too much. Honestly, your points are retarted.
I hope you are talking to him, because I never said they would get better or worse, but he is right in saying that teams weren't fully developed after 50 games. Just look at the Knicks, an 8th seed who went to NBA Finals...But again, they faced considerably easier competition throughout the playoffs and Finals, and the actual team just wasn't as well put together, coached and didn't have near the same level of defense the Pistons did.
well, you did say that he had a good point now didnt u. And, I never said that they were better than the 04 pistons, so "I hope you arent talking to me". And as for the Knicks, it obviously doesn't matter. Because even though they developed late, they got killed in the finals by the Spurs...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ Sep 20 2006, 11:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>well, you did say that he had a good point now didnt u. And, I never said that they were better than the 04 pistons, so "I hope you arent talking to me". And as for the Knicks, it obviously doesn't matter. Because even though they developed late, they got killed in the finals by the Spurs...</div>But it sort of proved his point that they didn't develop until late. What if the Knicks played 82 and had more time to develop? Do you not think they would have gotten even better, and put up a better fight? All I am saying is that he is right in that some teams take all 82 before they start to really develop. I never said the Jazz or whoever would have actually gotten better and beat the Spurs, but the shortened season definately effected a ton that season, and team development is certainly one thing.
Exactly. For example, if you ended the 2006 after 50 games, the Lakers wouldn't have made the playoffs, the Miami Heat would have folded in the playoffs, and the Pistons would have easily won the chip in dominating fashion. A lot happens in an 82 game season. And a lot changes in 32 games. The Heat are an excellent example.
