Who Do you think would win a best of 7 series......Starting Lineup Match-Ups:John Stockton vs Tony ParkerJeff Hornacek vs Manu Ginobli ) < Those two matchups probabally would rotate often on in the seriesBryon Russell vs Bruce Bowen ) Karl Malone vs Tim DuncanGreg Ostertag vs Matt Bonner
Well, first of all, Matt Bonner rarley ever gets in the game for the Spurs and he for sure as hell isnt a starter....And 2nd of all, I would go with the Spurs. They are a team that has proven that they can do it, unlike this Jazz team. Tony Parker would give Stockton fits with his speed, Manu would be a very tough matchup for Hornack, Bruce Bowen would play great D on whoever he guarded like usual, Tim Duncan would have a tough matchup, but I feel he is the better out of the 2, and the center position would be a push. San Antonio is just a great defensive team and they have shown that every year for the past 10 seasons. Also, they are showing that their offense can score alot when they need to. San Antonio would win this series IMO....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ May 20 2007, 06:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well, first of all, Matt Bonner rarley ever gets in the game for the Spurs and he for sure as hell isnt a starter....And 2nd of all, I would go with the Spurs. They are a team that has proven that they can do it, unlike this Jazz team. Tony Parker would give Stockton fits with his speed, Manu would be a very tough matchup for Hornack, Bruce Bowen would play great D on whoever he guarded like usual, Tim Duncan would have a tough matchup, but I feel he is the better out of the 2, and the center position would be a push. San Antonio is just a great defensive team and they have shown that every year for the past 10 seasons. Also, they are showing that their offense can score alot when they need to. San Antonio would win this series IMO....</div>This Spurs team hasn't had to play a team like MJ's Bulls in the Finals before. Without them, they would have won at least one title.
But bm2112 Utah had to play against Jordan's Bulls while the 2007 Spurs didn't. That's kind of unfair to say the Jazz didn't prove they can do it because they DID make it to the finals multiple times. I don't know really. I think Stockton and Malone is a better PG/PF combo than Parker and Duncan is. Duncan is better than Malone but by a hair.
You guys are forgetting that in 2003 the Spurs had to get past the Lakers, fresh off their 3 peat. They beat them fairly handedly, too.Give me the Spurs. More depth, more experienced, more balance, and IMO the best player on the court in Duncan.
What does that have to do with anything though? Because Phil coached the team? That still doesn't make the Lakers the Chicago Bulls. I dont think the Spurs would have ever beaten the Bulls in a best of 7. I believe Stockton and Malone's pick and roll offense would be to much for Duncan and Parker to handle. I also think Jeff Hornacek would be red hot behind the 3 point line the entire series and Russell would o a fairly good job. As for the Center position I only put Matt there because I didnt know who else to put because I dont know who the Spurs starting Center would be if Duncan was starting at pf.
idiots - clearly the spurs. Malone and TD would fight it out all series but while stockton is the better point parker would be all over him. Hornacek or ginobilli are you kidding me? The pick and roll would be too much for parker and Duncan? thats stupid for 1 TD is and has been one of the premier defensive presences in the L for years. And if stockton was causing parker issues then in comes Bruce bowen to control him. Im sick of everyone saying that old teams are better then new ones. It pisses me off. I have seen both teams play and the Jazz couldn't cut it against these (or any of the last 5 years) Spurs. The Spurs would give the bulls fits too. Im not saying they'd beat them badly but it'd be very close.Now lets hear all you saps come back and defend a team that most of you have never seen play and the ones that have are too small minded to realise that todays NBA is just as good if not better than it ever was.
I'd also take Stockton and Malone. If not for the greatest team ever put on the court, they might have 3-4 titles. Instead they have none, but then again with the 90s very few players outside of the Rockets and Bulls won titles so for that whole decade you cant compare rings.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>As for the Center position I only put Matt there because I didnt know who else to put because I dont know who the Spurs starting Center would be if Duncan was starting at pf.</div>Do you even watch the games? Duncan still starts at pf. It's been either Oberto or Elson at center the whole year.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dagameplayer @ May 21 2007, 07:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What does that have to do with anything though? Because Phil coached the team? That still doesn't make the Lakers the Chicago Bulls. I dont think the Spurs would have ever beaten the Bulls in a best of 7.</div>What? I am saying that everyone is making a big deal about the Jazz being so good but had to play with the Bulls which is why they never won rings, yet the Spurs had to do the same with the 3 peat Lakers. I'd even go as far to say the the 3 peat Lakers were better than the '97 and '98 Bulls. Unlike the Jazz, the Spurs got through that major dynasty en route to a ring.
I wouldn't say the 3pete Lakers were as good as those Jazz teams. the early core of those lakers teams faced those jazz teams, and the Jazz teams ripped the Lakers apart. Yes Kobe was only a rookie and a second year player than, but the Jazz completly shut down everyone. I would go with those Jazz teams, not because I am a homer but because the 97 Jazz were a really good team. people forget how good Karl Malone was. in his prime he would get 25 points almost every single night. The 97 Jazz also head a much deeper bench, you can't tell me that Beno Udrih is better than Howard Eisley(this is comming from someone who hates Eisley with a passion), Shandon Anderson and Brent Barry are similar players in their carrers at these points. Adam Keefe would most likely guard Duncan, and Keefe was a very under rated defender. Antoine Carr would also see time guarding Duncan, Carrs bulk would have caused Duncan problems. Carr is a guy who use to give guys like Barkley, Malone, McDanial, and Kemp fits nightly, so I think he'd do a good job on Duncan. Foster and Oberto are similar players and wouldn't have much effect on anything. Chris Morris could do a nice job guarding Ginobili as well, Morris at one point in his career was concidered the best defender of Michael Jordan. Stephen Howard and Matt Bonner wouldn't even play so who cares about them.
Nah I don't watch San Anotino play that much unless they play the Lakers or if its playoff time. To be honest I really dont have time to watch games like I use to. In the 90s when I was in school I couldnt wait to get home finish my homework and watch the NBA games that came on TV that day but those times are gone because of my job and how tired I am when I get home. I only get to watch games on the weekend now most of the time. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>idiots - clearly the spurs. Malone and TD would fight it out all series but while stockton is the better point parker would be all over him. Hornacek or ginobilli are you kidding me? The pick and roll would be too much for parker and Duncan? thats stupid for 1 TD is and has been one of the premier defensive presences in the L for years. And if stockton was causing parker issues then in comes Bruce bowen to control him. Im sick of everyone saying that old teams are better then new ones. It pisses me off. I have seen both teams play and the Jazz couldn't cut it against these (or any of the last 5 years) Spurs. The Spurs would give the bulls fits too. Im not saying they'd beat them badly but it'd be very close.Now lets hear all you saps come back and defend a team that most of you have never seen play and the ones that have are too small minded to realise that todays NBA is just as good if not better than it ever was.</div>Why do I say old teams are better? Because it's true. The 90's era period is better then todays NBA itself. You think the Spurs would give the Bulls a fit are u kidding me? Rodman and Longley would do a really good job on Duncan and Harpers height advantage and knowledge of the game would be to much for Parker to handle. and don't even think for a minute that Bown or Manu would be able to stop Jordan and Pippen. Malone and Stockton are just a better combination then Duncan and Parker and there team around them are better then them. Even if you try to put Bowen on Stockton it wouldn't matter because he's dealt with much tougher challenges then anything Bruce Bowen would try to do. Put the 87 Jazz in the NBA today and I gaurunte you they could win back to back titles. They didnt then because of Jordan and the Bulls. There are many combos from the 90s that are better then Duncan and Parker. Some being Barkley and Johnson, Ewing and Starks. Kemp and Payton.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (playaofthegame @ May 20 2007, 07:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But bm2112 Utah had to play against Jordan's Bulls while the 2007 Spurs didn't. That's kind of unfair to say the Jazz didn't prove they can do it because they DID make it to the finals multiple times. I don't know really. I think Stockton and Malone is a better PG/PF combo than Parker and Duncan is. Duncan is better than Malone but by a hair.</div>You cant use that excuse....You dont know if the Spurs couldnt have beaten that Bulls team. This Spurs team (the core) has beaten a Shaq and Kobe combination and any other team that has been thrown at them....They have actually won a championship and they have done it several times and they are the likely team to do it again this year. Utah will always be remembered as a good team that never could get over the hump and that is all IMO...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ May 21 2007, 05:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I wouldn't say the 3pete Lakers were as good as those Jazz teams. the early core of those lakers teams faced those jazz teams, and the Jazz teams ripped the Lakers apart. Yes Kobe was only a rookie and a second year player than, but the Jazz completly shut down everyone.</div>New coach, different role players, more experience, different philosophies. As you said, Kobe wasn't near the player in his first and second season as he was in the 3 peat years, specifically 00-01/01-02. Like MJ had to with Pippen, Shaq had to wait for Kobe to fully develop and get the experience to get over the hump. Lakers were deeper, had the best player of either team in Shaq, and IMO just a more well rounded team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ May 21 2007, 09:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You cant use that excuse....You dont know if the Spurs couldnt have beaten that Bulls team. This Spurs team (the core) has beaten a Shaq and Kobe combination and any other team that has been thrown at them....They have actually won a championship and they have done it several times and they are the likely team to do it again this year. Utah will always be remembered as a good team that never could get over the hump and that is all IMO...</div>Just because they didnt win a title doesn't mean they arent as good of a team, also the Lakers have nothing to do with this because they are entirely different teams. This Spurs team could not beat the 90s bulls though, anyone who watched the 90s bulls would know that. Who would stop MJ? Bowen? MJ played agaist much greater defenders then anyone of the likes of Bowen. Names like Michael Cooper,Gary Payton,Sidney Moncrief,and Mark Eaton.
2007 Spurs. They have been the model team for the last 9 or so years. Plus, the ONLY team that could soundly beat the Spurs each year, and the only team that ever rattled the Spurs were the 2000-2004 Lakers. Everybody else in the league just can't handle the Spurs. The Kobe/Shaq Lakers are the sole reason why the Spurs aren't the 6 time NBA Champs (1999,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005) <<That's a dynasty.
Also, the spurs very well could be 5 peating right now if it weren't for the Fisher shot and if the mavs series had gone the other way last year (obviously the closest series of all time could go either way).
