<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (koopa @ Jun 15 2007, 06:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>but look at the roads we take there, we can't help that the east is a peice of sh*t...... the teams we play to get to the championship could easily beat sweep the eastern division....... the jazz would've went to the finals being in the east, the suns would've went to the finals being in the east, the nuggets would've went to the championship being in the east, hell the lakers, warriors.............. just cause we play sh*tty ass teams everytime doesn't take away from the spurs cause we play crazy hard teams each year........ so you can't really judge it off of that</div>You cant judge how good a team they are based on competition? Id much rather face a team where Drew Gooden is the second best player then a team where the second best player is Scottie Pippen. That makes quite a difference. The reason teams are legendary is their competition, such as the Lakers and Celtics and the Bulls vs Pistons.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Jun 15 2007, 05:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You cant judge how good a team they are based on competition? Id much rather face a team where Drew Gooden is the second best player then a team where the second best player is Scottie Pippen. That makes quite a difference. The reason teams are legendary is their competition, such as the Lakers and Celtics and the Bulls vs Pistons.</div>but it's not fair to talk down on them because the east sucks ass and all the team owners on the eastern conference don't know sh*t about basketball and don't try to improve their teams to be as good as the teams in the west.........?so?I?guess?if?we?go?by?what?you?said,?the?lakers?threepeat?doesn't?mean?sh*t?cause?they?played?a?sh*t?team?in?the?pacers,?sixers,?and?nets
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (koopa @ Jun 15 2007, 06:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>but it's not fair to talk down on them because the east sucks ass and all the team owners on the eastern conference don't know sh*t about basketball and don't try to improve their teams to be as good as the teams in the west......... so I guess if we go by what you said, the lakers threepeat doesn't mean sh*t cause they played a sh*t team in the pacers, sixers, and nets</div>The Nba titles mean something but would I value their championships as much as The 80s Lakers or 90s Bulls championships? No, your only as good as the team you beat.I think two Western Conference titles in the 90s(Karl Malone's Jazz) Hold more weight then any of the Spurs championship rings because of the road it took to get there.edit:The only team I give respect for the Spurs beating is the Lakers and Pistons(But a majority of the time the Lakers dominated them and the Pistons series could have gone either way)
I don't consider the Spurs a dynasty. They are a hell of a team, but the 'dynasty' word is thrown out way too much these days. The only two NBA dynasties were the 1957-1969 Celtics and the 1991-1998 Bulls.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Jun 15 2007, 05:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Nba titles mean something but would I value their championships as much as The 80s Lakers or 90s Bulls championships? No, your only as good as the team you beat.I think two Western Conference titles in the 90s(Karl Malone's Jazz) Hold more weight then any of the Spurs championship rings because of the road it took to get there.edit:The only team I give respect for the Spurs beating is the Lakers and Pistons(But a majority of the time the Lakers dominated them and the Pistons series could have gone either way)</div>so the road we've taken don't mean sh*t??? we beat a lakers team that was going for a 4peat, then we've had to play the mavs or suns the last couple of years, and those two team right now would beat the jazz that you bring up in the 90's......... I know the eastern teams we've played suck ass but it's not the spurs fault, and I wouldn't call them a dynasty either, because they ain't, but bringing up the team they beat isn't right, you act like they've had it the easiest, we've played some very tough teams in the west just to win it alland the lakers only dominated us twice
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (koopa @ Jun 15 2007, 07:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>so the road we've taken don't mean sh*t??? we beat a lakers team that was going for a 4peat, then we've had to play the mavs or suns the last couple of years, and those two team right now would beat the jazz that you bring up in the 90's......... I know the eastern teams we've played suck ass but it's not the spurs fault, and I wouldn't call them a dynasty either, because they ain't, but bringing up the team they beat isn't right, you act like they've had it the easiest, we've played some very tough teams in the west just to win it alland the lakers only dominated us twice</div>The 3-peat Lakers,06 Suns, or 06 Mavs would all get their ass kicked agaist the 98' Jazz. Stockton would shut out anything a young Kobe or even Nash could bring. Russell would Keep Marion or Josh Howard busy and hold them to no more then 15 ppg and Karl Malone had a history his entire career of hanging toe to toe with shaq and Amare wouldnt be much to handle for a guy who played Hakeem,Shaq,Drob,and Barkley in their primes. The Spurs have beaten two good teams and a few decent teams, they are a good team(the best since shaq was traded) but like (I forgot who) said, they are more a result of a breakdown of two major dynasties and the decline of the late 80-early 90s great draft classes.
It's hard for me to consider the Spurs a dynasty since each title was won with a gap. They never won back to back. But 4 titles in 9 years with consistent playoff runs is pretty damn good.
