Does Anyone Else Hate The Spurs As Much As Me Right Now?

Twist of Lemon

MMA Moderator

Thats what I'm saying though, The Playoffs have been tainted since Amare/Diaw suspension but again it happened tonight exactly when the Spurs needed it to happen to clinch the game and probably the Finals it self (a game I'll probably skip anyways). I'm not saying the NBA is rigging these games if possible but seriously I don't know how many refs they have court but I know theres at least two and both didn't see the Foul? arn't they always supposed to have at least one looking at the ball handler? Its kind of fishy after everything else thats happened with the Spurs this year.

And I have to agree with Blade, the Spurs are a victim of the NBA being a water down version of what it was. It doesn't help the fact that there a weirdly annoying team, from the style of there play to guys like Manu and Bowen just being the type of player they are.

Freak

Now you're just contradicting yourself, having already brought up the "Knicks, Pacers, etc.. who used to give the Bulls all they could handle." Which is it? Obviously the Bulls were amazing, and a true dynasty, so I don't know why you need to show me how they were better.

While I agree with your first argument -- that the league as a whole was better back then -- I'd hardly say the Spurs have been screwing around so far this year. They beat both the Nuggets and Jazz in 5 games (which, if the NBA reseeded like they should, would count as their two weakest opponents), and outperformed a very good Suns team. And now they're completely dominating the NBA Finals.

First of all, those losses by the Lakers to Utah were Kobe's first and second years in the NBA, before he was really anything.

Second of all, what's your point? You keep bringing up the Jazz to drive different points home, but I'm not following. First you say they were great and God bless the old NBA -- err, well, they never won a championship. Then you bring them down in your next post, for that very same flaw. Anyway, to my knowledge, the only series Tim Duncan ever lost to the Jazz was in his rookie season.

As for the Lakers, they were also undeniably great for a few seasons -- namely the three straight titles, and especially 2001 when they lost only one playoff game. Like I already said, they were better than the Spurs during that time. It still doesn't change that the Spurs are the best team in the NBA right now, and it probably won't change that the Spurs have been the best team of the past decade. If you're just trashing the Lakers to make a point about the current state of the NBA -- well, fine, but I still think it's pretty stupid.

The reason those old Celtics and Lakers and Bulls teams are held in such high, storied regard is because they were truly unbelievable, and a few of the top dynasties pro sports has ever seen. No one on this planet is trying to say the Spurs are that good -- but they remain an all-time great basketball team, and probably the best of the past ten years.

CrasH - X

Remember the Spyda, dude ..

Slimdust

Im a Texas Homer, so I LOVE the spurs

Blitzkrieg

Administrator

Freak, my whole point about the Jazz is that while they never won a championship in the "God Bless the old NBA", they were still great enough to hand the Lakers their ass two years in a row.. The SAME Lakers team that are better then these current Spurs. It might have been Kobe's 1st two years.. but he was good enough to make the all-star game wasn't he? Along with teammates.. Shaq, Eddie Jones, and Van Exel.. all in the same year.

So yes, I'm downing the Lakers and I'm downing the Spurs because neither are better then a Jazz team that never won a championship.

Keep in mind, when the Jazz won those series against the Lakers, Stockton and Malone were already old as hell..

And what I said about the Bulls is that they never screwed around in the early rounds..

Why did you bring up the Pacers and Knicks? My point was about the early rounds. Those were Eastern Conference Finals.. not the 1st round. They were also great teams.

The Spurs just last year had all they could handle with the SaC Kings in the 1st round, they've lost games in the 1st round to a Marbury-led Phoenix team, and lets not forget how they blew game 7 last year to the Mavericks on their home court.

You talk about how the Spurs are so unbeatable.. I'm just bringing up a lot of instances where they haven't matched what you've claimed.

Weakest "dynasty" or run or whatever you want to call it I've ever seen.

It's almost as bad as people trying to say the Patriots could beat the old Niner and Cowboys teams when surely.. They could not.

Dr. Giganto

The Spurs swept the Lakers in 1999 (the third year with Shaq and Kobe together). Glen Rice also averaged 17.5 points for the Lakers that year. That team also had an effective Eddie Jones (13.6 ppg), and respectable role players in Rick Fox, Derek Harper, Derek Fisher, and Robert Horry. This was the strike-shortened season, but they had the best record in the Western Conference a year earlier.

The Spurs also swept the top-seeded Blazers in the Western Conference final.

Then the Lakers went nuts for a few years and dominated the West...can't blame the Spurs for that.

The Spurs then beat the three-time defending champion Lakers in 2003, and were a miraculous Robert Horry shot away from taking a 3-2 lead in their 2004 match-up.

Sure the 2000-2004 Lakers teams were overall better than the Spurs, but that doesn't mean the Spurs aren't legitimately good.

Let's also remember that despite the overall weakness ofthe NBA, the bulk of the talent is in the Western Conference. So, the few legitimately good teams (like the Suns and Mavericks) have been losing out to the Spurs these last few years.

The 2000-2007 Spurs aren't on the same level as Russell's Celtics, or Bird's Celtics, or the Showtime Lakers, or Jordan's Bulls, or the Shaq-Kobe Lakers. But they're certainly on par with, if not better than, the "secondary dynasties", like Hakeem's Rockets, the Bad Boy Pistons, the Knicks of the early 70's, etc.

Blitzkrieg

Administrator

So... you think the Spurs could beat Reggie's Pacers, Riley's Knicks, and the Utah Jazz.. along with Barkley's Suns? because I honestly don't think they could.

As I pointed out.. an aging Jazz team beat the hell out of Shaq, Kobe, and the Lakers with Eddie Jones, Van Exel, etc..

The league is so waterd down, it's not funny.

Dr. Giganto

I think the Duncan-Robinson-Elliot-Avery Johnson Spurs definitely could.

Now that I think about it, I'm not so sure about the current crop of Spurs, just because I feel like the Knicks or Pacers would have knocked Parker or Ginobili on their ass every time they touched the ball.

At the same time, the game has changed (for the worse, I admit), but can you blame the Spurs management for assembling a team of guys designed to take advantage of that? For signing guys like Parker and Ginobili, who can just continually take their man off the dribble and not have to worry about getting mauled on their way to basket? For signing a guy like Bowen, who can effectively guard the other team's best player in an isolation-play-obsessed league?

Maybe they're not as "good" as some of those older teams, but they are designed to win in today's NBA. And they have been doing so on a fairly consistent basis since Duncan got there.

p.s. I hate most of the current Spurs, except for Duncan. Just wanted to make that clear.

Jayman

Super Moderator

What the NBA needs to do is take the 5 or so teams with the shittiest records the past few years, and get rid of them altogether. The players who have a lick of talent on those teams should be redrafted in next years draft.

I completely agree with Blade's comment that the NBA is watered down, and although this would never happen, it needs to because there are just too many piss-poor teams in the NBA right now. Can you say this about other professional sports leagues? Probably, but NBA is the worst of them all in this category.

The following people rock:
Guardian Devil
Duke
God
PeaceSells
A-Bomb
Simon

Twist of Lemon

MMA Moderator

I would say thats a little extreme don't you think? If you look at those piss poor teams how many of there are looking like they have an up side right now? Portland is rebuilding in a big way, Seattle while it may be moving is gaining a Franchise player to play along side Ray Allen. The Hawks for some reason have all the talent in the world but can't get the job done with out a solid point guard which they have a chance do in this draft.

Then theres other teams like the Toronto Raptors who posted a horrible record last season with the hiring of B.C as GM turned around and finished first in divsion and had a solid Playoff run. Even the Cavs who had a god awful team on paper afew years ago have turned things around and made it to the finals. If you cut the smaller teams wheres the drama in that? It would be the same dominating teams every year just like it is now.

Other teams like the Bobcats, The Magic and the Hornets maybe haven't broken in to the main stream spot light of the NBA yet but you can't say they arn't interesting teams in anyway. These teams have young good talent and get a chance to start and earn expriance the NBA first hand, If they got "redrafted" like you stated how does that help the player? I really can't see Gerald Wallace coming off the bench for T.Mac as a good thing.

Though you can get rid of the Grizzlies, they'll always suck <,<