Friday, June 24, 2005

Dynasty?

Da Realist:

did you guys hear tim legler on sportscenter this morning? he said the spurs winning 3 championships in the last 7 years and being competitive through all 7 is more impressive than the lakers winning 3 years straight and (in his words) flaming out. greg anthony vehemently disagreed. what do you guys think?

Gangsta D:

Legs is an idiot. Like I said before, you can't call that streak more impressive. The Lakers went to the Finals 4 times in five years, winning three straight. The Spurs went to the Finals three times and made one more trip to the Conference Finals, where they were destroyed. Not to mention they lost to those flaming out Lakers THREE times, WITH homecourt
advantage. If you wanna call it even, cool. But don't put the Spurs on a pedestal. If they win again next year, then fine their run is better but not yet.


Waldini:

I think Tim Legler has been hangin with Bill Walton too long.
Define competitive. The Spurs only beat the Lakers in their prime ONCE (2003). When the stakes were on the line (2001, 2002), they flamed out and badly I might add. In today's sports, everything is based on what have you done for me lately. Last year this same Spurs team was deemed underachievers and now they are a dynasty. Amazing. So if Detroit meets SA next year and beats them, does that mean Detroit is now more impressive for winning 2 titles in 3 yrs and being competitive for this decade.


Da Realist:

i thought it was funny how every analyst said the spurs would be a dynasty if they won. 3 in 7 is good, but they've never successfully defended their title. and i heard the pistons were just as good and just as tough as the 88-90 pistons team. and dumars said that chauncey billups is just as talented and more clutch than isiah thomas. et tu, joe?

Waldini:

Yesterday on sports talk, a Pistons called in and said that:

a) Rasheed's points in the 4th of Game 6 were the biggest points ever in a half

b) These Pistons would lose a close series to the late 80s Pistons teams

Wrong on both accounts jabroni. And it appears Joe D put him up to saying something that stupid. I think both these teams are good but great. Gimme a break jabroni. I want San Antonio to beat a legitimate team (not Phx) that has homecourt. That something that I think folks like Legs keeps forgetting. Say what you want but the Lakers 00-02 teams didnt need
homecourt advantage to win. They didnt give an eff if it was yo place, they place, yo mama's place, etc. They just wanted to win. That's what I want San Antone to do, play Detroit as the road team and beat them w/o the crowd as the 6th fan.


Gangsta D:

We can actually take it a step further if we want to split hairs. The Lakers were competitive from '98 - '04, a 7 year time span. In that time, 5 conference finals, 4 finals, and 3 championships. They were competitive in every year, making it at least to the conference semis. Does the Spurs run top that over their 7 year run? Don't think so: 4 conference finals, 3 finals, and 3 championships. In 2000, they didn't get out of the 1st round (OK Tim was hurt, but facts are facts!)

1 comment:

PegLeg Mack said...

But you guys aren't figuring in the intimidation factor. Tit for Tat, the spurs are probably technically as good as the lakers, but they lack that imposing presence. The Lakers didn't have to do as much to win games b/c the opponents could barely get over being shook from the time they stepped on the court.

It's reminiscent of the old Mike Tyson. Most of his opponents were beat before the first punch b/c they already knew that Hot Fire was coming for their heads. Same thing w/ the Lakers. But once that Hot Fire was shown to be not so HOT, they were beatable.