Thursday, June 14, 2007

Yeah Yeah Yeah....


Da Realist:

i guess tonight is the night the spurs will ask dr. buss to hand over the title. no, not THAT title. that's david stern's job. i mean the "best team of the decade" title. it's been in lala land since 2000 and with 2 years to go the spurs are taking it from them (for good?).

an old high school buddy just happens to be a big spurs fan (mostly cause he was a tall, soft big man that played more like david robinson because he didn't like getting banged in the paint. but you don't have to tell him that). anyway, he's been BLOWING up my phone every night trying to get me to watch the games. i guess i'll finally sit down to watch the full game tonight only because the champs at least deserve for me to sit and watch them win it. i've never missed a clinching game before, i won't start now. even if i would rather watch a french movie with english subtitles.

anyway, he made a good point last night and i wanted to see what you guys thought of this.

his point... if the spurs win next year, they are doing in the 00's what the lakers did in the 80's. lakers won 5 titles in 9 years. spurs would have won 5 titles in 10 years with another to go. for all the talk of kobe and shaq, isn't it ironic that the spurs are the team that most embodies those old laker championship squads while kobe/shaq is more like the 80's celtics?

i said, but in the 80's the lakers beat the celtics 2-1. in 00's the spurs are 1-3 against kobe/shaq.

he said still...5 (or 6) titles always trumps 3, even if they were in a row.

Gangsta D:

"for all the talk of kobe and shaq, isn't it ironic that the spurs are the team that most embodies those old laker championship squads while kobe/shaq is more like the 80's celtics?"

All I will say is this. How in the name of God do these Spurs embody the 80's Lakers?!?

Waldini:

your friend's an idiot. Period :-)

yea but ask him he thinks any of the Spurs championships teams would beat the lakers 2001 squad. If he even names one, then I know he's thinking with his heart and not his mind.

No comments: