San Antonio Spurs

[Gunny]

This thread was prompted by Snowman's premature shit-talking.

What is it exactly the Spurs need to do? They have 4 championships in 8 years and are trying for 5 in 9. Yet, if there was a Rodney Dangerfield of the NBA, they are it.

They get no respect from the media. No respect from fans and no respect from the NBA and no respect from the ref's. We can't even get home court calls on our own damned court.

If it was LA or Boston the media'd be hyping a dynasty. The NBA'd be giddy because they'd get rid of the small market nuisance that is hampering the countless bandwagon riders whenever LA, Boston, Detroit, NY or any other of the "old dynasty" teams is lining their pockets with gold.

Tough shit, huh? We suffered through this team sucking so bad the trees the leaned in their direction. So don't mind me if I rub it in just a little that whether you like them or not, they ARE the best there is ... for the moment.

One thing about the Spurs. They can't just win. They have to make it as hard as possible on themselves.

 

[Swamp Fox]

One thing about the Spurs. They can't just win. They have to make it as hard as possible on themselves.

One thing about the Spurs, they can't just win. They have to cheat as hard as the Patriots in order to do it.


Spurs suck!

 

[Toro]

Spurs have been the best basketball team since the Bulls.

I fully expect them to dispatch the Lakers and win a fifth title.

 

[manifold]

This thread was prompted by Snowman's premature shit-talking.

What is it exactly the Spurs need to do? They have 4 championships in 8 years and are trying for 5 in 9. Yet, if there was a Rodney Dangerfield of the NBA, they are it.

They get no respect from the media. No respect from fans and no respect from the NBA and no respect from the ref's. We can't even get home court calls on our own damned court.

If it was LA or Boston the media'd be hyping a dynasty. The NBA'd be giddy because they'd get rid of the small market nuisance that is hampering the countless bandwagon riders whenever LA, Boston, Detroit, NY or any other of the "old dynasty" teams is lining their pockets with gold.

Tough shit, huh? We suffered through this team sucking so bad the trees the leaned in their direction. So don't mind me if I rub it in just a little that whether you like them or not, they ARE the best there is ... for the moment.

One thing about the Spurs. They can't just win. They have to make it as hard as possible on themselves.

Oh shut yer yap you big crybaby! If the NBA hadn't conspired against the Celtics in the lottery o' those years ago, Tim Duncan would've been a Celtic and the Spurs would have exactly zero titles.

 

[Toro]

lol, well I guess I can kiss my career as a sports gambler good-bye!

 

[Gunny]

One thing about the Spurs, they can't just win. They have to cheat as hard as the Patriots in order to do it.


Spurs suck!

Are you kidding? Shit, they absolutely disgust me the way they let other teams push them around and beat on them. I wish they WOULD throw some retaliation every once in awhile.

Kind of hard to cheat when you continually have to play against the other team and 3 referees.

 

[Gunny]

Spurs have been the best basketball team since the Bulls.

I fully expect them to dispatch the Lakers and win a fifth title.

Yeah ... except if they're going to do THAT, it's with the usual drama. Dispatching is not allowed. They have to go down 0-2 and win nailbiters down to the wire.

Drives me nuts. The city here collectively wrote them off against NO. The usual rah-rah shit hasn't happened this year.

The entire mentality here every year is the NBA will screw the Spurs. We aren't big money. David Stern has made it clear over the years he doesn't like the Spurs.

Whatever. If they don't get their shit together that 5th title will be next year's dream. They're getting beat by a one-man team right now.

 

[Gunny]

Oh shut yer yap you big crybaby! If the NBA hadn't conspired against the Celtics in the lottery o' those years ago, Tim Duncan would've been a Celtic and the Spurs would have exactly zero titles.

Right. You ARE aware Tim Duncan was the LAST TIME the Spurs have had a lottery pick? It's the longest current dry spell of any team in the NBA.

At the time Duncan was picked, he wouldn't have helped Boston anyway. IIRC, didn't Boston get the double-whammy from choosing Len Bias and then had another player who came up with a heart problem in the middle of the season?

I've always been sort of a Celtics fan ... try not to fuck that up.

 

[manifold]

Right. You ARE aware Tim Duncan was the LAST TIME the Spurs have had a lottery pick? It's the longest current dry spell of any team in the NBA.

At the time Duncan was picked, he wouldn't have helped Boston anyway. IIRC, didn't Boston get the double-whammy from choosing Len Bias and then had another player who came up with a heart problem in the middle of the season?

I've always been sort of a Celtics fan ... try not to fuck that up.

I'll do my best!

And fwiw: I'm pulling for the Spurs in the WC finals and still think they can get it done.

 

[Ninja]

Spurs have been the best basketball team since the Bulls.

I fully expect them to dispatch the Lakers and win a fifth title.

That's just stupid.

The 2001 Lakers would have owned any of the Bulls teams of the 90's and any of the Spurs teams that have won titles.

BTW - if the Spurs win this year it'll be a fourth title. Not fifth. Unless you're counting 1999*

GunnyL - what the Spurs need to do is REPEAT. Like all great teams do. It's this year or never because the window is closing very quickly!

They brought their A game today and the Lakers played horrible... and there was still a point in the fourth where Kobe nailed two threes to cut the deficit to 9... Could have been another Laker comeback but they couldn't get any stops. Soon thereafter PJax pulled the starters and Spurs won by 20.

Bottom line, Spurs played their best game of the playoffs, Lakers played arguably their worst, but if they'd made their layups and free throws they'd be up 3-0. If I'm a Spurs fan that scares me.

And you Spurs fans need to ditch the weird siege mentality, the sports media has always shown the Spurs much love.

 

[Ninja]

If it was LA or Boston the media'd be hyping a dynasty.

Until the Spurs can win back-to-back championships their fans simply have no business talking about a dynasty. Sorry to be an asshole, but that's what I think and that's the main criterion that sports writers will use to judge this team's place in history when all is said and done.

 

[Ninja]

The entire mentality here every year is the NBA will screw the Spurs. We aren't big money. David Stern has made it clear over the years he doesn't like the Spurs.

So it's a conspiracy? It's rigged? Are you saying that the NBA is fixed like pro wrestling, and if so why do you watch?

And how do you account for the previous three titles as well as 1999*?

one-man team

That's soooooooooooooooooooooo 2005

 

[Toro]

That's just stupid.

The 2001 Lakers would have owned any of the Bulls teams of the 90's and any of the Spurs teams that have won titles.

I'm guessing you're a Lakers fan?

I'm a fan of neither team in particular, but when looking at objective criteria upon which to base the success of one franchise over another, emotional responses from fans aren't the best yardstick by which to measure. Saying that this team would own that team is an amusing bar conversation, but offers little other than revealing the emotive biases of the uber-fans making the argument.

Whether or not the Spurs are a dynasty (and by your criteria, the Lakers of the 1980s which won five championships are not since they won back-to-back only once whereas a dynasty is generally considered three in a row) wasn't really the point. The point was that over the past eight years, the Spurs have won four championships - more than any other team - with essentially the same nucleus of players. The Lakers, on the other hand, won three (one of which would have never happened had the Jailblazers not blown a 15 point lead in the fourth quarter). Therefore, the Spurs have been the best team over those eight years. The only thing that matters is titles. Everything else is BS.

The failure of the Lakers is that they had the two best players in the game and only won three titles. I thought they were going to dominate for a decade. But, as is typical of the narcissistic me-first NBA, the two could not co-exist because the massive egos insisted they be The Man. Now, look at the "boring" Spurs, where the ethos is the team comes first, and see more titles than the Lakers over the time period, even though the Lakers arguably had better players.

 

[Ninja]

by your criteria, the Lakers of the 1980s which won five championships are not since they won back-to-back only once whereas a dynasty is generally considered three in a row

My criteria for a "dynasty" is a team that wins 3+ championships with the same core including with one repeat. Thus, the Showtime Lakers, the 90's Bulls, and the '00-'02 Lakers were dynasties. The '03-present Spurs are not.

The point was that over the past eight years, the Spurs have won four championships - more than any other team - with essentially the same nucleus of players.

Now you're contradicting yourself.

Just for the sake of the argument, let's pretend 1999* was a legit title - that team had a COMPLETELY different core than they do now. The only current Spur on the 1999* team is Tim Duncan.

2003 - completely different core: Duncan, Robinson and Stephen Jackson (whose knuckleball threes played a HUGE part in the title run that year). Ginobili was a rookie and Parker didn't play the same role he plays now.

THESE Spurs have won two titles - according to YOUR criteria.

I do understand what you're saying. But they still have never managed to repeat. Sorry, but if they're so great you can't just write that away.

 

[Toro]

My criteria for a "dynasty" is a team that wins 3+ championships with the same core including with one repeat. Thus, the Showtime Lakers, the 90's Bulls, and the '00-'02 Lakers were dynasties. The '03-present Spurs are not.

How convenient for you.

My definition of a dynasty is one that wins four championships in eight years.

In basketball.

In Texas.

 

[Gunny]

That's just stupid.

The 2001 Lakers would have owned any of the Bulls teams of the 90's and any of the Spurs teams that have won titles.

BTW - if the Spurs win this year it'll be a fourth title. Not fifth. Unless you're counting 1999*

GunnyL - what the Spurs need to do is REPEAT. Like all great teams do. It's this year or never because the window is closing very quickly!

They brought their A game today and the Lakers played horrible... and there was still a point in the fourth where Kobe nailed two threes to cut the deficit to 9... Could have been another Laker comeback but they couldn't get any stops. Soon thereafter PJax pulled the starters and Spurs won by 20.

Bottom line, Spurs played their best game of the playoffs, Lakers played arguably their worst, but if they'd made their layups and free throws they'd be up 3-0. If I'm a Spurs fan that scares me.

And you Spurs fans need to ditch the weird siege mentality, the sports media has always shown the Spurs much love.

There's no "weird siege mentality." The NBA makes money on big market teams. The Spurs ain't it. San Antonio is the 8th largest city in the US, but it's blue collar town, and we're regionally isolated. The only time we had anyone with actual superstar hype was George Gervin. There's no flash to this team. Duncan can roll off 30 points and people are like "Huh?"

I disagree this was the Spurs best game and LA's worst. The Spurs played their game. It's a shooting team, and the "team" has to work for them to win. There is no Kobe Bryant to come off the bench and single-handedly turn a game around.

The Spurs have a bad habit of allowing other teams to shut them out of the paint and they just stand and shoot. If they're hitting, they're hard to beat. Likewise, they seem to stand around and admire Kobe instead of slapping his weak ass down. If the Spurs would treat Kobe the way the Lakers treated Ginobili last night, the Lakers might not have gotten 50 points. Ginobili looked like he'd been 3 rounds with Tyson.

And dude, no offense, but the only Lakers team that might have had a chance against the 90s Bulls was the 1979 Lakers. The 2000's version of LA would just have been another victim.

Would have been cool to watch Phil Jackson coach against himself though.

 

[manifold]

The 1986 Celtics would beat any team, from any era, every time.

 

[Gunny]

The 1986 Celtics would beat any team, from any era, every time.

I don't see that. Between Parrish, McHale and Byrd, there was enough steel components to build a space shuttle.

 

[Toro]

The 1986 Celtics would beat any team, from any era, every time.

A bunch of white guys who could neither run nor jump...

 

[Toro]

There's no "weird siege mentality." The NBA makes money on big market teams. The Spurs ain't it. San Antonio is the 8th largest city in the US, but it's blue collar town, and we're regionally isolated. The only time we had anyone with actual superstar hype was George Gervin. There's no flash to this team. Duncan can roll off 30 points and people are like "Huh?"

You hit it dead on. The NBA is a glamor league built on stars. Why do you hear all this incessant talk of LeBron going to the shitty Knicks? Kobe is the best player and the Lakers the most popular team. San Antonio is the location of The Alamo and that's about it. All you have to do is look at the ratings for past NBA finals. No kidding the NBA is pulling for the Lakers.