2007-2008 NBA Thread

[CISS]

Hell yea Lakers proved the Spurs can not win back to back and are not a real Dynasty. Since every Dynasty has won back to back at least once. But the spurs only like winning 1 at a time. Go Lakers where is Y2jericholic now?

I would still consider them a dynasty.

[BNS]

I wouldn't. Lakers won 3 in a row. Bulls won 3 in a row. Even the Rockets won 2 in a row. The Spurs can't ever win after there championship. Not a Dynasty just a good team

[maninblack]

I wouldn't. Lakers won 3 in a row. Bulls won 3 in a row. Even the Rockets won 2 in a row. The Spurs can't ever win after there championship. Not a Dynasty just a good team

You do realize that the Spurs are one of the few NBA teams to have won a championship over the last 20 years? And you don't find them good enough to be regarded as a dynasty just because their 3 championships from 2003 to 2007 weren't won back-to-back? (N)

[Hajjhowe]

He's stupid, obviously.

Should be an interesting finals no matter which team they face. The Celtics seem like more of a showcase style with their three big guys, but I'd say the Pistons have a better chance of beating the Lakers and actually winning it all.

[Mr Evil Guy]

Spurs lose, Spurs lose, Spurs lose . One of the two teams I hate is out, now Detroit needs to lose.

Also, the Spurs are a dynasty. That's all I'm gun' say.

[Toe]

I hate the term "dynasty" now.

The Spurs have been a successful team for a long time now. Some might think this is the downward spiral now, and they are going to start being worse and worse, but I am going to bet they still have one or two runs left.

[gunnar hendershow]

The Spurs aren't done yet, they'll return with all the urgency in the world next year. It is possible, like the team was rebuilt around an aging Admiral, they can build a new team around an aging Parker too when all the other guys finally hang it up in the next few years. This is one of the best-run teams in basketball, so unfortunately for a lot of us Spurs-haters, they probably won't be going away into LA Clippers territory anytime soon.

Anyway, with the high likelihood of a Celtics-Lakers Finals, I must say that I for one am excited to have this matchup. Homecourt's going to Boston, and I think it'll be pivotal in the series which will go the full 7.

[DMN in the House]

Yeah, Lakers in 5. Yeah. Hah. Wouldn't happen.

Weeeeeeeee're Baaaaaaaaaaaaaack.

[VerbalPuke]

So the NBA is going to implement fines now for flopping?

Am I the only one who thinks this is stupid?

Well you are a fan of a team that has Anderson Varejo, so I can see how you'd think that.

And Christ, the Lakers are back. The fucked up thing is that they'll only be getting better in the off-season with Bynum's return.

[y2jerichoholic]

Well, fatigue finally caught up to the Spurs and they just ran out of gas. Good series LA. I hate the Lakers but they were clearly the better team. I have a feeling the Spurs will have a completely different team next year outside the big 3. They need to get younger shooters, and as long as the Spurs big 3 are together and healthy, they will be a threat to win the title every year.

[sahyder1]

Is it 5 championships in a 9 year span? Yeah....that's a dynasty.

[BNS]

Is it 5 championships in a 9 year span? Yeah....that's a dynasty.

it's 4 in 9 years. And I guess it's just me to be a dynasty is about domination year after year. With out repeating they just don't live up to any of the others in History. So if they are a dynasty they are at the bottom of list.

Edited May 30, 2008 by BNS

[NobBe Nobbs]

Is it 5 championships in a 9 year span? Yeah....that's a dynasty.

it's 4 in 9 years. And I guess it's just me to be a dynasty is about domination year after year. With out repeating they just don't live up to any of the others in History. So if they are a dynasty they are at the bottom of list.

Four championships in nine years say stop talking before you make yourself look even stupider

[naiwf]

Well, fatigue finally caught up to the Spurs and they just ran out of gas. Good series LA. I hate the Lakers but they were clearly the better team. I have a feeling the Spurs will have a completely different team next year outside the big 3. They need to get younger shooters, and as long as the Spurs big 3 are together and healthy, they will be a threat to win the title every year.

I think this was the last year the Spurs had to contend for a title. Duncan and Manu are getting old and Parker was nonexistent in this postseason. The Hornets, Jazz and most importantly the Lakers will all be better next year and there's no way that the Spurs can avoid playing all of those teams.

[ROZAY]

Also, Hollinger is an idiot.

*cough*

Had to do it. Anyway, congrats to the Lakers. I expected it to be a more even series, but truthfully... I can care less. Flashbacks of '04 will come back soon enough. DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETROIT BASKETBAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!

... I really hope Detroit wins tonight. If they had won game 5, I'd feel much better about them coming home tonight and using the home court advantage to end the series in game 6. Since they didn't, I'm not so sure that they can win two in a row against the Celtics, especially game 7. Celtics won't go down without a fight at least.

Edited May 30, 2008 by The Aztec Warrior

[DMN in the House]

If 4 in 9 is all it takes to be a dynasty, then this Laker team would be the continuation of the 2000-2002 Three-Peat dynasty. I don't think that really makes any sense.

Besides, the Spurs weren't even the most dominant team in their conference during their run. The Lakers have made one more Finals, and have one less title, but also three-peated. Its a nice run, but I'm not sure its a 'dynasty'.

[BNS]

If 4 in 9 is all it takes to be a dynasty, then this Laker team would be the continuation of the 2000-2002 Three-Peat dynasty. I don't think that really makes any sense.

Besides, the Spurs weren't even the most dominant team in their conference during their run. The Lakers have made one more Finals, and have one less title, but also three-peated. Its a nice run, but I'm not sure its a 'dynasty'.

Finally 1 person who agrees with me

[Maxx]

Yeah to consider the 99 strike shortened season team part of the dynasty makes no sense. Who was there for their next title after that? Duncan and Robinson? Not really a connection. I'll give the last 3 as they've had largely the same featured players and its been an every other year thing. But 1999 to 2003 is too big of a leap.

[thuganomic]

The Spurs aren't a dynasty. Defending the championship is the hardest part of any sports franchise, to overcome injuries, team chemistry issues, fan expectations, and everything just to get another shot. The Spurs haven't even repeated once.

[maninblack]

Less than a minute to go, and it looks like Boston have their ticket to the finals.

The Spurs aren't a dynasty. Defending the championship is the hardest part of any sports franchise, to overcome injuries, team chemistry issues, fan expectations, and everything just to get another shot. The Spurs haven't even repeated once.

I'm not sure if that would be an accurate definition of "dynasty" as far as the NBA goes. The NBA title was basically being traded between the Lakers and Celtics throughout most of the 1980s. This rivalry between competing dynasties took the NBA to a whole new level.

A lot of fans are conditioned to pooh-pooh a team not winning the title in consecutive years because the Bulls, Pistons, Rockets and Lakers were repeat champs, but winning three championships over a five-year stretch is just as tough as doing it back to back.

Edited May 31, 2008 by maninblack