2008/2009 NBA Thread v2.0

[Mr Evil Guy]

I give Howard sooo much of the blame. He missed two free throws at the end of the game that would've made it two possession and won the game. Fairly sure he missed his two before that.

I'd flip shit if I were Hedo Turkoglu, though.

[naiwf]

Was directed at MEG, obviously.

I don't think Orlando is bad, no team out of the East, sans a healthy Boston, would have been good enough to beat the Lakers four games, in my opinion.

The Magic should be up 3-1 if they had a decent coach. Shoulda, coulda, woulda, but still the Magic should have won the title this year in the same way that the Lakers should have beaten the Pistons in '04 and lost in 5 games. It evened out for your team, but cost Payton, Malone and Shaq a ring.

[DMN in the House]

True, I guess.

Right now, I'd say I'd rather this group of guys got a ring instead of the '04 team. Mostly because this group has been together and grown as a team, and that one was more of a mercenary 'super-group' team. Rather have both, but it is what it is.

Should cement the Lakers as the Team of the Decade, without argument, though. Plus, people will stop bitching about Kobe never winning without Shaq.

[Mr Evil Guy]

The upside of this is that the Lakers are closer to passing the Celtics as all time championship leaders. I like the Lakers waaaaay more than the Celtics.

The Lakers and Celtics have about 33 of 63 now or something? This assuming that the Magic have no chance of winning the series now, of course.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Mr Evil Guy

[naiwf]

I don't disagree. I just hate to see a coach blow a series for his team because he's too loyal to a specific player. The Knicks blew the '94 Finals because Riley wouldn't sit Starks who imploded with perhaps the worst game ever (2-18 FG, 0-11 3PFG) while we had guys on the bench who had contributed all year. It's been 15 years and the Knicks haven't gotten that close again. Interestingly enough the Magic made the Finals the year after, got swept, and then took 14 years to get back. There's no guarantee that they'll get back any time soon and trailing 3-1 in a series where they were the better team for the majority of 3 games is just bad coaching and execution. If Nelson is inactive, the Magic are likely no worse than 2-2 right now. Instead Van Gundy decided to play the cold hand, ruined Alston and handed Jackson his 10th championship.

[gunnar hendershow]

So we've learned Kobe can "win without Shaq". After all, he found a fantastic replacement in Jameer Nelson. Truly impressive stuff out there, Jameer sure is doing his best to make sure that the Lakers win this year.

Edited June 12, 2009 by damshow

[maninblack]

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU...

Ah well, at least Orlando won a finals game

[Blaze09]

True, I guess.

Right now, I'd say I'd rather this group of guys got a ring instead of the '04 team. Mostly because this group has been together and grown as a team, and that one was more of a mercenary 'super-group' team. Rather have both, but it is what it is.

Should cement the Lakers as the Team of the Decade, without argument, though. Plus, people will stop bitching about Kobe never winning without Shaq.

No, just no. They have the three-peat and all, but they are not the team of the decade. The Spurs are without a doubt, no matter how painfully boring they are. They won in 03, 05, and 07, and could of had a five-peat if it wasn't for 2 lucky shots. And I'm saying all of this as a Piston fan who had to watch Sheed not check Robert Horry in Game 5 in the 05 finals. So, no, the Lakers are not the team of the decade just because they won the 3 in the beginning and the last one, and they are really getting the last one because the Magic are being the Magic.

Oh and stick a fork in Derek Fisher, he's done, lucky ass shots

[thuganomic]

I don't disagree. I just hate to see a coach blow a series for his team because he's too loyal to a specific player. The Knicks blew the '94 Finals because Riley wouldn't sit Starks who imploded with perhaps the worst game ever (2-18 FG, 0-11 3PFG) while we had guys on the bench who had contributed all year. It's been 15 years and the Knicks haven't gotten that close again. Interestingly enough the Magic made the Finals the year after, got swept, and then took 14 years to get back. There's no guarantee that they'll get back any time soon and trailing 3-1 in a series where they were the better team for the majority of 3 games is just bad coaching and execution. If Nelson is inactive, the Magic are likely no worse than 2-2 right now. Instead Van Gundy decided to play the cold hand, ruined Alston and handed Jackson his 10th championship.

Funny how everyone is saying this when on the other side, Phil Jackson stuck with his PG who had been ice cold and is now up 3-1.

[DMN in the House]

No, just no. They have the three-peat and all, but they are not the team of the decade. The Spurs are without a doubt, no matter how painfully boring they are. They won in 03, 05, and 07, and could of had a five-peat if it wasn't for 2 lucky shots. And I'm saying all of this as a Piston fan who had to watch Sheed not check Robert Horry in Game 5 in the 05 finals. So, no, the Lakers are not the team of the decade just because they won the 3 in the beginning and the last one, and they are really getting the last one because the Magic are being the Magic.

Oh and stick a fork in Derek Fisher, he's done, lucky ass shots

LOL, stop hating.

Four championships, two other Finals appearances. That means the Lakers have appeared in more than HALF of the NBA Finals series this decade. You can say whatever you want, but this is the team of the Decade, NOT San Antonio. The Spurs would be a clear second, however.

[Blaze09]

No, just no. They have the three-peat and all, but they are not the team of the decade. The Spurs are without a doubt, no matter how painfully boring they are. They won in 03, 05, and 07, and could of had a five-peat if it wasn't for 2 lucky shots. And I'm saying all of this as a Piston fan who had to watch Sheed not check Robert Horry in Game 5 in the 05 finals. So, no, the Lakers are not the team of the decade just because they won the 3 in the beginning and the last one, and they are really getting the last one because the Magic are being the Magic.

Oh and stick a fork in Derek Fisher, he's done, lucky ass shots

LOL, stop hating.

Four championships, two other Finals appearances. That means the Lakers have appeared in more than HALF of the NBA Finals series this decade. You can say whatever you want, but this is the team of the Decade, NOT San Antonio. The Spurs would be a clear second, however.

Its not hating, your homerism is just blinding you. They dont make it in 04 if it aint for that lucky ass shot. Just cause you make it to the finals the most don't mean or win the most dont mean your the team of the decade. Plus from 04-05 to 06-07 and part of 07-08 til they got Gasol, they were not contenders at all. They didnt make it in 04-05, 05-06 they blew a 3-1 lead, and then lost in five games to the same team they had up 3-1 the year before. So a franchise that dropped off in the middle of the decade is the team of it, when another franchise was title contenders every year except the last one. C'mon now

[DMN in the House]

Title contenders every year, except that ANOTHER TEAM IN THE SAME CONFERENCE WENT TO TWICE AS MANY FINALS AS THEY DID.

It's not homerism, it's fact. 'Lucky ass shots', if that helps you sleep better at night. If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candies and nuts, what a wonderful world it would be.

[Mr Evil Guy]

Slight edge to the Lakers. San Antonio were more consistent on a year-by-year basis but the Lakers are going to be known for this decade when people look back with all the great big name players, etc. 6 final appearances and four wins > 3 finals appearances and 3 wins.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Mr Evil Guy

[DMN in the House]

I'm not even trying to downplay San Antonio. I hate them in that way you hate sports teams (which means I really don't), but they've proven to be a consistent championship contender since Tim Duncan fell into their laps. I'm not going to make any dumb arguments about how they only got him because David Robinson got injured, it's part of the game, but they've built a solid franchise.

[naiwf]

No, just no. They have the three-peat and all, but they are not the team of the decade. The Spurs are without a doubt, no matter how painfully boring they are. They won in 03, 05, and 07, and could of had a five-peat if it wasn't for 2 lucky shots. And I'm saying all of this as a Piston fan who had to watch Sheed not check Robert Horry in Game 5 in the 05 finals. So, no, the Lakers are not the team of the decade just because they won the 3 in the beginning and the last one, and they are really getting the last one because the Magic are being the Magic.

Oh and stick a fork in Derek Fisher, he's done, lucky ass shots

LOL, stop hating.

Four championships, two other Finals appearances. That means the Lakers have appeared in more than HALF of the NBA Finals series this decade. You can say whatever you want, but this is the team of the Decade, NOT San Antonio. The Spurs would be a clear second, however.

Its not hating, your homerism is just blinding you. They dont make it in 04 if it aint for that lucky ass shot. Just cause you make it to the finals the most don't mean or win the most dont mean your the team of the decade. Plus from 04-05 to 06-07 and part of 07-08 til they got Gasol, they were not contenders at all. They didnt make it in 04-05, 05-06 they blew a 3-1 lead, and then lost in five games to the same team they had up 3-1 the year before. So a franchise that dropped off in the middle of the decade is the team of it, when another franchise was title contenders every year except the last one. C'mon now

The Lakers won more titles than the Spurs (4-3), San Antonio never repeated and LA made it to the Finals two other times. It's not really an argument.

[livid]

Let's also not forget that there's still a year left in this decade and I'd wager that the Lakers are more likely to be there again than the Spurs as they're getting a bit old now and are starting to slow down quite a bit.

But yeah, no question about it that the Lakers are the team of the decade. And it's a bit of arguing against your own point bringing up the down years because even with those down years, the Lakers still have more championships.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Livid Soprano

[naiwf]

Let's also not forget that there's still a year left in this decade and I'd wager that the Lakers are more likely to be there again than the Spurs as they're getting a bit old now and are starting to slow down quite a bit.

But yeah, no question about it that the Lakers are the team of the decade. And it's a bit of arguing against your own point bringing up the down years because even with those down years, the Lakers still have more championships.

The next Finals will take place in 2010, so the decade is over in terms of championships.

[DMN in the House]

Yeah, if we're going to include the 2000 championship, which would be the start of the three-peat, then this is it.

I also would argue that the fact the Lakers were able to re-build relatively quickly, and make no mistake, even without Gasol they were on their way, is a point in their favor. San Antonio hasn't had to truly rebuild yet, but it's coming. In the next few years that team will become Tony Parker's team, and we'll see how it all works out.

[naiwf]

Yeah, if we're going to include the 2000 championship, which would be the start of the three-peat, then this is it.

I also would argue that the fact the Lakers were able to re-build relatively quickly, and make no mistake, even without Gasol they were on their way, is a point in their favor. San Antonio hasn't had to truly rebuild yet, but it's coming. In the next few years that team will become Tony Parker's team, and we'll see how it all works out.

Once TIMMAY!~ becomes an average big man they're done. Ginobili's breaking down and their role players are all old. I don't think you can build a team around a PG simply because of the wear and tear factor. Boston's going to hit that brick wall in a couple of years as well when the Big 3 become the Average 3.

[DMN in the House]

Same could be said about any team. I'd say 'except the Lakers', because history has shown that they're one of the most consistent franchises, are willing to cut bait at the right time and move on, and really only ever hold onto guys that are what I would term 'true Lakers', but I'd just get called a homer.