PDA

View Full Version : Could the Spurs have 5peated?



Chronz
06-11-2009, 12:49 PM
If Fisher didnt hit with .4 remaining, and Manu didnt foul Dirk in that game 7, do they go on to win the titles, thus 5PEATING

DrDEADalready
06-11-2009, 01:01 PM
I know for a fact that the bulls would have 6 peated or 7 Peated (was he gone 1 or 2 seasons) if Jordan never left to go play baseball.

BTownTeamsRKing
06-11-2009, 01:20 PM
The Spurs will never get the respect they deserve.

2001 - Lost in WCF
2002 - Lost in WCSF
2003 - NBA Champions
2004 - Lost in WCSF
2005 - NBA Champions
2006 - Lost in WCSF
2007 - NBA Champions
2008 - Lost in WCF
2009 - Lost in WCQF

yes they could have won 5 in a row. That team was unbelievable. Always enjoyed watching them at full strength. Kind of boring because of they way they smashed teams and showed almost no emotion, but still Great team. NBA team of the 2000s.

albertc86
06-11-2009, 01:25 PM
Yes. The Lakers' 3-peat could've been won by which ever team the west produced.

JordansBulls
06-11-2009, 01:33 PM
I'm not sure. Do the Spurs get by the Twolves in 2004? Do they beat Miami in 2006? Also what happens if Webber is healthy in 2003, do they beat the Kings? Also what happens if Terry doesn't get suspended for game 6 in 2006 against the Spurs? Or if Suns players don't get suspended in 2007 against the Spurs?

Joshtd1
06-11-2009, 01:35 PM
I've thought about that before. I think certainly think we could have. If the Spurs won in 03-04 against the Lakers, I dont see them losing to the Twolves (because of the injuries) or the Pistons, since the Spurs beat basically the same team a year later.

In 06 if Manu didnt foul...I dont think the Suns would have beat us since they were missing Amare, and I think we were better then that Heat team as well.

Joshtd1
06-11-2009, 01:38 PM
If Fisher didnt hit with .4 remaining, and Manu didnt foul Dirk in that game 7, do they go on to win the titles, thus 5PEATING

I still dont know how that .4 shot counted, seeing as "techincally" you are only supposed to be able to tip the ball in if its .3 or less. Basically its saying that with that 1 extra tenth of a second, Fisher could catch the ball, turn, and shoot.

Oh well

what54!?
06-11-2009, 01:44 PM
no they wouldn't have gotten past the Heat in 06 ;)


seriously though its hard to say but the one thing I've learned about the spurs is to never count them out.

Storm4
06-11-2009, 01:46 PM
If they could have, they would have.

LakersIn5
06-11-2009, 01:49 PM
could the lakers have 10peated?

2003 - if horry made the shot at the buzzer of game 5 in SA to win 3 straight and lead the series 3-2 with game 6 in LA
2004 - if shaq,malone,payton were healthy, and the pistons not being too lucky
2005 - if shaq stayed for a possible 6peat
2006 - if shaq stayed or if kobe made the buzzer beater in game 6 vs. the suns at LA to win the series 4-2
2007 - if kwame brown averaged 30 ppg 15 rpg
2008 - if paul pierce didnt fake an injury to pump up the celtics
2009 - champs!

DrDEADalready
06-11-2009, 01:51 PM
could the lakers have 10peated?

2003 - if horry made the shot at the buzzer of game 5 in SA to win 3 straight and lead the series 3-2 with game 6 in LA
2004 - if shaq,malone,payton were healthy, and the pistons not being too lucky
2005 - if shaq stayed for a possible 6peat
2006 - if shaq stayed or if kobe made the buzzer beater in game 6 vs. the suns at LA to win the series 4-2
2007 - if kwame brown averaged 30 ppg 15 rpg
2008 - if paul pierce didnt fake an injury to pump up the celtics
2009 - champs!


Now that's just non sense. :pity:

Catfish1314
06-11-2009, 01:52 PM
If the trojectory of the rebound that Vlade tipped to Horry in 2002, had been slightly off from where it was, would Horry have even gotten the ball to make the shot he made to win Game 4 of the WCF, and would that have given the Kings the opportunity to go to the Finals and pound the Nets like the Lakers did?

If Webber had made the 3 pointer that rimmed out and thus, beaten the Wolves in the West Semis, would the Kings have gone on to win a championship?

Chronz
06-11-2009, 02:10 PM
I still dont know how that .4 shot counted, seeing as "techincally" you are only supposed to be able to tip the ball in if its .3 or less. Basically its saying that with that 1 extra tenth of a second, Fisher could catch the ball, turn, and shoot.

Oh well
You have to understand the reason they established whole .3 mark in the first place. The so called Trent Tucker rule, with .4 seconds remaining, any player can catch and shoot. It really doesnt matter who it is thats shooting, just so long as he catches and shoots. They will give you that leeway, but when its .3 and under, your limited to only tip shots because most studies found it takes atleast .3 for the player to even set up for the shot and that extra tenth to release it away, factor in the human lag and you have a perfectly suitable and reasonable timetable.

The shot was legit, the fact that he made it was one of the greatest shots in the game. Like JB pointed out, could they have beaten KG without Cassell, what about the best defensive team of all time? The Heat series wouldve been far more entertaining IMO, could they have stopped Wade and Shaq?

Chronz
06-11-2009, 02:12 PM
I've thought about that before. I think certainly think we could have. If the Spurs won in 03-04 against the Lakers, I dont see them losing to the Twolves (because of the injuries) or the Pistons, since the Spurs beat basically the same team a year later.

In 06 if Manu didnt foul...I dont think the Suns would have beat us since they were missing Amare, and I think we were better then that Heat team as well.

The Pistons werent the same team, and the Spurs werent either the very next year. Id still take those Pistons in a lopsided 6 game series. Honestly, they were the team best suited to take advantage of the rules back then. Duncan struggled like never before against the Wallace bros, is TP ready to step up at this point in his career? Manu definitely shines, but it would be harder against than it was the year after.


could the lakers have 10peated?

2003 - if horry made the shot at the buzzer of game 5 in SA to win 3 straight and lead the series 3-2 with game 6 in LA
2004 - if shaq,malone,payton were healthy, and the pistons not being too lucky
2005 - if shaq stayed for a possible 6peat
2006 - if shaq stayed or if kobe made the buzzer beater in game 6 vs. the suns at LA to win the series 4-2
2007 - if kwame brown averaged 30 ppg 15 rpg
2008 - if paul pierce didnt fake an injury to pump up the celtics
2009 - champs!
2003 - Lakers wouldve lost the next 2, they werent winning that series man, they needed some new blood, it took 2 HOF and .4 to take the Spurs down the very next year.

If Karl Malone was healthy it wouldve gone 7, without him the team is irrelevant again.

After that your getting really paranoid borderline hysterical

cobralou
06-11-2009, 02:32 PM
I really don't think your talking about respect because I live in San Antonio and hear this all the time.Respect is a mere acknowledgement of ones accomplishments and consideration of others.Please no more whining about respect when all your asking for is for evreyone to consider the Spurs to be an elite , dominant , dynasty,Like L.A. and Boston .They don't get as much attention as the Lakers ,Boston ,Chicago or even Cleveland right now but that's not about repect but media hype is that what you want The Spurs classy , wholesome ,and well rounded team to be? The Spurs wanted the NBA to know they were a different team and not seeking this unwanted attention that comes from winning championships.Well they got their wish because the Spurs even in the playoffs don't draw a lot of attention.Just like when they swept Cleveland yet Lebron James was getting all the endorsements and attention.The Spurs are respected by the teams that see them in the playoffs every year but when you start making excuses for them not winning certain games and rubbing other teams faces in it then you help tarnish their image and make other teams and fans hate the Spurs team/players /fans etc.If you want this hype then you as a fan are no different then anybody else who wants their team to recognized.Be happy that the Spurs have won 4 champoinships because many other teams and fans will be thrilled with one.

ARMIN12NBA
06-11-2009, 03:23 PM
If Robert Horry's shot didn't go in and out and actually stayed in then I think we are talking about a Lakers 4-peat at least...And the Lakers were actually dominant enough to go back to back in the first place.

Chronz
06-11-2009, 04:18 PM
If Robert Horry's shot didn't go in and out and actually stayed in then I think we are talking about a Lakers 4-peat at least...And the Lakers were actually dominant enough to go back to back in the first place.

I dont see how you could think that, the Lakers barely won 50 games and were horrible defensively. The Spurs were crazy deep at the time, and though they lacked experience together they were too good defensively to let that bother them. Duncan and Shaq practically negated eachother, after that it was Kobe and a bunch of old/injured stiffs, vs young (sounds funny saying that about the Spurs) and spry depth. I remember Kobe having the greatest season of his career, but Shaq not liking his role, the Spurs closed it out in such dramatic and impressive fashion IN LA. Its hard to pick against Shaq and Kobe in a game 7, but aside from those 2 wins in LA, and half of the close one in game 6, Kobes level of play after a terrific regular season regressed. He was awful in the first 2 games that set the tone, and the deciding game. I dont blame him, they had Kobe do everything, playing different positions, too much for them to overcome.

Lakersfan2483
06-11-2009, 04:48 PM
If Robert Horry's shot didn't go in and out and actually stayed in then I think we are talking about a Lakers 4-peat at least...And the Lakers were actually dominant enough to go back to back in the first place.

If Horry hits that shot, we 4peat. I still cant believe that ball didn't stay in.

Sly Guy
06-11-2009, 05:03 PM
could the lakers have 10peated?

2003 - if horry made the shot at the buzzer of game 5 in SA to win 3 straight and lead the series 3-2 with game 6 in LA
2004 - if shaq,malone,payton were healthy, and the pistons not being too lucky
2005 - if shaq stayed for a possible 6peat
2006 - if shaq stayed or if kobe made the buzzer beater in game 6 vs. the suns at LA to win the series 4-2
2007 - if kwame brown averaged 30 ppg 15 rpg
2008 - if paul pierce didnt fake an injury to pump up the celtics
2009 - champs!

Hahaha, YES!

Chronz
06-11-2009, 05:06 PM
If Horry hits that shot, we 4peat. I still cant believe that ball didn't stay in.

You couldnt believe that ball didnt stay in, werent you watching the series? The way Horry was shooting Im surprised it even had a chance, the fact that it almost went in with Horry being no kind of rhythm all series is a testament to his clutchness, but your delusional if you think the Lakers 4peet that year. If it hadnt been the Spurs it wouldve been some other team to knock them out.

rever
06-11-2009, 05:09 PM
um what?

ARMIN12NBA
06-11-2009, 05:47 PM
I dont see how you could think that, the Lakers barely won 50 games and were horrible defensively. The Spurs were crazy deep at the time, and though they lacked experience together they were too good defensively to let that bother them. Duncan and Shaq practically negated eachother, after that it was Kobe and a bunch of old/injured stiffs, vs young (sounds funny saying that about the Spurs) and spry depth. I remember Kobe having the greatest season of his career, but Shaq not liking his role, the Spurs closed it out in such dramatic and impressive fashion IN LA. Its hard to pick against Shaq and Kobe in a game 7, but aside from those 2 wins in LA, and half of the close one in game 6, Kobes level of play after a terrific regular season regressed. He was awful in the first 2 games that set the tone, and the deciding game. I dont blame him, they had Kobe do everything, playing different positions, too much for them to overcome.

Shaq was injured and/or not completely healthy that season, which is why the Lakers only won 50 games. That was the season in which Kobe averaged 40+ PPG for a month and was a great defensive stopper. I truly do believe that if they took a 3-2 series lead then they finish it off at home. No way that team would have lost after taking a 3-2 lead.

ARMIN12NBA
06-11-2009, 05:48 PM
You couldnt believe that ball didnt stay in, werent you watching the series? The way Horry was shooting Im surprised it even had a chance, the fact that it almost went in with Horry being no kind of rhythm all series is a testament to his clutchness, but your delusional if you think the Lakers 4peet that year. If it hadnt been the Spurs it wouldve been some other team to knock them out.

Horry still had a knack for hitting the big shot though.

Still, no way the Lakers lose to the Nets in the Finals. They swept them the previous year. Kobe and Shaq would have been way too much for the Nets.

Chronz
06-11-2009, 05:50 PM
The Nets were better their 2nd go around but what about Sac or Dallas? Yea that Horry shot was close, but the way he was missing every shot, even somewhat crucial ones I wasnt surprised he missed it.

Chronz
06-11-2009, 05:52 PM
Shaq was injured and/or not completely healthy that season, which is why the Lakers only won 50 games. That was the season in which Kobe averaged 40+ PPG for a month and was a great defensive stopper. I truly do believe that if they took a 3-2 series lead then they finish it off at home. No way that team would have lost after taking a 3-2 lead.
Yea but it was their play sans Shaq that was the difference I was talking about. I recall Shaq missing plenty of time over the years, what I dont remember was it ever being an excuse why the Lakers barely cracked 50.

ARMIN12NBA
06-11-2009, 05:53 PM
The Nets were better their 2nd go around but what about Sac or Dallas? Yea that Horry shot was close, but the way he was missing every shot, even somewhat crucial ones I wasnt surprised he missed it.

True. Still, Horry has always had that touch. That's why I would still have given him that shot in that series. Even a couple years later in the Finals, he came up huge in that one OT game. Never count Big Shot Rob out.

ARMIN12NBA
06-11-2009, 05:57 PM
Yea but it was their play sans Shaq that was the difference I was talking about. I recall Shaq missing plenty of time over the years, what I dont remember was it ever being an excuse why the Lakers barely cracked 50.

The Lakers bench was a joke and they had no back-up for Shaq. It was Kobe and nobody else in all the games Shaq missed when, in previous years, there were guys who stepped up. Still, do you really think the Lakers lose two in a row as well as one in home when they have a chance to close out the series? IMO, the shot would have given the Lakers momentum and confidence. Just think at how deflated the Spurs would have been as well. Everything would have been different.

Durant is hype
06-11-2009, 06:22 PM
no they wouldn't have gotten past the Heat in 06 ;)


seriously though its hard to say but the one thing I've learned about the spurs is to never count them out.

Big time,the spurs are a resilient team probably the best at that in the 00's.