PDA

View Full Version : Duncan's Spurs: Backdoor Swept and Losing w/ HCA Again



kblo247
06-06-2012, 11:34 PM
This is the second time that the spurs have been back door swept.
- Lakers 2004 up 2-0
- OKC 2012 up 2-0

This also marks yet another loss with hca
- Lakers 2004
- Dallas 2006
- Memphis 2011
- OKC 2012

They have also been swept the regular way
- Lakers 2001
- Suns 2010

How does this impact the legacy of Duncan? Should he be described as choking in these situations? Discuss!

Giraffes Rule
06-06-2012, 11:36 PM
Nope. He should be described as old right now though. You know what these last two losing years have in common? Duncan coming up against a great post defender.

Just the way things go. :shrug:

lakers4sho
06-06-2012, 11:39 PM
JB just opened up microsoft word right now, don't worry

kblo247
06-06-2012, 11:39 PM
I think it should be looked at as well as never defending a ring like the Lakers, Bulls, and Rockets have done in the past.

Can you call them a dynasty in the traditional sense?

kblo247
06-06-2012, 11:40 PM
JB just opened up microsoft word right now, don't worry

LMFAO that was a good one

They have pulled a LeBrons Cavs the past two years and not even made the finals with hca throughout so that to me is choking against expectations

KB-Pau-DH2012
06-06-2012, 11:42 PM
They will never criticize Duncan as people hate Kobe more.

Kobe is indeed the greatest player of his generation.

John Walls Era
06-06-2012, 11:43 PM
Hes still the greatest PF of all time. No one expected anything from the SPurs this season anyways.

GREATNESS ONE
06-06-2012, 11:44 PM
Yup they choked that lead badly but it won't hurt Duncan's legacy. I think the only thing that could have happened was him improving it by winning. Duncan will still go down as the best or one of the absolute best PF. Plus those 4 rings help.

Cal827
06-06-2012, 11:44 PM
Yeah it's an odd stat.. but still one of the GOATS at PF no doubt

Is it just me or do I sense a Laker fan a little scared/annoyed that people also bring up SA when talking about Dynasties in the past 12 yrs?

b@llhog24
06-06-2012, 11:45 PM
JB just opened up microsoft word right now, don't worry

Lmao.

greg_ory_2005
06-06-2012, 11:46 PM
JB just opened up microsoft word right now, don't worry

:laugh2:

kblo247
06-06-2012, 11:51 PM
Hes still the greatest PF of all time. No one expected anything from the SPurs this season anyways.

The best record in the league two years straight and picked to win it all or at least the west is no expectations?

I'm not even sure you can refer to them as the traditional dynasty as the teams like Boston, LA, Chicago, and Houston won their title, got back to the finals and defended it, and in the case of LA and Chicago 3 peated. To me those are dynasties. San Antonio couldn't even when their conference in back to back years ever. It is a weird scenario

jezzyman05
06-06-2012, 11:56 PM
Please shut up......yes they are a dynasty just like the lakers and so forth quite trying to start crap.....heres a stat at least when the spurs go to the finals they lose to Detroit!

Sadds The Gr8
06-06-2012, 11:57 PM
who the **** cares? they had 4 rings in what, 8-9 years? that's automatically a dynasty.

jezzyman05
06-07-2012, 12:00 AM
Thank you

jezzyman05
06-07-2012, 12:02 AM
The best record in the league two years straight and picked to win it all or at least the west is no expectations?

I'm not even sure you can refer to them as the traditional dynasty as the teams like Boston, LA, Chicago, and Houston won their title, got back to the finals and defended it, and in the case of LA and Chicago 3 peated. To me those are dynasties. San Antonio couldn't even when their conference in back to back years ever. It is a weird scenario

Ya but the Lakers did lose to the pistons who were a far lesser team than LA....didnt LA have a 2-0 lead.....................

NYtilIdie
06-07-2012, 12:02 AM
who the **** cares? they had 4 rings in what, 8-9 years? that's automatically a dynasty.

BUTT H3 DiDNT D3F3ND DA RINGZ DOE'!!!/!/

KB-Pau-DH2012
06-07-2012, 12:02 AM
Ya but the Lakers did lose to the pistons who were a far lesser team than LA....didnt LA have a 2-0 lead.....................

Nope, Pistons stole that first game in LA and then won 3 straight in Detroit.

kblo247
06-07-2012, 12:05 AM
Ya but the Lakers did lose to the pistons who were a far lesser team than LA....didnt LA have a 2-0 lead.....................

No La lost game 1 when Malone got hurt. Then they got beat the 3 in detorit with the 2-3-2 format. Kobe has also lost once before with hca vs Dallas, but that is it under the 2-2-1-1-1 format

KB-Pau-DH2012
06-07-2012, 12:05 AM
BUTT H3 DiDNT D3F3ND DA RINGZ DOE'!!!/!/

Ya sure, you can call the Pop-Duncan (the constants) Spurs a dynasty. No worries.

But BECAUSE they did not repeat or 3peat like Phil-Kobe-Fish (the constants) Lakers, the Lakers dynasty trump the Spurs dynasty in the post-Jordan era.


You go by who owned the NBA.....it was Magic's Lakers over Bird's Celtics in the 80s, MJ's Bulls over Hakeem's Rockets in the 90s, and Kobe's Lakers over Duncan's Spurs in the 2k's.

Plain and simple!!!

KB-Pau-DH2012
06-07-2012, 12:06 AM
No La lost game 1 when Malone got hurt. Then they got beat the 3 in detorit with the 2-3-2 format. Kobe has also lost once before with hca vs Dallas, but that is it under the 2-2-1-1-1 format

And yes, to be fair, Kobe too has been swept, like that Dallas series as well 98 conference finals against the Jazz and 99 semis against Duncan's Spurs.

BigCityofDreams
06-07-2012, 12:08 AM
Ya but the Lakers did lose to the pistons who were a far lesser team than LA....didnt LA have a 2-0 lead.....................

That 04 Laker team was not as good as ppl thought and a lot of fans overlooked that Pistons team.

kblo247
06-07-2012, 12:08 AM
Defending a ring is hard and should be valued more than winning it. It means everyone gunned for you and you beat their *** to say you are still the man. To not even get to the dance and be in position to defend it is weak IMO and puts them below the likes of Kobe/Shaq, Kobe/Pau, Hakeem, Jordan/Pippen, Bird, and Showtime teams who rose to that occassion. Those are dynasties, not we skip a year or two or four then win and fall back off

KB-Pau-DH2012
06-07-2012, 12:09 AM
Defending a ring is hard and should be valued more than winning it. It means everyone gunned for you and you beat their *** to say you are still the man. To not even get to the dance and be in position to defend it is weak IMO and puts them below the likes of Kobe/Shaq, Kobe/Pau, Hakeem, Jordan/Pippen, Bird, and Showtime teams who rose to that occassion. Those are dynasties, not we skip a year or two or four then win and fall back off

Exactly, and you ask the all-time great champions what's harder, to win it? or to defend it?

And they all say that it's tougher to defend it.

kblo247
06-07-2012, 12:09 AM
That 04 Laker team was not as good as ppl thought and a lot of fans overlooked that Pistons team.

That 04 team was as good as Karl or Horace were health wise. When they had neither and didn't have Horry to turn to because Shaq wanted him gone, they sucked? He'll Madsen would have been welcome.

Sadds The Gr8
06-07-2012, 12:09 AM
Ya sure, you can call the Pop-Duncan (the constants) Spurs a dynasty. No worries.

But BECAUSE they did not repeat or 3peat like Phil-Kobe-Fish (the constants) Lakers, the Lakers dynasty trump the Spurs dynasty in the post-Jordan era.


You go by who owned the NBA.....it was Magic's Lakers over Bird's Celtics in the 80s, MJ's Bulls over Hakeem's Rockets in the 90s, and Kobe's Lakers over Duncan's Spurs in the 2k's.

Plain and simple!!!
lol what a homer. you can't count that as 1 dynasty...the main cores were totally different.

NYtilIdie
06-07-2012, 12:10 AM
No, Spurs>Lakers regardless if they didn't "defend" the championship. This is honestly the biggest piece of s**t argument I've read on this site, never before have I ever heard someone disregard someone's legacy just because they didn't repeat.

It's really just an argument Kobephiles pulled outta their *** when they realized Duncan has had the better overall career.

KB-Pau-DH2012
06-07-2012, 12:10 AM
lol what a homer. you can't count that as 1 dynasty...the main cores were totally different.

I understand the Shaq argument, but the PHILosophy of the Triangle was the same, and one of the 10 greatest players in the history of the game played in that system for all 5 titles, and one of the greatest clutch role players was part of those 5 titles, and was the starting PG on 4 of those 5 title runs.

jezzyman05
06-07-2012, 12:10 AM
No La lost game 1 when Malone got hurt. Then they got beat the 3 in detorit with the 2-3-2 format. Kobe has also lost once before with hca vs Dallas, but that is it under the 2-2-1-1-1 format

dont forget they got swept by the Spurs....

they still lost and they did have Kobe and Shaq.....spurs undefeated in the finals.......numbers dont lie....

TIM DUNCAN: The best player in the post jordan era!........period!

Sadds The Gr8
06-07-2012, 12:11 AM
No, Spurs>Lakers regardless if they didn't "defend" the championship. This is honestly the biggest piece of s**t argument I've read on this site, never before have I ever heard someone disregard someone's legacy just because they didn't repeat.

It's really just an argument Kobephiles pulled outta their *** when they realized Duncan has had the better overall career.
exactly. the NBA title isn't a ****in WWF title belt.

jezzyman05
06-07-2012, 12:11 AM
No, Spurs>Lakers regardless if they didn't "defend" the championship. This is honestly the biggest piece of s**t argument I've read on this site, never before have I ever heard someone disregard someone's legacy just because they didn't repeat.

It's really just an argument Kobephiles pulled outta their *** when they realized Duncan has had the better overall career.

Thank you!

Sadds The Gr8
06-07-2012, 12:12 AM
I understand the Shaq argument, but the PHILosophy of the Triangle was the same, and one of the 10 greatest players in the history of the game played in that system for all 5 titles, and one of the greatest clutch role players was part of those 5 titles, and was the starting PG on 4 of those 5 title runs.

who cares? like I said, the cores were totally different.

00-03 was Kobe-Shaq

09-10 was Kobe-Odom-Gasol-Bynum

that's not 1 dynasty...

plus the Spurs were always a top seed throughout this run, and a force in the west. meanwhile in the mid 00's, the Lakers were mediocre and barely making the playoffs.

BigCityofDreams
06-07-2012, 12:13 AM
No, Spurs>Lakers regardless if they didn't "defend" the championship. This is honestly the biggest piece of s**t argument I've read on this site, never before have I ever heard someone disregard someone's legacy just because they didn't repeat.

It's really just an argument Kobephiles pulled outta their *** when they realized Duncan has had the better overall career.

Ppl used to disregard Kobe's legacy because his first set of rings came with Shaq.

Spurs are a dynasty though I won't argue that.

KB-Pau-DH2012
06-07-2012, 12:14 AM
No, Spurs>Lakers regardless if they didn't "defend" the championship. This is honestly the biggest piece of s**t argument I've read on this site, never before have I ever heard someone disregard someone's legacy just because they didn't repeat.

It's really just an argument Kobephiles pulled outta their *** when they realized Duncan has had the better overall career.

How the hell are Spurs better than Lakers??

defending is freaking hard to do, that's why not many teams have been able to do so.

And the Spurs had to change their style of play after they were such a hard-nosed defensive team, but when that stopped working for them, they reverted to the PHX Suns Dantoni style and created fool's gold 2 straight yrs in the regular season and got stumped by team's who's offense was comparable and defense was better than theirs, most notably losing to an 8th seed while being the first seed!



Kobe won his 5 titles under the SAME SYSTEM OF PHIL! They didn't have to adapt or any of that ****. They trusted their offensive and defensive schemes despite Phil coming back from a 1yr sabbatical and SHaq getting traded away. Kobe didn't like the triangle much, but he grew to appreciate it more and won 2 more titles under that system.


So you don't give me that ****!

KB-Pau-DH2012
06-07-2012, 12:17 AM
who cares? like I said, the cores were totally different.

00-03 was Kobe-Shaq

08-11 was Kobe-Odom-Gasol-Bynum

that's not 1 dynasty...

plus the Spurs were always a top seed throughout this run, and a force in the west. meanwhile in the mid 00's, the Lakers were mediocre and barely making the playoffs.


So the Spurs proved to be a better REGULAR SEASON TEAM!!!!! than the Lakers.. Whoopdy doo!


Lakers proved to be the more dominant Playoffs and Championship winning team.



The Spurs replicated what LeBron's 09 and 2010 Cavs was, and they created FOOOL'S GOLD. Those 2 teams proved in the NBA that the regular season don't mean ****, and it's all about the playoffs.

mdm692
06-07-2012, 12:18 AM
It does not matter he will point up to the roof in the at&t center and not say a word.
http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/520/981/86145331_crop_650x440.jpg?1290512433

BTW I hate Duncan as much as I hate Kobe but those guys have proven themselves over the years and all this recent bashing is ********.

NYMetropolitans
06-07-2012, 12:18 AM
Hca? Meh. Overrated for Spurs.

Sadds The Gr8
06-07-2012, 12:23 AM
So the Spurs proved to be a better REGULAR SEASON TEAM!!!!! than the Lakers.. Whoopdy doo!


Lakers proved to be the more dominant Playoffs and Championship winning team.



The Spurs replicated what LeBron's 09 and 2010 Cavs was, and they created FOOOL'S GOLD. Those 2 teams proved in the NBA that the regular season don't mean ****, and it's all about the playoffs.

cool story.

well the Spurs dynasty lasted way longer than both of LAL's 2 dynasties, and won more titles than both. LAL has been the better franchise, obviously, but SAS has had the best dynasty.

NYtilIdie
06-07-2012, 12:26 AM
How the hell are Spurs better than Lakers??

Because they have Tim Duncan, is it really that hard to grasp?

defending is freaking hard to do, that's why not many teams have been able to do so.

So since the Bulls & Lakers didn't defend their first 3-peat for the 4-peat we should just disregard them. Also, the Lakers haven't won a championship title in 2 years, so lets also discredit them while we're at it.

And the Spurs had to change their style of play after they were such a hard-nosed defensive team, but when that stopped working for them, they reverted to the PHX Suns Dantoni style

Ya, teams do adapt their style of play as the times change. The Lakers aren't running the same triangle offense now that Phil's gone. Now the Lakers have a basic offense and created fools gold this year and for many years to come.

and created fool's gold 2 straight yrs in the regular season and got stumped by team's who's offense was comparable and defense was better than theirs, most notably losing to an 8th seed while being the first seed!

Yeah, because usually how sports works is the better team usually wins, so if the Grizzles had a comparable offense and a better overall defense than the Spurs, are they not the better team?

Kobe won his 5 titles under the SAME SYSTEM OF PHIL! They didn't have to adapt or any of that ****.

So are we just going to ignore those bottom feeder years after 2004? Tim Duncan has played under Pop his whole career, whats your point? That Phil never changed his system? And we saw what happened last year, great coaches change their style to fit their team and to give them the advantage. Numerous coaches have done it and have succeeded in the league because of it.

They trusted their offensive and defensive schemes despite Phil coming back from a 1yr sabbatical and SHaq getting traded away. Kobe didn't like the triangle much, but he grew to appreciate it more and won 2 more titles under that system.

No, he only grew to love it now because it gave him the freedom to chuck up as many bad shots as he wants now that Shaq was gone.

So you don't give me that ****!

yeah.

NBAFan2012
06-07-2012, 12:26 AM
Hes still the greatest PF of all time. No one expected anything from the SPurs this season anyways.

This and the 1st post in this thread is why people will never admit the Spurs just arent very good and their style of play will not win titles anymore. One blaming the loss on Duncans old age (while throughout the season blaming the Spurs great season on Duncans savvy cause of his age) and then someone saying no one expected nothing from The Spurs, WHEN EVERYONE (except me because I am a realist) said the Spurs were going to win the title this year. Look up posts and the " i wouldnt be surprised if the Spurs won it all this year" and the rest of the same ole cliches from each year, it is like people join the wagon to pick the Spurs so they can seem like NBA experts.
Meanwhile I have been right about them for years and am always ridiculed for saying "they are done" or "they will not win an nba title" just to be vindicated when they get eliminated like tonight.

The Spurs are done and have been for a while, people should just stop already

NYtilIdie
06-07-2012, 12:27 AM
So the Spurs proved to be a better REGULAR SEASON TEAM!!!!! than the Lakers.. Whoopdy doo!


Lakers proved to be the more dominant Playoffs and Championship winning team.



The Spurs replicated what LeBron's 09 and 2010 Cavs was, and they created FOOOL'S GOLD. Those 2 teams proved in the NBA that the regular season don't mean ****, and it's all about the playoffs.

Well if that's the case then where's Kobe?

kblo247
06-07-2012, 12:27 AM
lol what a homer. you can't count that as 1 dynasty...the main cores were totally different.

Think he means Kobe, Phil, and Fish in 09-10 as they went to three finals and won 2 rings. In fact they were the youngest title team of the past two decades and youngest team to reach back to back finals. That is more impressive than the gaps the Spurs have had where they win a ring and then can't even get out the west for years before winning again.

NYtilIdie
06-07-2012, 12:30 AM
Are you guys really comparing the cores of Phil-Kobe-Fish to Pop-Duncan-Parker/Ginobli? :laugh: you lose at Fish.

KB-Pau-DH2012
06-07-2012, 12:33 AM
Are you guys really comparing the cores of Phil-Kobe-Fish to Pop-Duncan-Parker/Ginobli? :laugh: you lose at Fish.

Parker and Ginobili weren't there for the 99 title

kblo247
06-07-2012, 12:34 AM
Well Fish was the captain on all the title teams after 2000 alone with Kobe and/or Shaq. He also was the third option to Kobe and Shaq in 01 and 02 and has helped beat the Spirs many times. Fish was crucial, 4th guy in the last b2b titles behind Kobe, Pau, and Lamar

KB-Pau-DH2012
06-07-2012, 12:37 AM
Well Fish was the captain on all the title teams after 2000 alone with Kobe and/or Shaq. He also was the third option to Kobe and Shaq in 01 and 02 and has helped beat the Spirs many times. Fish was crucial, 4th guy in the last b2b titles behind Kobe, Pau, and Lamar

Plus, Fish along with Kobe were the Laker killers when Shaq used to get into foul trouble and had subpar games against the Twins Towers of Duncan and Robinson from 99-03. Kobe dominated the Spurs and Fish had that memorable NBA Record for best 3 pt shooting in a 4 game sweep of the 01 Conference finals, when he went 15-20 beyond the arch (75%) against what was at that team a juggernaut defensive Spurs team.

Fish also had that 0.4 shot game 5 of the 03 semis @ San Antonio to take a 3-2 lead and eventually dethrone the defending champs.

Giraffes Rule
06-07-2012, 12:40 AM
This and the 1st post in this thread is why people will never admit the Spurs just arent very good and their style of play will not win titles anymore. One blaming the loss on Duncans old age (while throughout the season blaming the Spurs great season on Duncans savvy cause of his age) and then someone saying no one expected nothing from The Spurs, WHEN EVERYONE (except me because I am a realist) said the Spurs were going to win the title this year. Look up posts and the " i wouldnt be surprised if the Spurs won it all this year" and the rest of the same ole cliches from each year, it is like people join the wagon to pick the Spurs so they can seem like NBA experts.
Meanwhile I have been right about them for years and am always ridiculed for saying "they are done" or "they will not win an nba title" just to be vindicated when they get eliminated like tonight.

The Spurs are done and have been for a while, people should just stop already

Where did I blame the loss on Duncan's age? I was replying specifically to him questioning Duncan's legacy because of what has happened the past two years. It's like questioning Michael Jordan for what he did on the Wizards.

kblo247
06-07-2012, 12:42 AM
dont forget they got swept by the Spurs....

they still lost and they did have Kobe and Shaq.....spurs undefeated in the finals.......numbers dont lie....

TIM DUNCAN: The best player in the post jordan era!........period!

Yeah the lockout spurs swept the Lakers in 99, Kobe's first year starting under Rambis.

The Lakers swept them in 2001 and Kobe, Fish, and Shaq all destroyed them. 2002 they killed them. Spurs won in 03. Lakers won in 04 with the backdoor sweep when the Spurs were up 2-0. If you bring up .4, remember that Horry missed that three the year before when the Lakers would have backdoor swept then as well. Then the Lakers with the youngest team to make the finals, and Pau and Lamar having no winning playoff experience hit em with 4-1.

Pop said it himself "Kobe was the best player on the floor in their multiple series". Kobe's numbers vs the Spurs speak for themselves, as do the fact Shaq was dominant.

Kobe and Shaq go over Tim IMO and all the legacy talk that applied to them whenever they failed even now for Kobe or the past couple years should be equated to Tim unless of you are a believer in Good Job, Good Effort.


By being contained by inferior bigs to him talent level wise, and then getting thoroughly outplayed the year before without being able to defend Marc or Zach? The guy had the best record in the league, he was rested to be fresh, they were picked to win, had hca, and they choked. How can the choke bolster his legacy the past two years, as he is in two select groups: 1 seeds to lose to an 8 and teams to go up 2-0 and lose the next 4 (twice). That logic doesn't compute.

It can be and is a double standard, but let's look at it like it is Kobe has played more and won more than Duncan, yet losses should impact his legacy while Tim gets a boost from moral victories? Shaq has won more than Duncan as he played in more finals, more minutes, and scored more yet his legacy should be impacted by the Bulls **** up with Miami and his last years? Why is that not universal? Hell why is Tim even being above either man brought into the question with the *** kicking they have put on him in their careers?

kblo247
06-07-2012, 12:44 AM
Plus, Fish along with Kobe were the Laker killers when Shaq used to get into foul trouble and had subpar games against the Twins Towers of Duncan and Robinson from 99-03. Kobe dominated the Spurs and Fish had that memorable NBA Record for best 3 pt shooting in a 4 game sweep of the 01 Conference finals, when he went 15-20 beyond the arch (75%) against what was at that team a juggernaut defensive Spurs team.

Fish also had that 0.4 shot game 5 of the 03 semis @ San Antonio to take a 3-2 lead and eventually dethrone the defending champs.

Fish also took over in 02 with Kobe after he hurt his hand and Shaq in foul trouble on the bench vs the mighty towers and kept the game close enough for them to win it late. In fact he drew the defense, missed the shot, but the floor was off balance and Kobe took a rebound from both towers and powered up to lay it in and break them.

Sadds The Gr8
06-07-2012, 12:47 AM
Think he means Kobe, Phil, and Fish in 09-10 as they went to three finals and won 2 rings. In fact they were the youngest title team of the past two decades and youngest team to reach back to back finals. That is more impressive than the gaps the Spurs have had where they win a ring and then can't even get out the west for years before winning again.

no it isnt...and who cares about the youngest team thing? it's not like they were all 25> like OKC.

sharqstealth
06-07-2012, 12:49 AM
This is the second time that the spurs have been back door swept.
- Lakers 2004 up 2-0
- OKC 2012 up 2-0

This also marks yet another loss with hca
- Lakers 2004
- Dallas 2006
- Memphis 2011
- OKC 2012

They have also been swept the regular way
- Lakers 2001
- Suns 2010

How does this impact the legacy of Duncan? Should he be described as choking in these situations? Discuss!

No way I consider this a choke. First of all this is team basketball and it's not on Duncan alone. Knowing his age and capabilities, not many especially during the beginning of the season have expected them to went this far. This season is more of an over achievement for the Spurs than a lost. OKC was just as better but younger and it showed. Spurs simply ran out of gas due to their age, that 1 day rest interval in between games might just not be favorable for older teams.

But looking ahead, I think the team needs to blow their lineup and start rebuilding with younger guys, just like what the Lakers and Mavs should be doing. Let's face it none of those 3 teams will be competing with OKC in the near future with the core of their team built as is...

kblo247
06-07-2012, 01:07 AM
Manu might be dealt IMO as he and RJ when they had him were given stupid deals

naps
06-07-2012, 01:17 AM
No ones should be criticized in the league for anything as long as LeBron James is alive. Everyone can do all wrong and still should get free pass as long as his name is not LeBron.

PatsSoxKnicks
06-07-2012, 01:35 AM
No, Spurs>Lakers regardless if they didn't "defend" the championship. This is honestly the biggest piece of s**t argument I've read on this site, never before have I ever heard someone disregard someone's legacy just because they didn't repeat.

It's really just an argument Kobephiles pulled outta their *** when they realized Duncan has had the better overall career.

You speak the truth

kblo247
06-07-2012, 02:02 AM
He speaks a fallacy

LA has won more titles, been to more finals meaning they won the west more, defended their titles, had more all stars, and own the head to head matchup in the playoffs.

KB-Pau-DH2012
06-07-2012, 02:04 AM
Fish also took over in 02 with Kobe after he hurt his hand and Shaq in foul trouble on the bench vs the mighty towers and kept the game close enough for them to win it late. In fact he drew the defense, missed the shot, but the floor was off balance and Kobe took a rebound from both towers and powered up to lay it in and break them.

Ah yes, I remember that play. Kobe dribbled the ball off his foot, and the ball almost rolled to backcourt, but Fish saved it right before the halfcourt line, pulled up about a foot behind the free throw line, clanked it and Kobe with the put back over the twin towers. Ahhh, nostalgic! :)

KB-Pau-DH2012
06-07-2012, 02:14 AM
Also want to add that Kobe is undefeated all time after winning game 1 of a playoff series. Timmy has lost many series while still leading 1-0.

Okay, I'm done.

b@llhog24
06-07-2012, 02:15 AM
To me those are dynasties. San Antonio couldn't even when their conference in back to back years ever. It is a weird scenario

Everybody isn't like you however so opinions differ and yours is apparently in the minority.


Please shut up......yes they are a dynasty just like the lakers and so forth quite trying to start crap.....heres a stat at least when the spurs go to the finals they lose to Detroit!

:laugh2:


who the **** cares? they had 4 rings in what, 8-9 years? that's automatically a dynasty.

This.


Ya sure, you can call the Pop-Duncan (the constants) Spurs a dynasty. No worries.

But BECAUSE they did not repeat or 3peat like Phil-Kobe-Fish (the constants) Lakers, the Lakers dynasty trump the Spurs dynasty in the post-Jordan era.


You go by who owned the NBA.....it was Magic's Lakers over Bird's Celtics in the 80s, MJ's Bulls over Hakeem's Rockets in the 90s, and Kobe's Lakers over Duncan's Spurs in the 2k's.

Plain and simple!!!

How so?


No, Spurs>Lakers regardless if they didn't "defend" the championship. This is honestly the biggest piece of s**t argument I've read on this site, never before have I ever heard someone disregard someone's legacy just because they didn't repeat.

It's really just an argument Kobephiles pulled outta their *** when they realized Duncan has had the better overall career.

:love: Marry me.

sunsfan88
06-07-2012, 04:14 AM
Is anyone else gonna miss those end of the 1st QTR and 3rd QTR interviews with Pop?

http://www.iamagm.com/news/2012/06/06/comedy.gregg.popovich.says.four.words.total.during .game.interview.game.5

JayW_1023
06-07-2012, 04:52 AM
Playing team ball wil get you far, but once a more talented team figures it out...there is only so much you can do.

Sssmush
06-07-2012, 05:53 AM
San Antonio has somewhat overacheived this year. They are a great team, and Duncan is playing amazing.

OKC is just a monster. I tried to tell some posters here after OKC beat the Lakers that Duncan and Westbrook are absolutely magnificent, and that having them on the same team with Harden (who I don't despise like I initially did, and grudgingly respect now) as well as Sefolosha and Ibaka, is just insane.

OKC is an incredibly talented team. Even when the Spurs went up 2-0, I didn't even blink. I still knew that San Antonio had virtually NO CHANCE in the series, even with a two games to zero lead. That's just a fact.

If you saw the first two games, OKC looked really tight and was missing a lot of shots, and was daunted by HCA and the 20 game win streak. It was OBVIOUS that San Antonio was just waking up the monster, though, and when that monster was awakened, exactly what happened would happen in short order. I actually predicted OKC in 7 after dropping the first two (I did think it would be 1-1 after 2), but as far as I'm concerned the outcome was never in doubt.

btw, if the Lakers had pulled through and beat OKC, Lakers would very likely have beaten San Antonio as well. Somebody on here said the Lakers v OKC was the real West Finals and that may or may not have been true... but anyway Spurs fans should not get down on their team, OKC is unstoppable.

Westbrook against Parker is like a ferrari against a fiat. I mean there's just no comparison, and Durant is an absolute monster.

Mell413
06-07-2012, 06:23 AM
I don't think this should affect his legacy at all. He's pretty much at the end of his career. Hard to blame him for not keeping up with Durant and Co. Also this defending the title thing is non sense. You can only defend something that can be taken away. You can't take away those Spurs titles

JayW_1023
06-07-2012, 09:11 AM
San Antonio has somewhat overacheived this year. They are a great team, and Duncan is playing amazing.

OKC is just a monster. I tried to tell some posters here after OKC beat the Lakers that Duncan and Westbrook are absolutely magnificent, and that having them on the same team with Harden (who I don't despise like I initially did, and grudgingly respect now) as well as Sefolosha and Ibaka, is just insane.

OKC is an incredibly talented team. Even when the Spurs went up 2-0, I didn't even blink. I still knew that San Antonio had virtually NO CHANCE in the series, even with a two games to zero lead. That's just a fact.

If you saw the first two games, OKC looked really tight and was missing a lot of shots, and was daunted by HCA and the 20 game win streak. It was OBVIOUS that San Antonio was just waking up the monster, though, and when that monster was awakened, exactly what happened would happen in short order. I actually predicted OKC in 7 after dropping the first two (I did think it would be 1-1 after 2), but as far as I'm concerned the outcome was never in doubt.

btw, if the Lakers had pulled through and beat OKC, Lakers would very likely have beaten San Antonio as well. Somebody on here said the Lakers v OKC was the real West Finals and that may or may not have been true... but anyway Spurs fans should not get down on their team, OKC is unstoppable.

Westbrook against Parker is like a ferrari against a fiat. I mean there's just no comparison, and Durant is an absolute monster.


Not a chance.

LakersMaster24
06-07-2012, 10:00 AM
San Antonio has somewhat overacheived this year. They are a great team, and Duncan is playing amazing.

OKC is just a monster. I tried to tell some posters here after OKC beat the Lakers that Duncan and Westbrook are absolutely magnificent, and that having them on the same team with Harden (who I don't despise like I initially did, and grudgingly respect now) as well as Sefolosha and Ibaka, is just insane.

OKC is an incredibly talented team. Even when the Spurs went up 2-0, I didn't even blink. I still knew that San Antonio had virtually NO CHANCE in the series, even with a two games to zero lead. That's just a fact.

If you saw the first two games, OKC looked really tight and was missing a lot of shots, and was daunted by HCA and the 20 game win streak. It was OBVIOUS that San Antonio was just waking up the monster, though, and when that monster was awakened, exactly what happened would happen in short order. I actually predicted OKC in 7 after dropping the first two (I did think it would be 1-1 after 2), but as far as I'm concerned the outcome was never in doubt.

btw, if the Lakers had pulled through and beat OKC, Lakers would very likely have beaten San Antonio as well. Somebody on here said the Lakers v OKC was the real West Finals and that may or may not have been true... but anyway Spurs fans should not get down on their team, OKC is unstoppable.

Westbrook against Parker is like a ferrari against a fiat. I mean there's just no comparison, and Durant is an absolute monster.


Not a chance.

So good enough to beat OKC, but "not a chance" to beat the Spurs? Funny stuff.

HouRealCoach
06-07-2012, 10:19 AM
Duncan is not perfect.. Hell Kobe has quit in many games while on the brink of elimination but nobody will remember that because he has 5 rings and that's ALL that matters

Duncan has always been a championship contender, won 50+ games in the last 13 years, 4 Championships, 3 Finals MVP's, 2 MVP's He has put up those amazing stats, HE has hit clutch shots, He is the GREAT PF OF ALL TIME! HANDS DOWN

He & Kobe are the 2 greatest players of this generation... This thread is a shame

BigCityofDreams
06-07-2012, 10:23 AM
Duncan is not perfect.. Hell Kobe has quit in many games while on the brink of elimination but nobody will remember that because he has 5 rings and that's ALL that matters

Duncan has always been a championship contender, won 50+ games in the last 13 years, 4 Championships, 3 Finals MVP's, 2 MVP's He has put up those amazing stats, HE has hit clutch shots, He is the GREAT PF OF ALL TIME! HANDS DOWN

He & Kobe are the 2 greatest players of this generation... This thread is a shame

What about Shaq or does he not count because he started earlier than Kobe and Tim?

kobebabe
06-07-2012, 10:49 AM
No Duncan is a great player and played pretty well for the most part! They just got outplayed but a young athletic and talented Thunder team!

superior
06-07-2012, 11:06 AM
The best record in the league two years straight and picked to win it all or at least the west is no expectations?

I'm not even sure you can refer to them as the traditional dynasty as the teams like Boston, LA, Chicago, and Houston won their title, got back to the finals and defended it, and in the case of LA and Chicago 3 peated. To me those are dynasties. San Antonio couldn't even when their conference in back to back years ever. It is a weird scenario

im pretty sure the bulls had the best record last year. I CANT STAND when people talk before they know the facts!

I Rock Shaqs
06-07-2012, 11:09 AM
LOL i just notice KB-PAU-DD2012 has almost 8,000 posts and hes been here since Dec.11, lol do you ever go outside, let alone play basketball.

ManningToTyree
06-07-2012, 11:22 AM
he has four rings and is the greatest PF of all-time. If he never wins another playoff game his legacy will not change.

Swashcuff
06-07-2012, 11:32 AM
Duncan's TEAM lost and he's labelled a choker :laugh2:

Chronz
06-07-2012, 11:36 AM
In his prime how can you hold it against him for getting his team to overachieve? Having HCA doesnt mean you have the best team, it means you have the most regular season wins. If you ignore all context and focus solely on HCA, you become a robot, like JB. The game is influences by alot of factors, lets not boil everything down to winning and losing with HCA.

RLundi
06-07-2012, 11:59 AM
In his prime how can you hold it against him for getting his team to overachieve? Having HCA doesnt mean you have the best team, it means you have the most regular season wins. If you ignore all context and focus solely on HCA, you become a robot, like JB. The game is influences by alot of factors, lets not boil everything down to winning and losing with HCA.

:laugh2:

avrpatsfan
06-07-2012, 12:14 PM
Duncan is the best PF ever. End of story.

JordansBulls
06-07-2012, 12:59 PM
Well Duncan is now 23-6 in series with HCA

To compare that to the alltime greats that are top 10-15 here are there records

Michael Jordan 24-0 in series with HCA
Kareem 34-5 in series with HCA
Russell 22-1 in series with HCA
Magic 29-3 in series with HCA
Bird 24-7 in series with HCA
Wilt 13-5 in series with HCA
Hakeem 9-2 in series with HCA
Shaq 24-5 in Series with HCA
Kobe 27-2 in series with HCA and 25-2 in series where he was a starter.



HCA(50+)/non-50
Jordan: 14-0 / 10-0
Russell: 10-0 / 12-1
Shaq: 11-2 / 12-2
Magic: 9-2 / 20-1
Duncan: 15-5 / 8-1
Jabbar: 11-3 / 23-2
Olajuwon: 4-0 / 5-2
Bird: 10-6 / 14-1
Wilt: 4-3 / 9-2
Kobe: 18-2 / 6-0


Here are the other power forwards all time as well


vs 50 win teams/non-50 win teams
Garnett: 3-2 (60%) /6-0 (100%)
Dirk: 6-2 (75%) /2-1 (67%)
Malone: 4-4 (50%) /8-2 (80%)
Barkley: 2-1 (67%) /8-1 (89%)


KG 9-2
Dirk 9-3
Malone 12-6
Barkley 10-2

Chronz
06-07-2012, 01:11 PM
Thats a start JB, but now lets discuss how many times he lost with the better team IN HIS PRIME.

JordansBulls
06-07-2012, 02:00 PM
thats a start jb, but now lets discuss how many times he lost with the better team in his prime.

2001, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2012

Sadds The Gr8
06-07-2012, 02:01 PM
In his prime how can you hold it against him for getting his team to overachieve? Having HCA doesnt mean you have the best team, it means you have the most regular season wins. If you ignore all context and focus solely on HCA, you become a robot, like JB. The game is influences by alot of factors, lets not boil everything down to winning and losing with HCA.


Well Duncan is now 23-6 in series with HCA

To compare that to the alltime greats that are top 10-15 here are there records

Michael Jordan 24-0 in series with HCA
Kareem 34-5 in series with HCA
Russell 22-1 in series with HCA
Magic 29-3 in series with HCA
Bird 24-7 in series with HCA
Wilt 13-5 in series with HCA
Hakeem 9-2 in series with HCA
Shaq 24-5 in Series with HCA
Kobe 27-2 in series with HCA and 25-2 in series where he was a starter.



HCA(50+)/non-50
Jordan: 14-0 / 10-0
Russell: 10-0 / 12-1
Shaq: 11-2 / 12-2
Magic: 9-2 / 20-1
Duncan: 15-5 / 8-1
Jabbar: 11-3 / 23-2
Olajuwon: 4-0 / 5-2
Bird: 10-6 / 14-1
Wilt: 4-3 / 9-2
Kobe: 18-2 / 6-0


Here are the other power forwards all time as well


vs 50 win teams/non-50 win teams
Garnett: 3-2 (60%) /6-0 (100%)
Dirk: 6-2 (75%) /2-1 (67%)
Malone: 4-4 (50%) /8-2 (80%)
Barkley: 2-1 (67%) /8-1 (89%)


KG 9-2
Dirk 9-3
Malone 12-6
Barkley 10-2

loooooooooool

GSW Hoops
06-07-2012, 02:35 PM
You can't penalize a team for making it deep into the playoffs year after year. It shows they are consistently good.

Would you rather the Spurs miss the playoffs altogether? Wouldn't that hurt Duncan's legacy more?

Chronz
06-07-2012, 02:56 PM
2001, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2012

LOL I said IN HIS PRIME

If you think Duncan has been in his prime the last 2 years then your off your meds.

Your wrong about 2001.

I dont know about 2004. You really think he had a better squad than the Lakers with 4 HOF'ers?

2006, I would agree but they had that series in the bag before Manu made that dumb foul.

2009 is arguable too, I know they did well but in the playoffs you need your best players and playing without Manu was too tall a task IMO.

dh144498
06-07-2012, 03:41 PM
Really makes a statement about who the best player is since jordan's retirement.

kblo247
06-07-2012, 06:46 PM
LOL I said IN HIS PRIME

If you think Duncan has been in his prime the last 2 years then your off your meds.

Your wrong about 2001.

I dont know about 2004. You really think he had a better squad than the Lakers with 4 HOF'ers?

2006, I would agree but they had that series in the bag before Manu made that dumb foul.

2009 is arguable too, I know they did well but in the playoffs you need your best players and playing without Manu was too tall a task IMO.

Playoff Payton sucked donkey balls, they had no good backup PF or C with Horace hurt, and Fox was done while Russell had both legs in the grave

Parker, Tim, Manu, Bowen, Horry, Rasho, and crew were up 2-0 with hca. They got out willed plain and simple in that game 4 by Kobe and then Fisgher broke their back in 5. They out right quit late in 6 like last night.

It is still a choke to me when people hyped em up, called them the best just like last year, and they blew it. They were up 2-0 and lost the next 4 with hca. Last year they lost to the 8th seed and Tim got dominated by both Marc and Zach, as whoever he took kicked his ***, which ain't and didn't happen to Kobe even this year, Shaq in his last years, or Karl. Tim couldn't defend his guy va Memphis or offset either bigs production. This year they just outright choked healthy, with hc, and with expectations after being praised and winning 20 straight

JordansBulls
06-08-2012, 07:57 PM
LOL I said IN HIS PRIME

If you think Duncan has been in his prime the last 2 years then your off your meds.

Your wrong about 2001.

I dont know about 2004. You really think he had a better squad than the Lakers with 4 HOF'ers?

2006, I would agree but they had that series in the bag before Manu made that dumb foul.

2009 is arguable too, I know they did well but in the playoffs you need your best players and playing without Manu was too tall a task IMO.

In his prime matters to, but also being on a championship caliber team does as well no matter the age especially when you are the top seed.

KB-Pau-DH2012
06-08-2012, 08:01 PM
You can't penalize a team for making it deep into the playoffs year after year. It shows they are consistently good.

Would you rather the Spurs miss the playoffs altogether? Wouldn't that hurt Duncan's legacy more?

The Spurs don't have deep playoff runs every year.

After their first championship in 99, they lost in the first round in 2000 to PHX.

2002-2nd round

2004-2nd round

2006-2nd round

2009-1st rd

2010-2nd rd

2011-1st


Deep postseason means conference finals or nba finals.

Chronz
06-08-2012, 11:47 PM
Playoff Payton sucked donkey balls, they had no good backup PF or C with Horace hurt, and Fox was done while Russell had both legs in the grave

Parker, Tim, Manu, Bowen, Horry, Rasho, and crew were up 2-0 with hca. They got out willed plain and simple in that game 4 by Kobe and then Fisgher broke their back in 5. They out right quit late in 6 like last night.
Yea but the Lakers were 33-9 when Malone played and looked invincible to me during the beginning and end stretch with him back in the fold. Not having Horace really only hurt in the Finals but I wont argue too much against you here. The Spurs werent so devoid of talent that they couldnt win the series. I dont like blaming Duncan too much because I felt they swarmed him and clogged up the middle for TP but the Lakers executed their defensive game plan to perfection, wouldnt make sense to discredit that.


It is still a choke to me when people hyped em up, called them the best just like last year, and they blew it. They were up 2-0 and lost the next 4 with hca. Last year they lost to the 8th seed and Tim got dominated by both Marc and Zach, as whoever he took kicked his ***, which ain't and didn't happen to Kobe even this year, Shaq in his last years, or Karl. Tim couldn't defend his guy va Memphis or offset either bigs production. This year they just outright choked healthy, with hc, and with expectations after being praised and winning 20 straight
He was past his prime the last 2 years, which doesnt exactly exonerate him but clearly it doesnt carry as much weight as it would in his prime. And with regards to Shaq, kind of hard to say he had a better run than Duncan when at the same age he was getting ousted in R.1 by Duncan. While I always tell people Duncan only did his damage when Shaq was on the bench, the fact remains Shaq at 35 didnt play as well as Duncan at 35. I agree he didnt play as bad as Duncan did last year but he was also playing hurt, tho Im sure you'll just fault him for getting hurt


In his prime matters to, but also being on a championship caliber team does as well no matter the age especially when you are the top seed.
Well you have to temper your expectations on how much Duncan can exert his will on the game at that point and to be honest Duncan was the only guy who raised his game from the playoffs to the regular season in spite of playing more minutes. TP, Manu and Tiago let the Spurs down more than TD did IMO, Leonard wasnt the same against OKC either but thats expected of a rookie. Basically it was a team that won with depth and youth, 2 things that become less relevant in the post season. They werent that far from the Finals, OKC hit some huge shots. Its a fine line between winning and losing and Im prolly alone on this but so much gos into winning that its hard to blame the one guy who brought his A game in the last 3 games and was carrying a bigger load than he had in the regular season and doing so admirably.