Every poster in this thread has made their same argument a thousand times. Clearly nobody is going to change their views. Can we all just agree to disagree and send this thread straight to hell so it can burn?

quote:

---

Duncan has been consistently better. He never had the maturity problems that Hakeem had. Hakeem had a higher peak, but he didn't sustain his amazing play in the 95 playoffs that everyone associates with him for his whole career.

---

What are you basing "consistency" on? Hakeem had 4 more 20 point seasons than Duncan. He averaged a double-double until the same age (34) as Duncan, which was 1 more season in Duncan's case. Now, you could say Hakeem held on too long. His last three seasons were especially forgettable. Duncan meanwhile looks great this year and like he can keep going.

Hakeem retired in the top 10 in points, rebounds, steals, and blocks. Hakeem is still the steals leader for big men and #1 shot blocker by a lot. If Duncan were to retire this season, he would be top 10 in blocks, and that's it. He's very close in rebounds though, assuming Garnett retires as well.

I agree with Houston just let this thread die.

quote:

---

sadly, Malone never won any titles, only won One MVP. It's funny, the same people who say "robert horry winning 7 rings shouldn't mean anything" will say "duncan has 4 ringzzz!!!!!" when comparing Duncan with other players.

---

You're logic can be dumb as s*** sometimes. The difference is that hotry was never the best player on his team. Can't really be used as a talkin point.

Saying Malone is better than Duncan is flat out retarded. Literally one of the dumbest things I've ever heard on texags.

quote:

---

ask anyone outside of San Antonio and Houston over the age of 35 and they would say Hakeem > Duncan

---

That's just simply not true.

Look, you could make the argument either way on Duncan vs the dream, but Duncan vs Malone has been settled for years. And I'm tired of people acting like Duncan is clearly better than Hakeem because of x reason or tht Hakeem is clearly better because of y. Why not call it a tie? Why does one have to be considered better than the other? They played different positions in their prime in different eras. It's pretty hard to get a fair winner.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Until the tail end of this discussion, I'd forgotten how much Olajuwon carried that 1994 team. It was one of the more impressive championship runs

---

The 94 Rockets and the 11 Mavs are probably the only two teams in history to win a title with 1 star player

I mean i guess you might count Kidd for the Mavs but he was so far past his prime during this run

---

As it had already been said, Duncan was the only active star on that 03 team. Many, tony, and Dave were not playing like stars at that time.

When your argument is "everyone in (demographic) agrees with me!" You are doing pretty poorly.

60,000,000 people just voted for Obama again and you want me to take their opinion on something?

quote:

---

Kerr hit 5 threes in the playoffs. Peja hit more than Dirk in the playoffs - 29.

---

85% of Peja's 3s were in the first 2 rounds. He was a liability after that big 21 point Lakers game due to his back giving out.

quote:

---

Kerr had a good impact on one game, but played 46 total minutes in 24 games. So a little less than two minutes per game.

---

Kerr saved a game 6 loss with his historic 4th quarter. We all know now that the Spurs aren't automatic in home game 7s. Peja put the final dagger in the Lakers but was useless the next 2 rounds.

quote:

---

quote:
The '03 Lakers were a Robert Horry three away from beating the Spurs. They were much better than they are being given credit for...

And the difference between '03 Shaq and Kobe vs the '11 Bron/Wade/Bosh is only three (consecutive) championship. Seems completely logical to make that conclusion...

Indeed. The 03 Lakers were the only Lakers team in a 5 year stretch to not make the Finals because the Spurs beat them.

---

And the 11 Lakers were cruising to their 4th straight Finals.



Here's Guitarsoup in 2003 on the Lakers future:

quote:

---

http://texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?forum_id=7&topic_id=215729&message_id=2500294&hi=1#r2500294

Topic: For those of you who think the Lakers have good role players

Guitarsoup
posted 7:57p, 04/13/03



Shaq disagrees.

quote:
Pothole-hitting, tire-flattening Lakers C Shaquille O'Neal had a lunch meeting with general manager Mitch Kupchak last week, and O'Neal was able to let off a little steam. O'Neal has never angled to have a say in personnel moves, but clearly, he's not happy with the quality of players around him. Kupchak was not very aggressive last summer, choosing to stand pat with his roster rather than pursue veteran help, and it's safe to say, O'Neal would like that to change next year. . . .


Per Sporting News, Sean Deveney

AgEfan
posted 8:11p, 04/13/03



He didn't say he didn't like their role players, it sounds like he thinks they have too many "role" players and now enough just good players. A lot of the good teams have atleast 3 to 4 good players and then some role players and the Lakers have two good players and a bunch of role players. You don't want a team of about 10 role players you want a few role players. Make any sense or am I just talking out of my @ss?

Guitarsoup
posted 8:19p, 04/13/03



Makes perfect sense, and it goes to what I have been saying all year. The Lakers dont have the tools. They have two players they can count on. The other top four teams have better players after their studs and provide matchup problems for the Lakers.

Its nice to see it come from Shaq's mouth, not just mine.

AgEfan
posted 8:26p, 04/13/03



But they havent had it in the past either and it hasn't stopped them. I think if Kobe and Shaq stay healthy they will beat the Mavs and the Kings but after those two hard faught series I can't see them winning their next series.

Guitarsoup
posted 8:31p, 04/13/03



I disagree. I think Robert Horry and Rick Fox were impact players on a different level before.

Fox's knee and Horry's age has greatly slowed them and it has shown this year. Fisher looked like he was on the brink of stardom in previous playoffs, but has never turned the corner.

George hasn't progressed into the impact player they need. The Rush acquisition scared the crap outta me at first, but it looks pretty weak now. I woulda rather had Lindsey Hunter.

The team has done nothing to get better, and with aging stars, bringing in some scrub that used to be great every other year doesnt help. Mitch Richmond, JR Rider, Dennis Rodman. its a joke.

The Lakers do not have the team to win it all anymore. They would beat anyone in a 2-on-2 tournament. 3-on-3 they would have problems and 5-on-5 they can be exploited.

The Spurs and Kings have done nothing but get better. Both have gotten young players and have developed them well.

---

[This message has been edited by InternetFan02 (edited 6/2/2013 1:29p).]

Digging up internet posts ten years old. Bringing internet obsession to a while new level

That are some interesting quotes he found, though...

quote:

---

Digging up internet posts ten years old. Bringing internet obsession to a while new level

---

says the Spurs fan who spent time researching a decade old Dirk knee injury to prove his point that an old Spurs team was much worse than we remember

Very interesting quotes.

love these threads

quote:

---

quote:

---

Digging up internet posts ten years old. Bringing internet obsession to a while new level

---

says the Spurs fan who spent time researching a decade old Dirk knee injury to prove his point that an old Spurs team was much worse than we remember

---

I Didn't spend a second digging up information on old injuries. You did that.

quote:

---

85% of Peja's 3s were in the first 2 rounds. He was a liability after that big 21 point Lakers game due to his back giving out.

---

The man hit ~30 threes. Kerr hit 5 for the entire playoffs. Peja unquestionably had more impact on the playoff run than Kerr.

quote:

---

We all know now that the Spurs aren't automatic in home game 7s.

---

The Spurs first played a game seven [home or away] in the Duncan era in 2004. The Spurs have played in 3 series total that went to seven games, all after this game.

quote:

---

Makes perfect sense, and it goes to what I have been saying all year. The Lakers dont have the tools. They have two players they can count on. The other top four teams have better players after their studs and provide matchup problems for the Lakers.

---

And I was ****ing right. The Lakers got terrible play from their bench and role players, most notably Robert Horry who went like 2-33 in the playoffs because they didn't have enough bench and made him play like 35+ mpg in the playoffs until Phil finally decided the wheels had come off.

Robert Horry couldn't handle the minutes. Rick Fox was done. Brian Shaw was done. Devean George was supposed to be a lot better than he was, but never turned the corner. They got good play out of Fisher and that is pretty much it outside Kobe and Shaq.

So the Spurs beat a team with two of the top 15 players ever with both players in their prime (Kobe was 24 and averaged 32/5/5 for the playoffs; Shaq was 30 and averaged 27/15/4/3 for the playoffs.) Fisher averaged 13 and hit 62% of his threes.

Yes, Malik Rose was a spare, but he certainly had more to offer than Robert Horry playing 35MPG.


Everything you quoted of mine from before the playoffs was 100% correct. Thanks for pointing out that even 10 years ago, I was correctly analyzing the teams in the playoffs. The Lakers undoing was players #3-7, while #1a and 1b were kicking ass at their peak. And the Spurs were able to take advantage of the Lakers weakness and win it all. Just as I said 10 years ago. All that said, they were still the three-time defending Champions and they had two of the top 15 players ever in their prime and Duncan beat them without a lot of help from his role players.

quote:

---

The Spurs and Kings have done nothing but get better. Both have gotten young players and have developed them well.

---

Again, true. The Spurs were trying to retool with DRob being done and in two years had picked up Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and Stephen Jackson - pretty much all out of thin air. All were developing well, but none were stars at the time. Ginobili showed flashes of greatness but was an 8ppg 7th man. SJax could score in buckets, but also had 3+ turnovers in half the playoff games despite never being the ball handler. SJax did turn into a pretty good player after he left San Antonio and was even an MVP candidate [using your own definition of 6th Man Award Candidate.) I think Ginobili, Parker and SJax all exceeded the expectations that we had for the three of them at the time. But they were role players in 2003 and nothing more. And all were erratic and frustrating throughout the playoffs in 2003. Spurs also had Speedy Claxton, who I thought they would resign, but he was apparently a one year rental.

It must suck to spend all that time to look up those quotes from 10 years ago and come away with nothing useful at all for your argument. All you could find was playoff predictions which didn't contradict my statements of fact now.

Bottom line, Spurs beat a three-peat Lakers CHAMPIONSHIP team with two top 15 all-time NBA players with Duncan playing out of his mind despite erratic play from his role players (which was everyone other than Duncan.)


You must have had a kick ass weekend.

[This message has been edited by Guitarsoup (edited 6/3/2013 9:07a).]

Thanks for the history lesson which further reinforces my argument that the 03 Lakers were not a legitimate title contender compared to other seasons.

You just called a team that won three straight championships and has two of the top 15 best players ever in their prime and healthy 'not a legitimate title contender?"

You have mental issues. Seriously.

Enjoy that weekend of looking through 10^278967 of my posts from ten years ago? Pathetic.

quote:

---

You just called a team that won three straight championships and has two of the top 15 best players ever in their prime and healthy 'not a legitimate title contender?"

---

they weren't the same contender compared to other seasons and thats exactly what you said. You're arguing with yourself now. Have fun!

Kobe was 24 and averaged 32/5/5 for the playoffs; Shaq was 30 and averaged 27/15/4/3 for the playoffs.

Two of the top 15 players ever playing at their peak.

Shaq and Kobe BOTH made the 42 Club that you were so hopeful Dirk would make to help his legacy: 27.0+14.8+3.7 for Shaq and 32.1+5.2+5.1 for Kobe.

The Lakers were still very good. But they didn't get enough help from 3-7 to beat Tim Duncan at his peak playing one of the greatest playoff performances in the history of the NBA. 25/15/5/3

Keep trying to deflect. Maybe you can dig up other quotes from ten years ago that will support my statements.

quote:

---

Shaq and Kobe BOTH made the 42 Club that you were so hopeful Dirk would make to help his legacy: 27.0+14.8+3.7 for Shaq and 32.1+5.2+5.1 for Kobe.

---

The exclusive 42 club requires a 13 game minimum. Lol at Simmons creating this list and setting the cutoff to leave out a Shaq-Kobe season. Where would you be in this thread without having me as a fact checker?

You seem to have plenty of time if you are digging through tens of thousands of posts that are ten years old. Knock yourself out.

Somehow fully healthy Kobe and Shaq in their primes is somehow less impressive than hobbled Kobe that had to spend the summer getting treated in Germany. Good call.

[This message has been edited by Guitarsoup (edited 6/3/2013 11:22a).]

And you keep pretending like you don't know how the search function works.

No one has done anything to show how the 2003 Lakers as a team were better than the 2011 Lakers as a team. And even if you can convince yourself on that no one has attempted to compare the 2011 Heat to anyone else the Spurs played in 03. You won't admit that the 2011 Mavs faced a tougher road to the Title, which is obvious to any observer.

[This message has been edited by Internetfan02 (edited 6/3/2013 11:57a).]

Cokehead

Pittance

Why do ya'll keep coming back then?

Something interesting of note and pertinent to the conversation...

Stolen from another thread:

quote:

---

There's a reason that teams don't get there 4 straight years.

---

If there was one similarity between the '11 and '03 Lakers, (aside from Kobe and Phil), it was that both had played in three straight NBA Finals.

History wasn't on either team's side to make it back...

Either case, I don't think there is a fair comparison between the two squads. The game had changed considerably between those two runs.

The '11 Heat are also a hard comparison. They were clearly more talented than anyone the Spurs played in '03, but it was obvious they lacked the mental aspect of the game to win a championship. On the flip side, the '03 Nets were playing in their second consecutive Finals. I know that doesn't mean they were better than the Heat, it just gives some perspective.

The OP is probably sittin back and patting himself on the back after starting this masterful thread. Well done, Texas A&M. Well done