Why Suns fans should be rooting for the Spurs

[wsupkid]

and if malone were on my team I'd be fine with him. I wouldn't want him to be an idiot.. intentionally throwing an elbow because that isn't winning at all costs. that's putting yourself in danger of getting suspended. sending a terrible free throw shooter to the line would be a smart thing.

Spoken like a true TEXAN!

 

[Lorenzo]

Spoken like a true TEXAN!

true. thank you.

 

[elindholm]

As I have said repeatedly (which you texas fans choose to ignore) is that there are a lot of NBA players who shoot around 60% from the ft line. I don't want to see this "strategy" to become a common tactic in the NBA during the playoffs.

It won't, because very few teams average 1.2 points per possession, which is what fouling a 60% free-throw shooter will give up. The strategy is effective against the Suns because their offense is otherwise so potent. Or, was, rather.

 

[Lorenzo]

It won't, because very few teams average 1.2 points per possession, which is what fouling a 60% free-throw shooter will give up. The strategy is effective against the Suns because their offense is otherwise so potent. Or, was, rather.

some good ensight there. which goes to show why pop went to it to end qtrs. he is a great coach no doubt.

 

[cobbler]

are the suns your second to favorite team? that's my whole point. I don't see how fans can have other favorite teams. that's just my opinion. rooting for a guy or another team is different. read my post and you'll see that I made a comment similiar to yours.

Agreed! I have only one team. I do prefer others to win if mine doesn't. Some i just prefer to lose no matter what!

 

[TheHopToad]

If LA and SA meet in the WCF--which team would you take more pleasure in seeing getting beat?

This is a no-brainer for me. My hate for the Spurs is only a few years old. Three of the last four to be exact.
However, my disdain for the Lakers goes back decades, to Kareem beating up Alvan Adams in the late 70s to the Showtime Lakers running us out of the Madhouse in the 80s, to Shaq and Kobe. I respect them all, but dislike them nonetheless.

With the Spurs, it's only the current team and players that have bothered me. With the Lakers, the entire history of the franchise has frustrated the hell out of me.

Go Spurs and Celtics!

 

[Phxchris1989]

I rather have the Lakers win than the Spurs. I never hated a team as much as I hate the Spurs.

Go Lakers!

Totally agreed. I'd put a jihad on the Spurs if I was a religious person.

 

[Lorenzo]

This is a no-brainer for me. My hate for the Spurs is only a few years old. Three of the last four to be exact.
However, my disdain for the Lakers goes back decades, to Kareem beating up Alvan Adams in the late 70s to the Showtime Lakers running us out of the Madhouse in the 80s, to Shaq and Kobe. I respect them all, but dislike them nonetheless.

With the Spurs, it's only the current team and players that have bothered me. With the Lakers, the entire history of the franchise has frustrated the hell out of me.

Go Spurs and Celtics!

I don't want to see that. I'd much rather see the jazz and hornets which would make for a heck of a PG matchup. I think one or both of those teams have a great shot at advancing. sorry spurs and lakers fans.

 

[D-Dogg]

Why would Suns fans root for the Spurs?

That would be like Laker fans rooting for the Celtics.

I mean, these guys have bounced you what, 3 or 4 straight years? Controversy in some series, domination in others...why in the world would you root for this hacking, dirty, * team?

Unreal.

suns fans should root for the Spurs only if they like boring, crap-ass basketball. The suns, though without titles, are 30 times more fun to watch than Duncan and company.

 

[Lorenzo]

Why would Suns fans root for the Spurs?

That would be like Laker fans rooting for the Celtics.

I mean, these guys have bounced you what, 3 or 4 straight years? Controversy in some series, domination in others...why in the world would you root for this hacking, dirty, * team?

Unreal.

suns fans should root for the Spurs only if they like boring, crap-ass basketball. The suns, though without titles, are 30 times more fun to watch than Duncan and company.

I agree that I'd rather watch the suns vs. spurs as opposed to the spurs vs. lakers...or vice versa....suns vs. lakers instead of spurs vs. lakers. well the suns prior to shaq that is because they are more boring now compared to before. however the spurs are the best team in bball until they are beat. they are also the team of the decade over your lakers....playing that boring brand of bball. I'd say it works well for them.

 

[D-Dogg]

I agree that I'd rather watch the suns vs. spurs as opposed to the spurs vs. lakers...or vice versa....suns vs. lakers instead of spurs vs. lakers. well the suns prior to shaq that is because they are more boring now compared to before. however the spurs are the best team in bball until they are beat. they are also the team of the decade over your lakers....playing that boring brand of bball. I'd say it works well for them.

Wait...how are they "the team of the decade?"

They won titles 3 times this decade. So did the Lakers.

I think the "team of the decade" is still up for grabs and Kobe & Pau (this season) and Kobe, Pau, Bynum (next season) have something to say about laying claim to that moniker for the next few years.

 

[Lorenzo]

Wait...how are they "the team of the decade?"

They won titles 3 times this decade. So did the Lakers.

I think the "team of the decade" is still up for grabs and Kobe & Pau (this season) and Kobe, Pau, Bynum (next season) have something to say about laying claim to that moniker for the next few years.

okay over the last ten years they have four.....but even if you want to look at the two thousands.......they have as many titles and they have been in the equation year after year unlike your shaqless lakers. the spurs also have more wins than any other team over that stretch. so I think it's pretty clear to me....from an unbiased point of view because I could care less about any other team outside of dallas.

 

[D-Dogg]

okay over the last ten years they have four.....but even if you want to look at the two thousands.......they have as many titles and they have been in the equation year after year unlike your shaqless lakers. the spurs also have more wins than any other team over that stretch. so I think it's pretty clear to me....from an unbiased point of view because I could care less about any other team outside of dallas.

Titles. 3 and 3.

Spurs aren't the team of the decade by any stretch. They got one in a strike shortened season. In 1999.

More wins? Who cares? It is TITLES. Dallas had more wins than anyone last year and what did it get them? Baron's beard in their face.

Wins are NOTHING. Ask Suns fans. They had great winning seasons...they would trade them in a heartbeat for a title. Titles matter. And right now, the Spurs and Lakers in the 2000's are tied at 3-3.

Unless we change the definition of "decades" and "champions" neither team has the upper hand. Shaqless? Who cares? It's a media term. How many playoff wins do the Shaqless Heat have? The Shaqful suns? It means nothing.

 

[Lorenzo]

Titles. 3 and 3.

Spurs aren't the team of the decade by any stretch. They got one in a strike shortened season. In 1999.

More wins? Who cares? It is TITLES. Dallas had more wins than anyone last year and what did it get them? Baron's beard in their face.

Wins are NOTHING. Ask Suns fans. They had great winning seasons...they would trade them in a heartbeat for a title. Titles matter. And right now, the Spurs and Lakers in the 2000's are tied at 3-3.

Unless we change the definition of "decades" and "champions" neither team has the upper hand. Shaqless? Who cares? It's a media term. How many playoff wins do the Shaqless Heat have? The Shaqful suns? It means nothing.

maybe if I were a lakers fan, I'd think differently. but since i'm not....It is my unbiased opinion that the spurs are the best team over the last ten years. wins don't mean anything? I beg to differ....they sure didn't mean anything to the mavs in the nineties......sarcasm. wins mean everything especially if you are the spurs and have both the wins and the trophies. and they do it as a team rather than rocking the boat like kobe and shaq did. the lakers could of been the team of the decade if they were a better TEAM. but that title belongs to the spurs becuase they exemplify the team concept better than anyone else.

 

[D-Dogg]

maybe if I were a lakers fan, I'd think differently. but since i'm not....It is my unbiased opinion that the spurs are the best team over the last ten years. wins don't mean anything? I beg to differ....they sure didn't mean anything to the mavs in the nineties......sarcasm. wins mean everything especially if you are the spurs and have both the wins and the trophies. and they do it as a team rather than rocking the boat like kobe and shaq did. the lakers could of been the team of the decade if they were a better TEAM. but that title belongs to the spurs becuase they exemplify the team concept better than anyone else.

You are confusing Kobe & Shaq as the "Lakers." They aren't. They are just guys.

Shaq and Kobe could have won more, yes. But that's no more.

But the Lakers aren't Kobe. They aren't Shaq. They aren't Magic, Kareem, worthy, Wilt, West or Mikan. They are the franchise. As a franchise, they are the Lakers, and they aren't done yet this decade.


I do note you've changed to "over the last ten years" instead of "of the decade" which I have to say, yes..the Spurs have more titles. But we'd be arguing different things things then.

Detroit even has claim to "the team of the decade" if they win the next two....though it would make me

 

[Lorenzo]

You are confusing Kobe & Shaq as the "Lakers." They aren't. They are just guys.

Shaq and Kobe could have won more, yes. But that's no more.

But the Lakers aren't Kobe. They aren't Shaq. They aren't Magic, Kareem, worthy, Wilt, West or Mikan. They are the franchise. As a franchise, they are the Lakers, and they aren't done yet this decade.


I do note you've changed to "over the last ten years" instead of "of the decade" which I have to say, yes..the Spurs have more titles. But we'd be arguing different things things then.

Detroit even has claim to "the team of the decade" if they win the next two....though it would make me

I said either way the spurs are the best team over that period last eight year, ten years, ect......either way you spin it. we could keep this going longer and the spurs would still be the best team over that span or any other span besides the three years in a row that the lakers won. other than those three years the spurs have enjoyed more success over the longer period of time. and every other win, title, stat, ect., proves it. detroit of course won a title and sent the lakers for a tail spin there that they have bearly begun to recover from.... so they deserve mention. but the spurs beat them in the finals. my whole point is there was a significant drop off when shaq and those other players left LA. whereas the spurs seemed to stay competitve thruout. the overall winning is the glaring difference between the two even more so than the 4th title....and that's what I think puts SA over the lakers in the last 8-10 years which ever way you go with the arguement. the decade is not through as you say and the spurs can easily win more rings as well as according to you the lakers would have to upset them anyway.

I know you said wins don't matter....and you only measure championships. but remember where the lakers were less than a year ago. kobe wanted out and even named cities......at the same time the spurs were living it up planning yet another deep playoff run. where would the lakers be if kobe got his wish? would the wins or lack thereof matter then?? wins matter and the spurs have more titles and wins of late when compared to any other team. this wins don't matter tone goes against your current rhetoric and excitement you exhibit for the lakers. you have compared their regular season for playoff posturing. so yes wins do matter IMO and in yours as well...

 

[nowagimp]

By any measure the spurs are the team of the decade. The lakers have struggled in the playoffs over the last few years, perhaps this year they will correct that with a new nucleus from the title teams(essentially a different team). The spurs have done it with essentially the same nucleus. I dont like the spurs game, but its just silly to think otherwise.

 

[Phade]

you couldn't pay me to root for the spurs

 

[Agloco]

Titles. 3 and 3.

Spurs aren't the team of the decade by any stretch. They got one in a strike shortened season. In 1999.

More wins? Who cares? It is TITLES. Dallas had more wins than anyone last year and what did it get them? Baron's beard in their face.

Wins are NOTHING. Ask Suns fans. They had great winning seasons...they would trade them in a heartbeat for a title. Titles matter. And right now, the Spurs and Lakers in the 2000's are tied at 3-3.

Unless we change the definition of "decades" and "champions" neither team has the upper hand. Shaqless? Who cares? It's a media term. How many playoff wins do the Shaqless Heat have? The Shaqful suns? It means nothing.

Very shortsighted. See below.

You are confusing Kobe & Shaq as the "Lakers." They aren't. They are just guys.

Shaq and Kobe could have won more, yes. But that's no more.

But the Lakers aren't Kobe. They aren't Shaq. They aren't Magic, Kareem, worthy, Wilt, West or Mikan. They are the franchise. As a franchise, they are the Lakers, and they aren't done yet this decade.


I do note you've changed to "over the last ten years" instead of "of the decade" which I have to say, yes..the Spurs have more titles. But we'd be arguing different things things then.

Detroit even has claim to "the team of the decade" if they win the next two....though it would make me

By your logic, so does Miami.......

It's word-play.... Whatever. Consider 1999 to 2009 or 2000 to 2010. Who cares?

I'd say if teams around the league are attempting to model/matchup with a particular franchise, thats a pretty good argument for "team of the decade" in and of itself, wouldn't you agree?

I give you: The San Antonio Spurs. Often imitated, but never quite duplicated.

 

[Divide Et Impera]

Go Hornets! F*** the Spurs!!!!

 

[Agloco]

Shaq has put a lot of work into his FT shooting. Problem is he has physical abnomalities (big hands) that makes shooting a ball difficult. Try taking a nerf ball or undersized basketballs and throw at the rim 15 ft away

Sooooo.... the NBA is obligated to accomodate him because of a percieved physical anomaly? Gimmie a break. He gets 20 mil per. Get it right, or don't play.

Even so, after playing ball for 20+ years, you'd think he'd adapt. If it's a fundamental weakness, then so be it. Changing the rule to protect his weaknesses certainly isn't the answer though.

 

[D-Dogg]

Very shortsighted. See below.




By your logic, so does Miami.......

It's word-play.... Whatever. Consider 1999 to 2009 or 2000 to 2010. Who cares?

I'd say if teams around the league are attempting to model/matchup with a particular franchise, thats a pretty good argument for "team of the decade" in and of itself, wouldn't you agree?

I give you: The San Antonio Spurs. Often imitated, but never quite duplicated.

Miami doesn't have a shot in hell to win two more titles. Detroit at least does.

3-3-3 and Miami would mean Detroit has claim to the "title" which is just dumb, which means there is no "team of the decade.

And the spurs aren't imitated...the Suns are more imitated than the Spurs.

 

[cobbler]

I do note you've changed to "over the last ten years" instead of "of the decade" which I have to say, yes..the Spurs have more titles. But we'd be arguing different things things then.

Detroit even has claim to "the team of the decade" if they win the next two....though it would make me

Since the ultimate dertimination of sucess is championships, the you are correct Donald. It's tied. 3-3. The Lakers got theirs in consecutive years and the Spurs have won every other year with a Detroit one thrown in. Any way you spin it, it's tied!

Certainly you can say the Spurs have been more consistant over the time span but last time i looked 3 = 3.

 

[Lorenzo]

Very shortsighted. See below.




By your logic, so does Miami.......

It's word-play.... Whatever. Consider 1999 to 2009 or 2000 to 2010. Who cares?

I'd say if teams around the league are attempting to model/matchup with a particular franchise, thats a pretty good argument for "team of the decade" in and of itself, wouldn't you agree?

I give you: The San Antonio Spurs. Often imitated, but never quite duplicated.[/quote]


oh give me a break....that's the dallas cowboys cheerleader slogan you ******....funny.

 

[Lorenzo]

Miami doesn't have a shot in hell to win two more titles. Detroit at least does.

3-3-3 and Miami would mean Detroit has claim to the "title" which is just dumb, which means there is no "team of the decade.

And the spurs aren't imitated...the Suns are more imitated than the Spurs.

I don't know about that one donald. the suns tried their best to change their style getting shaq and being very physical with the spurs....to no breakthrough. the pistons and celtics also play a very similiar brand that works well in the east. even avery johnson takes more from pop than he does from nellie.