- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rank these three players: LeBron, Shaq, Duncan
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:25 pm to WestCoastAg
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:25 pm to WestCoastAg
uh wat
1
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:26 pm to mattz1122
Well let's see, kobe, steve nash, steve blake, the Lakers were going to a D league call up in the back court by game 3
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:27 pm to WestCoastAg
I said they didn't count as a great team. They were mediocre at best all year long. What are you quibbling with?
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:29 pm to mattz1122
quote:
So 1999 and 2003 weren't great teams because they lost to SA in the semis? 2013 wasn't close to being a contender, so it doesn't count.
1999?
the Lakers had 3 different coaches that year. Kobe was like 20 and had yet to come into his own as a great player. That was nowhere close to a great team. 2003 started like 10-23 or something due to Shaq wanting to "heal on company time" and that's when the Kobe/Shaq feud really came to a head. They didn't even have home court in the first round of the playoffs. Again, that was no where close to a great team.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:32 pm to mattz1122
im sorry im confused, are you trying to say that our 1999 and 2003 teams were great? Cause they weren't. The 1999 team could score but was horrible on the defensive end and the 2003 team had similar issues. They were decent teams, but both had problems and the spurs beat them cause they were better
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:33 pm to WicKed WayZ
I think Duncan has had better career than Shaq. 1 more MVP, 1 more championship. Has been consistent for 17 seasons. Shaq was more talented but Duncan's had the better career
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:33 pm to NorthGAVol
So the 2001 Spurs (pre-Parker and Ginobili with Derek Anderson as arguably their second best player) and 2002 Spurs (19-yr-old Parker and no Ginobili) were great teams?
Did the Lakers only beat "great" Spurs teams, but not vice versa? Maybe the Spurs weren't "great" because they lost to the Lakers?
Did the Lakers only beat "great" Spurs teams, but not vice versa? Maybe the Spurs weren't "great" because they lost to the Lakers?
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:37 pm to mattz1122
Remember how the 2001 and 2002 spurs teams had better records, higher seedings, and were top 10 in both offensive and defensive efficency. I'd say the 2001 and 2002 spur teams were pretty fricking good
This post was edited on 2/27/15 at 6:38 pm
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:38 pm to mattz1122
quote:
So the 2001 Spurs (pre-Parker and Ginobili with Derek Anderson as arguably their second best player) and 2002 Spurs (19-yr-old Parker and no Ginobili) were great teams?
Did the Lakers only beat "great" Spurs teams, but not vice versa? Maybe the Spurs weren't "great" because they lost to the Lakers?
2001 Spurs were the #1 seed in the West and got swept by LA in the WCF.
2002 Spurs were the #1 seed in the West and got hammered by LA in 5.
In 2008, the Lakers finally reloaded (finished only 1 game ahead of SA in the West) and easily beat them in 5 in the WCF.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:40 pm to WestCoastAg
Gotcha. Spurs teams that lost to the Lakers were "great," but Lakers teams that lost to the Spurs weren't "great." Seems reasonable.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:42 pm to mattz1122
What? The 2001 and 2002 spur teams, as pointed out, we fricking good. the 1999 and 2003 laker teams could score, but had trouble playing defense. They definitely weren't top 10 in both offensive and defensive efficiency like those spurs teams were. Hell, the 99 laker team was like 4th to last in defensive efficiency
This post was edited on 2/27/15 at 6:44 pm
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:44 pm to WestCoastAg
Nobody had the 1999 and 2003 Lakers teams going to the Finals, right? Nobody at all, ever.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:45 pm to mattz1122
So that's your talking point now? 
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:45 pm to mattz1122
quote:
Gotcha. Spurs teams that lost to the Lakers were "great," but Lakers teams that lost to the Spurs weren't "great." Seems reasonable.
The highest seeded Lakers team that San Antonio ever beat during the Duncan era was 4th.
The Lakers beat multiple Spurs teams that finished with HCA throughout the west playoffs and beat a very good Spurs team in 2008 (56-26)
Didn't mean to upset you but my point still stands. Duncan always got his shite pushed in by great Lakers teams.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:45 pm to Weagle25
I can see that. I just think 4 MVPs and what probably should be 5 puts LeBron ahead. He's got the championships and he is been considered the best player in the league for the last 7 or so years.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:46 pm to mattz1122
quote:
Nobody had the 1999 and 2003 Lakers teams going to the Finals, right? Nobody at all, ever.
We're going off of preseason predictions now?
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:46 pm to NorthGAVol
Hell that's not even my point, my point is that PJ was and still is the GOAT
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:47 pm to WestCoastAg
I'm with you on that, brother.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:49 pm to NorthGAVol
It's always funny to hear about how trash kobe is, but that all of a sudden changes when we start talking about phil
Posted on 2/27/15 at 6:50 pm to NorthGAVol
quote:
In 2008, the Lakers finally reloaded (finished only 1 game ahead of SA in the West) and easily beat them in 5 in the WCF.
No.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News