-
2Willd & 2Fresh est.86
Re: Winning the title in 3 different decades with the same core
Tha spurs in 99 iz an asterisk so that decade don't count and they were never a dynasty cuz they never won a back 2 back
-
Knicks all da way
Re: Winning the title in 3 different decades with the same core
-
MH!
Re: Winning the title in 3 different decades with the same core
Originally Posted by RagaZ
How massive is this achievement?
Amazing. No "core" has ever done it and no "core" is even close to doing it.
-
Cavs for life
Re: Winning the title in 3 different decades with the same core
Originally Posted by T_L_P
Which players have won titles in three different decades?
Dunno, but it's a really arbitrary distinction.
Kareem's first and last title were 17 years apart, while this would be 15 years for Duncan.
-
The Beast In Me
Re: Winning the title in 3 different decades with the same core
Originally Posted by Real14
Tha spurs in 99 iz an asterisk so that decade don't count and they were never a dynasty cuz they never won a back 2 back
Damn. you mean we don't tha arbitrary title?
-
The Beast In Me
Re: Winning the title in 3 different decades with the same core
Originally Posted by BigTicket
Dunno, but it's a really arbitrary distinction.
Kareem's first and last title were 17 years apart, while this would be 15 years for Duncan.
Of course it is. It adds nothing to Duncan's or Pop's resume. Just interested to know if there was anyone, that's all.
-
#SAS
-
2Willd & 2Fresh est.86
Re: Winning the title in 3 different decades with the same core
Originally Posted by T_L_P
Damn. you mean we don't tha arbitrary title?
Nope. Plus y'all didn't have tha same core and change it to 2 different decades bro.
-
Learning to shoot layups
Re: Winning the title in 3 different decades with the same core
Originally Posted by Real14
Tha spurs in 99 iz an asterisk so that decade don't count and they were never a dynasty cuz they never won a back 2 back
would it still be an asterisk if the knicks won it instead?
-
2Willd & 2Fresh est.86
Re: Winning the title in 3 different decades with the same core
Originally Posted by PassTheRock
would it still be an asterisk if the knicks won it instead?
No because that mean they underdog their way to a title without Ewing. Spurs have an asterisk in 99 cuz knicks best player named Ewing was injured.
-
Bran Fam Member
Re: Winning the title in 3 different decades with the same core
1999 is a serious asterisk title itself + not the same core.
-
Bran Fam Member
Re: Winning the title in 3 different decades with the same core
Originally Posted by Real14
No because that mean they underdog their way to a title without Ewing. Spurs have an asterisk in 99 cuz knicks best player named Ewing was injured.
Ewing was also 36
Sprewell was their 2nd best player
winning against an 8th seed in the Finals, that was just 4 games above .500, and in a season where they only played 50 RS games? not impressed.
-
2Willd & 2Fresh est.86
Re: Winning the title in 3 different decades with the same core
Originally Posted by ImKobe
Ewing was also 36
Sprewell was their 2nd best player
winning against an 8th seed in the Finals, that was just 4 games above .500, and in a season where they only played 50 RS games? not impressed.
True damn story.
-
Re: Winning the title in 3 different decades with the same core
-
NBA Legend
Re: Winning the title in 3 different decades with the same core
Originally Posted by RagaZ
How massive is this achievement?
Parker and Manu wasn't playing in the NBA when Spurs won in 1999
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|