I think the '14 Spurs were the best team since '86 Celtics

[T_L_P]

This 2016 team is looking even more talented and deep than that one. And apparently Parker is back in 2013 shape and ginobili said thats he's motivated to win one last title before he hangs it up. But this is a new team and the competition has gotten tougher since then so we'll see what happens.

Let's hope he comes back in even better shape.

[T_L_P]

01' Lakers obliterated the 01' Spurs that were better then the 14' Spurs.
Great logic OP.

01 Spurs minus their second option > 14 Spurs?

Their backcourt consisted of Antonio Daniels, 35-year-old Avery, 37-year-old Porter, and 34-year-old Ferry.

[ArbitraryWater]

01' Lakers obliterated the 01' Spurs that were better then the 14' Spurs.
Great logic OP.

[ShawkFactory]

01' Lakers obliterated the 01' Spurs that were better then the 14' Spurs.
Great logic OP.

Yea....naaaaahhh

[NBAplayoffs2001]

As much as I like the '01 Lakers, they were pretty overrated. Beyond Shaq and Kobe, they really didn't have much besides some above average role players.

[NBAplayoffs2001]

01' Lakers obliterated the 01' Spurs that were better then the 14' Spurs.
Great logic OP.

That '01 team was injury riddled at the SG position... and no way they were better than the 14 Spurs.

By the way can you guys imagine a 2003 Duncan/Robinson on the 14 team. Now that's an arguable team better than the legendary '86 Celtics squad.

[jayfan]

I'm normally not one for cutting down somebody's post in an offensive way.

But this thread may be the most ridiculous thing I've seen on the internet this (month?)....Was gonna say year...But there's some pretty ridiculous things out there....

I saw the '87 Lakers (and as a Bulls Fan, and also an 80's Celtics fan)....They were the greatest team I ever saw.....Saw both and I'd slightly take the '87 Lakers over the '86 Celtics....

Magic, who avg'd 24, 6, and 12 that year, Worthy, Kareem, Scoot, Cooper, Mychal Thompson......That is a legendary team, playing at their highest level.....

Secondly, you really think that Spurs team is a beating a PRIME Jordan team?....Scratch that, ALL 6 Jordan led Bulls teams?.....the 72-10 team?

GTFO.

Mychal Thompson was a stiff. Just saying.


.

[Kvnzhangyay]

In terms of finals performances, the 14 spurs are right up there.

[West-Side]

2001 Spurs: 58-24 - 7.92 point difference (highest in the league)
2014 Spurs: 62-20 - 8.00 point difference (highest in the league)

But now you must consider their competition.

2001' Lakers
2001' Kings
2001' Blazer
2001' Sixers
2001' Jazz
2001' Mavs
2001' Bucks


2014' Heat
2014' Pacers
2014' Thunder
2014' Clippers

2014 Spurs are so overrated; I don't see how they beat Lakers, Kings, or even Blazers from the 2001 season.

The league in 2014 was far weaker than in 2001.

2001 Spurs had a 98.0 defensive rating and 106.6 offensive rating.
2014 Spurs had a 102.4 defensive rating and 110.5 offensive rating.

Notables:

Leonard, Duncan, Parker, Manu, Belinelli, Green, Splitter, Mills.

Vs.

Duncan, Robinson, Anderson, Daniels, Elliot, A. Johnson, Rose, Porter.

I have a hard time seeing a front court of Robinson and prime Duncan losing. 2014' Spurs were an excellent team, similar to 2004 Pistons; but they had no go to guy like 01' Spurs did with Duncan.

That team defense was sensational on the 2001 Spurs; they had to face far better teams to win 58 games in 2001 than SA did in 2014. They had the highest point differential out of all the teams.

Would it really surprised anyone if the 2001 Blazers beat 2014 Spurs?
I know damn well 2001 Kings were capable of doing so.

The way the Lakers played in the 2001 playoffs (in particular Kobe & Shaq), I don't see 2014 Spurs winning more than 1 game.

By the way I obviously mean a healthy 2001 Spurs team.

[rmt]

For me, it's very hard to describe the 2013-14 Spurs. On the one hand, they had a very high point differential in the regular season, but they struggled mightily against every contender. And in the playoffs, they had the record point differential in the Finals but struggled against DAL (going 7) and OKC (being blown out in 2 games).

The last 3 games of the Finals were MAGNIFICENT. Here's Riley's take:

"They found their nirvana through their adversity," Riley says. "That doesn't happen often like that, when you lose the way they did in 2013. It usually destroys a team, makes them go the other way, especially when there's aging. They played three of the greatest games that anybody has ever played. That's what it takes. It takes that kind of adversity and great players and, most importantly, mature, grown-up individuals who have been in the profession a long time, who can take the game of basketball to another level. But that's what they did."

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2015...ed-nba-forever

Compared to all-time teams, the 2014 Spurs did not have the big men to defend against teams with dominant big men. An old Duncan, Splitter (who can only play limited minutes) and an inexperienced Baynes - not enough against prime Shaq, Hakeem, Wilt, etc. but plenty against the teams of today (the same could be said of 2015 GSW). And against 86 Celtics, McHale and Parrish would be too much for 2014 Spurs' big men. The 2005 Spurs would have a much better chance - they had a prime Duncan, Rasho, Nazr and Horry.

[ShawkFactory]

2001 Spurs: 58-24 - 7.92 point difference (highest in the league)
2014 Spurs: 62-20 - 8.00 point difference (highest in the league)

But now you must consider their competition.

2001' Lakers
2001' Kings
2001' Blazer
2001' Sixers
2001' Jazz
2001' Mavs
2001' Bucks


2014' Heat
2014' Pacers
2014' Thunder
2014' Clippers

2014 Spurs are so overrated; I don't see how they beat Lakers, Kings, or even Blazers from the 2001 season.

The league in 2014 was far weaker than in 2001.

2001 Spurs had a 98.0 defensive rating and 106.6 offensive rating.
2014 Spurs had a 102.4 defensive rating and 110.5 offensive rating.

Notables:

Leonard, Duncan, Parker, Manu, Belinelli, Green, Splitter, Mills.

Vs.

Duncan, Robinson, Anderson, Daniels, Elliot, A. Johnson, Rose, Porter.

I have a hard time seeing a front court of Robinson and prime Duncan losing. 2014' Spurs were an excellent team, similar to 2004 Pistons; but they had no go to guy like 01' Spurs did with Duncan.

That team defense was sensational on the 2001 Spurs; they had to face far better teams to win 58 games in 2001 than SA did in 2014. They had the highest point differential out of all the teams.

Would it really surprised anyone if the 2001 Blazers beat 2014 Spurs?
I know damn well 2001 Kings were capable of doing so.

The way the Lakers played in the 2001 playoffs (in particular Kobe & Shaq), I don't see 2014 Spurs winning more than 1 game.

By the way I obviously mean a healthy 2001 Spurs team.

Maybe if you analyze the players and competition like that, then sure they may not look as good.

But analyzing the level of basketball they played in the playoffs, particularly in the finals? Yea that's an amazing basketball team. They shot 42% as a team from 3 in the playoffs...

[Harison]

Better than '87 and '01 Lakers
Better than '08 Celtics

Jordan also wants to have a word with you.

[ralph_i_el]

Last year's warriors were the best team I've seen since I started watching seriously in 2002.

[Lebron23]

2013 Heat beat the Same team. Both Wade and Bosh struggled in the NBA Finals in 2014.

The 2016 Cavaliers are so stack next year if they bring back Tristan Thompson. A much deeper team compared to the 2012 and 2013 Heat.

[Fire Colangelo]

I think any Miami team from 11-13 could've challenged them.