Poll

pick 1, bitchel

3Peat
7 (38.9%)
4 titles on 4 seperate occasions
11 (61.1%)

Total Members Voted: 16

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  
Go Down

Author Topic: What is more historic?  (Read 628 times)

.:DaYg0sTyLz:.

Re: What is more historic?
« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2009, 11:47:35 PM »
Quote from: Tommy Fits is your hero on February 04, 2009, 07:45:48 PM
two three peats in 8 years >>>> 4 titles in 10 seasons >>>> one single 3peat.

agreed for SURE about the 2 three peats in 8 years. Crazy shit. The reason the 4 titles in 10 seasons is so great, isnt just about the titles. Its about the fact that the Spurs were such a good team even in the years they didnt win. The Lakers 3peat was great, but other then that...they were not an elite team.
Logged
"...and these niggas gettin tattoo tears...industry Bloods that show fear, when the authentics are near"
 

Teddy Roosevelt

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 7538
  • Karma: 179
  • The Trust-Buster
Re: What is more historic?
« Reply #16 on: February 04, 2009, 11:53:57 PM »
Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on February 04, 2009, 11:47:35 PM
Quote from: Tommy Fits is your hero on February 04, 2009, 07:45:48 PM
two three peats in 8 years >>>> 4 titles in 10 seasons >>>> one single 3peat.

agreed for SURE about the 2 three peats in 8 years. Crazy shit. The reason the 4 titles in 10 seasons is so great, isnt just about the titles. Its about the fact that the Spurs were such a good team even in the years they didnt win. The Lakers 3peat was great, but other then that...they were not an elite team.
2004?
Logged
 

.:DaYg0sTyLz:.

Re: What is more historic?
« Reply #17 on: February 05, 2009, 12:01:49 AM »
Quote from: Ted Since `87 - Fuck the Broncos on February 04, 2009, 11:53:57 PM
Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on February 04, 2009, 11:47:35 PM
Quote from: Tommy Fits is your hero on February 04, 2009, 07:45:48 PM
two three peats in 8 years >>>> 4 titles in 10 seasons >>>> one single 3peat.

agreed for SURE about the 2 three peats in 8 years. Crazy shit. The reason the 4 titles in 10 seasons is so great, isnt just about the titles. Its about the fact that the Spurs were such a good team even in the years they didnt win. The Lakers 3peat was great, but other then that...they were not an elite team.
2004?

actually yeah, they were good that year even though they got mopped in the finals against a team that we later beat in the finals  ;)    My point is, that even with out 4 titles....you didnt see a decline in our team during our non title years. And definetely not the drastic decline you saw in the Lakers.
Logged
"...and these niggas gettin tattoo tears...industry Bloods that show fear, when the authentics are near"
 

Now_Im_Not_Banned

  • Guest
Re: What is more historic?
« Reply #18 on: February 05, 2009, 01:51:32 PM »
Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on February 05, 2009, 12:01:49 AM
Quote from: Ted Since `87 - Fuck the Broncos on February 04, 2009, 11:53:57 PM
Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on February 04, 2009, 11:47:35 PM
Quote from: Tommy Fits is your hero on February 04, 2009, 07:45:48 PM
two three peats in 8 years >>>> 4 titles in 10 seasons >>>> one single 3peat.

agreed for SURE about the 2 three peats in 8 years. Crazy shit. The reason the 4 titles in 10 seasons is so great, isnt just about the titles. Its about the fact that the Spurs were such a good team even in the years they didnt win. The Lakers 3peat was great, but other then that...they were not an elite team.
2004?




actually yeah, they were good that year even though they got mopped in the finals against a team that we later beat in the finals  ;)    My point is, that even with out 4 titles....you didnt see a decline in our team during our non title years. And definetely not the drastic decline you saw in the Lakers.


are you retarded? the Lakers contended only when they won the ring? wow... :grumpy:

we've been contending for most of the decade. our drought barely lasted, and we re-built a brand new dynasty with the quickness.
Logged
 

Chamillitary Click

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 25866
  • Thanked: 31 times
  • Karma: -295
  • The greatest entertainer ever.
Re: What is more historic?
« Reply #19 on: February 05, 2009, 02:46:01 PM »
give me 4 rings!
Logged
 

white Boy

  • The totally random poster
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 9006
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • Karma: -119
  • http://bigbowlofsoup.tumblr.com/
Re: What is more historic?
« Reply #20 on: February 05, 2009, 02:56:04 PM »
3peat is def doper, people need to stop hating
Logged
 

.:DaYg0sTyLz:.

Re: What is more historic?
« Reply #21 on: February 05, 2009, 03:02:47 PM »
Quote from: white Boy on February 05, 2009, 02:56:04 PM
3peat is def doper, people need to stop hating

so you picking 3peat means youre hating on the Spurs??
Logged
"...and these niggas gettin tattoo tears...industry Bloods that show fear, when the authentics are near"
 

Chamillitary Click

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 25866
  • Thanked: 31 times
  • Karma: -295
  • The greatest entertainer ever.
Re: What is more historic?
« Reply #22 on: February 05, 2009, 03:05:15 PM »
Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on February 05, 2009, 03:02:47 PM
Quote from: white Boy on February 05, 2009, 02:56:04 PM
3peat is def doper, people need to stop hating

so you picking 3peat means youre hating on the Spurs??

i dont know, for a question that everyone (who is a Laker fan) believes is a no-brainer, why make a thread? ::)
Logged
 

.:DaYg0sTyLz:.

Re: What is more historic?
« Reply #23 on: February 05, 2009, 03:05:52 PM »
Quote from: Now_I_Know on February 05, 2009, 01:51:32 PM
Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on February 05, 2009, 12:01:49 AM
Quote from: Ted Since `87 - Fuck the Broncos on February 04, 2009, 11:53:57 PM
Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on February 04, 2009, 11:47:35 PM
Quote from: Tommy Fits is your hero on February 04, 2009, 07:45:48 PM
two three peats in 8 years >>>> 4 titles in 10 seasons >>>> one single 3peat.

agreed for SURE about the 2 three peats in 8 years. Crazy shit. The reason the 4 titles in 10 seasons is so great, isnt just about the titles. Its about the fact that the Spurs were such a good team even in the years they didnt win. The Lakers 3peat was great, but other then that...they were not an elite team.
2004?




actually yeah, they were good that year even though they got mopped in the finals against a team that we later beat in the finals  ;)    My point is, that even with out 4 titles....you didnt see a decline in our team during our non title years. And definetely not the drastic decline you saw in the Lakers.


are you retarded? the Lakers contended only when they won the ring? wow... :grumpy:

we've been contending for most of the decade. our drought barely lasted, and we re-built a brand new dynasty with the quickness.

lol what new dynasty?? You have to win some titles with your current team before you can even be considered a dynasty. This team now is nowhere NEAR a dynasty LOL you are fuckin delusional man...
Logged
"...and these niggas gettin tattoo tears...industry Bloods that show fear, when the authentics are near"
 

.:DaYg0sTyLz:.

Re: What is more historic?
« Reply #24 on: February 05, 2009, 03:07:28 PM »
Quote from: Chamillitary Click on February 05, 2009, 03:05:15 PM
Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on February 05, 2009, 03:02:47 PM
Quote from: white Boy on February 05, 2009, 02:56:04 PM
3peat is def doper, people need to stop hating

so you picking 3peat means youre hating on the Spurs??

i dont know, for a question that everyone (who is a Laker fan) believes is a no-brainer, why make a thread? ::)

cus NIK was counting on the fact that there a lot of Laker fans here and most of them will not pick any option that doesnt place the Lakers as the winner of the poll. Pathetic.
Logged
"...and these niggas gettin tattoo tears...industry Bloods that show fear, when the authentics are near"
 

Now_Im_Not_Banned

  • Guest
Re: What is more historic?
« Reply #25 on: February 05, 2009, 05:07:43 PM »
Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on February 05, 2009, 03:05:52 PM
Quote from: Now_I_Know on February 05, 2009, 01:51:32 PM
Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on February 05, 2009, 12:01:49 AM
Quote from: Ted Since `87 - Fuck the Broncos on February 04, 2009, 11:53:57 PM
Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on February 04, 2009, 11:47:35 PM
Quote from: Tommy Fits is your hero on February 04, 2009, 07:45:48 PM
two three peats in 8 years >>>> 4 titles in 10 seasons >>>> one single 3peat.

agreed for SURE about the 2 three peats in 8 years. Crazy shit. The reason the 4 titles in 10 seasons is so great, isnt just about the titles. Its about the fact that the Spurs were such a good team even in the years they didnt win. The Lakers 3peat was great, but other then that...they were not an elite team.
2004?




actually yeah, they were good that year even though they got mopped in the finals against a team that we later beat in the finals  ;)    My point is, that even with out 4 titles....you didnt see a decline in our team during our non title years. And definetely not the drastic decline you saw in the Lakers.


are you retarded? the Lakers contended only when they won the ring? wow... :grumpy:

we've been contending for most of the decade. our drought barely lasted, and we re-built a brand new dynasty with the quickness.

lol what new dynasty?? You have to win some titles with your current team before you can even be considered a dynasty. This team now is nowhere NEAR a dynasty LOL you are fuckin delusional man...


elite contender, soon to be dynasty.
Logged
 

white Boy

  • The totally random poster
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 9006
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • Karma: -119
  • http://bigbowlofsoup.tumblr.com/
Re: What is more historic?
« Reply #26 on: February 05, 2009, 07:20:26 PM »
im not hatin on anyone, i dont have any biases in the nba, cause i just like my team, but hardly even follow them, to me, 3 years in a row, is doper than 4 in 10 years, (im guessing thats spurs?),
Logged
 

.:DaYg0sTyLz:.

Re: What is more historic?
« Reply #27 on: February 05, 2009, 07:23:33 PM »
Quote from: white Boy on February 05, 2009, 07:20:26 PM
im not hatin on anyone, i dont have any biases in the nba, cause i just like my team, but hardly even follow them, to me, 3 years in a row, is doper than 4 in 10 years, (im guessing thats spurs?),

yeah

3 in a row, is better then 4 in 10. Thats a given. My point is that 4 titles in 10 years, while being one of the top 2 or 3 teams in the league on all the in between years (Spurs) is more impressive then a 3 peat, 2 strong seasons with no titles....and 5 subpar seasons (Lakers).
Logged
"...and these niggas gettin tattoo tears...industry Bloods that show fear, when the authentics are near"
 

Now_Im_Not_Banned

  • Guest
Re: What is more historic?
« Reply #28 on: February 06, 2009, 12:29:53 AM »
Quote from: .:DaYg0sTyLz:. on February 05, 2009, 07:23:33 PM
Quote from: white Boy on February 05, 2009, 07:20:26 PM
im not hatin on anyone, i dont have any biases in the nba, cause i just like my team, but hardly even follow them, to me, 3 years in a row, is doper than 4 in 10 years, (im guessing thats spurs?),

yeah

3 in a row, is better then 4 in 10. Thats a given. My point is that 4 titles in 10 years, while being one of the top 2 or 3 teams in the league on all the in between years (Spurs) is more impressive then a 3 peat, 2 strong seasons with no titles....and 5 subpar seasons (Lakers).


5 sub-par seasons? are you on crack??
Logged
 

Antonio

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
  • Karma: 43
  • R.I.P. Nate
Re: What is more historic?
« Reply #29 on: February 06, 2009, 01:19:09 AM »
4/9 > 4/10

I'll vote in june.
Logged
 
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  
Go Up
« previous next »