West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Sports & Entertainment => Topic started by: Now_Im_Not_Banned on February 04, 2009, 05:12:59 PM
-
you decide.
8)
-
the 3peat is more impressive, but ill take 4 rings within a 10 year period.
4>3 8)
-
so if one girl impressed you more than the other, you'd take the less impressive one?
you're a brilliant man.
-
stupid poll. For one, you have more Laker fans then any other team on here. So of course they will pick 3 peat. If the Lakers were dominant for 10 yrs and won 4 titles....and the Spurs were only great for 3 years and had a three peat, all the Laker fans would say 10 yrs of dominance> 3 years.
As a fan, I would rather watch my team be a bonified contender every year for 10 yrs strait....and win 4 titles during that time then see them be great for 3 years, and fall off after that.
-
stupid poll. For one, you have more Laker fans then any other team on here. So of course they will pick 3 peat. If the Lakers were dominant for 10 yrs and won 4 titles....and the Spurs were only great for 3 years and had a three peat, all the Laker fans would say 10 yrs of dominance> 3 years.
As a fan, I would rather watch my team be a bonified contender every year for 10 yrs strait....and win 4 titles during that time then see them be great for 3 years, and fall off after that.
How were the Lakers only great for 3 years when we made the Finals in 5 out of 10 seasons, and the Spurs were dominant for 10 years when they only made the Finals 3 times in that span? LMAO. Step it up.
-
hmm
4 > 3
-
hmm
4 > 3
yes, we know, crack. 4>3...but is 4/10>3 in a row?
-
3Peat, and I don't even watch hoops anymore or had/have a favorite team.
that Lakers team reminded me more of a team with great young upside, while the Spurs reminded me of a team with consistent brilliance. one team was more like a short term juggernaut while the other was built for long term success.
the Lakers' only downside at that time was having 2 huge ego driven players (Shaq and Kobe). they probably could've won as many as the Bulls did in Jordan's span. Shaq and Kobe were just 2 different people at 2 different stages in their lives.
-
two three peats in 8 years >>>> 4 titles in 10 seasons >>>> one single 3peat.
-
4 is obviously higher than 3 but 3 wins in a row obviously means they were completely dominant. Spurs were a great team too but not as dominant.
-
I like 5 titles in 8 years myself
-
I like 5 titles in 8 years myself
8)
-
I'd be happy with either, but to be honest, I'd probably rather have a 3 peat. No matter what happens afterwards, the word dysnasty is always attached to that span. You don't really hear that word kicked around much about the other.
-
i'll take one of each
-
hmm
4 > 3
Well if you want to be technical about the math: 3/3 > 4/10 ;)
Seriously though, I can't decide. 3peat is more historic, but 4 wins is 4 wins.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
give me 4 rings!
-
3peat is def doper, people need to stop hating
-
3peat is def doper, people need to stop hating
so you picking 3peat means youre hating on the Spurs??
-
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? ::)
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?),
-
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).
-
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??
-
4/9 > 4/10
I'll vote in june.
-
^ was thinking the same thing myself ;D
-
;D