RealGM

Spurtatcus wrote:.4 and Manu's foul.

Otherwise, there's a Spurs 5-peat.

/thread

Spurtatcus wrote:.4 and Manu's foul.

Otherwise, there's a Spurs 5-peat.

/thread

Sedale Threatt wrote:

Spurtatcus wrote:.4 and Manu's foul.

Otherwise, there's a Spurs 5-peat.

/thread

The Spurs haven't even strung TWO together and you're dreaming about five?!?!

An Unbiased Fan wrote:

PP 4 Three wrote:

AChand90 wrote:Because KG got injured.

Yup.

One could argue that if the 08' Lakers had a healthy Bynum & Ariza, they would be going for a 3 peat this year......

An Unbiased Fan wrote:Repeating in a major sport is VERY HARD, that's why.

When Pat Riley made that back 2 back guarantee back in 87', it's was an outlandish statement because it hadn't been done in the NBA since 1969. LA was that good of a team, and the BadBoys followed up with their own after Kareem retired & Bird started to decline.

By 92', Magic was gone, Bird was just about done, and many stars were aging. The talent pool was dilluted by the expansion era, and that benefitted great teams already intact(Chicago, Portland). So throughout 92' -99', there wasn't much depth or disruption amongst the top 2 or 3 teams. Houston(a good, not great team) win 2 in a row speaks volumes to how much lower the competition was during that time.

The late 90's introduced a lot of young talent, and many foreign players who replenished the NBA talent pool. So by 00' it once again became extremely hard to repeat. LA lucked out by having Kobe/Shaq/Phil, and they beat some TOUGH teams like the Blazers, Spurs and Kings during the 00'-02' period. The Spurs weren't a great team in their own right, but much like the 80's Celtics, they were able to win 2 in a row due to the high level of competition.

Fast forward to today, and I think LA has a legit chance at going back to back mainly because their built to withstand injury and have the best player. But it won't be easy.

Bucs80 wrote:

An Unbiased Fan wrote:Repeating in a major sport is VERY HARD, that's why.

When Pat Riley made that back 2 back guarantee back in 87', it's was an outlandish statement because it hadn't been done in the NBA since 1969. LA was that good of a team, and the BadBoys followed up with their own after Kareem retired & Bird started to decline.

By 92', Magic was gone, Bird was just about done, and many stars were aging. The talent pool was dilluted by the expansion era, and that benefitted great teams already intact(Chicago, Portland). So throughout 92' -99', there wasn't much depth or disruption amongst the top 2 or 3 teams. Houston(a good, not great team) win 2 in a row speaks volumes to how much lower the competition was during that time.

The late 90's introduced a lot of young talent, and many foreign players who replenished the NBA talent pool. So by 00' it once again became extremely hard to repeat. LA lucked out by having Kobe/Shaq/Phil, and they beat some TOUGH teams like the Blazers, Spurs and Kings during the 00'-02' period. The Spurs weren't a great team in their own right, but much like the 80's Celtics, they were able to win 2 in a row due to the high level of competition.

Fast forward to today, and I think LA has a legit chance at going back to back mainly because their built to withstand injury and have the best player. But it won't be easy.

What in the World....

Teams Like The Utah Jazz, Seattle Supersonics, Orlando Magic, Houston Rockets, Phoenix Suns, Portland Trail-Blazers, Indiana Pacers, and New York Knicks.

There were alot of great quality teams in the 90's... It just happend to be a man named Michael Jordan. A guy who was so selfish that he stole Championships left and right in the NBA in the during that time.

I can easily argue that the Lakers played against crap in the 00's.. Only teams that come to mind that even stood into the Lakers way was the Kings, Spurs, and the Trail-Blazers. Nobody in the east was really even that good. Teams like the Nets and Sixers who were pretty much One Man teams made the finals. Pacers were pretty decent though, but I couldn't say they had a possibility to beat the Lakers. Not take anything from the Lakers, but they didn't have to go through much to get to win championships. And things were much easier when you have the most dominate big man in his prime, and one of the premier wing players in the league on your team.

Why has no one repeated since 02 Lakers, because teams got better, and there never really was a clear cut great team which everyone thought would win.

Spurtatcus wrote:.4 and Manu's foul.

Otherwise, there's a Spurs 5-peat.

/thread

Blue_and_Whte wrote:

Kobe8Player wrote:

Jwade wrote:1) Injuries
2) 82 game seasons
3) Salary cap

any other questions?

Amm, it's always been 82 games.

Yeah like that's changed.

I'd say players going to different teams via trades or FA signings.

wone wrote:No way..The '08 Lakers were clearly a step below the '08 Celtics..Healthy Bynum and Ariza wouldn't have made much of a difference..

LAKESHOW wrote:the only team that had a legitimate shot was the spurs. not the celtics. not the pistons. and not the LAKERs immediately after shaq left. now if you ask the spurs why, they'll say injuries.

so thats the answer, injuries.

the celtics would not have done it, they didnt defeat the LAKERs twice last year with KG. and the LAKERs were a team on a mission. and in those years, it is extremely tough defeating that team. whether baseball, footall, basketball etc... there are years where a team has had just about enough, and resume the following year on a tear and with a mission. the LAKERs were not going to be denied.

but back to the spurs, injuries and maybe pop rode 'em too hard. but thats it, only the spurs had a TRUE opportunity to repeat after the LAKERs 3peat.