I just registered and saw more: The worst thing about tonight's game other than a listless Spurs effort to me was listen to the total love by the announcing team for that squirt Van Gundy. Remember this guy walked out on his team mid-season (see a Pat Riley pattern here?), has never won a championship, and frankly looks to me like the type of nerd that would turn off today's players. Rudy was a fine coach and this team nearly made a improvement last year anyway. Worse re Van Gundy he and Ewing will get all the credit for "developing" Yao Ming who was well on his way last year already to becoming a hell of a player and would have figured a lot of stuff out regardless who is coaching him. I was on my way to liking Houston a little due to Ming smile and court manners (he would have made a great Spur) but now I cannot begin to like this team. PDR Madison WI Your opinion cannot be wrong; your observations can be and were. Van Gundy took the following squad to the Finals. C - Camby, Dudley, H. Williams PF - L. Johnson, K. Thomas SF - Sprewell SG - Houston PG - C. Ward, Childs, Brunson If you think any coach can take this team to the Finals, you're high. And don't give me that "they're in the east" stuff. They beat two teams (Miami, Indiana) who had more talent up and down that roster. Van Gundy, like him or not, is one of the few coaches around who can squeeze blood out of a turnip. He hasn't won a title. So what? You put Van Gundy on Phil Jackson's squads and NBA history doesn't change a lick. But I wonder if Zen could have taken the '99 Knicks to the Finals? You are right about one thing: Rudy T. was a fine coach. He had no control over the Houston guards last year. The halfcourt offense consisted of Francis, Mobley, or Norris dribbling for fifteen seconds before launching an errant three. Van Gundy will clean that up and get Yao Ming more touches than Rudy did. Finally, if you don't think Yao can benefit from working with a Hall of Famer like Patrick Ewing, I would consider yours to be a closed mind.
This is utter BS! Using this line of logic, Spurs fans and basketball fans in general could apply the **asterisk** to the 94 and 95 championship teams. C'mon! Champions make their own luck, it's NOT their problem or fault that players semi-retired, were injured, did not meet their bogey teams etc blah blah blah... IMHO that is disrespectful.
well steve is no jordan but he went to the lottery alot before pippen &phil jackcon got there.maybe the reason we went to the lottery 4 straight seasons is a combation of some bad coaching and not the right kind of help to go with francis.
you can ask the lakers what they thouhgt of the spurs after game 6 of the playoffs....anyone who doesn't at least respect the spurs doesn't is deluded at best u dont have to be a spurs fan to realize that
If the Rockets keep good perimeter shooters around him then he will probably continue to put up big numbers.
I'm as big a Rockets fan as you'll find, but I'll sit here and tell you that the 94' team should have an asterisk next to its name. THe 94' Rockets, 99' Spurs, and 03' Spurs were teams winning during a transitional year in the NBA and they didn't win because they were great. They won because greatness had left the league for a year or two allowing a second rate kind of champion to emerge. I'm sure I'll get bashed for this comment, but to me a champion is something very, very special. All champions have certain traits that the above teams I mentioned just did not have. Those teams were very, very good, but not special is the way to put it. The 90's Bulls teams, the 80's Lakers and Celtics teams, even the recent Lakers teams were special teams. The 94' Rockets, 99' Spurs, and 03' Spurs were not.
The Spurs star player doesn't concsistently want the ball in the clutch and to me that makes the Spurs a second rate champion. He's got the talent and he's got the fundamentals, but he lacks the attitude that would allow him to win against the Jordan, Bird's, and Magic's of the world. I was not impressed with last year's Spurs team. I would not be surprised to see a more talented Spurs team go out in the 2nd round in a much more challenging western conference this season.
No, you aren't. No Rockets fan would ever discredit our own titles like that. There are no asterisk in sports. The best team in the given situation wins the title, and deserves it. There are no exceptions to the rule.
Alright then you might as well put an asterisk to 2002 Bucs, 2000 Ravens, 2002 Devils, 2002 Angels and 1997 Marlins. And that's just in the last 10 years. The only asterisk is the 2001 Pats (cough fixed cough).
Did you even watch the whole play-offs with the Spurs? 37 points, 17 rebounds? 40 points 15 rebounds? 21 points 20 rebounds? His production shows he has the "attitude." Also, wanting the ball all the all the time, might not the best way to get the win. Sometimes "forcing it" may hurt you. There were times where Jordan scored 50+, but lost. So, wanting the ball in every situation may not always be the best way. Jordan learned that later in his career. So has TD. They won. End of story.
By the way, I think you are confusing "champion" with "dynasty." All teams that won the title are champions. Not all are dynasties.
I agree. Championship team is completely diff from dynasty. No team should have an asterik. If you win a championship, then you are the champion that year period. Anaheim won the world series last year and sucked this year. Should they then have an asterik beside it? Of course not, they won that year and deserved it. Though that magical rally monkey might have something to do with it.
I can't believe that You are comparing the great Rockets team with this bunch of San Antonio wussies! Are you serious? The 94' and 95' Rockets had no asterisks on their rings whatsoever. Don't give me that BS of Jordan leaving the game. The Rockets had the number of Jordan's team in regular season around Jordan's sabbath, and in their second title they swept the Magic, which beat the Bulls with a Jordan in EXCELLENT condition. Luck is part of the game, which IMO shouldn't be, but it is because we can do nothing about it. I am watching basketball for BASKETBALL, not to comparing who have got better luck! If you think that win by incredible luck to the extent of severely diminishing good basketball and overall NBA competition is acceptable that's fine but don't impose it on me. Clearly we have different standards here. To me a shortened season is something remarkable. The Rockets was once the No.1 or No.2 seed in that lockout season around 20 games into it IIRC. If that season is shortened to 20 games we might just have won a championship too LOL. Then in this stupid playoffs none of the powerhouses but Spurs remained injury free and came out like a bandit. The true face of the Spurs is that it takes them six games to finish the Nets with a weak frontcourt and without anyone that can consistently create shots. A shortened season deserves an asterisk, a championship that's won because God banned all rivals from playing at top condition deserves an asterisk, and being the lamest champs in history is also asterisk worthy. Let me reiterate, the 94' and 95' Rockets deserve asterisks too, for being one of, if not the most, resilient teams in title runs in history. Unlike the SA ASSES who just waltz to it with their lame duck luck.
Panda, loadedAballer was not saying that the Rox should have asterisks next to their titles, he was saying that YOU are using double-standards by saying that the Rox should not (because of Jordan being out) and the Spurs should, because of Webber being out or this or that....blah, blah, blah... As for the shorten season (1999)? It means nothing. If it was sooooo easy to win that year (asterisks), then why didn't any of the other teams make it? Spurs won it, they deserve it. IMO, all teams that get the ring, deserve it. Period. It's taking advantage of the opportunity. P.S. By the way, Jordan came back with 17 games left in the 1995 season. He was not in excellent condition and he was not accustom to playing with his new teammates (Cartwight, BJ, and Grant were gone). Chemistry does have a lot to do with winning. Only 47 wins shows that. The following season, with a full training camp, they won 72.
From the way some of you guys talk about the Spurs, you'd think that there was a 90's Miami-NY type rivalry. Dunno bout you guys, but its kinda hard to hate on Mr Robinson and TD.
i do not believe there is any aterisks. they spurs won twice and deserved it. the shortened season was only 32 games shortened. and they played 50 games. the spurs were the best team at taht point. what other team was better? and last year they did beat the lakers and the mavs. so wich team should be better? webber was injured against dallas. nowitzki was injuerd against the spurs. but so what. every team has problems with injuries.the spurs did beat the defending world champs. Duncan is a great player. and he played great during the play offs. a team wins a championship and they deserve it. you have to win 4 games in the finals so if you win 4 times you deserved it.
