Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:50 pm Posts: 10229 Location: WA (aka Waaaaaaaahhhh!!) Gender: Male
Tim Legler and Greg Anthony were arguing on ESPN this morning...
Legler thinks the Spurs winning 3 championships over a 7 year span is more impressive than a 3-peat. At least that's the position he argued against Anthony's stance that 3-in-a-row is better. Anthony ripped him pretty good, and brought up MJ's Bulls, etc. Legler seemed to stumble in the argument.
Doesn't it seem like a lot of the time, one of the commentators will take a certain position just for the sake of argument? Do you think Legler really believed what he was saying? Or did the producers tell him to argue that position just so they'd have something to put on TV.
Winning 3 over a long period of time could be considered more impressive from a front office point of view.
_________________ “You’re good kids, stay together. Trust each other and be good teammates to one another. I believe there is a championship in this room.”
-Ernie Accorsi in his final address to the NY Giants locker room before retiring as GM in January of 2007
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:25 am Posts: 11849 Location: west coast
i always hear media guys and athletes say that its far more difficult to defend your title than winning it the first time. taking nothing away from the spurs but 3 for 3 > 3 out of 7
_________________ I was unsure what to do; I'd never seen a girl choke on dick before. I thought that only happened in rap songs.
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:50 pm Posts: 10229 Location: WA (aka Waaaaaaaahhhh!!) Gender: Male
The point of this post was to discuss whether or not one guy takes a position just for the sake of argument, or if he actually believes in what he's saying...
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
Bammer wrote:
The point of this post was to discuss whether or not one guy takes a position just for the sake of argument, or if he actually believes in what he's saying...
Tim legler just isnt very bright.
Yes, people argue just for the sake of arguement, even if its not something they beleive in, but thats not limited to TV or sports.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:51 pm Posts: 14534 Location: Mesa,AZ
Peeps wrote:
inadvertent imitation wrote:
I don't know. The Spurs have made a run for the championship consistently over the past 7 years. Where were the Lakers this year?
take timmy d off of the spurs and then replace lakers with spurs
Take Shaq off... oh wait. Never mind.
Tim Duncan isn't the only player on the Spurs. Manu and Robert Horry can influence the game just as much, as shown by the NBA finals. And then when Tony Parker's not sucking.....
They have a better all-around team than the Lakers did.
_________________
John Adams wrote:
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:50 pm Posts: 10229 Location: WA (aka Waaaaaaaahhhh!!) Gender: Male
Peeps wrote:
inadvertent imitation wrote:
I don't know. The Spurs have made a run for the championship consistently over the past 7 years. Where were the Lakers this year?
take timmy d off of the spurs and then replace lakers with spurs
Longevity is a great attribute. It would be damn fun to make a deep playoff run every season...but it would be hard for me to choose:
1 Title in 10 years, and 9 years of sucking ass.
or
10 Playoff runs in ten years...no titles.
Well...not that hard actually. I'd take a title...
But that's beside the point - cuz the Spurs have essentially combined the two. But when you keep getting ridiculous draft picks (see David Robinson AND Tim Duncan) there's a little luck involved...and there's no reason NOT to be good for a long time if you can keep those players. Respect to the Spurs...but I still don't like 'em.
Now I'm just rambling....
I'd go with a 3-peat. And it's funny to watch guys argue points they don't agree with.
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:26 am Posts: 7994 Location: Philadelphia
I think the commentators are told to pick a side and defend that side of the argument. The SportsGuy wrote a good bit about this a week or 2 ago....I'm gonna go look it up.
_________________ Something tells me that the first mousetrap wasn't designed to catch mice at all, but to protect little cheese "gems" from burglars.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:30 pm Posts: 7110 Location: the Zoo.
Peeps wrote:
inadvertent imitation wrote:
I don't know. The Spurs have made a run for the championship consistently over the past 7 years. Where were the Lakers this year?
take timmy d off of the spurs and then replace lakers with spurs
I can agree to an extent. But they do have a great team built around him and the chemistry is there. Take away a guy like Bruce Bowen or Tony Parker and things would start to fall apart, as well.
I think the difference between Duncan and most other superstar players is that most teams are carried by their superstars. Duncan just leads. Take Iverson away from Philadelphia and they'd win about 20 games a year. Duncan's more a leader that makes other players better than a sole source of points and whatnot. If the team's built around him, it's because he's one of the best team leaders in the game and creates great opportunities and chemistry with the other guys, not because he takes responsibility for every aspect of the game.
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:43 am Posts: 18418 Location: Anytown, USA Gender: Male
Mitchell wrote:
jimmac24 wrote:
I think the commentators are told to pick a side and defend that side of the argument.
i feel this way, too.
exactly.
doesnt make for good tv to see 2 guys agreeing all the time.
_________________
stip wrote:
In five years, when you get laid and grow up, you should go back and read some of these posts and if you've turned into a decent person you'll realize how much of an asshole you sound like right now
to answer the original question, of course sometimes they argue for the sake of arguing. if there's no argument, no one calls in. there's no show.
_________________ i was dreaming through the howzlife yawning car black when she told me "mad and meaningless as ever" and a song came on my radio like a cemetery rhyme for a million crying corpses in their tragedy of respectable existence
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:23 am Posts: 1041 Location: Anchorage, Alaska Gender: Male
Bammer wrote:
But when you keep getting ridiculous draft picks (see David Robinson AND Tim Duncan) there's a little luck involved...and there's no reason NOT to be good for a long time if you can keep those players.
The only luck they had was that Robinson was hurt for a whole year, and they only won like 20 games and they got the first pick in the lottery and got Duncan.
Other than that, they've only had those two first overall draft picks since 1988. Many teams have done much worse with one after another lottery picks year in and year out. Other than that, the Spurs bolstered their roster in other ways, and they've kept valuable additions through good management. The Spurs have a long history of adding savvy veterans to help their stars (Dale Ellis, Chuck Person, Antoine Carr, Dennis Rodman, Mario Elie, Steve Kerr, Robert Horry, etc). Luck? Hardly. From a management and ownership standpoint, the Spurs do EVERYTHING right. Two dynamite draft picks in 18 years does not necessarily make a team consistently dominant through that whole stretch. You have to do other things.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
