Most Successful Team Out Of All 4 Major Sports This Decade

[kookcle]

Originally Posted by Do Be Doo

Originally Posted by Japs24

Originally Posted by Do Be Doo

See how there are more LA Homers saying that LA is the team of the decade....

CP1708 wrote:

---

I don't know about the other leagues, but the NBA there is no argument, no comparison.

Really?

Tell us how the Spurs is the NBA's team of the decade then instead of using emoticons..

Because everything I say is turn around because "I'm a homer"...
So I will let fans of the NBA speak on who is the best team this decade...
and why can't I use emoticons???

its a messageboard .....who cares if they call you a "homer"
man up and say what you got to say

 

[cedric ceballos 1995 lakers]

Originally Posted by Durden7

Originally Posted by Cedric Ceballos 1995 Lakers

Originally Posted by Durden7

Originally Posted by Cedric Ceballos 1995 Lakers

The decade is all but over and there will be no more championship series or championship games played this decade so it might as well be the time to post this.

Here's my list of teams in each of the sports that won either a bunch of titles this decade or were very consistent year in year out.

NFL
1. Patriots
2. Steelers
3. Colts

Wrong.

You can argue Colts vs. Patriots all day long and cases can be made for both sides but its those 2 and no one else.

The Colts are EASILY above the Steelers for the decade.

easily? you can make an argument for the colts and i'm sure you would have some good valid points, but saying easily discredits everything the steelers did this decade

the colts lack of playoff success is why i put the steelers ahead of the colts. both teams had down years where they sucked colts 2001, steelers 2003.

from 2000-02 the colts were a slightly above average team who were all offense and no defense and it showed.

yes the colts have won at least 12 games each year since 2003 but they only have one title to show for it. other then the super bowl year they greatly underachieved in the playoffs each year.

the steelers won two super bowls and were one of the best and most consistent teams in the league in both halves of the decade.

They were one stabbing and Roethlisberger finger away from another super bowl appearance so dont act like they sucked it up in the playoffs every year.

How were the Steelers more consistent when the Colts have won 12+ games for over half the decade? Thats pretty consistent.



Titles are given too much value

so what is the game played for?? to go 12-4 or 67-15 in the case of the 2007 dallas mavericks proceed to underachieve in the playoffs and at the end of theday say, "hey guys we had a good REGULAR SEASON" we choked in the playoffs but it's all good better luck next year.

the roethlisberger finger and nick harper incident are irrelevant in the long run of things.

if the patriots didn't blow that lead in the 2006 afc championship then the colts aren't even in this argument.

if kwame brown got that rebound the 7 seed lakers finish off the 2 seed suns in 2006

if fisher didn't hit 0.4 the spurs possibly have 4 titles

if the tuck rule call never happened the patriots don't win the super bowl that year

if david tyree doesn't make a miracle catch the patriots go 19-0 in 2007

what if's are what if's but the bottom line is people talk about what if's because their team didn't get the job done that year.

 

[japs24]

Originally Posted by Do Be Doo

Originally Posted by Japs24

Originally Posted by Do Be Doo

See how there are more LA Homers saying that LA is the team of the decade....

CP1708 wrote:

---

I don't know about the other leagues, but the NBA there is no argument, no comparison.

Really?

Tell us how the Spurs is the NBA's team of the decade then instead of using emoticons..

Because everything I say is turn around because "I'm a homer"...
So I will let fans of the NBA speak on who is the best team this decade...
and why can't I use emoticons???

Where did i say you can't use emoticons?

I just want an argument from you.. and why can't you speak for your own team? ..if there's anything.. Fact is a fact.

 

[do be doo]

Originally Posted by Kookcle



its a messageboard .....who cares if they call you a "homer"
man up and say what you got to say

Why its more fun when LA fans are all

about people saying they are not thebest team...
I'm just thankful that we got three....

and that non Spurs fans saying we are the best....

 

[japs24]

Titles are given too much value

 

[durden7]

Originally Posted by Cedric Ceballos 1995 Lakers

Originally Posted by Durden7

Originally Posted by Cedric Ceballos 1995 Lakers

Originally Posted by Durden7

Originally Posted by Cedric Ceballos 1995 Lakers

The decade is all but over and there will be no more championship series or championship games played this decade so it might as well be the time to post this.

Here's my list of teams in each of the sports that won either a bunch of titles this decade or were very consistent year in year out.

NFL
1. Patriots
2. Steelers
3. Colts

Wrong.

You can argue Colts vs. Patriots all day long and cases can be made for both sides but its those 2 and no one else.

The Colts are EASILY above the Steelers for the decade.

easily? you can make an argument for the colts and i'm sure you would have some good valid points, but saying easily discredits everything the steelers did this decade

the colts lack of playoff success is why i put the steelers ahead of the colts. both teams had down years where they sucked colts 2001, steelers 2003.

from 2000-02 the colts were a slightly above average team who were all offense and no defense and it showed.

yes the colts have won at least 12 games each year since 2003 but they only have one title to show for it. other then the super bowl year they greatly underachieved in the playoffs each year.

the steelers won two super bowls and were one of the best and most consistent teams in the league in both halves of the decade.

They were one stabbing and Roethlisberger finger away from another super bowl appearance so dont act like they sucked it up in the playoffs every year.

How were the Steelers more consistent when the Colts have won 12+ games for over half the decade? Thats pretty consistent.



Titles are given too much value

so what is the game played for?? to go 12-4 or 67-15 in the case of the 2007 dallas mavericks proceed to underachieve in the playoffs and at the end of the day say, "hey guys we had a good REGULAR SEASON" we choked in the playoffs but it's all good better luck next year.

the roethlisberger finger and nick harper incident are irrelevant in the long run of things.

if the patriots didn't blow that lead in the 2006 afc championship then the colts aren't even in this argument.

if kwame brown got that rebound the 7 seed lakers finish off the 2 seed suns in 2006

if fisher didn't hit 0.4 the spurs possibly have 4 titles

if the tuck rule call never happened the patriots don't win the super bowl that year

if david tyree doesn't make a miracle catch the patriots go 19-0 in 2007

what if's are what if's but the bottom line is people talk about what if's because their team didn't get the job done that year.

The game is played for different reasons. The goal is to win the title, but it isnt the determining factor in success.

The 07 Mavericks can still say that they had a good season. Its not like everything they did up until the playoffs is wiped away and didnt happen.

You missed my point about the Ben/Nick incident. I was trying to play the "what if" game. I was simply pointing out its not like they got destroyedevery year in the playoffs (title aside). They played well in a LOT of the playoff games. It just played out that New England was able to beat them so manyyears in the playoffs.

uhhm what makes a team successful?
Theres numerous things that make a team successful. Its not all about titles. Titles are important, but if you dont win the title it doesnt makeyour season unsuccessful.

Success is an objective word. It can mean different things to different people.

Wins, titles, records, improvement can all be factors in successful.

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by Do Be Doo

Kookcle wrote:

---

its a messageboard .....who cares if they call you a "homer"
man up and say what you got to say

Why its more fun when LA fans are all

about people saying they are not the best team...
I'm just thankful that we got three....

and that non Spurs fans saying we are the best....

Cuz you stay beggin to be the team of the decade with ridiculous reasoning.

LA fans tryna sweep 05 under the rug.

How bout you tryna sweepgetting your @#$ kicked 4 outta 5 times by us? Or how bout havin less titles then us and tryna sweep that under the rug?

Want more facts? LA was 6-0 in conference finals. What was San Antonio? 3-2. Which is better?

Who were those 2 losses too in the conference finals? LA

The Patriots didn't make the playoffs last year, are they not the team of the decade now?

The Yankees didn't make the playoffs every year of the 90's, are they not the team of the decade?

The Chicago Bulls didn't make the playoffs FOR TWO YEARS in the 90's, are they not the team of that decade?

The Cowboys didn't make it to the playoffs every year in the 90's..........WHO'S THE NFL TEAM OF THAT DECADE???????

Why are ALL of those teams the team of the decade? THEY HAVE THE MOST TITLES!!!!!!!!

How @#$%^& hard is that to figure out? If we were 3/3 in rings, then yes, I can hear your argument, but it's not 3/3, it's FOUR/three.

One year of not making the playoffs means jack @#$%. Ask all those other teams of the decades I just mentioned.

Your argument is over. The ones saying Spurs are confused because they think 99 was this decade, or they are Laker haters. There is NOT ONE FACT that pointsto the Spurs. NOT ONE.

This discussion is over. Move onto to other sports. NFL, MLB and NHL can debate all you guys want, the NBA is officially closed this decade.

 

[th0mas cr0wn]

someone said titles are given too much value? REALLY?

 

[cedric ceballos 1995 lakers]

Originally Posted by Durden7

The game is played for different reasons. The goal is to win the title, but it isnt the determining factor in success.

The 07 Mavericks can still say that they had a good season. Its not like everything they did up until the playoffs is wiped away and didnt happen.

You missed my point about the Ben/Nick incident. I was trying to play the "what if" game. I was simply pointing out its not like they got destroyed every year in the playoffs (title aside). They played well in a LOT of the playoff games. It just played out that New England was able to beat them so many years in the playoffs.

uhhm what makes a team successful?
Theres numerous things that make a team successful. Its not all about titles. Titles are important, but if you dont win the title it doesnt make your season unsuccessful.

Success is an objective word. It can mean different things to different people.

Wins, titles, records, improvement can all be factors in successful.



it depends on the teams expectations going into the season. if its a young rebuilding team, if they over achieve in the regular season and don't get thejob done in the playoffs it could be considered a good season that they could build upon.

the 2006-07 dallas mavericks season was a failure and i'm sure the mavericks players would say the same thing.

67-15 home court advantage throughout the playoffs and a chance to avenge everything that happened to them in the 2006 finals. that was all wiped away in aweek and a half by a team who didn't make the playoffs in 13 years prior to that.

still i'm not going to disregard your opinion on the colts, while i disagree with it, it's not like your spewing a bunch of nonsence so i can respectwhere your comming from on it.

they playoffs have been their downfall though. earlier in the decade before the 2003 season, there was talk about how peyton and the colts could never win aplayoff game. they blew a bunch of oppurtunities this year to win more then one super bowl and while they have that regular season wins record, the coltsplayers are probably thinking they should have won more then one.

 

[do be doo]

Originally Posted by CP1708



Cuz you stay beggin to be the team of the decade with ridiculous reasoning.

LA fans tryna sweep 05 under the rug.

How bout you tryna sweep getting your @#$ kicked 4 outta 5 times by us? Or how bout havin less titles then us and tryna sweep that under the rug?

Want more facts? LA was 6-0 in conference finals. What was San Antonio? 3-2. Which is better?

Who were those 2 losses too in the conference finals? LA

The Patriots didn't make the playoffs last year, are they not the team of the decade now?

The Yankees didn't make the playoffs every year of the 90's, are they not the team of the decade?

The Chicago Bulls didn't make the playoffs FOR TWO YEARS in the 90's, are they not the team of that decade?

The Cowboys didn't make it to the playoffs every year in the 90's..........WHO'S THE NFL TEAM OF THAT DECADE???????

Why are ALL of those teams the team of the decade? THEY HAVE THE MOST TITLES!!!!!!!!

How @#$%^& hard is that to figure out? If we were 3/3 in rings, then yes, I can hear your argument, but it's not 3/3, it's FOUR/three.

One year of not making the playoffs means jack @#$%. Ask all those other teams of the decades I just mentioned.

Your argument is over. The ones saying Spurs are confused because they think 99 was this decade, or they are Laker haters. There is NOT ONE FACT that points to the Spurs. NOT ONE.

This discussion is over. Move onto to other sports. NFL, MLB and NHL can debate all you guys want, the NBA is officially closed this decade.

how can i sweep that under the rug if its true?

How about this fact....NBA FINALS SPURS 3-0 LA 4-6.....now tell me which is better?

Ok you beat us in the CF

Where talking about the NBA fam....

again stick to the NBA....

Only time the Bulls miss the playoffs was in 99 i believe...

...which isonly ONE time...

talking about facts get them straight

why are you saying teams that are not in the NBA

Yes i know but the Bulls had SIX chips the next one after them was Houston with TWO

yes 4>>> 3

Because all the other teams are not in the NBA....the Bulls are top because they have 6 chips 4 more then the next team and miss the Playoffs only one time.

so now where "haters" because we see things differently?

....and also that 99is not apart of this decade for the few who did not know...
Facts I see that the Spurs have are...
--never miss the playoffs
--never loss in the finals

The NBA is the only league where people have to chose between two teams either the SPURS or LAas number one...

Plus stop being all stress out fam...be happy you got four...

Its not like we win another chip if we are the team of this decade

...or do we?...

 

[durden7]

Originally Posted by Cedric Ceballos 1995 Lakers


it depends on the teams expectations going into the season. if its a young rebuilding team, if they over achieve in the regular season and don't get the job done in the playoffs it could be considered a good season that they could build upon.

the 2006-07 dallas mavericks season was a failure and i'm sure the mavericks players would say the same thing.

67-15 home court advantage throughout the playoffs and a chance to avenge everything that happened to them in the 2006 finals. that was all wiped away in a week and a half by a team who didn't make the playoffs in 13 years prior to that.

still i'm not going to disregard your opinion on the colts, while i disagree with it, it's not like your spewing a bunch of nonsence so i can respect where your comming from on it.

they playoffs have been their downfall though. earlier in the decade before the 2003 season, there was talk about how peyton and the colts could never win a playoff game. they blew a bunch of oppurtunities this year to win more then one super bowl and while they have that regular season wins record, the colts players are probably thinking they should have won more then one.

Oh yeah, it totally depends on the expectations going into the season which is why success is such a hard thing to determine.

The Mavericks players might say it was a disappointment because they believed they had a shot at a title, but from an outsiders point of view it was still agood season. It may not have been great or as good as they wanted it to be but they were still a good team.

It def. has been the Colts downfall, and im certain the players wish they had more. Some players have also commented on how theyve also accomplished a lot inthe decade and are sort of "spoiled" so its not like they only had their minds set on one thing.

I personally lump more than just titles into the equation of what determines success so thats why I firmly believe theyre in the top 2 for the decade.

someone said titles are given too much value? REALLY?

You must not understand what im trying to say.

 

[proshares]

Originally Posted by Do Be Doo

The NBA is the only league where people have to chose between two teams either the SPURS or LA as number one...

MLB you can pick either the Yankees or the Sox IMO for team of the decade.

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by Do Be Doo


How about this fact....NBA FINALS SPURS 3-0 LA 4-6.....now tell me which is better?

4-6 is better. Why? Because 6 times we were the best team in the Western conference, a conference where both teams reside. The Spurs were onlythe best team in the conference 3 times. 6 > 3......4 > 3. Any way you slice it, we come out ahead. Are you going to tell me it's better to havethe winning percentage battle? Cuz then Miami 1-0 is better then LA's 4-6.

What a stupid argument.

My bad on the Bulls, i got their 99-00 season lumped in with 98-99.

 

[do be doo]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Originally Posted by Do Be Doo


How about this fact....NBA FINALS SPURS 3-0 LA 4-6.....now tell me which is better?

My bad on the Bulls, i got their 99-00 season lumped in with 98-99.

I was like "

" when i saw that...
But really CP at the end of the day I'm just happy about the Spurs being my hometown team and winning bringing good times to this city...

I just want one more for TD...

Originally Posted by Proshares

Originally Posted by Do Be Doo

The NBA is the only league where people have to chose between two teams either the SPURS or LA as number one...

MLB you can pick either the Yankees or the Sox IMO for team of the decade.

Sorry really not into MLB...

 

[CP1708]

And Doo, I wasn't sayin you were a hater for pickin the Spurs, I was talkin about non Spurs fans who say them. I get why you do, nothin wrong there. Butlike Pacer fans or Kings fans, or 6er fans that say Spurs either hate LA, or forget that the 99 title don't count in this decade. I didn't mean tomake it sound like you're included with them.

 

[cedric ceballos 1995 lakers]

mlb i would pick the yankees because picking the red sox would be disregarding that they didn't do much prior to the 2003 season.

the yankees missed the playoffs in 2008 and the red sox missed them again in 2006 so that evens out but the yankees were the best or were one of the best teamsin baseball almost every year this decade.

 

[pretty]

so what are these homers trying to say? lol yeah have pride in your team. but nobody cares lets move on next

 

[chester the cheetah]

Apparently spygate never happened. I didn't know you could cheat for half a decade and still be considered the best. Good to know.

 

[410fresh]

San Jose SaberCats 3 Chips in 10 years