Greatest Team of the Decade: Pats or Lakers?

[aluminum seats]

Breaking this out from an earlier thread--the consensus seemed to be that the top team of the decade was either the Pats or the Lakers.

For purposes of this argument, we're talking about the four major leagues in the U.S. (I guess hockey still qualifies, but no NHL team is worthy of putting in the poll. I also don't think the Yankees or Red Sox distinguished themselves enough.)

After some back and forth in the other thread, it seems the most correct thing to do is analyze the Lakers from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009, and the Pats from 2000-2001 to 2009-2010. So the Lakers have won 4 titles to the Pats 3 (so far). If that ends the conversation for you, the idea of "greatest" is sort of pointless--just ask who won the most titles.

I give the nod to the Pats because of the 3 titles (so far), the perfect regular season, and a superior regular season winning percentage, .706 to .646. There are intangibles that go in the Pats' favor too, but that'll work for now.

 

[Ed's_Friend]

I think that the Pats are the greatest team of the decade simply because of their teamwork and did the Lakers go undefeated? You also need to analyze the win streak of the Lakers however, we are talking about 2 different sports, football, IMHO is a lot more difficult to play. Their teamwork, not necessarily the amount of wins but HOW they win, show that they are a great team.

I vote Pats.

 

[DarrylS]

This is too easy, for a Laker hater...

 

[Disco Volante]

You can't compare an NFL team with an NBA team, in my opinion.

I think a more proper question would be, who impressed you more?

 

[JSn]

Basketball is semi-******ed. :scared:

 

[aluminum seats]

You can't compare an NFL team with an NBA team, in my opinion.

I think a more proper question would be, who impressed you more?

That's still comparing.....

And nonsense. It's not difficult to compare teams in different sports based on their success--it's still about athletes playing as a team and winning games.

I did, btw, expect some early Laker's votes based on the other thread.

 

[MaxVonDoom]

Lets see the Pats have had their way with the league for most of the decade, but the Lakers on the other hand have as well and the Lakers dont take NO for an answer, the Lakers just take what they want regardless in fact you might even say the Lakers are nothing but a bunch of rapi................I'll say Pats

 

[JR4]

I'd like to see the results of such a poll on NBA.com site vs a Poll on
NFL.com
Such a poll on a Patriots forum is just not rational if you expect it to
be anywhere near objective.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I hate the Lakers with a passion and obviously am a huge Pats fan, but I think the Lakers are easily the better team. Other than winning what defines greatness... and if you want to use the regular season argument, how come the Colts aren't ahead of us then?

The only argument you can make in the Pats favor is that football has a legit salary cap while in bball from what I understand doesn't really matter. Plus Pau Gasol was handed to them on a silver platter. But hey that's what the NBA is nowadays. The Pats accomplishments may be more impressive. But talking strictly which team was better it's easily the Lakers.

 

[eagle eye]

Who put up a poll?

 

[Nikolai]

Baseball is tough, but I would say the Red Wings have been the dominant hockey team of the decade. They've only got two Stanley Cups to show for it, but their record during this decade is ridiculous and they were a mere game away from a third championship. I think the Red Wings have a lot of similarities with the Pats, and I'd put them in the conversation.

I don't really follow basketball as much anymore, but I seem to remember the Lakers having a big hole somewhere around 2004-2007 where they really didn't do much at all. I know the Pats missed the playoffs in 2002 and 2008, but both were because of tiebreakers, and the latter was without the Pats' "Kobe". I seem to remember the Lakers having a losing season during the middle of the run.

In any case, they bookended the decade very nicely. I don't know enough about the dynamics of basketball, but it seems dynasties come easier in that league. Either way, it's tough to pick between the two, but I'll let my homerism do the talking.

Pats.

 

[MaxVonDoom]

I hate the Lakers with a passion and obviously am a huge Pats fan, but I think the Lakers are easily the better team. Other than winning what defines greatness... and if you want to use the regular season argument, how come the Colts aren't ahead of us then?

The only argument you can make in the Pats favor is that football has a legit salary cap while in bball from what I understand doesn't really matter. Plus Pau Gasol was handed to them on a silver platter. But hey that's what the NBA is nowadays. The Pats accomplishments may be more impressive. But talking strictly which team was better it's easily the Lakers.

See this is the kind of troll that exists here, thousands of posts, claims hes a Pats fan, then says but of course the LA Rapists are better. Why post here if you dont like this team? It boggles the mind. We embrace our trolls thats why we have Borges, Ryan, Shank and others we surround ourselves with negativity because we love being miserable.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

See this is the kind of troll that exists here, thousands of posts, claims hes a Pats fan, then says but of course the LA Rapists are better. Why post here if you dont like this team? It boggles the mind. We embrace our trolls thats why we have Borges, Ryan, Shank and others we surround ourselves with negativity because we love being miserable.

Yeah I hate the Patriots, and love the Lakers with all my heart. Spot on, Max

 

[celticboy04]

Greetings,

I have to say the Pats mainly because no matter if their opponent had more talent, they constantly found a way to win. They were not an expected dynasty at all, they essentially came out of nowhere by teamwork, execution, great coaching and heart.

Shalom,
Celticboy04

 

[aluminum seats]

I'd like to see the results of such a poll on NBA.com site vs a Poll on
NFL.com
Such a poll on a Patriots forum is just not rational if you expect it to
be anywhere near objective.

Speak for yourself. I can be objective about all things Pats. Example: I think many Pats' fans are morons.

 

[aluminum seats]

Who put up a poll?

This idiot being a case in point.

 

[aluminum seats]

I hate the Lakers with a passion and obviously am a huge Pats fan, but I think the Lakers are easily the better team. Other than winning what defines greatness... and if you want to use the regular season argument, how come the Colts aren't ahead of us then?

The only argument you can make in the Pats favor is that football has a legit salary cap while in bball from what I understand doesn't really matter. Plus Pau Gasol was handed to them on a silver platter. But hey that's what the NBA is nowadays. The Pats accomplishments may be more impressive. But talking strictly which team was better it's easily the Lakers.

I think this is fair, but I disagree. (I really disagree on the "easily" part, and wonder if you really think that?) I do think a championship disparity beyond one is hard to negotiate, but since it's 4-3 (and counting) I think other factors play a role.

Put it this way--what if the Lakers won 4 titles, and then finished at the bottom of the league for 6 years. Still the greatest? That didn't happen, but I don't think #championships necessarily equals greatest.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I think this is fair, but I disagree. (I really disagree on the "easily" part, and wonder if you really think that?) I do think a championship disparity beyond one is hard to negotiate, but since it's 4-3 (and counting) I think other factors play a role.

Put it this way--what if the Lakers won 4 titles, and then finished at the bottom of the league for 6 years. Still the greatest? That didn't happen, but I don't think #championships necessarily equals greatest.

The 4 titles, and 6 total finals appearances (compared to our 4 super bowl appearances). I think that last part makes them 'easily' better. That being said, I can see your argument in the terms that the Pats run is more impressive as this league is geared towards parity moreso than NBA. Look at all the other NFL champs since '99 and how they did the following season. Lots didn't even make the playoffs. NBA is much more prone to having dynasties.

 

[aluminum seats]

The 4 titles, and 6 total finals appearances (compared to our 4 super bowl appearances). I think that last part makes them 'easily' better. That being said, I can see your argument in the terms that the Pats run is more impressive as this league is geared towards parity moreso than NBA. Look at all the other NFL champs since '99 and how they did the following season. Lots didn't even make the playoffs. NBA is much more prone to having dynasties.

This is where I think regular season plays a part. The Colts can't be part of the conversation because they only won a single title (although I guess two is possible, which would changes things.) Baseball analogy would be the dominant Braves teams of the 90's in the regular season, but they only won one World Series.

The Pats .706 vs. the Lakers .646 is significant--for an NBA season, that would translate to 58 wins a year vs. 53, a measurable difference.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

maybe we could ask tim donaghey.