Spurs Dynasty? i don't think so.

[Frenzy]

this got me thinking...


We must keep this in perspective. All we are talking about is the Spurs not winning the 2009 title. They are still the second or third best team in the Conference and that is top-five in the game.

They have too many jumpshooters with no mid-range game. That is their offensive problem. It's just a limitation, not the end of a dynasty.



many of you have mention "dynasty"when talking about the spurs...in basketball what does that define?


is it just a team that has won championships in a certain length of time? i mean what are the rules of it? just wanna know your opinion on this matter.

when you mention dynasty i usually think of boston,lakers and bulls...not really the spurs... even though the spurs have the 4th most after the ones i just mentioned.

mainly cause boston has 17 :wow
the lakers 14(not all in LA i know)
chicago with 6.

the spurs....4. I guess i won't think of them of a dynasty till they get as much as the bulls... which seems bleak now for the this season anyway...next year i dunno all this talk about duncan getting old and the team is old...makes me think i'm not gonna see 5 much less 6.




thoughts..

[poop]

to me it has to involve a team with a certain set of core players that wins multiple titles in a relatively short span of time.

for example the jordan-pippen bulls, the magic-kareem lakers, maybe the shaq-kobe lakers, the duncan-era spurs

[FromWayDowntown]

It's a bit self-serving, but these are my thoughts:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3274354&postcount=53

By definition, only 3 franchises in the NBA could have ever had a better run than the run that these Spurs are on -- after all, only 3 franchises (all of which have been in the NBA much, much longer than the San Antonio Spurs have) have won as many as 4 titles. Obviously, the Russell/Havlicek/Cowens Celtics (13 titles in 20 years), the Jordan Bulls (6 titles in 8 years), the Magic Lakers (5 titles in 9 years), and the Mikan Lakers (5 titles in 6 years) have won more over one extended stretch of time. But nobody else -- nobody in the history of the NBA.

[Muser]

People have various definitions, personally I couldn't care if people class us as a Dynasty or not, i'm just happy with the rings.

[sonic21]

Seeing the title, i thought it was a thread started by leonard.

[Muser]

Seeing the title, i thought it was a thread started by leonard.


http://macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/images/win_button.jpg

[xtremesteven33]

The Lakers 3peat is also pretty damn impressive.

[sook]

SpursDynasty speaks for itself

[LEONARD]

Seeing the title, i thought it was a thread started by leonard.

That's what you get for thinking, shitstick...

[poop]

when you mention dynasty i usually think of boston,lakers and bulls...not really the spurs... even though the spurs have the 4th most after the ones i just mentioned.

mainly cause boston has 17 :wow
the lakers 14(not all in LA i know)
chicago with 6.
.

you cant just take a whole franchise and call it a 'dynasty'... the celtics have 17 over the course of the whole franchise's history; that said, the bird celtics were a completely different team in a completely different era than the russell celtics. also the celtics have has a 20+year span of mediocrity. thats why you have to refer to specific team-eras, not just a whole franchise which can exist in various cities, various team names, and hundreds of players over the decades.

the lakers have 14 in name only; what does the minneapolis franchise have to do with the modern day lakers other than the word 'lakers'?? absolutely nothing. counting them all together is no different than throwing the dallas chaparals into the spurs legacy and refer to all their stats and accomplishments as 'the spurs''.

[sonic21]

That's what you get for thinking, shitstick...

hmm, the stalker being defensive

[mytespurs]

this got me thinking...





many of you have mention "dynasty"when talking about the spurs...in basketball what does that define?


is it just a team that has won championships in a certain length of time? i mean what are the rules of it? just wanna know your opinion on this matter.

when you mention dynasty i usually think of boston,lakers and bulls...not really the spurs... even though the spurs have the 4th most after the ones i just mentioned.

mainly cause boston has 17 :wow
the lakers 14(not all in LA i know)
chicago with 6.

the spurs....4. I guess i won't think of them of a dynasty till they get as much as the bulls... which seems bleak now for the this season anyway...next year i dunno all this talk about duncan getting old and the team is old...makes me think i'm not gonna see 5 much less 6.




thoughts..
First and foremost, there's no comparison b/t the Spurs and the dynasties of the Lakers & Celtics. If I were to compare, it would be with the the Bulls dynasty of the 90's but I wouldn't go there either.

All I know is that in this decade, the Spurs managed to win 4 titles within a 8 year period and that is good enough for me. :toast

[Destro]

There weren't that many teams to play when the Celtics won all those titles

[Juanobili]

Duncan = Dynasty

[LEONARD]

hmm, the stalker being defensive

Bit #4

[Frenzy]

Bit #4

something i don't know.? whats with all the hostility?

[Darrin]

Wow, I got a new thread quote. Cool!

As for the topic, I think the Spurs are a dynasty. We don't tend to think of them as the best for a myriad of reasons.

1. They started their excellence in a small market as an ABA franchise.
2. They are known as defining boring basketball.
3. They've never had the best two players in the world on the same team (Kobe/Shaq, Kareem/Magic, Bird/McHale, Jordan/Pippen).

Still, look back. They've had one losing season in 19 seasons. They've been excellent for 12 consecutive years. They've played in 7 Conference Finals, 4 NBA Finals, and won 4 Championships while averaging 55-60 wins a season with Tim Duncan as their best player.

However you judge it, I see a dynasty. No one may touch the lore of the league called the Celtics and the Lakers, but they're right behind them in overall excellence.

[TheProfessor]

Duncan = Dynasty
Yes, though I'd make it the Duncan/Pop dynasty. To see them win a title with two completely separate clubs makes it all the more impressive, IMO. If a major market team had been involved with this kind of success over a sustained period, there would be no question.

[HarlemHeat37]

I think we're definitely a dynasty..not from a title-perspective, but from a success standpoint in general..

4 titles in this time span, virtually having the NBA record for most 50 win seasons in a row..that's enough for me, especially in this era of the NBA..

[TheManFromAcme]

you cant just take a whole franchise and call it a 'dynasty'... the celtics have 17 over the course of the whole franchise's history; that said, the bird celtics were a completely different team in a completely different era than the russell celtics. also the celtics have has a 20+year span of mediocrity. thats why you have to refer to specific team-eras, not just a whole franchise which can exist in various cities, various team names, and hundreds of players over the decades.

the lakers have 14 in name only; what does the minneapolis franchise have to do with the modern day lakers other than the word 'lakers'?? absolutely nothing. counting them all together is no different than throwing the dallas chaparals into the spurs legacy and refer to all their stats and accomplishments as 'the spurs''.


Mr. Caca,

Lakers fans and the entire city of Los Angeles will always factor in the Minn. titles. I challenge you to go to www. Lakers.com and click on the history tab. You'll notice and read that what Mikan and company did is INDEED FACTORED in to any and all things Lakers past and present.

That's just the way it is whether you like it or not is a entirely different matter.

Let see:

1949,1950,1952,1953,1954,1972,1980,1982,1985,1987, 1988,2000,2001,2002 which brings the tally to 14.

Oh yeah, I forgot the good old NBL days. They got one in 1948

Grand total = 15.

I know it's ancient history and I'll be the first to admit but numbers don't lie and is just more bragging right fuel.

On a side note:

Would have been nice to see the Spurs win at least one back to back to solidify some dominance but fate and bad luck was not to allow the Spurs to ever accomplish that. Pity really. Some of those were damn good teams especially that 2005 squad.

[TheManFromAcme]

Yes, though I'd make it the Duncan/Pop dynasty. To see them win a title with two completely separate clubs makes it all the more impressive, IMO. If a major market team had been involved with this kind of success over a sustained period, there would be no question.

I agree. Pop can coach a Division 1 college team and make them contenders. He's that good of a coach contrary to all the crappy threads questioning his abilities as a coach. Pop is one of the best.

[Capt Bringdown]

Spurs should have deep respect for teams that we able to repeat. They did something we were not able to do.

We failed to repeat, and that has to be accounted for if you're qualifiying respective dynasties.

[Many PackYao]

Spurs should have deep respect for teams that we able to repeat. They did something we were not able to do.

We failed to repeat, and that has to be accounted for if you're qualifiying respective dynasties.
Rockets?

[Capt Bringdown]

Rockets?

I think the Rocket back-to-back championship teams were very special, but they were not a dynasty. They didn't dominate their decade as the Spurs/Lakers/Bulls did.

[IronMexican]

No way were the Rockets a dynasty. That isn't even up for debate

[sananspursfan21]

it's a dynasty. no question

[Frenzy]

maybe cleveland can be the new Dy lol

[Capt Bringdown]

maybe cleveland can be the new Dy lol

I think the Spurs will be rebuilding for quite a few years, so I wouldn't mind seeing that. Anything but more KG and Kobe.

[Many PackYao]

I think the Rocket back-to-back championship teams were very special, but they were not a dynasty. They didn't dominate their decade as the Spurs/Lakers/Bulls did.
No doubt. I agree that they were not a dynasty.

[Kamala]

A bunch of guys who were part-time mechanics shooting into peach baskets won the lakers and celtics some championships. Count those titles,
but they have a * by them.

[Spork KIller]

The Spurms are not dynasty...Shit! they can't even win back-to-back titles or even worse they can't even make back to back trips to the NBA Finals...
A fluke team with a lot of luck that's what define the spurms short run, not a dynasty at all!

[Frenzy]

i can tell your a spurs fan.

[Spork KIller]

The Spurms are not dynasty...Shit! they can't even win back-to-back titles or even worse they can't even make back to back trips to the NBA Finals...
A fluke team with a lot of luck that's what define the spurms short run, not a dynasty at all!
let me rephrase myself to make it clear

[TDomination]

Spurs are definitely a dynasty imo.

Maybe not the traditional dynasty that we are used to, but they have been a true contender for a decades length. And add in 4 championships during that span.

[Harry Callahan]

Winning 4 NBA titles in ten years is a dynasty when you consider only three teams (noted above) have won as many NBA championships as SA in the HISTORY of the NBA. Only Boston, LA, and Chicago have more.

[Harry Callahan]

Usually an NBA window of titles is only 2 or three years before the players get over the hill. Duncan was only 23 when he won his first and just kept rolling for another decade. That's the unique thing about what SA did with a nine year period between championships (first to last). I'll dream that another could be had, but I'm a homer.

[ClintSquint]

Winning 4 NBA titles in ten years is a dynasty when you consider only three teams (noted above) have won as many NBA championships as SA in the HISTORY of the NBA. Only Boston, LA, and Chicago have more.

I agree.

[Spork KIller]

Try to repeat first bitches...
You are not Dynasty...Period!

[greyforest]

I know lets all argue semantics

[SpursDynasty]

When you factor in the 1999 title it weakens our definition of a dynasty...4 championships in 10 seasons...but I only look at the 03, 05, and 07 titles. As far as I'm concerned, the Spurs are still a dynasty in the making with 3 out of the last 6 championships.

[Solid D]

When you factor in the 1999 title it weakens our definition of a dynasty...4 championships in 10 seasons...but I only look at the 03, 05, and 07 titles. As far as I'm concerned, the Spurs are still a dynasty in the making with 3 out of the last 6 championships.

4 Championships in 10 Seasons stands on it's own with dynastic consistency. The 1998-99 season with the same coach and marquee player as today, that was the best defensive team in modern NBA history. The .401 Opp. FG% is unequaled and even if you compare the 50 versus 82 game regular season, the playoffs saw that Spurs' team slice through the normal number of playoff rounds with only 2 losses. Let's not leave a dominant team out of the definition, shall we? Besides, who owns the correct definition of dynasty? Wiki?