All the great teams..

[horsielove]

..have repeated. The Spurs have not. And when its all said and done, the Duncan-Spurs will be the team that won championships "BUT" did not repeat. Discuss.

[Budkin]

0/10

[horsielove]

0/10

Deep inside you badly want the Spurs to repeat, but you and i both know that that won't happen and never will. Discuss.

[boutons_deux]

I'm hoping all the Spurs follow Tim's pre-christmas example and put out as much as he does.

We want Tim especially, but also Manu and Tony, to get that one B2B championship.

I thinking Tim's effort now, a part of the season where he often doesn't knock himself out, is an indication of all-season goal of getting the repeat and top or very high seed, everybody's health permitting, as always.

[Guajalote]

Meh! I'll take the 5 championships. Discuss.

[jag]

:corn:

[Silver&Black]

The Spurs are the 4th most winning franchise in NBA history...

That's good enough for me.

[xtremesteven33]

The Heat Repeated and are not seen as being in the same league as the Spurs far as greatness is concerned. The Spurs have now put themselves in the mix with 2000's Lakers, 90's Bulls, and the 80's Lakers/Celtics.

The Greatest NBA Franchises of all Time.

Celtics
Lakers
Bulls
Spurs

If Spurs win 6 they could bump Bulls for top 3.

[horsielove]

The Greatest NBA Franchise of all Time.

Spurs.

..that did not repeat.

[horsielove]

The Spurs are the 4th most winning franchise in NBA history...

That's good enough for me.

But did they repeat though?

[Silver&Black]

But did they repeat though?

I say again.....

The Spurs are the 4th most winning franchise in NBA history...

That's good enough for me.

[Mikeanaro]

Houston repeated and nobody cared, Miami did and is not a great team, most big market teams from the 90s to this date have repeated... I will take 5 rings over 2 in a row any hour of the century.

[cjw]

The Heat Repeated and are not seen as being in the same league as the Spurs far as greatness is concerned. The Spurs have now put themselves in the mix with 2000's Lakers, 90's Bulls, and the 80's Lakers/Celtics.

The Greatest NBA Franchises of all Time.

Celtics
Lakers
Bulls
Spurs

If Spurs win 6 they could bump Bulls for top 3.


Celtics have only won four since the ABA/NBA merger. So the real order is:

Lakers 10 (5 Showtime / 5 Shaq+Pau+Bynum+Artest+Odom)
Bulls 6
Spurs 5
Celtics 4

Also, Bird never repeated and only won three. And the last Showtime title should have gone to the Pistons but Isiah sprained his ankle and still almost won it in 6.

[spurs10]

The Spurs are the 4th most winning franchise in NBA history... That's good enough for me. Actually the Spurs are the most winning team of any of the four major team sports in the last 15 years. Football, baseball, hockey....it's not just basketball that they're on top in.

[horsielove]

Actually the Spurs are the most winning team of any of the four major team sports in the last 15 years. Football, baseball, hockey....it's not just basketball that they're on top in.

that never repeated.

[horsielove]

Houston repeated and nobody cared

Robinson did, during his MVP season.

[Buddy Mignon]

He's got a point... they don't defend.

[Aremid]

I agree. Defending a title is much more meaningful and difficult than winning one when you are under the radar and nobody is out to get you. Only the truly elite can accomplish that.

[horsielove]

I agree. Defending a title is much more meaningful and difficult than winning one when you are under the radar and nobody is out to get you. Only the truly elite can accomplish that.

Agreed. In which case they are not as "elite" as the media is crowning them. Spurs is the regular season champion that sometimes win championships, but cant defend it.

[dbreiden83080]

..have repeated. The Spurs have not. And when its all said and done, the Duncan-Spurs will be the team that won championships "BUT" did not repeat. Discuss.

Larry Bird never repeated.. Are the 86 Celts not a great team?

[dbreiden83080]

..have repeated. The Spurs have not. And when its all said and done, the Duncan-Spurs will be the team that won championships "BUT" did not repeat. Discuss.

Larry Bird never repeated.. Are the 86 Celts not a great team?

[horsielove]

Larry Bird never repeated.. Are the 86 Celts not a great team?

The Boston Celtics is elite. They repeated. But the Spurs though?

[spurs10]

Being the Number One team in all sports for all these years speaks of the significance of repeating. A two year run is not much of a run really. The Spurs have been on top, I'm safe to assume, the majority of the OP's life. After winning our fifth it's hard to complain about much. It will be fun defending our championship for sure.

[dbreiden83080]

The Boston Celtics is elite. They repeated. But the Spurs though?

Larry Bird's Celts repeated????????????

you must mean Bill Russell's.. With 8 teams in the NBA..

[horsielove]

Larry Bird's Celts repeated????????????

you must mean Bill Russell's.. With 8 teams in the NBA..

the BOSTON CELTICS repeated. They are elite. The Spurs though?

[dbreiden83080]

the BOSTON CELTICS repeated. They are elite. The Spurs though?

http://replygif.net/i/1157.gif

[Vic Petro]

This will be the sweetest of bumps.

[spurspokesman]

I don't care if they repeat or not. I'm happy with coming close and actually winning 5 championships over the course of nearly twenty years. Spurs til I die

[Juggity]

:lol "repeating" is a nitpicky, desperate criterion that fans of other franchises parrot specifically to discredit the spurs. It's pretty similar to the way Galileo cherry picks Duncan stats once every few weeks to discuss how he's the first player older than 38 years, two weeks, and three days to record a 23 point, 12 rebound, 2 block game while wearing adidas shoes and maintaining an Elo rating above 1989.

five is five tbh

[Horse]

The Spurs are the definition of dynasty it's hard as hell to repeat but to do what they've done is amazing!!!

[SupremeGuy]

The Spurs are the 4th most winning franchise in NBA history...

That's good enough for me.And they have the best winning percentage, do they not? They may have lost that lately though. :lol

[Mr Bones]

Back to backs are an arbitrary stat. Why is a repeat is more impressive than 2 championships in 3 years, or 3 championships in 5 years?
Arbitrary stats are never more important than a total body of work. Five championships in 15 years-- that's a great accomplishment.

If a baseball player bats .350, hits 42 home runs, and has 127 RBIs, including a game where he hits two home runs, two doubles, and a triple, it would silly to say, "well, he never hit for the cycle." It wouldn't matter. Hitting for the cycle is an arbitrary stat. It'll never be more important than Batting average, total home runs, etc.

[Silver&Black]

There is going to always be "BUTS" when discussing sports teams and its legendary players.

The Spurs are a great team....BUT they never repeated.
Kirby is a great player......BUT he always had a dominant big.
Bill Russell has the most rings....BUT he didn't have any competition.
Charles Barkley was a legend....BUT he never won a ring.
Michael Jordan was the GOAT....BUT he killed his dad.

Just get used to it......

[Aremid]

Back to backs are an arbitrary stat. Why is a repeat is more impressive than 2 championships in 3 years, or 3 championships in 5 years?
Arbitrary stats are never more important than a total body of work. Five championships in 15 years-- that's a great accomplishment.

If a baseball player bats .350, hits 42 home runs, and has 127 RBIs, including a game where he hits two home runs, two doubles, and a triple, it would silly to say, "well, he never hit for the cycle." It wouldn't matter. Hitting for the cycle is an arbitrary stat. It'll never be more important than Batting average, total home runs, etc.


A repeat is more impressive because it's much more difficult to obtain. After you win a championship, EVERY team comes after you. Every GM tries to make trades and acquire players to specifically defeat you. You are no longer a surprise, you are no longer under the radar. Even the worst teams in the league bring their "A" plus game against you. It's much more significant to overcome those obstacles than it is to win once every 2-3 or so years. Sure it's a testament to your consistency, but it's not a testament to greatness or dominance, which the bulls, lakers, older celtics had.

[spurs10]

A repeat is more impressive because it's much more difficult to obtain. After you win a championship, EVERY team comes after you. Every GM tries to make trades and acquire players to specifically defeat you. You are no longer a surprise, you are no longer under the radar. Even the worst teams in the league bring their "A" plus game against you. It's much more significant to overcome those obstacles than it is to win once every 2-3 or so years. Sure it's a testament to your consistency, but it's not a testament to greatness or dominance, which the bulls, lakers, older celtics had. Being the most winning team in all team sports is exactly a "testament to greatness and dominance." They didn't accomplish what did because they 'surprised' anyone and they've always had a target on their back. Fifteen years of greatness will likely never be seen again with the same coach and same key players. They have made history and I'm lucky to have had ringside seats.

[timtonymanu]

Nothing can beat the redemption the Spurs had last season. They could have easily blown it up after the 2013 meltdown. Sure a repeat would be nice but to come back from 2013 with a very dominant playoff run against some tough teams is very hard to accomplish in it's own right.

[Mr Bones]

A repeat is more impressive because it's much more difficult to obtain. After you win a championship, EVERY team comes after you. Every GM tries to make trades and acquire players to specifically defeat you. You are no longer a surprise, you are no longer under the radar. Even the worst teams in the league bring their "A" plus game against you. It's much more significant to overcome those obstacles than it is to win once every 2-3 or so years. Sure it's a testament to your consistency, but it's not a testament to greatness or dominance, which the bulls, lakers, older celtics had.

That's an interesting take, but it's an opinion, and not a fact. Winning 5 championships in 15 seasons is at least as rare as back to backs, as is 3 in 5, and when the Spurs won in '07, every coach, player, and GM in the league was well aware of their reputation, their roster, & their coach. They'd been big players in '04 and '06, and were always considered one of the favorites to win it all in those years. Again, I think your take is an interesting theory, but I just don't agree. Losing in year 1, winning in year 2, and winning in year 3 is just no different to me that winning in year 1, losing in year 2, and winning in year 3. It's 2 championships in a short period of time, which is impressive, especially in the modern NBA with 30 teams, and 4 rounds of playoff games.

[Aremid]

That's an interesting take, but it's an opinion, and not a fact. Winning 5 championships in 15 seasons is at least as rare as back to backs, as is 3 in 5, and when the Spurs won in '07, every coach, player, and GM in the league was well aware of their reputation, their roster, & their coach. They'd been big players in '04 and '06, and were always considered one of the favorites to win it all in those years. Again, I think your take is an interesting theory, but I just don't agree. Losing in year 1, winning in year 2, and winning in year 3 is just no different to me that winning in year 1, losing in year 2, and winning in year 3. It's 2 championships in a short period of time, which is impressive, especially in the modern NBA with 30 teams, and 4 rounds of playoff games.


Look at the years we didn't repeat and tell me how steeper the competition was that year compared to the year before. After the 99 championship, the lakers hired Phil Jackson to mobilize all the talent they already had. They were completely different and way more threatening than the team the spurs swept in 1999. The 2000 blazer upgraded their roster as well. Sure, the spurs didn't advance far enough to play these teams due to the Duncan injury, but they couldn't even get out of the first round to do so.

In 2004, the lakers reloaded with Karl Malone to try to counter Duncan's greatness from 03. The result? Lakers backdoor sweep SA.

in 2006, mavs hire Avery Johnson and another former spurs assistant to out strategize and outthink the spurs. Mavs go up. 3-1 in the series before winning in 7.

in 2008, celtics acquire a big 3 and the lakers get gasol. Spurs lose in 5 to the lakers.

What do all these years have in common ? The competition was way tougher and teams specifically tried to match up better with the spurs. It would have been far more impressive to win in these years compared to others.

[Mr Bones]

So what's more impressive, the Houston Rockets winning back to back but never again, or the Spurs winning 3 times in 5 years and 5 times in 15?

[Sean Cagney]

Houston repeated and nobody cared, Miami did and is not a great team, most big market teams from the 90s to this date have repeated... I will take 5 rings over 2 in a row any hour of the century.
^^^^^^^ This. The Houston is known as the Jordan retired years by most as well, if he played those two years they likely do not repeat and the Bulls might have 8 in a row TBH.
Look at the years we didn't repeat and tell me how steeper the competition was that year compared to the year before. After the 99 championship, the lakers hired Phil Jackson to mobilize all the talent they already had. They were completely different and way more threatening than the team the spurs swept in 1999. The 2000 blazer upgraded their roster as well. Sure, the spurs didn't advance far enough to play these teams due to the Duncan injury, but they couldn't even get out of the first round to do so.

In 2004, the lakers reloaded with Karl Malone to try to counter Duncan's greatness from 03. The result? Lakers backdoor sweep SA.

in 2006, mavs hire Avery Johnson and another former spurs assistant to out strategize and outthink the spurs. Mavs go up. 3-1 in the series before winning in 7.

in 2008, celtics acquire a big 3 and the lakers get gasol. Spurs lose in 5 to the lakers.

What do all these years have in common ? The competition was way tougher and teams specifically tried to match up better with the spurs. It would have been far more impressive to win in these years compared to others.
I can see what you are saying there but they have had some injuries on that back to back attempt (Tim in 00 and Ginobili in 08), they caught some bad breaks after teams reloaded to catch them. 2006 was their best shot IMO and they lost that game 7, otherwise they threepeat IMO. I remember some banged up in 06 as well including Tim Duncan with the plantar and Ginobili in the Mavs series, but that is part of the game and they played all 7 games.

[Maddog]

Look at the years we didn't repeat and tell me how steeper the competition was that year compared to the year before. After the 99 championship, the lakers hired Phil Jackson to mobilize all the talent they already had. They were completely different and way more threatening than the team the spurs swept in 1999. The 2000 blazer upgraded their roster as well. Sure, the spurs didn't advance far enough to play these teams due to the Duncan injury, but they couldn't even get out of the first round to do so.

In 2004, the lakers reloaded with Karl Malone to try to counter Duncan's greatness from 03. The result? Lakers backdoor sweep SA.

in 2006, mavs hire Avery Johnson and another former spurs assistant to out strategize and outthink the spurs. Mavs go up. 3-1 in the series before winning in 7.

in 2008, celtics acquire a big 3 and the lakers get gasol. Spurs lose in 5 to the lakers.

What do all these years have in common ? The competition was way tougher and teams specifically tried to match up better with the spurs. It would have been far more impressive to win in these years compared to others.

To some degree you point out why I think the Spurs have never repeated. They have never had the resources - that is money wise. Their talent margin has never been overwhelming. This is a team that has not had a pick <20 since 97. Their most high profile free agent signings? Rasho and Finely.
After 07, Every team that won was way over the capand even the teams who lost in the finals where either way over the cap or committed to going over it the following season (the exceptions the Spurs and Thunder who dumped a star to stay under).

So what's more impressive, the Hosten Rockets winning back to back but never again, or the Spurs winning 3 times in 5 years and 5 times in 15?
This

[Aremid]

To some degree you point out why I think the Spurs have never repeated. They have never had the resources - that is money wise. Their talent margin has never been overwhelming. This is a team that has not had a pick <20 since 97. Their most high profile free agent signings? Rasho and Finely.
After 07, Every team that won was way over the capand even the teams who lost in the finals where either way over the cap or committed to going over it the following season (the exceptions the Spurs and Thunder who dumped a star to stay under).

This

i think you pretty much made my point. The spurs' talent margin has always been underwhelming. That's not their fault, but by admitting that a team with an excellent talent margin is necessary for winning back to back titles, you are also saying that winning back to back is a very difficult thing to accomplish--and only a handful of teams are capable of doing so. That being said, I think if the spurs are healthy they have a wide enough talent margin to do it this year. I hope I'm right.

[Mr Bones]

in 2006, mavs hire Avery Johnson and another former spurs assistant to out strategize and outthink the spurs. Mavs go up. 3-1 in the series before winning in 7.



You present this in the least favorable light. You could word it this way also: In 2006, The Spurs came within seconds of defeating the Mavs, which in retrospect might have put them in the finals three years in a row, meaning they would've had a shot at a threepeat.

Either way, I still don't buy the concept that a team which has a four year championship run that goes L/W/W/L is somehow inherently better than a team that has four seasons that go L/W/L/W. They seem the same to me. And if the sequence goes W/L/W/L/W, that strikes me as more impressive.

[Galileo]

Spurs on way to 18th consecutive season:

* making playoffs
* winning record
* winning record on road
* 60%+ winning record

You would have to go to college football or basketball to find anything remotely similar to dominant consistency like this among major media sports.

[Arcadian]

:lol No. OP is a faggot, and repeating is not a more impressive accomplishment than winning 3 out of 5. The Spurs are targeted as a team to beat every year, regardless of whether they won the previous championship. And don't forget how close they were to winning 5 straight titles 03-07.

So no. Close this shit thread now.

[horsielove]

:lol No. OP is a faggot, and repeating is not a more impressive accomplishment than winning 3 out of 5. The Spurs are targeted as a team to beat every year, regardless of whether they won the previous championship. And don't forget how close they were to winning 5 straight titles 03-07.

So no. Close this shit thread now.

close to winning 5 straight titles :lol
all this "ifs" :lol

[Cry Havoc]

close to winning 5 straight titles :lol
all this "ifs" :lol

This is what you spend your Christmas Eve doing. Trolling a Spurs forum.

You must be a real winner of a person IRL to be focusing so much of your energy here.

[Mikeanaro]

This shit is still open?
The 80s Celts are considered a great team, did they...?