Dynasty talk on Around The Horn.

[IceColdBrewski]

Wow. It's very rare that all 4 sports columnists on that show agree on any topic, but every single one of them just agreed that the Spurs should be considered a dynasty if they win this Championship. :wow

[2centsworth]

Wow. It's very rare that all 4 sports columnists on that show agree on any topic, but every single one of them just agreed that the Spurs should be considered a dynasty if they win this Championship. :wow
totally. btw, have you come around on TP?

[smeagol]

Wow. It's very rare that all 4 sports columnists on that show agree on any topic, but every single one of them just agreed that the Spurs should be considered a dynasty if they win this Championship. :wow
If we win it'll be 4 out of 9.

Not many teams have done that.

[mardigan]

If they win it this year I dont know how they wouldnt be considered a dynasty

[Spurminator]

Well they'll have "Team of the Decade" pretty much sewn up.

[ClingingMars]

"DUNCAN" is on the list of PTI topics today.

-Mars

[spurs1990]

look at their records from 2001-2007....from my research, here are the best 7-year runs since the 1970's:

Team / W-L / Avg / Yr / Finals
Bos / 434-140 / 62-20 / 80-86 / 3-1
Chi / 429-145 / 61-21 / 92-98 / 6-0
LA / 429-145 / 61-21 / 85-91 / 3-2
SA / 413-161 / 59-23 / 01-07 / 2-0
Dal / 407-167 / 58-24 / 01-07 / 0-1

[Sense]

They also didn't disagree that Duncan was the best PF ever.

[duncan228]

They also didn't disagree that Duncan was the best PF ever.

My God. They ALL agreed? Were :flypig too?

[FromWayDowntown]

Around the Horn is a fluke show.

(sorry, couldn't resist)

[Spurminator]

I think "dynasty" is thrown around too much. If I had my way we'd only consider three teams "NBA Dynasties." The Mikan Lakers, the Russell Celtics, and the Jordan Bulls.

You could call the 80's a "Lakers/Celtics Dynasty" since that matchup defined basketball for nine years, but IMO it takes an extended period of multiple (and consecutive) Championships to constitute a Dynasty.

I think the Spurs need at least this year and next year's Championship before we start talking about the Spurs Dynasty. That would be 4 Titles in 6 years. Win in 2009 too, and I think it's a given. For now, I'm happy to call them one of the most successful franchises in NBA history.

[DDS4]

Haven't done back-to-back championships yet.

Something on the "to-do" list.

[ClingingMars]

:flipoff

onoez! you hath upset Woody Paige!

-Mars

[Obstructed_View]

I think "dynasty" is thrown around too much. If I had my way we'd only consider three teams "NBA Dynasties." The Mikan Lakers, the Russell Celtics, and the Jordan Bulls.

You could call the 80's a "Lakers/Celtics Dynasty" since that matchup defined basketball for nine years, but IMO it takes an extended period of multiple (and consecutive) Championships to constitute a Dynasty.

I think the Spurs need at least this year and next year's Championship before we start talking about the Spurs Dynasty. That would be 4 Titles in 6 years. Win in 2009 too, and I think it's a given. For now, I'm happy to call them one of the most successful franchises in NBA history.
I agree. The Spurs should go ahead and win next year and the year after, too.

Great, now it's settled. :D

[Budkin]

Let's get it done starting Thursday Spurs!!!

[timvp]

The term dynasty has no meaning to me. It's an ambiguous term that really has no set meaning. I heard people talking about how the Cavs put an end to the Pistons dynasty. And then others saying that the only true dynasty in the NBA was the Russell Celtics.

There's no playoff system to win a dynasty trophy. All I know is championships and so far I count three of those.

:hat

[Obstructed_View]

The term dynasty has no meaning to me. It's an ambiguous term that really has no set meaning. I heard people talking about how the Cavs put an end to the Pistons dynasty. And then others saying that the only true dynasty in the NBA was the Russell Celtics.

There's no playoff system to win a dynasty trophy. All I know is championships and so far I count three of those.

:hat
Word. All I know is clinching the west was as satisfying in 2007 as it was in 1999. If the Spurs can win four more games it'll be as good as all the others. I'm probalby not the only Spurs fan that will never take winning championships for granted.

[ShoogarBear]

I can't believe people still watch Around The Horn.

[ambchang]

Didn't we all have this discussion back in 2005?

[Mr. Peabody]

Dammit, I was hoping this thread was about a Carrington reunion.

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/D/htmlD/dynasty/dynastyIMAGE/dynasty.jpg

[DynastyDynasty]

Dammit, I was hoping this thread was about a Carrington reunion.

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/D/htmlD/dynasty/dynastyIMAGE/dynasty.jpg

It's not too late.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

I don't really consider the 1999 championship team to be part of this Spurs dynasty (if/when they win against the Cavs), simply because that team was so different than the one in 2003.

[Obstructed_View]

I don't really consider the 1999 championship team to be part of this Spurs dynasty (if/when they win against the Cavs), simply because that team was so different than the one in 2003.
But you'd still call it a dynasty without '99?

[SAGambler]

Haven't done back-to-back championships yet.

Something on the "to-do" list.

No, but DAMN, we were probably one foul away from going for number 5 right now.

[ClingingMars]

I can't believe people still watch Around The Horn.

it's a funny show

-Mars

[ALVAREZ6]

Haven't done back-to-back championships yet.

Something on the "to-do" list.Last year was our best chance...I don't think it'll happen.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

But you'd still call it a dynasty without '99?

I think that I'd put them in the "great team" category with the early 2000 Lakers and the Bad Boy Pistons. As another poster already said, the term dynasty is very overused. However, if they win another one after this with the big three then yes I'd put them in that elite category of Dynasty.