Dynasty

[SpursDynasty]

With the Spurs having the 2007 championship wrapped up pretty much and having been the best team in the NBA all season, can they repeat? They will have Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker next year, and right now is the best that the Big Three has ever played together.

I don't see any competition in the NBA for the Spurs next year. They didn't have any competition this year, everything came so easy. It's as if this season is "another day at the office". 58 wins, a championship, and the best team in the NBA. What else is new....they should go for the back-to-back to silence all these "they're not a dynasty" people.

Let's just hope they don't lose the next 4 Finals games in a row, win 67 next year, and get eliminated by the 8th seed. That would suck.

[Obstructed_View]

If the Spurs were to somehow find a way to lose this series, I will take solace in the fact that your team got beat.

[BUMP]

call in the dynasty trolls

[mavs>spurs2]

Haha here we go...

[JeffDynasty]

This season has just been another "day at the office" for Jeff. He's started somewhere around 100 Spurs praising threads that in actuality were shots at the Mavs. No suprises here. He was just starting threads he was supposed to start.

I don't think there will be any competition for Jeff next season. At this point he is the greatest poster to ever post threads about the Spurs that are really about the Mavs.

[BobcatsDynasty]

This is a fluke thread by a fluke poster about a fluke team. When the Bobcats beat the Spurs, they were beating a team they're supposed to beat. Next season the Bobcats will be the Dynasty. They aren't winning the Finals now because the refs gave other teams all the calls.

[LEONARD]

The jinxer has struck :fro


If the Spurs were to somehow find a way to lose this series, I will take solace in the fact that your team got beat.

LMAO...

Damn, that is the definition of hate :lol

[LilMissSPURfect]

Dynasty...it izzz what it izzz

[dickface]

This would be the weakest dynasty in NBA history...but still a dynasty. I'd take the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, the 90's Bulls, the 80's Lakers, the 80's Celtics, etc. ALL over these Spurs.

[ratm1221]

So there will be no one that can beat the Spurs next year? Man, that sucks. Can we just skip next year then and start the 2008-2009 season?

[DynastyDynasty]

I really wish you guys would quit bringing my name up.

[Extra Stout]

This would be the weakest dynasty in NBA history...but still a dynasty. I'd take the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, the 90's Bulls, the 80's Lakers, the 80's Celtics, etc. ALL over these Spurs.
Your omission of the '60s Celtics simultaneously slides the Spurs a notch down the list, and yet invalidates your opinion.

[Shank]

ShankDynasty.

[baseline bum]

We still can't fuck with Dallas' record 56-game Dynasty.

[mavs>spurs2]

^Sure can't.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

If the Spurs were to somehow find a way to lose this series, I will take solace in the fact that your team got beat.


hahahahahaha

[dickface]

Your omission of the '60s Celtics simultaneously slides the Spurs a notch down the list, and yet invalidates your opinion.

My omission of the 60's Celtics is because that's the only dynasty that the Spurs could possibly be better than.

[Obstructed_View]

My omission of the 60's Celtics is because that's the only dynasty that the Spurs could possibly be better than.
Um, they won eight titles in a row. And I agree that the Spurs could possibly be better than that.

[cherylsteele]

This would be the weakest dynasty in NBA history...but still a dynasty. I'd take the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, the 90's Bulls, the 80's Lakers, the 80's Celtics, etc. ALL over these Spurs.
The 80's Celtics??
I don't consider them a dynasty...neither does wikipedia:

* Minneapolis Lakers of the 1950s (5 championships between 1949 and 1954)
* Boston Celtics (1956 to 1986 16 NBA titles in 30 years overall. 26 winning seasons, 20 division titles, 18 conference titles)
* Los Angeles Lakers of 1979 to 1991 (5 NBA championships, 10 Division titles, 9 conference championships, 12 winning seasons)
* Chicago Bulls of the 1990s (6 NBA championships in 8 seasons, 8 Division titles, including the best single season record in NBA history (72-10))
* Los Angeles Lakers 1999 to 2004 (3 NBA championships, 3 Division titles, 4 NBA Finals appearances, 5 playoff appearances)

The 80's Celtics never repeated.....they were included with 60's Celtics even though they had a couple of seasons in the late 70's that they didn;t even make the playoffs.

So if you are going to include them you really must include the current Spurs teams.

[dickface]

Um, they won eight titles in a row in the 60's

[dickface]

The 80's Celtics??
I don't consider them a dynasty...neither does wikipedia:

* Minneapolis Lakers of the 1950s (5 championships between 1949 and 1954)
* Boston Celtics (1956 to 1986 16 NBA titles in 30 years overall. 26 winning seasons, 20 division titles, 18 conference titles)
* Los Angeles Lakers of 1979 to 1991 (5 NBA championships, 10 Division titles, 9 conference championships, 12 winning seasons)
* Chicago Bulls of the 1990s (6 NBA championships in 8 seasons, 8 Division titles, including the best single season record in NBA history (72-10))
* Los Angeles Lakers 1999 to 2004 (3 NBA championships, 3 Division titles, 4 NBA Finals appearances, 5 playoff appearances)

The 80's Celtics never repeated.....they were included with 60's Celtics even though they had a couple of seasons in the late 70's that they didn;t even make the playoffs.

So if you are going to include them you really must include the current Spurs teams.

The 80's Celtics would destroy the Spurs. They may not be considered a dynasty by some, but that's only because they were competing with the Lakers at the time.

[zrinkill]

I see the horribly jealous Mav trolls have already attacked this thread .....

I can feel the jealousy ...... and it feels good.

[cherylsteele]

The 80's Celtics would destroy the Spurs. They may not be considered a dynasty by some, but that's only because they were competing with the Lakers at the time.
Um...I never said the Spurs would beat them....don't put words in my mouth/post that I never made. I said if you are going to include the 80's Celtics as a dynasty then you most surely must include the current Spurs teams. Again, I never said they would beat the Celtics head to head.

The Spurs were competing with the Laker in 2000-03 but were always right there.....what is your point?

[dickface]

. I said if you are going to include the 80's Celtics as a dynasty then you most surely must include the current Spurs teams. Again, I never said they would beat the Celtics head to head.

I already acknowledged the Spurs as being a dynasty in my first post. Maybe read what's going on. I was calling the Spurs the worst dynasty the NBA has ever seen, although maybe the 60's Celtics aren't as good as them.

And during the Lakers 3 year run, the Spurs were 1-8 against them in the playoffs....that's hardly being "right with them". It wasn't until the beginning of the implosion that the Spurs had a shot at beating them.