Dynasty?

[Zig]

If...I mean WHEN the Spurs wrap up this title, are they considered a dynasty?

This will be the 4th title in 9 years.


They missed the finals on a last second phantom foul against the Mavs.
They missed the finals on a Fisher 3.
Duncan didn't play in the 2000 playoffs.
I am not saying they would have won the finals if they would have made it these 3 years, but potentially they could have 7 titles in 9 years. Just the fact that they were that close should factor into the decision.

Based on how close they were those three years and 4 titles in 9 years... are they a dynasty?
:king

[sa_butta]

If...I mean WHEN the Spurs wrap up this title, are they considered a dynasty?

This will be the 4th title in 9 years.

They missed the finals on a last second foul against Dirk.
They missed the finals on a Fisher .4 shot and that was not the last game of that series.
Duncan didn't play in the 2001 playoffs.
I am not saying they would have won the finals if they would have made it these 3 years, but potentially they could have 7 titles in 9 years. Just the fact that they were that close should factor into the decision.

Based on how close they were those three years and 4 titles in 9 years... are they a dynasty?
:kingFIXED.
Lets just try to work on winning our 4th, then MAYBE, we can talk dynasty.

[Jimcs50]

Well, let them win this year first, but for the sake of argument, let's say they do win 2 of the next 5 games to win the 07 title. Since none of the 4 titles are are back to back, then no, they not a dynasty. Now, if the Spurs who will be more than capable of winning it again next year, because they will have the Big 3 back, plus some more role players that will play the "Spurs' Way" as Pop likes to call it win it in 08, then yes they will be a dynasty. So, to answer your query, no, not yet, but they are capable of becoming one next June.

However, the Spurs, if they win their 4th title this month, will pass up the Kobe-Shaq Lakers as the 2nd best team(behind Chicago) in the NBA since the 80's Celtics and Lakers.

[Zig]

Well, let them win this year first, but for the sake of argument, let's say they do win 2 of the next 5 games to win the 07 title. Since none of the 4 titles are are back to back, then no, they not a dynasty. Now, if the Spurs who will be more than capable of winning it again next year, because they will have the Big 3 back, plus some more role players that will play the "Spurs' Way" as Pop likes to call it win it in 08, then yes they will be a dynasty. So, to answer your query, no, not yet, but they are capable of becoming one next June.

However, the Spurs, if they win their 4th title this month, will pass up the Kobe-Shaq Lakers as the 2nd best team(behind Chicago) in the NBA since the 80's Celtics and Lakers.Do you NEED to win back to back to be considered a dynasty? This says no!
Link! (http://www.jonesbahamas.com/?c=123&a=7012)

[Jimcs50]

Do you NEED to win back to back to be considered a dynasty? This says no!
Link! (http://www.jonesbahamas.com/?c=123&a=7012)

Every sports dynasty has repeated at least one time.

[Zig]

Every sports dynasty has repeated at least one time.But is it necessary? The article defines a dynasty as ....."a team that is able to perform to a superlative degree against its peers over a particular period or era"

That would be the Spurs in the last 9 years.

[bdictjames]

In the last 10 years.

The Spurs have dominated professional sports by the last 10 years. That has to be a dynasty right there.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I vote Yes

[sa_butta]

If someone did label us a dynasty, would there not be arguments coming from all directions because of no repeat? I think the Spurs are very dominant in the present era, but to call them a dynasty is a bit much.

[Jimcs50]

But is it necessary? The article defines a dynasty as ....."a team that is able to perform to a superlative degree against its peers over a particular period or era"

That would be the Spurs in the last 9 years.

Yes, you are right, but the one common denominator is a repeat, and thus far, the Spurs lack that factor. Now, why did they not repeat? They were unlucky in each case, they were the favored team to win it each time, but one unfortunate incident kept them from repeating, and that is what is so maddening about it.

Here are the 3 incidents:

00- TD has tear of medial meniscus against Sacto at the end of the reg season, he misses playoffs, and Lakers win.

04- 0.4 nuff said

06- Manu's boneheaded foul on Dirk letting Dirk tie the game at the FT line.

[nkdlunch]

[list=1]
They missed the finals on a last second phantom foul against the Mavs.
They missed the finals on a Fisher 3.


I ALWAYS think about this. we were sooooo close to winning 3 in a row and 4 in 7 years

[Zig]

I ALWAYS think about this. we were sooooo close to winning 3 in a row and 4 in 7 yearsAgreed - After this year, I think it is safe to call the Spurs a dynasty! Especially since they should be back here the next few years too.

[MadDog73]

I think if Spurs end up winning the majority of titles from 1999-2009, they will be considered a Dynasty, whether they repeat or not.

I'm not sure 4 Titles will get us there. I don't consider the Lakers 3-peat a Dynasty, but it's all in how you define it.

But if we win 5+ titles, we'll be a Dynasty in anyone's book.

[twentyone]

We win this title and it's undeniable, end of story. That's not my consensus - it's spoken about time after time this season on ABC & TNT as well as Sports Talk Radio.

[gaKNOW!blee]

Yes, 4 in 9 in modern day sports is a dynasty.

[Zig]

Yes, 4 in 9 in modern day sports is a dynasty.Next year will be 5 in 10!

[Jimcs50]

I ALWAYS think about this. we were sooooo close to winning 3 in a row and 4 in 7 years


As you can see, the Spurs were the favorites to win 3 more titles, (00,04,06), they could be going for their 7th in 9 years, if not for A Series of Unfortunate Incidents.....listed above.

[TampaDude]

If the Spurs win their 4th NBA Championship this year, and they probably will, that would be 4 titles in 9 years, with them missing their chance in 2 other years by a very slim margin (.4 and the BS Manu foul). Had they defeated the Mavs last year, they would probably be going for a 3-peat right now. Add the fact that the Spurs have made the playoffs EVERY YEAR for the last 10 years, and the fact that the Spurs have the highest winning percentage of ANY team in ANY of the 4 pro leagues (MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL) over the last 10 years, and you have a pretty strong case for calling them a dynasty. Should they win the title again in 2008 and get the repeat, there would be no question that they are a dynasty, but even by winning their 4th title this year, they would firmly cement themselves in history as one of the greatest NBA teams of all time. :toast

[MadDog73]

As you can see, the Spurs were the favorites to win 3 more titles, (00,04,06), they could be going for their 7th in 9 years, if not for A Series of Unfortunate Incidents.....listed above.


Somone needs to photoshop a Spurs version of "Lemony Spurs: A Series of Unfortunate Events"