GREAT READ......about Spurs 40 yrs from now

[spurs4real]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2007/news/story?page=Roundup-FinalsG4

Forty years from now, your grandkid says: "Tell me about the Spurs."

What do you say?

Anthony: They were perhaps the best defensive team ever. They didn't have the charisma or the persona of some of the other dynasties, and they played in San Antonio, which is not as compelling or as significant a sports market. And of all the great dynasties, this team never won back-to-back titles (the one glaring quality absent from its résumé). However, there's nothing else to argue. They had the best power forward ever! And one of the best coaches and front offices the game has ever had.

Abbott: There was a lot more than basketball to the NBA. There were marketing deals. There was hype. There were agents, shoe contracts, police records, media, money, strippers and a million other things. But the San Antonio Spurs? As much as is possible in that era's NBA, they were an organization that was about basketball. And you know what? They were pretty good at it.

Broussard: The Spurs were a very good team led by the greatest power forward of all time and a Hall of Fame point guard in Tony Parker. They didn't capture the imagination of the public because they were a fairly dull team, both in terms of playing style and personality. But they were the most professional team in sports. Their players were old-school in that they respected the coach's authority and didn't mind being yelled at, and the coach was old-school in that he was no-nonsense and didn't care about having his name up in lights. The Tim Duncan Spurs were a dynasty, but not as good as the Jordan Bulls, Magic Lakers or Bird Celtics. But Duncan retired with five rings. Wow!

Bucher: The best example of teamwork and ego-less NBA basketball in their era. Proof that mainstream America couldn't care less about those qualities -- otherwise, the Spurs would draw the highest TV ratings, not the lowest.

Hollinger: They were the first basketball team to really operate like a corporation, and as a result they were the best-managed sports organization of their era. Now, four decades later, everybody operates like this and we take it for granted, but the Spurs were truly ahead of their time -- everyone else ended up copying them, even in other sports. Amazingly, at the time almost nobody remarked about how incredible the Spurs were in this regard. I was a witness.

Sheridan: Pretty much every other year they were in the Finals, and in those in-between years they were the team everyone feared most in the playoffs. They were a model franchise in so many ways, and they were the first to successfully make the move toward importing international players. They weren't a dynasty, but they were a known commodity that every other team feared, year in and year out.

Stein: I will say that Duncan was the most dominant player of his generation more than I will call this a dynasty. I will say that I was lucky to live in Texas for a good chunk of Duncan's career so I could cover it closely. I will say that Popovich and Duncan were the pre-eminent coach/player combo for the first 15 years of my career covering the NBA. And I will say what Brent Barry said the other day to the New York Times, except I will have to explain that the Spurs never got their due from the people in spite of these truths: "No character issues, professionalism, preparation -- everything people always say they want, it's all happening right here."

[Real Tomato Ketchup]

That is good stuff.

This is my fav part:
I will have to explain that the Spurs never got their due from the people in spite of these truths: "No character issues, professionalism, preparation -- everything people always say they want, it's all happening right here."

[cheguevara]

word!

[tim_duncan_fan]

I wonder if sheridan was taking a shot at LeBron when he said "I was a witness."

[cheguevara]

But Duncan retired with five rings. Wow!


this was my favorite. but I think it will be 6 rings.

[SpurOutofTownFan]

Talking about Dynasty. In 5 or 10 years all of this will make sense and then, maybe only then, the spurs will get credit they deserve and be called a dynasty. I think they are already but for some they aren't. Nowadays, it is so different and so difficult to establish dominance back to back for so many years that I don't believe we will ever have another Russell' Celtics team or Jordan's bulls winning it all for consecutive years.

This is the reason why I think what the spurs have accomplished so far is the new "type of dynasty" where you are rather dominant for a long period of time but it's rather hard to win back to back to back for 4-5 years. Look for this type of teams going forward as I think it is all much more balanced than before.

[spurs4real]

I too was a witness.

damn that feels good to say in 2007 and will feel just the same in 2047.

[slayermin]

If we win number four, I think we rate higher than the Bird Celtics though they had to deal with some of the greatest teams the NBA has ever seen. At the very least, we are right there with them.

Bowen vs. Bird would have been a great matchup. Bird would probably give Bruce some major problems on the low block. At 6'9 and 230, he had a size advantage. He was smart and a great passer so Bruce would have his hands full. But Bird would also have to deal with the tenacity and relentlessness of Bruce Bowen. If they had ever played a seven game series against each other, I can see Bird punching Bowen in a critical game costing the Celtics the series.

[Mr. Body]

Hollinger, dude... corporations are often unweildy, uncontrollable masses that make huge blunders but keep on ticking because of their size. And, because of their importance, they are often bailed out by outside forces - bought out or subsidized by the government because they often throw good money after bad.

New York Knicks? Run like a corporation. Minnesota Timberwolves? Run like a corporation.

If you're looking for an appropriate analogy for the San Antonio Spurs, this is not it.

[CubanMustGo]

I think (assuming we DO win this one) that what we need is to get the 08 championship to be elevated as one of those dynasties. That's the only thing missing from the résumé at this point.

Five in ten years with a back-to-back, and four in six? Man would that drive the haters totally off the deep end ...

[DarrinS]

When people say the Spurs' playing style is boring, what they're REALLY saying is the Spurs defense makes their opponents offense look boring.

There's nothing boring about how Tim, Tony, and Manu play the game.

In fact, Manu was recently named one of players most fun to watch by SI.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0706/gallery.most.fun.to.watch/content.16.html

[spurs4real]

I think (assuming we DO win this one) that what we need is to get the 08 championship to be elevated as one of those dynasties. That's the only thing missing from the résumé at this point.

Five in ten years with a back-to-back, and four in six? Man would that drive the haters totally off the deep end ...


And I think next year will be the year we do repeat.

[ancestron]

If we win number four, I think we rate higher than the Bird Celtics though they had to deal with some of the greatest teams the NBA has ever seen. At the very least, we are right there with them.

Bowen vs. Bird would have been a great matchup. Bird would probably give Bruce some major problems on the low block. At 6'9 and 230, he had a size advantage. He was smart and a great passer so Bruce would have his hands full. But Bird would also have to deal with the tenacity and relentlessness of Bruce Bowen. If they had ever played a seven game series against each other, I can see Bird punching Bowen in a critical game costing the Celtics the series.

That would be one hell of a match up to watch. you know they would at least exchange some harsh words, if not punches. I hate to say it but I think Bird would eventually get the best of Bowen, Bird was crazy good. But no doubt Bowen would make him work his ass off for everything he got.

[wildbill2u]

Hollinger, dude... corporations are often unweildy, uncontrollable masses that make huge blunders but keep on ticking because of their size. And, because of their importance, they are often bailed out by outside forces - bought out or subsidized by the government because they often throw good money after bad.

New York Knicks? Run like a corporation. Minnesota Timberwolves? Run like a corporation.

If you're looking for an appropriate analogy for the San Antonio Spurs, this is not it.
I'd say we were run more like a family business in a small town. The owners (fans) look out for the employees and the employees are truly part of the town. Employees can come and go, depending on the business cycle, but they are always welcome when they come back home.

[EvenFlow]

I don't think anybody should be talking about whether the Spurs are a dynasty or not until after Duncan retires, then we'll see how many rings they have by then. And I resent the idea that the Spurs accomplishments pale in comparision too other long stretches of dominance exhibited by the Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls. The Spurs, imo, played in the greatest era of conference basketball the NBA has ever seen. I'm gonna presume the Spurs win # 4, so that would make two dynasties ( If you can call the Shaq/Kobe Lakers a dynasty) in one decade that happen in one conference, and among other foes were a great team in Sacramento, and current teams such as Dallas, Phoenix, Denver, and Utah. Jordan Bulls or Magic's Lakers never competed in a conference that loaded, hence why they made it to the Finals almost every year when they hit their stride. Point is, each dynasty is impressive in its own right, I don't think its fair too ever say one dynasty was better than the other.

[Testing]

:lmao is it just me or do they almost sound like backhanded compliments?

Spurs org probably deserves a lot more praise than most media gives it, even when they compliment them...this is coming from a Lakers fan too!