Don't Call Spurs a Dynasty (worst article ever)

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Don't consider the Spurs a true dynasty
Boyd

By Todd Boyd
Special to Page 2



Now that the agony of watching one of the most excruciating NBA Finals in recent memory is finally over, there is much talk of the San Antonio Spurs as a contemporary dynasty. Unless the pundits are referring to the over-the-top nighttime soap opera starring Joan Collins that ran on ABC in the '80s, I'm not sure what they mean.

This reference to Blake Carrington and crew is closer to what the Spurs actually are: a fictional dynasty. To call the Spurs a real dynasty is something like calling Paris Hilton Patty Hearst. Though both are heiresses who ended up in jail, the similarities stop there. In other words, a cat can have kittens in an oven, but that doesn't make them biscuits.

The Spurs may look like a dynasty to some delusional beings, but alas, they are not. Dynasties are defined by unquestioned, sustained dominance over a significant period of time along with a larger-than-life identity to boot, neither of which the Spurs possess. It is not just about how many championship rings you have won, it is how you went about achieving those rings.

Many want to trace the roots of this so-called dynasty back to 1999, when the franchise won its first NBA title. That squad was about as bogus as a three-dollar bill as far as champions go. The Spurs finished the shortened lockout season with a 37-13 record, eventually beating the eighth-seeded Knicks in the Finals. If you include all the playoff and Finals games, the Spurs played a whopping 67 games the entire season. Fifteen more games and you would actually have enough to complete a normal regular season.

Though it was not the Spurs' fault that the league decided to lock out its players and then play an abbreviated schedule, they should not necessarily benefit from this fact, either. It is an insult to all the champions past and present who played a full schedule to ignore that the Spurs got off real easy. I am not saying they would not have won the title -- who really knows? -- but when you consider the up-and-down nature of a normal 82-game regular season, the intensity of the playoffs and Finals, injuries, and the overall rigors of the NBA life, the '99 title should at least include an asterisk next to the Spurs' name.

How much has changed since 1999 anyway? That was eons ago. A Clinton was still in the White House, iPods didn't exist, Lauryn Hill (who?) dominated the Grammys and Superman was still a boy. The only remaining player from that '99 team is Tim Duncan, so to try and stretch that team's success into the present is in the immortal words of Mike Tyson, "ludicrous."

This means that any conversation about a possible Spurs dynasty should start in 2003, when this present incarnation of the team won the first of its three titles. Even '03 seems like a long time ago now. Of all people, Stephen Jackson, the pride of Port Arthur, Texas, started at the 2-guard position. Yes, this is the same Stephen Jackson who has since become the NBA's version of thug life, even having Golden State Warriors teammate Matt Barnes pat him down like a cop conducting a search during player introductions. Imagine that.

Since that time we have watched the emergence of Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, who along with stalwart Duncan and defensive specialist Bruce "Scissorhands" Bowen comprise the nucleus. Tony Parker and his bride-to-be Eva Longoria have become more overexposed than Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez were a few years ago; let's just call them "Toneva." Though in one sense this present team of players from around the globe -- France, Argentina, St. Croix, Slovenia and the Netherlands -- personifies the basketball version of Thomas Friedman's notion that "the world is flat," it doesn't make them any less boring to watch.

In order to be considered a dynasty, you need to dominate year after year. The Spurs haven't won back-to-back titles and this is a prerequisite for what might be considered a dynasty. They were snubbed in the conference semifinals in both 2004 and 2006. That's right … semifinals. This title-every-other-year thing does not a dynasty make. Dynasties don't take time off. If the Spurs had been to the Finals in '04 and '06 and lost, I would be more sympathetic, but in both of those years they lost to teams that ultimately lost in the Finals. So I can't give them any love on this tip, either.

There have been only two real dynasties in the modern era of the NBA since 1979: the '80s Lakers and Jordan's Bulls in the '90s. No, the '80s Celtics were not a dynasty, either. Though the Celtics went to the Finals in '81, and again in 1984-87 and won three titles, two of those titles were against the Houston Rockets in years when the Lakers came up short. The Celtics never won back-to-back titles and their opponents in '81, the Rockets, were so bad they only won 40 games, concluding the regular season with a losing record. Boston did beat the Lakers in '84, but lost to them in '85 and '87. The Celtics were very good, but ultimately they played the role of Joe Frazier to the Lakers' Muhammad Ali.

The '80s Lakers featured two of the top five players of all time in Magic and Kareem. From 1980 to 1991, the Lakers ruled the Western Conference and dominated the rest of the league. With five titles and nine Finals appearances, not to mention the first back-to-back titles in 19 years in '87 and '88, this team stood head and shoulders above the competition, year in and year out.

The Bulls won three straight titles on two different occasions. It could be argued that if Jordan hadn't been chasing baseballs in '94 and most of '95, the Bulls could have been in contention for eight straight titles, an achievement that would have matched Bill Russell's Celtics and their unprecedented run of eight straight. If you want to push the speculation even further, imagine if Jordan, Scottie Pippen, the Worm and Phil Jackson had returned for one more run in '99? Considering the lockout shortened season, they could have rested their old legs and made a run at nine themselves, perhaps even beating the Spurs in the process. Even if we dispense with all the speculation, the Bulls of the '90s were on an entirely different level than the Spurs are now.

Even the Shaq and Kobe Lakers are more deserving of the dynasty title than the Spurs, though the Lakers' own internal beefs keeps them from truly being considered a dynasty. This squad went to four Finals in five years and won three straight. Again, dominance and consistency are the key here, but when you compare this Lakers crew to Magic's or Jordan's teams, then it is clear they are not quite there.

The Spurs have been a good team ever since Tim Duncan suited up. They are one of the best-run franchises in the league and as long as TD can still ball, I suspect that they'll at least be in contention. But a dynasty they are not.

After all, dynasties need rivals, too. The '80s Lakers had to go through the 76ers, Celtics, and Pistons before bowing out against the new dynasty, the Bulls, in '91. The Bulls shut down any and all comers, including two straight victories over the Utah Jazz for their last two rings. The Spurs beat a mediocre New Jersey team in '03 and the not-ready-for-prime-time Cavs this year. The only real challenge the Spurs have had in the Finals was when the Pistons took them to seven games in '05. Take away a Big Shot Bob 3-pointer in Game 5 and Larry Brown's drama over his job status, and maybe the outcome here would have been different, too.

In addition to winning rings and constantly tasting champagne, there is also an intangible: Dynasties have to have a persona, an image, a swagger like no other that puts the fear of God in the hearts of opponents. The '80s Lakers had Showtime, the '90s Bulls had the greatest of all time and the Zen Master on the sideline. Both of these teams developed a national following as well. The Spurs have Duncan, who can't even sell sneakers. They are so utterly uninteresting as a team and a group of personalities that they don't even inspire hate. As the low television ratings indicate, the only thing the Spurs inspire is indifference.

Oftentimes in contemporary society people throw words around loosely. Dynasty is one of those words. But when you look at the teams from the past and recognize how high the bar has been set, the Spurs simply do not qualify. Not yet at least. This time of year accolades flow pretty freely. Two weeks ago we were all crowning LeBron, but after the Spurs bought out that broom on him and the Cavs, he seems like a kid who snuck into an adult party with a fake ID. Because this year's Finals were so bad, people got bored and distracted. It was suddenly more interesting to speculate on whether the Spurs deserved the title of a dynasty than it was to watch the games. Well, now that the bloodletting is over, maybe everyone will regain their senses.

The Spurs are a very good basketball team that has accomplished some great things, but don't let the smooth taste fool you: Four rings represent quantity, but the Spurs still have a ways to go before they deserve the quality label that true dynasties have already earned.


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=boyd/070615http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=boyd/070615

[Spurminator]

Food for the haters. WGAF.

[Infamous]

Haha, one of the most intelligent articles I've ever read. Facts to back up everything he says plus analogies and history to help emphasize his point. Pretty much everything he said is right. DON'T call em a dynasty.

[Marcus Bryant]

So the Spurs are the best team outside of the Showtime Lakers and MJ's Bulls since 1980 and their top 3 players are 31, 29, and 25 years old. Works for me.

[dbreiden83080]

Haha, one of the most intelligent articles I've ever read. Facts to back up everything he says plus analogies and history to help emphasize his point. Pretty much everything he said is right. DON'T call em a dynasty.

I think the Spurs are a near dynasty very close but if they win back to back they are no doubt a dynasty. However they have won 4 in 9 years which is better than your Shaq/Kobe Lakers and beats a lot of other great teams in history as well. His dumb ass remarks about the 99 title is just that dumb ass. Everyone had to deal with the same thing the Spurs did that year.

[Cry Havoc]

"How much has changed since 1999 anyway? That was eons ago. A Clinton was still in the White House, iPods didn't exist, Lauryn Hill (who?) dominated the Grammys and Superman was still a boy. The only remaining player from that '99 team is Tim Duncan, so to try and stretch that team's success into the present is in the immortal words of Mike Tyson, "ludicrous.""


I'm still stumped as to how he feels this is actual sportswriting. so when the Bulls won their last 2 titles, did it invalidate the first two because they were "so long ago" and because he can quote Mike Tyson?

Hilarious.

I love this kind of logic. So if a team wins 10 championships every other year for 20 years, that's not a dynasty?

[Infamous]

I think the Spurs are a near dynasty very close but if they win back to back they are no doubt a dynasty. However they have won 4 in 9 years which is better than your Shaq/Kobe Lakers and beats a lot of other great teams in history as well. His dumb ass remarks about the 99 title is just that dumb ass. Everyone had to deal with the same thing the Spurs did that year.


Well IN CONTEXT, Threepeat sounds better than 4 in NINE years. but in reality yeah their 4 in 9 years is better than the Shaq & Kobe Lakers.

When a team wins three in a row people tend to call them a dynasty, but when a team wins four in a span of nine years, even though they have more titles than the threepeat did..its just still hard to refer to them as a dynasty.

[dbreiden83080]

Well IN CONTEXT, Threepeat sounds better than 4 in NINE years. but in reality yeah their 4 in 9 years is better than the Shaq & Kobe Lakers.

When a team wins three in a row people tend to call them a dynasty, but when a team wins four in a span of nine years, even though they have more titles than the threepeat did..its just still hard to refer to them as a dynasty.

Well most people are saying they are a dynasty. They also are giving them the nod over the Shaq and Kobe Lakers. I would like to see them repeat and then it is a lock for me but either way it is one of the great runs in history. Too bad Shaq and Kobe decided they could not play nice anymore. Would have been cool if the Spurs/Lakers rivalry had gone on another few years.

[Findog]

Who cares if they're a dynasty or not? I'd settle for four titles and people debating whether or not my team was one.

[thewatcher]

:lol if you read my posts, you can see several points that this man said in them

[Findog]

so when the Bulls won their last 2 titles, did it invalidate the first two because they were "so long ago" and because he can quote Mike Tyson?

Hilarious.

I love this kind of logic. So if a team wins 10 championships every other year for 20 years, that's not a dynasty?


I don't necessarily agree or disagree with him, but by his logic, that would be two dynasties since they had two threepeats.

[Spurminator]

The dynasty label is something for unimaginative sportswriters to argue over so they don't have to actually over what happened on the floor, or the players they neglected to watch all season.

There is no official award or standard for a Dynasty, and the label won't become official because of the blessing of a Page 2 hack. The Dynastic nature of this team will be judged in hindsight, ten to twenty years from now. Spurs fans shouldn't be so quick to lap up what these hacks are feeding you; all it does is create a means to detract from what this team has done.

Fuck it. Four Titles.

[DDS4]

Wait until the Spurs repeat next year, then we'll revisit that question.

[Infamous]

Well most people are saying they are a dynasty. They also are giving them the nod over the Shaq and Kobe Lakers. I would like to see them repeat and then it is a lock for me but either way it is one of the great runs in history. Too bad Shaq and Kobe decided they could not play nice anymore. Would have been cool if the Spurs/Lakers rivalry had gone on another few years.

Well if they can repeat then I will call them a dynasty. Otherwise they've just proven they can win titles in odd numbered years within a span of nine years :lol

But if they DO repeat, which will leave me crying..just look at the text, its amazing..

5 in the last 10 years..

I truly think this is SA's final year. Dallas is back at it, Phoenix is back at it, Houston is going to be an elite team with Rick Adelmen, Durant is in the West, Oden is in the West, the Lakers if they can keep Kobe and trade Odom and(or) Bynum and add an elite big man, Jazz proved they can be deadly, the West is just overwhelmingly competitive.

but the Spurs just get older..

and yea the rivalry was great. During the season the OT game brought back shades of the playoffs when they faced off.

[Flex9050]

Sounds to me like someone lost a lot of money betting on the Cavs, and is trying to make himself feel better. I am curious as to when Mr. Boyd was given the monumental honor of defining what a dynasty is. And as to the Spurs being a good Team, I will remind Mr Boyd the Spurs have the best winning percentage of ANY professional sport in the last 10 years. Is that not dominance? What an idiot.

[dbreiden83080]

The dynasty label is something for unimaginative sportswriters to argue over so they don't have to actually over what happened on the floor, or the players they neglected to watch all season.

There is no official award or standard for a Dynasty, and the label won't become official because of the blessing of a Page 2 hack. The Dynastic nature of this team will be judged in hindsight, ten to twenty years from now. Spurs fans shouldn't be so quick to lap up what these hacks are feeding you; all it does is create a means to detract from what this team has done.

Fuck it. Four Titles.

It's true the reality is in this era of expansion and free agency 4 titles in 9 years is about as good as you are going to see in the NBA. The teams that won many more titles than that all played in ERA where the talent was much more compressed, enabling them to stock pile super deep teams.

[Cry Havoc]

I kind of like Pop's response to all this.

When a reporter asked him if they thought they would be a dynasty if they beat the Cavs, Pop said, "Look, all this dynasty talk is pointless. There are no dynasties anymore. When I think of dynasty, two teams come to mind. The Celtics and the UCLA Bruins. Everything else is just noise."

I'm paraphrasing, but that's approx. what he said.

[dbreiden83080]

I truly think this is SA's final year. Dallas is back at it, Phoenix is back at it, Houston is going to be an elite team with Rick Adelmen, Durant is in the West, Oden is in the West, the Lakers if they can keep Kobe and trade Odom and(or) Bynum and add an elite big man, Jazz proved they can be deadly, the West is just overwhelmingly competitive.

but the Spurs just get older..



Hold on now Spurs just went 16-4 in the playoffs to win the title, that is awfully impressive. I say the core they have can do it next year for sure and then after that they will need some new younger pieces to have a shot at it in future years.

[ehz33satx]

Well IN CONTEXT, Threepeat sounds better than 4 in NINE years. but in reality yeah their 4 in 9 years is better than the Shaq & Kobe Lakers.

When a team wins three in a row people tend to call them a dynasty, but when a team wins four in a span of nine years, even though they have more titles than the threepeat did..its just still hard to refer to them as a dynasty.


What the San Antonio Spurs have is called sustained excellence. Get used to it.

[Infamous]

Hold on now Spurs just went 16-4 in the playoffs to win the title, that is awfully impressive. I say the core they have can do it next year for sure and then after that they will need some new younger pieces to have a shot at it in future years.

Well the older they get the more injuries they tend to get and the more all the years start to catch up to them as their body breaks down..

thats just my theory..maybe I'm a bit biased..

if Dallas doesn't choke again they can take out the Spurs. I got a mil on that.

[Cry Havoc]

Well if they can repeat then I will call them a dynasty. Otherwise they've just proven they can win titles in odd numbered years within a span of nine years :lol

But if they DO repeat, which will leave me crying..just look at the text, its amazing..

5 in the last 10 years..

I truly think this is SA's final year. Dallas is back at it, Phoenix is back at it, Houston is going to be an elite team with Rick Adelmen, Durant is in the West, Oden is in the West, the Lakers if they can keep Kobe and trade Odom and(or) Bynum and add an elite big man, Jazz proved they can be deadly, the West is just overwhelmingly competitive.

but the Spurs just get older..


I agree with you, if the Spurs team stands pat. I don't see that happening.

The front office has continually revamped this team around Tim Duncan. I mean, what happens if they trade for a young center who develops well and they somehow find a diamond-in-the-rough SF who can play defense and is a quick learner? This team could be set up for 2 more title runs (at the very least) with Duncan in the lead.

Even as Timmy falls from the perch of "best player in the NBA" to "just pretty much dominant", Parker will be in his prime and probably the best point (or one of, which he already is) in the league, if he keeps developing his outside shot and his defense. It's not out of the realm of possibility to see this Spurs team win 1 or 2 titles with Duncan as a second to Parker, Manu still as the 6th in limited minutes, and a collection of talent they always seem to find.

If the Spurs landed Brewer, for instance, I would say that 4 titles in a row (including this one) would be very very possible. Or if they find someone along those lines.

All told, I'm guessing the Spurs could very well win 2-5 more rings, if the FO keeps it's act together. That's a really scary thought.

[thewatcher]

competition kids. competition. the nba is so devaluated since the GOAT retired in '98

[Cry Havoc]

competition kids. competition. the nba is so devaluated since the GOAT retired in '98

So why isn't your team winning, hmm?

[thewatcher]

because we are 4 years old :lol

[Marcus Bryant]

competition kids. competition. the nba is so devaluated since the GOAT retired in '98

"Competition" indeed. What was merely a trickle of international talent in the 1990s is now a flood. The growth of the pool of global basketball talent has far outstripped what expansion there has been of the league. Add to that a labor agreement designed to ensure that teams in San Antonio, Utah, Cleveland, and other smaller markets can retain their stars and build around them. True "competition" is the end result.

[Guajalote]

This HAS to be some homer somewhere, pretending to be a columnist. This can't be anybody professional. I'm going to allow myself to fall for this as being genuine. Somebody's about to have a good laugh on me if it is.

(I'm still working on figuring out how to quote on this site, so please bear with me).

soap opera starring Joan Collins that ran on ABC in the '80s-- What's the parallel here? Only thing I can figure is that both had lots of money?

To call the Spurs a real dynasty is something like calling Paris Hilton Patty Hearst-- Time to put on our thinking caps for this one... "Paris Hilton is to Patty Hearst, as the Spurs are to A Dynasty?" How's that?

In other words, a cat can have kittens in an oven, but that doesn't make them biscuits.-- Sometimes the use of, shall we say, unusual expressions can detract from your point, leaving the reader spending more time trying to figure out what the expression means.

The Spurs may look like a dynasty to some delusional beings-- Translation- Only a sane person thinks like you do.

Dynasties are defined by unquestioned, sustained dominance over a significant period of time along with a larger-than-life identity to boot, neither of which the Spurs possess-- Sustained dominance=Championships? Significant period of time is how long? Larger-than-life identity- "Sorry guys, you don't sell sneakers and sports drinks, so you're not a dynasty."

It is an insult to all the champions past and present who played a full schedule to ignore that the Spurs got off real easy-- Insult? Hardly. If so, then did the Spurs insult themselves in 03, 05, & 07?

the '99 title should at least include an asterisk next to the Spurs' name-- Not original thinking (see Phil Jackson quote 8 years ago)

Stephen Jackson... Matt Barnes pat him down like a cop conducting a search during player introductions-- Spurs should have psychically predicted Jack would do those things?

Bruce "Scissorhands" Bowen-- Commonly-stated perception of Bowen haters

Toneva-- When nothing bad can be said about a player professionally, always go personal

In order to be considered a dynasty, you need to dominate year after year-- Dominate= Champions? I'm sure Joe Montana, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, and quite a few others would like to have a word with you about that.

The Spurs haven't won back-to-back titles and this is a prerequisite for what might be considered a dynasty-- Interesting. Which dictionary definition was that?

From 1980 to 1991, the Lakers ruled the Western Conference and dominated the rest of the league. With five titles-- According to your definition, they can't be a dynasty because they weren't champions every year during that stretch.

It could be argued that if Jordan hadn't been chasing baseballs in '94 and most of '95, the Bulls could have been in contention for eight straight titles-- According to your definition, the Bulls weren't a dynasty because they weren't champions every year. Outside factors play no part, remember.

Even the Shaq and Kobe Lakers are more deserving of the dynasty title than the Spurs, though the Lakers' own internal beefs keeps them from truly being considered a dynasty. This squad went to four Finals in five years-- Back-to-back-to-back rings (3) being more valuable than 4 rings? Interesting.

After all, dynasties need rivals, too-- Please let me know which dictionary you're using. I'd like to see that part in there as well.

The Spurs beat a mediocre New Jersey... and the not-ready-for-prime-time Cavs this year-- Not the Spurs' fault that the balance of power has shifted so dramatically to the West.

Take away a Big Shot Bob 3-pointer in Game 5 and Larry Brown's drama over his job status, and maybe the outcome here would have been different, too--Even when a team wins a legit series (according to your definition) you have conspiracy theories to explain things away.

Dynasties have to have a persona, an image, a swagger like no other that puts the fear of God in the hearts of opponents-- Now gee, let me think, what persona/image/swagger are the Spurs known for around the league? Oh yeah! Defense. Apparently that's not good enough in your book.

Just come out and say from the beginning that you hate the Spurs. Don't bother trying to be objective. Also, work on using clichés, analogies, and points that bolster your arguments.

[Infamous]

In other words, a cat can have kittens in an oven, but that doesn't make them biscuits.-- Sometimes the use of, shall we say, unusual expressions can detract from your point, leaving the reader spending more time trying to figure out what the expression means.

lmao that was funny.

[SRJ]

:lol Great breakdown, Guajalote.

I like the argument about the Spurs having it easier than other champions because they played weak Eastern Conference opponents.

Well, if the balance of power has shifted that far to the West, doesn't it make advancing to the Finals that much harder? Yeah, maybe the Knicks, Nets, and Cavs were pushovers - but in those three runs, we had to beat:

1999 - The LA Lakers. This team featured Kobe and Shaq at an All-NBA level (Shaq 2nd, Kobe 3rd) together for the first time. Glen Rice was also still playing well at that time.

Portland. A deep and talented team that knocked off Utah, the team who tied SA for the best record in the NBA.

2003 - Phoenix. A number eight-seed that gave us all sorts of hell. Marbury was still playing at a high level (All-NBA third team), possibly at his best. Stoudamire was a beast of a ROY, dunking on everybody back then. Marion was a twenty-point guy for a team that wasn't scoring big like the D'Antoni Suns do. Under Frank Johnson that year, the Suns averaged 95.5 points, 13th in the NBA out of 29 teams.

LA Lakers - Kobe and Shaq led the team through injuries and a slow start to finish with 50 wins while going for a four-peat. Three of the six games played were won by five points or less.

Dallas - Tied the Spurs for the best record in the league and played the Spurs tough even after Dirk went down.

I won't recap the 2007 run since we just saw it, but the weakness of the Eastern Conference only makes the Western playoffs a greater test than it used to be. Any thinking person should recognize that, but this "writer" is a goddamn shithead.

BTW, eight seasons after his first title in 1957, Bill Russell was the only Celtic from that '57 team to play for the '65 Celtics. Duncan is the lone holdover from 1999.

Also BTW, of Magic's five titles, the only back-to-back titles were the fourth and fifth ones. We're going for #5 next year.

[Slo spurs fan]

Those were words of retarded, bitter homer of Suns or Dallas or some similar team.

[Capt Bringdown]

Spurs will be subject to these kinds of cracks until they go for a two-peat. But who cares? I don't give a damn if some yankee sportswriter doesn't like us.

[ChumpDumper]

The Spurs aren't a dynasty. Their excellence over the last decade with despite its roster turnover in a 30-team NBA subject to the luxury tax is much more impressive than a mere dynasty.

Writers need to earn their pay thinking up a new word for this kind of badassery.

[SouthernFried]

Lakers, Spurs, Bulls...were/are some damn good teams. Celtics were the only dynasty...nobody's come close since.

If your a real dynasty, there is no question or discussion about it. Nobody questions the Celtics dynasty, it's never even up for debate...a total given.

We ain't there.

yet...

[spurscenter]

4 in 9 is a dynasty. I dont care how much u try to spin it.

[ATXSPUR]

I love reading what morons think during the offseason.

Just the fact that he feels he has to challenge us being a dynasty shows how truly great we have been.

[thiste]

Many want to trace the roots of this so-called dynasty back to 1999, when the franchise won its first NBA title. That squad was about as bogus as a three-dollar bill as far as champions go. The Spurs finished the shortened lockout season with a 37-13 record, eventually beating the eighth-seeded Knicks in the Finals. If you include all the playoff and Finals games, the Spurs played a whopping 67 games the entire season. Fifteen more games and you would actually have enough to complete a normal regular season.

Though it was not the Spurs' fault that the league decided to lock out its players and then play an abbreviated schedule, they should not necessarily benefit from this fact, either. It is an insult to all the champions past and present who played a full schedule to ignore that the Spurs got off real easy. I am not saying they would not have won the title -- who really knows? -- but when you consider the up-and-down nature of a normal 82-game regular season, the intensity of the playoffs and Finals, injuries, and the overall rigors of the NBA life, the '99 title should at least include an asterisk next to the Spurs' name.

What I'll never understand about that 1999 asterisk argument is how can people dare say that when every fucking team had to play the exact same amount of games ? I really don't see how the Spurs would beneficiate from the season being shorter more than anybody else ? You'd have to be f'ing delusional ?



In order to be considered a dynasty, you need to dominate year after year. The Spurs haven't won back-to-back titles and this is a prerequisite for what might be considered a dynasty. They were snubbed in the conference semifinals in both 2004 and 2006. That's right … semifinals. This title-every-other-year thing does not a dynasty make. Dynasties don't take time off. If the Spurs had been to the Finals in '04 and '06 and lost, I would be more sympathetic, but in both of those years they lost to teams that ultimately lost in the Finals. So I can't give them any love on this tip, either.

There have been only two real dynasties in the modern era of the NBA since 1979: the '80s Lakers and Jordan's Bulls in the '90s.
(...)
The Bulls won three straight titles on two different occasions. It could be argued that if Jordan hadn't been chasing baseballs in '94 and most of '95, the Bulls could have been in contention for eight straight titles, an achievement that would have matched Bill Russell's Celtics and their unprecedented run of eight straight. If you want to push the speculation even further, imagine if Jordan, Scottie Pippen, the Worm and Phil Jackson had returned for one more run in '99? Considering the lockout shortened season, they could have rested their old legs and made a run at nine themselves, perhaps even beating the Spurs in the process. Even if we dispense with all the speculation, the Bulls of the '90s were on an entirely different level than the Spurs are now.

Ok so .4 and gino's foul are used to make the Spurs look worse, and on the other hand the guy uses 94/95 and even 99 to make the Bulls' run look more impressive than it already is ? I really don't get that guy's logic.


The only real challenge the Spurs have had in the Finals was when the Pistons took them to seven games in '05. Take away a Big Shot Bob 3-pointer in Game 5 and Larry Brown's drama over his job status, and maybe the outcome here would have been different, too.

Ahh ok so now you start questioning the 2005 title ? Great argument "What if?" to make your point. I mean THAT'S solid. :rolleyes


The Spurs have Duncan, who can't even sell sneakers. They are so utterly uninteresting as a team and a group of personalities that they don't even inspire hate. As the low television ratings indicate, the only thing the Spurs inspire is indifference.

Man, my bad, I didn't realize this before... sneakers sells and TV ratings determine dynasties' worth!! How could I not see this before!!


Two weeks ago we were all crowning LeBron

Hahaha ok so that's where you're coming from. I understand the rest of the article now all of a sudden. :lmao
___________

And by the way, 3 in 3 years is extremely good, it represents a solid burst of dominance in my eyes. But 4 in 9 means consistency and greatness throughout the years. And it's just the beginning. Witness :lol

[Extra Stout]

Since the dynasty label is subjective, a person can simply lift the bar high enough that the Spurs come in underneath it. One certainly could argue that only the Mikan Lakers, Russell Celtics, Showtime Lakers, and Jordan Bulls are dynasties. The Spurs don't meet that standard.

But when one starts arguing that less-decorated teams are dynasties, while the Spurs aren't... there are non-basketball reasons behind that argument. And the writer betrays his bias with his argument about "swagger." All that is saying, is that the Spurs don't carry themselves the way he would like. They don't reflect his cultural preferences. And that has a lot more to do with the city they play in, and its demographics, and the players on the team, and where they come from, and how they behave off the court, than how they play.

More directly, since the Spurs play in an isolated small-market city far from the coasts, with a bunch of Hispanics but few blacks or signs of hip-hop culture, with little flamboyant wealth or glamour for the corporate high-rollers, with an unassuming Carribean superstar who is more geek than black, with a white wife, and a bunch of international stars playing a style similar to that which other countries use to kick America's ass in every international competition, the Spurs aren't a dynasty, and the details of how other teams really are better in a basketball sense is irrelevant.

Basically, the Spurs confirm the bankruptcy of an entire basketball Weltanschauung, and those who subscribe to it are forced to take a bitter drink of Haterade.

[Strike]

I truly think this is SA's final year.
Really? Let's analyze your logic...



Dallas is back in it.
-Dallas will be the same overrated team. They will do well in the season and choke. Sorry, Mavs fans. Some of you on this board are cool. But reality is reality.


Phoenix is back at it
-Phoenix is NOT back at it. They have dissention among the ranks and will probably lose one of their key players this offseason. Not to mention their players AND coaching staff don't have the maturity that a championship caliber team requires.


Houston is going to be an elite team with Rick Adelmen
Houston won't win shit with Adelman at the helm. Adelman as a coach is like the Suns and Mavs as a team: good in the season but can't win the big one.
I watched Adelman take two very talented and very deep Blazers teams to the finals only to see them get snuffed out both times. The Kings under Adelman stumbled in the playoffs year after year. T-Mac and Yao have yet to get out of the first round. Will they? Probably. Will they be able to compete with the Spurs in a 7 game series? I doubt it.


Durant is in the West, Oden is in the West
Durant and Oden both need a couple of years to be the NBA players everyone expects them to be. They're not going to come out of the gate winning titles.


the Lakers if they can keep Kobe and trade Odom and(or) Bynum and add an elite big man
The Lakers will be the Lakers. Overhyped and undertalented with a prima donna as their franchise player. Kobe has proven that even though he is probably the best player in the league, he is a locker room cancer and a prima donna. I like Kobe Bryant but he needs to grow the fuck up.


Jazz proved they can be deadly
The Jazz are good but not good enough to knock off the Spurs just yet. The Spurs completely outplayed, outclassed and outcoached the Jazz in the conference finals, save one egg that the Spurs layed in EVERY SINGLE SERIES!!!


but the Spurs just get older..
Are the Spurs the only team in the NBA that age? I've never understood this. People make it sound as if the Spurs get older while the rest of the league stays the same age. And by the way, Tim Duncan is 31 FREAKING YEARS OLD!!! That's not old, even for a big man! Manu Ginobili is 29! Tony Parker is 25!!! How the hell is that old? Yes, their role players are older, that's true. But it doesn't seem to bother them. Bruce Bowen is 36 and played 40+ minutes against Cleveland. Did he ever even look winded? He ran for 4 straight games with Lebron James who is 14 years his junior!!!

Do the Spurs need a few young players to replace some of the older vets who will retire soon? Of course. Popovich HIMSELF attests to that.

People played the age card after the 99, 03 AND 05 seasons! And every time, the Spurs downplay it and are contenders for the NBA title.

[Strike]

because we are 4 years old :lol

Not a viable argument. The Arizona Diamondbacks won the World series in their 4th year of existence.

[ambchang]

I agree that the Spurs are not a dynasty, and the term is a random, subjective take of the dominance of a team, so everyone can have their own definition. To me, there has been only 3 dynasties in NBA history, the Russell Celtics, the Magic Lakers, and the Jordan Bulls, and my definition is arbitrary, just like anybody else's.
To me, the Spurs come in 4th in that list, but are not enough to be called dynasty because of winning "only" 4 championships in 9 years, if they end up winning one more next year, as in 5 in 10, then I would include them as a borderline dynasty.
On the other hand, I do not agree with the argument with this article.
1) The Spurs should not be penalized for their competition. In an age and time when it is difficult to construct a team of sustained excellence, the Spurs should be applauded for their ability to put together a contending team for almost 2 decade straight.
2) The finals competition is not the only competition the champions have to face, so taking that as an argument is idiotic.
3)

How much has changed since 1999 anyway? That was eons ago. A Clinton was still in the White House, iPods didn't exist, Lauryn Hill (who?) dominated the Grammys and Superman was still a boy. The only remaining player from that '99 team is Tim Duncan, so to try and stretch that team's success into the present is in the immortal words of Mike Tyson, "ludicrous."

This means that any conversation about a possible Spurs dynasty should start in 2003 ....
So the Russell Celtics is not a dynasty because the only common thread between championship #1 and championship #10 is Russell? What about the 80's Lakers, when only Magic and Abdul-Jabbar (a very aged Abdul-Jabbar at the end of the run) were the common threads?

[Rick Von Braun]

Since the dynasty label is subjective, a person can simply lift the bar high enough that the Spurs come in underneath it. One certainly could argue that only the Mikan Lakers, Russell Celtics, Showtime Lakers, and Jordan Bulls are dynasties. The Spurs don't meet that standard.

But when one starts arguing that less-decorated teams are dynasties, while the Spurs aren't... there are non-basketball reasons behind that argument. And the writer betrays his bias with his argument about "swagger." All that is saying, is that the Spurs don't carry themselves the way he would like. They don't reflect his cultural preferences. And that has a lot more to do with the city they play in, and its demographics, and the players on the team, and where they come from, and how they behave off the court, than how they play.

More directly, since the Spurs play in an isolated small-market city far from the coasts, with a bunch of Hispanics but few blacks or signs of hip-hop culture, with little flamboyant wealth or glamour for the corporate high-rollers, with an unassuming Carribean superstar who is more geek than black, with a white wife, and a bunch of international stars playing a style similar to that which other countries use to kick America's ass in every international competition, the Spurs aren't a dynasty, and the details of how other teams really are better in a basketball sense is irrelevant.

Basically, the Spurs confirm the bankruptcy of an entire basketball Weltanschauung, and those who subscribe to it are forced to take a bitter drink of Haterade.

Ditto x 10!

Sprichst du Deutsch?

[smeagol]

ANd this guy works for ESPN?

What an idiot!

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Don't call ESPN a source of sports news.

[dbreiden83080]

if Dallas doesn't choke again they can take out the Spurs. I got a mil on that.

Losing a series in 5 games is not choking that is getting your ass handed to you!!

[Extra Stout]

Long-term, the NBA, as a business, needs to set up its elite league, of the world's best players, in another country. For right now, they can survive in the U.S., but eventually, too few of the best players are going to be Americans, and the country simply won't care. The lackluster TV ratings will spill over into attendance and merchandising, where it will actually hurt, since 50 million Chinese can't jump on planes and attend games in the U.S.

By 2050 or so, there needs to be a Chinese version of the NBA where all the Dirk Nowitzkis and Yao Mings play, while the U.S. has a league of Americans who play the playground style fans prefer. I think Americans when it comes down to it, want And1 basketball more than we want to have the best league. We can just tell ourselves we have the best league because it's America, regardless of whether it is true. Yeah, the USA would have trouble getting out of group play in tournaments like the Olympics, but it would take another 50 years to penetrate the denial about that.

Right now, the NBA has broadcast affiliates in 24 Chinese cities, so they may be laying the groundwork for just such a concept.

[wildbill2u]

Sportswriters make money by writing things that get them attention.

Dynasty is just a descriptive word. Reality is another championship.

[Clutch20]

Don't consider the Spurs a true dynasty
By Todd Boyd
Special to Page 2

Now that the agony ....................
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=boyd/070615http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=boyd/070615
In Boyd's attempt to validate his contention that the Spurs are not a dynasty he denigrates all of the legitimate contenders that were beaten by the Spurs during those 4 Championship years.

What a list of teams he discredits because of his belief that the Spurs are not up to snuff, not comparable enough to be mentioned in conversations that revolve around past championship teams that the Spurs beat, good teams that challenged but nevertheless lost eventually to the black and silver:

Lakers
Suns
Pistons
Kings
Nuggets
Sonics
Rockets
Mavericks
Cavaliers

That's my point, was he so blinded by his attempts of downgrading the credibility of the 2007 NBA Champions by pointing a finger at past dubious successes by this franchise, that he didn't realize he was actually defecating on the rest of the league? :clap

[dbreiden83080]

In Boyd's attempt to validate his contention that the Spurs are not a dynasty he denigrates all of the legitimate contenders that were beaten by the Spurs during those 4 Championship years.

What a list of teams he discredits because of his belief that the Spurs are not up to snuff, not comparable enough to be mentioned in conversations that revolve around past championship teams that the Spurs beat, good teams that challenged but nevertheless lost eventually to the black and silver:

Lakers
Suns
Pistons
Kings
Nuggets
Sonics
Rockets
Mavericks
Cavaliers

That's my point, was he so blinded by his attempts of downgrading the credibility of the 2007 NBA Champions by pointing a finger at past dubious successes by this franchise, that he didn't realize he was actually defecating on the rest of the league? :clap

I feel some in the media have this take that unless you played in an era spaning the 60's through the 90's until Jordan retired then you are not a true dynasty because of competition. It is pathetic and stupid.

[SpurOutofTownFan]

you need to look at what a dynasty means going forward. Those dominant teams from way ago won't happen anymore. The level of competition nowadays plus the way the draft works won't allow you to have 5 big stars in one team and you will rely more on building strong teams to compete over a long period of time. If you look at it from this standpoint you can clearly see the new "type of dynasty" happening in front of your eyes with the spurs. Mark my words.

[Extra Stout]

It's a tautology. The reason the Spurs aren't really a power is because the competition isn't that good. And how do we know the competition isn't that good? Well, because the Spurs are beating them.

Had one of the anointed teams won it all, very likely this same writer would be heralding an NBA renaissance.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

The Spurs' haven't even dominated the WC, let alone the entire NBA. They have reached the WCF 5 times in 9 years and never in consecutive years. It doesn't help that the teams they lost to in '04 and '06 won a total of 3 NBA Finals' games.

IMO, the dynasty talk should start with '03. Winning 3 of 5 including a repeat is a dynasty to me in this era. As it stands now, I don't consider them a dynasty.

Does it really matter, though?

[tekdragon]

As a very wise man once said:


I don't give a shit.

While I agree that the Spurs (as of today) are not a dynasty...


So the Spurs are the best team outside of the Showtime Lakers and MJ's Bulls since 1980 and their top 3 players are 31, 29, and 25 years old. Works for me.

...yeah. We've got nothing to be ashamed of. As a matter of fact, Life is Good.

Back to my champagne and cigars.

td

[Soul_Patch]

Lol who gives a shit if people think we are a dynasty. One fact remains, and it is undisputable.


The spurs are one of the winningest sports franchises across all disciplines of sports, with 4 championship trophies.

You get there, or come close to it, then ill give it a thought to care about what you or your team thinks.

[smeagol]

SpursFan:Buaaa! Buaaa! . . . I want the Spurs tobe called a dynasty! . . . Buaaaa! Buaaa!

Mavs/Suns/Jazz/Denver Fans: Buaaa! Buaaaahuaaa! I want to win a championship! I want to have a ring! Buaaa Huaaa Buaaa!

Spurs Fan: What the fuck am I crying about???!!!! . . . Life is good in San Antoine!

[rr2418]

The bottom line is who cares? Really? I'm going to support the Spurs no matter what the so called experts say! Not calling them a dynasty is not going to detract the Spurs from accomplishing their goal for next season, and that's to win the NBA title again. The only way to counter this nonsense is to keep supporting the team. With every NBA title the Spurs win, those Laker, Suns, and Mavs fans along with the NBA, will continue to moan and groan the Spurs success. When asked the dynasty question, Pop answered with "I don't give a shit!" :lol

[ClingingMars]

spurs are a dynasty

what now BITCH

-Mars

[PM5K]

I don't think it's as subjective as some people seem to think.

Can a team be a Dynasty by winning consistently during the regular season but not ever winning a Championship?

The answer to that is of course not, so winning during the regular season has nothing to do with being a Dynasty, it's winning Championships.

Being a Dynasty is about being the best for some ammount of time.

Certainly the ammount of time is somewhat subjective, but you have to win Championships with consistency, the Spurs have never even repeated and as such should not be considered a Dynasty...

[FromWayDowntown]

For whatever it's worth, Todd Boyd is a Professor in the USC School of Cinema Arts, not a sportswriter -- at least not by trade; sportswriting is more of an avocation for Professor Boyd. His USC bio proclaims that "[h]e is an expert on issues of urban popular culture and is internationally regarded for his work on race, cinema, hip hop culture, and sports. Among his many accomplishments, Dr. Boyd is acknowledged as one of the individuals who created the academic study of hip hop culture." He has also written a book with NBA roots, entitled "Young, Black, Rich, and Famous: The Rise of the NBA, the Hip Hop Invasion."

He's a sociologist commenting on matters about the NBA. I don't find fault with Dr. Boyd's academic pursuits. But his commentary hints of a particular sociological bent that suggests that the biggest fault he might find with the Spurs might be the absence of an overt hip-hop culture in the organization. His column reminds me of Stephen A. Smith's intimations a few years ago that the Spurs were just too "white" to be taken seriously as an elite NBA team.

[judaspriestess]

It is not just about how many championship rings you have won, it is how you went about achieving those rings.


that right there loses all credability for this stupid hateful article. The Celtics don't count either cause they beat the Rockets? Like its the Celtics fault on who they played for the championship. How fucking stupid and a complete waste of precious time that I want back.

[word]

Empire (ěm'pīr') N - A unit ( The Spurs ) having extensive territory (NBA) ruled by a single supreme authority ( Tim Duncan ).

Spurs Empire Rules !!!

[DarrinS]

For whatever it's worth, Todd Boyd is a Professor in the USC School of Cinema Arts, not a sportswriter -- at least not by trade; sportswriting is more of an avocation for Professor Boyd. His USC bio proclaims that "[h]e is an expert on issues of urban popular culture and is internationally regarded for his work on race, cinema, hip hop culture, and sports. Among his many accomplishments, Dr. Boyd is acknowledged as one of the individuals who created the academic study of hip hop culture." He has also written a book with NBA roots, entitled "Young, Black, Rich, and Famous: The Rise of the NBA, the Hip Hop Invasion."

He's a sociologist commenting on matters about the NBA. I don't find fault with Dr. Boyd's academic pursuits. But his commentary hints of a particular sociological bent that suggests that the biggest fault he might find with the Spurs might be the absence of an overt hip-hop culture in the organization. His column reminds me of Stephen A. Smith's intimations a few years ago that the Spurs were just too "white" to be taken seriously as an elite NBA team.


Nice.

[DarrinS]

I thought I remembered reading somewhere that the Spurs have the highest winning percentage OF ANY TEAM SPORT over the past decade.


That's dominant enough for me.

[ElNono]

Here's the dude bio:
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Boyd)

Basically, he's no different than you or me about having an opinion in sports.
I even wonder if he played ball at all.

[DarrinS]

Here's the dude bio:
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Boyd)

Basically, he's no different than you or me about having an opinion in sports.
I even wonder if he played ball at all.


Yikes, that dude is obsessed with race.

[PM5K]

I thought I remembered reading somewhere that the Spurs have the highest winning percentage OF ANY TEAM SPORT over the past decade.


That's dominant enough for me.

Winning percentage don't mean shit...

[FromWayDowntown]

Nice.

For the record, I'm not trying to make this about race, ethnicity, or culture. Dr. Boyd is entitled to his opinions and, while I disagree with this one, I find most of his other published work to be significant and insightful. I do think, though, that his opinions of relative value (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page3/story?page=boyd/040819) when it comes to matters associated with the NBA depends signficantly upon his views of the significance of hip-hop culture. That, to me, is an inapt basis for making those sorts of observations on a broad scale as his column about the Spurs attempts to.

In the end, I don't disagree with his ultimate conclusion.

[exstatic]

Well the older they get the more injuries they tend to get and the more all the years start to catch up to them as their body breaks down..

thats just my theory..maybe I'm a bit biased..

if Dallas doesn't choke again they can take out the Spurs. I got a mil on that.
Spurs core is Tim, Tony, and Manu. Everyone else will likely be changed out in the next 12-14 months. Spurs actually have cap room next summer. ONly T,T, and M are under contract beyond, plus the team has an option on Butler.

Big men age better, so Tim can play at a high level for probably 5 more years, age 36 or so. Shit, Jabbar played until he was 42.

Tony hasn't even hit his peak yet. If he's truly unveiling the 3 pointer, the league should be fucking terrified.

Manu is hitting that guard slow down age, but he's so fucking smart, basketball wise, that he can still contribute in a Barry/Finley kind of way.

[pooh]

For what it's worth, the article is correct. They (Spurs) are NOT a dynasty until they win back-to-back titles...period. Scream from the mountain tops all you want, but it's true. Even the Spurs (Tony Parker even said it on tv tonight) agree. Going every other year and in between falling on your face, doesn't cut it.

It could also be said that the Spurs worked hard to win one year then suffered a "let down" the next. A sustained effort could be the key and it doesn't help for the breaks to go you way every now and then either.

[thiste]

I didn't remember hearing the Basketball God say that winning back to back was a prerequisite... matter of opinion I guess. To me winning half the time over a 9 years period is good enough.

Everyone is entitled to his opinion, and Boyd has all the rights in the world to think the Spurs are no dynasty. The problem with his article is that it's arguments are flawed and inept. That's what make people react to it imho, not his opinion.

[PM5K]

I didn't remember hearing the Basketball God say that winning back to back was a prerequisite... matter of opinion I guess. To me winning half the time over a 9 years period is good enough.


Dynasty:

"a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time"

The Spurs never maintained their position, they were knocked off the next season each time they won a championship.

Simply winning consistently isn't enough either, it's about winning rings consistently..

[MadDog73]

I'm surprised he called the 80's Lakers a dynasty. If he hadn't done that, his argument would be a lot stronger.

All Spurs have to so is win next year and you'll consider them a Dynasty?

Works for me.

[Extra Stout]

The '80s Lakers did go back-to-back.

But keep in mind his argument isn't just about basketball. A team has to appeal to his hip-hop sensibilities for him to consider them a dynasty, which makes his opinion rather ridiculous.

[MadDog73]

A team has to appeal to his hip-hop sensibilities for him to consider them a dynasty, which makes his opinion rather ridiculous.


Tony Parker raps and is marrying Eva.

What more does he want? :lol

[Momma_monkey]

The Notorious P.H.D jealous you ain't got Eva and the cold hard cash?!?!?!

[MadDog73]

Dynasty:

"a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time"

The Spurs never maintained their position, they were knocked off the next season each time they won a championship.

Simply winning consistently isn't enough either, it's about winning rings consistently..


On the other hand, Spurs have always been contenders to win the Title.

The same can't be said about the 2000-2002 Lakers (our only real competition to be considered a "Dynasty".)

[Extra Stout]

Tony Parker raps and is marrying Eva.

What more does he want? :lol
But he's French.

[Cherry]

Todd Boyd: "Don't Call Spurs a Dynasty" :dramaquee

Pop: "i don´t give a sh*t" :lol

[703 Spurz]

Eh, I'll still take our 4 trophies anyday. I don't give a damn if we're called a dynasty or not. There is no right or wrong answer

[703 Spurz]

Who cares if they're a dynasty or not? I'd settle for four titles and people debating whether or not my team was one.

:toast

[703 Spurz]

Well if they can repeat then I will call them a dynasty. Otherwise they've just proven they can win titles in odd numbered years within a span of nine years :lol

But if they DO repeat, which will leave me crying..just look at the text, its amazing..

5 in the last 10 years..

I truly think this is SA's final year. Dallas is back at it, Phoenix is back at it, Houston is going to be an elite team with Rick Adelmen, Durant is in the West, Oden is in the West, the Lakers if they can keep Kobe and trade Odom and(or) Bynum and add an elite big man, Jazz proved they can be deadly, the West is just overwhelmingly competitive.

but the Spurs just get older..

and yea the rivalry was great. During the season the OT game brought back shades of the playoffs when they faced off.

We age while everyone else stays the same right? Jackass

[Referee]

Sorry to the fool who wrote this article. I grew up in Boston when the Celtics ran rough shod over the competition. They fought and clawed their way to the heights of Championships. This Spurs organization in this era have earned my opinion of being called dynastic due to THEIR accomplishments. They have earned the right to boast and to retool for even more glory... I could care less that they haven't won back to back becasue all the while they have been competitive and not every team of which the SPURS are a TEAM in every sense of the word. Not every team has been competitive throughout their run. The Spurs are a fine tuned engine with more miles to go.

A Dynasty is gracing us as we speak! :clap

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/6976/yodaaan6.png (http://imageshack.us)http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/5006/sports01oc8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Spurminator]

It's a good thing the Lakers won in 1988 instead of 1989 or they never would have been awarded the ESPN Bud Light Dynasty Trophy Sponsored by Gatorade.

[Warlord23]

For the record, I don't think the Spurs are a dynasty either. But those moronic arguments in Boyd's piece have no relevance to the matter.

1. Dynasties need rivals: No they don't. Jordan's Bulls won against 5 different teams in 6 finals.

2. Persona/image/swagger: GMAFB. Kareem = Duncan in personality. Just because they played in a big market doesn't mean Worthy/Scott/Cooper/Kareem et al had "persona". Magic had a childlike smile but that's about it. This whole "persona" thing started with Jordan and then was continued by Shaq/Kobe. This is not a pre-requisite by any means

3. Shortened season: How about shortened playoffs? The 50s Celtics had a best-of-3 Conf semifinals, best-of-5 conf finals, and best-of-7 NBA finals. That means it took them 2+3+4 = 9 victories to get the championship. Doesn't that pale in comparison to the 16 victories needed in today's NBA? Shouldn't the Celtics titles be "asterisked"?

4. Shaq/Kobe Lakers closer to a dynasty: With a 5-year shelf life and 3 wins, that would be the shortest "dynasty" of all time. Neither is a dynasty, but winning 4 in 9 while contending throughout and having different teams almost each time is tougher to accomplish.

[PB&J]

Who cares if they're a dynasty or not? I'd settle for four titles and people debating whether or not my team was one.

:clap

[smeagol]

Todd Boyd: "Don't Call Spurs a Dynasty" :dramaquee

Pop: "i don´t give a sh*t" :lol
If Manu continues to celebrate as he does in your sig, he will injure an elbow

[smeagol]

So we will repeat next year and then we will be a dynasty.

Phew! . . . I feel so much better now that that's off my chest!

Now I will go and take a sip out of the championship cup.

[MadDog73]

For the record, I don't think the Spurs are a dynasty either. But those moronic arguments in Boyd's piece have no relevance to the matter.

1. Dynasties need rivals: No they don't. Jordan's Bulls won against 5 different teams in 6 finals.

2. Persona/image/swagger: GMAFB. Kareem = Duncan in personality. Just because they played in a big market doesn't mean Worthy/Scott/Cooper/Kareem et al had "persona". Magic had a childlike smile but that's about it. This whole "persona" thing started with Jordan and then was continued by Shaq/Kobe. This is not a pre-requisite by any means

3. Shortened season: How about shortened playoffs? The 50s Celtics had a best-of-3 Conf semifinals, best-of-5 conf finals, and best-of-7 NBA finals. That means it took them 2+3+4 = 9 victories to get the championship. Doesn't that pale in comparison to the 16 victories needed in today's NBA? Shouldn't the Celtics titles be "asterisked"?

4. Shaq/Kobe Lakers closer to a dynasty: With a 5-year shelf life and 3 wins, that would be the shortest "dynasty" of all time. Neither is a dynasty, but winning 4 in 9 while contending throughout and having different teams almost each time is tougher to accomplish.


Great points.

[TampaDude]

He's on crack...the Spurs ARE a Dynasty!