Are the Spurs really a Dynasty???

[Jloyola]

70's Steelers
80's Lakers, 49er's
90's Cowboys, Bulls
00's Lakers, (Patriots.. pending)

I know i left out the Celtics and Lakers of the 50's 60's
I also left out Hockey and Soccer b/c those are the least dominant sports in USA

Championships are GREAT, but we get one every year.

The teams i mention above are considered "DYNASTY TEAMS" because of their multiple championships and ALL of them were able to repeat the following year!!!

Im not knocking on the Spurs, hey 4 championships in 9 years is a Great Accomplishment and Well Deserved, but are they considered a Dynasty?

[Ghazi]

It's somewhat irrelevant.

[Anti.Hero]

IMO, yes. They have been at the top for an entire decade.

[CP3]

They are a great whine-asty. Just kidding. They are a great team, but I personally believe you have to win back-to-back to be a dynasty. That is just my opinion and many others think differently.

[Spurtacus]

4 championships in 9 years. The #1 winningest team in ALL major professional sports for ten years now. Always a threat to win it all. Yeah.

[TDMVPDPOY]

4 championships is better than winnin nothing in ur franchise history

[samikeyp]

Depends on who you ask.

The Spurs could pull this series out, win the next four titles and some would still not consider it. Some already do, some are waiting until Duncan's career is over.

Since there is no specific criteria for what is or isn't a dynasty, it will always be speculative. For me, as someone who lived through the first 26 years of Spurs basketball without a title, I am just enjoying the results.

[IronMexican]

I would say, no, but the book still isn't closed on them. this series isn't over, if they can win it all this year, it would cement it for them.

[Jloyola]

4 championships is better than winnin nothing in ur franchise history

uhhh 14 Championships.... 55 out 60 playoff appearances..and the list goes on..

This topic was not made to be a BASH thread just seeing what people consider what a Dynasty team means


Example: If you take one of the 4 championships the Spurs have and have 2 of them being Back-to-Back that would be considered a Dynasty!

[samikeyp]

uhhh 14 Championships.... 55 out 60 playoff appearances..and the list goes on..

This topic was not made to be a BASH thread just seeing what people consider what a Dynasty team means


Example: If you take one of the 4 championships the Spurs have and have 2 of them being Back-to-Back that would be considered a Dynasty!

He wasn't bashing the Lakers either. He was pointing out that having 4 titles is better than none at all. A lot of teams would kill to just have 1.

[21_Blessings]

no

[Jloyola]

He wasn't bashing the Lakers either. He was pointing out that having 4 titles is better than none at all. A lot of teams would kill to just have 1.

then i do apologize..

UR = YOUR (meaning my franchise) sorry if i misunderstood:lobt2:

[sabar]

Example: If you take one of the 4 championships the Spurs have and have 2 of them being Back-to-Back that would be considered a Dynasty!

Same end. History doesn't remember the road, just the results.

[Dim Tuncan]

A resounding "NO!!!!!"

[Jloyola]

Same end. History doesn't remember the road, just the results.

Only difference is the SPURs have not DEFENDED their championship succesfully, unless they win 3 straight against LA and win 4 against either bos/det

[fusionjazzman72]

Is your mom a transvestite moron

[Critter]

no

[SPARKY]

Call it whatever you want, nerds, it continues to be one hell of a ride.

[Budkin]

Fuck yes... are you retarded or what?

[Jloyola]

Fuck yes... are you retarded or what?

alright Answer me this

What do all Dynasties have in common?


A: They REPEATED the following year/season

[stealth21]

I'm sure you and every pundit would consider your Lakers a dynasty given the same situation for them.
Why are you freakin dickheads over on this board anyway? Don't you have your own forum? geeesh.
As for your multiple titles, that's all good, but this current Laker team hasn't won shit .

[Man In Black]

alright Answer me this

What do all Dynasties have in common?


A: They REPEATED the following year/season
Are the 80's Bird led Celtics a Dynasty?
You know the one that made it impossible for Magic to get a 3peat?

[Axl Van Dam]

70's Steelers
80's Lakers, 49er's
90's Cowboys, Bulls
00's Lakers, (Patriots.. pending)

I know i left out the Celtics and Lakers of the 50's 60's
I also left out Hockey and Soccer b/c those are the least dominant sports in USA

Championships are GREAT, but we get one every year.

The teams i mention above are considered "DYNASTY TEAMS" because of their multiple championships and ALL of them were able to repeat the following year!!!

Im not knocking on the Spurs, hey 4 championships in 9 years is a Great Accomplishment and Well Deserved, but are they considered a Dynasty?


:wakeup To us Spurs fans it is indeed a dynasty. Like you said 4 :lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt:ain't no walk in the park. You see it the other way? Hey that's your opinion and I think no matter how hard we spurs fans try you'll always dismiss us as a dynasty. Deep in the hearts of Spurs Fanatics we are a dynasty. We've got 4 trophies to prove it.

[Joe Dodger]

No.

[Lakers Dynasty 2000]

I'm a Lakers fan.

That being said, YES THEY ARE. They've dominated the league for many years and people like Fisher say they are the best team in basketball and have been for years. They've stayed on top over a long, long span.

[Lakers14Titles]

Who fucking cares if they are or not.

[Manufan909]

Yes.

[Kobe24Forever]

Dynasty means domination over a sustained period of time, have spurs ever dominated the league? No. if you don't repeat ur not a dynasty period, anything short of a 3peat is not a dynasty, lakers had theirs, bulls had theirs, spurs take the odd year off because they dont have a squad that could trully dominate every year. just as with the lakers squad in the 70's the bulls in the 90's, you look at those team entering the playoffs and you knew there's almost no chance in hell they won't defend their title because they are so damn good, but the spurs? they might win every odd year, but the odds are still stacked against them to win at all, they don't really frighten you at all.

[dg7md]

If the '80s Celtics are, then we are.

[ShowtimeRedux]

Depends on who you ask.

The Spurs could pull this series out, win the next four titles and some would still not consider it. Some already do, some are waiting until Duncan's career is over.

Since there is no specific criteria for what is or isn't a dynasty, it will always be speculative. For me, as someone who lived through the first 26 years of Spurs basketball without a title, I am just enjoying the results.

who wouldn't consider it a dynasty if they won 4 straight titles... I think if you somehow pulled it out and won it all this year you would be considered a dynasty by most.

[Jloyola]

who wouldn't consider it a dynasty if they won 4 straight titles... I think if you somehow pulled it out and won it all this year you would be considered a dynasty by most.

Not by Most .. BUT ALL

[ImmortalD24]

I'm a Lakers fan.

That being said, YES THEY ARE. They've dominated the league for many years and people like Fisher say they are the best team in basketball and have been for years. They've stayed on top over a long, long span.Totally agree, I don't know why other Laker fans want to deny this.

[genomefreak13]

Name another team with more three championship that wasn't called a dynasty during there time. If there is such a team then, I wouldn't consider the spurs as a dynasty.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Winningest franchise over the last decade, plus four rings. Of course they are.

But for some bad freakin luck we could be going for 6 in a row.

[703 Spurz]

70's Steelers
80's Lakers, 49er's
90's Cowboys, Bulls
00's Lakers, (Patriots.. pending)

I know i left out the Celtics and Lakers of the 50's 60's
I also left out Hockey and Soccer b/c those are the least dominant sports in USA

Championships are GREAT, but we get one every year.

The teams i mention above are considered "DYNASTY TEAMS" because of their multiple championships and ALL of them were able to repeat the following year!!!

Im not knocking on the Spurs, hey 4 championships in 9 years is a Great Accomplishment and Well Deserved, but are they considered a Dynasty?

Who really is concerned about being called a dynasty? The fucking trolls here seem to think it's an insult to be told that the Spurs aren't a dynasty. Winning 4 of the last 10 titles is enough for me.

Do you really think not being a dynasty matters?

[turiaf for president]

Are the 80's Bird led Celtics a Dynasty?
You know the one that made it impossible for Magic to get a 3peat?

uh didnt he say REPEAT? which the lakers did.

im compare these spurs to that celtics team of the 80's. they are not considered a dynasty. just one of the 2 teams of that decade. same thing with the spurs. if they dont win this year, they will be considered the team of the 2000's nothing more nothing less

[turiaf for president]

Do you really think not being a dynasty matters?

yes it makes a huge difference. maybe not now but in 50 years they will talk about the celtics of the 60's, lakers of the 80's, bulls of the 90's as dynasties.

[samikeyp]

yes it makes a huge difference. maybe not now but in 50 years they will talk about the celtics of the 60's, lakers of the 80's, bulls of the 90's as dynasties.

a difference to who?

[timmydidit]

another useless thread

[Spurminator]

They're a four time Champion and counting. Screw the ESPN-invented debates.

[turiaf for president]

a difference to who?

did u read what i wrote after that? in 50 years when there is talk about the HISTORY of the NBA only Dynasties are talked about with huge respect.

[Spurs1234]

if the commissioner of the NBA calls you a dynasty during the ceremony to recieve your title and at the ring ceremony, I think that says it all. The spurs played in the first era with a salary cap (correct me if i am wrong) which introduced parity into the league. No team can dominate like back in the day, because your limited financially, which is good for the overall competitive balance of the league. For example, the spurs get three studs, but who else are they going to sign, every summer everyone complains about the FO not signing anyone, but their budget is limited since they have three studs making good money. Back in the 80's, the spurs could have signed, I dont know, another very good player, a Gerald Wallace for 11M a year and really put the team over the top. Now you cannot do that due to the cap. Its not like anyone other teams are winning back to back, miami, no, detriot no. And everyone wants to crown the lakers for next year with Bynum, we will see, because you have to aviod alot of bad things for about 100 games to win a title. Kobe will be playing all this summer and is 30, I doubt he will be fresh next year after playing in june this year assuming they beat the spurs in game 5, 6 or 7. So that could cost them homecourt next year and they are playing on the road vs. NO, HOU, another upstart like POR or maybe at SA. Just like the spurs this year.

[Spurminator]

did u read what i wrote after that? in 50 years when there is talk about the HISTORY of the NBA only Dynasties are talked about with huge respect.


Yeah it's sad that in 50 years no one is going to remember Larry Bird's Celtics, Isiah's Pistons or Dr. J's Sixers.

[AztecPrincss]

YOu CAn Spend Minutes HOurs,days weeks or even months over analyzing the situation trying to put the pieces together justyfying what couldve wouldve happened..or you can just leave the pieces on the floor and move the fuck on..

[samikeyp]

All history will remember is who won. The Spurs as of now have 4 in 9 years, they will not be forgotten.

[jokyfo]

70's Steelers
80's Lakers, 49er's
90's Cowboys, Bulls
00's Lakers, (Patriots.. pending)

I know i left out the Celtics and Lakers of the 50's 60's
I also left out Hockey and Soccer b/c those are the least dominant sports in USA

Championships are GREAT, but we get one every year.

The teams i mention above are considered "DYNASTY TEAMS" because of their multiple championships and ALL of them were able to repeat the following year!!!

Im not knocking on the Spurs, hey 4 championships in 9 years is a Great Accomplishment and Well Deserved, but are they considered a Dynasty?


:blah:blah:blah:blah:blah:blah:blah:blah:blah:blah :blah:blah:nope:nope:nope

The San Anphonio Sterns never had a dynasty. They have never won even 2 in a row.

You have to at least repeat as champs and defend your title sucessfully to even be considered to have a dynasty.

NO DYNASTY!

[MadDog73]

Totally agree, I don't know why other Laker fans want to deny this.

One good praise deserves another:

Your sig needs updating. You're one win away from going to the Finals.