Will Spurs ever repeat as NBA champions? (Article)

[Thomas82]

Will Spurs ever repeat as NBA champions?

By Kerry Barboza - Boerne Star Sports Editor

I don’t know if the San Antonio Spurs will ever win back-to-back NBA championships.

They obviously won’t do it this year, but I was hoping they could in order to quiet their critics who say they aren’t a true dynasty because they haven’t won consecutive titles.

The ironic thing is that even though the Spurs seemed to be more inconsistent during the regular season than they have in recent memory, they went further this year in their attempt to win back-to-back championships than they have in the past.

After winning the title in 1999, they were knocked out in the first round in 2000. After claiming titles in 2003 and 2005, S.A. was knocked out in the second round or conference semifinals the following seasons.

This year, after winning it all in 2007, the Spurs made it to the third round or conference finals before getting beat by a solid Lakers team who wasn’t that much better than them even though they won the series 4-1.

It’s true that the Lakers went up 3-1 before closing them out, but the Spurs could have just as easily been up 3-1. S.A. dropped Games 1 and 4, but had shots to win those games at the buzzer and let’s not forget about the no-call on Derek Fisher in Game 4.

I think the fact that the Spurs went further this year than in any other in their attempt to repeat shows they aren’t in as bad of shape as a lot in the media are making them out to be.

Sure, they need to add a player or two who can create his own shot off the dribble, but as long as they have the Big 3 in Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, they just have to tinker and not overhaul the team.

Of course, the Big 3 have to stay healthy, something that didn’t happen this year. I think Ginobili’s ankle was bothering him more than anybody knows in the playoffs.

He’s usually the closer for the Spurs in the fourth quarter, something he excelled at last year, but he was only a shadow of himself in the fourth with his injuries this season.

Would the Spurs have blown a 20-point lead in Game 1 and a 17-point lead in Game 4 if Ginobili was healthy?

We’re only left to ponder the question, but one thing we know for sure is that San Antonio needs to surround the Big 3 with younger players.

Spurs coach Gregg Popovich got it right when he said that if the Spurs win it’s because they're experienced and if they lose then it’s because they’re too old.

There’s a fine line between the two and trying to find that balance is tricky. San Antonio basically brought back everybody from last year’s team to give them a chance to repeat even those most of those players were in their mid-30s.

That was their strategy and it didn’t work for them this year, but it’s hard to fault a front office that has won four championships in nine seasons, regardless if they haven’t been able to repeat.

So who will win this year's title?

From what I've heard and read, most NBA experts seem to be going with the Lakers to win this year's NBA title.

That makes sense because they have the league MVP in Kobe Bryant, but I think I'll go with the Celtics who have the league's Defensive MVP in Kevin Garnett, also a former league MVP.

Bryant is a great player, but it's still a big man's game, that's why either Tim Duncan or Shaquille O'Neal has made it to the finals since 1999 prior to this season.

Duncan has gone to the finals in 1999, 2003, 2005 and 2007, while O'Neal went in 1995 with Orlando, from 2000-2002 with the Lakers, again in 2004 with Los Angeles and then in 2006 with Miami.

Michael Jordan didn't need a dominant big man to win his titles and maybe Bryant is that good, but if he is, then why is this Bryant's first year to get past the first round since he and O'Neal parted ways?

Honestly, I don't really care who wins, I just want to see a good series.
__________________

[1Parker1]

Sure, they need to add a player or two who can create his own shot off the dribble, but as long as they have the Big 3 in Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, they just have to tinker and not overhaul the team.

I agree. Spurs needed Ginobili to play from horrible to bad in Games 1, 4, and 5 and they would have been in a better position to make this a series and win it.

[spursfan98]

Will Spurs ever repeat as NBA champions?

By Kerry Barboza - Boerne Star Sports Editor

I don’t know if the San Antonio Spurs will ever win back-to-back NBA championships.

They obviously won’t do it this year, but I was hoping they could in order to quiet their critics who say they aren’t a true dynasty because they haven’t won consecutive titles.

The ironic thing is that even though the Spurs seemed to be more inconsistent during the regular season than they have in recent memory, they went further this year in their attempt to win back-to-back championships than they have in the past.

After winning the title in 1999, they were knocked out in the first round in 2000. After claiming titles in 2003 and 2005, S.A. was knocked out in the second round or conference semifinals the following seasons.

This year, after winning it all in 2007, the Spurs made it to the third round or conference finals before getting beat by a solid Lakers team who wasn’t that much better than them even though they won the series 4-1.

It’s true that the Lakers went up 3-1 before closing them out, but the Spurs could have just as easily been up 3-1. S.A. dropped Games 1 and 4, but had shots to win those games at the buzzer and let’s not forget about the no-call on Derek Fisher in Game 4.

I think the fact that the Spurs went further this year than in any other in their attempt to repeat shows they aren’t in as bad of shape as a lot in the media are making them out to be.

Sure, they need to add a player or two who can create his own shot off the dribble, but as long as they have the Big 3 in Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, they just have to tinker and not overhaul the team.

Of course, the Big 3 have to stay healthy, something that didn’t happen this year. I think Ginobili’s ankle was bothering him more than anybody knows in the playoffs.

He’s usually the closer for the Spurs in the fourth quarter, something he excelled at last year, but he was only a shadow of himself in the fourth with his injuries this season.

Would the Spurs have blown a 20-point lead in Game 1 and a 17-point lead in Game 4 if Ginobili was healthy?

We’re only left to ponder the question, but one thing we know for sure is that San Antonio needs to surround the Big 3 with younger players.

Spurs coach Gregg Popovich got it right when he said that if the Spurs win it’s because they're experienced and if they lose then it’s because they’re too old.

There’s a fine line between the two and trying to find that balance is tricky. San Antonio basically brought back everybody from last year’s team to give them a chance to repeat even those most of those players were in their mid-30s.

That was their strategy and it didn’t work for them this year, but it’s hard to fault a front office that has won four championships in nine seasons, regardless if they haven’t been able to repeat.

So who will win this year's title?

From what I've heard and read, most NBA experts seem to be going with the Lakers to win this year's NBA title.

That makes sense because they have the league MVP in Kobe Bryant, but I think I'll go with the Celtics who have the league's Defensive MVP in Kevin Garnett, also a former league MVP.

Bryant is a great player, but it's still a big man's game, that's why either Tim Duncan or Shaquille O'Neal has made it to the finals since 1999 prior to this season.

Duncan has gone to the finals in 1999, 2003, 2005 and 2007, while O'Neal went in 1995 with Orlando, from 2000-2002 with the Lakers, again in 2004 with Los Angeles and then in 2006 with Miami.

Michael Jordan didn't need a dominant big man to win his titles and maybe Bryant is that good, but if he is, then why is this Bryant's first year to get past the first round since he and O'Neal parted ways?

Honestly, I don't really care who wins, I just want to see a good series.
__________________


:lol
Who reads the Boerne Star? I didnt know they wrote about the Spurs

[1Parker1]

Oh and to answer the question of this article title; I actually don't think the Spurs will repeat in the Duncan, Parker, Ginobili era. Especially with the way the West is shaping out to be.

I do think they have another championship or 2 run in them, but I'm not too sure of a back to back. I thought this season was their best chance to do it.

[xtremesteven33]

good article.

too bad this guy is low media

[jack sommerset]

Trade Duncan to the Bulls for 2 first rounders and Deng

[rascal]

:lol
Who reads the Boerne Star? I didnt know they wrote about the Spurs
Looks like Kerry reads spurs talk. All that has been discussed in here before.

[spursfan98]

Looks like Kerry reads spurs talk. All that has been discussed in here before.

Its a pretty good artical, and I used to live in Boerne and get the Boerne star. I just never knew they wrote anything other than greyhound sports

[SenorSpur]

I would love to see the Spurs repeat. However if they don't, yet can compete for and ultimately win one every other year for, say the next 3-5 years - I'll gladly take it.

[remingtonbo2001]

The Spurs will be known as the Odd Dynasty.

Nothing wrong with that.

[21_Blessings]

No repeat, no dynasty

[spursfan98]

No repeat, no dynasty

Lets see yall win this year and next year

[Mulletino]

No repeat, no dynasty

You don't make the rules on what a Dynasty is or is not.
Lakers is not a Dynasty.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

I don't know if the Spurs got past the Lakers standing on one leg, the 15-20 pt leads, blown, could have been repeated against Boston.
I don't know how it would feel if we made it all the way on the cusp of repeating only to lose to Boston Celtics. I think that would be a whole new feeling.

Anyway, the Spurs repeat chances are dependent on a good two, or three acquisitions in the coming year.
I think our big 3 will put us in contention every year. Oh yeah, and Bruce's longetivity will help, if he stays on for a couple more years.


The Spurs will be known as the Odd Dynasty.

Nothing wrong with that.

I'll take every other year. :lol As long as I get to see the Spurs play in June, again and again. I'm fine with it.



Michael Jordan didn't need a dominant big man to win his titles and maybe Bryant is that good, but if he is, then why is this Bryant's first year to get past the first round since he and O'Neal parted ways?
Honestly, I don't really care who wins, I just want to see a good series.
Kobe got an all-star calibre post-presence! That's why!

Kobe w/o Gasol = 2007 Lakers :lmao

[Lakers08Champs]

Spurs repeat as NBA champions?? :lol :nope

[21_Blessings]

Michael Jordan didn't need a dominant big man to win his titles and maybe Bryant is that good, but if he is, then why is this Bryant's first year to get past the first round since he and O'Neal parted ways?

How stupid are you? I'm sure Michael would have three-peated with Lamar Odom, Kwame Brown and Smush Parker. I'm sure.

Dumb Spurs fan, whats new.

[Juanobili]

You know I'm sure there's a Celtics forum out there somewhere

Go.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Looks like Kerry reads spurs talk. All that has been discussed in here before.

Damn straight!

He took this line directly from what I've written in about 10 posts since game 5:

"He’s usually the closer for the Spurs in the fourth quarter, something he excelled at last year, but he was only a shadow of himself in the fourth with his injuries this season."

I have constantly referred to him as our "closer", and that in that series he was a "shadow" of himself.

I call plagiarism! :pctoss

[FilSpursFan]

Spurs will reclaim Championship... even win back-to-back... book it!

:p::p:

[pawe]

The Spurs will be known as the Odd Dynasty.

Nothing wrong with that.

Odd dynasty really sounds good to me!

Im just glad people criticize the Spurs as the team that hasn't repeated as champs rather than a team that hasn't won jack shit.

[21_Blessings]

You don't make the rules on what a Dynasty is or is not.
Lakers is not a Dynasty.

three-peat = dynasty

[Thomas82]

How stupid are you? I'm sure Michael would have three-peated with Lamar Odom, Kwame Brown and Smush Parker. I'm sure.

Dumb Spurs fan, whats new.

This is an article, fool. These words didn't come from me. You would know that if you payed attention to the fact that I have the word article in parenthesis in the thread title, and I guess you didn't see the columnist's name and the paper they write for under the title of the article either, did you? Obviously you didn't!!! Now who's stupid? Next time, be more careful and get your facts straight before you want to knock somebody for what they post.

[manufor3]

good article.

too bad this guy is low media

+1

[Mulletino]

three-peat = dynasty

A short lived Dynasty in the Shaq era.
It could still be going on if Kobe wouldn't have big headed.

[mrspurs]

yesterday i was looking a 2005 championship shirt a buddy was wearing....i had to ask him twice....did we win with the names on your shirt, he replied yes 2005.....take sometime and look at the 2005 roster....you wont believe your eyes...half of those players were horrible players...mike wilkens as point guard....massenburg and rasho as centers....some of the names i didnt even recognize.....my buddys and i play basketball everyday...we are basically retired from the armed services and have been following our spurs for generations........we all concluded.....pop and buford lost this season...they completey screwed up.....and not one of us could possibly come to his defense...pop has made mistakes before, and somehow we live thru it....but not this season...pop no matter anyone says blew it....and he and buford the biggest bonehead did as well...dont believe me....look at the 2005 championship roster....we dont have nowhere near the talent we had this season.....go spurs go

[1Parker1]

^You have to take into account the increased competition. In 2005 and 2007, the Spurs biggest competition in the West was Mavs and Suns, and they pretty much owned the Suns throughout.

Now you have teams like the Lakers, Hornets, Blazers, Jazz, and even Houston who can come out the West and are legit championship contenders.

[Fake Dynasty]

Excuses, Excuses. Defend a fucking title and then you'll be a true dynasty. Until then, your ESPN dynasty "crown" is as laughable as ESPN's product.

All the criticism is 100% WARRANTED.
DYNASTIES RULE IN SUCCESSION. THAT MEANS YOU HAVE TO DEFEND A TITLE OR AT LEAST SHOW UP TO DEFEND YOUR TITLE. THE SPURS TO THIS POINT HAVE NEVER EVEN DEFENDED A WESTERN CONFERENCE TITLE, LET ALONE AN NBA CROWN. IF YOU WANT TO CALL THEM A DIVISIONAL DYNASTY, GO AHEAD, AND WE'LL ALL LAUGH TOGETHER.

They are not a dynasty and in fact, have yet to even approach being a dynasty. Nobody is making these FACTS up and excuses are lame because every true dynasty has had to go through adversity to achieve the label. You're either tough/fortunate enough to make it through the injuries, drama, and player movement.... or you're not.

The Spurs mascot is FUCKING PERFECT: WIL E COYOTE. The RoadRunner is the dynasty that the Spurs simply CANNOT CATCH.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/fensterm/files/2008/01/coyote.jpg
Beep-Beep, Muthafucka!

[Fabbs]

No way. Pop is extended thru 2011.

[nkdlunch]

I wish we could get Mahinmi and Splitter next year. then we would have a great chance.

oh and I wish we could have kept scola :( :( :(

[101A]

yesterday i was looking a 2005 championship shirt a buddy was wearing....i had to ask him twice....did we win with the names on your shirt, he replied yes 2005.....take sometime and look at the 2005 roster....you wont believe your eyes...half of those players were horrible players...mike wilkens as point guard....massenburg and rasho as centers....some of the names i didnt even recognize.....my buddys and i play basketball everyday...we are basically retired from the armed services and have been following our spurs for generations........we all concluded.....pop and buford lost this season...they completey screwed up.....and not one of us could possibly come to his defense...pop has made mistakes before, and somehow we live thru it....but not this season...pop no matter anyone says blew it....and he and buford the biggest bonehead did as well...dont believe me....look at the 2005 championship roster....we dont have nowhere near the talent we had this season.....go spurs go

If not for the most one sided trade in history, the Spurs are in the finals RIGHT now; and Manu has had some rest. Pop did what he had to do; he got done in by an improbably player swap.

[lefty]

Pop has stop sucking Finley's cock.:bang

[Allanon]

^You have to take into account the increased competition. In 2005 and 2007, the Spurs biggest competition in the West was Mavs and Suns, and they pretty much owned the Suns throughout.

Now you have teams like the Lakers, Hornets, Blazers, Jazz, and even Houston who can come out the West and are legit championship contenders.

Good stuff. Next year is going to be even wilder than this year with the Clippers getting healthy, the Kings getting healthy. Blazers could surprise everybody with their record.

Screw around next year and you can miss the Playoffs, not to mention even trying to contend. There will be 12 solid Playoff contending teams in the West and who knows if Seattle will join the hunt as well.

[The Truth #6]

Dynasty implies longevity. Yet for most people with short memories, two in a row and then out = dynasty.

Hopefully this 'repeat' discussion will finally go away. It's too difficult for anyone to repeat in the current league yet people are still holding on to the glory days and holding the Spurs accountable for destroying it.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

I wish we could get Mahinmi and Splitter next year. then we would have a great chance.

oh and I wish we could have kept scola :( :( :(

Oh man, if we potentially (in low likelihood) had all those bigs from drafting, it would have been bizarre. If Scola, Mahnhimi and Splitter were quick enough could we have played BIG BALL during some stretches?

Scola being the runt and all.

[mytespurs]

Excuses, Excuses. Defend a fucking title and then you'll be a true dynasty. Until then, your ESPN dynasty "crown" is as laughable as ESPN's product.

All the criticism is 100% WARRANTED.
DYNASTIES RULE IN SUCCESSION. THAT MEANS YOU HAVE TO DEFEND A TITLE OR AT LEAST SHOW UP TO DEFEND YOUR TITLE. THE SPURS TO THIS POINT HAVE NEVER EVEN DEFENDED A WESTERN CONFERENCE TITLE, LET ALONE AN NBA CROWN. IF YOU WANT TO CALL THEM A DIVISIONAL DYNASTY, GO AHEAD, AND WE'LL ALL LAUGH TOGETHER.

They are not a dynasty and in fact, have yet to even approach being a dynasty. Nobody is making these FACTS up and excuses are lame because every true dynasty has had to go through adversity to achieve the label. You're either tough/fortunate enough to make it through the injuries, drama, and player movement.... or you're not.

The Spurs mascot is FUCKING PERFECT: WIL E COYOTE. The RoadRunner is the dynasty that the Spurs simply CANNOT CATCH.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/fensterm/files/2008/01/coyote.jpg
Beep-Beep, Muthafucka!

4 championships this decade...that's all that needs to be said. Could care less whether they did it back to back.
I see you're a Laker fan so go ahead and talk about their great dynasties if it makes you feel superior. :)

[mytespurs]

Will Spurs ever repeat as NBA champions?

By Kerry Barboza - Boerne Star Sports Editor

I don’t know if the San Antonio Spurs will ever win back-to-back NBA championships.

They obviously won’t do it this year, but I was hoping they could in order to quiet their critics who say they aren’t a true dynasty because they haven’t won consecutive titles.

The ironic thing is that even though the Spurs seemed to be more inconsistent during the regular season than they have in recent memory, they went further this year in their attempt to win back-to-back championships than they have in the past.

After winning the title in 1999, they were knocked out in the first round in 2000. After claiming titles in 2003 and 2005, S.A. was knocked out in the second round or conference semifinals the following seasons.

This year, after winning it all in 2007, the Spurs made it to the third round or conference finals before getting beat by a solid Lakers team who wasn’t that much better than them even though they won the series 4-1.

It’s true that the Lakers went up 3-1 before closing them out, but the Spurs could have just as easily been up 3-1. S.A. dropped Games 1 and 4, but had shots to win those games at the buzzer and let’s not forget about the no-call on Derek Fisher in Game 4.

I think the fact that the Spurs went further this year than in any other in their attempt to repeat shows they aren’t in as bad of shape as a lot in the media are making them out to be.

Sure, they need to add a player or two who can create his own shot off the dribble, but as long as they have the Big 3 in Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, they just have to tinker and not overhaul the team.

Of course, the Big 3 have to stay healthy, something that didn’t happen this year. I think Ginobili’s ankle was bothering him more than anybody knows in the playoffs.

He’s usually the closer for the Spurs in the fourth quarter, something he excelled at last year, but he was only a shadow of himself in the fourth with his injuries this season.

Would the Spurs have blown a 20-point lead in Game 1 and a 17-point lead in Game 4 if Ginobili was healthy?

We’re only left to ponder the question, but one thing we know for sure is that San Antonio needs to surround the Big 3 with younger players.

Spurs coach Gregg Popovich got it right when he said that if the Spurs win it’s because they're experienced and if they lose then it’s because they’re too old.

There’s a fine line between the two and trying to find that balance is tricky. San Antonio basically brought back everybody from last year’s team to give them a chance to repeat even those most of those players were in their mid-30s.

That was their strategy and it didn’t work for them this year, but it’s hard to fault a front office that has won four championships in nine seasons, regardless if they haven’t been able to repeat.

So who will win this year's title?

From what I've heard and read, most NBA experts seem to be going with the Lakers to win this year's NBA title.

That makes sense because they have the league MVP in Kobe Bryant, but I think I'll go with the Celtics who have the league's Defensive MVP in Kevin Garnett, also a former league MVP.

Bryant is a great player, but it's still a big man's game, that's why either Tim Duncan or Shaquille O'Neal has made it to the finals since 1999 prior to this season.

Duncan has gone to the finals in 1999, 2003, 2005 and 2007, while O'Neal went in 1995 with Orlando, from 2000-2002 with the Lakers, again in 2004 with Los Angeles and then in 2006 with Miami.

Michael Jordan didn't need a dominant big man to win his titles and maybe Bryant is that good, but if he is, then why is this Bryant's first year to get past the first round since he and O'Neal parted ways?

Honestly, I don't really care who wins, I just want to see a good series.
__________________

I like this article; well written.

[Galileo]

The West is not getting stronger. The two best teams from 2006 (besides the Spurs), the Suns and Dallas, are on the way down.

[Avitus1]

Yes, before Duncan retires.

[DarrinS]

Why is this "repeat" business so important to people?


What would you rather have?

Two or three titles in a row, followed by 7 years of mediocrity and/or irrelevance?

Or, would you rather see your team be competetive for an entire decade, getting the title in four of those seasons?

[TampaDude]

No...not with the current starters...this year was their last chance to repeat with Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili...Timmy will retire in a few more years, and the Spurs' great run will end...they might...MIGHT win one more before then, but NFW they repeat...the West is just far too stacked now.

I hope I'm wrong...but I really don't think I am...

[TampaDude]

Why is this "repeat" business so important to people?


What would you rather have?

Two or three titles in a row, followed by 7 years of mediocrity and/or irrelevance?

Or, would you rather see your team be competetive for an entire decade, getting the title in four of those seasons?

I'll take the best record in all of pro sports, 11 consecutive playoff appearances and 4 NBA titles. :toast

[TampaDude]

Excuses, Excuses. Defend a fucking title and then you'll be a true dynasty. Until then, your ESPN dynasty "crown" is as laughable as ESPN's product.

All the criticism is 100% WARRANTED.
DYNASTIES RULE IN SUCCESSION. THAT MEANS YOU HAVE TO DEFEND A TITLE OR AT LEAST SHOW UP TO DEFEND YOUR TITLE. THE SPURS TO THIS POINT HAVE NEVER EVEN DEFENDED A WESTERN CONFERENCE TITLE, LET ALONE AN NBA CROWN. IF YOU WANT TO CALL THEM A DIVISIONAL DYNASTY, GO AHEAD, AND WE'LL ALL LAUGH TOGETHER.

They are not a dynasty and in fact, have yet to even approach being a dynasty. Nobody is making these FACTS up and excuses are lame because every true dynasty has had to go through adversity to achieve the label. You're either tough/fortunate enough to make it through the injuries, drama, and player movement.... or you're not.

The Spurs mascot is FUCKING PERFECT: WIL E COYOTE. The RoadRunner is the dynasty that the Spurs simply CANNOT CATCH.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/fensterm/files/2008/01/coyote.jpg
Beep-Beep, Muthafucka!

All that is just your opinion and doesn't mean shit...

[Thomas82]

I think they have an outside chance of doing it, but the window is almost closed.

[PDXSpursFan]

Why is this "repeat" business so important to people?


What would you rather have?

Two or three titles in a row, followed by 7 years of mediocrity and/or irrelevance?

Or, would you rather see your team be competetive for an entire decade, getting the title in four of those seasons?
+1

[dknights411]

Call it whatever you want, 4 titles in 9 years is still pretty damn impressive.

[Thomas82]

Call it whatever you want, 4 titles in 9 years is still pretty damn impressive.


It really is.