If the Spurs win the championship are they officially a dynasty

or are they just a juggernaught in the 2000 era with scattered championships.

They will be the Grover Cleveland of NBA franchises.

Fow Fow stray strayt ti titles
is wha what we we ne need
to to beco become a Dy Dynasty.

Yes. They've had Tim Duncan as the cornerstone of the franchise since the first championship, and year in and year out they've been picked by someone to win it all. Aside from 2001- and 2002, they've been legit contenders. Misfortune struck the Spurs in 2004 and 2006. I'd have to consider them a dynasty, sure. Especially considering they are the winningest sports franchise over the past decade.

4 titles in 9 years
had a shot in 2 more years
made the playoffs every year for 10 years
highest win % of any team in pro sports

Yeah, you could call it a DYNASTY! :toast

they were border line dynasty as it was with the 3 titles in 7 years... i think the 4th would pretty much cement that.

lakers of the 80's had 5 in 9 and that's considered a dynasty...

Not a dynasty if they never repeat.

Wikipedia already considers the Spurs a Dynasty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_%28sports%29#NBA

San Antonio Spurs 1999 to 2007 (3 NBA championships, 4 Division titles, 3 NBA Finals appearances, 9 playoff appearances)

Probably the least impressive one in the list though. Might have been put in there by a Spurs fan...

:lol

Soon wikipedia will say the Spurs are the greatest thing to ever happen on the planet earth.

Give me a second to enter it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

:lol

Soon wikipedia will say the Spurs are the greatest thing to ever happen on the planet earth.

Give me a second to enter it.

---

:clap

Spur Spurs R r Da da best best.

When you are in the eye of a hurricane, do you think you are in a hurricane?

Hey, I'm just sayin'...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solid D

When you are in the eye of a hurricane, do you think you are in a hurricane?

Hey, I'm just sayin'...

---

ASk Katrina Folk, They know bout that shit and George Bush hatin all of us.

Seems like we'd need at least one back to back to be a dynasty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

Seems like we'd need at least one back to back to be a dynasty.

---

To leave no doubt, I agree.

plain and simple. no

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TampaDude

4 titles in 9 years
had a shot in 2 more years
made the playoffs every year for 10 years
highest win % of any team in pro sports

Yeah, you could call it a DYNASTY! :toast

---

:lmao @ 4 titles. Last time I checked the spurs have only won 3.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

yeah, would hate to pull the choke job like the Mavs did last year.... then again these are the SPURS

either way we are considered the most dominant team in the past ten years (highest winning percentage of any team in the NBA, MLB, NHL, NFL). but i think we need this year and next year to claim our spot in the history books up there with the celtics and the lakers

No. Dynasty means repeat.

Just think....if point four and Manu fouling Dirk had not happened, we'd be going for FIVE in a row, and yes we'd be the greatest Dynasty of all nba times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

No. Dynasty means repeat.

Just think....if point four and Manu fouling Dirk had not happened, we'd be going for FIVE in a row, and yes we'd be the greatest Dynasty of all nba times.

---

Hmmm... I think the Celtics of the 60's and the Bulls of the 90's had some damned impressive runs as well. Let's keep it in perspective...

Yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

No. Dynasty means repeat.

Just think....if point four and Manu fouling Dirk had not happened, we'd be going for FIVE in a row, and yes we'd be the greatest Dynasty of all nba times.

---

Young pup, learn your history lessons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solid D

Young pup, learn your history lessons.

---

Boston didn't win back to back with Larr Larry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil

Wikipedia already considers the Spurs a Dynasty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_%28sports%29#NBA

San Antonio Spurs 1999 to 2007 (3 NBA championships, 4 Division titles, 3 NBA Finals appearances, 9 playoff appearances)

Probably the least impressive one in the list though. Might have been put in there by a Spurs fan...

---

Actually it says "dynasties in question".
It doesn't actually call us a dynasty.....yet.

Yes.

I thought a dynasty exerts dominance for a long period of time. 2 years of championships is not a dynasty either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solid D

Young pup, learn your history lessons.

---

fie on history


Those grandpa teams were never singlehandedly preventing a "small ball revolution" :smokin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cherylsteele

Actually it says "dynasties in question".
It doesn't actually call us a dynasty.....yet.

---

Ah, the beauty of Wikipedia, someone has edited it since I read it...

Ahmose I Nebpehtyre (c.1570-1546)
Amenhotep I Djeserkare (c.1546-1527)
Thutmose I Akheperkare (c.1527-1515)
Thutmose II Akheperenre (c.1515-1498)
Queen Hatshepsut Maatkare (c.1498-1483)
Thutmose III Menkhepere (c.1504-1450)
Amenhotep II Akheperure (c.1450-1412)
Thutmose IV Men-khepru-Re (1412-1402)
Amenhotep III Nebmaatre (c.1402-1364)
Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten Neferkheperure (c.1350-1334)
Smenkhkare Ankhheperure (c.1334)
Tutankhamen Nebkheperoure (c.1334-1325)
Ay Kheperkheperure (c.1325-1321)
Horemheb Djeserkheperure (c.1321-1293)

ca. 2033-1562 B.C. Xia 441
1562-1066 B.C. Shang 655
1066-771 B.C. Western Zhou 295
770-256 B.C. Eastern Zhou 514
770-476 B.C. Spring and Autumn Period 294
475-221 B.C. Warring States Period 254
221-207 B.C. Qin 14
206 B.C.-A.D. 8 Western Han 214
A.D. 9-25 Xin 16
A.D. 25-220 Eastern Han 195

1956-57 Boston Celtics
1958-59 Boston Celtics
1959-60 Boston Celtics
1960-61 Boston Celtics
1961-62 Boston Celtics
1962-63 Boston Celtics
1963-64 Boston Celtics
1964-65 Boston Celtics
1965-66 Boston Celtics
1967-68 Boston Celtics
1968-69 Boston Celtics
1973-74 Boston Celtics
1975-76 Boston Celtics
1980-81 Boston Celtics
1983-84 Boston Celtics
1985-86 Boston Celtics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solid D

1956-57 Boston Celtics
1958-59 Boston Celtics
1959-60 Boston Celtics
1960-61 Boston Celtics
1961-62 Boston Celtics
1962-63 Boston Celtics
1963-64 Boston Celtics
1964-65 Boston Celtics
1965-66 Boston Celtics
1967-68 Boston Celtics
1968-69 Boston Celtics
1973-74 Boston Celtics
1975-76 Boston Celtics
1980-81 Boston Celtics
1983-84 Boston Celtics
1985-86 Boston Celtics

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBF

small ball revolution :smokin

---

http://graphics.ocsn.com/photos/scho...en/wooden4.jpg

1964 NCAA National Championship
1965 NCAA National Championship
1967 NCAA National Championship
1968 NCAA National Championship
1969 NCAA National Championship
1970 NCAA National Championship
1971 NCAA National Championship
1972 NCAA National Championship
1973 NCAA National Championship
1975 NCAA National Championship

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solid D

1956-57 Boston Celtics
1958-59 Boston Celtics
1959-60 Boston Celtics
1960-61 Boston Celtics
1961-62 Boston Celtics
1962-63 Boston Celtics
1963-64 Boston Celtics
1964-65 Boston Celtics
1965-66 Boston Celtics
1967-68 Boston Celtics
1968-69 Boston Celtics
1973-74 Boston Celtics
1975-76 Boston Celtics
1980-81 Boston Celtics
1983-84 Boston Celtics
1985-86 Boston Celtics

---

My God were they good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duncan228

My God were they good.

---

I believe that at least 5 players from that team are in the HoA. That level of talent would be very difficult to have in the expanded league we have today, and almost impossible to keep together due to free agency. Even the Bulls in the 90's made their two three-peats with vastly different rosters.

1916 Montreal Canadiens
1924 Montreal Canadiens
1930 Montreal Canadiens
1931 Montreal Canadiens
1944 Montreal Canadiens
1946 Montreal Canadiens
1953 Montreal Canadiens
1956 Montreal Canadiens
1957 Montreal Canadiens
1958 Montreal Canadiens
1959 Montreal Canadiens
1960 Montreal Canadiens
1965 Montreal Canadiens
1966 Montreal Canadiens
1968 Montreal Canadiens
1969 Montreal Canadiens
1971 Montreal Canadiens
1973 Montreal Canadiens
1976 Montreal Canadiens
1977 Montreal Canadiens
1978 Montreal Canadiens
1979 Montreal Canadiens
1986 Montreal Canadiens
1993 Montreal Canadiens

I absolutely LOVE the "have to win back to back" excuse made by idiots trying to devalue the Spurs.

Following your logic...

A team that wins 8 finals in 16 years isn't a dynasty?

A team who wins 15 Superbowls in 30 years, every other year, isn't a dynasty?

A team that wins 450 World Series in just under a millennium isn't a dynasty?

Wow, yep, you're right. Ur lawjik sheur sho-d me. :rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mavs>spurs

:lmao @ 4 titles. Last time I checked the spurs have only won 3.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

---

Read the thread name dipshit! It says IF the Spurs win the championship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil Hellmuth

or are they just a juggernaught in the 2000 era with scattered championships.

---

Yes, they would be a dynasty. I feel like they're already a dynasty. Will Duncan please hurry up and turn 37?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mavs>spurs

:lmao @ 4 titles. Last time I checked the spurs have only won 3.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

---

The title specifically says If the Spurs win...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King

The title specifically says If the Spurs win...

---

How do illiterate people figure out how to write/post to a message board? I still haven't discovered the answer to this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mavs>spurs

:lmao @ 4 titles. Last time I checked the spurs have only won 3.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

---

Hey, moron...read the title of this thread... :rolleyes

They will be close but most of the credit will go to Duncan because he is the only guy left from the 99 squad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil Hellmuth

or are they just a juggernaught in the 2000 era with scattered championships.

---

The latter.

Until you win at least two in a row, you are a great team but not a dynasty.

A dynasty would be going back to back to back despite the refs trying to fix nearly every game against you.

I think you know what team did that. :toast

New York Yankees

26 World Series Titles
2000 • 1999 • 1998 • 1996
1978 • 1977 • 1962 • 1961
1958 • 1956 • 1953 • 1952
1951 • 1950 • 1949 • 1947
1943 • 1941 • 1939 • 1938
1937 • 1936 • 1932 • 1928
1927 • 1923

39 AL Pennants
2003 • 2001 • 2000 • 1999
1998 • 1996 • 1981 • 1978
1977 • 1976 • 1964 • 1963
1962 • 1961 • 1960 • 1958
1957 • 1956 • 1955 • 1953
1952 • 1951 • 1950 • 1949
1947 • 1943 • 1942 • 1941
1939 • 1938 • 1937 • 1936
1932 • 1928 • 1927 • 1926
1923 • 1922 • 1921

From 1995 through 2006, the Yankees won their division every year except 1995 and 1997. In those two years, they won the wildcard.

Now THAT'S a DYNASTY!!! :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mavs>spurs

:lmao @ 4 titles. Last time I checked the spurs have only won 3.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

---

Right............

Why do I see a pot calling a kettle black here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ploto

Not a dynasty if they never repeat.

---

The Celtics of the '80s are considered a dynasty.
Heck, so are the '70s Knicks and they only won two.

BTW, I don't miss Rasho, and don't forsee doing so anytime in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

The Celtics of the '80s are considered a dynasty.
Heck, so are the '70s Knicks and they only won two.

BTW, I don't miss Rasho, and don't forsee doing so anytime in the future.

---

By whom? Joe the cab driver?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solid D

1916 Montreal Canadiens
1924 Montreal Canadiens
1930 Montreal Canadiens
1931 Montreal Canadiens
1944 Montreal Canadiens
1946 Montreal Canadiens
1953 Montreal Canadiens
1956 Montreal Canadiens
1957 Montreal Canadiens
1958 Montreal Canadiens
1959 Montreal Canadiens
1960 Montreal Canadiens
1965 Montreal Canadiens
1966 Montreal Canadiens
1968 Montreal Canadiens
1969 Montreal Canadiens
1971 Montreal Canadiens
1973 Montreal Canadiens
1976 Montreal Canadiens
1977 Montreal Canadiens
1978 Montreal Canadiens
1979 Montreal Canadiens
1986 Montreal Canadiens
1993 Montreal Canadiens

---

:toast Best team in NHL history.

Spurs are a dynasty with their dominance in the beginning of 21st century. A title this year I think caps it. They have the talent to repeat, that would be perfection if we can repeat, just once. Then no titles for 5 years, I can live with it. :smokin

The first time I remember hearing the term "dynasty" applied in sports, it was a SportsCenter segment in 1991 on whether the Oakland A's Dynasty was over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solid D

By whom? Joe the cab driver?

---

nba.com

Yesterday, Jim Rome, Mark Jackson on the Big Show with Dan Patrick, and JT the Brick all called San Antonio a dynasty already. All have raved about the Spurs' greatness. JT went so far as to call himself a huge fan and can't wait to get to San Antonio.

I heard all of these on podcasts, so I don't have a link.

dynasty = half (or more) of the 10 titles in a decade