1960s - Celtics Era (9 champions/ 9 Finals appearances)
1980's - Lakers Era (5 champions / 8 Finals appearances)
1990's - Bulls Era (6 Champions /6 Finals appearances)
2000's - Spurs Era (3 Champions / 3 Finals appearances
Lakers Era (3 Champions / 4 Finals appearances)
When it is 2010 are we gonna remember it as the Laker era or the Spurs era? Spurs are getting older and have 2 years to achieve the Spurs Era status. While Lakers are still young and have the chance to secure it as well.
Last edited by Tacker; 05-04-2008 at 06:31 PM.
Wow, to think that this entire time i thought they were just playing to be the best in the NBA year in and year out...i didn't realize they were actually competing against the lakers for the entire "era".
Means more for the Spurs, because it will finally erase that fact that they're able to actually "Repeat" as champs rather than "taking a year off" then doing it again.
Repeating would secure their "dynastic" place, other wise it's just constancy. The Lakers need it to show that they're up-incoming once again and also for Kobe to show that he did it without Shaq.
3 peat + 1 finals appearance > 3 and not even one back to back pathetic
I think it matters to both. Lakers and Spurs have dominated the 2000's so far.
The Lakers were supposed to be the dynasty of the 2000's with Shaq and Kobe. But them two fools couldn't get along with each other. They screwed themselves out of several rings because they had too much pride. They do have 1 step up in the 3-peat.
Duncan and Spurs have so far dominated the rest of this decade, but failed to repeat and should have another 2 rings already (just a ball and a foul here and there). For the Spurs to be remembered as a Dynasty, they'll have to win at least 1 more championship this decade to get over the fact they never repeated.
All of a sudden, the Lakers are relevant again and it just so happens that both teams are tied at 3 a piece. The Spurs and the Lakers will have their Legacy written these next 2-3 years.
Does it matter? No. But as a fan, it is cool to know.
what is also interesting is that minus Cleveland, Indiana, Dallas and the Spurs, only the Lakers, Nets and Pistons actually made back-to-back trips to the finals.
point...
The trophy matters to the Spurs because its another le to add to the franchise and it shows they were the best of the best in 07-08. Thats all.
True...BUT, it's to solidify their "Dynasty" label by repeating also.
I guess... I mean if I say I don't care about the dynasty label, You will probably think I care though. But anyways I want the Spurs to win every year....
You ing nerds.
h8 2 say it but until we repeet ------- fakerz era
I am pretty sure its important to Detroit, NO, Cleveland and Utah too.
"Dynasty" is in the eye of the beholder. To some, its already happened, to others it will never happen. Until there is set criteria it is all speculation and therefore, at least to me, irrelevant. All I care about is the Spurs winning as many les as possible. I don't care what label is or isn't affixed to it.
Just my .02.
Because if it weren't for the le of "best team of the decade," it wouldn't matter much to either the Spurs or the Lakers...
Who cares about all this "Dynasty" crap? The Spurs have 4 Championship les in the Tim Duncan era.
Also, I would say that the Shaq Lakers and the Kobe Lakers are two separate eras. Even if the Lakers do win it this year, that's 5 years in between les which is a whole lot in NBA terms. Not to mention Kobe and Derek Fisher (who was just recently returned) are the only players still on the Lakers roster from the championship years.
you! The Spurs are still the defending champs and until the Lakers or anyone unseat them from the throne, everyone will still bow down to the Spurs.
Stick that in your acne filled forehead!
It would be the Kobe era then just like the 90's was Michael's era. It all depends if he can get 2-3 more rings. Kobe was the constant and Shaq would be the footnote. Being part of half the rings in a decade would certainly be enough.
4 Championships turd.
Hey I never thought of it that way. Shaq would be the footnote if Kobe can win more rings than Shaq after they split (which, it looks like right now, is going to stay at one.)
Oh, and he means the 2000's. 2003, 2005, 2007. The Spurs' first championship came in the 1990's.....
Sure in the entire Franchise history but 3 in the 2000s. Even I know this stuff, you might want to read up a bit on "your" team fair weather fan.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
