It's time to shut the ing Laker fans up. Manu will be ready for Game 3.
The past NBA seasons are IRRELEVANT. All that matters is this series that is happening RIGHT NOW.
The way I see it unless the Spurs can get production out of Ginobli this series is over. They just can't put up enough pts to hang with the Lakers and their high scoring offense. Horry, Barry, Finley, Udoka.....one of these guys will have to step up each night and have a huge game when Ginobli doesn't.
Your own source dooms you...the definition isn't really settled yet.
Dynasty is in the eye of the beholder.
There is no one recognized definition so its all subjective. Being as such, there are only opinions, not fact and are not right or wrong.
New Lakers dynasty doesn't doesn't happen till after your second championship . Stop counting chicks before the eggs hatch.
Agreed. That's specifically why I used the phrase "dynasty in the making."
But it is to help guide your analysis of the now, and the next five years.
Lakers (dynasty in the making) baby!
Whatever the Spurs have in the tank will be left on that floor tomorrow. If the Lakers shoot 40-45%, this thing tightens up.
Larry Bird's Celtics. Next!no back to back = no dynasty (name one other dynasty without back to back championships)
What? The Lakers were SWEPT by the Spurs that year. What a crock of s***. Last time I checked, Kobe and Shaq were on the floor. Stupid.3.5 over ten years isnt dominant let alone a dynasty
The Lakers would have beat the Spurs in 99 if they played a full season
that mans a m the spurs were clearly the better team that year, pay no dividends to him.
larry bird's celtics were not a dynasty. only 3 champs spread out over 6 years with no back to back.that is not a dynasty, even you guys did not call yourselves a dynasty till after the 4th. show me one publication stating larry bird's celtics were a dynasty
btw there can only be one ongoing dynasty and that my brother was the Lakers with 5 les in the 80s (including back to back)
Believe
It starts tonight
The Lakers suck xcore in most aspects of the game. Kobe's desire to be better than Jordan will not push his team to a championship.
Go spurs GOOOOO
Whatever you ladies call most championships and highest winning % of any team in professional sports over the last decade, I'll take it.
There was no internet in the 80's when the Lakers and Celtics battled it out that decade for supremecy, so no fan debates existed outside of the papers and talk radio.....However, I lived through it. Let's look at a few facts....
Champs
1980 Lakers
1981 Celtics
1982 Lakers
1983 76rs
1984 Celtics
1985 Lakers
1986 Celtics
1987 Lakers
1988 Lakers
We were always +1 or even with Boston until after 1987. In 1987 we had 4 championships in 8 years and no one would give us dynasty status. Two reasons; No back-to-back, and 3 Celtic les in our span with usually as many as we had. We won in 1988 and then had 5 in 9, and got the Dyansty le.
This compares similar to the Spurs success. You have 4 les in 9 years, but there is a Laker dynasty with a 3peat interupting your run. If the Lakers win it all this year, we will have 4 championships in 9 years, but our dynasty can't go back to 2002. We have to start a new one by winning more.
If the Spurs want undisputed claim to Dyansty status, they need to win it all this year. That gives you a back to back and four les in six years. You may date your dynasty from 2003, not 1999. The latter le is just a nice bonus for you. Right now, few people outside of San Antonio call you or believe you to be a dynasty. You are a incredibly great team, I don't detract from your success one bit. But Bird never got his dynasty, and Magic and Kareem came close to not getting theirs either.
laker fan thinks championships in the 50s are relevant to his 14 year old life. props
1 is back...
Again.
The Spurs don't care one way or the other. "Dynasties" are the stuff of tweedy little nerds like Mike Lupica.
Your fans are the ones that are claiming it. Dynasties are rare and you do have a chance to join the club and believe, me if you do, you will all boast it. However, instead of starting a new thread, let me give you plenty of ammunition for you to boast with. The term is called "Era"
We all know about the Bird/Magic era. when people talk about that era, we know of when they speak.
You Spurs fans have plenty of notable eras, an expert among you can date them correctly...
You have the:
ABA era
George Gervin era
The David Robinson era
The Tim Duncan era
The Big Three era
The Championship era (1999-date)
More to come....
Think about it, a lot of teams probably don't have more than one era they can claim. Now Spurs historians, define your eras and rightly boast about them!
So some fans are claiming it.
Determining dynasties is just like determining who are great players. It is inherently subjective and an utter waste of time.
I guess I just don't understand why there's this much fuss. "Dynasty," as applied in sports contexts, simply isn't a well-defined term. Bickering about whether the Spurs (or the 80's Celtics or Lakers) count is like bickering over whether or not someone is bald in a borderline case. There are paradigm cases of sports dynasties, like the 60's Celtics and the 60's-70's Bruins, and there are vague cases, like the 80's Celtics. (Given that the Celtics won so many les during the 80's, even the 80's Lakers' claim to dynasty-hood is up for debate.)
4 les in 9 years, while boasting the best W-L% of any team in any major American sport? I'll take that, whatever you choose to call it (or not call it).
(But 5 les in 10 years sure would be nice.)
If the Spurs win it all this year they will be an undisputed dynasty and considered the team of the decade hands down. They could not do anything for the next 20 years and people would still remember the sustained dominance they held throughout this decade.
If they don't, they will sadly be forgotten. That's just how it is in sports.
Time to make history or be history...just don't be like the Pistons last night and choke at home...then it will be over but the shouting.
i am so on this man...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
