Reply With Quote
It's somewhat irrelevant.
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?
It's somewhat irrelevant.
IMO, yes. They have been at the top for an entire decade.
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.
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.
4 championships is better than winnin nothing in ur franchise history
Depends on who you ask.
The Spurs could pull this series out, win the next four les 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 le, I am just enjoying the results.
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.
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 les is better than none at all. A lot of teams would kill to just have 1.
no
then i do apologize..
UR = YOUR (meaning my franchise) sorry if i misunderstood
Same end. History doesn't remember the road, just the results.
A resounding "NO!!!!!"
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
Is your mom a transves e moron
Call it whatever you want, nerds, it continues to be one of a ride.
yes... are you re ed or what?
alright Answer me this
What do all Dynasties have in common?
A: They REPEATED the following year/season
I'm sure you and every pundit would consider your Lakers a dynasty given the same situation for them.
Why are you freakin heads over on this board anyway? Don't you have your own forum? geeesh.
As for your multiple les, that's all good, but this current Laker team hasn't won .
Are the 80's Bird led Celtics a Dynasty?
You know the one that made it impossible for Magic to get a 3peat?
To us Spurs fans it is indeed a dynasty. Like you said 4
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.
No.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
