Spurs Dynasty? i don't think so.

[sananspursfan21]

it's a dynasty. no question

[Frenzy]

maybe cleveland can be the new Dy lol

[Capt Bringdown]

maybe cleveland can be the new Dy lol

I think the Spurs will be rebuilding for quite a few years, so I wouldn't mind seeing that. Anything but more KG and Kobe.

[Many PackYao]

I think the Rocket back-to-back championship teams were very special, but they were not a dynasty. They didn't dominate their decade as the Spurs/Lakers/Bulls did.

No doubt. I agree that they were not a dynasty.

[Kamala]

A bunch of guys who were part-time mechanics shooting into peach baskets won the lakers and celtics some championships. Count those les,
but they have a * by them.

[Spork KIller]

The Spurms are not dynasty... ! they can't even win back-to-back les or even worse they can't even make back to back trips to the NBA Finals...
A fluke team with a lot of luck that's what define the spurms short run, not a dynasty at all!

[Frenzy]

i can tell your a spurs fan.

[Spork KIller]

The Spurms are not dynasty... ! they can't even win back-to-back les or even worse they can't even make back to back trips to the NBA Finals...
A fluke team with a lot of luck that's what define the spurms short run, not a dynasty at all!

let me rephrase myself to make it clear

[TDomination]

Spurs are definitely a dynasty imo.

Maybe not the traditional dynasty that we are used to, but they have been a true contender for a decades length. And add in 4 championships during that span.

[Harry Callahan]

Winning 4 NBA les in ten years is a dynasty when you consider only three teams (noted above) have won as many NBA championships as SA in the HISTORY of the NBA. Only Boston, LA, and Chicago have more.

[Harry Callahan]

Usually an NBA window of les is only 2 or three years before the players get over the hill. Duncan was only 23 when he won his first and just kept rolling for another decade. That's the unique thing about what SA did with a nine year period between championships (first to last). I'll dream that another could be had, but I'm a homer.

[ClintSquint]

Winning 4 NBA les in ten years is a dynasty when you consider only three teams (noted above) have won as many NBA championships as SA in the HISTORY of the NBA. Only Boston, LA, and Chicago have more.

I agree.

[Spork KIller]

Try to repeat first es...
You are not Dynasty...Period!

[greyforest]

I know lets all argue semantics

[SpursDynasty]

When you factor in the 1999 le it weakens our definition of a dynasty...4 championships in 10 seasons...but I only look at the 03, 05, and 07 les. As far as I'm concerned, the Spurs are still a dynasty in the making with 3 out of the last 6 championships.

[Solid D]

When you factor in the 1999 le it weakens our definition of a dynasty...4 championships in 10 seasons...but I only look at the 03, 05, and 07 les. As far as I'm concerned, the Spurs are still a dynasty in the making with 3 out of the last 6 championships.

4 Championships in 10 Seasons stands on it's own with dynastic consistency. The 1998-99 season with the same coach and marquee player as today, that was the best defensive team in modern NBA history. The .401 Opp. FG% is unequaled and even if you compare the 50 versus 82 game regular season, the playoffs saw that Spurs' team slice through the normal number of playoff rounds with only 2 losses. Let's not leave a dominant team out of the definition, shall we? Besides, who owns the correct definition of dynasty? Wiki?