I don't think this is a new Lakers Dynasty despite having different players. I still say this is the Lakers Dynasty from the 3peat. They just went through a number of roster changes, they still have Kobe Bryant the pivotal player of the 3 peat and they still have derrick fisher.
The only Bulls players that survived the 1st 3peat was Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen but they still consider both repeats in the same Dynasty...
The Spurs team that won the 1999 champion and the team that went deep into the playoffs during the early 2000s is not the same as the 2003 2005 2007 team but they consider that time frame as a dynasty......
Got to be impressed that for 12 years (1998-2009) The Lakers Dynasty continues to stand strong........
Dude...put down the crack pipe and back away slowly...the Lakers have won NOTHING since the 3peat...that's SEVEN YEARS...the Bulls only went two years without a le back in the Jordan era, and had MJ not left the Bulls to go play baseball, it probably would've been an 8peat. The Spurs won the le every other year since the 3peat, so no long gaps there, either. Tim Duncan was the core of the team for all four championships.
Who is to say how big the gap has to be for a dynasty to occur? Was Tim Duncan the core of the team in 1999? Last time I checked 1999 is part of the Spurs Dynasty.... You are right you need to have core player but Kobe was just as important as Shaq in their first 3 peat.... They made it to the finals in 2004, almost beat the Suns in 2006 and made the finals 2 straight years in 08 09
If they won this year, Lakers would be only 4 championships in 10 seasons (1999-2009) .....Spurs were 4 championships in 9 seasons (1998-2007).
Spurs had one 4 year gap between championships but no gap bigger than one year since....
The Lakers haven't had a championship in 7 years.
The Lakers aren't a dynasty, not this core anyway.
This is easily one of the ing WORST threads of ALL time on here. FAIL.
where is the Epic Fail troll when you need him...
Dynasties never go without at least making the playoffs and being compe ive. The fact that the LAL failed to do that and gave up a 3-1 lead and lost to PHX that one year, shows just how weak they got. It took a lottery pick and the "fleecing" of the Grizzlies, for the LAL to get to where they were.
What they are is a team looking to win a le because they haven't sniffed one in 7 seasons...better watch out...it could go 8 seasons.
OP...here is the solution to your problem
That guy is chain smoking the crack pipe. Talk about being in LaLa Land. That guy is floating 'HIGH' above it.
Are you for real??? I don't think so!!!
Well said...!
The Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck???????????
op...here is the solution to your problem
rotfflmfao!!!
LMAO..I don't know why..but that was funny....Made me think of this picture.
But the Spurs, who've made the playoffs every year for 13 years and won 4 les in 9 years doesn't qualify as a dynasty? You're out of your mind...
thats true
this thread fails when you mentioned derek fisher
Imo your reaction to this thread is fail...
They did make the playoffs every year from 1999-2009 except for 2005 so I dont know what youre talking about. What I don't understand is who is to set the gap necessary for a dynasty to occur? there was a 4 year gap between 1999 and 2003 why wasn't that nullified? Instead they added that 1999 championship team part of the Spurs Dynasty. Why is 4 years allowed and not maybe 5 6 or 7?
Where did I say Spurs don't qualify as a dynasty?
OP fails at life.
This guy has a point. I think the Celtics championship last year was just an extension of the original Dynasty from back in the late 50's - 60's Celtics. They have had a little bit of a roster turnover but their logo pretty much stayed the same and was a valuable part of the teams 17 championships. That is a 50 year dynasty. It's going to be hard for any team to ever beat this dynasty.
Fail considering no one on last years Celtics Roster was on the 60s championship team.....
Um...if you're saying the Lakers dynasty is still from before, you're saying the Spurs didn't have one. You can't have two dynasty teams at once...
Dynasty (sports)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Dynasty (disambiguation).
A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for multiple seasons or years.
If a team dominates their sport or league for multiple seasons, then no one is in their class...the Spurs won 3 les in 5 years...and 4 in 9. From 2003-2007, the Spurs won 3 les...the Lakers did not have multiple seasons where they were better than the Spurs, and even missed the playoffs one year, and failed horribly in another one, therefore, this is not a continuation of the before said dynasty. So...in closing..this thread is epic fail.
Why? the 80's had a Lakers and Celtics dynasty....
So lets say Tim Duncan was injured in 2002 and the Spurs didn't make the playoffs that year, are you telling me that Spurs are no longer a dynasty because of that one year? You are contradicting yourself.........
And from 2000-2009 the Lakers (Who still have Kobe and Fisher) have won 3 championships (6 finals appearances) and had multiple seasons which they were better than the Spurs.....
Last edited by Tacker; 06-05-2009 at 12:31 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
