21 bynums writes for espn.
"Recent history will always remember the Lakers more fondly than the Spurs, hold Kobe Bryant in a higher regard than Tim Duncan and put Phil Jackson in a different class than Gregg Popovich.
It's not simply because the Lakers play near Hollywood and the Spurs play near the River Walk. It's because the Spurs were never able to repeat as champions. Since the late 1980s the true mark of a legendary team isn't just to win one le or a le every other season; it's to complete the back-to-back or the more elusive three-peat.
It's the challenge currently facing the Lakers, who are trying to avoid being the NBA's latest one-hit wonder."
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angele...ory?id=5062606
Telling a she's hot when she's ugly as does her no good..In this case, the Lakers are that
nothold Kobe Bryant in a higher regard than Tim Duncan
Too many things went wrong this season. Don't see it happening.
Arash Markazi is a reporter and columnist for ESPNLosAngeles.com.
No repeat no dynasty.
Even though the spurs have yet to repeat, they aren't one hit wonders. WTF They won 4 les in 9 years
Your right They are not one hit wonders. 4 les in 9 years is a great accomplishment and I'll be the first to say that those were fantastic teams the Spurs had but not defending at least one of those is hard to cement them as "one of the greatest".
One of the greatest to include:
- LA
- Boston
- Bulls
Pretty much ends the list. I don't count Houston or Detroit. To much of a drought between their wins.
Just my opinion. Discuss
Ashraf?
Tacker is that you?
Nobody in their right mind would argue against the 3 franchises you just listed. You won't find spurs fans claiming that their team was as great as those. The point I'm making is that spurs fans are at peace with their franchise's place in history. It's spurs haters that struggle with that notion. We don't have a problem being behind the Celtics, Lakers and Bulls. All we know is that other franchises but those three would love being in the spurs' place.
Yeah, Houston's wins were almost 12 whole months apart.
And in terms of being a "Dynasty," only Russell's Celtics would count under the repeat requirement y'all are asking for. I've always seen Duncan's Spurs as on a similar level to Bird's Celtics. If one counts as one of the all-time great teams, the other has to also.
Especially since Bird's Celtics never repeated either and won only 3 les compared to the Spurs' 4.
As much as I hate to admit it, Bird's Celtics had to overcome tougher compe ion. But of course won less than Duncan, that would probably be your argument
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)