Spurs: The greatest NBA dynasty of all time is...

[spurraider21]

KobeRepeatedPERIOD. He beat the best. He didn't need extreme cir stances to win like Duncan. (Shortened season, Major injuries to his main compe ion-Westbrook, Ibaka, Shaq)

you mean like Duncan missing the 2000 playoffs, stopping their repeat bid... or KG missing the 2009 playoffs to stop the celtics from repeating? like that?

so kobe needed injury help during 2000 and 2009. those don't count.

kobe couldn't win in 2003 to validate the 2002 ring, so that one doesn't count. he also couldn't seal the deal in 2011 to validate the 2010 ring.

so basically kobe only won in 2001 against iverson

[HI-FI]

This thread only shows the depths Laker fans have fallen. Their franchise is so godawful and ty, they have to desperately establish what is and isn't a dynasty in order to remember how great it was years ago. They know full well that the death of Jerry and the retirement of Fuhrer Stern has changed everything, and that everyone else in the NBA is going to hold them down and them in the ass and down their throats for the long foreseeable future, and there isn't a goddamn ing thing they can do but clutch their antique metal trophies and reminisce about their "dynasty".

[Mitch]

And the dictionary did not exclude the Spurs from a dynasty. It only excludes it after you put in additional criteria to further your agenda.

Spurs are not a family.

[spurraider21]

[Mikeanaro]

KobeRepeatedPERIOD. He beat the best. He didn't need extreme cir stances to win like Duncan. (Shortened season, Major injuries to his main compe ion-Westbrook, Ibaka, Shaq)

How a shortened season helped the Spurs? did the other teams play 82 games?

[midnightpulp]

Bastion of consistency in the NBA. Dynasty? No. Dynasties rule, they don't build up everyone and then come up short.

The Lakers never ruled, really.

The only franchises we can bestow the dynasty label on are the 60's Celtics and Jordan's Bulls (6 in 8).

Another key feature of "dynasties" is the ability to regain power after being challenged or losing it for a brief period. And no franchise since those Bulls has done that more effectively than the Spurs.

That said, I don't like the dynasty term applied to sports, but the Spurs actually embody the qualities of a historical dynasty more accurately than the modern Lakers. Read history, and you'll discover than the "rule" of a dynasty is never unchallenged and power/rule changes hands quite frequently. Dynasties were simply able to ulatively remain "on top" for longer period of time, which was not always "consecutively."

[Venti Quattro]

The Lakers never ruled, really.

I stopped reading.

[midnightpulp]

KobeRepeatedPERIOD. He beat the best. He didn't need extreme cir stances to win like Duncan. (Shortened season, Major injuries to his main compe ion-Westbrook, Ibaka, Shaq)

Seriously, ?

Duncan in '00, Peja in '02, Yao, T-Mac, KG, Jameer Nelson in '09. Perkins in '10.

And when was Shaq ever injured?

[midnightpulp]

I stopped reading.

Ruling teams don't visit the lottery during their supposed rule and then lose in the first round consecutively.

If you think that 3 peat was a "rule,"

"Ruling" is what the 60's Celtics and Jordan's Bulls did, and to some extent, Magic's Lakers (a threat to win the le during the entire decade of the 80's). You have low standards if you think winning a couple in bunches and then visiting the lottery cons utes "rule."

[CitizenDwayne]

That said, I don't like the dynasty term applied to sports, but the Spurs actually embody the qualities of a historical dynasty more accurately than the modern Lakers. Read history, and you'll discover than the "rule" of a dynasty is never unchallenged and power/rule changes hands quite frequently. Dynasties were simply able to ulatively remain "on top" for longer period of time, which was not always "consecutively."

Finally a logical approach to the 'sports dynasty' issue.

That being said, Lakerfan will continue arguing this point as long as their team is in the doldrums despite all available evidence pointing to the contrary.

[Alex's foreskin]

Seriously, ?

Duncan in '00, Peja in '02, Yao, T-Mac, KG, Jameer Nelson in '09. Perkins in '10.

And when was Shaq ever injured?

Crofl Duncan. Shaq and Kobe would have dominated his asshole like they usually did. Lol counting Yao and Tmac, those broke mother ers were always hurt. And lmao Jameer Nelson.

[Sean Cagney]

You have to repeat to be a dynasty

Who wrote the rule and where is it written besides an opinion?

I think longevity can mean a dynasty as well, nobody has done it as long as the Spurs in recent memory. Hate them or love them that is a great feat what they have done honestly.

How a shortened season helped the Spurs? did the other teams play 82 games?

Nope, it's their bull excuse for getting swept that year to make them feel better. Any fan of a team who did not win that year or got beaten by the Spurs in the playoffs uses that to hate on them.

[midnightpulp]

Crofl Duncan. Shaq and Kobe would have dominated his asshole like they usually did. Lol counting Yao and Tmac, those broke mother ers were always hurt. And lmao Jameer Nelson.

Yeah, Yao and T-Mac were only the Rockets' best players. Kirbs got pushed to 7 by Aaron Brooks If you want to appeal to hypotheticals, then we can hypothesize that the Rockets having their two best players would be too much for the Lakers, who needed 7 games to beat Aarn Brks.

And Shaq was never hurt. When we killed the 3 peat, Shaq performed better than Kirby in that series. Duncan was just too good for both of them.

[Arcadian]

No they don't

Full Definition of DYNASTY

1
: a succession of rulers of the same line of descent

2
: a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time

Let me stop you right there. The word "dynasty" is applied to sports metaphorically, so citing the literal definition is irrelevant. There is no biological line of descent in sport dynasties. There are no biological families. So just cut the .

[Koolaid_Man]

This thread only shows the depths Laker fans have fallen. Their franchise is so godawful and ty, they have to desperately establish what is and isn't a dynasty in order to remember how great it was years ago. They know full well that the death of Jerry and the retirement of Fuhrer Stern has changed everything, and that everyone else in the NBA is going to hold them down and them in the ass and down their throats for the long foreseeable future, and there isn't a goddamn ing thing they can do but clutch their antique metal trophies and reminisce about their "dynasty".

With you it used to be 0 and Forever...now it's just one and done

[Thread]

The Lakers never ruled, really.

The only franchises we can bestow the dynasty label on are the 60's Celtics and Jordan's Bulls (6 in 8).

True, we could never get settled enough to exert any rule. There was always tremendous tumult during ringage. One never knew if we were going to win OR lose even in our heyday.

---

Now, just an aside but what's it been since Midst has had a cogent point? At least a month, maybe 2.

Congratulations, sweetheart.

[HI-FI]

How a shortened season helped the Spurs? did the other teams play 82 games?

Yeah, it's just another Lakerfan Mensa moment. They say 99 is an asterisk but 2002 was deserving and kosher. Bunch of frauds.

[midnightpulp]

True, we could never get settled enough to exert any rule. There was always tremendous tumult during ringage. One never knew if we were going to win OR lose even in our heyday.

---

Now, just an aside but what's it been since Midst has had a cogent point? At least a month, maybe 2.

Congratulations, sweetheart.

I'm just checkin' assholes in this thread. I don't buy into "rule" or "dynasties" or any of that media bull narrative.

End of the day, the count is all that matters. The Celtics 8 peating does nothing for them if you should reach 18.

[Thread]

You had your chance to stop it but you ran all your help off and overpaid a crippled chucker. YOU

Don't get mad at what someone else didn't do when you had your opportunity. , you were a b2b champ during Lebron's rise. We beat him down the 1st time he rose up, but you let US sweep your stacked team out of the playoffs the year Lebron won his 1st. How many times did you expect us to stop him? We've met him thrice, and beaten him twice. You can't even muster a 130m dollar team worthy of competing.

We never played him in the Finals. This is on you & you alone.

& you've met him 3 times and beaten him 3 times. Yet he has 2 gd les.

[DMC]

We never played him in the Finals. This is on you & you alone.

& you've met him 3 times and beaten him 3 times. Yet he has 2 gd les.

So failing to even reach the Finals is better than getting there and not winning. Caveat Dale

"Yeah we really really sucked, but you're better than us so... well... you're worse than us" -Caveat Dale

[DarrinS]

Lots of salty Laker gots in this thread

[Mikeanaro]

Who wrote the rule and where is it written besides an opinion?
Nope, it's their bull excuse for getting swept that year to make them feel better. Any fan of a team who did not win that year or got beaten by the Spurs in the playoffs uses that to hate on them.

Lol, so to put if briefly it only counts when they win, no matter what **Rigged**

[Mikeanaro]

Yeah, it's just another Lakerfan Mensa moment. They say 99 is an asterisk but 2002 was deserving and kosher. Bunch of frauds.

I think those last 2 Kobe rings should be removed since he has been missing in action for 2 seasons, champions show up to face the game thats the only way to keep your championships, its no bull the dictionary say so.

[Alex's foreskin]

Lol Only Spurfan would say winning back to back les isn't impressive. But had Duncan done it they would say "Repeat le gots"

[Thread]

Lol Only Spurfan would say winning back to back les isn't impressive. But had Duncan done it they would say "Repeat le gots"

Head cheese