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

[da_suns_fan]

The Spurs were humiliated. Losing 4 straight after up 2-0? It was just embarrassing.

As for 2008, the Spurs never really had a legit chance, the Spurs were horrible from 08 to around 10 (based on Spurs standards).

The Lakers won 2001 fair and square, not qualms about it at all, but how that is relevant to 2000 is beyond me. One thing of note though, was how Derek Anderson was hurt made the series a lot less compe ive. Yes, it was just Anderson, but he was the only Spurs player who could create on the perimeter, without that the Spurs were toast. Besides, the Spurs got their revenge in 2003 (causing the break-up of the Lakers and forced them into one year rentals of Malone and Payton), and went on the ring in a rebuilding year.

The Lakers 2001 postseason was phenomenal, but the 2000 and 2002 les? Huge asterisks besides them.

So much garbage there...the SPurs were "horrible" in 2008 despite having the exact same team that won in 2007? Who was hurt? Did they have a healthy Duncan, Ginobili and Parker? Likewise losing in 03 didnt "break-up the Lakers", they regrouped and made it back to the finals the very next year. The Shaq-Kobe feud and age broke up the Lakers' Shaq/Kobe dynasty. It certainly wasnt the Spurs whom they managed to beat AGAIN in 04.

I dont know why 2000 and 2002 were "asterisk" championships. They were CLEARLY the best team in each respective year. Portland had about as much depth as any GM could possibly dream and they still couldnt overcome the Shaq/Kobe combo. Sacramento proved they had no one who wanted to shoot with the game on the line when they choked in overtime.

[da_suns_fan]

Suns... need I say more

You know youre a clippers fan, right?

[Malik Hairston]

I agree that the 2003/2005/2007 Spurs were nowhere near historically great, nor were they comparable to the 2001 Lakers(althoughtheir perimeter compe ion in the playoffs was historically bad, which is often overlooked), the Heat teams, etc, but regardless, it should be considered a dynastic run..a team in San Antonio, a market that can't draw FAs and no prestige, has somehow managed to have a run of unrivaled consistency and 5 les, despite only having 1 superstar and Parker/Ginobili only being stars for short periods of time(in relation to conventional stars)..

The 2014 team was one of the greatest teams in league history, and the organization itself has changed basketball in many ways(which has been echoed by many people), though, can't ignore that..

There's virtually nothing impressive about winning les in LA, tbh..their organization hasn't changed, at all, they're still relying on the "luring Free Agents to LA and spending more $" strategy in 2015, which is fine and has been the correct strategy, but only doable in Los Angeles..

Celtics have been a joke for most of my lifetime, and the Bulls, while dominant, had a short window that coincided with the dark ages of the NBA(like the early 2000s Spurs)..

[Clipper Nation]

You know youre a clippers fan, right?

Same ring count.

Suns

[da_suns_fan]

I agree that the 2003/2005/2007 Spurs were nowhere near historically great, nor were they comparable to the 2001 Lakers(althoughtheir perimeter compe ion in the playoffs was historically bad, which is often overlooked), the Heat teams, etc, but regardless, it should be considered a dynastic run..a team in San Antonio, a market that can't draw FAs and no prestige, has somehow managed to have a run of unrivaled consistency and 5 les, despite only having 1 superstar and Parker/Ginobili only being stars for short periods of time(in relation to conventional stars)..

The 2014 team was one of the greatest teams in league history, and the organization itself has changed basketball in many ways(which has been echoed by many people), though, can't ignore that..

There's virtually nothing impressive about winning les in LA, tbh..their organization hasn't changed, at all, they're still relying on the "luring Free Agents to LA and spending more $" strategy in 2015, which is fine and has been the correct strategy, but only doable in Los Angeles..

Celtics have been a joke for most of my lifetime, and the Bulls, while dominant, had a short window that coincided with the dark ages of the NBA(like the early 2000s Spurs)..

Did you REALLY just call the 90s the "dark ages" of the NBA? The Bulls had a "short window"? WTF?

THe NBA reached its peak popularity in the 90s. The Bulls won six les in 8 years. Thats not a short window. Thats called dominating the decade. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant?

[Malik Hairston]

Did you REALLY just call the 90s the "dark ages" of the NBA? The Bulls had a "short window"? WTF?

THe NBA reached its peak popularity in the 90s. The Bulls won six les in 8 years. Thats not a short window. Thats called dominating the decade. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant?

I meant short window compared to the Spurs from a longevity standpoint..Bulls were far more dominant, probably the most dominant run of all-time in relation to compe ion, but began their run in 1991, missed 2 years, and it all ended in 1998..they have been a joke of a team, since..

The NBA reached it's peak popularity because of Jordan's presence, obviously..It's considered by many to be the dark ages of the NBA, as Bob Ryan said the other day(an unbiased writer that has been covering the NBA nationally since the 60s, so isn't clouded by 90s nostalgia), although it's skewed because the current generation of analysts and media are mostly from that era, affected by nostalgia..expansion era, watered down league, White American players as stars, after the Celtics/Lakers/Pistons teams finished their runs, the Bulls compe ion in the East was the Knicks led by John Starks() and the Indiana Pacers..

[100%duncan]

Dynasty of Tim Duncan. The greatest basketball player of his generation

[midnightpulp]

Lol..if they were "humiliated" in 2003 what were the Spurs in 2004 and in 2008?

That 2001 run was unbelievable. I remember the narrative by Spurs fans in Phoenix was that the Spurs were the only team in 99-2000 to win their season series against the Lakers. They honestly believed if Duncan hadnt been hurt, they could have beaten the Lakers.

Then 2001 comes and they get their chance. A chance to prove they were the true champions.

The result made Tyson vs McNealy look like a fair fight. I mean it was a DEVASTATING defeat. What a reality check for Spurs fans, eh?

That's a fair argument, since the Spurs swept them in '99, and also swept that Trailblazer team that wound up pushing the Lakers to 7. I don't like hypothetical scenarios like this (much like idiot Suns fans such as yourself believe "if Amare wouldn't have been suspended, we woulda won ") because it just comes down to speculation of something that has too much variance, but it's not a "given" the Lakers beat the Spurs in '00.

Invoking the '01 Spurs team as "proof" the Lakers would've beaten the Spurs in '00 is also nonsensical. The '01 Lakers were much better than '00 Lakers. Kobe had the peak playoff run of his career, as did Fisher, who averaged a career playoff high 13ppg and shot a ridiculous 51% from 3. And the Spurs were much worse. Derek Anderson was the second offensive option on that team (think about that for a moment) and after he got hurt, the Spurs wings consisted of Terry Porter, Danny Ferry, and Sean Elliott, all far past their primes. And an overall the hill Avery Johnson was the starting PG. That team was collection of garbage around Tim Duncan and an aging David Robinson. No reality check needed. Maybe the Phoenix Spurs fans "believed," but I knew we were gonna get rocked, especially after Anderson went down.

I think we should've beaten them in '02, though. The Spurs got Bowen, Steve Smith (still capable), and drafted Parker, all significant upgrades over the trash perimeter we had in '01. The Spurs actually led all 4th quarters in the series, but simply choked. No excuses.

I also find it funny that when the Lakers (or some other Spur opponent) lose, Spurs haters such as yourself (understandable, since we've used your team as a stepping stone for 3 les) you excuse it with, "Well, that wasn't their best team/lineup! They were feuding and worn out!" but Spurs fans aren't granted the same leeway, every Spurs team that was beaten was a "great team" at its peak, completely healthy and energized.

[da_suns_fan]

I meant short window compared to the Spurs from a longevity standpoint..Bulls were far more dominant, probably the most dominant run of all-time in relation to compe ion, but began their run in 1991, missed 2 years, and it all ended in 1998..they have been a joke of a team, since..

The NBA reached it's peak popularity because of Jordan's presence, obviously..It's considered by many to be the dark ages of the NBA, as Bob Ryan said the other day(an unbiased writer that has been covering the NBA nationally since the 60s, so isn't clouded by 90s nostalgia), although it's skewed because the current generation of analysts and media are mostly from that era, affected by nostalgia..expansion era, watered down league, White American players as stars, after the Celtics/Lakers/Pistons teams finished their runs, the Bulls compe ion in the East was the Knicks led by John Starks() and the Indiana Pacers..

This is just ridiculous. Jordan, Barkley, Shaq, Penny, Malone, Stockton, Ewing, Robinson, Alonzo, Kemp, Payton, even freaking Mugsy Bogues. NBA on NBC, starter jackets, NBA Jam, the Dream team, Hoop Dreams, Space Jam etc.

Thats not "nostalgia", the NBA was KING in the 90s (it is now dwarfed by the NFL).

btw - Jordan and the Bulls lost to Shaq and Penny in 95. The early 90s Knicks were very tough, and the Eastern Conference in the 90s was LIGHT YEARS better than it is today. Who the is Lebron James' compe ion in the east?

[ambchang]

So much garbage there...the SPurs were "horrible" in 2008 despite having the exact same team that won in 2007? Who was hurt? Did they have a healthy Duncan, Ginobili and Parker? Likewise losing in 03 didnt "break-up the Lakers", they regrouped and made it back to the finals the very next year. The Shaq-Kobe feud and age broke up the Lakers' Shaq/Kobe dynasty. It certainly wasnt the Spurs whom they managed to beat AGAIN in 04.

Exact same team? Ime Udoka and Kurt Thomas got semi-major roles in 2008, the Spurs went through a slew of nagging injuries throughout the season, and was never really clicking on offense at any point in the season. They went from 5th in offensive efficiency to 15th. The major role players, like Bowen, Finley, Oberto all had drop off in production due to age.

Besides, the 2007 team was the worst of the 4 championship team the Spurs had. I will admit it, they got lucky. if they faced the Mavs, the Mavs would have beat them, and beat them quite handily. They may not be able to go through the Pistons either. They just got lucky that both teams were taken out before they faced each other.

The 03 and 04 Lakers team was totally different, and the lakers went with that direction because they theorized that the role players weren't good enough, so they went out for 1 year rentals. They didn't get over the hump, and the Lakers were dismantled the following year.

I dont know why 2000 and 2002 were "asterisk" championships. They were CLEARLY the best team in each respective year. Portland had about as much depth as any GM could possibly dream and they still couldnt overcome the Shaq/Kobe combo. Sacramento proved they had no one who wanted to shoot with the game on the line when they choked in overtime.

They were not the clearly the best team in their respective years. Both championships were shrouded by controversy.

[monosylab1k]

Holy , you gots had a parade for being losers?

this is the saddest thing i've ever seen. LMAO phoenix

[100%duncan]

Celebrating cos they lost to Jordan
Nash flop costing them their own players
Suns
Losers
Cubby

[Thread]

Celebrating cos they lost to Jordan
Nash flop costing them their own players
Suns
Losers
Cubby

WTF are you laughing at me for?