Appreciating The Spurs Dynasty

[100%duncan]

Please stop the arguments, just appreciate the Spurs and for those who doesn't want to, with all due respect you can gtfo

[peskypesky]

s yeah! Spurs Dynasty was mother ing kick-ass! One of the great franchise runs in all of sports history. A decade of top-tier excellence with 4 Championships. That is really something amazing. Props to Tim and his support players.

[DirkDoesWork]

the Spurs

Bunch of floppers

[Oh, Gee!!]

I enjoyed the championships. I did not enjoy getting spanked by Memphis. It sucked really.

[peskypesky]

this sums it up. Spurs best team in all sports for the 2000-2009 decade

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/04/bes...s_slide_2.html

[Sean Cagney]

the Spurs

Bunch of floppers

NO LES FOR YOU BRO!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sean Cagney]

this sums it up. Spurs best team in all sports for the 2000-2009 decade

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/04/bes...s_slide_2.html

Yes sir but thought we were the SBC Center in 03 am I wrong there? I mean I remember that there in 03? ATT later.

[davethedope]

If that is your point then russell's celts aren't a dynasty either, I mean how many teams were on the league that time? Dynasty for me is about longevity, effiency, championship runs and teamwork and it doesn't matter who you face in the finals because whoever comes out from each conference beat the other great teams and deserved that spot in the finals

I though about it and get what you mean about Russell's Celts, but that's
a different discussion altogether applicable to all sports.

As for who you play in the Finals, think of it like this: Do you think
the Pistons the Spurs beat in 7 games were as good as the Pistons the Lakers beat in 7 games in '88? I don't think so.

Who you play in the Finals means everything. You're not going to get
good match ups every year.

Knicks, Pacers, 76ers, Nets, Pistons, Cavs, these were not dominant teams.
The Spurs won and should of won because they were the best team, but
it's not Dynasty epic, imo.

Still, u look back on the decade and there is no denying there was success.
That's the point I'm trying to make, just that there is a context. If the
Spurs were dynastically good the Lakers would have never won 3 in a row.
Which is to say, Spurs had some off years and didn't even make it to
the WCF.

[Gutter92]

This.you need to be able to repeat at least once to be considered a true dynasty IMO.

Dunno about that, I think more teams have repeated in NBA history than had the longevity to win 3 rings over a period of 5 years..

[SequSpur]

Dynasty? One more run?

This team made z Rudolph and m gasol look like hall of famers...this is so over...

[TheManFromAcme]

Dunno about that, I think more teams have repeated in NBA history than had the longevity to win 3 rings over a period of 5 years..

Good teams the Spurs have fielded but I don't agree with your longevity theory. You are picking "your" time frame to measure their success. What if I suggested that since 2000 the Lakers have won the most closing out the first part of the '00's decade? What if I suggested that the Lakers have had the most sustained success the last 30 years? You see what I did, I picked my own time frames to measure their success.

All I can say is that the Spurs have done great considering what they had to work with.

btw, that 2005 squad was the best in my opinion. That was a repeat capable squad if I ever saw one... fwiw

[Russ]

Mike Lupica had a nice post-mortem on the Spurs' dynasty on the Sports Reporters this morning.

[100%duncan]

Keep Appreciating Bro's! Haters gonna hate