Reply With Quote
It's a sad day in Spurs-land...
Coming from a never has been Mavs fan, That's just sad.
It's a sad day in Spurs-land...
NBA Dynasties
Minneapolis Lakers of the 1950s (5 championships between 1949 and 1954)
Boston Celtics (1956 to 1986 16 NBA les in 30 years overall. 26 winning seasons, 20 division les, 18 conference les)
Los Angeles Lakers of 1979 to 1991 (5 NBA championships, 10 division les, 9 conference championships, 12 winning seasons)
Chicago Bulls of the 1990s (6 championships in 8 seasons)
Los Angeles Lakers 1999- 2004 (3 NBA championships, 3 division les, 4 NBA Finals appearances, 5 playoff appearances)
LAKER DOMINATION ES
Any team that wins multiple les in the same era is considered a dynasty. Now if we won in 1997, then 2009, then 2019, we aren't a dynasty. People who claim we aren't a dynasty (winning in 99, 03, and 05) are just hating on the franchise. Those are all close enough together to consider them as winning the era in les.
Winning in the modern NBA is a lot tougher than winning back in the 50's through the early 80's.
considering that Boston never relocated like the fackers did,they own the Dynasty tle.
The term dynasty is thrown around way too much. I don't see how you can consider the Spurs a dynasty(dominant) when the Lakers won 3 straight les in between their first and second les. Add that to the fact that it wasn't even the Spurs who ended the Lakers' run and you have a pretty weak argument.
EDIT: It was the Spurs. For some reason I confused 2003 with 2004.
I don't think the Spurs' have been dominant enough to be considered a dynasty. OTOH, they've clearly been the best franchise over that period of rime.
Last edited by DisgruntledLionFan#54,927; 02-14-2007 at 06:49 PM.
Most Spurs fans wouldn't consider our team a dynasty, but they have always been on the cusp of one. When all is said and done in Duncan's career, if we win 2 more at any point. It will be a dynasty. If we ever win b2b it will solidify Duncan as the greatest PF of all time, and he will have been a dynasty unto himself.
I would agree that that's the best way to state it: The Spurs are on the cusp of being considered a dynasty. If they do win another two, they would have a pretty solid case.
I would consider the Spurs the closest to being a dynasty in sports. I feel that championships were snatched from our hands at least 2 times by forces out of our control. Someone high up in the NBA hierachy did not want the Spurs to make it to the Finals the last few years. It all comes down to making money and when the Spurs play in the Finals, nobody else cares but Spurs fans, hence less money. So quite possibly we could be working on 4 maybe 5 straight championships. So why not consider the Spurs a dynasty? One more thing, I think sticking with Nick Van Exel all last year and into the playoffs seriously handicapped the Spurs.
Wow, so sticking with the "you need two years in a row" excuse, you guys are saying that a team could win 8 les in 16 years and not be considered a dynasty? 20 in 40? I don't know if they make words in the English language for that kind of idiocy, but it's completely bunk. By that statement, the Rockets have had more of a dynasty than the Spurs, and that obviously isn't true.
Spurs have been the #1 winningest franchise (% wise) in ALL of Sports since Duncan came into the league.
They have won 3 les, and have been at or near the top of the league for 9 years and counting, never missing the playoffs in that span, and never having less than a 3 seed in that span as well.
Dynasty. Seriously, in today's age of parody and compe ion, anytime you post the winning % with multiple les, it's a dynasty. The Spurs have been a juggernaut, and they could prove to be a very real force again this year, every bit capable of winning a 4th le.
Spurs can be...if you look at it
first Celtics led by Larry Bird had a legitimate rival in the Lakers by Magic, they made multiple finals appearances, three les and never had a back to back. Take one or the other out of the equation, and you'd probably have multiple, multiple back-to-backs for either of those teams.
Spurs have had 3 les in the last seven years, and had contended to go all the way at least two years in between. Also given the context of the period. Whoever won the western conference final was considered most likely winner of the championship. Only post 2004,2005 did that change a little. East still sucks however. While the West is still loaded.
Didn't Horry say you had to win at least five championships to be considered a dynasty??
You could actually make the case that the west hasn't been this much better than the east for decades. There are ZERO power teams in the east right now, and unless Detroit can continue stringing wins together, it's going to be a of an upset for an EC squad to take the finals past 5 games, to say nothing of winning it. The 5 seed in the west right now has a better record than the 1 seed from the east. The 6 is better record-wise than the 2. The disparity between conferences is wider than it was during the Lakers-Spurs rivalry, IMO.
I do agree Kobe's monarchy rocks in LA.
Spurs' dinasty .. we should agree on the meaning
Another kido missing Shaq?
shhh......they're watching us right now.
Horry himself is a dynasty.
Is it really that much better? If an EC team wins this year, that's 3 of the last 4 les going to an EC team. Overall, there is a lot, and I mean a lot, more depth in the West but teams like Detroit and Miami are definitely capable of winning another le.
Are Dallas and PHX really considered power teams when neither has one a le and they have one Finals appearance between them since the turn of the century?
Regular season records are nice and all, but they mean absolutely nothing come April.
No offense, but its parity not parody.
Are we 35-18 or 34-18? NBA.com says 34, but I thought we had 35 wins by now?
All you flip-flopping haters, look at posts back in 2005 before the Spurs won the championship, every one was saying how that championship would solidify the Spurs as a dynasty, and Duncan as the best PF of all time, and NOBODY disagreed.
Haters.
BTW, I do consider the Spurs a dynasty, but it IS the least impressive dynasty outside of the 80's celtics and the 00's Lakers. The 80's Lakers, Celtics in the 60's and Bulls in the 90's were by far better, but there is no shame in that.
I am 100% positive that the Spurs used to be listed as an NBA dynasty on the sports dynasty Wikipedia page. They must have been taken off some time in the last couple of months.
SHAQ & KOBE Laker DYNASTY is far more impressive than the *S*P*U*R*S* so called Dynasty. Only SPURS FANS acknowledge this so called *S*P*U*R*S* Dynasty.
Yeah, a 3 year dynasty.
My bad. I knew it was one or the other.
3 IN a ROW. It's called defending a le. Something the SPURS have never done. TOO SOFT.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions