Reply With Quote
lmao that was funny.
This HAS to be some homer somewhere, pretending to be a columnist. This can't be anybody professional. I'm going to allow myself to fall for this as being genuine. Somebody's about to have a good laugh on me if it is.
(I'm still working on figuring out how to quote on this site, so please bear with me).
soap opera starring Joan Collins that ran on ABC in the '80s-- What's the parallel here? Only thing I can figure is that both had lots of money?
To call the Spurs a real dynasty is something like calling Paris Hilton Patty Hearst-- Time to put on our thinking caps for this one... "Paris Hilton is to Patty Hearst, as the Spurs are to A Dynasty?" How's that?
In other words, a cat can have kittens in an oven, but that doesn't make them biscuits.-- Sometimes the use of, shall we say, unusual expressions can detract from your point, leaving the reader spending more time trying to figure out what the expression means.
The Spurs may look like a dynasty to some delusional beings-- Translation- Only a sane person thinks like you do.
Dynasties are defined by unquestioned, sustained dominance over a significant period of time along with a larger-than-life iden y to boot, neither of which the Spurs possess-- Sustained dominance=Championships? Significant period of time is how long? Larger-than-life iden y- "Sorry guys, you don't sell sneakers and sports drinks, so you're not a dynasty."
It is an insult to all the champions past and present who played a full schedule to ignore that the Spurs got off real easy-- Insult? Hardly. If so, then did the Spurs insult themselves in 03, 05, & 07?
the '99 le should at least include an asterisk next to the Spurs' name-- Not original thinking (see Phil Jackson quote 8 years ago)
Stephen Jackson... Matt Barnes pat him down like a cop conducting a search during player introductions-- Spurs should have psychically predicted Jack would do those things?
Bruce "Scissorhands" Bowen-- Commonly-stated perception of Bowen haters
Toneva-- When nothing bad can be said about a player professionally, always go personal
In order to be considered a dynasty, you need to dominate year after year-- Dominate= Champions? I'm sure Joe Montana, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, and quite a few others would like to have a word with you about that.
The Spurs haven't won back-to-back les and this is a prerequisite for what might be considered a dynasty-- Interesting. Which dictionary definition was that?
From 1980 to 1991, the Lakers ruled the Western Conference and dominated the rest of the league. With five les-- According to your definition, they can't be a dynasty because they weren't champions every year during that stretch.
It could be argued that if Jordan hadn't been chasing baseballs in '94 and most of '95, the Bulls could have been in contention for eight straight les-- According to your definition, the Bulls weren't a dynasty because they weren't champions every year. Outside factors play no part, remember.
Even the Shaq and Kobe Lakers are more deserving of the dynasty le than the Spurs, though the Lakers' own internal beefs keeps them from truly being considered a dynasty. This squad went to four Finals in five years-- Back-to-back-to-back rings (3) being more valuable than 4 rings? Interesting.
After all, dynasties need rivals, too-- Please let me know which dictionary you're using. I'd like to see that part in there as well.
The Spurs beat a mediocre New Jersey... and the not-ready-for-prime-time Cavs this year-- Not the Spurs' fault that the balance of power has shifted so dramatically to the West.
Take away a Big Shot Bob 3-pointer in Game 5 and Larry Brown's drama over his job status, and maybe the outcome here would have been different, too--Even when a team wins a legit series (according to your definition) you have conspiracy theories to explain things away.
Dynasties have to have a persona, an image, a swagger like no other that puts the fear of God in the hearts of opponents-- Now gee, let me think, what persona/image/swagger are the Spurs known for around the league? Oh yeah! Defense. Apparently that's not good enough in your book.
Just come out and say from the beginning that you hate the Spurs. Don't bother trying to be objective. Also, work on using clichés, analogies, and points that bolster your arguments.
lmao that was funny.
Great breakdown, Guajalote.
I like the argument about the Spurs having it easier than other champions because they played weak Eastern Conference opponents.
Well, if the balance of power has shifted that far to the West, doesn't it make advancing to the Finals that much harder? Yeah, maybe the Knicks, Nets, and Cavs were pushovers - but in those three runs, we had to beat:
1999 - The LA Lakers. This team featured Kobe and Shaq at an All-NBA level (Shaq 2nd, Kobe 3rd) together for the first time. Glen Rice was also still playing well at that time.
Portland. A deep and talented team that knocked off Utah, the team who tied SA for the best record in the NBA.
2003 - Phoenix. A number eight-seed that gave us all sorts of . Marbury was still playing at a high level (All-NBA third team), possibly at his best. Stoudamire was a beast of a ROY, dunking on everybody back then. Marion was a twenty-point guy for a team that wasn't scoring big like the D'Antoni Suns do. Under Frank Johnson that year, the Suns averaged 95.5 points, 13th in the NBA out of 29 teams.
LA Lakers - Kobe and Shaq led the team through injuries and a slow start to finish with 50 wins while going for a four-peat. Three of the six games played were won by five points or less.
Dallas - Tied the Spurs for the best record in the league and played the Spurs tough even after Dirk went down.
I won't recap the 2007 run since we just saw it, but the weakness of the Eastern Conference only makes the Western playoffs a greater test than it used to be. Any thinking person should recognize that, but this "writer" is a goddamn head.
BTW, eight seasons after his first le in 1957, Bill Russell was the only Celtic from that '57 team to play for the '65 Celtics. Duncan is the lone holdover from 1999.
Also BTW, of Magic's five les, the only back-to-back les were the fourth and fifth ones. We're going for #5 next year.
Those were words of re ed, bitter homer of Suns or Dallas or some similar team.
Spurs will be subject to these kinds of cracks until they go for a two-peat. But who cares? I don't give a damn if some yankee sportswriter doesn't like us.
The Spurs aren't a dynasty. Their excellence over the last decade with despite its roster turnover in a 30-team NBA subject to the luxury tax is much more impressive than a mere dynasty.
Writers need to earn their pay thinking up a new word for this kind of badassery.
Lakers, Spurs, Bulls...were/are some damn good teams. Celtics were the only dynasty...nobody's come close since.
If your a real dynasty, there is no question or discussion about it. Nobody questions the Celtics dynasty, it's never even up for debate...a total given.
We ain't there.
yet...
4 in 9 is a dynasty. I dont care how much u try to spin it.
I love reading what morons think during the offseason.
Just the fact that he feels he has to challenge us being a dynasty shows how truly great we have been.
What I'll never understand about that 1999 asterisk argument is how can people dare say that when every ing team had to play the exact same amount of games ? I really don't see how the Spurs would beneficiate from the season being shorter more than anybody else ? You'd have to be f'ing delusional ?
Ok so .4 and gino's foul are used to make the Spurs look worse, and on the other hand the guy uses 94/95 and even 99 to make the Bulls' run look more impressive than it already is ? I really don't get that guy's logic.In order to be considered a dynasty, you need to dominate year after year. The Spurs haven't won back-to-back les and this is a prerequisite for what might be considered a dynasty. They were snubbed in the conference semifinals in both 2004 and 2006. That's right … semifinals. This le-every-other-year thing does not a dynasty make. Dynasties don't take time off. If the Spurs had been to the Finals in '04 and '06 and lost, I would be more sympathetic, but in both of those years they lost to teams that ultimately lost in the Finals. So I can't give them any love on this tip, either.
There have been only two real dynasties in the modern era of the NBA since 1979: the '80s Lakers and Jordan's Bulls in the '90s.
(...)
The Bulls won three straight les on two different occasions. It could be argued that if Jordan hadn't been chasing baseballs in '94 and most of '95, the Bulls could have been in contention for eight straight les, an achievement that would have matched Bill Russell's Celtics and their unprecedented run of eight straight. If you want to push the speculation even further, imagine if Jordan, Scottie Pippen, the Worm and Phil Jackson had returned for one more run in '99? Considering the lockout shortened season, they could have rested their old legs and made a run at nine themselves, perhaps even beating the Spurs in the process. Even if we dispense with all the speculation, the Bulls of the '90s were on an entirely different level than the Spurs are now.
Ahh ok so now you start questioning the 2005 le ? Great argument "What if?" to make your point. I mean THAT'S solid.The only real challenge the Spurs have had in the Finals was when the Pistons took them to seven games in '05. Take away a Big Shot Bob 3-pointer in Game 5 and Larry Brown's drama over his job status, and maybe the outcome here would have been different, too.
Man, my bad, I didn't realize this before... sneakers sells and TV ratings determine dynasties' worth!! How could I not see this before!!The Spurs have Duncan, who can't even sell sneakers. They are so utterly uninteresting as a team and a group of personalities that they don't even inspire hate. As the low television ratings indicate, the only thing the Spurs inspire is indifference.
Hahaha ok so that's where you're coming from. I understand the rest of the article now all of a sudden.Two weeks ago we were all crowning LeBron
___________
And by the way, 3 in 3 years is extremely good, it represents a solid burst of dominance in my eyes. But 4 in 9 means consistency and greatness throughout the years. And it's just the beginning. Witness
Since the dynasty label is subjective, a person can simply lift the bar high enough that the Spurs come in underneath it. One certainly could argue that only the Mikan Lakers, Russell Celtics, Showtime Lakers, and Jordan Bulls are dynasties. The Spurs don't meet that standard.
But when one starts arguing that less-decorated teams are dynasties, while the Spurs aren't... there are non-basketball reasons behind that argument. And the writer betrays his bias with his argument about "swagger." All that is saying, is that the Spurs don't carry themselves the way he would like. They don't reflect his cultural preferences. And that has a lot more to do with the city they play in, and its demographics, and the players on the team, and where they come from, and how they behave off the court, than how they play.
More directly, since the Spurs play in an isolated small-market city far from the coasts, with a bunch of Hispanics but few blacks or signs of hip-hop culture, with little flamboyant wealth or glamour for the corporate high-rollers, with an unassuming Carribean superstar who is more geek than black, with a white wife, and a bunch of international stars playing a style similar to that which other countries use to kick America's ass in every international compe ion, the Spurs aren't a dynasty, and the details of how other teams really are better in a basketball sense is irrelevant.
Basically, the Spurs confirm the bankruptcy of an entire basketball Weltanschauung, and those who subscribe to it are forced to take a bitter drink of Haterade.
Last edited by Extra Stout; 06-19-2007 at 08:50 AM.
Really? Let's analyze your logic...
-Dallas will be the same overrated team. They will do well in the season and choke. Sorry, Mavs fans. Some of you on this board are cool. But reality is reality.
-Phoenix is NOT back at it. They have dissention among the ranks and will probably lose one of their key players this offseason. Not to mention their players AND coaching staff don't have the maturity that a championship caliber team requires.
Houston won't win with Adelman at the helm. Adelman as a coach is like the Suns and Mavs as a team: good in the season but can't win the big one.
I watched Adelman take two very talented and very deep Blazers teams to the finals only to see them get snuffed out both times. The Kings under Adelman stumbled in the playoffs year after year. T-Mac and Yao have yet to get out of the first round. Will they? Probably. Will they be able to compete with the Spurs in a 7 game series? I doubt it.
Durant and Oden both need a couple of years to be the NBA players everyone expects them to be. They're not going to come out of the gate winning les.
The Lakers will be the Lakers. Overhyped and undertalented with a prima donna as their franchise player. Kobe has proven that even though he is probably the best player in the league, he is a locker room cancer and a prima donna. I like Kobe Bryant but he needs to grow the up.
The Jazz are good but not good enough to knock off the Spurs just yet. The Spurs completely outplayed, outclassed and outcoached the Jazz in the conference finals, save one egg that the Spurs layed in EVERY SINGLE SERIES!!!
Are the Spurs the only team in the NBA that age? I've never understood this. People make it sound as if the Spurs get older while the rest of the league stays the same age. And by the way, Tim Duncan is 31 FREAKING YEARS OLD!!! That's not old, even for a big man! Manu Ginobili is 29! Tony Parker is 25!!! How the is that old? Yes, their role players are older, that's true. But it doesn't seem to bother them. Bruce Bowen is 36 and played 40+ minutes against Cleveland. Did he ever even look winded? He ran for 4 straight games with Lebron James who is 14 years his junior!!!
Do the Spurs need a few young players to replace some of the older vets who will retire soon? Of course. Popovich HIMSELF attests to that.
People played the age card after the 99, 03 AND 05 seasons! And every time, the Spurs downplay it and are contenders for the NBA le.
Not a viable argument. The Arizona Diamondbacks won the World series in their 4th year of existence.because we are 4 years old
I agree that the Spurs are not a dynasty, and the term is a random, subjective take of the dominance of a team, so everyone can have their own definition. To me, there has been only 3 dynasties in NBA history, the Russell Celtics, the Magic Lakers, and the Jordan Bulls, and my definition is arbitrary, just like anybody else's.
To me, the Spurs come in 4th in that list, but are not enough to be called dynasty because of winning "only" 4 championships in 9 years, if they end up winning one more next year, as in 5 in 10, then I would include them as a borderline dynasty.
On the other hand, I do not agree with the argument with this article.
1) The Spurs should not be penalized for their compe ion. In an age and time when it is difficult to construct a team of sustained excellence, the Spurs should be applauded for their ability to put together a contending team for almost 2 decade straight.
2) The finals compe ion is not the only compe ion the champions have to face, so taking that as an argument is idiotic.
3)
So the Russell Celtics is not a dynasty because the only common thread between championship #1 and championship #10 is Russell? What about the 80's Lakers, when only Magic and Abdul-Jabbar (a very aged Abdul-Jabbar at the end of the run) were the common threads?
Ditto x 10!
Sprichst du Deutsch?
ANd this guy works for ESPN?
What an idiot!
Don't call ESPN a source of sports news.
Losing a series in 5 games is not choking that is getting your ass handed to you!!
Long-term, the NBA, as a business, needs to set up its elite league, of the world's best players, in another country. For right now, they can survive in the U.S., but eventually, too few of the best players are going to be Americans, and the country simply won't care. The lackluster TV ratings will spill over into attendance and merchandising, where it will actually hurt, since 50 million Chinese can't jump on planes and attend games in the U.S.
By 2050 or so, there needs to be a Chinese version of the NBA where all the Dirk Nowitzkis and Yao Mings play, while the U.S. has a league of Americans who play the playground style fans prefer. I think Americans when it comes down to it, want And1 basketball more than we want to have the best league. We can just tell ourselves we have the best league because it's America, regardless of whether it is true. Yeah, the USA would have trouble getting out of group play in tournaments like the Olympics, but it would take another 50 years to penetrate the denial about that.
Right now, the NBA has broadcast affiliates in 24 Chinese cities, so they may be laying the groundwork for just such a concept.
Sportswriters make money by writing things that get them attention.
Dynasty is just a descriptive word. Reality is another championship.
In Boyd's attempt to validate his contention that the Spurs are not a dynasty he denigrates all of the legitimate contenders that were beaten by the Spurs during those 4 Championship years.
What a list of teams he discredits because of his belief that the Spurs are not up to snuff, not comparable enough to be mentioned in conversations that revolve around past championship teams that the Spurs beat, good teams that challenged but nevertheless lost eventually to the black and silver:
Lakers
Suns
Pistons
Kings
Nuggets
Sonics
Rockets
Mavericks
Cavaliers
That's my point, was he so blinded by his attempts of downgrading the credibility of the 2007 NBA Champions by pointing a finger at past dubious successes by this franchise, that he didn't realize he was actually defecating on the rest of the league?
I feel some in the media have this take that unless you played in an era spaning the 60's through the 90's until Jordan retired then you are not a true dynasty because of compe ion. It is pathetic and stupid.In Boyd's attempt to validate his contention that the Spurs are not a dynasty he denigrates all of the legitimate contenders that were beaten by the Spurs during those 4 Championship years.
What a list of teams he discredits because of his belief that the Spurs are not up to snuff, not comparable enough to be mentioned in conversations that revolve around past championship teams that the Spurs beat, good teams that challenged but nevertheless lost eventually to the black and silver:
Lakers
Suns
Pistons
Kings
Nuggets
Sonics
Rockets
Mavericks
Cavaliers
That's my point, was he so blinded by his attempts of downgrading the credibility of the 2007 NBA Champions by pointing a finger at past dubious successes by this franchise, that he didn't realize he was actually defecating on the rest of the league?
you need to look at what a dynasty means going forward. Those dominant teams from way ago won't happen anymore. The level of compe ion nowadays plus the way the draft works won't allow you to have 5 big stars in one team and you will rely more on building strong teams to compete over a long period of time. If you look at it from this standpoint you can clearly see the new "type of dynasty" happening in front of your eyes with the spurs. Mark my words.
It's a tautology. The reason the Spurs aren't really a power is because the compe ion isn't that good. And how do we know the compe ion isn't that good? Well, because the Spurs are beating them.
Had one of the anointed teams won it all, very likely this same writer would be heralding an NBA renaissance.
The Spurs' haven't even dominated the WC, let alone the entire NBA. They have reached the WCF 5 times in 9 years and never in consecutive years. It doesn't help that the teams they lost to in '04 and '06 won a total of 3 NBA Finals' games.
IMO, the dynasty talk should start with '03. Winning 3 of 5 including a repeat is a dynasty to me in this era. As it stands now, I don't consider them a dynasty.
Does it really matter, though?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
