Reply With Quote
Eh, I'll still take our 4 trophies anyday. I don't give a damn if we're called a dynasty or not. There is no right or wrong answer
Todd Boyd: "Don't Call Spurs a Dynasty"
Pop: "i donīt give a sh*t"
Eh, I'll still take our 4 trophies anyday. I don't give a damn if we're called a dynasty or not. There is no right or wrong answer
We age while everyone else stays the same right? JackassWell if they can repeat then I will call them a dynasty. Otherwise they've just proven they can win les in odd numbered years within a span of nine years
But if they DO repeat, which will leave me crying..just look at the text, its amazing..
5 in the last 10 years..
I truly think this is SA's final year. Dallas is back at it, Phoenix is back at it, Houston is going to be an elite team with Rick Adelmen, Durant is in the West, Oden is in the West, the Lakers if they can keep Kobe and trade Odom and(or) Bynum and add an elite big man, Jazz proved they can be deadly, the West is just overwhelmingly compe ive.
but the Spurs just get older..
and yea the rivalry was great. During the season the OT game brought back shades of the playoffs when they faced off.
Sorry to the fool who wrote this article. I grew up in Boston when the Celtics ran rough shod over the compe ion. They fought and clawed their way to the heights of Championships. This Spurs organization in this era have earned my opinion of being called dynastic due to THEIR accomplishments. They have earned the right to boast and to retool for even more glory... I could care less that they haven't won back to back becasue all the while they have been compe ive and not every team of which the SPURS are a TEAM in every sense of the word. Not every team has been compe ive throughout their run. The Spurs are a fine tuned engine with more miles to go.
A Dynasty is gracing us as we speak!
It's a good thing the Lakers won in 1988 instead of 1989 or they never would have been awarded the ESPN Bud Light Dynasty Trophy Sponsored by Gatorade.
For the record, I don't think the Spurs are a dynasty either. But those moronic arguments in Boyd's piece have no relevance to the matter.
1. Dynasties need rivals: No they don't. Jordan's Bulls won against 5 different teams in 6 finals.
2. Persona/image/swagger: GMAFB. Kareem = Duncan in personality. Just because they played in a big market doesn't mean Worthy/Scott/Cooper/Kareem et al had "persona". Magic had a childlike smile but that's about it. This whole "persona" thing started with Jordan and then was continued by Shaq/Kobe. This is not a pre-requisite by any means
3. Shortened season: How about shortened playoffs? The 50s Celtics had a best-of-3 Conf semifinals, best-of-5 conf finals, and best-of-7 NBA finals. That means it took them 2+3+4 = 9 victories to get the championship. Doesn't that pale in comparison to the 16 victories needed in today's NBA? Shouldn't the Celtics les be "asterisked"?
4. Shaq/Kobe Lakers closer to a dynasty: With a 5-year shelf life and 3 wins, that would be the shortest "dynasty" of all time. Neither is a dynasty, but winning 4 in 9 while contending throughout and having different teams almost each time is tougher to accomplish.
If Manu continues to celebrate as he does in your sig, he will injure an elbowTodd Boyd: "Don't Call Spurs a Dynasty"
Pop: "i donīt give a sh*t"
So we will repeat next year and then we will be a dynasty.
Phew! . . . I feel so much better now that that's off my chest!
Now I will go and take a sip out of the championship cup.
Great points.
He's on crack...the Spurs ARE a Dynasty!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
