Spurs: ESPN heavily underlines that Spurs FAIL every year after winning a championship

[LkrFan]

No. That was his only win against Nash. He beat a ty version of the Run and Gun Suns and Nash was already like 40.

But when they matched up in their primes, Nash spanked that ass. It usually took us to keep Nash ringless. Never send a boy (Kobe) to do a man's (Duncan) job.

- on that note I'm out for the night.

[Clipper Nation]

In 2007 too?

Five alpha rangsPERIOD. The fat French blob got carried on Duncan's back through the playoffs per par, only to get a participation ribbon for statpadding for four games against Boobie Gibson. That's why the Finals MVP should be replaced by a Playoffs MVP (like the Conn Smythe in hockey).

[midnightpulp]

A defending champion tapping out in the first round. Think about that.

A 5 time champion leading his team to 3 lottery appearances, one of which was back-to-back.

Think about that.

[Jacob1983]

They technically repeated as silver ball champions from 2013 to 2014.

[DMC]

A 5 time champion leading his team to 3 lottery appearances, one of which was back-to-back.

Think about that.

There would have to be 2 in order to have a back to back, lol

[ambchang]

It's almost comical how Lakers fans, out of all people, is trying to trump up the importance of repeats, in an attempt to reduce the legacy of Duncan.

Let's break this down logically, there are really two types of teams that win championships:

1) A team built around a player so dominant that any injuries or major slumps to key pieces around him is inconsequential to winning a championship. So far, we have Hakeem in 94, Duncan in 03, and that's pretty much it. Jordan had Pippen for all six of his championships, Shaq and MVPau had Kobe, Magic and Kareem had each other, Bird had the big 3, Garnett and Pierce had each other plus Allen, Lebron had Wade, Wade had Shaq.

2) A team that is so balanced, that reduced outputs from any key players is inconsequential. Teams such as 04 Pistons, 14 Spurs, 11 Mavs (though you can argue with Dirk, they belong to the first group), late 80s Pistons.

Now look at those criteria. 94 Hakeem repeated, but only after they got Drexler in a trade. 04 Spurs didn't repeat, because the Lakers smartly closed the lane on Parker and figured they can play 4 or 5 on 1 on Duncan.

The teams that repeated are teams that had so much talent when compared to their compe ion, that they can go through bad series from their alpha or beta (96 Jordan vs. Sonics, Shaq getting shut down by the twin towers in 01 or 02, 40% shooting from Kobe in any one of the playoff series he played in, Lebron's balls shrinking, Dirk being guarded heavily vs. the Heat) that the rest of the group can step up and dominate, because they have enough replaceable parts to weather injuries and slumps.

So using the repeat argue to diminish the legacy of Duncan makes no sense, as, if anything, the lack of a repeat actually speaks to how Duncan, with all his brilliance, led very beatable TEAMS to five les (or four, depending how you look at 14), single-handedly willing his teams to le after le, whereas players who repeated multiple times (Kobe is the only one here, as Jordan threepeated twice but with the core intact for both teams) actually get to coattail-ride dominant teams to these les.

[da_suns_fan]

It's almost comical how Lakers fans, out of all people, is trying to trump up the importance of repeats, in an attempt to reduce the legacy of Duncan.

Let's break this down logically, there are really two types of teams that win championships:

1) A team built around a player so dominant that any injuries or major slumps to key pieces around him is inconsequential to winning a championship. So far, we have Hakeem in 94, Duncan in 03, and that's pretty much it. Jordan had Pippen for all six of his championships, Shaq and MVPau had Kobe, Magic and Kareem had each other, Bird had the big 3, Garnett and Pierce had each other plus Allen, Lebron had Wade, Wade had Shaq.

2) A team that is so balanced, that reduced outputs from any key players is inconsequential. Teams such as 04 Pistons, 14 Spurs, 11 Mavs (though you can argue with Dirk, they belong to the first group), late 80s Pistons.

Now look at those criteria. 94 Hakeem repeated, but only after they got Drexler in a trade. 04 Spurs didn't repeat, because the Lakers smartly closed the lane on Parker and figured they can play 4 or 5 on 1 on Duncan.

The teams that repeated are teams that had so much talent when compared to their compe ion, that they can go through bad series from their alpha or beta (96 Jordan vs. Sonics, Shaq getting shut down by the twin towers in 01 or 02, 40% shooting from Kobe in any one of the playoff series he played in, Lebron's balls shrinking, Dirk being guarded heavily vs. the Heat) that the rest of the group can step up and dominate, because they have enough replaceable parts to weather injuries and slumps.

So using the repeat argue to diminish the legacy of Duncan makes no sense, as, if anything, the lack of a repeat actually speaks to how Duncan, with all his brilliance, led very beatable TEAMS to five les (or four, depending how you look at 14), single-handedly willing his teams to le after le, whereas players who repeated multiple times (Kobe is the only one here, as Jordan threepeated twice but with the core intact for both teams) actually get to coattail-ride dominant teams to these les.

These are weak EXCUSES.

Your team was completely healthy with the exact same lineup four of the five times and they lost.

They didnt repeat because they werent that great (like the real dynasties). Deal with it.

[ambchang]

These are weak EXCUSES.

Your team was completely healthy with the exact same lineup four of the five times and they lost.

They didnt repeat because they werent that great (like the real dynasties). Deal with it.

Yeah, the Spurs really aren't that great in each and every one of the championships, except maybe the 99 championships, but then Duncan was hurt in 00, and the league changed the rules to let the Lakers win.

I mean, how many teams can say that their second best player was the caliber of Ginobili? Parker winning FMVP? Stephen Jackson? The 14 Spurs were so weak no one made the All-Star team or All-NBA deservingly (Parker didn't really deserve it last year, but deserved it in 13). These great teams have second bananas like McHale, Dr. J, Magic, Kareem, Kobe, Pippen, Garnett/Pierce (and third and fourth bananas in Allen and Rondo), Wade. Each and every single one of them a top 15 to 30 all time talent. You ever heard for anybody put Manu as a top 30 talent?

The point though, was how Duncan is in the middle of these flawed, non-great teams to FIVE les, all by himself.

Whether it's a dynasty or not is pure semantics, but it is becoming awfully clear that Duncan not only build le teams, but he is the one and only element that is consistent across five les.

[Infinite_limit]

The Spurs were just never that dominant...always good but usually "right place, right time". They had an insane amount of luck (Amare/Diaw suspension, cramp game, etc). Throw in that their 99, 03, and 07 finals opponents had no business being in the finals. Its easy to understand why that luck wouldnt ever happen two years in a row.

There is alot of truth to this. Many other Champions you feel would win regardless of opponents. The Spurs seem right place right time

[Mikeanaro]

These are weak EXCUSES.

Your team was completely healthy with the exact same lineup four of the five times and they lost.

They didnt repeat because they werent that great (like the real dynasties). Deal with it.

Lol, I searched for the term dynasty but it doesnt say a thing about repeating in the whole web or even my dictionary.
You as a small market team fan should know that most times only big market teams repeat, lakers 02 was real?
Why? because thats what people wants to see and the league will do everything they can to sell their stars.
Spurs-Cavs finals was an all time low in ratings, nobody wants to see the Spurs winning do you think the league is re ed?
That stupid traveling 3 by Allen during game 6? The stupid foul at the last second on Ginobili where he was assaulted by Allen in game 7... refs said Manu was doing I dont know what and they gave Allen 2 free throws, game 6 was at home we didnt get the benefit even when he was traveling, game 7 was homecooking, nobody wants small market teams.
Dont be so rigid when your team hasnt won buddy boy.