Reply With Quote
By no means would the Mavs be a dynasty. It'd be stretching it to say the Spurs were one. Bill Russel and his Celtics, that was a dynasty.
I have tried to give credit to the Mavs where I have felt it is due.
Unfortunately, it appears that some of your posters are not mature enough or humble enough to be able to read such posts without making premature claims to dynasty.
Spurs<Mavs claimed after game 3 that:
It is our time not only to win it this year, but it is our time to begin a long 4-6 year DYNASTY!!
. The more you accept the truth the less painful it is
[/QUOTE]
The basketball gods smote him for his arrogance.
While I am surprised by game 4's outcome and I still expect the Mavs to win the series, this beat down seems an appropriate outcome given his overconfidence.
A dynasty wins more than 1 championship (which is 1 more than the Mavs have at this point). A dynasty usually occurs when you have multiple hall of famers (e.g. Jordan and Pippen, Magic, Worthy and Kareem, Bird, Parrish and McHale) and you are overwhelmingly superior to your opponents.
A tight and controversial 7 game series over the Spurs does not show a complete dominance that would justify this type of claim, especially after an easy and restful series against an opponent who has yet to win a single playoff game ever.
A 7 point 4th quarter and 31 % shooting from the field while getting blown out by 24 points in a series tied 2-2 does not make one believe that the Mavs are a dynasty.
In order to prevent this type of overreaching, arrogance (when I was trying to credit to the Mavs), I will watch my posts more carefully.
Spurs < Mavs is another good example of why I hate the Mavs and why I believe that the vast majority of Mavs posters around here are rude, hostile, arrogant trolls.
Tim Duncan has won 3 championships in 7 years. Yet, I do not consider his team, the Spurs, a dynasty. If we had won it this year, then I might have considered the Spurs a dynasty since we would be the champs 3 out of the last 4 years.
The Pistons won it all in 04 and got to the Finals again in 05 and lost in 7. I don't consider them a dynasty.
If the Spurs and Pistons are not dynasties with their achievements, it is clear that it is premature to call the Mavs a dynasty.
An empty trophy room is an empty trophy room.
I wanted to show some respect and treat you all as equals, but if you can't handle that respect better than this, then I remind you that if you want to be treated as equals,
first, go accomplish something equivalent to what we have done
second, demonstrate the quiet confidence, wisdom and humility that recognizes that you're a work in progress and have not yet established a dominance over the rest of the league.
The Spurs and the Pistons have a lot of work to do and we as their fans acknowledge that. The Mavs fans should do the same.
Perhaps this is due to the novelty of the situation (ie the fact that the Mavs have never ever even been to the Finals before).
By no means would the Mavs be a dynasty. It'd be stretching it to say the Spurs were one. Bill Russel and his Celtics, that was a dynasty.
Thank you. I agree.
The Lakers, the Bird Celtics and Jordan's Bulls and Shaq's Lakers could all possibly fit into this.
And the Spurs didn't repeat. So, clearly they are a good team, but far from a dynasty.
It's annoying when you try to give credit to another team and some troll takes what you say and overreaches and gets arrogant with it. Hence, the nature of my recent posts.
dallas wont be a dynasty. with Amare coming back, cleveland will only get better, lakers will get better, the spurs are always there. this is just dallas' one opportunity to win, so they need to get it done this year
I have a dynasty on NCAA Football 2006 - I had a player win the Heisman this year... does that count too?
^Did y'all make it too the big game?
Did you make it to English class?
Yeah, but it's 1st period. Too early to pay attention. Pretty good at math, though.
I take it you are mathematically challenged and don't know what a fact is.
Spurs 3 championships Mavs 0
Even if Mavs win this championship, it is
Spurs 3 championships Mavs 1
After that impressive game 4 performance, you might want to wait a while before you claim that you have a dynasty.
I can't really see why game 4 would lead you to conclude you have a dynasty? And it's not like you all have won any championships in the past.
First time in the Finals, you all are a one hit wonder. And based upon the last two games, it was not even that big a hit.
Probably even most other Mavs fans recognize how stupid it is to claim that you have a dynasty now.
I find it absolutely stupid to argue about the Spurs have 3 stuff. The Celtics have 16 rings. So they're better than the Spurs?
Does Bill Russell still play?
Because Tim Duncan still plays!!!
o!!!
Anybody home???
Typical Mavs fan.
D-Rob still play? Elliot still play?
Already pointed out that Tim was the best player on each of those Spurs teams that won championships and he still plays.
Now, I simply make the point that if the Mavs are to be considered a dynasty, it is reasonable that they show that they are the best team in the league. Usually that is what the Finals are about and the Finals are tied, 2-2 now.
Doesn't it make sense that if you think your team is the best that you should be able to have some sort of tangible evidence when the whole purpose of the Finals is to determine the best team and award them the trophy?
And if you are going to claim that your team is a dynasty, some sort of evidence will be required by us because we won't just take it on faith or because you said so.
Could you quote where I said the Mavs were a dynasty?
And it seems as if you've forgotten who won Round 2 in the west.
Who was the Finals MVP?
It was not D-Rob. It was Tim Duncan in 99. He far outplayed everybody else on the Spurs roster.
Who was the Finals MVP in 2003? Tim Duncan. Remember game 6, 21 points, 20 rebounds, 10 assists and 8 blocks. A new Finals record in 6 games with 31 blocks. David was even more severely hampered in his production by his back and it was his 14th year in the league.
Who was the Finals MVP in 2005? Tim Duncan. Where was D-Rob? Where was Sean Elliot?
It appears that there is one common denominator here. Tim Duncan who won with and without David Robinson, with and without Manu Ginobili, with and without Bruce Bowen, with and without Sean Elliot, with and without Tony Parker, ...
As I said before, typical Mavs fan.
Shaq won 3 straight finals mvp's. But Kobe didn't help out any, did he? You, my good sir, are a dumbass.
First, you jumped into a thread that was explicitly devoted to whether or not Mavs fans should consider themselves a dynasty.
You won a 7 game series. At the same time, you had a much easier route to round 2. Second, you had 2 games gift wrapped to you. Third, in game 7, you were down by 3 with 30 seconds left. So, don't claim some sort of superiority here with us.
You've chosen to side with Spurs < Mavs (or you are him with multiple screen names).
And you had to shift your argument since you saw that you had taken an indefensible position.
Kobe was with Shaq for all 3 of those rings.
Now, who was with Tim for all 3 of those rings?
You're the one who can't isolate the variable.
The point here is clear. The Spurs foundation is and was Tim Duncan.
Different parts can come and go, but with Tim Duncan the Spurs are always a great team and are legitimate le contenders.
Wait. Just because we didn't take forever to advance past round 1, we had it easier? NEWSFLASH! The kings aren't that good. They just gave you all , so you thought they were good. Then round 2 happend. The Spurs even won the first game. Ain't that a mutha?
We can make this clear even for someone who is mathematically challenged like you:
Tim Duncan 3 championships, 3 finals mvps
Dirk Nowinski 0 championships, 0 finals mvps
You had an opponent who has never ever won a single solitary game in the playoffs. That is an easy road to round 2. That gave you rest.
We played an opponent that was much better. They are a much more physical team with Bonzi and Ron Artest.
If you had played the Kings, you would not have beaten them in less than 6 games.
If we had played the Grizzlies, it is likely that we also would have swept them.
Then, we would not be playing our 3rd game in 5 nights in game 2.
Keep shifting your argument since you know that your position was indefensible.
History is your favorite subject isn't it? You, just like every other Spur fan, go back to the same ass argument about the 3 rings. When will you all wake up and realize who bested the God-almighty untouchable Spurs in the second round?
As I said before, I tried to give you all credit where I thought it was appropriate and there was not any of this back and forth going on ,
but when your fellow Mavs poster starts to claim greatness and dynasty, I am going to call him on it and inject a little perspective on the matter.
If you or other Mavs fans had called him on it, this thread probably would not have been written.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
