Reply With Quote
Can the spurs be considered a dynasty?
Mike Finger: Dynasties never last for long
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/c...s.1bee69e.html
Web Posted: 02/14/2007 01:02 AM CST
San Antonio Express-News
They built a foundation with unheralded-but-brilliant draft picks, pulled off a couple of shrewd trades, and were led by a trio of elite players who seemed destined for each other, if not the Hall of Fame. They ended up with three championships to show for it, then woke up one day and found themselves looking awfully old.
And now?
The Spurs hope their next step works out a lot better than the Cowboys' did.
Dynasties in sports are funny things, what with how they can be so coveted and so taken for granted at the same time, and how they take so long to build and yet can fall apart so quickly. Few of them last longer than the prime of a star player, and those that do always require a little luck.
Sometimes, they even can start to look alike, even when they span different decades and different sports. Before Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker, the most beloved sports triumvirate in San Antonio had been Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin and Emmitt Smith.
A decade later, it's easy to forget how quickly the power of "The Triplets" disintegrated. The Cowboys won their third Super Bowl in 1995, won their division in 1996, and by 1997, full-scale panic had set in. Aikman didn't look as sharp, Irvin had lost a step, and the supporting cast wasn't as strong as it once was. Some said the naysayers were overreacting, but Dallas hasn't won a playoff game since.
Those Spurs fans who believe in déjà vu or numerology (a third championship in 2005, a division le in 2006, panic in 2007) can't like where this is heading. When the Cowboys hit the wall in 1997, the eldest two of their marquee trio were 31 and 30 years old. Today, Duncan is 30, and Ginobili is 29.
Of course, there are limits to this comparison. Basketball players don't peak at the same age as their football brethren, and the cir stances offer more differences. The Spurs, for example, are in no danger of being coached by the likes of Barry Switzer and Chan Gailey. And the Cowboys never had the opportunity to be rescued by the likes of Melvin Ely.
Ely won't save a dynasty by himself, but he can do more than some might think. He was talented enough to be the 12th overall pick in the 2002 NBA Draft, and he automatically becomes the Spurs' second-best low-post scorer as soon as he puts on a uniform. If he can provide the same kind of subtle spark Nazr Mohammed offered in 2005, he will have done his part.
If anything, Tuesday's trade shows the Spurs realize how fleeting dynasties can be. Even though the Mavericks and Suns have looked light years ahead of them over the past few months, the Spurs still have to believe they have a better chance to win this season than they do next year or in any after that. The window only stays open for so long, and it's better to spend energy keeping it pried open than to let it slam shut and search for another one.
The Cowboys figured that out the hard way. Four coaching searches and a mul ude of new game plans later, they still haven't found another window. And they aren't the only ones.
The landscape is littered with dying sports dynasties, and it gets more cluttered every day. This week, the Duke men's basketball team was shut out of the Top 25 for the first time in the coaches' poll's nine-year history. The Yankees just spent another offseason trying to recreate the formula that enabled them to dominate the World Series from 1996-2000.
And last month, the New England Patriots — who like the Spurs and Cowboys had built their own three- le dynasty — were eliminated before the Super Bowl for the second year in a row. Tom Brady, by the way, is about to turn 30.
But Brady isn't over the hill yet, and neither is the core of the Spurs. Duncan is still two years younger than Steve Nash and just two years older than Dirk Nowitzki, and he'll be starting in the All-Star Game this week. Parker will be joining him, and Ginobili continues to display the kind of energy that belies his bald spot.
So there are a few reasons for optimism, just as there were 10 years ago with a different big three.
The Spurs can only hope the similarities end there.
Can the spurs be considered a dynasty?
Hard to be considered a dynasty w/o winning back-2-back IMO. SAS is the closest thing to a dynasty since Bulls & Lakers tho.
Without a doubt. 3 rings in the last 8 years, a deep playoff run nearly every year that didn't end in a ring and a core of multiple all-stars in the overloaded west. Plus, I believe the franchise has only missed the playoffs a total of like 4 times ever.
Now, the dynasty is definately waning, but I believe its still there in some form.
I would not consider a dynasty. Dynasties start losing when they get old and slow enough. Our big 3 especially Duncan is still not old, or slow enough. They have no excuse to be losing right now. If they were a real dynasty, they should still be wining.
Celtics in the 80s are considered a dynasty. They only won 3 and never back-to-back.
I'm not sure you actually read the article.
Maybe last year or a year ago. 3 Rings in 7 years is pretty good, but beyond that is pushing it, especially with no repeats.
d y n a s t y
I agree with Kobe. Spurs...a dynasty.
Argubly. Depends on one's definition. I would argue that the Lakers were more of a dynasty in the 80's.
They've both been called dynasties in the 80s. The Bird Celtics. The Magic Lakers. What matters isn't so much winning back-to-back but competing year after year, while winning during that period. Isiah's Pistons won back-to-back but weren't a dynasty. Hakeem's Rockets weren't a dynasty.
I could not care less whether the Spurs go down in history as a dynasty; I witnessed all 3 Championship seasons, and enjoyed each one. If they never win again, I can't complain.
*********** = No Dynasty
They appeared in 5 Finals over 7 years, going 3-2, including 4 straight from 1984-87.
The Spurs aren't at that level.
Are you saying if we lose four more times in the Finals that we will be a dynasty?
Sincerely,
Mav Fan
No, but if you win 3 and lose 2, that would be better than winning 3 and losing none, because those other two times at least you got there, rather than losing in the second round, or getting swept out of the conference finals.
Bruce Bowen said once that he didn't think a team was a dynasty unless they won 4 les or more in a row.Spurs have a long way to go by that definition.
The definition of "Dynasty" is debatable, and the debate typically only serves to diminish what NBA Champions have achieved.
With that said, I'll do my part by saying I think the only span of years where you could even argue the Spurs were a "Dynasty" are 2003-2005. And even then, you could argue that the Lakers "Dynasty" didn't end until 2004.
So because I refuse to call the Lakers a Dynasty, it follows that I cannot call the Spurs a dynasty either.
Celtics were more like a dynasty tham the Bulls or the fakers.
Just use other teams as a measuring stick.
The Spurs weren't a dynasty. The Lakers were.....the Spurs were just the team that won a few championships then got stomped the year after.
There were be no dynasty for the Spurs. Only if Duncan will start playing like he is 25 years old.
We had a chance for dynasty but we waste it.
You got...
Fluke < ??? < Dynasty
Spurs are whatever you call the ???
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
