Winning 3 championships in a row and then falling off completely or winning 4 over a span of 9 years and being continuously compe ive?
Thats a good question.... I think if the Lakers would have kept their team intact... Like the Spurs they would have been compe ive for years even to this day.... But I would have to say that the Spurs run to this day is incredible..... Winningist franchise since Tim Duncan came aboard.....
Not sure.. I've actually thought about that. I think I'd rather have it spread around a bit, in spite of some disappointing seasons. It's exciting to be in the Finals again after almost a decade of same. I'd rather have that than remembering a dynasty that once was (i.e., Bulls, et al)
Lets call it what it really is - the Tim Duncan dynasty, pure and simple he is and will remain the constant during this run.
You could stretch the Dynastic period to include David Robinson's tenure, as that squad usually made it the 2nd round from 90-96.
To be sure, this 20 year run will never be replicated by this or any other NBA team.
Not sure...but if the Spurs win this one and another during the td era they will without a doubt be a bonafide dynasty.
dont forget that the Lakers were already very compe ive before they went on their le run, as well as a couple years afterwards. they were compe ive/winning for a good 7-8 years or so as well, but unfortunately Kobe ed everything up. if they were still together, they would still be a championship contending team (not neccesarily winning les, but they would still be in the hunt). and dont forget, the Spurs still havent won their 4th yet. if they lose, they will be no better than the Lakers, because the Lakers lost their 4th chance in the finals as well. but repeating is a much harder feat than winning 3 in 7 years. they not only repeated, but 3-peated. the 2000-2002 Lakers 3-peat dynasty is definitely superior to the 1999*-2005 (possibly 2007) Spurs "dynasty", no question about it.
Winning 3 straight is more impressive and better than winning in odd years...
The Spurs les are not considered a dynasty.
Win this year and then at least defend it next year then we can talk dynasty..
Meanwhile..
NOPE!
Yeah, when you think about it, it's even more impressive than a simple dynasty.
Who else has won three in seven?but repeating is a much harder feat than winning 3 in 7 years.
Well its a little harder to 3-peat without a loaded team.
The Spurs have had only one in-his-prime hall of famer over the last nine years.
And when you think about it do you really want your team to win three and then completely flame out (who cares why they flamed out, team chemistry is part of the game as well)?
More specifically, which teams won three les in seven years with only one player common to all three championship rosters?
I await mavcavsunfan's answer.
It's a dynasty no less. Not as recognizable as the Bulls 6 year run until after the entire run is looked at in retrospect. The fact that just about everyone in the media hates us and wants us to lose and claims we're killing the game of basketball - reminds me everyday that we are a dynasty. Surrounded of course by the biggest bunch of crybabies and bad at ude losers that think the wave of the future is a slam dunkathon flash fest. That itself is the true death to basketball, see modern day "Dream Teams" vs. anyone in the European leagues. Our days of winning olympic basketball are O-V-E-R.
Congrats to the crybabies and loser rooters though, looks like they will ultimately prevail as the years go on and basketball will become the WWE here in the US. Just wait until they start putting vaultolines in the floor at arena's and play flaming basketball sounds as guys launch from the half court to get a dunk.
4 > 3
Look, take away the first Laker Championship in 2000(TD was hurt), and you only have the Lakers beating the Spurs on the way to a Championship TWICE.
That's not a Dynasty. That's the Pistons or Rockets.
That said, I would like for the Spurs to repeat at least once this decade, then there can be no excuses.
Call it whatever you want, I'm enjoying it.
Remember, the Lakers Championship in 2000 has a * in it, Duncan was injured.
4 > 3
-Mars
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 14 (5 members and 9 guests)
ChumpDumper, ImpartialObserver, Josh810, Fast Dunk, greenroom
tik-tock....
Yeah, I think that's the bottom line right there.Call it whatever you want, I'm enjoying it.
I'm more impressed with the Spurs. They have made the playoffs so many times that it just keeps getting better...
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 10 (7 members and 3 guests)
ChumpDumper, Spurminator, BigBeezie, tim_duncan_fan, exstatic, GroundHogDay, Fast Dunk
Three in a row is a "run."
Winning 4 in nine while always making it into the second round, normally making the conference le and never losing in the finals is a "dynasty."
i would not cosider a team a dynasty when it even cant defend the ship a least 1 year.
If Spurs win again this year its definitely a dynasty. Its a "non-conforming" dynasty. It doesn't have to be three in a row to be considered one, that is just stupid and grasping at straws.
What makes the Spurs un-conventional is how they have re-tooled and have won with different role players. Thats pretty amazing.
As much as I respect what the Spurs have done and are doing, a dynasty implies being reigning champs for a period of time greater than one season. Even if the Spurs win this year, they won't be a dynasty to me unless they win next year too. If it doesn't happen, no biggie. You don't need to be a dynasty to enjoy the bling from three rings.
Weakest troll smack ever is the "yeah but the Spurs can't win back to back rings" smack.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
