After last night, the Spurs' dreams of repeating are dead, again. Since 99, San Antonio has won 3 championships, but never come close to back to back (lost in the first round in 00, second round in 04 and 06) so my question to you is, can this Spurs team be considered a Dynasty if it can't seem to get over that hump from great to legendary? I mean, I've heard lots of ppl call them one, but do we call the Celtics of the 80's or Knicks of the 70's Dynasties?
Isn't a dynasty winning a champhionship 3 times in a row? I wouldn't call them one. I'd say they were just a great team for a long time.
They've been great ever since Tim Duncan arrived to the franchise, but until they start winning back-to-back championships, I wouldnt call them a dynasty just yet. They've been a powerhouse for a long time though.
I don't think they are a dynasty, but I have to ask, since when does winning back to back make you a dynasty eitherI mean if Detroit had won last year, I sure as hell wouldn't be calling them a dynasty.And the Lakers that won 3 strait, that team, at best, was a mini dynasty...I wouldn't put them in the dynasty group.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Marvinmartian @ May 23 2006, 08:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't think they are a dynasty, but I have to ask, since when does winning back to back make you a dynasty eitherI mean if Detroit had won last year, I sure as hell wouldn't be calling them a dynasty.And the Lakers that won 3 strait, that team, at best, was a mini dynasty...I wouldn't put them in the dynasty group.</div>Just winning back to back doesn't make you a dynasty, but once you've already won two titles, then you go back to back you're definitely making a case for one.
I don't think you necessarily have to win back to back to be a dynasty. I think the only ral clarifications for a dynasty arly e: a handful of titles, short span of years, being a title competitor each year, and keeping the same cast (to a lesser extent). I would think winning three titles in five years is certainly dynastic. I don't believe the Spurs are a dynasty.
I think that if the spurs win one or two more out of the next 4 seasons or so, you would have to consider them one. They couldnt be considered one right now. They are just a good team. It really depends on their next couple seasons.
I don't think a dynasty takes place over less than 5 years. I think Dynasty are in the neigborhood of being competitive and winning titles over a 10 year spand or more...The 60 Celtics were a dynasty...The 80's Lakers and 80's Celtics, could be considered dynasty's...The Bulls are a Dynasty.The Lakers of the new millinium, and the Spurs aren't.The Spurs could get their if they win another 2 titles or so this decade.It's like in the NFL. The Steelers of the 70's, and the 49rs of the 80's, and early 90's(they won the 5 superbowls over a 15 year span with 2 QB's) are dynasty's.Dallas of the 90's and the Patriots today, are close, but aren't dynasty's yet...they are both mini dyasty's.
Well, I'd say no. For me, to get a dynasty, you don't have to win 3 championships in a row, just three championships with one core team. Their 99 team was vastly different to their 2003 and 2005 team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Marvinmartian @ May 24 2006, 02:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't think a dynasty takes place over less than 5 years. I think Dynasty are in the neigborhood of being competitive and winning titles over a 10 year spand or more...The 60 Celtics were a dynasty...The 80's Lakers and 80's Celtics, could be considered dynasty's...The Bulls are a Dynasty.The Lakers of the new millinium, and the Spurs aren't.The Spurs could get their if they win another 2 titles or so this decade.It's like in the NFL. The Steelers of the 70's, and the 49rs of the 80's, and early 90's(they won the 5 superbowls over a 15 year span with 2 QB's) are dynasty's.Dallas of the 90's and the Patriots today, are close, but aren't dynasty's yet...they are both mini dyasty's.</div>I have to disagree. I would call the Patriots a Dynasty for sure. It is alot harder to be successful in the NFL over a long period than it used to be. I would call the Spurs a Dynasty as well. They have 3 titles over a fairly short period of time, and they have a star player that has been there the whole time. When we look back in 15/20 years time at the record books you will see the Spurs popping up regularly and remember Duncan being a mainstay of the team.
I think a Dynasty is someone that is completely dominant of that particular sport over a span of 4 or more years. The Spurs have had I think 5 straight 50+ win seasons, and 3 championships in the last 5 or 6 years, never missed the playoffs in the last 5+ years.I think they are. You don't need a championship EVERY year to be a dynasty.
Why shouldn't they be? 7 straight 50 win seasons.1999- NBA Champs2000- 53-29 (1st round elimination)2001- 58-24 Western Conference Finals2002- 58-24 (Semis)2003-60-22 NBA Champs2004-57-25(Semis)2005-59-23 NBA Champs2006-63-19 (Semis)I dont think you have to win more than 3 championships to prove your a dynasty. They dominated this era of the NBA better than anybody else.
Yes I think the Lakers and Spurs will be known us the dynasties for this decade, maybe the Pistons too if they can add another ring this season. The Spurs have been dominant for about 5 or 6 years. Of course you gotta call them a modern day dynasty.Besides theyll be back next year hopefully with a better Tony Parker and Ginobili and an injury free Duncan.
How about Duncan? The guy averaged 30 and 9 last series, and even had a 40 point game. If he is injury free next year, we could see a 3rd MVP trophy
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BALLAHOLLIC @ May 24 2006, 02:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why shouldn't they be? 7 straight 50 win seasons.1999- NBA Champs2000- 53-29 (1st round elimination)2001- 58-24 Western Conference Finals2002- 58-24 (Semis)2003-60-22 NBA Champs2004-57-25(Semis)2005-59-23 NBA Champs2006-63-19 (Semis)I dont think you have to win more than 3 championships to prove your a dynasty. They dominated this era of the NBA better than anybody else.</div>Well damn Dallas has had more than 53 wins for the last 6 years, but that doesn't make them a dynasty.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Marvinmartian @ May 25 2006, 01:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well damn Dallas has had more than 53 wins for the last 6 years, but that doesn't make them a dynasty.</div>Dallas doesn't have 3 NBA titles.......
True...but I was just responding to what the post before me said at the beginning.Of course the Spurs could be considered a dynasty, much more than the Mavs.
The Spurs are a great team and Ill give them that but they certainly artent a dynasty, atleast not yet. The old Celtics were a dynsty, the Spurs dont deserve to be in the same category as them. The Spurs howvere, are a great team and if they continue to win titles they might be considered one.
