I'm not saying the Spurs are a dynasty, and I'm not saying they aren't. I'm on the edge. But I just wanted to create some discussion on it, because I feel it's a good topic.The Spurs have won 2 championships in recent years. One in 2005 and 2003, then one in 1999, and looking to add another one this season.The Spurs have the top winning percentage (.709) of any professional team in the last decade. They have had one of the most dominant power fowards in the game. They win by playing dominant team defense and terrific team offense. If they are not in the Finals one season, they are always right around the corner.How close is this team to being considered a dynasty?
No matter what I think of them they definitely are. They have dominated since Jordan's Bulls were done.
I think they are, although its very hard to put the '99 title with the 2003 and 2005 ones cause the 99 team was very different. But I think they are, and if they win this season they defiently are without a doubt.
The Spurs have been a dynasty since '99...Pop has done an amazing job drafting and working with the talent there and look at the result. They're extremely close to a 4th championship and are showing no signs whatsoever of slowing down.
The Spurs Dynasty is all about Duncan. 1999...2003...2005...2007. 4 titles is a lot, and there are probably more to come with the current state of the NBA. The Mavs need to retool, as do the Suns if they hope to beat San Antonio next year. Nobody from the East is a real threat unless something major happens. The 80's Celtics are considered a dynasty, and over 7 years they won 3 titles and lost in the finals twice. Of course that's 5 finals appearances in 7 years as opposed to 4 in 9, but again, the Spurs aren't done yet.
4 in 9 yearsdominant for sure.could say Dynasty but the Lakers took 3 in a row during the Spurs Dynasty?hard to overlook that.
Most likely the Spurs will win this series, but I'm just going to wait until they actually do to call this team a dynasty. They are such a great team, and as much as I don't like them, I have to give them a lot of credit. I try to be as unbiased as possible.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ASUFan22 @ Jun 10 2007, 08:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No matter what I think of them they definitely are. They have dominated since Jordan's Bulls were done.</div>Except for the 3 years that they either got decimated by the Lakers or didn't even get past the first round. They've been somewhat of a dynasty (if they can win this title), but they haven't dominated since 98.
It is hard to label them a dynasty in a 5 year span (post MJ-2002 was more of a Lakers dynasty) where they have never reached the finals in consecutive seasons. They are the best team out there but they still need to do a little more for me to see them as a true dynasty.
In the world of the NBA, where things are always changing. Players heading off to new teams almost constantly, coaches getting fired after just a few seasons as head-coach, David Stern coming up with fun new rules, And whatever else- with soon to be 4 titles in about 9 years and the fact they seem to always be on top of the league during the regular season- the Spurs are as much an active dynasty as you can get in the NBA. I mean, since 1990 the team has had 14 fifty or more win seasons. That doesn't include the lock out season where they won the NBA Championship. So 15 if you want to include the championship, 15 in 17 years? That is good enough for an active NBA dynasty if you ask me.
Like everybody else, I'd definitely have to agree that they are a dynasty. This isn't some one-hit wonder, they have been a dominant team since 1999 with the same coach and franchise player. Four titles, 8 straight years of excellence, one of the all-time greats leading the way, and a great coach that always has that team playing like a cohesive unit. San Antonio is the most underappreciated team I've seen in my life, and Tim Duncan is the most underappreciated superstar I've ever seen. No doubt they are a dynasty.
The Spurs are a dynasty in some words but they definately arent one of the greater dynasties like 90s Bulls or 80s Lakers but if they get this fourth title you gotta give them that respect even though the east died when MJ retired and Pip got traded to the Rockets/Blazers the next season.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Living_Legend33 @ Jun 10 2007, 10:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Mavs need to retool, as do the Suns if they hope to beat San Antonio next year.</div>Need is a pretty strong word. We're the same team that beat them in '06, save Marquis Daniels, Van Horn, and a couple other guys that didn't really do anything anyway. I would have rather faced SA than GS this year, but hindsight is 20/20, right?
By the winning percentage..Spurs1998 .7401999 .6462000 .7072001 .7072002 .732 2003 .6952004 .7202005 .7682006 .707Lakers1998 .6201999 .8172000 .6832001 .7072002 .6102003 .6832004 .4152005 .5492006 .519Spurs are a constant team and closest thing that we will see to a mighty dynasty.
I don't know really if we are, the spurs don't think they are, bowen said a dynasty is what the celtics were winning 4 in a row and sh*t, or something like thatand the only reason we didn't make it out of the first round in the 99-00 season was because tim didn't even play in the playoffs that year cause he F*cked up his knee in the regular season and couldn't finish the season off............. looking back at the 99-00 playoffs, if tim was there, I think the spurs would've repeated as champions, cause it's not like the lakers dominated the playoffs that year....... they went all 5 with the kings, killed the suns cause the suns were blessed to play a timless spurs team, and then went seven with the blazers and then 6 with the pacers......... so I think the spurs should be working on their 5th right now........... but if the spurs don't consider themselves a dynasty I'm not gonna consider them one
Yes, of course the Spurs are a dynasty. They've been great since Duncan got there...they're 4 for 4 in the Finals....They're always one of the best teams in the League...I really don't see how anyone could say they aren't a dynasty at this point.
The real question you have to ask when saying if the Spurs are a dynasty is who was their competition? They may have played 3 of the worst finals teams ever1.(1999 Knicks were a shadow of the 95' Knicks and Ewing had nothing in him, you basically just had a great backcourt on that team) 2.(The Nets were another very mediocre team, not even on the level of the 99 knicks they made it to the finals in the weakest period the east has ever seen with probably the worst supporting cast for a finals team) 3.(The Pistons were actually a very good team, The Spurs played them hard and it was a very close series, they could have easily lost it but ill give them respect for winning that hard-fought series) 4.(The Cavaliers this year stand again amongst the worst finals teams the east has produced, Other then at SG-SF-C they really were weak on talent other then rebounding and just not a fluent offense)Lets look at the 90s teams in the finals in comparison.1990:Bulls Vs Lakers(MJ Vs Magic, handsdown both are better then any of these teams)1991:Bulls Vs Blazers(MJ Vs Clyde and Terry Porter both are better then any of these teams)1992:Bulls Vs Suns(MJ Vs Barkley,Johnson better teams)1993:Knicks Vs Rockets(Hakeem Vs Ewing again a much better team then any of these)1994:Magic Vs Rockets(Shaq Vs Hakeem AGAIN two better teams)1995:Bulls Vs Sonics(MJ Vs Payton matchup of the two greatest guards in the last 20 years, much better teams)1996:Bulls Vs Jazz(Stockton+Malone agaist a dynasty team better teams)1997:Bulls Vs Jazz II(Again the Bulls showed their dominance and a much better team)1998:Spurs Vs Knicks(This was probably the poorest of the 90s finals, but still a good series. Drob and Ewing looked washed up though)1999:Lakers Vs Pacers(The East further weakens and a powerful Lakers team stomps the pacers)As you can see after 1998 The East Dropped off very significantly. Ive said this before and ill say this again, Drob was better then Duncan. He played agaist much more competition and still put up numbers. No other time in NBA history was the league as tight as it was in the 90s. Modern East teams are a joke compared to the Bulls,Sixers,Pistons,and Knicks teams that had dominated the last 20 years.You can call these Spurs a dynasty but of all the dynasties they are easily the weakest. If Drob in his prime played agaist weak competition he would have four titles also. I'm not taking anything away from Duncan but that is a major factor you have to take into account.
I think a better term for them is the beneficiaries of broken dynasties. Think about it. The Bulls dominated the 90's. When they dropped off in 98 and the competition got a lot weaker, the Spurs came in and capitalized. The Lakers dominated the West for half a decade (with the exception of 2003 when the Spurs beat us straight up) but collapsed in the 04 offseason. All of a sudden the Spurs win 2 titles in the next 3 seasons. In 2003 they faced some good competition, but other than that, their runs to the championship haven't been all that impressive.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Jun 15 2007, 12:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The real question you have to ask when saying if the Spurs are a dynasty is who was their competition? They may have played 3 of the worst finals teams ever1.(1999 Knicks were a shadow of the 95' Knicks and Ewing had nothing in him, you basically just had a great backcourt on that team) 2.(The Nets were another very mediocre team, not even on the level of the 99 knicks they made it to the finals in the weakest period the east has ever seen with probably the worst supporting cast for a finals team) 3.(The Pistons were actually a very good team, The Spurs played them hard and it was a very close series, they could have easily lost it but ill give them respect for winning that hard-fought series) 4.(The Cavaliers this year stand again amongst the worst finals teams the east has produced, Other then at SG-SF-C they really were weak on talent other then rebounding and just not a fluent offense)Lets look at the 90s teams in the finals in comparison.1990:Bulls Vs Lakers(MJ Vs Magic, handsdown both are better then any of these teams)1991:Bulls Vs Blazers(MJ Vs Clyde and Terry Porter both are better then any of these teams)1992:Bulls Vs Suns(MJ Vs Barkley,Johnson better teams)1993:Knicks Vs Rockets(Hakeem Vs Ewing again a much better team then any of these)1994:Magic Vs Rockets(Shaq Vs Hakeem AGAIN two better teams)1995:Bulls Vs Sonics(MJ Vs Payton matchup of the two greatest guards in the last 20 years, much better teams)1996:Bulls Vs Jazz(Stockton+Malone agaist a dynasty team better teams)1997:Bulls Vs Jazz II(Again the Bulls showed their dominance and a much better team)1998:Spurs Vs Knicks(This was probably the poorest of the 90s finals, but still a good series. Drob and Ewing looked washed up though)1999:Lakers Vs Pacers(The East further weakens and a powerful Lakers team stomps the pacers)As you can see after 1998 The East Dropped off very significantly. Ive said this before and ill say this again, Drob was better then Duncan. He played agaist much more competition and still put up numbers. No other time in NBA history was the league as tight as it was in the 90s. Modern East teams are a joke compared to the Bulls,Sixers,Pistons,and Knicks teams that had dominated the last 20 years.You can call these Spurs a dynasty but of all the dynasties they are easily the weakest. If Drob in his prime played agaist weak competition he would have four titles also. I'm not taking anything away from Duncan but that is a major factor you have to take into account.</div>but look at the roads we take there, we can't help that the east is a peice of sh*t...... the teams we play to get to the championship could easily beat sweep the eastern division....... the jazz would've went to the finals being in the east, the suns would've went to the finals being in the east, the nuggets would've went to the championship being in the east, hell the lakers, warriors.............. just cause we play sh*tty ass teams everytime doesn't take away from the spurs cause we play crazy hard teams each year........ so you can't really judge it off of that
