I don't. I think the word "dynasty" gets trown around so often that it has lost all meaning. It started after the Lakers threepeated, then with the Patriots. It's like who cares anymore? A dynasty is dominance over a long period of time. And no offense, but that's not the Spurs. They haven't been Dominant, they've been great but not that unstoppable force.Example: A dynasty would be like a 10,000 ton freight train with no brakes going 100 mph and the rest of the league would be a Toyota Prius stuck on the tracks. Get my point?Don't hate this because I'm a Lakers fan, I have a lot of respect for the Spurs, I just don't think they are a dynasty. To me in the NBA, the only "Dynasties" were the 1959-1966 Celtics and the 1991-1998 Bulls. Showtime maybe but not as much. Also, the UCLA Bruins under coach Wooden were the very definition of the word.Please, discuss.
I have to agree. I think they're a great team the past decade but the gap in between each title and not being able to repeat once really hurts them imo in being called a dynasty.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rok @ Jul 14 2007, 08:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I have to agree. I think they're a great team the past decade but the gap in between each title and not being able to repeat once really hurts them imo in being called a dynasty.</div> Not being able to repeat isn't a huge deal. There have been 1 year gaps since the 2003 NBA finals, it's not as though they win one every 5 or so years. After winning 4 championships in 8 years, which is very hard to do, they also have been playoff contendors since David Robinson. Michael Bryant, you seem to be very strict about what you call a 'dynasty'. Winning half of the chips in the past 8 seasons makes it clear that you've been on the top of the NBA for some time. These Spurs may not compare to Jordan's Bulls or the classic Celtics but I would still consider them a dynasty. You also seem to believe that these previous dynasty's had no competition. The Showtime Lakers felt as though they were always in the shadow of Boston until after they beat them in the NBA finals. During Jordan's early days, the Bulls would always get dominated by the Bad Boy Pistons in early rounds of the playoffs. The Classic Celtics match your description perfectly. The only problem the Celtics ever had was the classic Lakers who they dominated every time. That was an era with 12 teams though. However, as you can see no team ever completely dominated the NBA. Spurs may be a weaker team than Showtime or the Bulls but I would still consider them a dynasty. Also, don't forget that Tim Duncan is 31, he still has a solid 2-3 more years of production left in him.
I don't consider myself strict, I just think that a dynasty should be exclusive. I mean, there was a stretch when the Spurs couldn't beat the Lakers, that happend during the 8 years they have been great. They are great but not dominant. I mean, even Showtime, they weren't as prolific as Russells celts or the Bulls, but they made the finals 8 out of 10 years. A dynasty should be a team that doesn't come around to often and is good enough to dominate any era.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Not being able to repeat isn't a huge deal.</div>I think it's needed for a team to truly be deemed dominant. If they seem to dropoff each year as opposed to winning back to back to back like some of these dynasties have, that's not being dominant. They're a great team being able to win as many titles as they have in the period, but so called Dynasty teams don't have those in between. That's just my opinion, I could see how people believe their a dynasty.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rok @ Jul 14 2007, 09:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think it's needed for a team to truly be deemed dominant. If they seem to dropoff each year as opposed to winning back to back to back like some of these dynasties have, that's not being dominant. They're a great team being able to win as many titles as they have in the period, but so called Dynasty teams don't have those in between. That's just my opinion, I could see how people believe their a dynasty.</div> Despite not being able to win back-to-back championships, the Spurs have still been able to win them consistently since Shaq/Kobe's Lakers. As I said before there is no huge gap it's just one season since the one in 03. Also, you have to remember that San Antonio still has some firepower left in them. It is very possible that they repeat in 07-08 or win another championship 2-3 seasons from now.
Not even close only two in NBA History. Bill Russell's Celtics :worthy: !!!!!!!!!!!!1 and tragic johnson's lakers
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redsoxrock04 @ Jul 16 2007, 11:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Not even close only two in NBA History. Bill Russell's Celtics :worthy: !!!!!!!!!!!!1 and tragic johnson's lakers </div>To say not even close is just plain wrong. They have 4 championships in the last 9 seasons. Within the last decade, they have the highest winning percentage out of any team in any major proffessional sport. They have won with one of the most dominant big men in the NBA. They've won championships with one of the best defenses the NBA has ever seen. With that said, if the Spurs win it next year, by all means they are a dynasty, but to say they aren't even close to just wrong. Plus, you don't call Jordan's Bulls a dynasty? Wow..
I don't care about San Antonio's claim of "the highest win percentage of any pro team in the last decade", oooh, do that for 58 years (like the Lakers) then we'll talk.
