Spurs are not a dynasty......yet.

Lot of talk going around that the Spurs will wrap up their 4th championship since 1999 and should be considered a dynasty along with the 90s Bulls, and 80s Lakers and Celtics. Im not buying it.

First championship has an asterick by it because it was a shortened season b/c of the lock-out so no one really counts that one.

Lakers won 3 straight championships to start the 21st century. I consider them more of a dynasty than the Spurs.

Spurs have never won back-to-back titles. Not a requirement to be considered a dynasty but it helps.

They haven't won their 4th title yet. Utah will give them a fight, and if Detroit makes it to the Finals, expect a 7 game series that could go either way.

Win the title this year and maybe another one this decade, then the Spurs will be a dynasty. As of right now, they are a great organization, not a dynasty.

Agree? 

First championship has an asterick by it because it was a shortened season b/c of the lock-out so no one really counts that one.

Well, didn't every team play the same amount of games? Why wouldn't a shortened season count? That makes no sense. If it had been your team's title it would have counted. 

Pistons vs Spurs:

In '05 Spurs beat the pistons with a lesser team than what the have now. Spurs now have Oberto and Finley. Pistons are missing Ben Wallace and coach Larry Brown. Chris webber and flip saunders are horrible at their jobs. Duncan will destroy rasheed down on the block. Ginobili will take over like he did in '05 while bowen makes rip hamilton or billups a non-factor. Not to mention parker who gets to the basket at-will

Well, didn't every team play the same amount of games? Why wouldn't a shortened season count? That makes no sense. If it had been your team's title it would have counted.

LessThanMarcus

Tack on another 30 games during that season and it could very well be a different story. Everyone was in mid-season form when the playoffs hit that year so no I dont count it.

Pistons vs Spurs:

In '05 Spurs beat the pistons with a lesser team than what the have now. Spurs now have Oberto and Finley. Pistons are missing Ben Wallace and coach Larry Brown. Chris webber and flip saunders are horrible at their jobs. Duncan will destroy rasheed down on the block. Ginobili will take over like he did in '05 while bowen makes rip hamilton or billups a non-factor. Not to mention parker who gets to the basket at-will

LessThanMarcus

Your whole paragraph is so exaggerated that I take it you are just a crazed SA fan. So I won't try and reason with you.

As much as I depise the Spurs, I can't deny how much success that they've achieved over the last decade.

So, yes the Spurs are a dynasty.

The Pistons are taking the title, so we won't have to worry about this debate :P
shooks20

I second that, the Spurs aren't a dynasty(dynasty's dominate continuously), but they do have some kind of staying power.

[QUOTE="LessThanMarcus"]

Well, didn't every team play the same amount of games? Why wouldn't a shortened season count? That makes no sense. If it had been your team's title it would have counted.

d12malu

Tack on another 30 games during that season and it could very well be a different story. Everyone was in mid-season form when the playoffs hit that year so no I dont count it.

The spurs were also in mid-season form if that's what you call it. so it should be even 

The Pistons are taking the title, so we won't have to worry about this debate :P
shooks20

i dont think scoring 79 points is gonna get it done playing the spurs 

[QUOTE="LessThanMarcus"]

Pistons vs Spurs:

In '05 Spurs beat the pistons with a lesser team than what the have now. Spurs now have Oberto and Finley. Pistons are missing Ben Wallace and coach Larry Brown. Chris webber and flip saunders are horrible at their jobs. Duncan will destroy rasheed down on the block. Ginobili will take over like he did in '05 while bowen makes rip hamilton or billups a non-factor. Not to mention parker who gets to the basket at-will

d12malu

Your whole paragraph is so exaggerated that I take it you are just a crazed SA fan. So I won't try and reason with you.

Not really. It's fact that spurs are a better team. Spurs would've beat the pistons in '04 if Fisher's turn around fade away jump shot with .4 seconds hadnt counted

[QUOTE="d12malu"][QUOTE="LessThanMarcus"]

Pistons vs Spurs:

In '05 Spurs beat the pistons with a lesser team than what the have now. Spurs now have Oberto and Finley. Pistons are missing Ben Wallace and coach Larry Brown. Chris webber and flip saunders are horrible at their jobs. Duncan will destroy rasheed down on the block. Ginobili will take over like he did in '05 while bowen makes rip hamilton or billups a non-factor. Not to mention parker who gets to the basket at-will

LessThanMarcus

Your whole paragraph is so exaggerated that I take it you are just a crazed SA fan. So I won't try and reason with you.

Not really. It's fact that spurs are a better team. Spurs would've beat the pistons in '04 if Fisher's turn around fade away jump shot with .4 seconds hadnt counted

And you know this how? Don't be that guy, although it's already too late I guess.

If the Spurs are so much better we should not have been able to even force a game 7. The fact that you don't even show respect towards the Pistons as a competitive team shows how much of a blind homer you are. I respect San Antonio as a basketball team, there is a reason they are always near the top, you would think that you could acknowledge the same.

And the Spurs scored 81 points against the freaking Suns, give me a break. Why would you take the scoring output from one game and spread it out over another series against a completely different team? Do you even watch basketball?

[QUOTE="d12malu"][QUOTE="LessThanMarcus"]

Pistons vs Spurs:

In '05 Spurs beat the pistons with a lesser team than what the have now. Spurs now have Oberto and Finley. Pistons are missing Ben Wallace and coach Larry Brown. Chris webber and flip saunders are horrible at their jobs. Duncan will destroy rasheed down on the block. Ginobili will take over like he did in '05 while bowen makes rip hamilton or billups a non-factor. Not to mention parker who gets to the basket at-will

LessThanMarcus

Your whole paragraph is so exaggerated that I take it you are just a crazed SA fan. So I won't try and reason with you.

Not really. It's fact that spurs are a better team. Spurs would've beat the pistons in '04 if Fisher's turn around fade away jump shot with .4 seconds hadnt counted

And I guess you think Tim Duncan's shot (fall away, drifting left, off the backboard, w/ Shaq in his face, right before Fisher's shot) is money everytime. And if I remember, didnt the series only go 6 games?

[QUOTE="d12malu"][QUOTE="LessThanMarcus"]

Pistons vs Spurs:

In '05 Spurs beat the pistons with a lesser team than what the have now. Spurs now have Oberto and Finley. Pistons are missing Ben Wallace and coach Larry Brown. Chris webber and flip saunders are horrible at their jobs. Duncan will destroy rasheed down on the block. Ginobili will take over like he did in '05 while bowen makes rip hamilton or billups a non-factor. Not to mention parker who gets to the basket at-will

LessThanMarcus

Your whole paragraph is so exaggerated that I take it you are just a crazed SA fan. So I won't try and reason with you.

Not really. It's fact that spurs are a better team. Spurs would've beat the pistons in '04 if Fisher's turn around fade away jump shot with .4 seconds hadnt counted

Wow...can you be any more biased? Mavs showed us a perfect example why playoffs is so unpredictable. If Pistons and Spurs meet, it can go either way.

[QUOTE="d12malu"]

[QUOTE="LessThanMarcus"]

Well, didn't every team play the same amount of games? Why wouldn't a shortened season count? That makes no sense. If it had been your team's title it would have counted.

LessThanMarcus

Tack on another 30 games during that season and it could very well be a different story. Everyone was in mid-season form when the playoffs hit that year so no I dont count it.

The spurs were also in mid-season form if that's what you call it. so it should be even

Doesn't matter, REGULAR season is 82 games. Lock-out season was around 50+. That means the championship team plays around 100 games during a regular season and playoffs. That year Spurs probably played around 70. Compare it to this year if the NBA played anything less than 82 games, GS would not have made the playoffs, Gilbert Arenas and Dwayne Wade would not be injured, different teams would be matched up, and players would not be as worn down.

1997 NBA Champions Chicago Bulls

1998 NBA Champions Chicago Bulls

1999 NBA Champions San Antonio Spurs*

2000 NBA Champions LA Lakers 

2001 NBA Champions LA Lakers 

*lock-out season 

[QUOTE="shooks20"]The Pistons are taking the title, so we won't have to worry about this debate :P
LessThanMarcus

i dont think scoring 79 points is gonna get it done playing the spurs 

As long as they keep the Spurs below 79, it's more then enough.

Just because there was a lockout doesn't mean guys didn't work their ass off for the title that year too once they got out there.  How selfish of you to not consider this.  San An is a dynasty... just not a very good one when compared to some others (as you listed, Bulls, Celtics, Lakers (from two eras), Pistons (bad boys specifically, since you can't really call teams "bad" anymore thanks to the touchy defense rules))...

They deserve the status, and will so even more if they can pull off a finals victory over what will likely be Detroit... never know though, Detroit is whily and they are MORE than drooling at the concept of taking it to the Spurs after they ruined our back to back bid here.  Say what you want about the season, but we all know the playoffs are a different beast, and no one expected Detroit to go 7 games then either... then again, if Cleveland gets in, look for calls to start suddenly going Lebrons way, as the NBA will then fully rejoice in having a marquee player in the finals to go up against Duncan (who's one of the more boring marquees to the casual fan... while I personally think he's great). 

Just because there was a lockout doesn't mean guys didn't work their ass off for the title that year too once they got out there. How selfish of you to not consider this. San An is a dynasty... just not a very good one when compared to some others (as you listed, Bulls, Celtics, Lakers (from two eras), Pistons (bad boys specifically, since you can't really call teams "bad" anymore thanks to the touchy defense rules))...

 

ScoopyMcScoop

It was an abnormal season, so there was an abnormal champion.  Im not blaming the Spurs and it's unfortunate it happened to them when they won their first championship, but to me and many others it's always had that stigma of being half a title. Everyone worked their asses off and the playing field was level, everyone had the same amount of time. But a significant # of games were not played due to the lock-out, enough to where it could have made a difference. Therefore, I have always looked at the Spurs as winning 2.5 championships.

Lot of talk going around that the Spurs will wrap up their 4th championship since 1999 and should be considered a dynasty along with the 90s Bulls, and 80s Lakers and Celtics. Im not buying it.

 

First championship has an asterick by it because it was a shortened season b/c of the lock-out so no one really counts that one.

Lakers won 3 straight championships to start the 21st century. I consider them more of a dynasty than the Spurs.

Spurs have never won back-to-back titles. Not a requirement to be considered a dynasty but it helps.

They haven't won their 4th title yet. Utah will give them a fight, and if Detroit makes it to the Finals, expect a 7 game series that could go either way.

 

Win the title this year and maybe another one this decade, then the Spurs will be a dynasty. As of right now, they are a great organization, not a dynasty.

Agree? 

 

d12malu

I have many problems with what you are saying.

Problem #1: So what if it was a lockout shortened season?  Every ****ing team played 50 games and an equal chance of winning so quit acting like the spurs had some sort of advantage.  Anyone who says that this championship doesn't count has already lost credibility with me.

Problem #2: 3 championships are still 3 championships.  Every single one of those teams was led by Duncan, so the order in which they were received makes no difference.

Problem #3: Utah will be lucky to win more than 1 game in this series.  They are an inferior team.

Problem #4:  The Spurs were a slightly better team than Detroit 2 years ago.  Take away Ben Wallace and now the Spurs are clearly a better team.

So no, I don't agree.

I have many problems with what you are saying.

Problem #1: So what if it was a lockout shortened season? Every ****ing team played 50 games and an equal chance of winning so quit acting like the spurs had some sort of advantage. Anyone who says that this championship doesn't count has already lost credibility with me.

Problem #2: 3 championships are still 3 championships. Every single one of those teams was led by Duncan, so the order in which they were received makes no difference.

Problem #3: Utah will be lucky to win more than 1 game in this series. They are an inferior team.

Problem #4: The Spurs were a slightly better team than Detroit 2 years ago. Take away Ben Wallace and now the Spurs are clearly a better team.

So no, I don't agree.

Agreed, specially with the assessment of people trying to discredit the Spurs' first Championship, get a life, everything was equal that season, Duncan beat everyone fair and square inside the rules. 

[QUOTE="ScoopyMcScoop"]

Just because there was a lockout doesn't mean guys didn't work their ass off for the title that year too once they got out there. How selfish of you to not consider this. San An is a dynasty... just not a very good one when compared to some others (as you listed, Bulls, Celtics, Lakers (from two eras), Pistons (bad boys specifically, since you can't really call teams "bad" anymore thanks to the touchy defense rules))...

 

d12malu

It was an abnormal season, so there was an abnormal champion.  Im not blaming the Spurs and it's unfortunate it happened to them when they won their first championship, but to me and many others it's always had that stigma of being half a title. Everyone worked their asses off and the playing field was level, everyone had the same amount of time. But a significant # of games were not played due to the lock-out, enough to where it could have made a difference. Therefore, I have always looked at the Spurs as winning 2.5 championships.

If they were abnormal then how come they won it in 2003, 2005 and 2007? Are you a Suns fan by any chance?

[QUOTE="d12malu"][QUOTE="ScoopyMcScoop"]

Just because there was a lockout doesn't mean guys didn't work their ass off for the title that year too once they got out there. How selfish of you to not consider this. San An is a dynasty... just not a very good one when compared to some others (as you listed, Bulls, Celtics, Lakers (from two eras), Pistons (bad boys specifically, since you can't really call teams "bad" anymore thanks to the touchy defense rules))...

 

AHUGECAT

It was an abnormal season, so there was an abnormal champion. Im not blaming the Spurs and it's unfortunate it happened to them when they won their first championship, but to me and many others it's always had that stigma of being half a title. Everyone worked their asses off and the playing field was level, everyone had the same amount of time. But a significant # of games were not played due to the lock-out, enough to where it could have made a difference. Therefore, I have always looked at the Spurs as winning 2.5 championships.

If they were abnormal then how come they won it in 2003, 2005 and 2007? Are you a Suns fan by any chance?

No, Mavs fan. And I take it you are a Spurs fan by incl. 2007 when there is still a month of basketball left. 

[QUOTE="d12malu"]

Lot of talk going around that the Spurs will wrap up their 4th championship since 1999 and should be considered a dynasty along with the 90s Bulls, and 80s Lakers and Celtics. Im not buying it.

 

First championship has an asterick by it because it was a shortened season b/c of the lock-out so no one really counts that one.

Lakers won 3 straight championships to start the 21st century. I consider them more of a dynasty than the Spurs.

Spurs have never won back-to-back titles. Not a requirement to be considered a dynasty but it helps.

They haven't won their 4th title yet. Utah will give them a fight, and if Detroit makes it to the Finals, expect a 7 game series that could go either way.

 

Win the title this year and maybe another one this decade, then the Spurs will be a dynasty. As of right now, they are a great organization, not a dynasty.

Agree?

 

RBerry82

I have many problems with what you are saying.

Problem #1: So what if it was a lockout shortened season? Every ****ing team played 50 games and an equal chance of winning so quit acting like the spurs had some sort of advantage. Anyone who says that this championship doesn't count has already lost credibility with me.

Problem #2: 3 championships are still 3 championships. Every single one of those teams was led by Duncan, so the order in which they were received makes no difference.

Problem #3: Utah will be lucky to win more than 1 game in this series. They are an inferior team.

Problem #4: The Spurs were a slightly better team than Detroit 2 years ago. Take away Ben Wallace and now the Spurs are clearly a better team.

So no, I don't agree.

Answer 1-- So if they played 40 games in a season for some reason, a championship is a championship? HA, you are ignorant if you ignore that fact.

Answer 2-- thats alot of chamionships, that's why this dynasty talk is starting to come up. STARTING. Still no back-to-back, like the two most recent dynasties, the Lakers and Bulls. If Spurs make it 4 and continue dominate play the rest of the decade, they will no doubt be a dynasty.

Answer 3-- You never know. If you were a real basketball fan, you would know that.

Answer 4-- Different year. Enough said.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"][QUOTE="d12malu"][QUOTE="ScoopyMcScoop"]

Just because there was a lockout doesn't mean guys didn't work their ass off for the title that year too once they got out there. How selfish of you to not consider this. San An is a dynasty... just not a very good one when compared to some others (as you listed, Bulls, Celtics, Lakers (from two eras), Pistons (bad boys specifically, since you can't really call teams "bad" anymore thanks to the touchy defense rules))...

 

d12malu

It was an abnormal season, so there was an abnormal champion. Im not blaming the Spurs and it's unfortunate it happened to them when they won their first championship, but to me and many others it's always had that stigma of being half a title. Everyone worked their asses off and the playing field was level, everyone had the same amount of time. But a significant # of games were not played due to the lock-out, enough to where it could have made a difference. Therefore, I have always looked at the Spurs as winning 2.5 championships.

If they were abnormal then how come they won it in 2003, 2005 and 2007? Are you a Suns fan by any chance?

No, Mavs fan. And I take it you are a Spurs fan by incl. 2007 when there is still a month of basketball left. 

I'm a Lakers fan but who's going to stop the Spurs? The Jazz? The Pisons? HAHA!

Lot of talk going around that the Spurs will wrap up their 4th championship since 1999 and should be considered a dynasty along with the 90s Bulls, and 80s Lakers and Celtics. Im not buying it.

 

First championship has an asterick by it because it was a shortened season b/c of the lock-out so no one really counts that one.

Lakers won 3 straight championships to start the 21st century. I consider them more of a dynasty than the Spurs.

Spurs have never won back-to-back titles. Not a requirement to be considered a dynasty but it helps.

They haven't won their 4th title yet. Utah will give them a fight, and if Detroit makes it to the Finals, expect a 7 game series that could go either way.

 

Win the title this year and maybe another one this decade, then the Spurs will be a dynasty. As of right now, they are a great organization, not a dynasty.

Agree?

 

d12malu

Personally, I believe the fact that the Spurs have spread their 3 titles over a longer period of time makes them more of a dynasty than the 3 straight the Lakers won.  In between their titles they were a great team that made deep playoff runs.

if the spurs win it this year than yes they are a dynasty

07, 05, and 03 that would be 3 titles in 5 years

and yes the lakers are also a dynasty

[QUOTE="d12malu"]

Lot of talk going around that the Spurs will wrap up their 4th championship since 1999 and should be considered a dynasty along with the 90s Bulls, and 80s Lakers and Celtics. Im not buying it.

 

First championship has an asterick by it because it was a shortened season b/c of the lock-out so no one really counts that one.

Lakers won 3 straight championships to start the 21st century. I consider them more of a dynasty than the Spurs.

Spurs have never won back-to-back titles. Not a requirement to be considered a dynasty but it helps.

They haven't won their 4th title yet. Utah will give them a fight, and if Detroit makes it to the Finals, expect a 7 game series that could go either way.

 

Win the title this year and maybe another one this decade, then the Spurs will be a dynasty. As of right now, they are a great organization, not a dynasty.

Agree?

 

bunchofpixels

Personally, I believe the fact that the Spurs have spread their 3 titles over a longer period of time makes them more of a dynasty than the 3 straight the Lakers won. In between their titles they were a great team that made deep playoff runs.

Ya, that makes sense and is reasonable when looked at like that. But history does show most dynasties win back-to-back. San Antonio's first championship was sandwiched between the break-up of the Bulls and the start of the Shaq-Kobe show, not to mention it was a lock-out season. I think the 80 Celtics are the last team, considered a dynasty, that didnt win back-to-back. But they lost in the Finals to the Lakers 3 times during the 80s and has won 16 championships as a franchise. Spurs haven't even won more Finals than the Celtics have lost. Oh well, Spurs are a great team and I don't want to sound like I disrespect them, but I do feel dynasty talk is a little premature.