lakers or spurs
2007-06-07 18:19:01 · 10 answers · asked by im what willis was talking about 2 in Sports ➔ Basketball
The Spurs. They won their first title in '99 and it's now 2007 and they're about to win their 4th title. That means the Spurs have maintained a winning tradition for a period of 8 years beginning at the turn of millenium. Whereas, the Lakers' dominance of the game was shortlived. After 3 consecutive titles and a runner-up finish to Detroit in '04, the so called dynasty disintegrated and dismantled with no chances of getting resurrected unless Jerry Buss surrounds his favorite player Kobe with quality championship pieces. On the other hand, the Spurs have kept their core intact and keep bringing in new pieces each championship run that's why they're successful.
2007-06-07 19:15:57 · answer #1 · answered by bundini 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am a Lakers fan but I have to sadly admit that the extremely annoying and boring Spurs are the dynasty of 2000....
2007-06-07 18:29:42 · answer #2 · answered by xavier 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
San Antonio Spurs
2007-06-07 19:29:56 · answer #3 · answered by spurs9123 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Spurs hands down. You do not have to win back-2-backs to be considered a dynasty.
2007-06-07 18:46:19 · answer #4 · answered by spursgolden 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Spurs, definitely. And really, what could be more boring than The Kobe Bryant Show? Drama,drama,drama.
2007-06-07 18:36:46 · answer #5 · answered by Alice K 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with xavier.Spurs is the dynasty of 2000s.Their game is very boring though.
2007-06-07 18:34:23 · answer #6 · answered by Why 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Spurs... they're boring for those who do not know good basketball...
2007-06-07 18:54:23 · answer #7 · answered by xtian 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
spurs.
2007-06-07 18:22:13 · answer #8 · answered by jason 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
lakers
2007-06-07 18:49:07 · answer #9 · answered by Santito 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
SPURS
2007-06-07 21:02:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋