I can't understand how fans can label the Spurs a dynasty when everyone hates to watch them. The playoff ratings have gone down every year when they were in the championship. Borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring.
Your thoughts?
2007-06-20 02:26:43 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Basketball
Here's my take. Is the Spurs a dynasty, well simply put NO! To be a dynasty it is as simply as this. Greatness is never measured in one time occurrances and that is what the Spurs have in all there championships. One-time occurances, at no point in their history whether another team passes them in whom is considered a better team or injuries have they ever made it to the top of the mountain and defended the mountain top, THEY HAVE NEVER REPEATED AS CHAMPIONS. And let's be honest, right now if we started the consersation about whom we thought would have the best chances at winning the title next year the conversation doesn't begin with San Antonio. Unlike the great Chicago Bulls of the '90s (six in eight years with two three-peats), the Lakers and Celtics of the '80s, and even the Shaq-Kobe Lakers. Dynasties are defined by one word and one word only, DOMINANCE over that particular sport, region, counrty, etc. But, hey that's just what I think, my opinion.
One Love, KJ
2007-06-20 03:13:50 · answer #1 · answered by Kris 1 · 2⤊ 5⤋
I don't think that the Spurs can be considered a dynasty. They don't dominate the game like those other teams did. When the Celts, Lakes, or Bulls lost a game, everyone was in shock and disbelief. When the Spurs loose, it really isn't shocking, at least to me. The Bulls won 6 'ships in 8 years and if Jordan didn't retire it very well could have been an amazing 8 for 8. I believe that for the Spurs to solidify a spot on the Dynasty Wall of Fame, they have to win it next year to make it 5 in 10 years with at least 1 back to back to show longevity. I believe that the league is a little watered down and injuries happen at in opportune times for some teams. I think that a healthy Larry Hughes would have made this years 'ship a much better series, not taking anything away from the Spurs but they don't have to battle the tough teams like back in the day. That is just my opinion.
2007-06-20 12:04:42 · answer #2 · answered by benz s55 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They are indeed a dynasty.
Repeating has nothing to do with it. Exciting has nothing to do with it.
Dynasties=winning ultiple championships over multiple years.
Are the Celtics of Birds era a dynasty?
Are the Lakers of the Magic era? They only won back to back once.
If everyone agrees that these two are dynastic ball clubs then so should San Antonio.
I would consider the Spurs more dynastic than the Shaq/Kobe Lakers because the Spurs have been it the hunt every year since '98. Have the Lakers?
The fact is that they have won 44% of the NBA championships over the past nine years. The only teams with higher %'s are the Lakers of the 80's (55%) and Jordan's Bulls (66%).
Lets give them credit not only for their accomplishment(s) but also because how they continue to get it done.
Deliberate, thoughtful, purposeful execution that produces wins and championships.
2007-06-20 11:39:25 · answer #3 · answered by Triumph 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
To answer #11, (Kris) back to back does not make a dynasty. If it did any team that had ever won back to back would be considered a dynasty. No, the Spurs have not had their repeat yet. They might and then they might not, who knows. But they have won the championship 4 of the last 9 years, been in the play-offs all of the other years, had a over-all winning record those years ( and not one of those 41-40 deals), plus being ranked as the team with the best winning record of ANY sport, and being recognized by fans as one of the top 3 teams over-all for fan satisfaction. Also, I would imagine that if you asked coaches which team they would like to coach 80% or more would say the Spurs. Oh, yes I am from Texas, and I am a coach of jr. high and high school sports and I would take the Spurs in a heartbeat !!!
They are a class act....
2007-06-20 10:33:59 · answer #4 · answered by sajaru316 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
they are a dynasty. 4 times champs in 9 years span. 4 and still counting. the reason why they are labeled 'boring' is because no one is pulling any fancy stunt. td is a very dominant player, but he doesn't do crazy stuff, he just plays basket ball. and the rest of the team follows him. but to say that they are not interesting to watch is simply wrong. they play a very good basket ball game. the same as piston's bball when they reached the final. good ball movement, team work, and hustle.
2007-06-20 09:34:49 · answer #5 · answered by the_justin 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think they are dynasty, the reason why they are so boring to watch is because they are not flashy. They are fundamentally sound team, usually fundamental teams are boring to watch and not flashy (remember the Utah Jazz of the 80s and 90s?).
2007-06-20 09:52:29 · answer #6 · answered by jabeez77 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think people who like basketball like to watch them. If you don't, I suggest you go down to the schoolyard and watch some streetball. Oh, and be sure and let me know how those flashy kids do in the playoffs.
In the meantime, check out the cover of the current SI.
The bum below me is a liar. He doctored those numbers. The real poll was taken by SportsNation and showed the opposite results.
2007-06-20 10:25:04 · answer #7 · answered by Alice K 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The ratings have been goin down ever since the Jordan era. They is no one good 2 watch in the nba anymore
2007-06-20 10:16:59 · answer #8 · answered by morbidhaney 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why are they boring anyway? Because there's no Scorer there? (For an ex. Anthony,James,Iverson)So they wouldn't see glorious dunks or moves?! I can't blame them but if what's the Spurs doing is giving them championship then they should keep what they're doing/
2007-06-20 09:32:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
They are a fundamental team and just focus on the basics. No spectacular dunks or cool moves. They have no 'star' players. When I mean stars I mean people like Iverson, Nowitzki, etc.
2007-06-20 10:29:36 · answer #10 · answered by Pat 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋