Who thinks the Spurs should be considered a dynasty?

Question

The spurs have won 4 championships in 9 years. Do you think this makes them a dynasty?

Answer 1

I don't like terms like to be "like Mike" or to be a "dynasty".

I do like the fact that in the 10 year Duncan era, the Spurs are the winningest major sports team franchise in the U.S. or Canada.

Now, no one can dispute the Bill Russell Celtics claim of a dynasty for winning 8 NBA championships in a row, or like also in the past Montreal won 5 NHL championships in a row. I think the baseball Yankees won 5 MLB World Series in a row.

No one is ever going to be like Bill Russell again and win 11 NBA rings in 12 NBA Finals in a 13 year NBA career combined with Russell's two NCAA college basketball championships.

Just go with the flow of the current time period and win like Tim Duncan.

The era of free agency has ended the era of 5 team championships in a row in major sports.

The Lakers did win three championships from 2000 to 2002 when Tim Duncan suffered a major injury right at the end of the 2000 season where Duncan could not play in the 2000 playoffs and Duncan would be healthy all year long until the 2001 and 2002 playoffs when finally each year that major injury came back.

Coach Pop rebuilds the Spurs with 4 or 5 new players at a minimum every year in the era of free agency and Duncan is the only sure Hall of Famer on the Spurs. Duncan did play with Robinson in Robinson's last days when Robinson was no longer a force.

But, 4 championships in 9 years is not bad. Even all of the Mark Cuban dollars or Dr. Buss dollars have not been able to buy 4 championships in the last 9 years.

The interesting concept is though if Tim Duncan had not suffered a major injury in 2000 which came back in the 2001 and 2002 playoffs and had the Spurs "Big Three" not played so much internationally in 2002, 2003, and 2004 preparing for the 2004 Olympics and had Tim Duncan not played all of 2006 regular season and playoffs with a Cleveland Cavs Hughes type foot injury, then it would be an interesting thought that the Spurs, and this is only a thought, potentially, could have been in the NBA Finals in 1999 (they swept the Shaq-Kobe-Horry Lakers), 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 or 9 straight NBA Finals in the Tim Duncan era. Even Bill Russell never played in 9 straight NBA Finals winning his 11 NBA rings as a player.

No doubt, the Spurs have the best winning percentage in all of major team sports in the U.S. and Canada in the Tim Duncan era over the last 10 years, and, all of the dollars in the world cannot buy you that plus 4 NBA championships in the last 9 years.

I call that exceptionally good as the Spurs have dominated the NBA over the last 10 year like no other team has including having a 19-6 record against Phoenix in the last 25 games played against Phoenix, so the Spurs never have been and are no fluke.

The Spurs are blessed with Duncan, and as long as Duncan remains healthy, then the Spurs can hope for equal success.

And to think that the Spurs Big Three are under firm contract for many years into the future. I guess the NBA fan will have to put up with the "boring" Spurs who can outrun any team in the league if they so choose.

The 2007 NBA championships shows how versatile the Spurs are as they defeated the two most "uptempo" teams in the NBA and then went on to defeat the two best rebounding teams in the NBA who played good to great defense.

Answer 2

Hey...do not be hatin' on Larry. He's one of the most first-rate. Give him props. He's one of the most primary causes why basketball had a growth within the eighty's via the early 2000s. Anyway, Bird's Celtics aren't quite a dynasty. I imply, 3 titles within the eighty's is undoubtedly giant, however now not precisely a dynasty. The Spurs have gained 3 championships within the span of 5 years, and if you happen to exclude the opposite years, then technically, the Spurs are correctly, a dynasty. Also, the cause why their popularity of a dynasty staff is disputed is due to the fact the Spurs' final 3 titles got here within the 2000s, at the same time their first ever identify used to be in 1999. Technically, if you happen to believe approximately it, the Spurs from the span of 1999-2007 are a dynasty, profitable 4 titles in 9 seasons, practically as powerful because the eighty's Lakers dynasty. Thus, if we needed to pick, the Spurs are without problems a dynasty...however the Celtics are well too, guy. Don't be hatin'.

Answer 3

I'm a HUGE Spurs fan & I'm sick & tired of this dynasty talk.

Let's just go with the facts:

Th Spurs have won 4 of the last 9 NBA Titles & they have the highest winning percentage in all of the major Sports (NBA, MLB, NHL, NFL) in the Tim Duncan Era.

Let's leave it at that.

As long as the Big 3 (Duncan, Ginobili & Parker) is around they're bound to win another title or two in the next 3-5 yrs. Better yet, repeat next year & win again in 2009 for a three peat.

By then, it would be Ok to revive all this Dynasty talk.

Answer 4

No, they aren't. In fact, when yo uthink about it, that is a rediculous claim.

First of all, their first title (in 1999) was followed by 3 Lakers titles. How can you say that 4 titles in 9 years is more impressive than 3 in a row? At the very least, they are equally impressive. Thus, both the Lakers and Spurs would have to be consideredx dynasties in a 9 year span. Yet, the whole point of a dynasty is that you are the undisputed best for at least the majority of the years your "dynasty" spans.

But no one would argue the Spurs were even the best team in the west for a third of the 9 year "dynasty", so is is simply rediculous to call the Spurs a dynasty.

Still don't buy it? Well, how about the fact that the Spurs are yet to have a repeat performance on their title? So far, the Spurs have not won 2 titles in a row, something that I think everyone can agree would be a simple thing for a dynastic team.

No, the Spurs aren't even close to a dynasty. They are jsut a consistantly good team in an era where better teams don't last very long.



To the first answer, no, the Spurs did not make the finals all 9 years.

Answer 5

I no longer care whether other people consider them a dynasty or not. They've dominated the NBA for the last 9 years. That's good enough for me.

Answer 6

Yup all the teams are dynasty's even the bobcats.


GO SPURS GO!!!

Answer 7

I don't...as good as they are, i still dont think they should be considered as dynasty , till they win back to back then they will get all the respect they deserve , dynasty is a strong word specially for a team that never wins twice in a row.

Answer 8

Yes, I think this and the fact that they're the winningist team for a decade in ALL of pro sports is also noteworthy. That said the Spurs suck, are a dirty team, are boring and the Suns got robbed!

Answer 9

Definitely and they have made the finals every year for those nine years. Every chance they got to play in the finals they won it.

Answer 10

While I do not want to take anything away from what they have accomplished, a dynasty should have at least one back-to-back championship run under their belt, in my opinion. So my answer is, No.