Do you think the Spurs are a dynasty?

Question

I don't think so. Think about this logically. They won every other year for 9 years, totaling 4 championships. Here is a look at each championship, and why they don't add up as a dynasty.

1999 was a lock out year and they didn't even have a full season. The Spus where simply the team that had a midseason streak that year, except midseason was really the playoffs in 1999. Look at most other teams that follow their pattern of a slow start and then a hot midseason, and few actually win a championship (just look at last year's Mavericks, who had a terrible start but ended up as the first seed in the playoffs). No one stood a chance against the Mavericks last year at midseason. They would have swept their way to a championship. Too bad for them the league was stable this year.

2003- The long gap for San Antonio between 1999 and 2003 was filled by a mini-dynasty of the LA Lakers. Kobe and Shaq dominated the rest of the league in the playoffs. The Spurs can't be a (cont.)

... dynasty if they let another team, from their own conference no less, take a championship 3 years in a row. No way can the 1999 championship be included in the Spurs dynasty, in less you want to include the dynasty-killing yeasr of Los Angeles dominance.

2005- The first championship without David Robinson was almost not a championship at all. Had it not been for an supposedly inferior Pistons team melting down in game 7, the Spurs would have lost. Many teams would have put the Pistons to rest in a faster amount of time.

2007- Seriously, anyone could have won this. One team's GM (under the condition of anonymity) said that they would have picked any of the Western playoff teams, and even maybe the Clippers, to beat the Cavs. The Spurs are just the lucky team to make it through the West. Which is questionable in itself since the Mavericks were illiminated and thus never played them, and the series against the Suns was ruined, regardless of if you think it was fair or not

Don't BS me with this idea that keeping a team together is too hard because of free agency. Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, kareem Abdul-Jabar, and many, many more legends of the game could have faced free agency and didn't because of their team's front office savy. This is supposedly a SPurs strong point, so that argument is idiotic.

Since when is winning 4 championships in 9 years dynastic? Look at the few teams that are legitimate dynasties. The Bulls in the 90's would have never lost a championship if not for Jordan's mini-retirement. The Celtics with Bill Russell dominated the competition as well. Do you think the Bulls or Celtics weren't the pick each year to win the title? Of course not. Anyone who picked someone over theBulls or Celtics would have been an idiot. But to argue that the Spurs won't win the next championship is easy, and no one thinks you're an idiot. Hell, the Spurs aren't the favorite to win it at the beginning of nearly every playoff season. This is not a dynasty. Winning it every other year for 3 titles is not impressive on a dynastic scale.

People who have said the Spurs are a dynasty are missing the point. Just calling the Spurs the best team of the decade does not make them a dynasty. The Reason the Bulls in the 90's or the Celtics in the 60's were dynasties is that they constantly won championships annd were the favorites every year. Thats not the case with the Spurs. In most seasons, they aren't the top team in their conference in the regular season, and in over half the seasons they've played they haven't won a championship, on top of the fact that they haven't won 2 in a row. That's like if a country called itself the world's hegemon, but lost half the wars it fought. To be a dynasty, you need to win at least 50% of the championships in a 10 year span. They haven't. Period. The Spurs are a very good team in an era that does not have more than 5 legitimately great teams. They have not dominated their era (this is why the Celtics and Lakers of the 80's aren't dyansties).

Answer 1

I'm only 15 so I hardly remember there first one of this Spurs era, but I dont think its a dynasty. Sure they one 4 in 9 years, but they never even won 2 in a row. I barely consider Shaq and Kobe's Lakers to be a dynasty and they won not only 2, but 3 in a row. I still think they are a great team, and Tim Duncan is the best player of this generation, and should and will go down as the best power forward to play the game.

Answer 2

Depends...if you are asking for continous NBA trophies, then you are right...but to be a dynasty...they win many champs and
be in a playoff....I believe Spurs did this all seasons since 2000.
So I call them a dynasty.....
But if you are looking for the term dynasty as Celtics, Lakers did in 70s and 80s.....I do not think, any team can do that these days due to free agencies and cap.

Answer 3

The spurs are no doubt a dynasty of this decade. When your teams wins championships every other year and makes it into the playoffs as one of the top teams, your team is no doubt, a dynasty. And I have one simple reason for why the Spurs have been so dominant: DEFENCE.

Answer 4

When you are clearly the best team in the NBA for a decade it sure looks like a dynasty. Perhaps not the greatest Dynasty (Celtics) of the sixtys' but if we compare to that the Bulls were not a dynasty.

Answer 5

without a doubt u must b a fan of a loser team or 1 dat d spurs kikd butt on.if ur a suns fan,get over it!!!! if ur a fakers fan,get over it as well,u wont b seeing a championship in a long *** time chump!!!

Answer 6

not yet, maybe if they win another 1 in the next two years

Answer 7

i think spurs dynasty

Answer 8

no, but they are the closest thing to a dynasty.

Answer 9

yes

Answer 10

i don't think so

they never went back to back