The San Antonio Spurs have never repeated....vol LOL LOL LOL

[darthska]

Yeah, those damn pesky fans of their team.

 

[jellybean24]

Originally Posted by 23ska909red02

I want an answer to this: if a team literally WON the Finals every EVEN year and lost in the Conference Finals every ODD year, you wouldn't call that a dynasty?!

no...if you cannot win back to back just even once...you are not a dynasty....
like in boxing...winning once means means nothing...you gotta defend the title to be considered a dynasty

 

[darthska]

Thanks.

 

[gregbutler20]

Originally Posted by jellybean24

Originally Posted by 23ska909red02

I want an answer to this: if a team literally WON the Finals every EVEN year and lost in the Conference Finals every ODD year, you wouldn't call that a dynasty?!

no...if you cannot win back to back just even once...you are not a dynasty....
like in boxing...winning once means means nothing...you gotta defend the title to be considered a dynasty

Well with that logic the rockets from 94 and 95 were a dynasty.....even with just a two year run? And say what you want about the spurs, but they are consistently one of the  best teams defensively every year for all 11. I remember they created some downright depressing games to watch because of it.

 

[darth dnzy]

--1. The Spurs are FAR from being clowns.
--2. They were 0.4 away from being a dynasty.
--3. Injuries keeping their main 3 from being together on the court at once have kept them out the past few yrs.

--I respect the rings. Yes, even the '99 one. But for the record they are not a dynasty. And they are not the team of the decade as some would presume.

 

[Johnny_Cakes]

I guess I have a pretty strict definition of a dynasty, because I think of it as having won consecutive titles as well. Either way, nothing takes away from what the Spurs have accomplished. Great, great team.

 

[M. Fresh]

Lets say we did repeat I'm sure "some" Lakers fans would still say we are clowns because we didnt 3 peat. Its the same story all the time from the same fans. Regardless if you consider the spurs a Dynasty, you know its always a fight and good game when we play each other. Just give respect,

 

[do be doo]

Originally Posted by DARTH DNZY


--1. The Spurs are FAR from being clowns.
--2. They were 0.4 away from being a dynasty.
--3. Injuries keeping their main 3 from being together on the court at once have kept them out the past few yrs.

--I respect the rings. Yes, even the '99 one. But for the record they are not a dynasty. And they are not the team of the decade as some would presume.

1. true
2.and a MANU foul.
3.

-- The regular season doesn't matter remember LA fan. why would it matter in a SHORT season? So how do you NOT respect the 1st chip?

  

 

[darth dnzy]

Originally Posted by Do Be Doo

Originally Posted by DARTH DNZY


--1. The Spurs are FAR from being clowns.
--2. They were 0.4 away from being a dynasty.
--3. Injuries keeping their main 3 from being together on the court at once have kept them out the past few yrs.

--I respect the rings. Yes, even the '99 one. But for the record they are not a dynasty. And they are not the team of the decade as some would presume.

1. true
2.and a MANU foul.
3.

-- The regular season doesn't matter remember LA fan. why would it matter in a SHORT season?

  

--You know I'm smarter than that Do Be.
--Thats what I meant. It WOULDNT matter if it was a shrt season or not. I was just pointing that fact out to everyone else.

--Like DC said though, I think a dynasty should at LEAST repeat.
  

 

[three6mafia2007]

definitely a Great team over that time span, but not a dynasty imo

 

[cedric ceballos 1995 lakers]

Originally Posted by DARTH DNZY

Originally Posted by Do Be Doo

Originally Posted by DARTH DNZY


--1. The Spurs are FAR from being clowns.
--2. They were 0.4 away from being a dynasty.
--3. Injuries keeping their main 3 from being together on the court at once have kept them out the past few yrs.

--I respect the rings. Yes, even the '99 one. But for the record they are not a dynasty. And they are not the team of the decade as some would presume.

1. true
2.and a MANU foul.
3.

-- The regular season doesn't matter remember LA fan. why would it matter in a SHORT season?

  

--You know I'm smarter than that Do Be.
--Thats what I meant. It WOULDNT matter in a short season. I was just pointing that fact out to everyone else.

--Like DC said though, I think a dynasty should at LEAST repeat.
  

them failing to repeat will always be the one flaw on their resume.

to me the 99 title is perfectly legit.  if the lakers won in 99 like they were favored to do before the season went awol i woulda considered it a legit title because all 29 teams played 50 games that year so it is what it is plus the spurs were without a doubt the best team in the league that year.

there a dynasty but i don't know how anyone could call them the team of the 2000's and say it with a straight face when they won one less title then their main rival and also lost to their main rival 4 out of the 5 times they met in the playoffs in the decade with 3 of those series being one sided.  that's not a shot at the spurs it's true facts. that being said i'd take the 2000's spurs over the 90's rockets and bad boys pistons any day of the week.

 

[darth dnzy]

--^ yeah that what I was trying to point out. The 99 one is perfectly LEGIT.

 

[goldmember]

GREAT franchise. NOT a dynasty.

How can you call them a dynasty if they can't even defend their title though?

If you meant by able to stay on top for number of years (even without repeating) , then it's you're own opinion..

 

[do be doo]

Originally Posted by The Fresh Sole

Lets say we did repeat I'm sure "some" Lakers fans would still say we are clowns because we didnt 3 peat. Its the same story all the time from the same fans. Regardless if you consider the spurs a Dynasty, you know its always a fight and good game when we play each other. Just give respect,

Co-sign.

Cedric Ceballos 1995 Lakers wrote:

---

that being said i'd take the 2000's spurs over the 90's rockets and bad boys pistons any day of the week.

I would also take them even if they were down 3-2 in the finals with homecourt for the last two game. I love my SPURS that much.

  

 

[cedric ceballos 1995 lakers]

Originally Posted by Do Be Doo


I would also take them even if they were down 3-2 in the finals with homecourt for the last two game. I love my SPURS that much.

  

 

[letitshine24]

Your a moron, sign off.

 

[esydc]

You're...as for the Spurs, heck yeah dynasty...

that 50-32 the worst record.

 

[tcerda]

.4 second shot by Derek Fisher to beat the Spurs in 04 and Dirk's and1 to send the game in OT in game 7 of the conference Finals. Those 2 plays literally cost the Spurs from winning 5 Championships in a row.

    I guess these two plays keep them out of Dynasty talk

 

[westcoastsfinest]

IMO you dont have to repeat to be a dynasty, just as long as you win it on a consistent basis. the spurs did it in 99, 03,05,07 sounds like a dynasty to me.

 

[proshares]

Originally Posted by LetItShine24

Your a moron, sign off.

   ynori ehT.

 

[JD617]

I understand why some people don't consider them a dynasty because they didn't repeat. I can see both sides of it. But dynasty or not, 4 chips in 9 years is still 4 chips in 9 years, so why argue over semantics?

 

[cornzilla]

I would consider them a dynasty

I mean winning 4 championships and having only 50 wins as the worst record in that span is pretty impressive. 

 

[CP1708]

TCERDA wrote:

---

.4 second shot by Derek Fisher to beat the Spurs in 04 and Dirk's and1 to send the game in OT in game 7 of the conference Finals. Those 2 plays literally cost the Spurs from winning 5 Championships in a row.

    I guess these two plays keep them out of Dynasty talk

Wrong. 

While big plays and series changers, there is ZERO guarantee that the Spurs just go on winning.  Sac won game 5 against us in 02, we won game 6 and 7.  No reason we couldn't have done that to the Spurs in 04 if Fisher's shot missed. 

And Wade shot 750 free throws a game vs the Mavs no defense playing team.  We would still be watching the 2006 finals live with the amount of free throws Wade would get with Bruce Bowen and the Spurs playing him in 06. 

So what you're saying is pointless as me saying that if Horry hits the 3 in game 5 in 03 we would have gone to 5 straight finals and won 4 of them etc etc etc. 

Door swings both ways.  Don't get carried away. 



As for the actual topic at hand, Spurs, great franchise/run but not dynasty.  They are not some team that simply can not be vanquished, every other year someone knocks them out.  Usually us. 

 

[mronegative]

I disagree. I still sincerely think Stern had it out for Cuban after that David Letterman appearance where he acted like a jack %+! and said the series was basically over when it was 2-0.

Even though Stern was trying to create the new MJ and the Bulls in Miami, I think the Spurs still win that series.

You really wanna test Manu, see if he can't outflop Wade? Be like Black Swan out there.

 

[tcerda]

Originally Posted by CP1708

TCERDA wrote:

---

.4 second shot by Derek Fisher to beat the Spurs in 04 and Dirk's and1 to send the game in OT in game 7 of the conference Finals. Those 2 plays literally cost the Spurs from winning 5 Championships in a row.

    I guess these two plays keep them out of Dynasty talk

Wrong. 

While big plays and series changers, there is ZERO guarantee that the Spurs just go on winning.  Sac won game 5 against us in 02, we won game 6 and 7.  No reason we couldn't have done that to the Spurs in 04 if Fisher's shot missed. 

And Wade shot 750 free throws a game vs the Mavs no defense playing team.  We would still be watching the 2006 finals live with the amount of free throws Wade would get with Bruce Bowen and the Spurs playing him in 06. 

So what you're saying is pointless as me saying that if Horry hits the 3 in game 5 in 03 we would have gone to 5 straight finals and won 4 of them etc etc etc. 

Door swings both ways.  Don't get carried away. 



As for the actual topic at hand, Spurs, great franchise/run but not dynasty.  They are not some team that simply can not be vanquished, every other year someone knocks them out.  Usually us. 

Havent we argued in the boxing forum before??? Anywho, Please dont compare Bruce Bowens defense to any of the Mavs defense that year. I think you're getting carried away yourself. While I admit. My post was pretty bold, but not far fetched. You and me both know this.