Is it a dynasty

[moe94]

if you never repeat? :coleman:

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/files/2013/06/spurs-through-the-years.gif

Serious discussion, no trolling. :no:

[Le Shaqtus]

They've had mostly the same core players get multiple chips, Parker, Manu, and Duncan won 3 titles together. So I think it counts.

[Inferno]

If the team largely stays the same and remains dominant for many years, then yes.

[Jameerthefear]

Yeah

[moe94]

Kobe/Pau Lakers = dynasty

Duncan/Manu/Parker Spurs = not a dynasty

[Milbuck]

The dictionary definition of dynasty is "a family of rulers who rule over a country for a long period of time. In basketball terms I would think this means a team that tops the NBA for a long period of time.

The Spurs have been elite for the whole time, but they have not been rulers of the league for more than one year at a time. Their 4 rings are spread over a period of 9 years. That's impressive, but if we go by definition we can't call them a dynasty because the Lakers have been more dominant from the time of that first Spurs chip to right now.

Russell's Celtics were a dynasty. The MJ-Pippen Bulls were a dynasty. The Shaq-Kobe Lakers were arguably a dynasty with 3 rings and 4 finals in 5 years. I don't know if you can classify the Spurs with those dynasties.

[CelticBaller]

I think so, they've been champions/contenders since Duncan was drafted

[red1]

absolutely

[davehos]

Absolutely they are a dynasty.

How many consecutive playoff appearances?
How many consecutive 50+ win seasons?

The nucleus of the team has won multiple championships.

Every club in the league would give their {insert favorite body part here} to have what the Spurs have had.

Since the '94-95 season the Spurs are the only NBA team to have over 1000 wins.

[navy]

Yes. Close enough.

[moe94]

So you think the bad boys are more of a 'dynasty' than the 80s celtics?

:coleman:

You have brought my argument to a halt. :biggums:

[Black and White]

This Spurs team is def a dynasty, they have been contenders for ages

[The JKidd Kid]

No i always viewed a dynasty as when 1 team dominated the league and won championships for 3 years straight. It doesnt matter if the core changed. If there is a break in time like the Spurs, especially one as long as the Spurs then it just isnt as impressive to me.

[Solefade]

i would say yes, any team that has as much regular season/playoff success consecutively like the spurs have even in "off years" i would consider a dynasty


spurs = patriots of the nba

[DMV2]

Even if you exclude their '99 title because Parker and Manu weren't part of that squad, they still managed to get 3 titles in a span of 5 years ('03, '05 and '07), which makes them a dynasty.

[moe94]

Russell's Celtics were a dynasty. The MJ-Pippen Bulls were a dynasty. The Shaq-Kobe Lakers were arguably a dynasty with 3 rings and 4 finals in 5 years. I don't know if you can classify the Spurs with those dynasties.

Lakers did a 3peat, dude. That's a dynasty. Nothing arguable about it.

[TheMarkMadsen]

So you think the bad boys are more of a 'dynasty' than the 80s celtics?

:coleman:


:facepalm

those Celtics teams played in 5 finals and won more titles of course they are more of dynasty.

big difference between that and winning the finals in 99 then being bounced in the first round the next year

or winning the finals in 03 and being bounced in the 2nd round round the next year

[SCdac]

http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2013/06/11/21/36/u2byF.St.56.jpeg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y147/adrumaddict/San-Antonio-Spurs.jpg


4 championships in 9 years, phenomenal team record, definitely a dynasty :bowdown:

[TheMarkMadsen]

http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2013/06/11/21/36/u2byF.St.56.jpeg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y147/adrumaddict/San-Antonio-Spurs.jpg


4 championships in 9 years, phenomenal team record, definitely a dynasty :bowdown:


:confusedshrug:

[BigMacAttack]

They are a dynasty.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Hell no. Back to back isn't even a dynasty. You have to win at least 3 straight, or if a team won back to back, didn't win a year, then won it the next is the only exception where it could be considered a dynasty. The 2000s Spurs are no dynasty. Consistently very good, same with the Mavericks in the 2000s.

[tpols]

No i always viewed a dynasty as when 1 team dominated the league and won championships for 3 years straight. It doesnt matter if the core changed. If there is a break in time like the Spurs, especially one as long as the Spurs then it just isnt as impressive to me.
they called scavenger chips.. :pimp:

[SamuraiSWISH]

they called scavenger chips.. :pimp:
I coined that term, bro. haha

That's what the Spurs do. If they're as great as their fan base is making them out to be on ISH, a back to back would've at least have been in the cards there. They didn't even do that ... let a lone win three straight.

Defending the throne, staying on the court repeatedly is more difficult to do than winning it every couple three years. Staying on top is a true testament to greatness.

[moe94]

Hell no. Back to back isn't even a dynasty. You have to win at least 3 straight, or if a team won back to back, didn't win a year, then won it the next is the only exception where it could be considered a dynasty. The 2000s Spurs are no dynasty. Consistently very good, same with the Mavericks in the 2000s.

LMFAO @ comparing the Spurs to the Mavs

http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/276/files/2014/02/cant-reach.gif

[tpols]

I coined that term, bro. haha

That's what the Spurs do. If they're as great as their fan base is making them out to be on ISH, a back to back would've at least have been in the cards there. They didn't even do that ... let a lone win three straight.
you mightve:oldlol: i def picked it up off here, and it makes sense.

[BigMacAttack]

LMFAO @ comparing the Spurs to the Mavs

http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/276/files/2014/02/cant-reach.gif

:oldlol:

[SamuraiSWISH]

LMFAO @ comparing the Spurs to the Mavs

http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/276/files/2014/02/cant-reach.gif
Spurs are obviously better than the Mavericks. I'm referring to the arbitrary winning percentage arguments as evidence of a "dynasty" ... Not saying the Mavericks were as good as the Spurs. 3 rings to 1 ring prove the point, obviously.

The Mavericks were contenders the entire decade until 2012. You don't get the label of dynasty if you're not winning consecutive championships, while dominating a league. A dynasty dominates, and wins championships. Plain, and simple.

The Spurs, while consistently very good to great through out the decade, never did that. That has to be accounted for when giving legendary team labels like dynasty.

[NumberSix]

Dynasty isn't just about winning the title a certain amount of times. It's about winning titles + also being a consistent contender.

[rmt]

:facepalm

those Celtics teams played in 5 finals and won more titles of course they are more of dynasty.

big difference between that and winning the finals in 99 then being bounced in the first round the next year

or winning the finals in 03 and being bounced in the 2nd round round the next year

So Bird's team which went to 5 Finals and won 3 is more of a dynasty than Duncan's team which went to 5 Finals and won 4? Somehow Bird never gets knocked for not repeating but Duncan constantly does.

Duncan tore the lateral meniscus in his left knee and eventually had it surgically repaired. That might have a little bit to do with why the Spurs were bounced in the first round.

Well, you know, gotta live with team mates who have brain fuzzes like fouling Dirk when they're up by 3 and having 8 turnovers in NBA Finals game 6. Imagine if Manu doesn't have these mess-ups, Spurs would probably be sitting on a 3-peat (05, 06, 07) and Duncan probably 6 rings and 5 FMVPs. We wouldn't be having this discussion now, would we? Lucky you - but gotta take the good with the bad - and there's been a lot of good being a Spurs fan especially for the past 16 years.

[buddha]

somebody should add some white lines to that gif in OP and make it 3d. it has strong potential.

http://www.wikitree.co.kr/webdata/editor/201402/06/img_20140206103345_abc4d717.gif

http://i.imgur.com/8VqilLi.gif

[SamuraiSWISH]

Dynasty isn't just about winning the title a certain amount of times. It's about winning titles + also being a consistent contender.
No it isn't. It's plain, and simple about winning championships. That's the end game. No one gets points, or hardware for "contending" or "trying" ... every year there is multiple contenders. Usually consistently, too. Are the 2008 - 2012 Celtics a dynasty?

[Jacks3]

never even made back-to-back finals. hell no.

[Milbuck]

Dynasty isn't just about winning the title a certain amount of times. It's about winning titles + also being a consistent contender.
No, it's actually not. It is absolutely about championships. If you're not winning it all, you're not the best. And the definition of dynasty is ruling over something for a long period of time, being the BEST for a long period of time. Never repeating as champions, with 4 chips in 15 years is not ruling over the league or being the best for a long period of time. It's being consistently elite with a few seasons of being the best.

The Spurs organization in the past 20 years have proved themselves to be one of the classiest, most well organized, elite organizations in the league. The Timmy-Tony-Manu-Pop core will be remembered for a long time. But they are not a dynasty. Just consistently elite.

[SamuraiSWISH]

And the definition of dynasty is ruling over something for a long period of time, being the BEST for a long period of time.
Exactly. The literal definition. NumberSix is a moron of the first degree.

[buddha]

I would say the Spurs had a dynasty though. I mean they won 3 championships in a 5 year period. That's better then repeating and 1 notch below a 3 peat. Then when you consider they won 4 'ships in a 9 year period? that's pretty rare and dominant. I'd consider them a dynasty for sure.

[NumberSix]

No it isn't. It's plain, and simple about winning championships. That's the end game. No one gets points, or hardware for "contending" or "trying" ... every year there is multiple contenders. Usually consistently, too. Are the 2008 - 2012 Celtics a dynasty?
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

I'm saying that you can't be a dynasty if you're a non-factor in the years you don't win.

If the heat win this year, you wouldn't say the Heat from 2005-2014 were a dynasty. That would be a 9 season stretch where they went to 5 finals and won 4 championships. The problem though is that there is a gap of 4 years where they were pretty much irrelevant.

What I'm saying is for it to be a dynasty, you have to win titles, but in between titles, you have to still be contending.

[iamgine]

In many cases, whether a team has achieved a dynasty is often subjective, and can be a frequent topic of debate among sports fans.

San Antonio Spurs of 1999 to 2008 led by Tim Duncan. (4 NBA championships (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007) in 9 seasons) are considered a dynasty by some, but not by others because they did not win consecutive titles.

[SamuraiSWISH]

No the Shaq / Kobe Lakers are a dynasty because they won 3 straight chips. The Jordan Bulls are a dynasty because they won 3 straight chips, then came back to win 3 more straight chips. The Bad Boy Pistons are an all time great team but they're not a dynasty even though they won back to back.

[NumberSix]

No, it's actually not. It is absolutely about championships. If you're not winning it all, you're not the best. And the definition of dynasty is ruling over something for a long period of time, being the BEST for a long period of time. Never repeating as champions, with 4 chips in 15 years is not ruling over the league or being the best for a long period of time. It's being consistently elite with a few seasons of being the best.

The Spurs organization in the past 20 years have proved themselves to be one of the classiest, most well organized, elite organizations in the league. The Timmy-Tony-Manu-Pop core will be remembered for a long time. But they are not a dynasty. Just consistently elite.
You agreeing with my exact point. In between titles, there where times when they weren't really contending.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

ITT mid90s Rockets are more of a dynasty than Birds Celtics:roll: :roll: :roll:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

No the Shaq / Kobe Lakers are a dynasty because they won 3 straight chips. The Jordan Bulls are a dynasty because they won 3 straight chips, then came back to win 3 more straight chips. The Bad Boy Pistons are an all time great team but they're not a dynasty even though they won back to back.

What's your take on the 80's Lakers? They won b2b TWICE in one decade.

[NumberSix]

No the Shaq / Kobe Lakers are a dynasty because they won 3 straight chips. The Jordan Bulls are a dynasty because they won 3 straight chips, then came back to win 3 more straight chips. The Bad Boy Pistons are an all time great team but they're not a dynasty even though they won back to back.
So you're definition of dynasty is simply = 3peat?

What about the Magic Lakers? That's not a dynasty? They won titles and in the years they didn't, they were still top contenders.

[NumberSix]

What's your take on the 80's Lakers? They won b2b TWICE in one decade.
:wtf:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

:wtf:

I'm REALLY tired right now. Lets just pretend I didn't say that. :coleman:

Anyway, they did go to like 8 finals in 10 years...they gotta be some sorta dynasty.

[NumberSix]

I'm REALLY tired right now. Lets just pretend I didn't say that. :coleman:

Anyway, they did go to like 8 finals in 10 years...they gotta be some sorta dynasty.
Of course they were a dynasty. They wouldn't be if they were irrelevant between their title years though.

[SamuraiSWISH]

What's your take on the 80's Lakers? They won b2b TWICE in one decade.
Dynasty. They had a name for christ sakes "Showtime Lakers".

[moe94]

Dynasty. They had a name for christ sakes "Showtime Lakers".

Jail Blazers confirmed dynasty.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Dynasty. They had a name for christ sakes "Showtime Lakers".

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2fsuzb3QP1qcmnsoo1_r1_500.gif
:cheers:

[NumberSix]

Dynasty. They had a name for christ sakes "Showtime Lakers".
Bad Boy Pistons = not a dynasty though.



:roll:

[STATUTORY]

Bad Boy Pistons = not a dynasty though.



:roll:

What name should this heat team be given?

[moe94]

Bad Boy Pistons = not a dynasty though.



:roll:

Got em

[SamuraiSWISH]

Well that was backfire statement haha, making myself look stupid. Props to moe94, and Number Six.

Well Magic / Kareem Lakers won '85, then '87 + '88. As I said that fit my pseudo three peat minimum requirement of being a dynasty that I described a few posts back. Not as full fledged, but at least they won back to backs at the least. As I said, it's harder to defend the throne.


What name should this heat team be given?
Miami Cheat doe

[TheMarkMadsen]

What name should this heat team be given?


First there was Showtime, then there was free agent time

[moe94]

Miami cHeat sticks

What about Frobe/Shaq Lakers?

[CelticBaller]

What about Frobe/Shaq Lakers?
Asteriks

[TheMarkMadsen]

Miami cHeat sticks

What about Frobe/Shaq Lakers?


3peat Lakers.

[ralph_i_el]

They've won 50 games every year with Duncan, even the 66 game season.

If you don't think they're a dynasty with that+rings just GTFO

[NumberSix]

Well that was backfire statement haha, making myself look stupid. Props to moe94, and Number Six.

Well Magic / Kareem Lakers won '85, then '87 + '88. As I said that fit my pseudo three peat minimum requirement of being a dynasty that I described a few posts back. Not as full fledged, but at least they won back to backs at the least. As I said, it's harder to defend the throne.


Miami Cheat doe
Not really a backfire at all because there is no definitive criteria for a dynasty. We all kinda just know it when we see it.

[NumberSix]

What name should this heat team be given?
The deciders. :roll:

[Heavincent]

Asteriks

That title is reserved for the spygate era Patriots.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/rf/image_r/Boston/2011-2020/2013/03/20/BostonGlobe.com/Sports/Images/storya.r.jpg

[CelticBaller]

That title is reserved for the spygate era Patriots.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/rf/image_r/Boston/2011-2020/2013/03/20/BostonGlobe.com/Sports/Images/storya.r.jpg
Clear roughing the passer

[Solefade]

winning a 3peat or consistent dominance over a decade (with at least 3-4 championships) i would consider that a dynasty

[Heavincent]

Clear roughing the passer

???

He still had the ball. Not to mention that was before the new ***** rules were put in place.

[SamuraiSWISH]

???

He still had the ball. Not to mention that was before the new ***** rules were put in place.
In today's soft ass, streamlined, fantasy sports centric NFL, that IS ROUGHING the passer.

:oldlol:

[Heavincent]

In today's soft ass, streamlined, fantasy sports centric NFL, that IS ROUGHING the passer.

:oldlol:

Yeah :oldlol:

Seahawks defense kicking the shit out of the Broncos fancy pants offense shows that it's still a defensive league though.

[NumberSix]

Yeah :oldlol:

Seahawks defense kicking the shit out of the Broncos fancy pants offense shows that it's still a defensive league though.
Seattle is a different kind of defense though. They're not like an old school defense that stops the run and pressures the QB. You can run against them more than you can against a team like SF.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Seattle is a different kind of defense though. They're not like an old school defense that stops the run and pressures the QB. You can run against them more than you can against a team like SF.
Yup. It's all in the secondary for Seattle. It's a passing league now, that's why they locked up the best offense / passing attack in Manning's Broncos. Dude's claiming it was as great of a defense as the '85 Bears, and 2000 Ravens out their damn minds though.

[Heavincent]

Seattle is a different kind of defense though. They're not like an old school defense that stops the run and pressures the QB. You can run against them more than you can against a team like SF.

Seattle gets plenty of pressure on the QB. As great as their secondary is, they get a little bit too much credit at times. Peyton was under pressure all night.

They are old school in the sense that they hit really ****ing hard. Those little YAC plays that worked all year for the Broncos were rendered useless because Seattle's defense simply doesn't miss tackles. How many times did we see Broncos receivers take little 3 yard passes for huge gains during the regular season? Seattle was having none of that.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Seattle gets plenty of pressure on the QB. As great as their secondary is, they get a little bit too much credit at times. Peyton was under pressure all night.

They are old school in the sense that they hit really ****ing hard. Those little YAC plays that worked all year for the Broncos were rendered useless because Seattle's defense simply doesn't miss tackles.
Yea, they hit and tackle old school style. 49ers linebackers play this way too. Solid fundamentals, wrap up the ball carrier. It's a lost art, even in the college game. Kids just lead with the shoulder hoping for the big highlight hit, instead of slamming into them and wrapping up.

It hurts more which plays psychologically on the offense, and they also wrap them up to end the play. That's how it's supposed to be done. I saw quite a few Bronco receivers lingering in pain during the Super Bowl from hits.

[CelticBaller]

Lol I was trolling

[NumberSix]

Yup. It's all in the secondary for Seattle. It's a passing league now, that's why they locked up the best offense / passing attack in Manning's Broncos. Dude's claiming it was as great of a defense as the '85 Bears, and 2000 Ravens out their damn minds though.
I don't know about better or worse. It's just a different kind of defense suited to today's game. The 85 Bears defense would not be as good in today's game as Seattle's and vice versa.

[CelticBaller]

2002 Bucs>>

[AintNoSunshine]

Sick gif

IMO and probably most people's, it's not. Neither is a repeat. 3-peat is what I consider a dynasty.

[fpliii]

3 titles with the same core is a dynasty IMO.

[gts]

I've got the Spurs as a Dynasty.. same coach same core, basically at the of the conference year after year...

If they'd changed the rosters core group or won titles with a different coach then I'd say no because of the lack of at least one back to back titles but damn they've been good for so long and they have brought the hardware home

[backb0ard]

Spurs should have gotten the three peat '05-'07 but then they ran into Dirk in his prime. Spurs would have beaten that Heat team easily.

Nevertheless, Spurs are still a dynasty, but they are at the borderline.

[Milbuck]

Spurs should have gotten the three peat '05-'07 but then they ran into Dirk in his prime. Spurs would have beaten that Heat team easily.

Nevertheless, Spurs are still a dynasty, but they are at the borderline.
Good god 3 years of lurking with an account? Or alt?

Also, agreed. Can't see that Spurs team collapsing the way the Mavs did. At the very least they would've done a better job containing Wade. It would've been great to see Bowen guard Wade.