The Spurs are overrated in the annals of history

[3ball]

.
The Spurs weren't capable or dominant enough to win back-to-back - they could only win one-off rings after superior dynasties fell off, which isn't as impressive as BEING those superior dynasties that can dominate continuously.

The Spurs teams were the same caliber as any other one-off winner, like the 2004 Pistons or 2011 Mavs - so not good enough to be a dynasty - except the Spurs maintained their less-than dynasty caliber for 15 years.



The Jordan Angle: It makes sense that the non-dynasty caliber of the Spurs would get destroyed by ACTUAL dynasty teams like Shaq/Kobe's Lakers.. And we got a glimpse of how they fared in the Bulls' heyday - Duncan, Robinson, and Popovich won 56 games in 1998 but were destroyed in the playoffs by the Jazz, who got crushed by Jordan in the Finals.

So Duncan/Popovich's Spurs couldn't touch Jordan's Bulls, and would've been doormats just like the Jazz and everyone else.. Look at Jordan in his first meeting with Duncan/Popovich/Robinson in 1998 - he MADE (https://i.makeagif.com/media/10-05-2015/rP-QUs.gif) the walk-off 3-pointer from the exact same spot of Lebron's infamous miss - then MJ dominated the overtime, including 2 dunks (https://media.giphy.com/media/26FPq7nUqs2V8LyNO/giphy.gif) over Duncan.. So again - the Spurs would be doormats for Jordan just like everyone else, which shouldn't be a surprise, since we know they were NON-DYNASTY CALIBER.
.

[Paul George 24]

.
The Spurs won in 1999 because they played the Knicks in the Finals instead of Jordan's Bulls - so their first ring was won only AFTER a superior dynasty was broken up, just like all their other rings, as explained below.

After 1999, the Spurs disappeared while Kobe/Shaq were making a historic dynasty, and only won again AFTER Kobe/Shaq started to break up and Kobe had his rape charge (2003-2007 period).

Then the Spurs disappeared again while Kobe/Pau had their epic run, and only won again AFTER Kobe hurt his achilles and was finished.

Clearly, all of the Spurs rings occurred AFTER a superior dynasty broke up.. So the Spurs were not a great dynasty themselves - they merely played the longevity game and waited for powerhouse dynasties to drop off and leave a power vacuum/opportunity.. Far be it for the Spurs to win back-to-back and be a dynasty themselves - they simply weren't good enough for that.


The Jordan Angle: It makes sense that the non-dynasty caliber of the Spurs would get destroyed by ACTUAL dynasty teams like Shaq/Kobe's Lakers.. And we got a glimpse of how they fared in the Bulls' heyday - Duncan, Robinson, and Popovich won 56 games in 1998 but were destroyed in the playoffs by the Jazz, who got crushed by Jordan in the Finals.

So Duncan/Popovich's Spurs couldn't touch Jordan's Bulls, and would've been doormats just like the Jazz and everyone else.. Look at Jordan in his first meeting with Duncan/Popovich/Robinson in 1998 - he MADE (https://i.makeagif.com/media/10-05-2015/rP-QUs.gif) the walk-off 3-pointer from the exact same spot of Lebron's infamous miss - then MJ dominated the overtime, including 2 dunks (https://media.giphy.com/media/26FPq7nUqs2V8LyNO/giphy.gif) over Duncan.. So again - the Spurs would be doormats for Jordan just like everyone else, which shouldn't be a surprise, since we know they were NON-DYNASTY CALIBER.
DUNCAN >>>>> KOBE & SHAQ :rockon:

[Ben Simmons]

The Spurs are consistent as a franchise. I thought that was obvious...

[Spurs m8]

3ball, you're usually good, but very wrong here.

Their winning record over the past 17 or so years speaks for itself.

And Kobe is a hyped up loser.

Its not like you to be a fgt

[Dray n Klay]

Wait.. so the 2013 Lakers were a dynasty that the Spurs waited to finish? :lol

[3ball]

3ball, you're usually good, but very wrong here.

Their winning record over the past 17 or so years speaks for itself.


Clearly, all of the Spurs rings occurred AFTER a superior dynasty broke up.

So the Spurs were not a great dynasty themselves - they merely played the longevity game and waited for powerhouse dynasties to drop off and leave a vacuum/opportunity..

Far be it for the Spurs to win back-to-back and be a dynasty themselves - they simply weren't good enough for that... How is anything said in this post wrong?

[RedBlackAttack]

They're the best run franchise in American sports, imo. The consistency and longevity speak for themselves.

I don't care what kind of semantics you want to use to describe it... dynasty or whatever. I just know that what they've built is actually rarer than winning a couple championships in a row.

[Spurs m8]

Clearly, all of the Spurs rings occurred AFTER a superior dynasty broke up.

So the Spurs were not a great dynasty themselves - they merely played the longevity game and waited for powerhouse dynasties to drop off and leave a vacuum/opportunity..

Far be it for the Spurs to win back-to-back and be a dynasty themselves - they simply weren't good enough for that... How is anything said in this post wrong?

Weak coincidences.

And they aren't overrated...they have been somewhat a model franchise and have been successful for a very long time...consistently.

Stats speak for themselves.

[tpols]

the spurs were kinda like scavengers as OP points out.. they basically siphoned rings in between true dynasties.. but it is a testament to their discipline and consistentsy that they hung around for so long. Other teams may have peaked higher but they also burnt out way quicker.

[Dray n Klay]

So did Jordan also play the 'longevity game' and wait for the Celtics/Lakers dynasty to end, and then wait again for the Rockets dynasty to end?

:confusedshrug:




:banana:

[3ball]

They're the best run franchise in American sports, imo. The consistency and longevity speak for themselves.

I don't care what kind of semantics you want to use to describe it... dynasty or whatever. I just know that what they've built is actually rarer than winning a couple championships in a row.
Their longevity is more rare, but it doesn't make their team better or more capable of beating other all-time great teams.

The Spurs couldn't win back-to-back titles and be a dynasty THEMSELVES - they simply weren't good enough for that.

Instead, they played the longevity game and waited for powerhouse dynasties to drop off and leave a vacuum/opportunity.. Succeeding in this longevity strategy might be more rare, but it actually means the team is inferior to other teams that were good enough to win back-to-back.

[Spurs m8]

Their longevity is more rare, but it doesn't make their team BETTER or more capable of beating other all-time great teams.

Far be it for the Spurs to win back-to-back and be a dynasty themselves - they simply weren't good enough for that.

Instead, they played the longevity game and waited for powerhouse dynasties to drop off and leave a vacuum/opportunity.. Succeeding in this longevity strategy might be more rare, but it actually means the team is inferior to other teams that were good enough to win back-to-back.

LOL okay, if you believe that.

[3ball]

So did Jordan also play the 'longevity game' and wait for the Celtics/Lakers dynasty to end, and then wait again for the Rockets dynasty to end?

:confusedshrug:




:banana:


Unlike the Spurs, the Bulls achieved 2 three-peats and a level of domination the Spurs could only dream of.

Otoh, the Spurs weren't good enough to win back-to-back..

Instead, they played the longevity game, and waited for powerhouse dynasties to drop off and create a vacuum/opportunity.. This means their team was never as good as ACTUAL dynasties like the Bulls or Shaq's Lakers, who were dominant enough to win back-to-back.

[Spurs m8]

.
The Spurs won in 1999 because they played the Knicks in the Finals instead of Jordan's Bulls - so their first ring was won only AFTER a superior dynasty was broken up, just like all their other rings, as explained below.

After 1999, the Spurs disappeared while Kobe/Shaq were making a historic dynasty, and only won again AFTER Kobe/Shaq started to break up and Kobe had his rape charge (2003-2007 period).

Then the Spurs disappeared again while Kobe/Pau had their epic run, and only won again AFTER Kobe hurt his achilles and was finished.

Clearly, all of the Spurs rings occurred AFTER a superior dynasty broke up.. So the Spurs were not a great dynasty themselves - they merely played the longevity game and waited for powerhouse dynasties to drop off and leave a power vacuum/opportunity.. Far be it for the Spurs to win back-to-back and be a dynasty themselves - they simply weren't good enough for that.


The Jordan Angle: It makes sense that the non-dynasty caliber of the Spurs would get destroyed by ACTUAL dynasty teams like Shaq/Kobe's Lakers.. And we got a glimpse of how they fared in the Bulls' heyday - Duncan, Robinson, and Popovich won 56 games in 1998 but were destroyed in the playoffs by the Jazz, who got crushed by Jordan in the Finals.

So Duncan/Popovich's Spurs couldn't touch Jordan's Bulls, and would've been doormats just like the Jazz and everyone else.. Look at Jordan in his first meeting with Duncan/Popovich/Robinson in 1998 - he MADE (https://i.makeagif.com/media/10-05-2015/rP-QUs.gif) the walk-off 3-pointer from the exact same spot of Lebron's infamous miss - then MJ dominated the overtime, including 2 dunks (https://media.giphy.com/media/26FPq7nUqs2V8LyNO/giphy.gif) over Duncan.. So again - the Spurs would be doormats for Jordan just like everyone else, which shouldn't be a surprise, since we know they were NON-DYNASTY CALIBER.

Why are you conveniently leaving out the Heat in 14, who were going for their 3rd ring in a row and were basically a dynasty threat, until the Spurs shut that down forever in rape fashion.

05 clear winners.

07 clear winners.

You pick and choose a bit of info to suit some weird agenda.

Weird c*nt

[3ball]

LOL okay, if you believe that.


It's obvious fact to anyone with common sense:

The Spurs weren't good enough to win back-to-back - FACT... So they couldn't be the kind of dominant dynasty that Bulls and Lakers were - FACT.

Instead, they played the longevity game and waited for powerhouse dynasties to drop off and leave a vacuum/opportunity.. Succeeding in this longevity strategy might be more rare, but it actually means the team is inferior to other teams who were good enough to win back-to-back.

[Spurs m8]

It's obvious fact to anyone with common sense:

The Spurs weren't good enough to win back-to-back - FACT... So they couldn't be the kind of dominant dynasty that Bulls and Lakers were - FACT.

Instead, they played the longevity game and waited for powerhouse dynasties to drop off and leave a vacuum/opportunity.. Succeeding in this longevity strategy might be more rare, but it actually means the team is inferior to other teams who were good enough to win back-to-back.

You can think that....go ahead...

You cherry pick info

[tpols]

3ball, the spurs were one shot away from winning back to back .. and a crazy sequence of events before that to lose in a scenario where there was like a 1% chance of them losin. So they definitely could win back to back. That is proven by how close they came to doing it. Literally one random bounce would have proven your theory wrong.

[3ball]

You can think that....go ahead...

You cherry pick info
Don't act surprised - it makes sense that the non-dynasty caliber of the Spurs would get destroyed by ACTUAL dynasty teams like Shaq/Kobe's Lakers.. And we got a glimpse of how they fared in the Bulls' heyday - Duncan, Robinson, and Popovich won 56 games in 1998 but were destroyed in the playoffs by the Jazz, who got crushed by Jordan in the Finals.

So Duncan/Popovich's Spurs couldn't touch Jordan's Bulls, and would've been doormats just like the Jazz and everyone else.. Look at Jordan in his first meeting with Duncan/Popovich/Robinson in 1998 - he MADE (https://i.makeagif.com/media/10-05-2015/rP-QUs.gif) the walk-off 3-pointer from the exact same spot of Lebron's infamous miss - then MJ dominated the overtime, including 2 dunks (https://media.giphy.com/media/26FPq7nUqs2V8LyNO/giphy.gif) over Duncan.. So again - the Spurs would be doormats for Jordan just like everyone else, which shouldn't be a surprise, since we know they were NON-DYNASTY CALIBER.

[TheWinningFam]

3ball, the spurs were one shot away from winning back to back .. and a crazy sequence of events before that to lose in a scenario where there was like a 1% chance of them losin. So they definitely could win back to back. That is proven by how close they came to doing it. Literally one random bounce would have proven your theory wrong.
We know this to be false because we cant predict the future, the same could be said if kyrie/love weren't injured the cavs would have repeated, we could also infer that the 2014 heat would have came back with a vengance and won the 2014 finals, or the 2016 warriors would have been hungrier to beat the cavs.

[Spurs m8]

Don't act surprised - it makes sense that the non-dynasty caliber of the Spurs would get destroyed by ACTUAL dynasty teams like Shaq/Kobe's Lakers.. And we got a glimpse of how they fared in the Bulls' heyday - Duncan, Robinson, and Popovich won 56 games in 1998 but were destroyed in the playoffs by the Jazz, who got crushed by Jordan in the Finals.

So Duncan/Popovich's Spurs couldn't touch Jordan's Bulls, and would've been doormats just like the Jazz and everyone else.. Look at Jordan in his first meeting with Duncan/Popovich/Robinson in 1998 - he MADE (https://i.makeagif.com/media/10-05-2015/rP-QUs.gif) the walk-off 3-pointer from the exact same spot of Lebron's infamous miss - then MJ dominated the overtime, including 2 dunks (https://media.giphy.com/media/26FPq7nUqs2V8LyNO/giphy.gif) over Duncan.. So again - the Spurs would be doormats for Jordan just like everyone else, which shouldn't be a surprise, since we know they were NON-DYNASTY CALIBER.

I love how you ignore my post about the 14 Heat and 05 and 07.

Cherry picking your replies too it seems.

Classic 3ball.

[3ball]

3ball, the spurs were one shot away from winning back to back .. and a crazy sequence of events before that to lose in a scenario where there was like a 1% chance of them losin. So they definitely could win back to back. That is proven by how close they came to doing it. Literally one random bounce would have proven your theory wrong.


The facts are obvious:



1) The Spurs couldn't touch Shaq/Kobe's Lakers until Shaq/Kobe started to split up and Kobe had his rape charge - only then did the Spurs win 3 rings from 2003-2007.

2) And their 1999 ring was only because the Bulls broke up..

3) Achieving one-off rings when superior dynasties fall off isn't as impressive as BEING those superior dynasties that can dominate continuously.

[tpols]

We know this to be false because we cant predict the future, the same could be said if kyrie/love weren't injured the cavs would have repeated, we could also infer that the 2014 heat would have came back with a vengance and won the 2014 finals, or the 2016 warriors would have been hungrier to beat the cavs.

not really.. the Heat weren't that good in 2014.. and statistically were playing in the weakest conference since 1970. The only argument that is viable is that the spurs may have lost some motivation and maybe dropped to the thunder, but i wouldnt bet on that either considering OKC had some injuries.

[knicksman]

At the end of the day, no player has become superstar with duncan like athleticism. But he did not just became a superstar but also won 5 rings. Give him jordans athleticism and i cant imagine what he would do with this league

[3ball]

I love how you ignore my post about the 14 Heat and 05 and 07.


The Spurs' rings in 2005 and 2007 occurred AFTER Shaq/Kobe started to split up and Kobe had his rape charge - so you're making my point.


And their 1999 ring was only because the Bulls broke up..


So i'm sorry, but achieving one-off rings when superior dynasties fall off isn't as impressive as BEING those superior dynasties that can dominate continuously.. :confusedshrug:... :cheers:

[Spurs m8]

The facts are obvious:



1) The Spurs couldn't touch Shaq/Kobe's Lakers until Shaq/Kobe started to split up and Kobe had his rape charge - only then did the Spurs win 3 rings from 2003-2007.

2) And their 1999 ring was only because the Bulls broke up..

3) So I'm sorry, but achieving one-off rings when superior dynasties fall off isn't as impressive as BEING those superior dynasties that can dominate continuously.

So again, what about the 14 Heat dynasty in the making that they wiped the floor with?

What about having the highest winning % in US sports history?

Who's overrating them?

C'mon hot shot, i shouldn't have to ask the same stuff 3 times?

You speak nothing but inconsistent coincidences.

[Young X]

I agree. First of all, they're great and their consistency is amazing and deserves all the praise it gets.

But they're not dominant. Never been a true dynasty.

And people always talk about getting passes. The Spurs get unlimited passes for the times they didn't live up to expectations.

The past 2 years for example, they were expected by damn near everybody to face the Warriors in the WCF and they lose in the 1st and 2nd round. And nobody criticizes them for it.

[3ball]

So again, what about the 14 Heat dynasty in the making that they wiped the floor with?


that's 1 ring out of 5

they were supposed to win in 2012 and 2013 too, but they weren't good enough to repeat





What about having the highest winning % in US sports history?


regular season consistency means literally nothing, especially since it gave the Spurs so many postseason chances that they butchered

ultimately, the Spurs weren't good enough to win 2 in a row - they could only win one-off rings when superior dynasties fell off, which isn't as impressive as BEING those superior dynasties that can dominate continuously.






Who's overrating them?


Everyone, even though the Spurs would get destroyed by all prior NBA dynasty champions.

Teams that are capable of winning multiple titles in a row are obviously better than a team that wins one-off rings by waiting for superior dynasties to fall off.

seriously - jordan would drop 80 on manu

[Spurs m8]

Your whole argument is basically "they had to wait for a dynasty to disappear to ring."

14 they beat a dynasty.
05 and 07, didn't wait for a dynasty to die, clearly won fair game.

Stick to your MJ posts....its the only thing you do good.

[3ball]

Your whole argument is basically "they had to wait for a dynasty to disappear to ring."

14 they beat a dynasty.
05 and 07, didn't wait for a dynasty to die, clearly won fair game.

Stick to your MJ posts....its the only thing you do good.

I'll let my homie ride on you:





I agree. First of all, they're great and their consistency is amazing and deserves all the praise it gets.

But they're not dominant. Never been a true dynasty.

And people always talk about getting passes. The Spurs get unlimited passes for the times they didn't live up to expectations.

The past 2 years for example, they were expected by damn near everybody to face the Warriors in the WCF and they lose in the 1st and 2nd round. And nobody criticizes them for it.

[Spurs m8]

I'll let my homie ride on you:

Yeah look, having the highest wining % in all US sports is some what dominant, in my eyes.

No ones saying they're some crazy dynasty, but people respect the franchise for what they do and the fact they have such a winning and respectable culture, not to mention they never miss the playoffs - ever.

No one says they're better than 96 Bulls or something.

And 5 rings since 99, in a 30 team comp, for a small market team that didn't trade in big free agents is commendable, whether you like it or not.

They're not overrated.

You've just overrated them to suit the agenda of your thread.

[3ball]

Yeah look, having the highest wining % in all US sports is some what dominant, in my eyes.

They're not overrated.

You've just overrated them to suit the agenda of your thread.


The Spurs teams were the same caliber as any other one-off winner - so not good enough to be a dynasty - except the Spurs maintained their one-off caliber for 15 years.. :confusedshrug:

again, one-off champions aren't nearly as good or impressive as a dynasties

[Spurs m8]

The Spurs teams were the same caliber as any other one-off winner - so not good enough to be a dynasty - except the Spurs maintained their one-off caliber for 15 years.. :confusedshrug:

again, one-off champions aren't nearly as good or impressive as a dynasties

No ones calling them a dynasty...

[MaxPlayer]

The Spurs teams were the same caliber as any other one-off winner - so not good enough to be a dynasty - except the Spurs maintained their one-off caliber for 15 years.. :confusedshrug:

again, one-off champions aren't nearly as good or impressive as a dynasties

LOL. 5 titles = 1 title.

Holy shit you're brilliant.