The spurs were never a dynasty due to the fact they never could

[PWB15]

REPEAT

won title in 99, 03, 05, 07 and 14. They are never won back to back or 3 titles out of 4 years like the Lakers of the 80's, Bulls of the 90's and Lakers of 00's. They were a winning organization over a period of 20 years but no where near a dynasty.

[SpaceJam2]

Suuuure


https://media.giphy.com/media/jFJW3hOGQgTUk/giphy.gif

[SouBeachTalents]

3 titles in 5 years and 4 in 9 is "nowhere near" a dynasty?

That's a cool story bro

[SpaceJam2]

3 titles in 5 years and 4 in 9 is "nowhere near" a dynasty?

That's a cool story bro

Op got us like:

https://i.postimg.cc/Y9Ss6xzk/tenor.gif

[PWB15]

3 titles in 5 years and 4 in 9 is "nowhere near" a dynasty?

That's a cool story bro


Definition of a Dynasty

1. Winning back to back

2. Winning 3 titles in 4 years or 4 in 5 years

[SpaceJam2]

Definition of a Dynasty

1. Winning back to back

2. Winning 3 titles in 4 years or 4 in 5 years


https://media3.giphy.com/media/mueoRj5u6RHeU/giphy.gif

[SouBeachTalents]

Definition of a Dynasty

1. Winning back to back

2. Winning 3 titles in 4 years or 4 in 5 years
You can believe that, but imo 3 in 5 & 4 in 9>>>b2b titles, and it's not remotely close. You can take the 90's Rockets run, I'd much prefer the post Jordan Spurs

[Rico2016]

Hmm okay then, so that means the Miami Heat were a "dynasty" for 2012 and 2013 but the Spurs were not for 99, 03, 05, 07?

https://media1.giphy.com/media/25A17crsUbYje/giphy.gif

[Rico2016]

Oh yeah, and what if you never even won a single Finals at all, like the 96 Sonics, 97 Jazz, 92 Blazer, 93 Suns are those dynasties? :confusedshrug:

https://media1.giphy.com/media/25A17crsUbYje/giphy.gif

[SpaceJam2]

Oh yeah, and what if you never even won a single Finals at all, like the 96 Sonics, 97 Jazz, 92 Blazer, 93 Suns are those dynasties? :confusedshrug:

https://media1.giphy.com/media/25A17crsUbYje/giphy.gif


:lol Those teams are called "Jordan golden sticker star" teams :lol

https://rlv.zcache.com/custom_message_gold_star_with_gold_glitter_texture _star_sticker-r8c6018b4e6f64bd4b7386ba858eb00be_v9w09_8byvr_540. jpg

[MJistheGOAT]

2014 is the outlier.

The 99-07 with 4 rings in 9 years and 3 in 5 years is clearly a dynasty.

[PWB15]

You can believe that, but imo 3 in 5 & 4 in 9>>>b2b titles, and it's not remotely close. You can take the 90's Rockets run, I'd much prefer the post Jordan Spurs


Too many gaps. It was 3 in 6 years.....03, 05, 07

[SpaceJam2]

The 99-07 with 4 rings in 9 years and 3 in 5 years is clearly a dynasty.

No doubt about it.

https://i.postimg.cc/5y7G1C1p/giphy.gif

[SpaceJam2]

Too many gaps. It was 3 in 6 years.....03, 05, 07

Maths > You

3 in 5 years buddy boy

Stay in school :no:

[PWB15]

Hmm okay then, so that means the Miami Heat were a "dynasty" for 2012 and 2013 but the Spurs were not for 99, 03, 05, 07?

https://media1.giphy.com/media/25A17crsUbYje/giphy.gif

No because it wasn't connected to 3 titles in 4 years or 4 in 5 years. Same reason why the Pistons of late 80's wasn't a dynasty....89, 90

[SpaceJam2]

No because it wasn't connected to 3 titles in 4 years or 4 in 5 years. Same reason why the Pistons of late 80's wasn't a dynasty....89, 90

Go to bed son, you're slipping

[PWB15]

2014 is the outlier.

The 99-07 with 4 rings in 9 years and 3 in 5 years is clearly a dynasty.


Dynasty means domination, they never repeated:facepalm

2003, 2005, 2007, 2014 is called a winning organization not a dynasty. Just like the Celtics of the 80's...........81, 84, 86 was not a dynasty

[SpaceJam2]

Dynasty means domination, they never repeated:facepalm

2003, 2005, 2007, 2014 is called a winning organization not a dynasty. Just like the Celtics of the 80's...........81, 84, 86 was not a dynasty

Welcome to the land of make believe

https://i.postimg.cc/1R6MHTXS/PessimisticLeftCowbird-size_restricted.gif

[MJistheGOAT]

Dynasty means domination, they never repeated:facepalm

2003, 2005, 2007, 2014 is called a winning organization not a dynasty. Just like the Celtics of the 80's...........81, 84, 86 was not a dynasty

Pistons 89-90, Rockets 94-95, Lakers 09-10, Heat 12-13 are dynasties????

[PWB15]

Maths > You

3 in 5 years buddy boy

Stay in school :no:


3 in 5 but it was 2 gaps. 2004 Pistons, 2006 Heat. Can't have any gaps

[sdot_thadon]

Dynasty means winning for a long period of time. 5 chips in 15 years is a dynasty only the Lakers have as many in that same frame of time. Also they had pretty much the same core the entire time as well.

[PWB15]

Pistons 89-90, Rockets 94-95, Lakers 09-10, Heat 12-13 are dynasties????


No because of the Bulls in 91, Bulls in 96, Mavs in 2011 and Spurs in 2014

[SouBeachTalents]

Pistons 89-90, Rockets 94-95, Lakers 09-10, Heat 12-13 are dynasties????
Yep, the 94-95 Rockets, with 2 titles/2 Finals in the entire decade; dynasty

The 80's Celtics, 3 titles/5 Finals in 7 years; not a dynasty

Shit definitely checks out :applause:

[PWB15]

Dynasty means winning for a long period of time. 5 chips in 15 years is a dynasty only the Lakers have as many in that same frame of time. Also they had pretty much the same core the entire time as well.


These are the dynasties since 1980

Lakers...85, 87, 88
Bulls......91, 92, 93
Bulls......96, 97, 98
Lakers....00, 01, 02
Warriors...15, 17, 18

[PWB15]

Yep, the 94-95 Rockets, with 2 titles/2 Finals in the entire decade; dynasty

The 80's Celtics, 3 titles/5 Finals in 7 years; not a dynasty

Shit definitely checks out :applause:


Yeah that was dominance, won a title in 81 and not another until 84:oldlol:

[SamuraiSWISH]

No shit they weren’t a dynasty.

You have to go back to back at least once to be at dynasty. Tim Duncan couldn’t even win a gold medal with team USA. And people want to claim the spurs were a dynasty LOL it cheapens the value of the word. They were the greatest vulture champions ever.

They would come along every so often when some truly great team would fall off, and they would steal a championship here and there over the long course of time.

The ancient versions of Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker putting an ass whooping on an in their prime super friends Miami Heat in 2014 is proof of this.

[SpaceJam2]

3 in 5 but it was 2 gaps. 2004 Pistons, 2006 Heat. Can't have any gaps

Stop being a dumbass thanks

[SpaceJam2]

[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH]No shit they weren

[Uncle Drew]

TIL 09-10 Lakers = dynasty, 97-14 Spurs = not dynasty.

[Uncle Drew]

TIL the Patriots were a missed FG away from not being a dynasty. Do you people hear yourselves? What messed up wiring in your head comes up with these thoughts? :oldlol:

[baudkarma]

MY Definition of a Dynasty

1. Winning back to back

2. Winning 3 titles in 4 years or 4 in 5 years

There, fixed it for you. As you've probably noticed by now, your opinion is not shared by the majority.

[SpaceJam2]

There, fixed it for you. As you've probably noticed by now, your opinion is not shared by the majority.

I know right :lol

tHeY onLy wOn 3 iN 5 yEaRs nOt gOoD eNouGh :hammerhead:

[Uncle Drew]

His definition doesn't make sense whatsoever in the first place. If you win 3 in 4, you have to win back to back. If you win 4 in 5, you have to win back to back.

[Real14]

I definitely agree with this:applause:

[MrFonzworth]

I definitely agree with this:applause:
As if OP couldn't be more exposed as a retard, here ypu come agreeing with him :roll::roll:

When's the diss track being released dumb bitch?

[Real14]

As if OP couldn't be more exposed as a retard, here ypu come agreeing with him :roll::roll:

When's the diss track being released dumb bitch?
You dumb as f.uck for even going against the OP just cuz your bitch ass is a bron stain.:lol OP is obviously telling facts. Learn young grasshopper.

[Bawkish]

i kinda agree with the OP

to consider yourself as a dynasty, you could've at least won back to back then at some point won it again, maybe 2 out of 4 or 1 out of 2

you basically establish a streak of your dominance, winning just back to back cannot be considered a dynasty because they're usually "normal" standards

that's why those 90's Rockets or 80's Pistons were not dynasties. Spurs streak has been sparse. Not the usual domination we were accustomed to

[MJistheGOAT]

IMHO, real dynasties are:

60s Celtics
80s Lakers
90s Bulls
00s Lakers (2000-2002)
00s Spurs (2003-2007)
10s GSW (2015-2018)

Arguably:
80s celtics

Not sold on:
Bad Boys
Hakeem Rockets
Shaq less Lakers
Heatles

[SpaceJam2]

As if OP couldn't be more exposed as a retard, here ypu come agreeing with him :roll::roll:

When's the diss track being released dumb bitch?

:lol :lol

Good lord, roasted

[PWB15]

So the LeBron Heat are a dynasty and the Hakeem Rockets are a dynasty, but the Duncan Spurs are not a dynasty?


no because the heat did not win the title in 2015 or 2016

no because the rockets did not win the title in 1996 or 1997

[PWB15]

TIL 09-10 Lakers = dynasty, 97-14 Spurs = not dynasty.

no they are not a dynasty because they did not win a title in 2011 or 2012

[FKAri]

His definition doesn't make sense whatsoever in the first place. If you win 3 in 4, you have to win back to back. If you win 4 in 5, you have to win back to back.
Can't believe no one caught that :oldlol:

[And1AllDay]

Can't believe no one caught that :oldlol:

:oldlol: :applause:

[And1AllDay]

I know right :lol

tHeY onLy wOn 3 iN 5 yEaRs nOt gOoD eNouGh :hammerhead:

OP wow

:oldlol: :roll:

[PWB15]

IMHO, real dynasties are:

60s Celtics
80s Lakers
90s Bulls
00s Lakers (2000-2002)
00s Spurs (2003-2007)
10s GSW (2015-2018)

Arguably:
80s celtics

Not sold on:
Bad Boys
Hakeem Rockets
Shaq less Lakers
Heatles


not the 80's celtics since they won 3 titles in 5 years with a 2 year gap of not even making the finals

[SouBeachTalents]

Threads like these are a waste of time. OP will state his opinion, everyone else in the thread will disagree, but nothing that's said will change his mind.

Believe what you want, just accept that the vast majority of people disagrees with you

[JBSptfn]

IMHO, real dynasties are:

60s Celtics
80s Lakers
90s Bulls
00s Lakers (2000-2002)
00s Spurs (2003-2007)
10s GSW (2015-2018)



The 00-02 Lakers were a soft dynasty. You have to win four to be real. And, their fourth title in the Kobe era came too far after their third. As for the Spurs, their dynasty is from 1999-07 (four rings during that time). I know they won in 14, but that was seven years after their next to last title.

[stalkerforlife]

The Spurs were a dynasty.

The end.

[Jacques Webster]

Too many gaps. It was 3 in 6 years.....03, 05, 07

Damn, my dude. This hurts to read. :(

[Uncle Drew]

Damn, my dude. This hurts to read. :(
Lmao. That one deserves a place in the dumbest things you've heard said thread.

[TheCorporation]

Lmao. That one deserves a place in the dumbest things you've heard said thread.

OP cant even do math so how can we listen to him, it's 3 in 5 years not 6 :lol

[SouBeachTalents]

Lmao. That one deserves a place in the dumbest things you've heard said thread.
Jeff deleted that shit bro :(

[TheCorporation]

Jeff deleted that shit bro :(

Jeff betrayed us :(

[MJistheGOAT]

Damn, my dude. This hurts to read. :(

Anencephalic detected

[FKAri]

Definition of a Dynasty

1. Winning back to back

2. Winning 3 titles in 4 years or 4 in 5 years
Why mention point #2?

[SpaceJam2]

Why mention point #2?

1. Winning back to back

2. Winning 3 titles in 4 years or 4 in 5 years

Or

3. 5 in 6 years or 7 in 8 years or 8 in 9 years :mad:

[tontoz]

5 rings in a stacked conference = dynasty

[SpaceJam2]

5 rings in a stacked conference = dynasty

BUT THEY ONLY WON 3 TIMES IN 5 YEARS
AND 4 IN 9 YEARS
AND 4 IN 12 YEARS :mad:

[tontoz]

BUT THEY ONLY WON 3 TIMES IN 5 YEARS
AND 4 IN 9 YEARS
AND 4 IN 12 YEARS :mad:


If you see a guy with championship rings on every finger, would you ask him how many years there were between the rings?

[SpaceJam2]

If you see a guy with championship rings on every finger, would you ask him how many years there were between the rings?

:oldlol: :roll: :roll:

Great point :applause:

[Overdrive]

How is it not dominant if you lose, come back and win again? 4 times. How is a 9-season championship window less impressive than a 4 year one?

[Ben Simmons 25]

REPEAT

won title in 99, 03, 05, 07 and 14. They are never won back to back or 3 titles out of 4 years like the Lakers of the 80's, Bulls of the 90's and Lakers of 00's. They were a winning organization over a period of 20 years but no where near a dynasty.

This is like arguing that you're not a ****** because you never sucked dick two nights in a row. Everyone knows, OP.

[3ball]

I'm not sure the Spurs make the Finals at all in the 90's full seasons when there was real parity in a stacked West

There were 3-4 juggernauts that took turns having their banner year and losing to MJ in the Finals. I'm not sure the 00's spurs are as good as those teams, or would've competed well in that bloodbath

[SouBeachTalents]

I'm not sure the Spurs make the Finals at all in the 90's full seasons when there was real parity in a stacked West

There were 3-4 juggernauts that took turns having their banner year and losing to MJ in the Finals. I'm not sure the 00's spurs are as good as those 90's teams
:roll: Lakers & Spurs > any team from the 90's West.

You even had teams like the '02 Kings, '04 Wolves, & Nash Suns that never even made the Finals

[3ball]

:roll: Lakers & Spurs > any team from the 90's West
That's interesting

They both got demolished by the jazz.. the Lakers in multiple years

Only when those teams fell off did the lakers/spurs start winning.. they were constant losers before that; Shaq's teams were punching bags

Facts gonna facts but don't let it ruin your day

[SouBeachTalents]

That's interesting

They both got demolished by the jazz.. the Lakers in multiple years

Only when those teams fell off did they start winning

Facts gonna facts but don't let it ruin your day
Who got demolished, the Spurs in Duncan's rookie season? The Lakers with Kobe coming off the bench & before they hired Phil? FOH with your disingenuous bullshit

[3ball]

Who got demolished, the Spurs in Duncan's rookie season? The Lakers with Kobe off the bench and before they hired Phil? FOH with your disingenuous bullshit


Kobe was off the bench because the Lakers started 2 all-star guards ahead of him.. Those teams had more talent than the 00's teams.. the only reason the 00's Lakers started a dynasty was because MJ retired, otherwise the bulls' dynasty with Phil would've continued

Of course, Duncan played 4 years of college and was the same as a rookie as he was any other year.. everyone knows that.. but the 98' jazz still had gas in the tank, so Duncan had to wait until 99'.. it's not like the 98 series could've gone either way - it was a blowout

[rmt]

The Spurs had the highest winning percentage out of all the major sports (not just basketball). They won 5 championships (losing another Final on a Hail Mary from the greatest 3 point shooter ever). They contended for championships from a brutal West Conference for almost every year of Duncan's 19 year career - and they did it with mostly the same core (not colluding/switching teams chasing championships). They were also the model organization of the NBA - copied, imitated, poached of coaches/personnel. And you can bet your last dollar that a big part of Warriors' dynasty is a result of Kerr copying the Spurs.

[Euroleague]

This isn't difficult people....

1. Spurs were not a dynasty

2. Spurs were a juggernaut

The Spurs don't meet the criteria of what a dynasty is, but they clearly meet the criteria of a juggernaut, which is actually higher than a dynasty.

The most impressive are the teams that are both a dynasty and a juggernaut (like the Patriots).

[sdot_thadon]

:wtf:
That's interesting

They both got demolished by the Celtics.. the Pistons in multiple years

Only when those teams fell off did the Bulls start winning.. they were constant losers before that; Mj's teams were punching bags

Facts gonna facts but don't let it ruin your day
Yes we all agree to what you really meant to post.....:applause:

[SamuraiSWISH]

So the LeBron Heat are a dynasty and the Hakeem Rockets are a dynasty, but the Duncan Spurs are not a dynasty?
No the super friends weren’t a dynasty. But they’re closer to it than the Spurs ever were. Back to back and losing 2 times in 4 years doesn’t cut it as a “dynasty” either.

But to be at Dynasty level you at least have to go back to back once. It’s harder to defend a title then it is to win a singular one in a season.

The Warriors since 2015 are on the cusp of it. If they win again this season, their definitively the first dynasty since the 1990s Chicago Bulls.

A three peat and four chips in five years ... lock as the modern dynasty.

[3ball]

:wtf:
Yes we all agree to what you really meant to post.....:applause:
Isiah, Dumars and Rodman were 29/27/28 when MJ beat them - on the right side of 30

Otoh, Stockton and Malone were 35/36 when the Spurs/Lakers started winning

So no, my post stands. Next time, brush up on your history to avoid making errors itt

[And1AllDay]

This is like arguing that you're not a ****** because you never sucked dick two nights in a row. Everyone knows, OP.

OP gotta 1 *** limit per nite to keep him gay free :oldlol:

[SouBeachTalents]

Isiah, Dumars and Rodman were 29/27/28 when MJ beat them - on the right side of 30

Otoh, Stockton and Malone were 35/36 when the Spurs/Lakers started winning

So no, my post stands. Next time, brush up on your history to avoid making errors itt
How old were Duncan & Kobe when they started winning?

[And1AllDay]

This isn't difficult people....

1. Spurs were not a dynasty

2. Spurs were a juggernaut

The Spurs don't meet the criteria of what a dynasty is, but they clearly meet the criteria of a juggernaut, which is actually higher than a dynasty.

The most impressive are the teams that are both a dynasty and a juggernaut (like the Patriots).

:applause: :roll: :applause:

[The Iron Fist]

If the Spurs had a dynasty because they were 4 for 9, then the Lakers were the bigger and better dynasty from 2000-2010.

[3ball]

If the Spurs had a dynasty because they were 4 for 9, then the Lakers were the bigger and better dynasty from 2000-2010.
no question

[And1AllDay]

If the Spurs had a dynasty because they were 4 for 9, then the Lakers were the bigger and better dynasty from 2000-2010.

Kobe was there for all 5 :banana:

[3ball]

How old were Duncan & Kobe when they started winning?


They landed on teams that were good before they got there

But nearly all players lose in their first couple years if they land on bad teams (i.e. Kyrie, Lebron, Jordan) - so mj's first couple seasons don't count against him any more than other players' first few bad seasons

And MJ did great starting in his 3rd healthy season (88'), and nearly made the Finals in 89'.. (would've won it all in 90' if not for the migraine)

[sdot_thadon]

Isiah, Dumars and Rodman were 29/27/28 when MJ beat them - on the right side of 30

Otoh, Stockton and Malone were 35/36 when the Spurs/Lakers started winning

So no, my post stands. Next time, brush up on your history to avoid making errors itt
actually....your post stated nothing of their ages, just them falling off. Falling off doesn't require an age, hell you fell off 2 forums ago tbh. Move them goalposts though, it's your best attribute when faced with ugly truths.:applause:


They landed on teams that were good before they got there

But nearly all players lose in their first couple years if they land on bad teams (i.e. Kyrie, Lebron, Jordan) - so mj's first couple seasons don't count against him any more than other players' first few bad seasons

And MJ did great starting in his 3rd healthy season (88'), and nearly made the Finals in 89'.. (would've won it all in 90' if not for the migraine)

hell why not mention how Mj would have reached the finals in 89 if not for his disappearing act in game 5 of a tied series since we need to mention migraines?

[And1AllDay]

actually....your post stated nothing of their ages, just them falling off. Falling off doesn't require an age, hell you fell off 2 forums ago tbh. Move them goalposts though, it's your best attribute when faced with ugly truths.:applause:



hell why not mention how Mj would have reached the finals in 89 if not for his disappearing act in game 5 of a tied series since we need to mention migraines?

Ether :bowdown:

[JBSptfn]

This isn't difficult people....

1. Spurs were not a dynasty



The Spurs won four titles in nine years. That's kind of a dynasty, even more than NE, which didn't win their fourth for ten years after their third.

[nashwade]

i would say it is kind of a Dynasty cos Timmy was in 5 of them, but it's not a Lakers or Bulls type of dynasty

but seriously, who cares

[SpaceJam2]

OP has 95% of the forum going

https://i.postimg.cc/GtdvtFGn/wtfwtf.jpg

[MJistheGOAT]

If the Spurs had a dynasty because they were 4 for 9, then the Lakers were the bigger and better dynasty from 2000-2010.

6 years between 3rd and 4th title???
I give you 2004 finals as part of the early 00s dynasty, but 2005 missing playoffs, 2006 1st rd 3-1 lead choke and 2007 1st round elimination are a period too long of mediocrity.

[iamgine]

People have different definition of dynasty in sports so let OP has his own definition.

[3ball]

hell why not mention how Mj would have reached the finals in 89 if not for his disappearing act in game 5 of a tied series since we need to mention migraines?


That's nothing compared to lebron's 22 on 35% on 07'...

Or his 26 on 35% in 08' against the Celts...

Or his quit job in 2010

Or the 2011 Finals goat choke


So lebron was horrible compared to anything MJ did.. MJ averaged 30 on 46% in the 89' ecf including a GW over rodman, and almost made the Finals with a 6 seed