Do you consider the Spurs a dynasty?

[A10Chief]

Assuming they win their fourth title in nine years this month, would you consider the Spurs to be a dynasty? For some reason I have a hard time placing the "dynasty" tag on them. Maybe it's because they have never won back-to-back titles or because they have done it with basically Duncan and a bunch of other guys you won't remember (except maybe Horry and David Robinson). The Bulls had Jordan, Pippen, and Jackson. The Lakers had Magic, Worthy, Kareem, and Riley (and some other really good players like Cooper and AC Green) and later Shaq and Kobe (and Horry). The Celtics had Bird, DJ, the Chief, McHale, etc. The only constants for the Spurs are Duncan and Popovich, who is actually a very forgettable coach, great though he may be. So how do the Spurs of 1999-2007 fit the "dynasty" label?

[Clarkmeister]

Of course they are.

[legend42]

I say definitely.

First, I think you can consider '99 gravy, and just look at the past five years, which would be the third title with Duncan/Parker/Manu/Bowen, and people will remember those guys.

They've actually been unlucky not to make more finals (Derek Fisher's 0.4 second miracle, losing game 7 at home in OT after Dirk's incredible three-point play, suffering through three years of Shaq/Kobe before that).

The 80s Celtics you mention never won back-to-back titles, either.

I think the main criteria is whether we (and future fans studying the game's history) will look back on the team's run and remember what happened in the years they *didn't* make the finals (the way we do with the NBA teams you cited, and the Montana/Young Niners, the Brady/Belichick Pats, the Jeter Yankees, the Ewing Hoyas, etc.). And I think we will do that with this team. After all, I just named the two instances in the past 5 years, for which I didn't have to think for a second, and I'm not a Spurs fan.

[BobboFitos]

sadly, yes

[Shadowrun]

Yes, and any half way decent NBA fan knows who David Robinson is.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
I say definitely.

First, I think you can consider '99 gravy, and just look at the past five years, which would be the third title with Duncan/Parker/Manu/Bowen, and people will remember those guys.

They've actually been unlucky not to make more finals (Derek Fisher's 0.4 second miracle, losing game 7 at home in OT after Dirk's incredible three-point play, suffering through three years of Shaq/Kobe before that).

The 80s Celtics you mention never won back-to-back titles, either.

I think the main criteria is whether we (and future fans studying the game's history) will look back on the team's run and remember what happened in the years they *didn't* make the finals (the way we do with the NBA teams you cited, and the Montana/Young Niners, the Brady/Belichick Pats, the Jeter Yankees, the Ewing Hoyas, etc.). And I think we will do that with this team. After all, I just named the two instances in the past 5 years, for which I didn't have to think for a second, and I'm not a Spurs fan.

[/ QUOTE ]

great post

[onlinebeginner]

the only person to ever put a asterisk on the spurs "shortened year" championship is phil jackson because he's a whiney bitch when he loses or isn't getting all the attention he wants

[IlliniLou]

I consider the Spurs to be "Tim Duncan and whoever fits into a Spurs jersey"

[kioshk]

[ QUOTE ]
I consider the Spurs to be "Tim Duncan and whoever fits into a Spurs jersey"

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider the Spurs to be Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, Bruce Bowen, and a few role players. Parker, Bowen and Ginobili all have 2 of those 3 rings, and Ginobili should have been Finals MVP in 2005.

[Josh W]

Absolutely.

edit to say: Moreso than the Lakers. People will put asterisks on 2 of the Spurs titles (this year, and the lockout shortened year), but the Lakers twice won conference finals in very tough matches against injury depleted kings teams...never full strength)