Do you consider the Spurs a dynasty?

[kidcolin]

#6.. haha. I'd totally have a beer with that guy.

edit: this guy has totally hijacked the thread.

Nicole Ritchie has anorexic

More

He's got a future with ESPN. He's even got the Stu Scott eye thing going.

[Artdogg]

lolol hadn't seen those, we should get him to post a video on whether the Spurs are a dynasty or not

[Kedu]

[ QUOTE ]
That list has all sorts of issues (Bosh, Pierce, and Arenas < Ray Allen, Billups, Rip?). Ben freaking Wallace? c'mon man.



[/ QUOTE ]

Ben Wallace not being in the top 25 this year would be fine, but over the past 5 years he's in there. Not close.

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
A few quick things about parker and mano: I dont think either is a HoFer. But...

Someone asked has either ever been the top 5 a their position? Tony Parker is consistantly the ~5th best PG in the league or so, Nash/Kidd/Chauncey/Baron/Parker. (Then Deron/Paul)

[/ QUOTE ]
I think Deron and Paul both top 5 and it isn't very close.

[ QUOTE ]
Mano Ginobili has been rated the best player in the clutch, I dont have the article link, but a ton of various stats show that his production in the last 5 mins of a game, when that game is within 5 points, is better then anyone else in the league. pretty interesting 3part article.
that said, i doubt flopinoli has a shot at the hall, but parker without a doubt does. (Dude is just 25!!!)

[/ QUOTE ]
Manu's clutchness is some what of a byproduct of being second fiddle, everyone know that ball is going to LeBron, Kobe, etc. in the last 5 minutes.

[CarlSpackler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't a lot of people consider the 1979-1988 Lakers a dynasty under Magic? 5 Titles in 10 seasons. The Celtics also had a mini dynasty mixed in with 3 titles in 7 years.


[/ QUOTE ]

Most people do. But, I don't. The Lakers and Celtics were evenly matched teams. Neither was dominant and you need to be dominant to get the Dynasty dynasty tag.

The 49ers don't count either. They did win back to back Super Bowls in '89 and '90. Both their other championships were in '82, '85, and '95. That's too widely spaced.

Winning many championships shouldn't automatically earn the dynasty tag. I think you need to win them in a short span of time and clearly be the dominant team during that span.

Also, not being labeled a dynasty certainly doesn't take away from the incredible accomplishments of teams like the Spurs, 49ers, or Lakers.

[/ QUOTE ]

This dynasty talk is pointless. Case in point here. You claim the 90's Bulls teams were a dynasty (which i completely agree), yet you say the 80's Lakers and 80's Celtics teams weren't, despite the fact that either of those teams would wipe the floor with any of the Bulls dynasty teams.