Spurs are NOT A DYNASTY

[starbigd]

I keep hearing this phrase tossed around - "It's the Spurs dynasty on the line tonight against the Heat!"

Problem is, the Spurs have never had a dynasty. You can't be a dynasty if you have never even come CLOSE to a repeat title. I'm sorry, but I think a prerequisite for dynasty status is AT LEAST one back to back title.

 

[tlance]

Says who? 5 titles in 14 years would look pretty good.

 

[trojanfan12]

Says who? 5 titles in 14 years would look pretty good.

That's what I was thinking!! I understand the point about needing at least 1 repeat and I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but 5 titles (hopefully) in 14 years is pretty darn good. Basically, it would be the same number of titles as the Lakers have won over the same period of time, just minus the repeats!!

 

[shitsho]

I keep hearing this phrase tossed around - "It's the Spurs dynasty on the line tonight against the Heat!"

Problem is, the Spurs have never had a dynasty. You can't be a dynasty if you have never even come CLOSE to a repeat title. I'm sorry, but I think a prerequisite for dynasty status is AT LEAST one back to back title.

I agree that it is stupid to say that but for different reasons. It may not be a dynasty as in back to back titles but lets be real. They have been consistently good every year and one of the teams capable of winning it all. If they lose tonite it takes nothing away from how much of a class organization they have been or their legacy as a great team.

 

[starbigd]

Dynasties are DOMINANT. Titles spread over a long number of years means you were consistently good......but dynasty status should be reserved for truly GREAT teams that dominated.

The Spurs have been able to be consistent.......but they could never win more than one. I'm sorry, in my book that just doesn't cut it.

They've been fantastic for a long time. But just like calling guys elite in the NFL, that's a very special designation that I don't feel this team has earned. You just can't bandy that word around.

 

[trojanfan12]

Dynasties are DOMINANT. Titles spread over a long number of years means you were consistently good......but dynasty status should be reserved for truly GREAT teams that dominated.

The Spurs have been able to be consistent.......but they could never win more than one. I'm sorry, in my book that just doesn't cut it.

Good points!! Definitely an interesting debate!! When I think of the Spurs, I definitely don't think of them as dominant, but as you point out, they are always there. Every season they are in the mix to win it all. They just accomplish it about every 3 years!!

How about Dynasty Lite?

 

[starbigd]

Good points!! Definitely an interesting debate!! When I think of the Spurs, I definitely don't think of them as dominant, but as you point out, they are always there. Every season they are in the mix to win it all. They just accomplish it about every 3 years!!

How about Dynasty Lite?

Lets look at it. They won one title......then didn't even SNIFF the finals for 3 years as the Lakers DYNASTY won 3. They didn't win another title until that team was disassembled.

So we can't call that really a dynasty, as during that stretch there were arguably not even second fiddle to the Lakers. They won the majority of their titles when other teams were down.

 

[SEC Official]

I keep hearing this phrase tossed around - "It's the Spurs dynasty on the line tonight against the Heat!"

Problem is, the Spurs have never had a dynasty. You can't be a dynasty if you have never even come CLOSE to a repeat title. I'm sorry, but I think a prerequisite for dynasty status is AT LEAST one back to back title.

I would agree they are not a dynasty the way I define it (which usually requires multiple back to back runs..) but they have been one of the best teams in the NBA over a long period of time with titles to back it up... so they aren't far from a dynasty. They are definitely well ahead of this Miami team even if they lose tonight.

 

[Flauge]

if the spurs are beaten tonight by Miami. From 1999-2007 the won 4 titles. 4 titles in 8 years is a dynasty. their dynasty is not on the line against miami tonight. their dynasty exists. adding to that dynasty is on the line. but win or lose for the spurs, their place in basketball history has been made.

 

[trojanfan12]

Lets look at it. They won one title......then didn't even SNIFF the finals for 3 years as the Lakers DYNASTY won 3. They didn't win another title until that team was disassembled.

So we can't call that really a dynasty, as during that stretch there were arguably not even second fiddle to the Lakers. They won the majority of their titles when other teams were down.

All true!! However, if memory serves, the Lakers had to go through the Spurs for at least a couple of those titles.

Not saying that the Spurs should be considered a dynasty, but the fact that it's even being brought up means they've been pretty darn good!!

 

[Flauge]

they are a dynasty. make no mistake about it. the early 2000s Laker team was a better dynasty.. sure. i think a very strong argument for that can be made like (look at how much the lakers whipped that ass). but they are a dynasty. their ranks on all time dynaasty teams is lower than back to back teams.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Na...their a dynasty. Might not have all the same players, but they are.

 

[shitsho]

Dynasty _ a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time.

Do Spurs fall into that definition?

 

[Heatles84]

Spurs could get ran up and down the floor tonight and still be considered a title. If you were to tell me that Miami would win another two titles in the next few years and we'd have a resume similar to the Spurs then I'd be gleaming with joy. The Spurs are already a dynasty whether they win or lose tonight.

 

[BOTSLAYER]

I keep hearing this phrase tossed around - "It's the Spurs dynasty on the line tonight against the Heat!"

Problem is, the Spurs have never had a dynasty. You can't be a dynasty if you have never even come CLOSE to a repeat title. I'm sorry, but I think a prerequisite for dynasty status is AT LEAST one back to back title.

Honestly this goes back to the what is your criteria for being a dynasty? If that is your personal criteria then there is nothing wrong with that.

I personally tend to think Dynasties are teams, which is management. Making the Cs and Lakers the 2 greatest and long running dynasties of all time. Riley is himself a dynasty. Like the Yankees they may have a couple bad years but they are always going to get back up because of their commitment to excellence. That is what I think a dynasty is.

By my definition the Spurs have become a top of the line Dynasty. They are always in the hunt even if they are never talked about until the finals. The fact is if the Spurs were located someplace like NY or LA we would all think they are considerably better than our current opinions because we would have heard about them every day for the last 14 years.

Instead we have heard about the Knicks, who suck.

 

[WhiteMamba]

OOPS!!! Wrong THREAD...

 

[wildturkey]

OP's premise is stupid. There is nothing saying you have to win repeat titles. All that is required is winning multiple titles for an extended period of time. Montsho's definition nails it.

 

[trojanfan12]

OOPS!!! Wrong THREAD...

I remember that show!! My mom and sister wouldn't miss it!!

 

[wildturkey]

Some lovely ladies on that show

 

[Vitamike]

Regardless of what each of us may think of what defines a dynasty, I find it more than funny how all the Heat fans on this thread are all in favor of the weaken definition. Let's set the bar low so we can make claim if we sniff something similar. lol

Too bad Manu and Leonard didn't each hit both of those end of game free throws in Gm 6. This may be an entirely different discussion and to be candid, I'm not convinced these same Heat fans would argue the same as they are here now.