Tonight, the Spurs attempt to sweep the Cavs in an anticlimatic final series. When they do so, it will be their fourth title in nine years. What bothers me is the recent barrage of commentators calling them a legitimate dynasty. I just don't see it that way. The terms of what is considered a dynasty must have changed since I last saw them. To me, a dynasty is a team that consistently is a champion or lords over their sport (think Yankees) in such a way that they are always in the hunt for a title. The Spurs have been consistently good (they have never missed the playoffs in consecutive years and have won at least 53 games every full season since 1998) but have they been the preeminent team? The biggest strike against the dynasty argument is that they never won back-to-back titles during this run. Every NBA team that was a legit dynasty (the '50's Lakers, the '60's Celtics, the '80's Lakers, the '90's Bulls, and to a degree, this decade's Lakers) had at least two in a row during their run. Four titles in nine years still means you've won less than half of the titles during your run. Let's wait until the '08 Finals; if they win there, then they are a dynasty. Strike two: who did they beat? They didn't beat the Kobe-Shaq Lakers during their run on top in the West Finals; they beat a selfish Portland team (1999), a young Dallas team (2003), a green Phoenix team (2005) and got a big assist from Commissioner Stern to get a free pass to a young Utah team this year. That's not even the Finals, where they faced an injured Knicks team (1999), a small Nets team (2003), the Pistons with a defensive blunder by Rasheed Wallace (2005) and the Cadavers, er, LeBrons, er, Cavs here. The competiton was either too young, too unwatchable, too hurt, or a combo of both, and they took advantage. That's not what a dynasty does; The Lakers of the '80's had the Celtics to deal with, and those battles were classics that defined the league. In a way, the Spurs define the league today as well; their boring, roughhouse, walk it up as much as possible style (if it is a style) wins games, but drags the quality of play down as well. Even their coach, Gregg Popovich, admitted their win on Tuesday "sent the league back ten years". That's not the way a dynystic team should win by. Bottom line: the Spurs are a solid team that could be a legit dynasty if they win next year and make it five out of ten. Until then, stop with the dynasty talk!
Bottom line they've been gettting it done year after year. They've remained consistent and if the Patriots can be considered a dynasty why not the Spurs?
"To me, a dynasty is a team that consistently is a champion or lords over their sport (think Yankees) in such a way that they are always in the hunt for a title."
I think you answered your own question. The Spurs have been in the title hunt every year of Duncan's career but 1. When he was out with an injury. Is 8/9 good enough for you?
They have gotten through at tough West Conference and that counts for something. No rings for Dallas, Sacramento or Phoenix and all have had enough talent to get it done.
They may not be the flashiest team of all time but they are a team that will be remembered as a group of guys who bought into the word "team" during an age where there can be a ton of individualism.
Man, what a load of excuses! One could just as easily point to last years West Semis when Dallas got a pass on the final play when Duncan went strong to the hoop and was mugged by three Mavericks with no foul called, game and season over! The game is the game. Win or lose, just lose the excuses and whining.
Of course they are a dynasty. Over the last 10 years no team in ANY professional sport has a higher win record. Four titles in 9 years isn't good enough because they didn't win two back-to-back?!?! Please...
Good question, but I would say no. I think you have to win two in a row at some point to be a dynasty. Plus, I think a dynasty is defined much differently now than it was years ago. When I think of a "dynasty" I think of the Celtics of the late '50s to mid '60s-eight in a row and 11 in 13 years. Or the New York Islanders winning four in a row from '80-'83. And so on. Just my opinion.
I just can't understand all the hate for the spurs.
Any other tean except Detroit would be embraced and
called "America's" team. Bottom line whether you love or hate them they are the best TEAM in this sport the last decade.
All the rings in 9 years is just hype. I consider them a dynasty
1)They have won 3 in 5 years
2)The past five years they have been in the hunt
for the championship.
But their first was in '99 in a strike shortened season and then the Lakers won the next 3 championships so how could they possibly have been the best at that time, especially when you consider how the Lakers dominated at that time.
I am David Downs, and I'm a sports nut who loves basketball and football and am open to good discussion about any sports subject. I am a Detroit sports fan, but I not a homer. Expect frequent vents on subjects that irritate me, and also expect the utmost respect for anybody's opinion, even if they disagree with me. Because, after all, that's what these blogs are all about, aren't they?
