Phil Jackson: Spurs aren't a dynasty

[Kidbasketball20]

“You know there are some obvious examples that are out there that everybody can point to," Jackson, an 11-time champ as a coach, said in April. "Tim Duncan making the salary he's making after being part of a dynasty -- not a dynasty, I wouldn't call San Antonio a dynasty -- a force, a great force. They haven't been able to win consecutive championships, but they've always been there.”

From his Twitter:
For those folks that disagree with my SAnt statement think this:
A dynasty definition is a sequential ruler…sorry the Spurs did not win 2xs.


Phil bitter Pop is a better coach than him :bowdown: :bowdown:

[SugarHill]

Phil Jackson is using the "they never repeated" argument. Who are you to say otherwise? He's an 11 time champ. Spurs = not a dynasty.

[gts]

old news... he said this last summer right after the Spurs won the title

[juju151111]

[QUOTE=Kidbasketball20]

[J Shuttlesworth]

Better coach. Last time I checked Phil had 11 chips.
Phil had the GOAT, and a top ten player


Kobe too

[SugarHill]

Phil had the GOAT, and a top ten player


Kobe too
:oldlol:

[Hotlantadude81]

Phil Jackson is using the "they never repeated" argument. Who are you to say otherwise? He's an 11 time champ. Spurs = not a dynasty.

Because everyone does not appeal to authority and they make up their own minds.

[SouBeachTalents]

Phil had the GOAT, and a top ten player


Kobe too

:oldlol:

All seriousness though, he had arguably the two most dominant players ever at their peak

[IncarceratedBob]

If anyone knows anything about dynastys it's Phil Jackson

[Hotlantadude81]

:oldlol:

All seriousness though, he had arguably the two most dominant players ever at their peak

THREE.

[IncarceratedBob]

:oldlol:

All seriousness though, he had arguably the two most dominant players ever at their peak
Yup and he also had Shaq and Pippen. Crazy talent

[bizil]

Disagree with Phil on this one. The Spurs ARE A DYNASTY!! But it's a unique dynasty because they didn't repeat though. Five rings equates dynasty to me. And they won three of their rings every other season. I would rather have the Spurs title run THAN the Lakers Kobe-Shaq title run. The Spurs run SHOWS that I'm gonna be with a stable franchise WITH NO EGOS to bring it down.

EGO brought the Lakers dynasty down. Shaq and Kobe could have won possibly seven rings if they would have stayed together. Shaq would have went down as possibly the GOAT center and Kobe's resume would have him in the top 5 GOAT. On the other hand Duncan has been winning rings since 1999 and still has a great shot to keep winning rings. Give me Duncan's situation ANYDAY!

[Hotlantadude81]

The Spurs were the team of the 2000's and they won titles. They are a dynasty.

He also made the comments about the Spurs 1999 title win.

[SugarHill]

Because everyone does not appeal to authority and they make up their own minds.
Sarcasm

[KyleKong]

Phil had the GOAT, and a top ten player


Kobe too
:lol

[T_L_P]

After this year, it ain't even a question.

[BuffaloBill]

Yup and he also had Shaq and Pippen. Crazy talent


:roll: :roll:

[magmo68]

Phil is saying that by DEFINITION they are not a DYNASTY...IGNORANCE is bliss...reading without comprehending, might as well be an illiterate...

[BuffaloBill]

Phil is saying that by DEFINITION they are not a DYNASTY...IGNORANCE is bliss...


What's the definition of dynasty?

[LoveTheNBA23]

What's the definition of dynasty?

Actual definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dynasty


Accepted definition in sports
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_%28sports%29

Wikipedia lists six dynasties for the NBA. The Celtics dynasty should have been split in two.

[Hizack]

What's the definition of dynasty?
No official definition obviously, but I guess the following unofficial definition would be widely agreed:
a. 3 championships in 3 years, or
b. 4 championships in 5 years

[T_L_P]

Either the Bird Celtics and Spurs are a dynasty, or neither are. Bird never won b2b either, and unlike them, the Spurs have the best Win % in all of sports.

Or hey, maybe Hakeem's Rockets is more of a dynasty than either.

[SouBeachTalents]

Either the Bird Celtics and Spurs are a dynasty, or neither are. Bird never won b2b either, and unlike them, the Spurs have the best Win % in all of sports.

Or hey, maybe Hakeem's Rockets is more of a dynasty than either.

I think any criteria for a dynasty is you need a MINIMUM of 3 championships with the same core of guys

[sbw19]

I wouldn't mind being called anything if my teams is a legit contender year in and year out. Spurs got their titles, little else matters including how they're viewed.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Thank You Phil ... anyone with a brain knew this to be the truth. You can't call yourself a dynasty never having defended the throne, winning back to backs. Which is way more challenging than just winning a ring every other season or two. Let's not even mention 3 in a row.

[Rose'sACL]

Thank You Phil ... anyone with a brain knew this to be the truth. You can't call yourself a dynasty never having defended the throne, winning back to backs. Which is way more challenging than just winning a ring every other season or two. Let's not even mention 3 in a row.
Spurs are clearly a dynasty. they have won multiple championships with same core.

[juju151111]

Spurs are clearly a dynasty. they have won multiple championships with same core.
They are not a dynasty

[SamuraiSWISH]

Spurs are clearly a dynasty. they have won multiple championships with same core.
Clearly they're not if it's up for debate.

[Akhenaten]

dy

[Da_Realist]

“You know there are some obvious examples that are out there that everybody can point to," Jackson, an 11-time champ as a coach, said in April. "Tim Duncan making the salary he's making after being part of a dynasty -- not a dynasty, I wouldn't call San Antonio a dynasty -- a force, a great force. They haven't been able to win consecutive championships, but they've always been there.”

From his Twitter:
For those folks that disagree with my SAnt statement think this:
A dynasty definition is a sequential ruler…sorry the Spurs did not win 2xs.


Phil bitter Pop is a better coach than him :bowdown: :bowdown:

I agree with Phil. That doesn't diminish the Spurs. He said they were a "great force".

A very good, consistent title threat every year - yes.

A dynasty - no.

[SamuraiSWISH]

I agree with Phil. That doesn't diminish the Spurs. He said they were a "great force".

A very good, consistent title threat every year - yes.

A dynasty - no.
:applause:

Dynasty implies dominance. Championships. Winning in consecutive seasons. Defending what's yours.

It's not defined in SPORTS as being ... consistently good, a contender for multiple years, championships here and there.

What was Dallas a dynasty in the 2000s too?

[SugarHill]

:applause:

Dynasty implies dominance. Championships. Winning in consecutive seasons. Defending what's yours.

It's not defined in SPORTS as being ... consistently good, a contender for multiple years, championships here and there.

What was Dallas a dynasty in the 2000s too?

Dallas didn't win 3 championships in the 00s.

Do you think 80s Celtics were a dynasty? Were the Badboys more of a dynasty than the Celtics?

[IncarceratedBob]

Billups Pistons were a dynasty

Big 3 Celtics were a dynasty too

We can't just hand things like this out...

The only dynastys in NBA history are MJs Bulls. Showtime/Shaq Lakers

[smoovegittar]

:applause:

Dynasty implies dominance. Championships. Winning in consecutive seasons. Defending what's yours.

It's not defined in SPORTS as being ... consistently good, a contender for multiple years, championships here and there.

What was Dallas a dynasty in the 2000s too?
This.

[Andrei89]

Miami Heat 2010-2014 = Dynasty!

[SwishSquared]

Pop's response was hilarious lol:


Oooh, that makes me so mad!

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/gregg-popovich-jokes-about-phil-jackson-s-latest-spurs-dig---oooh--that-makes-me-so-mad--174236177.html

[SouBeachTalents]

Miami Heat 2010-2014 = Dynasty!

No

[sbw19]

Pop's response was hilarious
"Just write whatever you want and I'll say I said it," Popovich joked. "Make it good though so you can get a promotion. Juicy. Ugly. Really good."

Classic Pop.

[Akhenaten]

:applause:

Dynasty implies dominance. Championships. Winning in consecutive seasons. Defending what's yours.

It's not defined in SPORTS as being ... consistently good, a contender for multiple years, championships here and there.

What was Dallas a dynasty in the 2000s too?


So Isiah's Pistons and Hakeem's Rockets are dynasties then?

lol @ you dismissively reducing the Spurs' rings to just championships "here and there"

Soooo disrespectful

[La Frescobaldi]

[QUOTE=Akhenaten]dy

[PsychoBe]

Dallas didn't win 3 championships in the 00s.

Do you think 80s Celtics were a dynasty? Were the Badboys more of a dynasty than the Celtics?

bird's celtics weren't a dynasty and the badboys only won back-to-back.

and no the 2011-2014 heat wasn't a dynasty either.

a dynasty is pure championship dominance with the same core and in basketball, at least requires a 3-peat as that is the ultimate sign of team dominance.

russel's celtics were a dynasty
jordan's bulls were a dynasty
kobe-shaq lakers were a dynasty

[SCdac]

Jackson is just salty and has been for years. He doesn't like the Spurs

[SouBeachTalents]

bird's celtics weren't a dynasty and the badboys only won back-to-back.

and no the 2011-2014 heat wasn't a dynasty either.

a dynasty is pure championship dominance with the same core and in basketball, at least requires a 3-peat as that is the ultimate sign of team dominance.

russel's celtics were a dynasty
jordan's bulls were a dynasty
kobe-shaq lakers were a dynasty

The 80's Lakers were definitely a dynasty

[PsychoBe]

The 80's Lakers were definitely a dynasty

yea add them to the list.

[Akrazotile]

Phil had the GOAT, and a top ten player


Kobe too


:oldlol::applause:

[BuffaloBill]

Actual definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dynasty


Accepted definition in sports
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_%28sports%29

Wikipedia lists six dynasties for the NBA. The Celtics dynasty should have been split in two.


So going by merriam webster and wikipedia's definition of "dynasty," Pop's Spurs have been even more of a dynasty than any of Phil Jackson's teams...


Very fist line in the wikipedia link you gave me


A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for an extraordinary length of time



Merriam Webster


: a family, team, etc., that is very powerful or successful for a long period of time

[Akhenaten]

yea add them to the list.

you just got done saying a threepeat was a requirement :biggums:

[PsychoBe]

you just got done saying a threepeat was a requirement :biggums:

5 titles in 10 years should be good enough to qualify as a dynasty now that i think about it, but obviously that's the only exception.

[Odinn]

Spurs won 3 out of 5 between 2003-2007.
They were eliminated by .4 shot by Fisher in 2004 and Manu's idiotic foul in 2006. Some extraordinary, uncommon shit storm.

And people loved to blame SAS for not going to the Finals b2b. They did. Now they are forced their way back to b2b title argument. I wonder if Spurs repeats, what'll have these people to say.

[rmt]

“You know there are some obvious examples that are out there that everybody can point to," Jackson, an 11-time champ as a coach, said in April. "Tim Duncan making the salary he's making after being part of a dynasty -- not a dynasty, I wouldn't call San Antonio a dynasty -- a force, a great force. They haven't been able to win consecutive championships, but they've always been there.”

From his Twitter:
For those folks that disagree with my SAnt statement think this:
A dynasty definition is a sequential ruler…sorry the Spurs did not win 2xs.


Phil bitter Pop is a better coach than him :bowdown: :bowdown:

So, by Phil's definition, the Pistons' Bad Boys are a dynasty with 2 championships but Duncan's 17 year run with the highest winning percentage ever in the NBA and 5 championships is not a dynasty? Maybe we should ask Isiah which he'd prefer.

Guess Phil didn't feel too great when his dynasty got beaten by only a "force."

[Shih508]

Phil is being insecured cuz he could only wont 11 champs with 3 top 15 players of all time while Pop has done 5 with only 1 top 10 player.

[deja vu]

For me, a dynasty is a minimum of 3 titles in a row. Two titles are back-to-back champs.

You can't be a dynasty if you got dethroned and then recovered it. I would call it "interrupted dynasty" if anything.

[Euroleague]

I have a lot of respect for the Spurs and how they play. But Jackson is just telling it like is. ESPN just started that "dynasty" talk because they like to hype the hell out of everything.

The Spurs are definitely not a dynasty. Dynasty has always meant winning 3 championships in a row, or 3 in 4 years, or 4 in 6 years. And a requirement is winning consecutive championships.

After that, even if you won 3 championships in 5 years, you were not an actual dynasty, but they called a "juggernaut in the midst of a dynasty". In other words, assuming the team would win again, because 4 in 6 years is a dynasty.

So point blank, Jackson is just stating facts, and saying they are a great force, but no, they are not a dynasty, because they never won consecutive championships, never did a 3 peat, never got 3 in 4 years, 4 in 6 years....never did a single thing that is under the dynasty category.

ESPN with all that BS calling them as dynasty is just more of their ridiculous endless hype bullshit.

Give all the credit in the world to the Spurs, call them a great force, juggernaut, whatever...but no, they are definitely NOT a dynasty, because that has specific parameters that the Spurs never met. And those parameters go for all the sports, not just NBA.

ESPN can't just suddenly change what a "dynasty" is just because it suits their hype machine.

[magmo68]

Spurs are 1 of the greatest organizations of the modern era...but not ever had they had a true DYNASTY...born in Inglewood laker fan forever

[magmo68]

Pop is still 5 chips away from having a real opinion...

[juju151111]

So going by merriam webster and wikipedia's definition of "dynasty," Pop's Spurs have been even more of a dynasty than any of Phil Jackson's teams...


Very fist line in the wikipedia link you gave me





Merriam Webster
They didn't dominate because they wasn't the best those years they lose.

[Euroleague]

So Isiah's Pistons and Hakeem's Rockets are dynasties then?

lol @ you dismissively reducing the Spurs' rings to just championships "here and there"

Soooo disrespectful

By the very definition you posted, the Spurs are not a dynasty. Reading comprehension. You have to maintain your same level for a long time.

That is why dynasties are 3 in a row, 3 in 4 years, 4 in a row, 4 in 5 years, 4 in 6 years, 5 in 7 years.......things like that.

NOT, winning a title once every other year, or every few years, or here and there, while being a good team all the while.

This really is a VERY simple concept to understand.

Example New England Patriots of similar time frame = dynasty because unlike the Spurs won 3 champions in 4 seasons WITH always being a good team.

Spurs won 5 championships (so they won 2 MORE), and always were a good team, but are NOT a dynasty, because they NEVER maintained their place or their dominance. Which by definition means they are NOT a dynasty.

Phil Jackson is simply stating what is true, and then crediting them by calling them a "great force".

Just because morons at like ESPN or whatever start saying such and such team is a "dynasty" does not mean it is true. As in case of the Spurs, it clearly isn't it. They are just doing their usual hype nonsense for whatever reason.

Nothing at all wrong with Phil Jackson or anyone else just stating the fact that the Spurs are not a dynasty. And the Spurs have been my favorite NBA team for many years.

[juju151111]

Jackson is just salty and has been for years. He doesn't like the Spurs
Why would he care? He has more rings has a coach/player that they will probably ever get in 30 more years.

[NZStreetBaller]

Phil had great talent yes but he was able to maximize and get the most out of them. Dude has 3 3 peats for god sakes !! Pop has maximized the use of his talent provided though so its hard to determine who the best is

[Euroleague]

bird's celtics weren't a dynasty and the badboys only won back-to-back.

and no the 2011-2014 heat wasn't a dynasty either.

a dynasty is pure championship dominance with the same core and in basketball, at least requires a 3-peat as that is the ultimate sign of team dominance.

russel's celtics were a dynasty
jordan's bulls were a dynasty
kobe-shaq lakers were a dynasty

Actually the minimum is considered doing 3 in 4 years. So example, if the Heat would have beat Dallas or the Spurs, then they could have been in there.

[Euroleague]

So going by merriam webster and wikipedia's definition of "dynasty," Pop's Spurs have been even more of a dynasty than any of Phil Jackson's teams...


Very fist line in the wikipedia link you gave me





Merriam Webster

1. Reading comprehension 101. Learn it.

2. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Any Spurs fan or anyone else can edit that and claim the Spurs as a dynasty, and also write whatever they want on that article.

3. Stop trolling.

[Dr.J4ever]

I suspect they are a dynasty(the Spurs). The word "dynasty" can be quite nebulous in the sports world, but at least one respected online definition from Wikipedia has this to say on what a sports dynasty is:

"A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for an extraordinary length of time. The definition of dynasty by academics implies a single leader over the bulk of that period, a great example being John Wooden who led a college basketball powerhouse at UCLA for over a quarter century. The word "dynasty" should not be used for a string of several dominant years in a row. It implies an extraordinary length of time like a decade. Such dominance is often only realized in retrospect. Some leagues maintain official lists of dynasties, often as part of a hall of fame (e.g., National Hockey League), but in many cases, whether a team has achieved a dynasty is subjective, and can be a frequent topic of debate among sports fans.

The most widely accepted sports dynasties are those with the majority of championships over a very long period of time, either consecutively or with interruptions (e.g., UCLA Bruins men's basketball 7-straight national championships from 1964 to 1975 and 11 national championships during Wooden's reign). Or consider Princeton University or something, from the pre-NCAA football years of the 1890s (it was one of the two teams to play the first college football game) all the way until 1950 during which Princeton won 28 national championships. Yale won 27 recognized national football championships between 1872-1926. [1]"

By this definition, the Spurs=dynasty. Hmmm, how much of what Phil said is influenced by envy.

Surely, such mundane things as envy is way below the god that is Jackson.:lol

[Euroleague]

Spurs won 3 out of 5 between 2003-2007.
They were eliminated by .4 shot by Fisher in 2004 and Manu's idiotic foul in 2006. Some extraordinary, uncommon shit storm.

And people loved to blame SAS for not going to the Finals b2b. They did. Now they are forced their way back to b2b title argument. I wonder if Spurs repeats, what'll have these people to say.

Because in all sports the minimum requirement was always a back to back and AT LEAST 3 in 4 years.

The Spurs never did either one. This has always been the accepted rule for being tabbed a "dynasty".

There is no reason to suddenly change that now just because some people want to hype up the Spurs into being something they were not.

If they wanted to be considered a dynasty they should have did a back to back and had 3 in 4 instead of 3 in 5.

No reason to make exceptions for the Spurs. Otherwise we can go through all sports and start revising all the teams that should have been dynasties under new relaxed definitions.

They have not been a dynasty.

[SHAQisGOAT]

They're definitely a dynasty, in my book. Big dominance over a large period of time with the same core (winning 5 titles).

Also, I wouldn't call Hakeem's Rockets a dynasty, but Bird's Celtics yes...

[Suguru101]

Phil had the GOAT, and a top ten player


Kobe too

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Euroleague]

I suspect they are a dynasty(the Spurs). The word "dynasty" can be quite nebulous in the sports world, but at least one respected online definition from Wikipedia has this to say on what a sports dynasty is:

"A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for an extraordinary length of time. The definition of dynasty by academics implies a single leader over the bulk of that period, a great example being John Wooden who led a college basketball powerhouse at UCLA for over a quarter century. The word "dynasty" should not be used for a string of several dominant years in a row. It implies an extraordinary length of time like a decade. Such dominance is often only realized in retrospect. Some leagues maintain official lists of dynasties, often as part of a hall of fame (e.g., National Hockey League), but in many cases, whether a team has achieved a dynasty is subjective, and can be a frequent topic of debate among sports fans.

The most widely accepted sports dynasties are those with the majority of championships over a very long period of time, either consecutively or with interruptions (e.g., UCLA Bruins men's basketball 7-straight national championships from 1964 to 1975 and 11 national championships during Wooden's reign). Or consider Princeton University or something, from the pre-NCAA football years of the 1890s (it was one of the two teams to play the first college football game) all the way until 1950 during which Princeton won 28 national championships. Yale won 27 recognized national football championships between 1872-1926. [1]"

By this definition, the Spurs=dynasty. Hmmm, how much of what Phil said is influenced by envy.

Surely, such mundane things as envy is way below the god that is Jackson.:lol

That's not a factual Wikipedia article. It's not stating facts or historical things that are simple fact. It's an opinion written article that is solely based on the opinion of the editors and which can be slanted to however the editors want it to be.

Those are the exact kind of articles on Wikipedia that are usually full of bullshit. They give a vague and non defined parameter then listed a bunch of opinions on what is or was not a dynasty, then even said it was disputed.

The Spurs even being listed there is probably solely due to throngs of Spurs fans constantly editing the article to put them there.

The fact you take this as "definition" and ignore the actual definition from the actual textbook is truly revealing.

[Euroleague]

They're definitely a dynasty, in my book. Big dominance over a large period of time with the same core (winning 5 titles).

Also, I wouldn't call Hakeem's Rockets a dynasty, but Bird's Celtics yes...

If the "core" is Duncan, Parker, and Manu - then they only won 4 titles.

[T_L_P]

If the "core" is Duncan, Parker, and Manu - then they only won 4 titles.

The core is Duncan and Pop, tbh.

I can see where you're coming from though.

[Dr.J4ever]

That's not a factual Wikipedia article. It's not stating facts or historical things that are simple fact. It's an opinion written article that is solely based on the opinion of the editors and which can be slanted to however the editors want it to be.

Those are the exact kind of articles on Wikipedia that are usually full of bullshit. They give a vague and non defined parameter then listed a bunch of opinions on what is or was not a dynasty, then even said it was disputed.

The Spurs even being listed there is probably solely due to throngs of Spurs fans constantly editing the article to put them there.

The fact you take this as "definition" and ignore the actual definition from the actual textbook is truly revealing.

Who elected you Pope of "sports dynasty" definitions?

I said the word "dynasty" can be "nebulous". But at least one source that is used by many informed people on the net like Wiki, if interpreted correctly, has the Spurs as a dynasty.

The Wiki article didn't mention the Spurs, but it didn't require consecutive titles, but "A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for an extraordinary length of time. The definition of dynasty by academics implies a single leader over the bulk of that period, a great example being John Wooden who led a college basketball powerhouse at UCLA for over a quarter century. The word "dynasty" should not be used for a string of several dominant years in a row. It implies an......"

I agree though that different people can have their own take of what a "dynasty" is, but to say that your definition is the only one that is correct looks "Popish" to me.

[Tycriss]

So ray allen killed a dynasty ?
http://cdn.nextimpulsesports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/131217224801-shot-ehrman-single-image-cut.jpg

[Da_Realist]

When were they THE dominant team over a large number of years? What collection of years were they the unquestionable dominant team that everyone else in the league measured themselves against?

Bill Russell's Celtics were the standard of greatness. Every other team playing then acknowledged that. Jordan's Bulls were the standard for a shorter period but they were still the standard. So much so that to this day, Rockets players have to defend the two titles they won while MJ was retired. Everyone assumes the Bulls would have kept winning because...that's what you expect out of dynasties. Winning consistently.

You know dynastic teams when you see them -- while they are still winning titles. You can't look back, count the rings and say, "Oh yeah...they won 4 so I guess they must have been a dynasty". It doesn't work like that. A dynastic team is obvious because the dominance is so complete.

The Spurs won but they were not a dynasty. Last year's title doesn't count toward this conversation because it happened SEVEN years after the previous one. So if anything, it starts a new conversation going forward. The 1999 title shouldn't count because it took them FOUR years to win the next one, the main core had changed dramatically and there was another team (Shaq/Kobe Lakers) that kept everyone else from winning anything. A dynastic team would have put the Lakers on their butt, but instead Shaq/Kobe forced SA to wait. I wouldn't even call Shaq/Kobe a dynasty because it was only 3 years. They were dominant, but not a dynasty. Chemistry issues killed that.

So now SA can count 3 titles in 5 years with a couple more spread out a few years before and after. A strong force, but not a dynasty.

[wally_world]

According to that logic, winning 2 in a row is better than winning every alternate year for 10-20 years

[Magic 32]

Phil had the GOAT, and a top ten player


Kobe too

That's funny because it not true.....

[riseagainst]

So ray allen killed a dynasty ?


also saved someone's legacy.

[Anaximandro1]

truth bombs




There was only one dynasty and that dynasty was the Celtics of the '60s


You win, and are a true champion, of life, when you're happy. When you achieve what you want to and reach peace, a smile on your face. Phil Jackson, in this way, is a loser. He can't stop trying to take digs at Popovich. You never hear it come back the other way; guess who has won this battle??


When the Rockets won back to back titles they were called a Dynasty. When the Heat won back to back titles they were called a Dynasty. But that's all they got - 2 rings. Dynasty or not 5 rings is better than 2 or 3 rings. Ask any athlete if they would rather be part of a dynasty and only have 2 or 3 rings or be part of "not a dynasty" and have 5 rings. I think most would take the 5 rings over the dynasty moniker


I'm from Chicago and a big Bull's fan, but I'll admit that Pop can coach better in his sleep than Jackson in his prime. Jackson knows it to and his jealousy of Pop is evident every time he opens his big stupid mouth about the Spurs. Jackson is one of the few coaches in history that has been blessed with superior outstanding talent. I could have coached those teams to championships and in my sleep to boot. The 4-16 Knicks are more indicative of Jackson's true potential and shows Jackson's true management talents.


old action jackson needs to worry about that knicks dynasty. besides only bill russell's celtics can lay claim to being a dynasty. all others are mere pretenders and yes russell remains the greatest ever.

oild action has never had to build a team

[SouBeachTalents]

The '90's Bulls are inarguably a dynasty, to say otherwise is just ****ing stupid

[Junker]

I admit I am a little bitter by Phil Jacksons comment. I hope the Spurs win the title this year again just so people like him never dare to say such dumb things.

[rmt]

According to that logic, winning 2 in a row is better than winning every alternate year for 10-20 years

Haters will twist reasoning to suit their own purpose. They cling to their "back to back" even when by any reasonable logic, Duncan's Spurs > Isiah's Pistons. 5 championships, 6 Finals, highest winning percentage over 17 years, contending almost every year from the BRUTAL SW division means nothing compared to "consecutive" rings.

Even Kobe is envious of the Spurs' success. Lots of the haters are hoping Spurs won't repeat. I wouldn't hold my breath - Duncan looks like he's capable of playing this and next year. Manu - not too sure about him, but the others (Green, Splitter, Bellinelli, Mills and especially Leonard) will only get better.

[Da_Realist]

1) It's not about which is "better". That makes it an emotional discussion. This is about what constitutes a dynasty. Being a dominant team or even a dynasty doesn't make them better than consistently winning for 16 years.

2) Winning 2 in a row does not make a team a dynasty. They're back-to-back champs, not a dynasty. Winning three in a row doesn't make a dynasty either. The Bulls were not a dynasty after winning their 3rd title. They became a dynasty after proving that they (MJ, Scottie, Phil) could still win once they were back together. And they did it being even more dominant than the first three times. No other team beat them when they started the season together after winning their first title. They were broken up...or imploded, but no outside force beat them once they started winning.

Part of being a dynasty is the illusion of being unbeatable for a fair amount of time. (For me that means more than three years)

[hitmanyr2k]

Yeah, the Bulls were getting the dynasty label during the '98 Finals...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZdFwywggR0

[FireDavidKahn]

Phil Jackson "im butthurt"

[sportjames23]

Anyone who says the 90s Bulls weren't a dynasty is just plain ****ing stupid and hating just to hate. If you own a decade, winning 6 times out of 10 years, you're a dynasty, period.

[ArbitraryWater]

Spurs were a Fisher 0.4 shot and Dirk and-one away from 5-peating..

"not dominant" :facepalm

[Euroleague]

Who elected you Pope of "sports dynasty" definitions?

I said the word "dynasty" can be "nebulous". But at least one source that is used by many informed people on the net like Wiki, if interpreted correctly, has the Spurs as a dynasty.

The Wiki article didn't mention the Spurs, but it didn't require consecutive titles, but "A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for an extraordinary length of time. The definition of dynasty by academics implies a single leader over the bulk of that period, a great example being John Wooden who led a college basketball powerhouse at UCLA for over a quarter century. The word "dynasty" should not be used for a string of several dominant years in a row. It implies an......"

I agree though that different people can have their own take of what a "dynasty" is, but to say that your definition is the only one that is correct looks "Popish" to me.

So how come the Spurs are the only team listed there that never won a back to back? Your not being able to notice Wikipedia trolling when you read it is not my problem. It's yours.

[bizil]

If u get at least three rings in an 5-6 year span, THAT'S EASILY A DYNASTY! Now the 60's Celtics, Showtime Lakers, MJ's Bulls, and Spurs took it to the next level with their longevity. But the Shaq-Kobe Lakers and Bird's Celtics are dynasties too. It's a shame Shaq and Kobe couldn't get along and they had to end it. They should have had at least five rings.

That's why the Bird vs. Magic rivalry was so EPIC looking back. TWO DYNASTIES going back and forth for the rings in the Finals. Teams that win two rings in a five to six year span is very impressive, but it's not a DYNASTY. SO NO SIR to Isiah's Pistons, Bron-Wade Heat, and Hakeem's Rockets. They were on the doorstep but not quite...

[SamuraiSWISH]

Pop's response was hilarious lol:
He thinks his sarcasm is hilarious. That's the worst part. Comes across as a giant dick bag during games with his blunt, condescending in game interviews with news media that are simply doing their job.

Anyway, the 90's Chicago Bulls didn't get the DYNASTY label until they were pushing their 6th championship in 8 years, and a second three peat.

To call the Spurs, a team that didn't dominate, a dynasty? A team that didn't win back to backs, or a three peat, let alone three peat twice a dynasty is incredibly short sighted and flippant.

Devalues the word.

[Euroleague]

According to that logic, winning 2 in a row is better than winning every alternate year for 10-20 years

I already explained this. But people are stuck on that clear Wikipedia troll article and are being blinded by total idiocy.

A dynasty is maintaining dominance. A juggernaut is a long time of being a great team, without necessarily maintaining dominance.

ESPN and their ridiculous nonsense, along with stupid trolling like that Wikipedia article is confusing everyone.

Like I said.......

Patriots of this similar time frame = "dynasty" with 3 titles

Spurs with 5 titles = juggernaut

This was always the way these things were defined in sports. You have dynasties and you have juggernauts. And you can also be both.

Example, Patriots of similar time frame now are both, having been a dynasty in earlier part and now a juggernaut. 49ers were also both, being first a dynasty in 80s, then a juggernaut in 90s.

One is not necessarily seen as better than the other either. It's all of course viewed individually by that team's own performance within their own eras.

But now for some stupid reason, ESPN decided the juggernaut, which is what the Spurs are, isn't right for marketing or whatever, and decided to incorrectly label them a dynasty, even though they are not.

And what that Wikipedia article is claiming is a "dynasty" is actually a juggernaut.

This is simple 101 sports stuff.

[bizil]

He thinks his sarcasm is hilarious. That's the worst part. Comes across as a giant dick bag during games with his blunt, condescending in game interviews with news media that are simply doing their job.

Anyway, the 90's Chicago Bulls didn't get the DYNASTY label until they were pushing their 6th championship in 8 years, and a second three peat.

To call the Spurs, a team that didn't dominate, a dynasty? A team that didn't win back to backs, or a three peat, let alone three peat twice a dynasty is incredibly short sighted and flippant.

Devalues the word.

I guess some people felt that way in terms of the Bulls. But I know several sports writers who felt the Bulls were a dynasty after the first three peat and rightfully so. Once they three peated AGAIN, only the 60's Celtics had a better run.

[SamuraiSWISH]

I guess some people felt that way in terms of the Bulls.
No they didn't, who? The Bulls won 6 chips. 2x sets of 3-Peats. How on earth could they not be considered a dynasty? They ruled near entirety of the 90s. The only years they didn't win were when the biggest, and best chunk of their core roster was off chasing his deceased father's dreams by playing minor league baseball.

:facepalm

[T_L_P]

Like I said: say the Spurs aren't a dynasty if you want. But don't call Bird's Celtics one either.

And I've encountered a bunch of people who called Bird's Celtics and dynasty and not the Spurs.

[hiphopfan777]

One thing to keep in mind when you do phil vs pop debates is phil had rebuilt teams to deal with crappy .players like puke walton and shush parker while pop always had talent around him.

[bizil]

No they didn't, who? The Bulls won 6 chips. 2x sets of 3-Peats. How on earth could they not be considered a dynasty? They ruled near entirety of the 90s. The only years they didn't win were when the biggest, and best chunk of their core roster was off chasing his deceased father's dreams by playing minor league baseball.

:facepalm

I think u misunderstood me. I said I felt the Bulls were a dynasty AFTER THE FIRST THREE PEAT!! And millions of fans and sports writers did too. After the second three peat, only the 60's Celtics could **** with them at that point!

U said earlier in your post that the Bulls weren't considered a dynasty UNTIL the 2nd three peat. I said I felt the Bulls were a dynasty ALREADY after the first three peat. I was responding to those who felt the BUlls weren't a dynasty until the 2nd three peat. I DISAGREED and felt the Bulls were ALREADY a dynasty after the first three peat.

I was stating some people felt the Bulls weren't a dynasty until the 2nd three peat. But I disagreed with that and felt they were a dynasty ALREADY in 1993, Once u win three rings in a row, that's a dynasty.

[Euroleague]

The simple fact is, that troll Wikipedia article aside, ESPN troll marketing aside, etc.....


Dynasty = maintaining the place as the dominant championship team in succession for a long period of time.

Juggernaut = being a great force, and a great and powerful team over a very long period of time (what the troll Wikipedia article is claiming is a "dynasty").

That is always how those terms were defined in all the sports for years. ESPN and some internet trolls can't just change that on a whim. And what Jackson said is correct. That's just how it is.

There is not anything wrong or critical or bashing there. In fact, as some are saying, a juggernaut can actually win MORE championships than a dynasty and can last LONGER also.

But they are two different things. The Spurs are the juggernaut, not the dynasty. It's just stupid that this is even considered as an insult to the Spurs or that Popovich or anyone else on the Spurs would see it as such.

And it's just nonsense that ESPN and Wikipedia editors are going to all that bullshit to change those definitions just because evidently they think the word "dynasty" sounds better than the word "juggernaut" or because it must have tested better in some kind of marketing scheme.

[bizil]

The simple fact is, that troll Wikipedia article aside, ESPN troll marketing aside, etc.....


Dynasty = maintaining the place as the dominant championship team in succession for a long period of time

Juggernaut = being a great force, and a great and powerful team over a very long period of time (what the troll Wikipedia article is claiming is a "dynasty").

That is always how those terms were defined in all the sports for years. ESPN and some internet trolls can't just change that on a whim. And what Jackson said is correct. That's just how it is.

There is not anything wrong or critical or bashing there. In fact, as some are saying, a juggernaut can actually win MORE championships than a dynasty and can last LONGER also.

But they are two different things. The Spurs are the juggernaut, not the dynasty. It's just stupid that this is even considered as an insult to the Spurs or that Popovich or anyone else on the Spurs would see it as such.

And it's just nonsense that ESPN and Wikipedia editors are going to all that bullshit to change those definitions just because evidently they think the word "dynasty" sounds better than the word "juggernaut" or because it must have tested better in some kind of marketing scheme.

Great points! Either description is EPIC indeed! I think the Spurs winning 3 titles in 4-5 years is pretty dynastic. But they had big gaps between their first and second rings. As well as their fourth and fifth rings. A four year gap and a seven year gaps are big ass gaps! LOL

So in the case of the Spurs, Juggernaut may be more fitting due to the gaps of their sustained run. The MJ Bulls, Showtime Lakers, and 60's Celtics got their five rings and up in a much more condensed time period. But if one labeled the Spurs a dynasty I wouldn't complain either because they got 3 rings in a five year span.

[tamaraw08]

:oldlol:

All seriousness though, he had arguably the two most dominant players ever at their peak

You really don't Duncan "most dominant", really?:confusedshrug:
THe guy has almost no weaknesses, better FT shooter, most consistent, more fit than Shaq for the most part.
Peak Manu, peak Parker etc
btw, Phil lead the Bulls to 55 wins when MJ retired.

[Da_Realist]

Spurs were a Fisher 0.4 shot and Dirk and-one away from 5-peating..

"not dominant" :facepalm

But they didn't win. Close doesn't count. Win those games and they go through the next season with a bulls-eye on their back. Lose them and they are just part of the pack. The difference? The Spurs have never won with the bulls-eye on their back.


To call the Spurs, a team that didn't dominate, a dynasty? A team that didn't win back to backs, or a three peat, let alone three peat twice a dynasty is incredibly short sighted and flippant.

Devalues the word.

Exactly. Dynasty means something. Every team that wins two or three titles can't be a dynasty. Just the same, a team that never repeats also can't be a dynasty. It loses it's flavor.


I think u misunderstood me. I said I felt the Bulls were a dynasty AFTER THE FIRST THREE PEAT!!

No, they were a novelty. A three-peat hadn't happened since Bill Russell's Celtics. At that point, Magic's Lakers had a stronger claim. 5 titles in first the 8 years, 2-1 vs Bird's Celtics, 2-1 vs Dr J's Sixers, went to the Finals 8 out of the 10 years in the 80's.

It's hard for the Bulls to be a dynasty with 3 titles right after the Lakers had reeled off 5 out of 8, ending with a back-to-back. That's also why Shaq/Kobe Lakers don't feel like a dynasty. The Bulls had just won 6 out of 8 and broke up without ever getting beat.

[zoom17]

Phil had the GOAT, and a top ten player


Kobe too

:oldlol:

[Da_Realist]

I guess it's possible to be a dynasty without repeating but they'd have to win every other year for like 10 years and make the Finals most of the other years. Something like that.

I'll admit, it's subjective. But you still know it when you see it. I don't remember any year as the Spurs year, let alone a cluster of them. They never had the aura of the 90's Bulls. It doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, the Spurs have won 5 titles since 1999. I think they are fourth most all-time behind LA, Boston and Chicago.

[sportsfan76]

Disagree with Phil on this one. The Spurs ARE A DYNASTY!! But it's a unique dynasty because they didn't repeat though. Five rings equates dynasty to me. And they won three of their rings every other season. I would rather have the Spurs title run THAN the Lakers Kobe-Shaq title run. The Spurs run SHOWS that I'm gonna be with a stable franchise WITH NO EGOS to bring it down.

EGO brought the Lakers dynasty down. Shaq and Kobe could have won possibly seven rings if they would have stayed together. Shaq would have went down as possibly the GOAT center and Kobe's resume would have him in the top 5 GOAT. On the other hand Duncan has been winning rings since 1999 and still has a great shot to keep winning rings. Give me Duncan's situation ANYDAY!



5 Rings in 7 years is a dynasty.

Not 5 rings in 13 years:facepalm

[bizil]

But they didn't win. Close doesn't count. Win those games and they go through the next season with a bulls-eye on their back. Lose them and they are just part of the pack. The difference? The Spurs have never won with the bulls-eye on their back.



Exactly. Dynasty means something. Every team that wins two or three titles can't be a dynasty. Just the same, a team that never repeats also can't be a dynasty. It loses it's flavor.



No, they were a novelty. A three-peat hadn't happened since Bill Russell's Celtics. At that point, Magic's Lakers had a stronger claim. 5 titles in first the 8 years, 2-1 vs Bird's Celtics, 2-1 vs Dr J's Sixers, went to the Finals 8 out of the 10 years in the 80's.

It's hard for the Bulls to be a dynasty with 3 titles right after the Lakers had reeled off 5 out of 8, ending with a back-to-back. That's also why Shaq/Kobe Lakers don't feel like a dynasty. The Bulls had just won 6 out of 8 and broke up without ever getting beat.


I think some of yall need to pump your brakes on this DYNASTY SHIT! There are different LEVELS of a DYNASTY. For starters do many of yall realize how hard it is TO WIN ONE RING!! I don't care what yall say, 3 rings in a five year span is EASILY A DYNASTY!! Does that mean they are the greatest team ever, NO! But they were CLEARLY DOMINANT and got the job done.

In NBA HISTORY, HOW MANY TEAMS WON THREE RINGS IN A FIVE YEAR PERIOD?:

The 50's Mikan Lakers
The 60's Celtics
The 80's Lakers
The 80's Celtics
The 90's Bulls
The Kobe-Shaq Lakers
The Duncan Spurs

So in the RICH history of the NBA, ONLY SEVEN TEAMS have won three titles in a five year period. I'm NOT EVEN COUNTING repeats or three peats. Shiiiiiit! I'm just talking about teams who won three rings in a five year period.

That's a VERY RARE FEAT that merits dynasty talk. Now u have different levels of dynasties. But in the four major American sports, I'm sure ITS STILL RARE AS HELL to win three rings in five years. And not to mention, those teams are VERY CLOSE in the years they DIDN'T win rings. They were OFTEN in contention AND LOST IN THE FINALS!!! Call it a dynasty or a juggenaut, WINNING THREE RINGS IN A FIVE YEAR PERIOD IS DAMN SPECIAL!! And ANY of yall who think different are HATERS FLAT OUT!! THREE RINGS IN FIVE YEARS!! LMAO It's not easy to win ONE RING LET ALONE THREE IN FIVE YEARS!!!

[bizil]

5 Rings in 7 years is a dynasty.

Not 5 rings in 13 years:facepalm

The buffoon shit on this site!! Three of those rings CAME IN A FIVE YEAR PERIOD FOR THE SPURS!!! Look across the FOUR MAJOR SPORTS and see how often that happened. So the 90's Cowboys weren't a DYNASTY? Three rings in five years is EASILY A DYNASTY!! That's a rare feat not done very often at all. There are different levels to this shit!! U gotta realize that THE MAJORITY of those teams were in the hunt when they didnt win rings. They were threats often times over a ten year period.

I challenge somebody to count among the four major sports how many teams won at least three rings in five years. I would estimate NO MORE THAN 30 teams did that in the four major sports. When u break that down between THE FOUR MAJOR PRO SPORTS, that's a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE!! U got seven in the NBA i believe. For yall HATING on three rings in five years, COUNT FROM THERE!!

[Da_Realist]

I think some of yall need to pump your brakes on this DYNASTY SHIT! There are different LEVELS of a DYNASTY. For starters do many of yall realize how hard it is TO WIN ONE RING!! I don't care what yall say, 3 rings in a five year span is EASILY A DYNASTY!! Does that mean they are the greatest team ever, NO! But they were CLEARLY DOMINANT and got the job done.

In NBA HISTORY, HOW MANY TEAMS WON THREE RINGS IN A FIVE YEAR PERIOD?:

The 50's Mikan Lakers
The 60's Celtics
The 80's Lakers
The 80's Celtics
The 90's Bulls
The Kobe-Shaq Lakers
The Duncan Spurs

So in the RICH history of the NBA, ONLY SEVEN TEAMS have won three titles in a five year period. I'm NOT EVEN COUNTING repeats or three peats. Shiiiiiit! I'm just talking about teams who won three rings in a five year period.

That's a VERY RARE FEAT that merits dynasty talk. Now u have different levels of dynasties. But in the four major American sports, I'm sure ITS STILL RARE AS HELL to win three rings in five years. And not to mention, those teams are VERY CLOSE in the years they DIDN'T win rings. They were OFTEN in contention AND LOST IN THE FINALS!!! Call it a dynasty or a juggenaut, WINNING THREE RINGS IN A FIVE YEAR PERIOD IS DAMN SPECIAL!! And ANY of yall who think different are HATERS FLAT OUT!! THREE RINGS IN FIVE YEARS!! LMAO It's not easy to win ONE RING LET ALONE THREE IN FIVE YEARS!!!

Relax. Accomplishing a rare feat does not make a team a dynasty. Now we have different levels of dynasty?? Either it is or it isn't. Winning 3 out of 5 warrants merit of the possibility of dynasty talk. Fading out for the next 7 years stops the momentum. It doesn't mean it's not a special, rare or difficult accomplishment. They just didn't run through the league kicking butt and taking names.

[bizil]

Relax. Accomplishing a rare feat does not make a team a dynasty. Now we have different levels of dynasty?? Either it is or it isn't. Winning 3 out of 5 warrants merit of the possibility of dynasty talk. Fading out for the next 7 years stops the momentum. It doesn't mean it's not a special, rare or difficult accomplishment. They just didn't run through the league kicking butt and taking names.

Of course there are different levels of a dynasty. MJ's Bulls were CLEARLY a dynasty. But they WEREN'T as dominant as Russell's Celtics. But they were both dynasties. Just like there are different levels of greatness among players. So The Spurs didn't run through the league kicking butt and taking names during their run? Bird's Celtics DIDN'T run through league kicking butt and taking names? If u win at least three rings in five years and are making the conference finals or NBA finals consistently in the many of the other years, that's a dynasty.

[Da_Realist]

Of course there are different levels of a dynasty. MJ's Bulls were CLEARLY a dynasty. But they WEREN'T as dominant as Russell's Celtics. But they were both dynasties. Just like there are different levels of greatness among players. So The Spurs didn't run through the league kicking butt and taking names during their run? Bird's Celtics DIDN'T run through league kicking butt and taking names? If u win at least three rings in five years and are making the conference finals or NBA finals consistently in the many of the other years, that's a dynasty.

3 out of 5 years is not a dynasty.

[LAZERUSS]

I have seen those that have claimed that Bird's Celtics were a "dynasty." If that is considered a dynasty, then surely the Spurs for the past 15+ years are as well.

[sportsfan76]

The buffoon shit on this site!! Three of those rings CAME IN A FIVE YEAR PERIOD FOR THE SPURS!!! Look across the FOUR MAJOR SPORTS and see how often that happened. So the 90's Cowboys weren't a DYNASTY? Three rings in five years is EASILY A DYNASTY!! That's a rare feat not done very often at all. There are different levels to this shit!! U gotta realize that THE MAJORITY of those teams were in the hunt when they didnt win rings. They were threats often times over a ten year period.

I challenge somebody to count among the four major sports how many teams won at least three rings in five years. I would estimate NO MORE THAN 30 teams did that in the four major sports. When u break that down between THE FOUR MAJOR PRO SPORTS, that's a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE!! U got seven in the NBA i believe. For yall HATING on three rings in five years, COUNT FROM THERE!!


Right, that means they USED to be a dynasty back in 2007, but it is now 2014 and they are not a dynasty anymore, just one of the better teams in the league. Understand what I am trying to explain to you?

[sportsfan76]

I have seen those that have claimed that Bird's Celtics were a "dynasty." If that is considered a dynasty, then surely the Spurs for the past 15+ years are as well.


Not if they never repeated

[Da_Realist]

How are Bird's Celtics a dynasty when there was a team that won more and beat them head to head in the same timeframe? It can be argued that Bird's Celtics were better but they don't have an argument for being a dynasty.

[bizil]

Right, that means they USED to be a dynasty back in 2007, but it is now 2014 and they are not a dynasty anymore, just one of the better teams in the league. Understand what I am trying to explain to you?

I see what u are saying. But Phil's comment was that they were NEVER a dyansty AT ALL! U do acknowledge that they were a dynasty so we agree there. That was my main point of contention. That the Spurs have done enough in their run to warrant dynasty status at some point.

However, they have their core big three in place as well as their coach from 2007. And from there they adjusted the roster AROUND THOSE THREE guys! It's the same four guys who won three outta five early and won last year. But u made good points and I think we agree on this one.

[sportsfan76]

They have their core big three in place as well as their coach. And from there they adjusted the roster AROUND THOSE THREE guys! They are indeed a dynasty. It's the same four guys who won three outta five early and won last year. It's THE SAME DAMN CORE!

If they can't repeat this year then what does that tell you?

[bizil]

3 out of 5 years is not a dynasty.

Magic and The Lakers won five rings from 1980-1988. Duncan and The Spurs won four rings from 1999-2007. That is a dynasty flat out! Magic just won one more ring in the same amount of time. The Spurs have done enough in their run to be considered a dynasty.

[bizil]

If they can't repeat this year then what does that tell you?

My main point was that the Spurs are a dynasty in NBA annuals. I'm fine if people don't think they are anymore. Many people don't think they were a dynasty at all, which I DISAGREE WITH. I agree with what u said earlier actually because u at least knew the Spurs were a dynasty. The five rings the core of the Spurs got was so spread out over the years that it makes them a unique case.

[rmt]

Right, that means they USED to be a dynasty back in 2007, but it is now 2014 and they are not a dynasty anymore, just one of the better teams in the league. Understand what I am trying to explain to you?

So you think that they are a different team now (even though Duncan, Parker, Manu and Pop are still integral parts of the team) so they NOW don't qualify as a dynasty. How do you explain 99 when there was no Parker or Manu? Or should we just ignore that since Duncan entered the league, Spurs contend almost every year? How do you call them a dynasty from 03-07 when there were players on 07 who weren't on 03? Hardly any team stays the same year in, year out, but SA's core players have been there for a LONG time.

[Da_Realist]

Magic and The Lakers won five rings from 1980-1988. Duncan and The Spurs won four rings from 1999-2007. That is a dynasty flat out! Magic just won one more ring in the same amount of time. The Spurs have done enough in their run to be considered a dynasty.

Spurs won in 99. Lakers won the next three. Spurs win after Lakers implode and never repeat. Not a dynasty.

[bizil]

So you think that they are a different team now (even though Duncan, Parker, Manu and Pop are still integral parts of the team) so they NOW don't qualify as a dynasty. How do you explain 99 when there was no Parker or Manu? Or should we just ignore that since Duncan entered the league, Spurs contend almost every year? How do you call them a dynasty from 03-07 when there were players on 07 who weren't on 03? Hardly any team stays the same year in, year out, but SA's core players have been there for a LONG time.

That's been my point as well! Pop and Timmy have been together since day one. And since 2003, Manu and Tony showed up. So I don't see how people penalize them when they have CONSISTENTLY been winning 50+ plus games every year, a number one seed in the West, etc. Some people think the Spurs NEVER were a dynasty. Which is ridiculous.

Some people think they were one in the 2000s which they were of course. But teams have to make moves to get better. If u look at the Lakers first ring in 1980 and their last ring in 1988, their roster is VASTLY DIFFERENT! The only two guys that were on all the title teams in the 80's were Magic and Kareem. They were the PILLARS just like Tim and Pop. And from there Manu and Tony.

[bizil]

Spurs won in 99. Lakers won the next three. Spurs win after Lakers implode and never repeat. Not a dynasty.

But it's still 4 rings in 8 years. Magic's Lakers won 5 rings in 8 years. That's very COMPARABLE! It's the same timeframe!! It doesn't matter if the Lakers won the next three, 4 rings in 8 years is a FACT!!

[Da_Realist]

But it's still 4 rings in 8 years. Magic's Lakers won 5 rings in 8 years. That's very COMPARABLE! It's the same timeframe!! It doesn't matter if the Lakers won the next three, 4 rings in 8 years is a FACT!!

Still not a dynasty. They won 4 titles in 8 years. They were/are a strong force but not a dynasty. 5 of 8 is still a better resume than 4 of 8. You can't look back, count the titles and declare them a dynasty after the fact. Were they considered a dynasty at the time? Are they considered a dynasty now? No. They won. Great accomplishment. Rare, even, but the Spurs were not a dynasty.

It's not just how many they won (quantity) but how they were won (quality). Repeating as champs while winning a nice number over a good timeframe is a good start.

The Spurs won in 99 and them watched the Lakers dominate the league for 3 straight years. They defended their title twice in a row. The Spurs have never done that. 99 shouldn't even count toward this conversation.

[Prometheus]

The '60s Celtics, '90s Bulls, and early '00s Lakers are the only dynasties that have ever existed in he NBA.

EDIT: and Mikan's Lakers.

[sportsfan76]

So you think that they are a different team now (even though Duncan, Parker, Manu and Pop are still integral parts of the team) so they NOW don't qualify as a dynasty. How do you explain 99 when there was no Parker or Manu? Or should we just ignore that since Duncan entered the league, Spurs contend almost every year? How do you call them a dynasty from 03-07 when there were players on 07 who weren't on 03? Hardly any team stays the same year in, year out, but SA's core players have been there for a LONG time.


They won 5 titles in 16 years which is not dynasty

[bizil]

Great points on this topic! Even if I disagree with some posts, there is merit to those opinions. The thing with the Spurs is their sustained run as a championship level team. I can't think of core of guys who have been as good long as they have. other than the 60's Celtics. 16 straight 50 win seasons is some beast shit. As I said before, their run in very unique so I see arguments on both sides. I would say TYPICALLY a team does need to win at least three rings and have a repeat in there somewhere. But I think the Spurs are the exception to the rule. They are a VERY UNIQUE CASE.

[Prometheus]

The Spurs, much like the Celtics and Lakers of the '80s were, are a "perennial powerhouse". Not a dynasty.

[sportsfan76]

The Spurs, much like the Celtics and Lakers of the '80s were, are a "perennial powerhouse". Not a dynasty.


WRONG

lakers were a dynasty

1980-title
1982-title
1985-title
1987-title
1988-title

5 titles in 8 years and 3 in 4 years


I agree about the Celtics since they only won 3 in 7 years without a repeat and the first two were 3 years apart

[deja vu]

I like the Spurs but they didn't/don't have the aura of invincibility that the 60s Celtics, 90s Bulls and to a lesser extent, the 2000s Lakers.

For some reason (bad luck, unfavorable decisions, injuries, etc.) they weren't able to defend their crown.

Dynasties also had bad luck, unfavorable decisions, injuries but were able to overcome those because of their sheer strength and dominance.

The Spurs are a model of winning consistency but are not a dynasty. As said above, a "perennial powerhouse."

[rmt]

It is very difficult to dominate these days with the league as diluted as it is, with the player movement and the amount of money to be made in endorsements (player contract money is less important). Back in the day, players did not switch teams the way they do now, there was team loyalty and emnity between players of different teams. Now, every body is friendly because you don't know who'll be your team mate next year.

For those same reasons, it's very difficult to maintain consistent excellence and remain a contender for 17 years. And if it were so easy, then why aren't other teams doing it too? Whether people choose to call the Spurs a dynasty or a powerhouse, I'll continue to enjoy their winning ways. I have to say that I really SAVORED this past championship and enjoyed it more than any other (although there is nothing quite like the first).

Phil sounds like sour grapes with regards to the Spurs. Pop always takes the high road - guess that's why former Spur people are littered all over management/coaching in the NBA.

[sportsfan76]

It is very difficult to dominate these days with the league as diluted as it is, with the player movement and the amount of money to be made in endorsements (player contract money is less important). Back in the day, players did not switch teams the way they do now, there was team loyalty and enmity between players of different teams. Now, every body is friendly because you don't know who'll be your team mate next year.

For those same reasons, it's very difficult to maintain consistent excellence and remain a contender for 17 years. And if it were so easy, then why aren't other teams doing it too? Whether people choose to call the Spurs a dynasty or a powerhouse, I'll continue to enjoy their winning ways. I have to say that I really SAVORED this past championship and enjoyed it more than any other (although there is nothing quite like the first).

Phil sounds like sour grapes with regards to the Spurs. Pop always takes the high road - guess that's why former Spur people are littered all over management/coaching in the NBA.


Yeah like Brett Brown with the sixers:facepalm

[rmt]

Yeah like Brett Brown with the sixers:facepalm

Do you have a problem with former Spurs assistant coaches/players/personnel?

Avery Johnson
Doc Rivers
Jacque Vaughn
Sam Presti
Mike Budenholzer
P J Carlesimo
Don Newman
Joe Prunty
Steve Kerr
Danny Ferry

[Soundwave]

I dunno if they're a dynasty but 5 championships is 5 championships last time I checked.

It's not like they count for less or something.

Ultimately for example in the roughly 18 seasons of having Kobe Bryant (and Shaq for like 8-9 years), the Lakers have won 5 total (out of 18 seasons). The Spurs have 5 in 16.

[sportsfan76]

I dunno if they're a dynasty but 5 championships is 5 championships last time I checked.

It's not like they count for less or something.

Ultimately for example in the roughly 18 seasons of having Kobe Bryant (and Shaq for like 8-9 years), the Lakers have won 5 total (out of 18 seasons). The Spurs have 5 in 16.


The Lakers had 3 championships 3 years in a row

Do me a favor and log out:facepalm

[The_Yearning]

I dunno if they're a dynasty but 5 championships is 5 championships last time I checked.

It's not like they count for less or something.

Ultimately for example in the roughly 18 seasons of having Kobe Bryant (and Shaq for like 8-9 years), the Lakers have won 5 total (out of 18 seasons). The Spurs have 5 in 16.

Shaq won 3 in a row with Kobe and then Gasol won 2 in a row with Kobe.

That's a dynasty.