The Spurs are overrated in the annals of history

[3ball]

.
The Spurs weren't capable or dominant enough to win back-to-back - they could only win one-off rings after superior dynasties fell off, which isn't as impressive as BEING those superior dynasties that can dominate continuously.

The Spurs teams were the same caliber as any other one-off winner, like the 2004 Pistons or 2011 Mavs - so not good enough to be a dynasty - except the Spurs maintained their less-than dynasty caliber for 15 years.

[COLOR="Navy"]The Jordan Angle:[/COLOR] It makes sense that the non-dynasty caliber of the Spurs would get destroyed by ACTUAL dynasty teams like Shaq/Kobe's Lakers.. And we got a glimpse of how they fared in the Bulls' heyday - Duncan, Robinson, and Popovich won 56 games in 1998 but were destroyed in the playoffs by the Jazz, who got crushed by Jordan in the Finals.

So Duncan/Popovich's Spurs couldn't touch Jordan's Bulls, and would've been doormats just like the Jazz and everyone else.. Look at Jordan in his first meeting with Duncan/Popovich/Robinson in 1998 - he MADE the walk-off 3-pointer from the exact same spot of Lebron's infamous miss - then MJ dominated the overtime, including 2 dunks over Duncan.. So again - the Spurs would be doormats for Jordan just like everyone else, which shouldn't be a surprise, since we know they were NON-DYNASTY CALIBER.

.

[Paul George 24]

.
The Spurs won in 1999 because they played the Knicks in the Finals instead of Jordan's Bulls - [COLOR="DarkRed"]so their first ring was won only AFTER a superior dynasty was broken up, just like all their other rings, as explained below[/COLOR].

After 1999, the Spurs disappeared while Kobe/Shaq were making a historic dynasty, and only won again [COLOR="DarkRed"]AFTER[/COLOR] Kobe/Shaq started to break up and Kobe had his rape charge (2003-2007 period).

Then the Spurs disappeared again while Kobe/Pau had their epic run, and only won again [COLOR="DarkRed"]AFTER[/COLOR] Kobe hurt his achilles and was finished.

Clearly, all of the Spurs rings occurred [COLOR="DarkRed"]AFTER[/COLOR] a superior dynasty broke up.. So the Spurs were not a great dynasty themselves - they merely played the longevity game and waited for powerhouse dynasties to drop off and leave a power vacuum/opportunity.. Far be it for the Spurs to win back-to-back and be a dynasty themselves - they simply weren't good enough for that.

[COLOR="Navy"]The Jordan Angle:[/COLOR] It makes sense that the non-dynasty caliber of the Spurs would get destroyed by ACTUAL dynasty teams like Shaq/Kobe's Lakers.. And we got a glimpse of how they fared in the Bulls' heyday - Duncan, Robinson, and Popovich won 56 games in 1998 but were destroyed in the playoffs by the Jazz, who got crushed by Jordan in the Finals.

So Duncan/Popovich's Spurs couldn't touch Jordan's Bulls, and would've been doormats just like the Jazz and everyone else.. Look at Jordan in his first meeting with Duncan/Popovich/Robinson in 1998 - he MADE the walk-off 3-pointer from the exact same spot of Lebron's infamous miss - then MJ dominated the overtime, including 2 dunks over Duncan.. So again - the Spurs would be doormats for Jordan just like everyone else, which shouldn't be a surprise, since we know they were NON-DYNASTY CALIBER.

DUNCAN >>>>> KOBE & SHAQ

[Ben Simmons]

The Spurs are consistent as a franchise. I thought that was obvious...

[Spurs m8]

3ball, you're usually good, but very wrong here.

Their winning record over the past 17 or so years speaks for itself.

And Kobe is a hyped up loser.

Its not like you to be a fgt

[Dray n Klay]

Wait.. so the 2013 Lakers were a dynasty that the Spurs waited to finish?

[3ball]

3ball, you're usually good, but very wrong here.

Their winning record over the past 17 or so years speaks for itself.

Clearly, all of the Spurs rings occurred AFTER a superior dynasty broke up.

So the Spurs were not a great dynasty themselves - [COLOR="Navy"]they merely played the longevity game and waited for powerhouse dynasties to drop off and leave a vacuum/opportunity.[/COLOR].

Far be it for the Spurs to win back-to-back and be a dynasty themselves - they simply weren't good enough for that... How is anything said in this post wrong?

[RedBlackAttack]

They're the best run franchise in American sports, imo. The consistency and longevity speak for themselves.

I don't care what kind of semantics you want to use to describe it... dynasty or whatever. I just know that what they've built is actually rarer than winning a couple championships in a row.

[Spurs m8]

Clearly, all of the Spurs rings occurred AFTER a superior dynasty broke up.

So the Spurs were not a great dynasty themselves - [COLOR="Navy"]they merely played the longevity game and waited for powerhouse dynasties to drop off and leave a vacuum/opportunity.[/COLOR].

Far be it for the Spurs to win back-to-back and be a dynasty themselves - they simply weren't good enough for that... How is anything said in this post wrong?

Weak coincidences.

And they aren't overrated...they have been somewhat a model franchise and have been successful for a very long time...consistently.

Stats speak for themselves.

[tpols]

the spurs were kinda like scavengers as OP points out.. they basically siphoned rings in between true dynasties.. but it is a testament to their discipline and consistentsy that they hung around for so long. Other teams may have peaked higher but they also burnt out way quicker.

[Dray n Klay]

So did Jordan also play the 'longevity game' and wait for the Celtics/Lakers dynasty to end, and then wait again for the Rockets dynasty to end?

[3ball]

They're the best run franchise in American sports, imo. The consistency and longevity speak for themselves.

I don't care what kind of semantics you want to use to describe it... dynasty or whatever. I just know that what they've built is actually rarer than winning a couple championships in a row.

Their longevity is more rare, but it doesn't make their team better or more capable of beating other all-time great teams.

The Spurs couldn't win back-to-back titles and be a dynasty THEMSELVES - they simply weren't good enough for that.

Instead, they played the longevity game and waited for powerhouse dynasties to drop off and leave a vacuum/opportunity.. Succeeding in this longevity strategy might be more rare, but it actually means the team is inferior to other teams that were good enough to win back-to-back.

[Spurs m8]

Their longevity is more rare, but it doesn't make their team BETTER or more capable of beating other all-time great teams.

Far be it for the Spurs to win back-to-back and be a dynasty themselves - they simply weren't good enough for that.

Instead, they played the longevity game and waited for powerhouse dynasties to drop off and leave a vacuum/opportunity.. Succeeding in this longevity strategy might be more rare, but it actually means the team is inferior to other teams that were good enough to win back-to-back.

LOL okay, if you believe that.

[3ball]

So did Jordan also play the 'longevity game' and wait for the Celtics/Lakers dynasty to end, and then wait again for the Rockets dynasty to end?

Unlike the Spurs, the Bulls achieved 2 three-peats and a level of domination the Spurs could only dream of.

Otoh, the Spurs weren't good enough to win back-to-back..

Instead, they played the longevity game, and waited for powerhouse dynasties to drop off and create a vacuum/opportunity.. This means their team was never as good as ACTUAL dynasties like the Bulls or Shaq's Lakers, who were dominant enough to win back-to-back.

[Spurs m8]

.
The Spurs won in 1999 because they played the Knicks in the Finals instead of Jordan's Bulls - [COLOR="DarkRed"]so their first ring was won only AFTER a superior dynasty was broken up, just like all their other rings, as explained below[/COLOR].

After 1999, the Spurs disappeared while Kobe/Shaq were making a historic dynasty, and only won again [COLOR="DarkRed"]AFTER[/COLOR] Kobe/Shaq started to break up and Kobe had his rape charge (2003-2007 period).

Then the Spurs disappeared again while Kobe/Pau had their epic run, and only won again [COLOR="DarkRed"]AFTER[/COLOR] Kobe hurt his achilles and was finished.

Clearly, all of the Spurs rings occurred [COLOR="DarkRed"]AFTER[/COLOR] a superior dynasty broke up.. So the Spurs were not a great dynasty themselves - they merely played the longevity game and waited for powerhouse dynasties to drop off and leave a power vacuum/opportunity.. Far be it for the Spurs to win back-to-back and be a dynasty themselves - they simply weren't good enough for that.

[COLOR="Navy"]The Jordan Angle:[/COLOR] It makes sense that the non-dynasty caliber of the Spurs would get destroyed by ACTUAL dynasty teams like Shaq/Kobe's Lakers.. And we got a glimpse of how they fared in the Bulls' heyday - Duncan, Robinson, and Popovich won 56 games in 1998 but were destroyed in the playoffs by the Jazz, who got crushed by Jordan in the Finals.

So Duncan/Popovich's Spurs couldn't touch Jordan's Bulls, and would've been doormats just like the Jazz and everyone else.. Look at Jordan in his first meeting with Duncan/Popovich/Robinson in 1998 - he MADE the walk-off 3-pointer from the exact same spot of Lebron's infamous miss - then MJ dominated the overtime, including 2 dunks over Duncan.. So again - the Spurs would be doormats for Jordan just like everyone else, which shouldn't be a surprise, since we know they were NON-DYNASTY CALIBER.

Why are you conveniently leaving out the Heat in 14, who were going for their 3rd ring in a row and were basically a dynasty threat, until the Spurs shut that down forever in rape fashion.

05 clear winners.

07 clear winners.

You pick and choose a bit of info to suit some weird agenda.

Weird c*nt

[3ball]

LOL okay, if you believe that.

It's obvious fact to anyone with common sense:

The Spurs weren't good enough to win back-to-back - FACT... So they couldn't be the kind of dominant dynasty that Bulls and Lakers were - FACT.

Instead, they played the longevity game and waited for powerhouse dynasties to drop off and leave a vacuum/opportunity.. Succeeding in this longevity strategy might be more rare, but it actually means the team is inferior to other teams who were good enough to win back-to-back.