rangercal Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 3 rings in the last 6 years. I say they are. If not, they are very close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasywheels121 Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 I think the word "dynasty" has lost a lot of its meaning with how often it gets thrown around anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangercal Posted June 13, 2005 Author Share Posted June 13, 2005 QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 12:37 AM) I think the word "dynasty" has lost a lot of its meaning with how often it gets thrown around anymore. explain? You don't agree with the last few dynasties in sports? Pats, Yankees, lakers, bulls? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Three in a row is the official beginning of the "Dynasty Consideration". Celtics, Lakers, Bulls. That's about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWhiteSox Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 In my opinion, no. They've been too spaced out to the point where it's almost completely different teams. A dynasty consistently dominates an era, in my opinion, and the lakers were too dominant in between. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangercal Posted June 13, 2005 Author Share Posted June 13, 2005 isn't weird their have only been 5 teams win the nba championship since 1986 ? 04-05 det/sa 03-04 det 02-03 SA 01-02 la 00-01 la 99-00 la 98-99 sa 97-98 chi 96-97 chi 95-96 chi 94-95 hou 93-94 hou 92-93 chi 91-92 chi 90-91 chi 89-90 det 88-89 det 87-88 la 86-87 la Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 QUOTE(rangercal @ Jun 12, 2005 -> 11:36 PM) 3 rings in the last 6 years. I say they are. If not, they are very close. It would be 3 rings in the last 7 years. And I wouldn't call them a dynasty just yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(rangercal @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 12:48 AM) isn't weird their have only been 5 teams win the nba championship since 1986 ? 04-05 det/sa 03-04 det 02-03 SA 01-02 la 00-01 la 99-00 la 98-99 sa 97-98 chi 96-97 chi 95-96 chi 94-95 hou 93-94 hou 92-93 chi 91-92 chi 90-91 chi 89-90 det 88-89 det 87-88 la 86-87 la Yeah I noticed that too, and no matter who wins it this year, it'll stay at 5. And if you add the next like 25 years or so, there's only 7 teams. The Celtics won it a few times and the 76'ers won it once. Edited June 13, 2005 by WilliamTell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 (edited) I guess you can say the Spurs are a "modern" dynasty. In this era of greedy, spoiled players, salary cap, and free agency, they've proven to be a dedicated, classy, and consistent winner. 3 titles in 7 years is outstanding. Scary thing for the rest of the league is, they should be even better next year. Parker gets better every year. Manu has solidified himself as an all-star. They'll get a full year from Nazr Mohammed. Guy's like Brent Barry and Beno Udrih should be better in their second season in Pop's system. They've got a guy named Luis Scola "I can't remember where he's from" comin in next year who's supposed to be an excellent player. And they've still got that Duncan guy. Edited June 13, 2005 by Jordan4life_2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 they are far from a dynasty.... I dont even consider the patriots a true dynasty.... I think you either have to win 3 championships in a row or win like 4 out of 5 to start being considered one. So the spurs have some work to do if they want to become a dynasty but I guess if the patriots win the superbowl again they can truly be considered one at least in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Are the Buffalo Bills of the early 90's a dynasty? I would say yes, even though they didn't win the Super Bowl. How many teams can say they went to four straight Super Bowl's? Or World Series? Or Championship Series? The only ones I can think of are the Yankees, Celtics, and UCLA Bruins. And probably some team in hockey when there were 6 teams. Like Montreal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnB Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 11:51 AM) they are far from a dynasty.... I dont even consider the patriots a true dynasty.... I think you either have to win 3 championships in a row or win like 4 out of 5 to start being considered one. So the spurs have some work to do if they want to become a dynasty but I guess if the patriots win the superbowl again they can truly be considered one at least in my opinion. with that though, you have to look at the state of the NFL. The raiders are in the superbowl one year, last place the next. One year, the panthers come out of nowhere. It's extremely hard to win 2 in a row in the state of the current NFL. The pats are a dynasty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 03:34 AM) Yeah I noticed that too, and no matter who wins it this year, it'll stay at 5. And if you add the next like 25 years or so, there's only 7 teams. The Celtics won it a few times and the 76'ers won it once. Well...if you are adding 25 years to 1986, you have to add in Seattle, Washington, Portland, Golden State, New York, and Milwaukee as well. But I get your gist. Since 1980, you are correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch and Judy Garland Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Right, the Spurs aren't that close yet but they have enough good players who are relatively young to have a shot at building one. I still think Manu is your 05-06 MVP, this playoff run has shown he is emerging as an elite player Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 QUOTE(knightni @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 01:47 PM) Well...if you are adding 25 years to 1986, you have to add in Seattle, Washington, Portland, Golden State, New York, and Milwaukee as well. But I get your gist. Since 1980, you are correct. Whoops, I worded that wrong. I meant since 1980 though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 QUOTE(Soxnbears01 @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 05:14 PM) with that though, you have to look at the state of the NFL. The raiders are in the superbowl one year, last place the next. One year, the panthers come out of nowhere. It's extremely hard to win 2 in a row in the state of the current NFL. The pats are a dynasty. I guess they can be considered a modern day NFL dynasty but I still dont consider them a true dynasty as of yet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 I've become a Spurs fan since moving down here. I always appreciate class in athletes and teams and the Spurs seem to have the market cornered in the NBA. I believe David Robinson was one of the truly great gentleman athletes who actually believed he should be a role model and was. Tim Duncan learned a lot at Robinson's side and has continued that tradition. Being a Bulls fan through the years, it's so very easy to hate the Pistons, so this is an easy final as far as picking a team. Evil vs. Good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OilCan Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 Tell you what, they didn't play like a dynasty in the last minute of the 3rd Q, however the core pieces are there for the Spurs to be a dynasty. If they do win this year, one more additional championship will cement them into the D status. They have Tim Duncan for a few more years, Manu for seven more and Tony Parker for five more years beyond this year. If they resign Horry and Nazr, as well as Devin Brown, they will be tough to beat in the West, no matter what anyone else does, or how fast teams like Phoenix and Dallas shoot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerhead johnson Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 QUOTE(OilCan @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 03:21 AM) They have Tim Duncan for a few more years, Manu for seven more and Tony Parker for five more years beyond this year. If they resign Horry and Nazr, as well as Devin Brown, they will be tough to beat in the West, no matter what anyone else does, or how fast teams like Phoenix and Dallas shoot. There's no way that you forgot to mention the guy who has finished TOP THREE in Defensive Player Of The Year voting the last two years. Outside of Duncan, who is the most important player when determining what makes the Spurs a defensive powerhouse? Assists Allowed Per Game 1. San Antonio 16.89 2. Indiana 18.78 3. Utah 19.41 4. Detroit 19.73 5. Miami 19.75 Least Fouls Commited Per Game 1. Phoenix 19.06 2. Detroit 19.97 3. Sacramento 20.54 4. San Antonio 20.93 5. Portland 20.93 Points Allowed 1. San Antonio 88.39 2. Detroit 89.46 3. Houston 91.03 4. Memphis 91.13 5. Indiana 92.24 FG% Allowed 1. Chicago .422 2. Houston .423 3. San Antonio .426 4. Miami .427 5. Detroit .430 Blocks Per Game 1. Portland 6.63 2. San Antonio 6.62 3. Detroit 6.06 4. Denver 5.96 5. Memphis 5.80 They weren't Top 5 in rebounding differential or opponents rebounding. That's where Detroit absolutely slaughtered folks, especially in REB DIF with 3.80+ (next closest nearly a full rebound off). If Duncan didn't have a sidekick to go out and defend your freak scoring SGs (McGrady, Allen, Pierce, Bryant, etc), you can forget about championships, and more importantly, asinine Dynasty speculation. His name is BRUCE BOWEN. He's a rare breed, the closest thing to Pippen (defensively) in the entire league. Duncan can't do it all on his own if he's surrounded by half-assed defensive players. Ginobli hustles his ass off for that loose ball and can cut off some passes, but he couldn't cover elite perimiter scoring threats if his life depended on it. Mohammed is a rebounding force who gets pushed around down low with his Gumbi-like body. Dude lost like damn near 100 pounds...he should try to gain 30 of those pounds back this offseason. Parker, Udrih, and Barry are terrible defensive players. And yet, check the defensive rankings. Check out the bread and butter. Keep in mind that Horry rarely ever played during the regular season. Bowen just turned 34, so his days are numbered. When discussing the Spurs of the future, you might want to remember Bruce Bowen? How are they going to replace him, Oil Can? Because dominant perimiter and mid-range defenders like Tayshaun, Artest, Iguodala, and Kirilenko don't grow on trees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Bruce Bowen... hmmm.... Isn't that the guy who the Bulls traded for, then waived 48 hours later? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangercal Posted June 16, 2005 Author Share Posted June 16, 2005 QUOTE(knightni @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 03:17 AM) Bruce Bowen... hmmm.... Isn't that the guy who the Bulls traded for, then waived 48 hours later? Really? I dont think we ever had him. Wouldn't surprise me though. Would be just another krause blunder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 QUOTE(rangercal @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 02:43 AM) Really? I dont think we ever had him. Wouldn't surprise me though. Would be just another krause blunder. We had him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 QUOTE(rangercal @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 04:43 AM) Really? I dont think we ever had him. Wouldn't surprise me though. Would be just another krause blunder. Make you wanna look it up now, huh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangercal Posted June 16, 2005 Author Share Posted June 16, 2005 QUOTE(knightni @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 03:46 AM) Make you wanna look it up now, huh. CAREER TRANSACTIONS Went unpicked in the 1993 NBA Draft … signed as a free agent by the Heat (10/5/95) … waived by the Heat (10/13/95) … signed by the Heat to a 10-day contract (3/15/97) … signed by the Heat for the remainder of the season (3/25/97) … signed as a free agent by the Celtics (6/28/97) … signed as a free agent by the Sixers (9/16/99) … traded by the Sixers to the Bulls as part of a three-team deal: Larry Hughes and Billy Owens went to the Warriors (from the Sixers), Toni Kukoc went to the Sixers (from the Bulls) and John Starks and a first round pick (from the Warriors) - along with Bowen - went to the Bulls (2/16/00) … waived by the Bulls (2/18/00) … signed as a free agent by the Heat (2/23/00) … re-signed by the Heat (8/1/00) … signed as a free agent by the Spurs (7/31/01) … re-signed by the Spurs (7/23/02) … re-signed by the Spurs (7/14/04) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 (edited) The Bulls got hosed there. They could've had Larry Hughes. Ended up with Jamal Crawford. Edited June 16, 2005 by knightni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.