Quantcast

Time to Start Talking Spurs Dynasty


Photo courtesy of Getty Images

How can I be so presumptuous right? Did I not learn from my criticism of LeBron early in the series against the Pistons? Am I really talking dynasty after one game? Game stinking one is in the books and I’m already handing the Spurs the trophy? Well, not so fast. But I do like to get a bit ahead of myself here. (I’m quite agreeable aren’t I?)

This appears to be the fourth Spurs championship in the past decade. That’s a lot. Four rings. Four of them. Think about it. Four rings for Tim Duncan. Michael Jordan — the savior — won six (and as my dad pointed out, he could’ve easily had eight). But dang. Seriously, that’s a lot of rings for Timmy. And that’s impressive for San Antonio. There’s no way to classify them as anything but a dynasty. And there’s a lot to be said considering they may be able to win a championship eight years after winning their first, being led by the same player.

I have no doubt LeBron and the Cavs have a few tricks up their sleeves, but I do admit I’ll have less interest when it heads to Cleveland 2-0. I’m sure the Cavs will make it a series. But what makes me happiest is that either way I’ll be satisfied with the outcome. Either the Spurs cement their legacy as a dynasty, or LeBron begins his pathway to utter greatness. And that my friends, is why we shall eagerly await the upcoming games.



Around The Web

  • http://www.wearethepostmen.com PostmanE

    LB:

    You know I love you, but I’m not feeling the dynasty call here. Six in eight years — dynasty. Three in a row — dynasty. Four in ten years, while obviously impressive (even moreso for Duncan) isn’t a dynasty, especially considering that one came in a strike-induced year and the other when Kobe was hurt. Not buying it yet.

  • http://larrybrownsports.com Larry Brown

    I agree they’ve been helped tremendously by circumstance. Heck, take the Mavs being eliminated by the Warriors, and the Stoudemire suspension too in this year’s run alone. They got a bunch of good breaks in their time, but I won’t let it cloud the overall achievement, which would be winning four since ’99. I think it qualifies as a dynasty.

  • Gene

    PostmanE, give it up already. That was garbage Phil Jackson spread about “strike-induced year”. The Spurs won regulation length playoffs. Phil and his huge ego didn’t like having a worthy rival. When was the last time someone cared about the NBA regular season, anyway? Do you really believe that the Spurs wouldn’t have qualified for the playoffs if the regular season had been longer?

    Kobe’s injury? Every NBA team has players playing or unable to play with injuries. It’s part of the game. Ask D. Wade.

    I can take the opposite approach and point out the luck the Lakers had, with the Portland meltdown, Derek Fisher’s miraculous shot, and the Vlade tip right to Robert Horry, but the bottom line is the Lakers won in those years, as did the Spurs in their years.

    As Jim Rome would say, “Scoreboard.”

  • http://s2nblog.wordpress.com Signal to Noise

    Four in eight years? Works for me. If they really want to cement it, win this year and repeat. Most of your highly acknowledged dynasties have a back-to-back in there somewhere.