Comments on: Time to Start Talking Spurs Dynasty

By: Signal to Noise

Signal to Noise — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:56:07 +0000

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.

By: Gene

Gene — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:26:35 +0000

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.”

By: Larry Brown

Larry Brown — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 10:37:21 +0000

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.

By: PostmanE

PostmanE — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 23:46:05 +0000

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.