Let's Have us a Dynasty Debate

[peplaw06]

Alright, I was watching Sports Reporters this morning and they said something that caught my attention. John Saunders said something to the effect of, "The San Antonio Spurs are this generation's basketball dynasty."

Got me to thinkin... You know how I get in trouble when I go thinkin... but I think the Spurs "dynasty" needs some clarification -- if it is indeed a "dynasty."

Now most of you know I am not a Spurs fan, and obviously, were I a Spurs fan, I would never be making a post like this. But I would like to ask in advance that you keep this on topic. This is about the Spurs, not the Mavs or the Lakers or any other team. Speaking for myself, I won't be addressing any off-topic shots at any other team. You Spurs fans love your team, you have just won the title, you don't have to tear other teams down to prop yours up.

First question, what do you do with 1999? I actually think including that season makes the dynasty look weaker. 3 out of 5 sounds a lot better to me than 4 out of 9. The team in '99 looked a lot different than the 2003 team (the next team to win the title). Tim Duncan, David Robinson, Malik Rose, and Steve Kerr were the only guys on both the '99 and '03 teams. Robinson retired after that '03 season, and was basically a shell of his former dominant self. He had a nagging back injury, and that was the only season where Robinson averaged less than 10 points per game. Robinson is a class guy, and it was good to see him go out on top, but thems the facts. Rose and Kerr were role players, but were arguably smaller parts of the '99 team than the '03 team. Well arguably with Kerr, he averaged about the same number of points and 3Ps per game, but he was never a huge part of those championship teams. Rose was definitely more a part in '03 than in '99. So you have Duncan and Greg Popovich who are the only real constants over the '99 to '07 championship teams.

Then, another thing that raises questions about including '99 is the fact that there was a dynasty in between the '99 and '03 Spurs teams. The Lakers won 3 in a row, and were no doubt a dynasty in the early part of the decade. Can dynasties overlap? Doesn't the definition of a dynasty in and of itself depend on the fact that no other dynasty reigns while yours is going?

And I'm not going to argue the strike-shortened season made that one any less meaningful. I don't think that's a blip on the radar. The '99 Spurs still had to win 15 games once the playoffs started.

So if you take out the '99 season, which as I said makes the "dynasty" look stronger, you have 3 championships in 5 seasons and no overlapping Lakers dynasty. Looks much more like a dynasty to me. Then you have continuity in the main players. Duncan was obviously still there. Tony Parker started 83 games in '03, and Manu Ginobli was an important bench player. Bruce Bowen also started all 82 that season. Four BIG parts of the team over the past 5 seasons, and you have Popovich still there.

But is 3 out of 5 a dynasty? Dynasty in its literal meaning, typically requires some type of sequence or succession. I'm sure you can argue there are different types of dynasties, but one thing I think a dynasty MUST have is a repeat championship.

The great dynasties over the years, or the ones that are "no doubt" dynasties are as follows:

1) Minneapolis Lakers -- 1949 to 1954; 5 titles in 6 seasons, including 3 in a row from '52 to '54.
2) Boston Celtics -- 1957 to 1969; 11 titles in 13 seasons, including 8 in a row from '59 to '66.
3) Los Angeles Lakers -- 1980 to 1988; won 5 titles in 9 seasons, including back to back titles in '87 and '88.
4) Chicago Bulls -- 1991 to 1998; won 6 titles in 8 seasons, including two threepeats from '91 to '94 and '96 to '98. Without the retirement of Jordan, they may have had 8 in a row.
5) Los Angeles Lakers -- 2000 to 2002; won 3 titles in a row.

The '80s Lakers dynasty is what the Spurs could be compared to. 5 in 9 compares to 4 in 9, but the teams to win in between, were the Celtics 3 times (not in a row, in '81, '84, and '86) and the Sixers once. With the 2000-2002 Lakers in the mix, I think you have to look at the Spurs from '03 to '07 as winners of 3 out of 5 who have yet to repeat.

We all know how hard it is to repeat. And I think there is something to be said for the Spurs inability to do so as of yet. I don't know if they "sneak up" on teams, since they have won so many, but when you're the defending champs, everyone is gunning to knock you out, and there's a little extra juice there. Could this change? Sure it could, as soon as next season. But until then, I don't consider the Spurs to fit the definition of a dynasty, as long as you are operating under what seems to be the historical definition of a dynasty.

I think the word dynasty gets thrown around a lot, because it sells papers and draws in viewers. But if you look at the definition, I don't think it fits.

And I definitely don't consider them "this generation's basketball dynasty..." yet.


OK, bring it.:fight::D

[zrinkill]

:rolleyes:

Of course you do not believe its a Dynasty.

But the facts remain that only 4 other teams have been better in a 5 year span in the NBA.

For the Last 9 years the Spurs have the most Wins of any team and 4 championships.

If you believe that the 90's cowboys was a Dynasty ..... you have to believe that the Spurs are one.

But I am sure many of you will allow your Mark Cuban glasses to get in the way of common sense.

[peplaw06]

But the facts remain that only 4 other teams have been better in a 5 year span in the NBA. 5 teams have been better in a 4 year span. Your skewing of the stats doesn't change that.

For the Last 9 years the Spurs have the most Wins of any team and 4 championships. Duly noted. I already talked about 4 in 9... most wins doesn't make a dynasty.

If you believe that the 90's cowboys was a Dynasty ..... you have to believe that the Spurs are one. Really? 3 out of 4, and two in a row? How does that compare?

[SA_Gunslinger]

personally, i don't care what people think of the spurs.

we have four shiny banners, and that is better than all but 3 teams, and the spurs came into the nba way after all of them.

i'm gonna go watch the river parade this afternoon, and there are 29 teams NOT doing that today.


debate that.

:D

[zrinkill]

And only 2 Modern day teams facing the same type of athletes have done it ....

This is called sour grapes ...... Suns and Mav fans are the only ones trying to make these lame arguments .....

I guarantee that if the Mavs were good enough to accomplish what the Spurs have .... you would be calling them the team of the last decade and a Dynasty.

:rolleyes: you do realize how bitter this makes you look, right?

[zrinkill]

5 teams have been better in a 4 year span. Your skewing of the stats doesn't change that.

How many teams were in the league when some of those teams did it?

You sound like an eagles fan saying that their championships 60 years ago mean as much as a Superbowl.

[peplaw06]

personally, i don't care what people think of the spurs.

we have four shiny banners, and that is better than all but 3 teams, and the spurs came into the nba way after all of them.

i'm gonna go watch the river parade this afternoon, and there are 29 teams NOT doing that today.


debate that.

:DCongratulations.

And only 2 Modern day teams facing the same type of athletes have done it .... Same type of athletes as Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Donyell Marshall and Drew Gooden?:laugh2:

This is called sour grapes ...... Suns and Mav fans are the only ones trying to make these lame arguments .....

I guarantee that if the Mavs were good enough to accomplish what the Spurs have .... you would be calling them the team of the last decade and a Dynasty.

you do realize how bitter this makes you look, right?It's not sour grapes or bitter. It's a debate. You have made 1 or 2 salient points, but can't argue the merits on the whole. It's not about any team other than the Spurs.

How many teams were in the league when some of those teams did it? You play the hand you're dealt. How popular was basketball back when some of those teams did it. Times change, but definitions shouldn't.

You sound like an eagles fan saying that their championships 60 years ago mean as much as a Superbowl. That makes no sense at all. Not even close to a good analogy.

[zrinkill]

It's not sour grapes or bitter. It's a debate. It's not about any team other than the Spurs.

No ..... this is about your team getting knocked out in the first round.

This is about you being the most vocal Spurs hater on the board, and being very bitter about them winning another championship.

Sorry but there is no debate ..... the Spurs are the team of the Last Decade and are in the early stages of a Dynasty ...... And with this front office they will prolly have a few more before Duncan retires.

Have fun eating those sour grapes. :lmao:

[Hostile]

I don't believe dynasty can be mentioned unless a team has won at least 2 in a row. To be a dynasty you should have to defend your title.

That said, there is nothing about 4 Championships in 9 years to take lightly. So when I say they are not a dynasty it isn't an insult to them for what they have done. It is an elevation of what a Dynasty is.

The Atlanta Braves had a stretch of Division Championships that is unmatched. I think 14 straight years. To me, they are not a dynasty because the 2 World Series they won in that stretch were not back to back.

[Biggems]

Here is why I think the Spurs are a dynasty during the Duncan era (10 years):


4 NBA Titles (4-0 in Finals)
Most wins in the NBA
Highest winning percentage of any team in the NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL (only team over.700)
8 out of 10 years with a top 3 regular season record (3 times #1).....they were 7th in Duncan's rookie year and then 4th on another occasion
10 consecutive playoff appearances (only 1 first round exit, 2000 when Duncan was injured)
a top 3 defensive team over that span (#1 over the last 5 years)
lots of individual accolades for players and coaches
The Model Franchise of the league (the measuring stick if you will).....Mavs have copied their blueprint, Cleveland has copied their blueprint, and now Seattle will copy their blueprint.
In short, their impact on the league during the Duncan era is unmatched....that is why they are a dynasty.

BTW.....In the Spurs entire history, they have only had 6 losing seasons and missed the playoffs only 3 times. The Spurs currently possess the second best winning percentage all-time, behind only the Lakers.

GO SPURS GO

[Biggems]

I don't believe dynasty can be mentioned unless a team has won at least 2 in a row. To be a dynasty you should have to defend your title.

That said, there is nothing about 4 Championships in 9 years to take lightly. So when I say they are not a dynasty it isn't an insult to them for what they have done. It is an elevation of what a Dynasty is.

The Atlanta Braves had a stretch of Division Championships that is unmatched. I think 14 straight years. To me, they are not a dynasty because the 2 World Series they won in that stretch were not back to back.

Sorry but I disagree.

I consider the Cowboys run under Landry to be a dynasty. 20 consecutive winning seasons, 5 SB appearances, 2 trophies.....sorry but to me that is a dynasty......and they never won back to back....

In fact, I think what Landry did was more impressive than what the Boys accomplished in the early 90s....

[Biggems]

btw, I hope Stackhouse (even though I can't stand him).....comes to his senses this offseason and signs with the Spurs.

[peplaw06]

No ..... this is about your team getting knocked out in the first round.

This is about you being the most vocal Spurs hater on the board, and being very bitter about them winning another championship. Keep thinkin that. Nothing I said implied any bitterness other than the fact that YOU disagree. My team was knocked out long ago. I guess your refusal to debate the merits means you think I'm right.

Sorry but there is no debate ..... the Spurs are the team of the Last Decade and are in the early stages of a Dynasty ...... And with this front office they will prolly have a few more before Duncan retires.

The Lakers have something to say about that. They won just as many titles in the 2000's and won 3 in a row. And your dismissal of the debate without even considering it doesn't mean there is no debate.

[peplaw06]

I don't believe dynasty can be mentioned unless a team has won at least 2 in a row. To be a dynasty you should have to defend your title.

That said, there is nothing about 4 Championships in 9 years to take lightly. So when I say they are not a dynasty it isn't an insult to them for what they have done. It is an elevation of what a Dynasty is.

The Atlanta Braves had a stretch of Division Championships that is unmatched. I think 14 straight years. To me, they are not a dynasty because the 2 World Series they won in that stretch were not back to back.

Agree completely. The Spurs are a good/great team. No denying that. Just not a dynasty.

[peplaw06]

Here is why I think the Spurs are a dynasty during the Duncan era (10 years):

4 NBA Titles (4-0 in Finals)
Most wins in the NBA
Highest winning percentage of any team in the NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL (only team over.700)
8 out of 10 years with a top 3 regular season record (3 times #1).....they were 7th in Duncan's rookie year and then 4th on another occasion
10 consecutive playoff appearances (only 1 first round exit, 2000 when Duncan was injured)
a top 3 defensive team over that span (#1 over the last 5 years)
lots of individual accolades for players and coaches
The Model Franchise of the league (the measuring stick if you will).....Mavs have copied their blueprint, Cleveland has copied their blueprint, and now Seattle will copy their blueprint.In short, their impact on the league during the Duncan era is unmatched....that is why they are a dynasty.

BTW.....In the Spurs entire history, they have only had 6 losing seasons and missed the playoffs only 3 times. The Spurs currently possess the second best winning percentage all-time, behind only the Lakers.

GO SPURS GOAll signs of a great team. Just missing that dynastic quality.

Sorry but I disagree.

I consider the Cowboys run under Landry to be a dynasty. 20 consecutive winning seasons, 5 SB appearances, 2 trophies.....sorry but to me that is a dynasty......and they never won back to back....

In fact, I think what Landry did was more impressive than what the Boys accomplished in the early 90s.... Again, IMO you can't have overlapping dynasties. During the Landry Era where we had 20 straight winning seasons, the Packers and Steelers each had dynasties of their own. Hence, the Boys weren't a dynasty, yet... Are you saying we were a dynasty back when we were considered "Next Year's Champions?" Rubbish. Then you could consider Philadelphia in the 90s as a dynasty... Where does the line get drawn?

20 straight winning seasons is an incredible accomplishment, but there's something missing. Championships and successful defenses. Each major sport has just a choice few teams that have been dynasties. It's not easy company to become a part of.

[Hostile]

Sorry but I disagree.

I consider the Cowboys run under Landry to be a dynasty. 20 consecutive winning seasons, 5 SB appearances, 2 trophies.....sorry but to me that is a dynasty......and they never won back to back....

In fact, I think what Landry did was more impressive than what the Boys accomplished in the early 90s....This should prove I am consistent. I don't consider the 70's Cowboys a dynasty. Great team? You bet, one of the best. But they didn't defend a title.

By your definition the Braves are a dynasty, and I just don't see it.

[CowboyFan74]

10 consecutive playoff appearances (only 1 first round exit, 2000 when Duncan was injured)

Well if they had won 5 then we could call them a dynasty:rolleyes:

[zrinkill]

http://www.sallyminker.com/art/2-d/images/grapes-print.jpg

[SA_Gunslinger]

speaking of dynasties....


LOL


http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c333/marv41/mavspaper.jpg


:lmao2:

[kTXe]

Sorry fellow Spurs fans, but I have to side with the dirty Mav lover. ;)

The Spurs have, without a doubt, been the dominant team in the NBA over the last 5 years (I'm not saying decade because from 2000-2002, we obviously weren't). I do think that addressing the merits of this team as "dynastic" or not are slightly more complicated than most. Though I haven't done the research, I can't remember a team winning a championship every other year over a 5 year period. Most teams don't have that kind of extended success with multiple "failures" to win a championship interrupting the run of successes, and especially limiting the all-important defense of the title. I am in agreement that there should definitely be a back-to-back somewhere to consider a team a dynasty. Without that, I have a hard time calling this Spurs team one. I do, however, think that this is about as close a team can get to being labeled with the d-word without actually achieving that status.

Now, when the Spurs come out next year and win it again, this entire debate will be moot. :D

[joseephuss]

I don't believe dynasty can be mentioned unless a team has won at least 2 in a row. To be a dynasty you should have to defend your title.

That said, there is nothing about 4 Championships in 9 years to take lightly. So when I say they are not a dynasty it isn't an insult to them for what they have done. It is an elevation of what a Dynasty is.

The Atlanta Braves had a stretch of Division Championships that is unmatched. I think 14 straight years. To me, they are not a dynasty because the 2 World Series they won in that stretch were not back to back.

The Braves only won one World Series title.

Winning division titles is nice, but sometimes it is not an indication of greatness. The Braves were in a weak division for a long time. They really didn't have to do much to win the division. Getting to the championship series and winning multiple championship series and a WS title or two is the better accomplishment and more indicative of a great franchise.

The Spurs are a dynasty. The fact that they have not won back to back titles knocks them down a notch, but it is still a dynasty.

People have no problem seeing the Shaq and Kobe's Lakers as a dynasty for winning 3 straight. It was the Spurs that won the year before and the year after those same Lakers. It was the Spurs that beat the Pistons for a 3rd title. The same Pistons that beat Shaq and Kobe's Lakers.

You can have overlapping dynasties. Saying a franchise is a dynasty doesn't mean they are the top dynasty of their era. In the NBA, the Spurs and the Lakers are the last two dynasties. Both have had a hand in determining the champs of the league. If the ball bounces differently just a couple of times in any of their match ups then either team could have 1 or more titles. The debate to me isn't that both teams are dynasties, it is which is the greater dynasty.

It is funny to me that the Pistons get so much respect from the media. I see the so called experts give them so much credit for what they have done. They go to 5 straight Eastern Conference finals, two Finals and win one title and they get lots of love. Quite a list of accomplishments, but I would not say it was dominate or greatness.

I am a Rockets fan, but I don't see their back to back titles as team dynasty. That was just a good run. It was two different styles of play once they trade for Clyde and suspended Vernon Maxwell in 1995. They weren't in the Western Conference titles in years prior to winning in 1994 and only reached them once after 1995 with a drastically different team.

Dallas in the late 60 thru the early 80s is a dynasty. It wasn't just having 20 winning seasons, it was the level at which they were competing at the end of the season. They didn't just constantly flame out in the first round of the playoffs. They would finish as a final four team several times. Two titles and multiple 2nd place finishes, 3 in the SB and two losses to the Packers for the NFL title.

[Hostile]

The Braves only won one World Series title.

Winning division titles is nice, but sometimes it is not an indication of greatness. The Braves were in a weak division for a long time. They really didn't have to do much to win the division. Getting to the championship series and winning multiple championship series and a WS title or two is the better accomplishment and more indicative of a great franchise.

The Spurs are a dynasty. The fact that they have not won back to back titles knocks them down a notch, but it is still a dynasty.

People have no problem seeing the Shaq and Kobe's Lakers as a dynasty for winning 3 straight. It was the Spurs that won the year before and the year after those same Lakers. It was the Spurs that beat the Pistons for a 3rd title. The same Pistons that beat Shaq and Kobe's Lakers.

You can have overlapping dynasties. Saying a franchise is a dynasty doesn't mean they are the top dynasty of their era. In the NBA, the Spurs and the Lakers are the last two dynasties. Both have had a hand in determining the champs of the league. If the ball bounces differently just a couple of times in any of their match ups then either team could have 1 or more titles. The debate to me isn't that both teams are dynasties, it is which is the greater dynasty.

It is funny to me that the Pistons get so much respect from the media. I see the so called experts give them so much credit for what they have done. They go to 5 straight Eastern Conference finals, two Finals and win one title and they get lots of love. Quite a list of accomplishments, but I would not say it was dominate or greatness.

I am a Rockets fan, but I don't see their back to back titles as team dynasty. That was just a good run. It was two different styles of play once they trade for Clyde and suspended Vernon Maxwell in 1995. They weren't in the Western Conference titles in years prior to winning in 1994 and only reached them once after 1995 with a drastically different team.

Dallas in the late 60 thru the early 80s is a dynasty. It wasn't just having 20 winning seasons, it was the level at which they were competing at the end of the season. They didn't just constantly flame out in the first round of the playoffs. They would finish as a final four team several times. Two titles and multiple 2nd place finishes, 3 in the SB and two losses to the Packers for the NFL title.The main reason the Rockets were not a dynasty is because almost everyone alive knows if Michael Jordan had not decided to play adult fantasy baseball they win 8 in a row.

I still say you have to defend a title to be a dynasty, not just win more than one over a period of time. That seems too arbitrary to me. For example the Patriots. They won their first title in 2001. In 2002 they missed the playoffs. Then in 2003 they won their 2nd Super Bowl. 2 in 3 years is really good, especially in the NFL where it is one and done. It wasn't until 2004 and that 3rd title in 4 years, and a defense of their title that the dynasty talk began.

I find it a little hard to see a dynasty in a team that missed the playoffs in between title runs, and who went to their first title on the interpretation of a stupid rule in the first place. It gets easier for me to see them as a dynasty because of how good the 2003 and 2004 teams were and the fact that they defended their title.

[Yeagermeister]

My Griz are a dynasty.......of suckage :(

[peplaw06]

http://www.sallyminker.com/art/2-d/images/grapes-print.jpg You may be boring and unoriginal, but don't ever let anyone say you're not consistent.

[Mavs Man]

I think three championships in five years is a much more convincing argument than four in nine, and should be enough to consider SA a dynasty with this last title.

Right now, in terms of NBA dynasties in the past 20 years you have to rank them as follows:

1. 90s Bulls
2. 80s Lakers
3. 00s Lakers
4. Spurs
5. 80s Celtics
6. 90s Pistons
7. 90s Rockets

But, until they win consecutive championships there will continue to be critics.

[Danny White]

I don't know about Dynasty... the word is too subjective.

If you're listing the Showtime Lakers and the Bird Celtics as dynasties, then I'd include the Spurs as one as well. But if you choose to employ a very strict definition of dynasty, then I can respect that as well. When you hear Popvich and Duncan interviewed, they seem to say that outside of Russell's Celtics and the old UCLA teams, there aren't many other clear dynasties.

I will observe, though, that before the playoffs I called the Spurs a "top 5 franchise" in the history of the NBA and I was pretty roundly mocked here.

How does that look now? I'd argue that I have a pretty strong argument.

I think this win places the Spurs firmly in front of franchises like the Knicks, and the Pistons... and in the "top 5" debate with teams like Philadelphia and the old Minneapolis Lakers.

The only franchises they're obviously behind are the Celtics, the Lakers and the Bulls.

[joseephuss]

I don't know about Dynasty... the word is too subjective.

If you're listing the Showtime Lakers and the Bird Celtics as dynasties, then I'd include the Spurs as one as well. But if you choose to employ a very strict definition of dynasty, then I can respect that as well. When you hear Popvich and Duncan interviewed, they seem to say that outside of Russell's Celtics and the old UCLA teams, there aren't many other clear dynasties.

I will observe, though, that before the playoffs I called the Spurs a "top 5 franchise" in the history of the NBA and I was pretty roundly mocked here.

How does that look now? I'd argue that I have a pretty strong argument.

I think this win places the Spurs firmly in front of franchises like the Knicks, and the Pistons... and in the "top 5" debate with teams like Philadelphia and the old Minneapolis Lakers.

The only franchises they're obviously behind are the Celtics, the Lakers and the Bulls.

Based on some of the opinions here Bird's Celtics would not be a dynasty. They didn't win back to back championships.

The showtime Lakers won in 1980, 1982, 1985 and 1987. They didn't win back to back until they got their 5th title in 1988. They were considered a dynasty before that happened.

The Dolphins of the early 70s are considered a dynasty by going to 3 straight Superbowls and winning two in a row. Quite a feat, but I don't consider those teams better than the Cowboys of the 70s. The same Cowboys that went to 5 SBs in the 70s and beat the same Miami team in one of them.

There just are different levels of dynasties. It would be difficult to expect any pro franchise to have the type of huge dynasty of a past era. Each league is much larger than in past eras and that makes it difficult to go on historical runs like the Yankees and Celtics of the past.

Or how about the UCLA Bruins? There are just many more teams to contend with now in order to win it all. A 64(65) team tournament makes it more difficult to continue winning. The more games brings about the great chance for an upset. Instead of winning 6 games to be champ, teams in the 60s had to win 4 games.

Plus talent is more distributed. There will probably never be a team like UCLA that just had all the great players. They are in every school now and some leave for the NBA.

New dynasties fall under newer definitions.

[carphalen5150]

The Spurs are definitely a modern day dynasty IMO. With the constant turnover of teams with FA and trades it is good to see a team that keeps a core and puts a run together like this. They do not look like they are going to slow down anytime soon either. I know Bowen and Horry are up there in age, but Popovich has shown the ability to make moves to strengthen the team from the bottom of the draft and some key FA signings. Also, it is a very desireable location for a vet at the end of his career. I mean not only is it a nice place to live by all accounts, but you know year in and year out you have a shot at the title.

[Mavs Man]

I don't know about Dynasty... the word is too subjective.

If you're listing the Showtime Lakers and the Bird Celtics as dynasties, then I'd include the Spurs as one as well. But if you choose to employ a very strict definition of dynasty, then I can respect that as well. When you hear Popvich and Duncan interviewed, they seem to say that outside of Russell's Celtics and the old UCLA teams, there aren't many other clear dynasties.

I will observe, though, that before the playoffs I called the Spurs a "top 5 franchise" in the history of the NBA and I was pretty roundly mocked here.

How does that look now? I'd argue that I have a pretty strong argument.

I think this win places the Spurs firmly in front of franchises like the Knicks, and the Pistons... and in the "top 5" debate with teams like Philadelphia and the old Minneapolis Lakers.

The only franchises they're obviously behind are the Celtics, the Lakers and the Bulls.

IMO, the 'top 5 franchise' statement was met with so much criticism due to comparing franchise history moreso than franchise success. I wouldn't consider the Denver Broncos or New England Patriots as top five NFL franchises. And yet, in the past 20 years those two teams have combined for 10 Super Bowl appearances and six championships; by comparing franchise success, a serious argument could be made for their inclusion.

In the same way, the Spurs definitely belong in the top five when talking about franchise success. Their four championships and winning tradition puts them in a select group, but as far as franchise history people first think of the Celtics, Lakers, Bulls (but only recently), Sixers, Knicks, and Pistons before they think Spurs.

Even so, that's only six teams ahead of the Spurs (and all in top 10 metro markets), and if they continue in the next decade having the success they've enjoyed since drafting David Robinson, the generation growing up now will put the Spurs in that class.

On that note, Boston and New York need serious help. They are killing those franchises.

[MC KAos]

i think it all depends on your definition of a franchise, in your definition peplaw, there have only really been 4 dynasys in the nba, the mikan minneapolis lakers, the russell celtics, the magic showtime lakers and the jordan bulls. I dont think there is any way that you can say that the success the lakers with shaq had is more impressive than the sucess that dunca's spurs have had. i mean in the next 9 years, what would you rather have your mavs do? win 4 championships, make it to the playoffs every year and be a contender, or win three in a row, four finals in five years, and then just start sucking a$$?? i think its clear that the spurs have surpassed that team for this era, even derek fisher has admitted so, and they are STILL gonna be a top 3 contender for the next 2 years at least, and from what tony parker has been able to achieve and the way we draft, sign players, we should conted beyond that. I know im getting ahead of myself here but in my opinion the spurs 4 chips have surpassed the lakers 3. specially concidering the spurs were favored to win it all in 00 and tim duncan got hurt before the playoffs started and we lost in the first round, and then sean elliot, our third best player, had to get a kidney transplant. Im not arguing wether or not the spurs are a dynasty, because that all depends on your defenition, but the spurs have for sure surpassed the recent lakers and the bird celtics and if you concider them dynastys, the spurs are a dynasty as well.

as for the spurs being a top 5 franchise, of course they are!! what makes the knicks or sixers better?i mean if your saying its historically, then what did the bulls do before jordan to be a top 5 team? i can argue the spurs have been succesful all throughout their history, they have missed less playoffs than you have fingers on your right hand, and even before we were in the nba, we were contenders for aba titles. how can you say that a franchise with all thsoe credentials, also the fourth most titles and the second best winning percentage is not a top five team? if i was 70 years old, i would sure as hell have my team do what the spurs have done than what the sixers, knicks, and pistons have accomplished

[Mavs Man]

as for the spurs being a top 5 franchise, of course they are!! what makes the knicks or sixers better?i mean if your saying its historically, then what did the bulls do before jordan to be a top 5 team? i can argue the spurs have been succesful all throughout their history, they have missed less playoffs than you have fingers on your right hand, and even before we were in the nba, we were contenders for aba titles. how can you say that a franchise with all thsoe credentials, also the fourth most titles and the second best winning percentage is not a top five team? if i was 70 years old, i would sure as hell have my team do what the spurs have done than what the sixers, knicks, and pistons have accomplished

I don't know what else to say that I haven't already said. Outside of this state, do you really think people think Spurs before East and West coast teams? I didn't say it's based on success, just history or "status" (perhaps a better word). If it's wins, or titles, or great players, of course the Spurs are top five. But it's an East Coast/West Coast league, which is probably why even Detroit and Chicago are further down the list of teams. It's like in the NFL - the Cowboys, Redskins, Steelers, 49ers, and Packers are still the class of the league.

I did note that the Bulls are only a recent development, but it's going to take more than four titles in nine years to surpass Jordan and Da Bulls. Sorry, just the truth. Win a couple more and you have no argument from me, though.

[MC KAos]

I don't know what else to say that I haven't already said. Outside of this state, do you really think people think Spurs before East and West coast teams? I didn't say it's based on success, just history or "status" (perhaps a better word). If it's wins, or titles, or great players, of course the Spurs are top five. But it's an East Coast/West Coast league, which is probably why even Detroit and Chicago are further down the list of teams. It's like in the NFL - the Cowboys, Redskins, Steelers, 49ers, and Packers are still the class of the league.

I did note that the Bulls are only a recent development, but it's going to take more than four titles in nine years to surpass Jordan and Da Bulls. Sorry, just the truth. Win a couple more and you have no argument from me, though.

thats true, but i thought our argument was solely based on what happens on the court not, like you said, the "status" of the teams. i never ment to say the spurs are more successfull than the bulls, i was just stating a case against what i thought was your argument, but what IS other peoples arguments, about the spurs only being a "recent" success.

[Mavs Man]

thats true, but i thought our argument was solely based on what happens on the court not, like you said, the "status" of the teams. i never ment to say the spurs are more successfull than the bulls, i was just stating a case against what i thought was your argument, but what IS other peoples arguments, about the spurs only being a "recent" success.

That's why I tried to separate the two. In terms of what the franchise has accomplished from the 70s through today you have to put them in the discussion, but they get dismissed many times because they aren't historically one of the teams you think of. But that could and probably will change as today's fans grow older and consider them a great NBA team compared to teams like the Celtics and moreso the Knicks and Sixers (all of which have done next to nothing in the past 20 years, but at least the Celtics won 16 titles in a 30 year span).

[zrinkill]

You may be boring and unoriginal, but don't ever let anyone say you're not consistent.

Sounds like someone got their little feelings hurt ......

I just love the jealousy and bitterness of people who hate my team ....... sorry that applies to you in this instance.

Now go play woulda, coulda, shoulda, with the Sun fans ...... while we enjoy our 4th Championship :laugh2:

[peplaw06]

i think it all depends on your definition of a franchise, in your definition peplaw, there have only really been 4 dynasys in the nba, the mikan minneapolis lakers, the russell celtics, the magic showtime lakers and the jordan bulls. I dont think there is any way that you can say that the success the lakers with shaq had is more impressive than the sucess that dunca's spurs have had. i mean in the next 9 years, what would you rather have your mavs do? win 4 championships, make it to the playoffs every year and be a contender, or win three in a row, four finals in five years, and then just start sucking a$$?? i think its clear that the spurs have surpassed that team for this era, even derek fisher has admitted so, and they are STILL gonna be a top 3 contender for the next 2 years at least, and from what tony parker has been able to achieve and the way we draft, sign players, we should conted beyond that. I know im getting ahead of myself here but in my opinion the spurs 4 chips have surpassed the lakers 3. specially concidering the spurs were favored to win it all in 00 and tim duncan got hurt before the playoffs started and we lost in the first round, and then sean elliot, our third best player, had to get a kidney transplant. Im not arguing wether or not the spurs are a dynasty, because that all depends on your defenition, but the spurs have for sure surpassed the recent lakers and the bird celtics and if you concider them dynastys, the spurs are a dynasty as well.

I definitely think the Shaq and Kobe Lakers were a dynasty. They could have had many more titles had they been able to put the team ahead of their egos. They couldn't, Shaq got traded, and then they started sucking. They still make the playoffs almost every year though. They're a dynasty, one that could have been one of the best of all-time and fell short of that, but still a dynasty.

And I never considered Bird's Celtics a dynasty. A very good team for sure, but not a dynasty. There's no shame in falling just short of being a dynasty... and the Spurs may indeed get there. Next year if they win, there's no argument IMO. But defending that title is just that important IMO.

[peplaw06]

Sounds like someone got their little feelings hurt ......

I just love the jealousy and bitterness of people who hate my team ....... sorry that applies to you in this instance.

Now go play woulda, coulda, shoulda, with the Sun fans ...... while we enjoy our 4th Championship :laugh2:The consistency continues. Way to contribute to the debate... :laugh2:

[zrinkill]

The consistency continues. Way to contribute to the debate... :laugh2:

You know what ..... after going back and reading what I have written, I was being a jerk.

I allowed what other Mav fans (offsite) have been saying to effect how I have been answering you.

I would like to make a public apology to you and Mavsfan for my conduct and hope we can go back to rooting for the Boys together at least until next basketball season.

My sincere apologies.

zrin

[BrAinPaiNt]

And only 2 Modern day teams facing the same type of athletes have done it ....

This is called sour grapes ...... Suns and Mav fans are the only ones trying to make these lame arguments .....

I guarantee that if the Mavs were good enough to accomplish what the Spurs have .... you would be calling them the team of the last decade and a Dynasty.

:rolleyes: you do realize how bitter this makes you look, right?

I am neither a suns or a mavs fan.

Not really an NBA fan since the mid 80s through the mid 90's

Suffered through Jordan and the bulls getting beat by the pistons, than the bulls finally getting over the hump and quit watching while they were still winning championships. Just could not keep watching the NBA for the way I viewed how some players got away with anything and others would get called for anything...and those players being no the same team.

So my point is I am not skewed because of what you may classify as the only people who do not see it as a dynasty.

When the Spurs win next season, if they win which I think they will, than I think that will remove any doubt as to them having a dynasty. Win a back to back championship and with the other wins they already have nobody can argue with it no matter how hard they try.

But that is just one guys, unbiased, opinion.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't really view the 99 Spurs as an extension of the current team either. That was a much different team, as was mentioned earlier. I would probably say that they are a dynasty, or at least as close as you will get in this day and age. I don't believe they compare with the Lakers of Shaq and Kobe but they deserve to be recognized for there 3 in 5, which to me, is much more impressive then 4 in 9. Those Shaq and Kobe Laker teams were better IMO, then these Spurs teams but that's a different discussion all together. Anymore, the league is just too watered down. You rarely see two good teams playing in the finals anymore. It happens but more often then not, you get one good team and one not so good team. The 80s really were a golden age for Pro Basketball IMO.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I don't know about Dynasty... the word is too subjective.

If you're listing the Showtime Lakers and the Bird Celtics as dynasties, then I'd include the Spurs as one as well. But if you choose to employ a very strict definition of dynasty, then I can respect that as well. When you hear Popvich and Duncan interviewed, they seem to say that outside of Russell's Celtics and the old UCLA teams, there aren't many other clear dynasties.

I will observe, though, that before the playoffs I called the Spurs a "top 5 franchise" in the history of the NBA and I was pretty roundly mocked here.

How does that look now? I'd argue that I have a pretty strong argument.

I think this win places the Spurs firmly in front of franchises like the Knicks, and the Pistons... and in the "top 5" debate with teams like Philadelphia and the old Minneapolis Lakers.

The only franchises they're obviously behind are the Celtics, the Lakers and the Bulls.

Since I was one who argued with you on the top 5...I will now conceded. They won the title this year and that puts them up there. Now go and win next year , giving you back to back titles, and I will include Dynasty to your team.

[Danny White]

Since I was one who argued with you on the top 5...I will now conceded. They won the title this year and that puts them up there. Now go and win next year , giving you back to back titles, and I will include Dynasty to your team.

I was wondering if you'd peek into this thread and respond. ;)

I tend to agree with you on the dynasty question here as well.

[Danny White]

I don't believe they compare with the Lakers of Shaq and Kobe

I'm going to disagree with that.

I don't necessarily think it's clear one way or the other (as to which team was better) but I don't think you can easily place the Lakers over them.

Here's my reasoning.

The Spurs faced the Kobe/Shaq Lakers in the playoffs five times in six years from 1999-2004.

In 1999, the Spurs swept the Phil Jackson-less Lakers from the Playoffs.

In 2000, the Spurs had a devastating late-season injury to Duncan, as well as the Sean Elliot kidney situation. So it's impossible to say if the Lakers would have beaten a full-strength Spurs that year.

In 2001, the Spurs mowed down KG and the T-Wolves and then the Mavs. But in that Mavs series, the Spurs lost their most dynamic offensive starter when Derek Anderson was lost for the playoffs following a cheap shot by Juwaun Howard. We were then swept out of the playoffs by the Lakers in fairly commanding fashion.

In 2002, we got flat-out beat by the Lakers. I will say, though, that in all five games of this series, the Spurs held fourth-quarter leads.

In 2003, we beat a full-strength Shaq/Kobe/Phil Lakers team to win our second championship.

In 2004, we had the "stacked" all star Lakers up against a potential 3-1 hole with 0.4 seconds remaining. The rest is Lakers history.

So looking at this run, we beat them in 1999 and 2003, although 99 came without Phil. 2000 needs to be thrown out because of Duncan's late-season injury. They beat us in 2001 and 2002. 2004 still galls me, but hey, we lost. Then again, they didn't win a title that year either.

I guess my long-winded point is that it's difficult to say the Lakers were clearly the better team over that stretch... although as I look at it, 3 titles in a row is hard to argue with. :o:

[Mavs Man]

You know what ..... after going back and reading what I have written, I was being a jerk.

I allowed what other Mav fans (offsite) have been saying to effect how I have been answering you.

I would like to make a public apology to you and Mavsfan for my conduct and hope we can go back to rooting for the Boys together at least until next basketball season.

My sincere apologies.

zrin

I chalked it up to harmless rivalry trash talk, but apology accepted. I know how annoying/whiny fans of opposing teams can drive you nuts and skew your view of the whole fanbase.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The '80s Lakers dynasty is what the Spurs could be compared to. 5 in 9 compares to 4 in 9, but the teams to win in between, were the Celtics 3 times (not in a row, in '81, '84, and '86) and the Sixers once. With the 2000-2002 Lakers in the mix, I think you have to look at the Spurs from '03 to '07 as winners of 3 out of 5 who have yet to repeat.



Match up those teams against one another and see how they stack up. I think that would be interesting.

[joseephuss]

I'm going to disagree with that.

I don't necessarily think it's clear one way or the other (as to which team was better) but I don't think you can easily place the Lakers over them.

Here's my reasoning.

The Spurs faced the Kobe/Shaq Lakers in the playoffs five times in six years from 1999-2004.

In 1999, the Spurs swept the Phil Jackson-less Lakers from the Playoffs.

In 2000, the Spurs had a devastating late-season injury to Duncan, as well as the Sean Elliot kidney situation. So it's impossible to say if the Lakers would have beaten a full-strength Spurs that year.

In 2001, the Spurs mowed down KG and the T-Wolves and then the Mavs. But in that Mavs series, the Spurs lost their most dynamic offensive starter when Derek Anderson was lost for the playoffs following a cheap shot by Juwaun Howard. We were then swept out of the playoffs by the Lakers in fairly commanding fashion.

In 2002, we got flat-out beat by the Lakers. I will say, though, that in all five games of this series, the Spurs held fourth-quarter leads.

In 2003, we beat a full-strength Shaq/Kobe/Phil Lakers team to win our second championship.

In 2004, we had the "stacked" all star Lakers up against a potential 3-1 hole with 0.4 seconds remaining. The rest is Lakers history.

So looking at this run, we beat them in 1999 and 2003, although 99 came without Phil. 2000 needs to be thrown out because of Duncan's late-season injury. They beat us in 2001 and 2002. 2004 still galls me, but hey, we lost. Then again, they didn't win a title that year either.

I guess my long-winded point is that it's difficult to say the Lakers were clearly the better team over that stretch... although as I look at it, 3 titles in a row is hard to argue with. :o:

Why do people say that Juwan Howard gave Derek Anderson a cheap shot? I have always wondered that. Howard got all ball and nothing but the ball on that play. It looked very bad because Anderson never lost contact with the ball and got sent flying, but Howard never touched him. I never saw it as a cheap shot or even a hard foul. Maybe if he made contact, but amazingly the only thing Howard hit was the basketball. I won't discount that Howard was going for a hard foul, but in the end he just never made contact. At least that is how I remember the play.

[Danny White]

Why do people say that Juwan Howard gave Derek Anderson a cheap shot? I have always wondered that. Howard got all ball and nothing but the ball on that play. It looked very bad because Anderson never lost contact with the ball and got sent flying, but Howard never touched him. I never saw it as a cheap shot or even a hard foul. Maybe if he made contact, but amazingly the only thing Howard hit was the basketball. I won't discount that Howard was going for a hard foul, but in the end he just never made contact. At least that is how I remember the play.
I can't believe I was able to find a picture of it, but here it is:

http://images.usatoday.com/sports/nba/_photos/2001-05-05-derek.jpg


It was a long time ago, but I remember it being a pretty rough foul, and from this pic it still looks that way to me. DA's right shoulder was separated and it looks here like a good solid smack on the right shoulder. Plus, he was driven into the ground.

Add to that, Howard was ejected from the game due to the foul.

Here's the story that went along with it (btw, I was being a little too bitter by calling it a cheap shot... it was an unfortunate shot, though):

Spurs roll to Game 1 victory, but it's costly

By Michelle Koidin, The Associated Press

By William Luther, San Antonio Express-News for AP
Dallas Mavericks' Juwan Howard fouls San Antonio Spurs' Derek Anderson, left, driving him to the floor in the second quarter Saturday.
Related items


* Game report

SAN ANTONIO — The Battle of Texas got off to a bruising start.

Tim Duncan had 31 points and 13 rebounds, and the San Antonio Spurs overcame the loss of Derek Anderson to beat Dallas 94-78 on Saturday night in the Western Conference semifinal opener.

Dallas' Juwan Howard was ejected late in the first half for a flagrant foul on Anderson, who separated his right shoulder and could miss 3-6 weeks and the rest of the playoffs.

As Anderson drove and jumped for the basket, Howard swung his arm into Anderson's side. Anderson landed on his shoulder and hobbled off the court grimacing and cradling his arm.

Howard said it was not intentional and that he apologized to Anderson.

"Let's not get this twisted, because I am very hurt by what has happened," Howard said, adding that the two have been friends since college. "Derek was driving to the basket and I went for the basketball."

He said he later found out that Anderson was badly hurt.

"I went over and asked if I could see him, and he wanted to see me, too," Howard said. "With Derek and I being good friends, I saw him and apologized to him. ... One thing he asked me to do was pray for him, which is the least I can do."

Howard said he didn't know if he would be suspended.

"It is in David Stern's and Russ Granik's hands," Howard said. "If they check my history and background, they will see that I'm not capable of doing anything to hurt opponents on the floor."

The Spurs, meanwhile, are holding out hope that Anderson will be back.

"We lose a big part of our team on a stupid foul that happened with two seconds left on the clock," Duncan said. "Of course it angers us. But what can you do?

"Hopefully, it will be a speedy recovery. Hopefully it's not as bad as they think it is."

Both Spurs coach Gregg Popovich and Mavericks owner Mark Cuban said they thought it was unintentional.

"Juwan Howard is not the type of kid that would do that on purpose," Popovich said. "It was nothing personal, it just happened."

Duncan scored 20 points in the first half to help the Spurs take a 47-34 lead. In the last three minutes of the half, Duncan made two layups, a tip-in, and two free throws.

Dallas' 11 points in the first quarter and 23 points in the second were playoff lows for the franchise, as was the 34-point first half.

Steve Nash was 0-for-4 in the first half and never got off a shot in the second. Dirk Nowitzki was 0-for-5 in the first half and finished with nine points.

Antonio Daniels replaced Anderson in the second half and hit his second and third 3-pointers to finish with 13 points.

"I thought we did a great job of keeping our composure together," Duncan said.

Duncan sparked a 14-2 run in the third quarter to give the Spurs a 68-46 lead. During the run, the Mavs' Calvin Booth picked up his fifth foul, while Nowitzki got his fourth. Howard Eisley also had four fouls.

San Antonio brought it to 76-51 on Steve Kerr's long jumper with less than five seconds left in the quarter.

The Mavericks cut the lead to 13 late in the fourth quarter on two baskets by Greg Buckner and a jumper and 3-pointer by Eduardo Najera, but could come no closer.

Michael Finley led Dallas with 17 points, and Howard Eisley had 16.

David Robinson added 11 points and 11 rebounds for the Spurs. He also had four fouls.

NOTES: Anderson, who averaged 15.5 points in the regular season and 11 points in the first round of the playoffs, scored six points before the injury. ... Shawn Bradley's four first-quarter blocks were the most made by a Spurs opponent in one quarter in a playoff game. ... The Spurs won three of four regular-season games against the Mavs, two by 12 points. The Mavs won the first game with Finley's jumper at the buzzer. ... The Spurs have made it to the conference semifinals five times in the last seven years. ... The Mavs are the sixth team in NBA history to survive the first round after trailing 2-0.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Why do people say that Juwan Howard gave Derek Anderson a cheap shot? I have always wondered that. Howard got all ball and nothing but the ball on that play. It looked very bad because Anderson never lost contact with the ball and got sent flying, but Howard never touched him. I never saw it as a cheap shot or even a hard foul. Maybe if he made contact, but amazingly the only thing Howard hit was the basketball. I won't discount that Howard was going for a hard foul, but in the end he just never made contact. At least that is how I remember the play.


Todays NBA is rediculously tame as opposed to how it used to be. In the old days, you would never have seen these guys going to the rack like they do now. MJ changed that. When he came into the league, things got a lot tighter. Couldn't afford to get him hurt I guess. In the old days, some of this stuff would have never even been talked about. The foul in the playoffs with Horry on Nash was nothing in the old days.

[Danny White]

Here's another pic:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/2001/playoffs/news/2001/05/05/anderson_injury_ap/lg_anderson_ap-01.jpg


"All ball" my arse! :laugh2: ;)

[Mavs Man]

"All ball" my arse! :laugh2: ;)

Jason Terry committed a foul last year that I think you could consider "all ball".

That one, however, was much more vicious. Or, at least, more painful. :eek:

[joseephuss]

Here's another pic:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/2001/playoffs/news/2001/05/05/anderson_injury_ap/lg_anderson_ap-01.jpg


"All ball" my arse! :laugh2: ;)

I did leave myself an out by questioning my own memory. :D

So, he got his body on the follow through. He had already blocked the shot. That used to not be a foul. :D

[MC KAos]

i still think the spurs run is more impressive than the lakers 3 peat. id take 4 championships over 3 any day, and although the team has changed a lot, the reason the spurs have won their 4 championships is tim duncan, greg popovic and tim duncan.(he is THAT important). i think it makes it look better if you win back to backs, but i mean, what if a team won 6 chips in 12 years alternating each year? would that be less impressive than a three peat? i dont think so, plus ive already stated, former lakers from that team admit that the spurs have surpassed them as far as this era is concerned.

ps. you should have signed with the spurs when you had a chance jermaine oneal!!, now he apparently wants to be traded

[SA_Gunslinger]

the cover of the new sports illustrated says we are.

:D


http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c333/marv41/si.jpg

[Mavs Man]

the cover of the new sports illustrated says we are.

:D


http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c333/marv41/si.jpg

Well, the Spurs did have 7-2 odds of winning the 2008 championship. Those Vegas odds are shot, now. Any chance of the Spurs repeating as champs ended with the SI cover.

It's a nice photo, though.

[ABQCOWBOY]

the cover of the new sports illustrated says we are.

:D


http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c333/marv41/si.jpg

http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_item.asp?path=%2FAssets%2Fproduct%5Fimages%2 F1020%2F&file=191969%2E1020%2EA%2Ejpg


Humm........

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think three championships in five years is a much more convincing argument than four in nine, and should be enough to consider SA a dynasty with this last title.

Right now, in terms of NBA dynasties in the past 20 years you have to rank them as follows:

1. 90s Bulls
2. 80s Lakers
3. 00s Lakers
4. Spurs
5. 80s Celtics
6. 90s Pistons
7. 90s Rockets

But, until they win consecutive championships there will continue to be critics.


I have big problems with this ranking. The Celts of the 60s aren't even on here. Neither are the Lakers of the 50s. Lastly, the Bulls of the 90s, IMO, would pretty much get smacked around by the 80s Lakers or Celtics. JMO, of course, but I did watch all of those teams and to me, it's really not even close.

[Danny White]

http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_item.asp?path=%2FAssets%2Fproduct%5Fimages%2 F1020%2F&file=191969%2E1020%2EA%2Ejpg


Humm........

Or this...

http://www.tech2.com/media/images/img_21_reservoir%20dogs1.jpg

[Danny White]

I have big problems with this ranking. The Celts of the 60s aren't even on here. Neither are the Lakers of the 50s. Lastly, the Bulls of the 90s, IMO, would pretty much get smacked around by the 80s Lakers or Celtics. JMO, of course, but I did watch all of those teams and to me, it's really not even close.

He prefaced his list by saying "of the past 20 years."

[Mavs Man]

I have big problems with this ranking. The Celts of the 60s aren't even on here. Neither are the Lakers of the 50s. Lastly, the Bulls of the 90s, IMO, would pretty much get smacked around by the 80s Lakers or Celtics. JMO, of course, but I did watch all of those teams and to me, it's really not even close.

I gotcha, but I said "Right now, in terms of NBA dynasties in the past 20 years you have to rank them as follows." If you include all NBA history of course the 60s Celtics go right to the head of the class.

As far as talent, that would take a lot of analysis. I was just ranking based on success and championships, and six titles in eight years beats three in seven or five in eleven or whatever it was. In terms of pure domination the Bulls owned the 90s; the Lakers and Celtics split the 80s with the Sixers and a few others as major contenders.

The first Bulls three-peat was better than the second; like you, I think some of those 80s Lakers and Celts teams with Bird and Magic in their prime would give the 96-98 Bulls teams a run.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I gotcha, but I said "Right now, in terms of NBA dynasties in the past 20 years you have to rank them as follows." If you include all NBA history of course the 60s Celtics go right to the head of the class.

As far as talent, that would take a lot of analysis. I was just ranking based on success and championships, and six titles in eight years beats three in seven or five in eleven or whatever it was. In terms of pure domination the Bulls owned the 90s; the Lakers and Celtics split the 80s with the Sixers and a few others as major contenders.

The first Bulls three-peat was better than the second; like you, I think some of those 80s Lakers and Celts teams with Bird and Magic in their prime would give the 96-98 Bulls teams a run.


Fair enough. I can see how you could look at it in that way. I would say, however, that those Lakers and Celtics teams of the 80s would not just give the Bulls of the 90s a run for there money. They would have dominated them, IMO. Of course, we'll never know that for sure but to me, the talent differential was just too great. The Bulls had MJ and Pippen but that's really all. Those Celtics and Lakers teams were really loaded. Fun to watch those two going at it back in the day. I wished that the NBA had that kind of compatition in both conferences today.

[Mavs Man]

Fair enough. I can see how you could look at it in that way. I would say, however, that those Lakers and Celtics teams of the 80s would not just give the Bulls of the 90s a run for there money. They would have dominated them, IMO. Of course, we'll never know that for sure but to me, the talent differential was just too great. The Bulls had MJ and Pippen but that's really all. Those Celtics and Lakers teams were really loaded. Fun to watch those two going at it back in the day. I wished that the NBA had that kind of compatition in both conferences today.

That's what you get when you water down sports leagues by overexpansion. I think it was the '84 Finals, Lakers v. Celtics, where you had a combined 10 Hall of Fame players and two Hall of Fame coaches and a host of great bench players on rosters that went 10 or 11 deep. That won't happen again.

[ABQCOWBOY]

That's what you get when you water down sports leagues by overexpansion. I think it was the '84 Finals, Lakers v. Celtics, where you had a combined 10 Hall of Fame players and two Hall of Fame coaches and a host of great bench players on rosters that went 10 or 11 deep. That won't happen again.

Unfortunatly, I think you are probably right. Really a shame too. That's the best basketball I ever saw. It will never come again and that's a real shame.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The 84-85 Squades had the following on there rosters.

CELTICS

General Manager Red Aurbach *
Head Coach KC Jones *

Larry Bird *
Dennis Johnson +
Robert Parish *
Kevin McHale *
Gerald Henderson
Cornbread Maxwell
Scott Wedman
Danny Ainge
Quinn Buckner
ML Carr
Carlos Clark
Greg Kite
Rick Carlisle
Ray Williams

* Hall of Famers
+ Should be in the Hall

Los Angeles Lakers

General Manager Jerry West *
Head Coach Pat Riley *

Kareem Adbul-Jabbar *
Magic Johnson *
James Worthy *
Byron Scott
Mike McGee
Michael Cooper
Bob McAdoo *
Larry Spriggs
Jamal Wilkes +
Mitch Kupcak
Kurt Rambis
Ronnie Lester
Chuck Nevitt
Earl Jones

* Hall of Famers
+ Should be in the Hall


To me, these were the best collective rosters for both teams.


In 82-83, the Celtics had "Tiny" Archibald on the team, who was also a Hall of Fame player, but they did not have Dennis Johnson. In 85-86, they picked up Bill Walton, another HOF player, but they lost Carr, Henderson and Maxwell.

In 82-83, the Lakers had Norm Nixon, who was also a great player but they didn't have Scott. 85-86, the Lakers picked up A.C. Green and Maurice Lucas but they lost Bob McAdoo. In 86-87, the Lakers added Mychael Thompson and Billy Thompson. This could have been the Lakers best team also but again, you don't have McAdoo who could score at will. To me, 84-85 was the best collective team for both squades.

[Danny White]

Believe it or not, Pat Riley is not in the Hall of Fame yet.

I'm sure he will be there someday, but he isn't yet.

[Mavs Man]

Believe it or not, Pat Riley is not in the Hall of Fame yet.

I'm sure he will be there someday, but he isn't yet.

I know, but he's a lock. I was including players/coaches who were, would be, will be or should be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

It's a crime that Dennis Johnson is not yet in the Hall of Fame.

[Mavs Man]

The 84-85 Squades had the following on there rosters.

CELTICS

General Manager Red Aurbach *
Head Coach KC Jones *

Larry Bird *
Dennis Johnson +
Robert Parish *
Kevin McHale *
Gerald Henderson
Cornbread Maxwell
Scott Wedman
Danny Ainge
Quinn Buckner
ML Carr
Carlos Clark
Greg Kite
Rick Carlisle
Ray Williams

* Hall of Famers
+ Should be in the Hall

Los Angeles Lakers

General Manager Jerry West *
Head Coach Pat Riley *

Kareem Adbul-Jabbar *
Magic Johnson *
James Worthy *
Byron Scott
Mike McGee
Michael Cooper
Bob McAdoo *
Larry Spriggs
Jamal Wilkes +
Mitch Kupcak
Kurt Rambis
Ronnie Lester
Chuck Nevitt
Earl Jones

* Hall of Famers
+ Should be in the Hall


To me, these were the best collective rosters for both teams.


In 82-83, the Celtics had "Tiny" Archibald on the team, who was also a Hall of Fame player, but they did not have Dennis Johnson. In 85-86, they picked up Bill Walton, another HOF player, but they lost Carr, Henderson and Maxwell.

In 82-83, the Lakers had Norm Nixon, who was also a great player but they didn't have Scott. 85-86, the Lakers picked up A.C. Green and Maurice Lucas but they lost Bob McAdoo. In 86-87, the Lakers added Mychael Thompson and Billy Thompson. This could have been the Lakers best team also but again, you don't have McAdoo who could score at will. To me, 84-85 was the best collective team for both squades.

It's amazing how many current coaches/GMs are on that last.

Unfortunately, based on their success that doesn't mean they necessarily should be.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I know, but he's a lock. I was including players/coaches who were, would be, will be or should be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

It's a crime that Dennis Johnson is not yet in the Hall of Fame.

I think both Wilkes and Johnson should both have been inducted into the Hall of Fame long ago.

Danny, your right. Riley is not yet in the hall of fame. He will be, without question, but he's not yet.