Let's Have us a Dynasty Debate

[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. :

 

[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. :

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:

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:

"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.

 

[joseephuss]

Here's another pic:

"All ball" my arse! :laugh2:

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

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

 

[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.




http://i30.***BLOCKED***/albums/c333/marv41/si.jpg

 

[Mavs Man]

the cover of the new sports illustrated says we are.




http://i30.***BLOCKED***/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.




http://i30.***BLOCKED***/albums/c333/marv41/si.jpg

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]

Humm........

Or this...

 

[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.