San Antonio Spurs

[rookie2619 0]

They will likely win this title. Is it time to consider them a Dynasty? 4 NBA Titles if they win since the Bulls were dismantled.

[HubDub04 0]

The Cavaliers will beat them in 6 games. So no, they are not a dynasty.

[rookie2619 0]

U are in denial.

[showstopper24 0]

They will likely win this title. Is it time to consider them a Dynasty? 4 NBA Titles if they win since the Bulls were dismantled.

The Cavaliers will beat them in 6 games. So no, they are not a dynasty.

U are in denial.

No to the first, no to the second, and no to the third. They are almost a dynasty but the Cavs will win. Sorry hubdub but the Cavs will win in 4, and we are not in denial.

[Poppy_Hillis 11]

You sound like a USC fan talking about 3 championships when they only won 1. 1999 doesn't count and they've only won 2, so relax a little bit. Remember the Lakers were won 3 in a row and were dominant, and they're not a dynasty. Also, you can't be a dynasty when another team beat you 3 out of 4 times during your so-called run (Lakers in '01, '02, '04). There have only been 3 dynasties (60's Celtics, 80's Lakers, 90's Bulls), and the Spurs are not close to one yet.

[princeof56k 0]

1999 doesn't count and they've only won 2, so relax a little bit.

BS. 1999 counts just as much as the others. Yes the regular season was short. But the playoff format was the same, and the Spurs rolled right by everyone. I never understand why people make that comment.The Spurs won 3 titles over 8 years. I think they would need to win 2 more before I give them the dynasty label.

[Jadaki 0]

/agree with prince

[Poppy_Hillis 11]

They were playing 3 games in a row and 5 games in 6 nights, when most of the players weren't in shape because they didn't think there was going to be a season. If you're going to say that the '99 championship counts and initiates their "dynasty", then they weren't even the most dominant team in this era, and you can't be a dynasty unless you are.Now let's say they win this year and gives them 3 in 5 years, and then win 2 in the next 3 years then I will agree that they're a dynasty, but talk of them being one now is ridiculous.

[ChunkyLuver69 0]

Spurs will beat the Cavs ive been to the future and back i know

[fleung22 1]

I think that if San Antonio was more flashy then they'd definitely be given the dynasty label. Without the flash or back-to-back titles they go a little unnoticed. I think with another championship this year it would be hard to argue Duncun and the Spurs place in history.

[Jadaki 0]

I think that if San Antonio was more flashy then they'd definitely be given the dynasty label. Without the flash or back-to-back titles they go a little unnoticed. I think with another championship this year it would be hard to argue Duncun and the Spurs place in history.

I don't look at the Lakers of Shaq & Kobe as a dynasty, they won 3 in a row and were flashy.

[Poppy_Hillis 11]

This Popovich/Duncan angle they're running is really creepy. It looked like an SNL skit.

[fleung22 1]

I don't look at the Lakers of Shaq & Kobe as a dynasty, they won 3 in a row and were flashy.

Really? I suppose they did break up prematurely but from 2000-2004 they had 4 finals and 3 championships...pretty damn dominating. At least a mini-dynasty that got cut short.

[flyingdonkey 0]

No to the first, no to the second, and no to the third. They are almost a dynasty but the Cavs will win. Sorry hubdub but the Cavs will win in 4, and we are not in denial.

Next guess?

[Snamuh 0]

The Spurs are certainly a great team, though I wouldn't call them a dynasty. I still see the Cavs winning in 7 though.

[Jadaki 0]

Really? I suppose they did break up prematurely but from 2000-2004 they had 4 finals and 3 championships...pretty damn dominating. At least a mini-dynasty that got cut short.

The Celtics dominated the 60's, the Lakers dominated the majority of the 80's and the Bulls crushed the 90's. The Lakers won 3 titles in a row, but if you followed them closely you know they were a a miracle jumper from getting beat by the Spurs one of those years and they should have lost to the Kings except some really shady reffing in the western conference finals. They hardly were dominating except 1 year and they got completely smoked in the Finals once. The Spurs have been the most consistent team in the 4 major sports over the last 7-8 years, but letting another team 3 peat on you stops you from being a dynasty.

[Poppy_Hillis 11]

The Celtics dominated the 60's, the Lakers dominated the majority of the 80's and the Bulls crushed the 90's. The Lakers won 3 titles in a row, but if you followed them closely you know they were a a miracle jumper from getting beat by the Spurs one of those years and they should have lost to the Kings except some really shady reffing in the western conference finals. They hardly were dominating except 1 year and they got completely smoked in the Finals once. The Spurs have been the most consistent team in the 4 major sports over the last 7-8 years, but letting another team 3 peat on you stops you from being a dynasty.

Mostly agreed, but remember the Lakers were also one Horry in-and-out 3-pointer in 2003 from beating the Spurs and winning four in a row, so saying if this happened and that happened things would be different is a bad idea. You could say that about almost any championship team including every Bulls championship except '96.

[Jadaki 0]

Mostly agreed, but remember the Lakers were also one Horry in-and-out 3-pointer in 2003 from beating the Spurs and winning four in a row, so saying if this happened and that happened things would be different is a bad idea. You could say that about almost any championship team including every Bulls championship except '96.

What series were the bulls really in danger of losing? I think the hardest match up they had was the Barkley led suns in 93.91 - 4-1 Bulls over Lakers, the one game the Lakers did win was by 2 points. Lets not forget they swept the two time defending champs in the Eastern conference finals.92 - 4-2 Bulls over Blazers, Most the Bulls wins were by double digits, Blazers wins were in OT and by 5.93 - 4-2 Bulls over Suns, only one game that was won by double digits and most games came down to last two minutes including a triple OT classic.96 - 4-2 Bulls over Sonics, oddly enough most games were blowouts one way or the other, Bulls did set the record for regular season wins that year.97 - 4-2 Bulls over Jazz, Bulls out played the Jazz in most the clutch situations after taking a 2-0 lead in the series. 98 - 4-2 Bulls over Jazz, after blowing the Jazz out 96-54 in game 3, was the series ever really in doubt?

[rookie2619 0]

Sports talk-radio has been on this subject all week about if the spurs are a dynasty or not. But another topic that popped up was "If you were starting a team who would u take, Shaq or Duncan"? I think the choice is easy = Duncan

[Jadaki 0]

I take Shaq, everyone is down on him right now because he is slowing down. Hes also 15 years into his pro career. He might go down as the most imposing physical person to ever walk play the game, they have rewritten rules because of him.

[Poppy_Hillis 11]

What series were the bulls really in danger of losing? I think the hardest match up they had was the Barkley led suns in 93.91 - 4-1 Bulls over Lakers, the one game the Lakers did win was by 2 points. Lets not forget they swept the two time defending champs in the Eastern conference finals.92 - 4-2 Bulls over Blazers, Most the Bulls wins were by double digits, Blazers wins were in OT and by 5.93 - 4-2 Bulls over Suns, only one game that was won by double digits and most games came down to last two minutes including a triple OT classic.96 - 4-2 Bulls over Sonics, oddly enough most games were blowouts one way or the other, Bulls did set the record for regular season wins that year.97 - 4-2 Bulls over Jazz, Bulls out played the Jazz in most the clutch situations after taking a 2-0 lead in the series. 98 - 4-2 Bulls over Jazz, after blowing the Jazz out 96-54 in game 3, was the series ever really in doubt?

Before I respond I want to clarify that I'm not a believer of "if this happened and that happened things would be different" because winners find a way to win, but you're challenging my response to your post so I will defend it. Remember all I was saying was one moment can change everything. I like your breakdown by the way. So here we go...1991- The Lakers' series was a lot closer than people remember and they were without 2 starters James Worthy and Byron Scott. Critical moment: Jordan had to hit a running jumper with 6 secs left to tie Game 3. He misses that and Lakers are up 2-1 with all the momentum and a chance to close them out at home or a split of the next two forces the Bulls to win both 6 & 7 in Chicago with Worthy and Scott planned to return.1992- For the record I think '92 & '96 were the most dominant years, but the Knicks took them to seven games although none of the games came down to one play here or there. The one moment however was in Game 6 in the Finals when Bobby Hansen and BJ Armstrong went nuts in the fourth quarter and brought them back from 15 with Jordan on the bench for the entire comeback. Without that unexpected outburst they're looking at Game 7 where anything can happen. I know this one is weak.1993- Obviously the Charles Smith Game 5. He scores Knicks are up 3-2 forcing the Bulls to force a Game 7 at the Garden. Game 6 of the Finals, Suns defense breaksdown inexplicably on the last play, Barkley gambles and Ainge leaves Paxson. He misses another Game 7 on the road. Doubt they're winning two road Game 7's.1996- I got nothing. One of the most dominant teams ever, but I wonder what would have happened if Payton guarded Jordan from the start of the series.1997- Three moments that all went Chicago's way, mainly because Stockton/Malone only hit one big shot between them their entire careers, but nonetheless...Game 1 Malone misses 2 FT's with the game tied less than 10 secs left, then Jordan hits the buzzer beater. Utah takes this game it changes the series, as does Game 5. Jordan misses the 3 and Utah scores they're down 3-2. Finally to round out Utah's choke job in Game 6 they miss a layup with like 25 secs left with the game tied, then Kerr makes the shot and that's that. The Bulls won like 5 coin flips where if one of them goes the other way I doubt they win the series.1998- Karl Malone have some court awareness and be strong with the ball please, oh yeah, you might want to double Michael Jordan. We all know about Game 6, but people forget Indiana took them to Game 7 and in the final minute there was a bad no-call that led to a 4-point switch with the game tied.I might be slightly off on how much time was left in a couple of them as I did this off memory, but basically every crucial play in every series went their way and without that they could have ended up like the Pistons with only a couple championships and a bunch of what-if moments.

[Jadaki 0]

During the 90's, the 2-3 best teams were usually in the East. The Knicks were often harder than anyone the Bulls played in the finals. Same for that couple year stint were the Pacers were really good toward the end of Reggie's career. It's a lot like how the west is now with the 3 top teams out there this year.

[obizee 0]

Spurs need 2 more titles in next 3 years to be considered dynasty.

[ChunkyLuver69 0]

Spurs need 2 more titles in next 3 years to be considered dynasty.

if they win back to back that should consider them a dynastySPURS 2008!

[tskillz187 0]

I've been a Spurs fan all my life. They have been the most dominant team in the league for that past 8 years or so. The problem I have with calling them a dynasty is picturing the players of the dynasty.Duncan, yes. Robinson, maybe. Manu, maybe. Parker, maybe. Who's the 5th? Horry? Elliot? Bowen? Avery Johnson?Their teams have had so much turnover that the three most deserving IMO are Duncan Robinson and Manu. Let it be known I'm a huge Ginobili fan and believe that Duncan and Parker are both overrated, but Ginobili was absolutely robbed of the NBA Finals MVP v Detroit. He was an integral part in 2 if not 3 of their championships whereas parker had spent the end of most posteseasons watching Speedy Claxton or Antonio Daniels, or whoever the hell else played the 1 because he couldn't clutch up and dribbled too much.Parker played great this year, but my whole point of Dynasty is that I guess the 5th face or person would be Popovich. I love the Spurs and think that their teams could matchup with any of the past champions and play them veryyyy tough.