Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





View Poll Results: Do you consider the Spurs a Dynasty?

Voters
20. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    11 55.00%
  • No

    9 45.00%
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 107
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,414
    vCash
    1500

    Phil Jackson: Spurs are NOT A Dynasty but have great TEAM PLAY

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...-not-a-dynasty

    Tim Duncan making the salary he's making after being part of a dynastyŚnot a dynasty, I wouldn't call San Antonio a dynastyŚa force, a great force. They haven't been able to win consecutive championships but they've always been there. San Antonio has had a wonderful run through Tim's tenure there as a player. He's agreed to take a salary cut so other players can play with him so they can be this good. And that's the beginning of team play.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    37,633
    vCash
    1000
    Haha, he's kidding right?

    A dynasty means you win your championships in a row? Not every other year?


    Come on Phil

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Bellingham, WA
    Posts
    12,730
    vCash
    1500
    Yeah I also do not agree with this.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brooklyn, NYC
    Posts
    11,955
    vCash
    1623
    Phil has his own perception of what a dynasty is. Like many people do. Nothing new here though, he's taken little jabs @ SA before. He does it when he can

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,700
    vCash
    1500
    I think he's right though...the Spurs are not a dynasty at this moment. You could argue that earlier in Timmy's career they were but not now they aren't. They haven't won a championship in 6 years. Which by most t means that is not a big window but in terms of dynasty I expect the team to win in those times.

    Adopt-A-Viking: Harrison Smith
    Tackles: 23, INTs: 2, Sacks: 0

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    2,763
    vCash
    1500
    Most people probably wouldn't consider them a dynasty anyway.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,801
    vCash
    1500
    I think by the literal definition, they aren't technically a dynasty because they only ruled for one season at a time. They would lose their throne, and reclaim it, which makes them very formidable and respectable, but if we are playing the semantics game then they probably aren't a dynasty.

    But whats in a name anyhow?
    "If you find yourself in the majority, rethink your position" - Mark Twain

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    3,070
    vCash
    1500
    The Greg Popovich-Tim Duncan dynasty is most definitely real.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,414
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    Haha, he's kidding right?

    A dynasty means you win your championships in a row? Not every other year?


    Come on Phil
    Every other yr ??


    They won in 99, have a 4 yr gap, then they had every other yr for 03, 05, and 07.



    Now, it's been a 7 yr drought. And I don't see the Spurs winning it this yr either.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,158
    vCash
    1500
    I like the way he's handling 'melo based on that story released today, but saying the spurs aren't a dynasty smacks of 'I'm insecure about my legacy', and he totally doesn't have to be.....Oh phil.....that trash talking zen master.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,414
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Sly Guy View Post
    I like the way he's handling 'melo based on that story released today, but saying the spurs aren't a dynasty smacks of 'I'm insecure about my legacy', and he totally doesn't have to be.....Oh phil.....that trash talking zen master.
    It's nothing about insecurity.

    Would you call 80s Celtics a dynasty?


    I wouldn't. KC Jones Celtics fit in the same category as Pop's Spurs. Competitive for a decade (or more), win titles, be in the finals, but never repeat.


    The Riley Lakers (back-to-back titles with multiple other titles) & Phil Lakers (3 peat and repeat) with Phil Bulls (2 3peats) are dynasties.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    399
    vCash
    1500
    They're a dynasty. Pop, Duncan, Parker, Ginobli...they've won alot, including some titles. How many 50+ win seasons in a row? Exactly. The role players have changed, but the main core has remained the same.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    2,763
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Red_Pill View Post
    They're a dynasty. Pop, Duncan, Parker, Ginobli...they've won alot, including some titles. How many 50+ win seasons in a row? Exactly. The role players have changed, but the main core has remained the same.
    Most people aren't talking about regular seasons when they talk about dynasties.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,946
    vCash
    1500
    A real dynasty doesn't lose to an 8th seed. It most likely will happen again. The Spurs are done.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    4,594
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    Haha, he's kidding right?

    A dynasty means you win your championships in a row? Not every other year?


    Come on Phil
    Phil's right.
    Quote Originally Posted by bucketss View Post
    jordan is 2nd or 3rd when talking career but both magic and lebron are better all around players.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •