PDA

View Full Version : Do the Spurs...



ILLUSIONIST^248
06-07-2013, 01:42 PM
Pass the Bulls as the third greatest franchise in the NBA with a ship this year?


The Bulls will still have one more banner, but what the spurs have done in 25 years or so is incredible.

-19 division titles
-5 conference titles
-4 championship/5 if they win this year.
-Made the playoffs 23 out of the last 24 years.
-14 consecutive 50 win seasons.

I hate the Spurs just as much as any other Lakers fan, but you can't do anything but respect them.


Discuss.

Chronz
06-07-2013, 01:47 PM
Yes. They have contended far longer. Celtics arent better than the Lakers because they have 1 extra ring

abe_froman
06-07-2013, 01:51 PM
definitely can

....hell you can make the argument they already have(this coming from a bulls fan)

ILLUSIONIST^248
06-07-2013, 01:56 PM
Yes. They have contended far longer. Celtics arent better than the Lakers because they have 1 extra ring

Correct.
IMO it goes

Lakers
Celts
Spurs(if they win this year)
Bulls
a Few teams could be debated for 5-8

Chitownhero1992
06-07-2013, 02:06 PM
I'm going to be as objective as possible in this as I am a Bulls fan but I still think they would be considered 4th. Bulls did a lot at once and had a long history in the 50's and 70's as being a top team, where as Spurs has only been recent success (well since the Admiral anyways).

Chicago has been a top team recently as well they need another ring to help solidify that position but I just believe they have more of a resume then the Spurs do right now.

Both teams would be ridiculously close in rankings though.

jgthegame1982
06-07-2013, 02:10 PM
As a knick fan, living on Long Island.. Watching what the spurs have done.. Duncan n the admiral.. They r a great franchise as of late

TheLegend
06-07-2013, 02:25 PM
Hell no. 5 titles doesn't beat 6, and not to mention the ridiculous reg. record of 72-10.

abe_froman
06-07-2013, 02:41 PM
I'm going to be as objective as possible in this as I am a Bulls fan but I still think they would be considered 4th. Bulls did a lot at once and had a long history in the 50's and 70's as being a top team, where as Spurs has only been recent success (well since the Admiral anyways).

Chicago has been a top team recently as well they need another ring to help solidify that position but I just believe they have more of a resume then the Spurs do right now.

Both teams would be ridiculously close in rankings though.
bulls didnt exist in the 50's ,and no we've had a very up and down existence.for about 71-77 we were usually good but were bottom dwellers before then(sans inaugural season) and from the mid 70's til mj we sucked pretty hard ,then back to the basement from after mj til about mid 2000's.(look as a bulls fan i wish his wasnt the case,but it is.can look it up,its there in black and white)

whereas the spurs are almost always good/above average,having only missed the playoffs 4 times in their history(3 times since they been in the nba)

ChicagoJ
06-07-2013, 02:48 PM
Considering that the bulls three peated twice and had the greatest season ever (and another that comes close) puts them above the spurs IMO.

sammid21
06-07-2013, 02:51 PM
The spurs have been one of my favorite teams since 1990, they know how to actually play ball instead of iso ball. But the reason i put the Bulls slightly ahead of them is because they made basketball a worldwide sport thanks to MJ and his marketability.

TheLegend
06-07-2013, 03:00 PM
The Bulls drew recognition from all over the world. The Spurs never got to that level.

cdnsportsfan
06-07-2013, 03:05 PM
With another title yes, to me that's no question! The Bulls have been great when they had MJ, and then in the Rose era. The Spurs have pretty much dominated for two-and-a-half decades straight now, and are currently riding an NBA record 14 straight seasons with 50+ wins. The only team in the NBA they have a regular season losing record against, if I remember correctly, are the Lakers. One more championship win, which I believe would also keep their perfect record when playing in the Finals in tact and yes, they easily bump up a position.

ILLUSIONIST^248
06-07-2013, 03:16 PM
Hell no. 5 titles doesn't beat 6, and not to mention the ridiculous reg. record of 72-10.
5<6 doesn't necessarily mean the Bulls are the better franchise, There is still a lot of other things to consider.

The Bulls drew recognition from all over the world. The Spurs never got to that level.

The NBA is big over seas ever since the Spurs started winning.

xILLN355
06-07-2013, 03:21 PM
The spurs have been one of my favorite teams since 1990, they know how to actually play ball instead of iso ball. But the reason i put the Bulls slightly ahead of them is because they made basketball a worldwide sport thanks to MJ and his marketability.

exactly. mj, not bulls

IversonIsKrazy
06-07-2013, 03:34 PM
I nvr realized that they have only missed 3 NBA Playoffs.... WTF! I'd say it's close. I'd give the nod to SPurs because I feel like Bulls were only elite because they had the GOAT, MJ. Asa opposed to Spurs who dominated for past 16 years cause of Duncan, but were really good prior 10 years because of D-Rob. Not to mention the Gervin years.

slaker619
06-07-2013, 04:08 PM
They have been putting in o.d work because chicago hasn't really done anything after Jordan left until they got Rose

sammid21
06-07-2013, 04:10 PM
exactly. mj, not bulls

Right but MJ was the Bulls, people overseas knew MJ, then they started learning other bulls players, then they paid more attention to the league. Again, the Spurs and the Bulls are neck and neck with the third spot. Slight edge to the Bulls because they put the league on the map, If MJ wouldve been on another team with the same success, then they would be no. 3

Chitownhero1992
06-07-2013, 04:23 PM
bulls didnt exist in the 50's ,and no we've had a very up and down existence.for about 71-77 we were usually good but were bottom dwellers before then(sans inaugural season) and from the mid 70's til mj we sucked pretty hard ,then back to the basement from after mj til about mid 2000's.(look as a bulls fan i wish his wasnt the case,but it is.can look it up,its there in black and white)

whereas the spurs are almost always good/above average,having only missed the playoffs 4 times in their history(3 times since they been in the nba)

Meant 60's that was a mistype, they had a good long run their from like 66-72-74 with Chet Walker, Sloan, Van Lier, etc...

And even as the Stags they had a championship (although I know that's not considered the same franchise but still its Chicago).

From 85-98 we were a top 10 team pretty often, most of them top 3-5. Then from 2005-recent we've been a playoff team. Yea we've had bad teams in the past but we've been a solid franchise throughout the entire existence just as the Spurs has.

albertajaysfan
06-07-2013, 04:27 PM
I am going to have to say yes.

If they win this year they will be a perfect 5-0 in the finals along with all of their other accomplishments.
14 straight 50 wins seasons overshadows 72-10 in my opinion because it says something about the franchise overall rather then one insane season.

All time if they win another championship.
Lakers
Celtics
Spurs
Bulls

I would argue the Spurs have been best run franchise since they joined the NBA. The Celtics titles mostly predate the Spurs joining the Association. And Lakers have things going for them that the Spurs can only dream of. Unlimited budget, living the life in LA and an amazing recent history directly related to those factors.

The Spurs have never stolen a star from another team in order to win a ship. Their front office seems to be a training ground for solid executives. Their success when you factor in the economic reality of the NBA only becomes more impressive.

albertajaysfan
06-07-2013, 04:29 PM
Meant 60's that was a mistype, they had a good long run their from like 66-72-74 with Chet Walker, Sloan, Van Lier, etc...

And even as the Stags they had a championship (although I know that's not considered the same franchise but still its Chicago).

From 85-98 we were a top 10 team pretty often, most of them top 3-5. Then from 2005-recent we've been a playoff team. Yea we've had bad teams in the past but we've been a solid franchise throughout the entire existence just as the Spurs has.

Except the Spurs have never really been bad for any lengthy stretch. That to me is what moves them past the Bulls, if they win another Championship.

RiceOnTheRun
06-07-2013, 04:36 PM
As an organization? Yes.

I'd take the Spurs FO over the 90s Bulls FO in a heartbeat. Bulls dominated for a decade but what the Spurs have is consistency. Being a contender for almost two decades is no easy task and even after Tim Duncan retires, it looks like they'll still be in the race for championships with Leonard playing pretty well and TP having at least another 4-5 years in him.

While Phil is a great coach, he needs players that fit into his system. Pop is a great coach because his system can fit the players. As TD aged, he adapted his system around him so they could still be successful. Phil needs certain kinds of players for his system to work, TD wouldn't be nearly as good with Phil or any other coach.

abe_froman
06-07-2013, 04:54 PM
Meant 60's that was a mistype, they had a good long run their from like 66-72-74 with Chet Walker, Sloan, Van Lier, etc...
yopu have to treat 66 separately as they didnt have chet or van leir and 2.they made the playoffs with a losing record(the first time we had a winning record was '71)


And even as the Stags they had a championship (although I know that's not considered the same franchise but still its Chicago).
your right you have to treat hem separate,but no they never won a championship...dunno why you thought that

'

From 85-98 we were a top 10 team pretty often, most of them top 3-5. Then from 2005-recent we've been a playoff team. Yea we've had bad teams in the past but we've been a solid franchise throughout the entire existence just as the Spurs has.
and thats the crux of the argument is 85-98 so good that it outweighs the spurs being good pretty much every year.and no we havent,when you miss the playoffs as much as we have and have as many losing seasons as winning ones ,we cant be considered solid throughout.we're a roller-coaster franchise,we go through highs and extreme lows

amos1er
06-07-2013, 05:33 PM
Spurs were relevant for a longer period of time than the Bulls, though the Bulls did win more rings. Tough to say...I would have to go with the Spurs under the "what you've done for me lately" principle.

Hawkeye15
06-07-2013, 07:12 PM
Lakers
Celtics
Spurs

Bulls had a crazy run with Michael, the Spurs run stretched over R-Rob, Duncan, and then Manu/Tony, and has been far longer and more consistent.

Despite the Lakers being one short on the Celtics, again, the Celtics won a ton when the game wasn't developed at all, and winning 11 chips since 1980, when the was FAR more developed, more than makes up for the one extra Boston has.

Sactown
06-07-2013, 07:14 PM
Since 1998 I've considered the Spurs the best franchise in the NBA

Labgrownmangoat
06-07-2013, 07:28 PM
You should all be ashamed for ignoring the franchise achievements of the San Diego Clippers and the Kansas City Kings. . .

jerellh528
06-07-2013, 07:39 PM
Yes. IMO:
Lakers
Celts
Spurs
Bulls
Knicks
Pistons
76ers

ILLUSIONIST^248
06-07-2013, 07:39 PM
Lakers
Celtics
Spurs

Bulls had a crazy run with Michael, the Spurs run stretched over R-Rob, Duncan, and then Manu/Tony, and has been far longer and more consistent.

Despite the Lakers being one short on the Celtics, again, the Celtics won a ton when the game wasn't developed at all, and winning 11 chips since 1980, when the was FAR more developed, more than makes up for the one extra Boston has.My exact thoughts.


Since 1998 I've considered the Spurs the best franchise in the NBA

They're a close second IMO.

amos1er
06-08-2013, 06:09 AM
My exact thoughts.



They're a close second IMO.

Agreed.

kdspurman
06-08-2013, 01:12 PM
Since 1998 I've considered the Spurs the best franchise in the NBA

Probably, just in terms of the way they handle things internally with the team, getting the right personnel around their main guys, not tolerating locker room drama, etc...

celtNYpatsHeels
06-08-2013, 01:51 PM
The Bulls drew recognition from all over the world. The Spurs never got to that level.

Oh no? I bet people in Argentina, France, Brazil, Australia, and the Virgin Islands are very aware of the Spurs

Jdawg
06-08-2013, 02:13 PM
Yes.

TheLegend
06-08-2013, 03:02 PM
With another title yes, to me that's no question! The Bulls have been great when they had MJ, and then in the Rose era. The Spurs have pretty much dominated for two-and-a-half decades straight now, and are currently riding an NBA record 14 straight seasons with 50+ wins. The only team in the NBA they have a regular season losing record against, if I remember correctly, are the Lakers. One more championship win, which I believe would also keep their perfect record when playing in the Finals in tact and yes, they easily bump up a position.

Simple math. 5 titles doesn't beat 6. And the 72-10 best regular season record signifies the Bulls as the best team ever. Making the playoffs x-amount of years don't beat that.

While the Spurs was being "competitive" and making the playoffs the bulls was being a dynasty. The Bulls won 6 championships awhile ago and the spurs is just NOW possibly getting to no. 5. That doesn't beat the Bulls dominace as a franchise. Jordan cemented the Bulls spot awhile ago. Being competive and Makinf the playoffs don't make you a elite franchise. You have to win CHAMPOIONSHPS!!!! Period!!! Not saying they are not, they are, just not ahead of the bulls. Right now they have 4, they are catching up sure. But some people are like the flavor of the week. Whatever is good now is what they pick. Probably to young to reflect on history. So u only know what u see in the now.

tredigs
06-08-2013, 03:52 PM
I'm going to be as objective as possible in this as I am a Bulls fan but I still think they would be considered 4th. Bulls did a lot at once and had a long history in the 50's and 70's as being a top team, where as Spurs has only been recent success (well since the Admiral anyways).

Chicago has been a top team recently as well they need another ring to help solidify that position but I just believe they have more of a resume then the Spurs do right now.

Both teams would be ridiculously close in rankings though.

The Spurs have only missed the playoffs 5 total times dating all the way back to their ABA days in the 60's and into the NBA in the 70's. The Bulls have missed the playoffs 6 times since the year 2000 alone. Just as the Spurs haven't won without Duncan, the Bulls haven't won or been to the finals without MJ. But the Spurs are the top organization of this generation and are the model of consistency. Since 67 (when the Bulls became a team - a year before San Antonio) the Spurs have 9 more playoff appearances than Chi and hundreds of more victories. They're easily the more dominant and consistent franchise. Their organization is run better than all others in sports in my opinion.

tredigs
06-08-2013, 03:57 PM
Simple math. 5 titles doesn't beat 6. And the 72-10 best regular season record signifies the Bulls as the best team ever. Making the playoffs x-amount of years don't beat that.

While the Spurs was being "competitive" and making the playoffs the bulls was being a dynasty. The Bulls won 6 championships awhile ago and the spurs is just NOW possibly getting to no. 5. That doesn't beat the Bulls dominace as a franchise. Jordan cemented the Bulls spot awhile ago. Being competive and Makinf the playoffs don't make you a elite franchise. You have to win CHAMPOIONSHPS!!!! Period!!! Not saying they are not, they are, just not ahead of the bulls. Right now they have 4, they are catching up sure. But some people are like the flavor of the week. Whatever is good now is what they pick. Probably to young to reflect on history. So u only know what u see in the now.

Simma down now turbo.

Anyway, 1 decade of dominance because they were lucky enough to get MJ/Pippen and company doesn't trump the Spurs being greater the other 5 decades for me. A franchise run as clean as the Spurs will never, ever miss the playoffs 6 years straight like Chi did.

xxplayerxx23
06-08-2013, 03:59 PM
Yes

TheLegend
06-08-2013, 05:35 PM
Simma down now turbo.

Anyway, 1 decade of dominance because they were lucky enough to get MJ/Pippen and company doesn't trump the Spurs being greater the other 5 decades for me. A franchise run as clean as the Spurs will never, ever miss the playoffs 6 years straight like Chi did.

U can't be greater when u have 4 ships and the bulls have 6. And that 72-10 record signifies the Bullls as the greatest team ever. Making the playoffs consistently doesn't make up for that dude. The bulls have one of the greatest records in sports which is the most wins in a season. That alone is significant. But whatever dude. Making the playoffs consistently means more, yeah right

--23--
06-08-2013, 06:11 PM
It's a tough call if you're judging base on longevity in staying competitive and winning I would lean towards the Spurs. The Bulls(Jordan era) was competitive and winning from 1988-1998 while the Spurs(Duncan era) was from 98 til 2013. Both teams been in the league around the same amount of years if you include the ABA, overall the Spurs missed the playoffs 5 times while the Bulls missed it 14 times.

Franchise Playoff Records
Spurs: Win%: .590, Playoffs Made: 41 Conference Champ: 5 Champ: 4
Bulls: Win%: .519 Playoffs Made: 32 Conference Champ: 6 Champ: 6




Anyway, 1 decade of dominance because they were lucky enough to get MJ/Pippen and company doesn't trump the Spurs being greater the other 5 decades for me. A franchise run as clean as the Spurs will never, ever miss the playoffs 6 years straight like Chi did.

You don't know that, they haven't dealt with the post Duncan, Pop, Parker, Ginobili era like the Bulls did when Jordan retired and Phil left. Also how can you say the Bulls got lucky with Jordan/Pippen but not say the same about the Spurs with Duncan.

tredigs
06-08-2013, 07:59 PM
It's a tough call if you're judging base on longevity in staying competitive and winning I would lean towards the Spurs. The Bulls(Jordan era) was competitive and winning from 1988-1998 while the Spurs(Duncan era) was from 98 til 2013. Both teams been in the league around the same amount of years if you include the ABA, overall the Spurs missed the playoffs 5 times while the Bulls missed it 14 times.

Franchise Playoff Records
Spurs: Win%: .590, Playoffs Made: 41 Conference Champ: 5 Champ: 4
Bulls: Win%: .519 Playoffs Made: 32 Conference Champ: 6 Champ: 6





You don't know that, they haven't dealt with the post Duncan, Pop, Parker, Ginobili era like the Bulls did when Jordan retired and Phil left. Also how can you say the Bulls got lucky with Jordan/Pippen but not say the same about the Spurs with Duncan.

We know that they've won their division >50% of the time in their history (when the majority of which there was only 2 divisions in each conference) and many of those predate Timmy. You could literally take out their division titles for the last 10 years and they'd still have more than the Bulls. They've also never gone back to back seasons without making the playoffs and have made it to the conference finals far more than Chi.

Spurs having the 3rd best Win% all time to the Lakers and Celtics while the Bulls are 10th is another key indicator.

As for them being lucky getting Duncan I agree, but outside of him the Spurs are still one of the toughest most revered franchises in the NBA (D. Robinson's and Gervin's eras especially). If you look at the Bulls you find 10 years of missing the playoffs entirely surrounding Jordan's arrival/departure. The best of the best can't be bottom feeders for that long. They literally had 1 playoff appearance between the years of 1977/78 to 2004 without MJ.

I'm taking proven consistency over many decades ahead of a single dynasty that had the GOAT every day.

TheLegend
06-08-2013, 08:55 PM
I think I'll take 6 titles over 4 any day of the week.