PDA

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



P&GRealist
04-24-2014, 03:32 PM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2039894-phil-jackson-says-the-san-antonio-spurs-are-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.

Jeffy25
04-24-2014, 03:36 PM
Haha, he's kidding right?

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


Come on Phil

Thumper 88
04-24-2014, 03:43 PM
Yeah I also do not agree with this.

kdspurman
04-24-2014, 03:52 PM
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

pacofunk64
04-24-2014, 03:55 PM
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.

Big Zo
04-24-2014, 03:59 PM
Most people probably wouldn't consider them a dynasty anyway.

Shlumpledink
04-24-2014, 04:07 PM
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?

mrblisterdundee
04-24-2014, 04:10 PM
The Greg Popovich-Tim Duncan dynasty is most definitely real.

P&GRealist
04-24-2014, 04:20 PM
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.

Sly Guy
04-24-2014, 04:34 PM
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.

P&GRealist
04-24-2014, 04:40 PM
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.

Red_Pill
04-24-2014, 04:42 PM
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.

Big Zo
04-24-2014, 04:50 PM
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.

Longhornfan1234
04-24-2014, 04:57 PM
A real dynasty doesn't lose to an 8th seed. It most likely will happen again. The Spurs are done.

ILLUSIONIST^248
04-24-2014, 04:59 PM
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.

JasonJohnHorn
04-24-2014, 05:25 PM
A team who is in contention for a title every year for 15-straight seasons is a dynasty.

Phil's just hurt because he's never won 3 COY awards and never had a played like Duncan to build around long term. He had to settle for Kobe and Shaq.

TrueFan420
04-24-2014, 05:32 PM
A team who is in contention for a title every year for 15-straight seasons is a dynasty.

Phil's just hurt because he's never won 3 COY awards and never had a played like Duncan to build around long term. He had to settle for Kobe and Shaq.

He also was stuck settling with Jordan and Pippen.

P&GRealist
04-24-2014, 05:33 PM
A team who is in contention for a title every year for 15-straight seasons is a dynasty.

Phil's just hurt because he's never won 3 COY awards and never had a played like Duncan to build around long term. He had to settle for Kobe and Shaq.

Contention = dynasty????


Really now?

ThuglifeJ
04-24-2014, 05:37 PM
Isn't a Dynasty technically when you win 5 or more championships with a team? I think all in a row.

Big Zo
04-24-2014, 05:43 PM
A team who is in contention for a title every year for 15-straight seasons is a dynasty.

Phil's just hurt because he's never won 3 COY awards and never had a played like Duncan to build around long term. He had to settle for Kobe and Shaq.

Are the 90's Atlanta Braves a "Dynasty."?

MassoDio
04-24-2014, 05:45 PM
FWIW - This is from Wikipedia, so take it as you like:


Dynasty (sports)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for an extraordinary length of time. Best objective example in sports would be the world famous New York Yankees, which dominated Major League Baseball for several decades several times over. The definition of dynasty by academics implies a single leader over the bulk of that period, a great example being John Wooden who led a college basketball powerhouse at UCLA for over a quarter century. The word "dynasty" should not be used for a string of several dominant years in a row. It implies an extraordinary length of time like a decade. Such dominance is often only realized in retrospect. Some leagues maintain official lists of dynasties, often as part of a hall of fame (e.g., National Hockey League), but in many cases, whether a team has achieved a dynasty is subjective, and can be a frequent topic of debate among sports fans.
The most widely accepted sports dynasties are those with the majority of championships over a very long period of time, either consecutively or with interruptions (e.g., UCLA Bruins men's basketball 7-straight national championships from 1964 to 1975 and 11 national championships during Wooden's reign). Or consider Princeton University, from the pre-NCAA football years of the 1890s (it was one of the two teams to play the first college football game) all the way until 1950 during which Princeton won 28 national championships. Yale won 27 recognized national football championships between 1872-1926.[1]

I don't agree with Phil here. While it may be easier to define teams who have one multiple championships in a row, as a dynasty, a team does not need to in order to be one.

Sports dynasties are usually defined by extended success, not consecutive years of winning championships. The Spurs have absolutely had extended success.

(But I do agree with his stance in regards to Melo and why this was discussed by him)

MassoDio
04-24-2014, 05:51 PM
Are the 90's Atlanta Braves a "Dynasty."?

I see the point you are trying to make, but the Braves did not have the same success level. They won only one world series in the decade. Yes, they were good, they were successful, but not on the Spurs level.

The Spurs won 4 in a ten year period. And they were in the WCF or WCSF in almost every other year of that span, and almost every year since. Their extended success, consistency, as well as the amount of titles they were able to win over that time, is what makes them a dynasty to me.

SteBO
04-24-2014, 05:55 PM
Why is he still so bitter towards the spurs?

kdspurman
04-24-2014, 05:57 PM
Contention = dynasty????


Really now?

3 titles in 5 years?

or how about

4 titles in 8 years?

Is there something written about a dynasty that says "a team must win back to back titles to be a dynasty" Who defines what a dynasty is in sports terms? Some say they are, some say they aren't which is fine. But to say it's cause they didn't repeat? Is that really why?

Hawkeye15
04-24-2014, 05:59 PM
Depends on your definition of "Dynasty". For me, you need to win chips closer together to be considered a dynasty. San Antonio is the best team over the past 20 years, but at no time did they run of a streak of years that would put them in "dynasty" mode.

kdspurman
04-24-2014, 06:01 PM
Depends on your definition of "Dynasty". For me, you need to win chips closer together to be considered a dynasty. San Antonio is the best team over the past 20 years, but at no time did they run of a streak of years that would put them in "dynasty" mode.

When you say closer together do you mean b2b years? Cause 03/05/07 seem pretty close IMO.

Hawkeye15
04-24-2014, 06:01 PM
3 titles in 5 years?

or how about

4 titles in 8 years?

Is there something written about a dynasty that says "a team must win back to back titles to be a dynasty" Who defines what a dynasty is in sports terms? Some say they are, some say they aren't which is fine. But to say it's cause they didn't repeat? Is that really why?

yeah, it just depends on your definition. If you are consistent with it, I have zero issue with you claiming they were a dynasty for a portion of this long run they have had.

I don't even think you NEED to repeat, so I guess a compelling case for their 03-07' years could qualify if one were to argue it.

Hawkeye15
04-24-2014, 06:02 PM
When you say closer together do you mean b2b years? Cause 03/05/07 seem pretty close IMO.

see my response above. I think a "dynasty" is a team that wins 3/4, or 4/6 for example. But, this is a dicey conversation at best.

kdspurman
04-24-2014, 06:10 PM
see my response above. I think a "dynasty" is a team that wins 3/4, or 4/6 for example. But, this is a dicey conversation at best.

Gotcha.. Right and I don't really care most the time. I just get curious when folks say it's cause they never repeated. At that point I mean is the Rockets of the mid 90's more of a dynasty since they won b2b?

It basically comes down to how a person defines dynasty. And at that point, it's opinionated. Similar to how people debate their greatest top 10 players ever

Big Zo
04-24-2014, 06:10 PM
I see the point you are trying to make, but the Braves did not have the same success level. They won only one world series in the decade. Yes, they were good, they were successful, but not on the Spurs level.

The Spurs won 4 in a ten year period. And they were in the WCF or WCSF in almost every other year of that span, and almost every year since. Their extended success, consistency, as well as the amount of titles they were able to win over that time, is what makes them a dynasty to me.

I just have a strict criteria for dynasties. Most people see it as a "team of the decade" type thing where you win a few championships in a close span of time. To me, the real dynasties are the Lakers and Celtics (both of whom I can't stand) that win an insane amount of championships throughout multiple eras. I obviously don't put any stock into regular season success, but that's just me.

Yanks All Day
04-24-2014, 06:16 PM
4 rings in 7 years and 15 straight seasons of 50+ wins in the West. Whether you call it a dynasty or not, that's a pretty impressive run. Personally, I don't think you need back-to-back titles to be considered a dynasty, but something tells me Coach Pop and Tim Duncan don't care all that much anyway.

MassoDio
04-24-2014, 06:19 PM
I just have a strict criteria for dynasties. Most people see it as a "team of the decade" type thing where you win a few championships in a close span of time. To me, the real dynasties are the Lakers and Celtics (both of whom I can't stand) that win an insane amount of championships throughout multiple eras. I obviously don't put any stock into regular season success, but that's just me.

I can understand that. I mean if we wanted to talk pure sports dynasties, then there are only a few in all of sports, and they are mostly the teams that have been around for longer than anyone else. (And I used to hold the same strict criteria)

My definition of a dynasty has evolved. There is too much parity in sports now, and too many teams in each league. And on top of that, some of the best teams of the last 25 years weren't even around when (using basketball as the example) the Celtics and Lakers were winning MOST of those large number of championships.

But again, I do understand your stance.

mngopher35
04-24-2014, 06:39 PM
Ya, I think this depends on what you consider a dynasty. I personally would consider the Pop/Duncan era for the spurs a dynasty. If you have a more strict definition that is fine as long as you are consistent with it.

east fb knicks
04-24-2014, 06:47 PM
lmao some people on here are as dum as rocks the spurs are definitely a dynasty this was just pj taking a shot at the spurs who were the lakers biggest rival when phil was coaching

therealwd27
04-24-2014, 06:51 PM
4 rings in 7 years and 15 straight seasons of 50+ wins in the West. Whether you call it a dynasty or not, that's a pretty impressive run. Personally, I don't think you need back-to-back titles to be considered a dynasty, but something tells me Coach Pop and Tim Duncan don't care all that much anyway.

This.

Hawkeye15
04-24-2014, 07:01 PM
Gotcha.. Right and I don't really care most the time. I just get curious when folks say it's cause they never repeated. At that point I mean is the Rockets of the mid 90's more of a dynasty since they won b2b?

It basically comes down to how a person defines dynasty. And at that point, it's opinionated. Similar to how people debate their greatest top 10 players ever

To be honest, I would prefer to have been a Spurs fan over any other team the last 20 years. Contenders every single year, and 4 chips.

P&GRealist
04-24-2014, 07:20 PM
FWIW - This is from Wikipedia, so take it as you like:



I don't agree with Phil here. While it may be easier to define teams who have one multiple championships in a row, as a dynasty, a team does not need to in order to be one.

Sports dynasties are usually defined by extended success, not consecutive years of winning championships. The Spurs have absolutely had extended success.

(But I do agree with his stance in regards to Melo and why this was discussed by him)

The word dominance should relate to regular season AND playoffs.


What's the good of dominating the regular season when you can't replicate that dominance in 16 out of a possible 28 playoff games (max) ?


Charles Barkley, although doesn't make that many great points, made an exceptional point last night on Inside the NBA.


The Spurs dominate the regular season as they play 1 good team, then 3 sucky teams, then 1 or 2 good teams, then another 3 or 4 sucky teams. That's how they get their 55-65 wins a season (depending on health).

But in the playoffs, every game you play (especially if you're a west playoff team) is against great competition, way above average competition.


This is what I said about the Spurs earlier this yr and I got bashed. They are the REGULAR SEASON BULLY. But when they meet their match in the postseason, they fall at the end. This yr will be no exception.


A Dynasty is NOT just dominating regular seasons.

P&GRealist
04-24-2014, 07:21 PM
To be honest, I would prefer to have been a Spurs fan over any other team the last 20 years. Contenders every single year, and 4 chips.

But is that really something to rave about?

That means you expected and hoping to win a title 20 times, but came out with just a 20% success rate?

MassoDio
04-24-2014, 07:25 PM
The word dominance should relate to regular season AND playoffs.


What's the good of dominating the regular season when you can't replicate that dominance in 16 out of a possible 28 playoff games (max) ?

That

Charles Barkley, although doesn't make that many great points, made an exceptional point last night on Inside the NBA.


The Spurs dominate the regular season as they play 1 good team, then 3 sucky teams, then 1 or 2 good teams, then another 3 or 4 sucky teams. That's how they get their 55-65 wins a season (depending on health).

But in the playoffs, every game you play (especially if you're a west playoff team) is against great competition, way above average competition.


This is what I said about the Spurs earlier this yr and I got bashed. They are the REGULAR SEASON BULLY. But when they meet their match in the postseason, they fall at the end. This yr will be no exception.


A Dynasty is NOT just dominating regular seasons.

I don't know how this relates at all to what I said.

What Charles said, could be said about any playoff team.

So I don't understand the point.

ThuglifeJ
04-24-2014, 07:31 PM
To be honest, I would prefer to have been a Spurs fan over any other team the last 20 years. Contenders every single year, and 4 chips.

Eh...Lakers would have been fun... Shaq, Kobe are so entertaining. Spurs if you were already about 20+ and understand good what good basketball is.

I mean if I was a Spurs, Lakers, Chicago, or Celtics fan my whole life I'd sure be happy.

ThuglifeJ
04-24-2014, 07:35 PM
sports dynasty
:A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for an extraordinary length of time. Best objective example in sports would be the world famous New York Yankees, which dominated Major League Baseball for several decades several times over.

: a family, team, etc., that is very powerful or successful for a long period of time


So I mean..if you go by those definitions on the internet.. You can only really say the Celtics and Lakers. Bulls/Spurs would have to be the next step below though. Which is nothing to be anything but proud of.

kdspurman
04-24-2014, 07:44 PM
I don't know how this relates at all to what I said.

What Charles said, could be said about any playoff team.

So I don't understand the point.

and that's exactly what people were trying to explain to him.. by his logic, anyone but Miami the last 2 years is a "regular season team". Sure SA hasn't won it all, but the last 2 years they've come pretty close. I don't know how someone can think anyone who doesn't win a title (and is a playoff or +50 win team) is a "regular season bully"

P&GRealist
04-24-2014, 07:50 PM
and that's exactly what people were trying to explain to him.. by his logic, anyone but Miami the last 2 years is a "regular season team". Sure SA hasn't won it all, but the last 2 years they've come pretty close. I don't know how someone can think anyone who doesn't win a title (and is a playoff or +50 win team) is a "regular season bully"

A regular season bully is a team that has near 60 or 60+ wins, goes on these rampage 12, 16, 18, 19 consecutive winning streaks in the same season, dominate offensively, win regular season games by 15, 20 pts etc. etc. = SPURS the last 4 yrs since they changed their philosophy from 2010.

Red_Pill
04-24-2014, 08:01 PM
Most people aren't talking about regular seasons when they talk about dynasties.

Did you completely miss the word TITLES from my post? You did? Aww, that's okay, next time, read a little bit more carefully, buddy ;)

Bruno
04-24-2014, 08:04 PM
the spurs aren't a dynasty.

they're an institution.

mrblisterdundee
04-24-2014, 08:18 PM
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.

I think guys like David Robinson, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili are accoutrements to the Tim Duncan-Greg Popovich dynasty, although it could be argued that Parker deserves a spot, as he's part of three out of four championships. Duncan and Popovich are the only two constants in all of them. Too bad Robinson was 33 by the time he won a championship with Duncan. In his prime, he's way more valuable than Parker or Ginobili.

Big Zo
04-24-2014, 08:21 PM
Did you completely miss the word TITLES from my post? You did? Aww, that's okay, next time, read a little bit more carefully, buddy ;)

I saw it just fine, sweetheart. No need for panties to get in bunches.

HYFR
04-24-2014, 08:22 PM
Whatever you wanna call the spurs, I can only wish that my team had that type of sustained success.

TrueFan420
04-24-2014, 08:58 PM
But is that really something to rave about?

That means you expected and hoping to win a title 20 times, but came out with just a 20% success rate?

Well that's almost the exact same as the Lakers. Over the last 20 years they've expected to win a title every year but came out with just a 25% success rate.

Hawkeye15
04-24-2014, 09:21 PM
But is that really something to rave about?

That means you expected and hoping to win a title 20 times, but came out with just a 20% success rate?

and how have the other 29 teams faired?

yes, it is something to rave about. The only possible retort is the Lakers, who suffered through a few bad years after Shaq left, and now suck huge dick. I will take the Spurs consistency any day of the week over that.

FYL_McVeezy
04-24-2014, 09:23 PM
Agree with Phil. No disrespect at all to the Spurs or Spurs fans. They are a class organization, and live up to the word excellence year after year, but just like Phil, all the teams I list as dynasties have won two or more championships in a row. LBJ and "The Big 3 era" Heat will reach dynasty status when they repeat again this season.....

Hawkeye15
04-24-2014, 09:23 PM
Well that's almost the exact same as the Lakers. Over the last 20 years they've expected to win a title every year but came out with just a 25% success rate.

while sucking for a few of those years. Spurs never did. I am speaking purely from the perspective of being a fan of a team. The Spurs have been title contenders for 20 years, and have won 4. I would personally take that over 5 titles, and a handful of bad years.

Tony_Starks
04-24-2014, 09:34 PM
They've been incredibly consistent but I wouldn't call them a dynasty. No repeats, threepeats, if I'm not mistaken I don't even they've been to back to back Finals.

When I think Dynasties I'm thinking 80's Lakers, Celtics, 90s Bulls and 2000 Lakers. Basically either winning a chip or going to the finals for a sustained consecutive period of time.

Jeffy25
04-24-2014, 10:17 PM
To me, a dynasty is a team that is consistently competitive and in the playoffs with essentially the same roster (for the most part)

The braves of the 90's only won one ring, but that was a dynasty with several hall of famers.

So did the pistons have a dynasty?

Jeffy25
04-24-2014, 10:19 PM
We should put up a poll here

Jeffy25
04-24-2014, 10:25 PM
Agree with Phil. No disrespect at all to the Spurs or Spurs fans. They are a class organization, and live up to the word excellence year after year, but just like Phil, all the teams I list as dynasties have won two or more championships in a row. LBJ and "The Big 3 era" Heat will reach dynasty status when they repeat again this season.....

By this as a definition (not calling you out mcveezy, just those that said the same thing in general), then there are basically no dynasties in baseball any longer. The late 90's Yankees and early 90's jays (who were not a dynasty for sure, it was basically two good years) are the last since the 70's.

And we probably won't find any more repeat winners the way the game is structured.

I guess everyone has their own definitions, I always thought of a dynasty as a team that consistently made the playoffs year in and year out with mostly the same roster.

Jeffy25
04-24-2014, 10:39 PM
The word dominance should relate to regular season AND playoffs.


What's the good of dominating the regular season when you can't replicate that dominance in 16 out of a possible 28 playoff games (max) ?


Charles Barkley, although doesn't make that many great points, made an exceptional point last night on Inside the NBA.


The Spurs dominate the regular season as they play 1 good team, then 3 sucky teams, then 1 or 2 good teams, then another 3 or 4 sucky teams. That's how they get their 55-65 wins a season (depending on health).

But in the playoffs, every game you play (especially if you're a west playoff team) is against great competition, way above average competition.


This is what I said about the Spurs earlier this yr and I got bashed. They are the REGULAR SEASON BULLY. But when they meet their match in the postseason, they fall at the end. This yr will be no exception.


A Dynasty is NOT just dominating regular seasons.

Well, 4 times they weren't just regular season bullies, and almost 5 times.

The Spurs have won their chips

DODGERS&LAKERS
04-24-2014, 10:52 PM
while sucking for a few of those years. Spurs never did. I am speaking purely from the perspective of being a fan of a team. The Spurs have been title contenders for 20 years, and have won 4. I would personally take that over 5 titles, and a handful of bad years.

But they have only had two bad years. This year and 04/05. Go back 30 years, its been three bad years, go back 40 years, and its been 3 bad years. Go back 50 years.......

If you don't win a ring its a bad year. So the Spurs have had more bad years than the Lakers the past 20 years. No person in their right mind would want to win less championships.

naps
04-24-2014, 10:55 PM
IMO there have only been one dynasty in NBA history: Russell's Celtics. May be the Jordan's Bulls as well. But that's about it. No other team has shown the supreme dominance throughout a decade like these two.

Avenged
04-24-2014, 11:01 PM
I am on the fence with this one.. To me winning multiple rings consecutively PLUS maintaining dominance for a few years would equal a dynasty. The Spurs might just be the exception though just because of how consistently good they been for over a decade.

Jarvo
04-24-2014, 11:35 PM
**** Phil Jackson, I want to see what he do without a great "superstar" player(s).

Pop >>>> Phil

FYL_McVeezy
04-24-2014, 11:39 PM
By this as a definition (not calling you out mcveezy, just those that said the same thing in general), then there are basically no dynasties in baseball any longer. The late 90's Yankees and early 90's jays (who were not a dynasty for sure, it was basically two good years) are the last since the 70's.

And we probably won't find any more repeat winners the way the game is structured.

I guess everyone has their own definitions, I always thought of a dynasty as a team that consistently made the playoffs year in and year out with mostly the same roster.

Well at least I'm consistent. I don't think there's been a dynasty in Baseball since the 90's Yanks...

DODGERS&LAKERS
04-24-2014, 11:41 PM
**** Phil Jackson, I want to see what he do without a great "superstar" player(s).

Pop >>>> Phil

Are you saying that Pop has won without "superstar" players?

SPURSFAN1
04-24-2014, 11:48 PM
4 rings 5 finals maybe 9 conference finals 17 50 wins seasons 4 60 win seasons playoffs for like 18 years. What more do people expect. Spurs have winning records vs every team in the NBA. Spurs play with little money to pay players. We can't be over the salary caps like these big market teams. Phil back tracking on his words. His ego won't let him give credit to anyone. Just a little salty there.

Crackadalic
04-25-2014, 12:08 AM
IMO there have only been one dynasty in NBA history: Russell's Celtics. May be the Jordan's Bulls as well. But that's about it. No other team has shown the supreme dominance throughout a decade like these two.

Only thing I agree with

To me a dynasty is a team that is so overwhelming good that teams have that create rosters to stop those team

Bill Russell team is a dynasty. 8 straight and 11 total. That is a dynasty

Bulls in the 90's dominated the decade

Spurs have been consistently good over the years with 4 rings to show for it but they don't have this dominance over the league like those teams

Avenged
04-25-2014, 12:29 AM
**** Phil Jackson, I want to see what he do without a great "superstar" player(s).

Pop >>>> Phil

Are you saying that Pop has won without "superstar" players?

That's exactly what he's saying. :confused:

TrueFan420
04-25-2014, 12:41 AM
while sucking for a few of those years. Spurs never did. I am speaking purely from the perspective of being a fan of a team. The Spurs have been title contenders for 20 years, and have won 4. I would personally take that over 5 titles, and a handful of bad years.

I completely agree. Was just trying to show the guy I quoted that saying to expect to win 20 years and only win 20% of the time is very good. And not far off from Phil and the lakers.

TrueFan420
04-25-2014, 12:44 AM
That's exactly what he's saying. :confused:

He's definitely won with less. Duncan (well the admiral too but the end of his career) are the only superstars. Parker and manu were top players, allstars, but not the same class as Jordan, shaq, Kobe or even pippen.

Jarvo
04-25-2014, 12:46 AM
Are you saying that Pop has won without "superstar" players?

I'm going off how most people on here will go on and on about how Duncan, Manu and Parker aren't "Superstar" players, Of course I think Duncan, Parker, Robinson & Manu are huge stars who played under Pop but to most they aren't a Kobe, Shaq & Jordan level. Pop & The Spurs def won more with less than what Phil had though.

JWorthy42
04-25-2014, 01:09 AM
Phil is wrong.

JWorthy42
04-25-2014, 01:09 AM
**** Phil Jackson, I want to see what he do without a great "superstar" player(s).

Pop >>>> Phil

What a weak argument, oh my :)

naps
04-25-2014, 01:46 AM
When I think Dynasties I'm thinking 80's Lakers, Celtics, 90s Bulls and 2000 Lakers. Basically either winning a chip or going to the finals for a sustained consecutive period of time.

None of the bold ones are true dynasties IMO. They either had competitors (80's Lakers/Celtics negate each other) or the dominance was not long enough to be considered a dynasty (Shaq's Lakers). Like I said the way I see it, a team has to absolutely dominate REST of the entire league over a sustained period which is approximately more than half a decade or so. Russell and Jordan were the only two leaders of two NBA dynasties throughout history.

John Walls Era
04-25-2014, 01:59 AM
They were close to one during those title runs. I agree that you have to win at least twice in a row to be considered a dynasty.

Tony_Starks
04-25-2014, 02:10 AM
None of the bold ones are true dynasties IMO. They either had competitors (80's Lakers/Celtics negate each other) or the dominance was not long enough to be considered a dynasty (Shaq's Lakers). Like I said the way I see it, a team has to absolutely dominate REST of the entire league over a sustained period which is approximately more than half a decade or so. Russell and Jordan were the only two leaders of two NBA dynasties throughout history.

The Showtime Lakers went to 8 finals in a decade and won 5 including a back to back. The 2000 Lakers went to 7 finals in 10 years winning 5 including a 3peat AND a separate back to back.

Like you said your dominating the league and winning chips for the better half of a decade that's dynasty material...

JayW_1023
04-25-2014, 03:02 AM
The word dominance should relate to regular season AND playoffs.


What's the good of dominating the regular season when you can't replicate that dominance in 16 out of a possible 28 playoff games (max) ?


Charles Barkley, although doesn't make that many great points, made an exceptional point last night on Inside the NBA.


The Spurs dominate the regular season as they play 1 good team, then 3 sucky teams, then 1 or 2 good teams, then another 3 or 4 sucky teams. That's how they get their 55-65 wins a season (depending on health).

But in the playoffs, every game you play (especially if you're a west playoff team) is against great competition, way above average competition.


This is what I said about the Spurs earlier this yr and I got bashed. They are the REGULAR SEASON BULLY. But when they meet their match in the postseason, they fall at the end. This yr will be no exception.


A Dynasty is NOT just dominating regular seasons.

Ridiculous comment. You could say the same about OKC, WITHOUT the rings.

torocan
04-25-2014, 08:33 AM
Phil is just taking shots at Pops and the Spurs. He's been doing it for years.

As for "dynasty", it all depends on your definition.

You could argue that between 99 and 2007 they were a "Dynasty", having won 4/9 championships (Lakers won 3, Heat won 1, Detroit won 1, ).
You could argue that their total championships and their consistent elite performance in the regular season makes them a Dynasty.
You could argue that their lack of back to back championships disqualifies them as a Dynasty.

Whatever floats your boat I guess.

kdspurman
04-25-2014, 10:45 AM
They were close to one during those title runs. I agree that you have to win at least twice in a row to be considered a dynasty.

Do you consider the Rockets a dynasty that won b2b?

Lil Rhody
04-25-2014, 10:59 AM
The Greg Popovich-Tim Duncan dynasty is most definitely real.




It's like Bill B and Tom Brady IMO

Jeffy25
04-25-2014, 12:05 PM
I'm adding a poll

John Walls Era
04-25-2014, 02:55 PM
Do you consider the Rockets a dynasty that won b2b?

"at least twice in a row"

Teams have to at minimum achieve that.

No the Rockets weren't. Had the Pistons during that Billups run won 2 in a row, I would call them a dynasty because they were so dominant. It seems like they made many ECF. Its hard to actually set a criteria, but for me thats what a dynasty would be. Heat are very close to being one (its only been 3 years --- and will probably be one). The last dynasty was the Lakers (not the recent one--- their time was too short, they dominated the league for like 3 years).

P&GRealist
04-25-2014, 03:04 PM
It's like Bill B and Tom Brady IMO

Only the Patriots have actually won back to back titles (2003 & 2004). The Spurs have never come close to doing so.

ink
04-25-2014, 03:51 PM
Haha, he's kidding right?

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


Come on Phil

Agree. IMO not only are they a dynasty but they epitomize the best this league has had to offer for over 15 years.

HoodedSB
04-25-2014, 04:04 PM
They were a dynasty, but they haven't won recently enough to still be a dynasty. Normally I would say that winning 3 of 4 is the minimum, but every other year 3 times is worthy in my book. However if we are talking about recent years, making the WFC and the finals a few times doesn't cut it for me, a dynasty has to win championships. Just because it's the same star player/coach combo doesn't mean the dynasty label carries on until they retire, IMO.

Pablonovi
04-25-2014, 04:17 PM
The word dominance should relate to regular season AND playoffs.


What's the good of dominating the regular season when you can't replicate that dominance in 16 out of a possible 28 playoff games (max) ?


Charles Barkley, although doesn't make that many great points, made an exceptional point last night on Inside the NBA.


The Spurs dominate the regular season as they play 1 good team, then 3 sucky teams, then 1 or 2 good teams, then another 3 or 4 sucky teams. That's how they get their 55-65 wins a season (depending on health).

But in the playoffs, every game you play (especially if you're a west playoff team) is against great competition, way above average competition.


This is what I said about the Spurs earlier this yr and I got bashed. They are the REGULAR SEASON BULLY. But when they meet their match in the postseason, they fall at the end. This yr will be no exception.


A Dynasty is NOT just dominating regular seasons.

Hey P&GR,
With this comment, imo, Sir Charles has laid still another egg in a never-ending series of bone-headed comments in his commenting "career".

"The Spurs dominate the regular season as they play 1 good team, then 3 sucky teams, then 1 or 2 good teams, then another 3 or 4 sucky teams. That's how they get their 55-65 wins a season (depending on health). "

TeamRankings puts this year's SAS strength of schedule at 8th toughest AND only 0.2 easier than the #1 toughest. NO WAY were they playing 2X or even 3X as many sucky teams as good ones!. They were playing more good teams than sucky ones!!

Playing the Mavs in this first round IS tougher than SAS's average reg. season opponent; but NOT WAY TOUGHER. The Mavs were, after all, 8th in the West; the very definition of average (in the West, against which SAS played most of its games).

This thing about the Spurs being a reg. season bully but "... in the postseason, they fall at the end."
It is NOT failure in a 30 team League to achieve 4 Chips (plus other Finals appearances AND a number more of early round series victories) in a 15 year period.

Very Few Teams Have Ever Equalled Or Surpassed This Spurs Run.

btw I am NOT a Spurs fan; I DO deeply respect their achievements.

Pablonovi
04-25-2014, 04:26 PM
I waited to vote until I had the chance to read at least the first page of posts in this thread.
imo that turned out to be a wise decision. Why? Because it caused me to change my position. Before today, I thought the Spurs have not been a Dynasty; now I believe they have been. Here's my reasoning:

1) Given that in pro-sports, one team almost never wins multiple consecutive Chips;
2) (not counting the Spurs) Very few teams across all sports are considered Dynasties; and
3) The use of the word Dynasty should be used seldomly so as to not cheapen it into relative-uselessness ...

therefore

4) This 15-year long Spurs run should be considered a Dynasty on the dual-basis of:
a) Regular Season Dominance (15 years 50+ wins, greatest such streak ever in pro-b-ball history); and
b) 4 Chips (plus other Finals appearances and big number of other Playoff Series victories).

Pablonovi
04-25-2014, 04:33 PM
The Showtime Lakers went to 8 finals in a decade and won 5 including a back to back. The 2000 Lakers went to 7 finals in 10 years winning 5 including a 3peat AND a separate back to back.

Like you said your dominating the league and winning chips for the better half of a decade that's dynasty material...

Hey Tony_Starks,
Right On. Those two examples prove decade-long dominance.

beasted86
04-26-2014, 01:24 PM
A team who is in contention for a title every year for 15-straight seasons is a dynasty.

Phil's just hurt because he's never won 3 COY awards and never had a played like Duncan to build around long term. He had to settle for Kobe and Shaq.
So by this definition of contention, were the mid 2000s Pistons a dynasty?

In contention is definitely NOT recognizable as a dynasty. Not winning a championship in 7 years is NOT a dynasty.

waveycrockett
04-26-2014, 01:28 PM
Phil is probably the only executive in the NBA who can get away with saying this. I agree with him. Spurs have had a great run but definitely aren't a dynasty

kdspurman
04-26-2014, 01:28 PM
So by this definition of contention, were the mid 2000s Pistons a dynasty?

In contention is definitely NOT recognizable as a dynasty. Not winning a championship in 7 years is NOT a dynasty.

You're looking at the last 7 years, but what about the 7-8 years before that? The core of the big 3 and Pop are still there, so they have an argument.

& The mid 2000's Pistons were great, and made b2b finals & they won a title. That in itself isn't easy when you factor how many teams dont win. Probably not a dynasty though

abe_froman
04-26-2014, 01:30 PM
everyone knows that phil is a petty mofo :laugh2:

dynasties are generally defined as 3+ championships with roughly the same core cast,which they achieved back in '07

beasted86
04-26-2014, 01:39 PM
The other question I have to ask about people counting championships together that are multiple years apart.... is the Miami HEAT a current dynasty then? 3 championships in 8 years? 4 Finals trips in 8 years? Do you actually count those together? If not, why on Earth would you count the Spurs 2014 Finals trip as part of a dynasty?

waveycrockett
04-26-2014, 01:40 PM
The Spurs were kicked off the throne every other year therefore not a dynasty.

kdspurman
04-26-2014, 02:10 PM
The other question I have to ask about people counting championships together that are multiple years apart.... is the Miami HEAT a current dynasty then? 3 championships in 8 years? 4 Finals trips in 8 years? Do you actually count those together? If not, why on Earth would you count the Spurs 2014 Finals trip as part of a dynasty?

1st was the Wade era. This heat team is the Lebron era. No issue with anyone calling the heat a dynasty after their recent run, but that first title was a completely different team and coach.

SA has done it with the same core guys/coach. I don't know I consider the Spurs a dynasty now, but their 3 titles in 5 years I think was. I also don't have issue if people think the sustained excellence over the last 17 years as a dynasty cause I do get it. Everyone has a different definition of dynasty. I don't know I agree though.

abe_froman
04-26-2014, 02:19 PM
The other question I have to ask about people counting championships together that are multiple years apart.... is the Miami HEAT a current dynasty then? 3 championships in 8 years? 4 Finals trips in 8 years? Do you actually count those together? If not, why on Earth would you count the Spurs 2014 Finals trip as part of a dynasty?

no,because the only players from the '06 team still around are wade and haslem.i count the spurs because their core have been together for over 10 years.

numba1CHANGsta
04-26-2014, 02:39 PM
I wouldn't consider their 99' title part of the dynasty, but 03', 05', 07' should be considered part of a dynasty winning 3 championships in 5 years is pretty darn good.

beasted86
04-26-2014, 03:00 PM
no,because the only players from the '06 team still around are wade and haslem.i count the spurs because their core have been together for over 10 years.
There is one player on the Spurs team from the 99 title.

abe_froman
04-26-2014, 03:03 PM
There is one player on the Shots team from the 99 title.

the '99 team is a stand alone.i'm counting '03,'05,'07

kdspurman
04-26-2014, 03:04 PM
There is one player on the Spurs team from the 99 title.

What about from 03-07?

beasted86
04-26-2014, 03:05 PM
I wouldn't consider their 99' title part of the dynasty, but 03', 05', 07' should be considered part of a dynasty winning 3 championships in 5 years is pretty darn good.

If more people were saying Spurs had a dynasty during those years, there might be more agreeing. But surely the idea the Spurs have an ongoing 15 year dynasty is one of the more ludicrous things I've heard on PSD.

Vinylman
04-27-2014, 12:52 PM
3 titles in 5 years?

or how about

4 titles in 8 years?

Is there something written about a dynasty that says "a team must win back to back titles to be a dynasty" Who defines what a dynasty is in sports terms? Some say they are, some say they aren't which is fine. But to say it's cause they didn't repeat? Is that really why?

4 in 8 years? when did that happen?

flea
04-27-2014, 01:01 PM
Phil is still just upset he's no where near Pop's level as far as coaching goes.

kdspurman
04-27-2014, 01:31 PM
4 in 8 years? when did that happen?

Typo, should have been 4 in 9.

Vinylman
04-27-2014, 01:34 PM
Typo, should have been 4 in 9.


i know... i was just giving you a hard time... you are a great poster ...

whether you call the spurs a dynasty or not (phil's parsing words as usual) ... they have one of the most respected franchises in the league and a bright future because of their emphasis on "TEAM".

kdspurman
04-27-2014, 01:46 PM
i know... i was just giving you a hard time... you are a great poster ...

whether you call the spurs a dynasty or not (phil's parsing words as usual) ... they have one of the most respected franchises in the league and a bright future because of their emphasis on "TEAM".

Ah ok lol... Thanks man. :cheers:

Yea I mean like I said before people have their own definition of dynasty in sports. It's a fun debate to have I guess. Phil has said stuff like this before about the Spurs as I'm sure many know in terms of the dynasty thing and there needing to be an asterisks next to the 99 title, etc... But at the end of the day they have had a pretty successful run the last 17 years or so.

Vinylman
04-27-2014, 01:54 PM
Ah ok lol... Thanks man. :cheers:

Yea I mean like I said before people have their own definition of dynasty in sports. It's a fun debate to have I guess. Phil has said stuff like this before about the Spurs as I'm sure many know in terms of the dynasty thing and there needing to be an asterisks next to the 99 title, etc... But at the end of the day they have had a pretty successful run the last 17 years or so.

talk about an understatement

Pablonovi
04-27-2014, 04:11 PM
SAN ANTONIO SPURS NBA FINALS FACTS

"The San Antonio Spurs are making their fifth appearance in the NBA Finals, which ranks eighth all-time in Finals history. Spurs are .727 (16-6) all-time in NBA Finals games, which marks the best winning percentage of any team in Finals history. The Silver and Black own a 9-2 (.818) overall home record in the NBA Finals and a 7-4 (.636) road record. With an NBA Championship in 2007, the San Antonio Spurs became just the third team since the 1976-77 ABA/NBA merger to win four championships in a nine-year span (Lakers and Bulls are the others), making them only one of two teams in NBA history to make more than one trip to the NBA Finals and never lose a series (Chicago Bulls, 6-0)."

LIINK: http://www.nba.com/spurs/playoffs/130530_finals_facts

Notes:
I sure wish they'd update this page to include the results of last year's Finals.
If you look over the whole page, what you see UNDENIABLY is that:

THE TIM DUNCAN ERA SPURS HAVE EASILY HAD ONE OF (OR "THE") MOST DOMINANT RUNS EVER

I say, YES, That's A Dynasty
(Either for the whole 17 years, or at least for the 4 Chips in 9 years PLUS a 5th Finals in 10 years)

todu82
04-27-2014, 04:20 PM
No, they've been a great team for a long time but they're not a dynasty.