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.

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.

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.

/agree with prince

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.

Spurs will beat the Cavs

ive been to the future and back i know

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.

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

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.

Next guess?

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

if they win back to back that should consider them a dynasty

SPURS 2008!

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.

How is Duncan overrated when the Spurs never won a title till he got there. He is the reason they are who they are.

Duncan is really good, he's just overrated. He's all defense every year, two years ago Amare avg 37ppg on him for the series. Now he doesn't have to cover other teams best post up player, Oberto does, he also has two of the leagues best perimeter defenders (though they do it in completely opposite ways) with Bowen and Ginobili.

I'd take Shaq over him everytime, he shoots foul shots only slightly better and has never been as dominant at either end of the floor and shrinks in the clutch more often than he rises to it. Duncan didn't make a bad team great or anything, he was lucky to fall in the situation he did and he has made the most of it.

David Robinson would have won a title with this core, Karl Malone would have won a title with this core as well. Duncan is very good but he certainly isn't carrying the Spurs single handedly, this is a playoff team in the West without him.

I think the tandem of Sean Elliot/Bruce Bowen would be the 5th spot in your dynasty.. Defense + Outside shooting are a huge part of what makes the Spurs a great team.

Look at the Bull's Dynasty.. Jordan.. Pippen...Grant/Rodman/Kukoc/Kerr/Paxon... You don't need 5 guys who can put up 20 points on any given night..

I'm pretty sure there are at least 27 teams in the league that would be tickled pink to win 4 in 9 years and not be considered a "dynasty" by bored media sportswriters...

Yeah I agree, I just meant the teams are so much different because Duncan is the only guy staying the same, much due to the amount of time in between, whereas the Bulls were boom boom boom, so the team was very similar.

Well, Jordan and Pippen were the only mainstays.. Grant became Rodman, Paxon became Kerr, Wennington became Longley.. etc... The great Laker and Celtic teams were the only real dynasties of the modern era that had more than one or two HOF type talents for extended periods of time. What the Spurs really have going for them is Parker, Duncan, and Ginobili aren't going anywhere else anytime soon, and they have just enough flexibility to keep the Barry/Bowen/Rose/Claxton/Nesterovic types rotating into the locker room.

Plus, no one out West is incredibly good. I don't see Grant Hill having a big impact for Phoenix, especially in any game after the first 82(!). Will they be willing to keep both Amare & Matrix? Utah's the real danger, but I still think they may be a year away. Dallas is always a wild card. No one out East is even remotely close to competing at this point, unless the Bulls grow a pair and bring in a top-tier player.. As a long-time Blazer fan, believe me when I tell you that having 5 or 6 "B+" talents = heartbreak, not championship. The Bulls need to bring in a Kobe/Garnett type, or at the very least someone who can score inside, like a Pau Gasol.

I really don't see the Spurs falling back in the West much at all. Now or in the near future.. If they win 5 or 6 in 12 years, the dynasty would most likely be a forgone conclusion.

I think the Spurs are on their last leg this upcoming year. Manu is definitely less of a slasher and more of a shooter now which hurts. Duncan will be one year older though he is always solid and I think Parker is right around where he is going to stay.

One more yr on Finley, Horry, Barry, Oberto and Bowen. They could win it next yr but after that they need to make some decent moves in the offseason. I think the Mavs are the favorites to win with the Spurs right behind them.

I don't trust Phoenix ever because they think O first no matter what people say about their indivudal defense. I also think "Matrix" is the most overrated player ever, he's an avg 3 in my book, he really has no position, not big enough to be a 4 not good enough shooter to be a three, luckily he gets to run all the time and has a sick PG.

Utah lacks a little too much killer mentality I think Deron played over his ability this past postseason and will not be that good, but he's legit and so is Boozer. Unfortunately all of their white players aren't very good and shrunk in the postseason.

I'd like Houston to make a run because I love T-Mac, but that hasn't happened yet and they are still 1 or 2 solid players away. I always like Denver too, on paper they are monsters and with one full season they might get the pieces going in the right direction. Their biggest problem is they always face the Spurs in the first round.

That team is YOUNG. Utah is only going to get better. That team has incredible potential. AK47 needs to get back on track. Paul Millsap was *the* late round steal of the draft last year. Williams is simply incredible for his age. They have Okur AND Boozer up front.. None of these guys are even sniffing 30 years of age. Sloan is tickled pink he stuck it out, I guarantee you.

Houston has quietly stocked away the "championship pieces" type of player the last couple of years. Battier is beyond solid. Adelman has gotten sick production out of Bonzi Wells already at 2 separate destinations, he'll add a ton for them as long as he keeps his head on straight. The big if is always Yao and Tmac staying healthy.. It's the old cliche, but no one really wants to play 7 games in June against that squad if it's healthy.

I'll be honest, I liked Denver a LOT better with Steve Blake manning the point. I think Camby-Nene-Anthony-Iverson- Blake could have gelled into the premire starting 5 in the West, shame it didn't happen. JR Reid can hit the three, but they are going to hurt without Blake more than they realize. George Karl was very vocal about not wanting to see Blake go. Oh, and the fragile one (Camby) is the only one on that squad that plays even a lick of defense. Toss out Iverson's steals numbers, he gambles constantly to get the steals, he gets beat for an easy two far more often than he creates a turnover. If they expect Iverson to run the point, he's going to have to conserve some energy on the defensive end, which makes a bad situation even worse.



DIE. One of the most underrated defenders in the game, he is routinely put on whoever is the source of opponent offense, he'll guard slashing PGs, spot-up PFs, and anything in between. Always near the top of the league in rebounding. One of the best finishers of the modern era. Has a jump shot that is even uglier looking than Clyde Drexler's was in his prime. So yeah, not the world's greatest outside shooter, but man... Nash creates a lot of easy opportunities for him on the offensive end, but Marion's true game-changing value is in transition (off AND def) and in lock-down defense.

Agree. Millsap is a beast. I like them I just think they are a little short for a little while, they are not cream of the crop. I hate Giricek and Harpring. I love AK but apparently he has a fragile mentality, and Okur sometimes looks like Dirk and other times looks like me. Boo(g)er (my long time nickname for him is a stud and so is Deron. They could really use a slasher that finishes though.



I really don't like these offense first coaches. They may thrive in the regular season with Alston and Wells both being much happier but it's going to be tough in the postseason. They won't be the 1 or 2 seed and after that you are playing a very tough team in the first round. I love Battier.



It's JR Smith right? He should have been a Spur, sigh. Iverson is gonna have a huge chip on his shoulder and I just love AI, I know a ton of people think he hurts the team and jacks too much but I see him put it all out there. They got Atkins who I think is better than Blake, Blake really played like trash for the Nuggets last year and to me has never played well anywhere really. I guess because he handles well and doesn't care about shooting teams like to have him running the point, but I'd like a bit more consistent play out of him. And maybe Kenyon will be healthy, if so they can package Kenyon/Nene + JR Smith for some kind of quality PG piece.



I don't care what anyone says, his little scared quick floater hook thing in the lane is not efficient and for that he is not one of the best finishers in the league. I feel like he could just rev up and dunk on people instead of floating Parker-esque shots. His 3-ball is amusing. I just don't see it and I don't think Phoenix does either. I'd rather have Diaw out there, and a healthy Grant Hill (pardon the oxymoron). Marion's transition O and D is a little worse than Amare he's like a mini Amare with no position. His being on team USA the past few years has been painful to watch because he has nowhere to play on offense.

AK will always be my hero because his wife gave him a free pass to sleep with one girl a year. That's stardom baby! I have never seen Giricek and Jiri Welsch in the same building, coincidence? Harpring has serious staying power. He's that "champ piece" guy, who if he's the 2nd guy picked for your street basketball game, you are in trouble. If he's the 5th guy, you will dominate. He's surprisingly good on the defensive end, something he was *not* coming out of college. He's got Deron, Booz, Okur, and AK producing in front of him, he's a great 5th guy. Think of how good Utah did this year, discount a little for the Mavs getting bounced prematurely, and give a bonus for how that was the first year this team really got to solidly play as a unit. I really think Utah could be the next dynasty. Or at least the next team without a "supahstah!" to win a championship.

My mom went to school with Adelman and he coached my Blazers, so I'll always be biased in an Adelman discussion (be warned!). He got bounced unjustly out of Portland (where he did nothing but win), bounced unjustly out of Sactown (where he did nothing but win, even at the end when he had 30% of a an NBA roster). I think Houston makes one final splash with their MLE and seriously challenges this year.. Well, until Yao and Tmac go on the IR.. So yeah, I see your point.



DIE (me!). I totally forgot about Kenyon Martin! OK, I take Denver seriously again. I'm sure Kevin Pritchard would give Denver Jarret Jack for JR smith or Nene lol. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

As for Marion, I watch a TON of basketball. And I always try and catch at least part of PHX anytime I'm home from work in time, and believe me, Marion has that Rodman quality.. He's just so much more intense out there. He's got that sixth sense for rebounding, for making cuts, for spotting up, etc.. His jump shot looks like a wounded duck, I know. He may even be Joe Johnson w/out Nash getting him the rock. But he's the constant on that team. Barbosa and Diaw come and go, Stoudamire can totally disappear on offense (very odd for a guy that big), Raja is a streak shooter, but Marion always fills up the stat column and does the little thing. PHX and Marion really need each other. PHX may be the only team in the league that doesn't need outside shooting from it's 3/4 guy.

I'm shocked that this is even being debated.

Boy T, you are really into chearry picking a series to find a flaw with a player.

Yes Amare had a 5 game stretch where he went 37 pts 10 rebs against the Spurs
Duncan also went 27.5 points and 12 rebs in those 5 games

Duncan also advanced 4 games to 1

I didn't watch every game of that series, but I'd guess something along these lines happened. Nash repeatedly beats Tony Parker to penetrate since Parker is a horrible defender. Duncan has to leave Amare to stop Nash from penetrating to the basket. Nash lays the ball off to Duncans' man, Amare. Amare is open because the Spurs D didn't rotate quickly enough. Amare dunks.

Whatever the strategy was, it appears to have worked. after all, the goal is to win the games, not have the best stats from an individual on the floor.


I'm pretty certain that Duncans' teams keep winning with an ever changing cast isn't a coincidence. I think it's because they have the best player in the game.

Duncan gets to roam defensively against a lot of teams because Oberto and Bowen cover up basically every position that Duncan would have to cover. He protects the rim well and is in the right place almost all of the time, he's a great player, he's just not the best in the game IMO.

I take Kobe. Just because championships go through big men doesn't mean that they are better players than guards, just means there are more amazing 6'4''-6'9'' players than there are 6'10''+ players so when you get a great big man he gets to play against far inferior big men.

You've got this reversed.

Oberto and Bowen are able to focus on covering just their guy because Duncan protects the rim so well and will stop the guy who gets loose.(ahem, usually Parkers guy)

Do you think a team ever plays San Antonio and says, lets attack with the guy Duncan is guarding because we have no chance against Oberto?

Come on

This is because Duncan is a great team defender, not individual defender. You don't put your best 1 on 1 defender to roam free, he's just not their best 1 on 1 defender, he is however smart, tall, and long. That's more than enough to be a great team defender to alter shots when everyone is funneling you their man while you sit back and cover the 3rd-5th option.

Duncan is an outstanding 1 on 1 defender. He can lock people down and is called to do so on occassion. The reason the Spurs let him roam free most of the time is becuase he does more damage that way. Duncan basically plays defense like a center. You want guys like that close to the basket regardless of their 1 on 1 defensive abilities.

that's just the strategy the Spurs use. I'm quite sure if the Spurs said "Tim, don't worry about protecting the rim and covering up for your teammates mistakes, just lock down your guy." he would shut that guy down. Sounds like you're blaming him for the Spurs using his immense talent to be the best team defender in the game. It would be silly for them to not use him to do that. It appears to be working somewhat successfully, wouldn't you say?

If you have a problem with Tim Duncan, you are nit pitcking to the highest degree.

But are you enjoying it?

Its the offseason. I enjoy any basketball discussion no matter how crazy it is.

True, maybe we should start a Fantasy league for the regulars in the forum here, so we can have something else to discuss.

Spurs are the best
period

Look mom, a fanboy!