rank best playoff matchups for the suns

[Michael]

I don't tell anybody what qualifies as a dynasty in the NBA but how I see it.

I didn't witness the Lakers of the 80s and can't compare them to the Spurs.

 

[WuRaider]

Hopefully it goes like this:

1 Hornets
8 Nugz

4 Jazz
5 Lakers

2 Spurs
7 Dallas

3 Suns
6 Rockets

 

[Lorenzo]

as much as I hate to admit it the spurs are a current NBA dynasty. I can't see how someone would argue that....but whatever it doesn't offend me. all I can say is that if it were their team they wouldn't accept that talk. you also have to look at all of those years in between that they didn't win it all and they were still a phoenix suns/dallas maverick caliber team. that's saying something when a team can win that much over 8 or 9 years....and win four titles. so call it what it is dynasty or not.

I don't really think any team can find a team 1-8 that they are going to trample underfoot. I've heard many suns fans say houston is their easy matchup. but I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens. I see a lot of teams 1-9 currently that could beat dallas in a series.

 

[nowagimp]

4 championships in 9 years equals a dynasty, whether they’re consecutive or not.

How about the Lakers, who won in ’80, ’82, ’85, and ’87? Are you telling us that didn’t qualify as a dynasty before they won their first back-to-back in ’88?

Yeah but the celtics were an unbelievable team then too. And the lakers had some years with injureis to starters the stopped them. The current spurs team had david robinson to start their run, a HOF top 50 all time player, he is gone, they arent the same with oberto taking his place. the lakers had magic,worthy, kareem for their entire run, and the celtics had Bird, Parrish, McHale for theirs. The NBA competition for the spurs has been inconsistent after shaq left the lakers. Yeah the spurs may qualify for a dynasty, but not as impressive as the celtics, lakers, bulls, or even the shaq/kobe lakers. the competition has changed alot. In todays NBA dominant big men are more rare than back then, making the bulls perhaps the most impressive. Heck I'd take Hakeems Rockets in a 7 game series over Duncans spurs. If Duncan has trouble scoring against shaq, Hakeem would just shut him, ginnobli and parker down in the lane area.

 

[jagu]

This year would be a good test for the Spurs. Only the real best team in the West can make it out of there (barring the probable referee interference). I don't think the Spurs of now would beat Hakeem's Rockets, that team was devastating.

 

[Michael]

Like I wrote earlier: The Spurs have been an elite team over the last decade, and I certainly tried to express my respect in one of the previous posts.

I just don't think the term "dynasty" is right about it for the above stated reasons.

And according to wikipedia:

A dynasty is a succession of rulers who belong to the same family for generations.

 

[capologist]

the lakers had magic,worthy, kareem for their entire run

They did not have Worthy when they started their run.

 

[Lorenzo]

Like I wrote earlier: The Spurs have been an elite team over the last decade, and I certainly tried to express my respect in one of the previous posts.

I just don't think the term "dynasty" is right about it for the above stated reasons.

And according to wikipedia:

A dynasty is a succession of rulers who belong to the same family for generations.

well dynasty is thrown around a lot.....for teams that don't dominate for generations. my cowboys team had 2 teams that dominated two different decades(mostly their conference in the 70's) and they get the dynasty nod...but they don't fit the definition of dynasty that you learn in history either.

If anything the spurs approach that level over the shaq/kobe lakers because those lakers only dominated for a 3-4 year period and fell off. the spurs have dominated the NBA over a longer time period with players that have come and gone....with duncan being the mainstay. It's easy to say that these spurs couldn't beat older teams....but that is not relevant. that does not diminish their current status. they've done what no other team in the NBA has done over the last decade...they have been a winning team year in and out and have been legit contenders throughout that time. the spurs are the model franchise in the nba period. I am a mavericks fan and I strongly dislike them, but I have to give them credit where it is due. I know that some fans won't see it that way because of their emotional attachments. that's just the way it is. If it wern't for the spurs the suns and mavs might have a title each...but unfortunately these spurs have prevented that. and i dislike them for it, but that doesn't diminish their accomplishments at all.

 

[nowagimp]

They did not have Worthy when they started their run.

True, my bad, they drafted him the year after they started the run. Wilks was the second leading scorer to jabbar at 20ppg. But magic and jabbar was the best duo in the NBA that year.

 

[nowagimp]

well dynasty is thrown around a lot.....for teams that don't dominate for generations. my cowboys team had 2 teams that dominated two different decades(mostly their conference in the 70's) and they get the dynasty nod...but they don't fit the definition of dynasty that you learn in history either.

Hard to compare football to basketball. The ultimate football dynasties had 4 championships(steelers/49ers), those cowboys were certainly a football dynasty. Heck the careers of football players are way shorter, at least twice as short. In football if you even won 2 and played in 2 superbowls that was a dynasty.

 

[Lorenzo]

Hard to compare football to basketball. The ultimate football dynasties had 4 championships(steelers/49ers), those cowboys were certainly a football dynasty. Heck the careers of football players are way shorter, at least twice as short. In football if you even won 2 and played in 2 superbowls that was a dynasty.

I'm just trying to point out that the actual definition of dynasty can't be measured up to by a sports franchise. dominating for generations that is. football and bball certainly don't compare and are two very different sports. if you would compare them...these spurs measure close to both of those teams you mention because not only do they have the same number of championships, but they were a great team in the years they didn't win as well. so another words they were always a contender...still are.

 

[WuRaider]

The "back to back" naysayers are right. How can you be considered dominant/a dynasty if you can't even win 2 in a row? I don't care if they won 4 in 10 years, fug the Spurs.

 

[Lorenzo]

The "back to back" naysayers are right. How can you be considered dominant/a dynasty if you can't even win 2 in a row? I don't care if they won 4 in 10 years, fug the Spurs.

when you look back over the last 8-9 years and you ask yourself who the most dominant team is......well one might say the lakers were the most dominating team for a span of 3 years. but when you talk about consistency and quantity over the last decade.....the answer can be thought up very easily. there's only one team. and aside from those shaq-kobe lakers.....the spurs have dominated the rest of the WCF to include the suns and every other nba team. so dominant to the extent that the mavs 2nd round victory over them felt like a championship. when in reality it was fools gold somewhat. so I hope the suns players and their fans are weary of that trap if they do indeed knock off the spurs in the playoffs. because the mavs were in the same shoes as you guys are now......and still are.

dynasty is measured differently by different people. some say back to backs.....some say it's being dominant for a long time period. which the spurs have. Some people in phoenix, dallas, ect. probably don't like the spurs and may not consider them a dynasty. Some neutral unbiased fans may not consider them a dynasty. But I think most fans around the nba consider the spurs to be the most dominant team over the last decade. some of those fans probably feel they are a dynasty. i do in the sense of every other sports franchise in history that has came close to duplicating the spurs efforts have been considered such. if we are going by the wikipedia definition then maybe only a couple of teams of all time american sports can even remotely approach that nod. maybe the yankees or celtics. I feel that if phoenix had won 4 titles in the same way the spurs have.....many on these threads would feel they were a dynasty. and some would take exception with those that argued.

 

[elindholm]

You guys are actually arguing about the definition of a sports dynasty? Seriously?

Just step away from the keyboard for a moment and think about how ridiculous that is.