Page 1 of 2
question for you basketball scholars
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 1:38 pm
by snaquille oatmeal
The Spurs dynasty has 4 rings in 9 years, if the Lakers win the chip in june that would be 4 in 8 years. would that make this current team part of a past dynasty or not? why and why not?
point to remember- if the Spurs are allowed to take a year off in between their chips why not the Lakers allowed a 4 year break after winning it 3 times in a row.
discuss!
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 1:44 pm
by Dr Aki
not the same core
only phil, kobe, fish and *wince* luke are back
different core, different dynasty
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 1:55 pm
by snaquille oatmeal
the original core was Phil, Kobe and Shaq, the role players are expendable even in the spurs dynasty (even the Spurs core was altered when Robinson retired and Manu and Parker came around).
this teams core is Phil, Kobe, Pau, and Lamar. so a good portion of the original core is still around.
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 2:59 pm
by Tommy Trojan
ahhh good question.... this can go either way, but ill say a new dynasty
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 3:23 pm
by SashAlex
It's tough to say, since the situation has turned upside down this year.
3 years of mediocrity, even if Lakers have a chance to win this year, may let a big black spot in thus named "dynasty".
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 3:35 pm
by tkb
Since the guy who used to be the nr 1a/1b option isn't here, we've had 2-3 coaching changes and almost all the role players are new, this is a new one IMO.
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 3:44 pm
by Sancho Villa
The TNT studio guys were discussing this the other night, their take was that there never was a Spurs dynasty. That you had to successfully defend your title in order to start to talk about one. They have never won back to back.
I think the Lakers are on the start of a dynasty, but back to back titles will be tough especially coming from the west.
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 3:48 pm
by hermes
a new dynasty, because shaq is gone, but he was a huge part of the last one, so this would be a new one that would start
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 4:03 pm
by Sedale Threatt
I say Spurs are, Lakers wouldn't be, mainly because they've been so much more consistent than we have in that span.
The Spurs have been a legitimate contender during every one of those nine seasons. L.A., on the other hand, had a stretch of missing the playoffs altogether and then getting bounced out in the first round in two straight seasons. Not really comparable, if you ask me.
But a lot can change before Kobe retires, so stay tuned. Things go our way and we might end up with two separate dynasties rather than one big one.
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 5:02 pm
by FSUNOLE03
Dynasty is defending your title at least 3 years in a row.
Spurs are a succesful franchise but no dynasty.
If spurs are considered a dynasty then Detroit should be as well. I think in the media's eyes they equate dynasty with how many finals appearances you have in a given time frame
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 5:30 pm
by Sedale Threatt
Detroit? With one championship? How does that compare to San Antonio's four?
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 5:30 pm
by Dexmor
Kobe woud basically be and finally people will except Kove vs Jordan arguements.
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 5:33 pm
by FSUNOLE03
Sedale Threatt wrote:Detroit? With one championship? How does that compare to San Antonio's four?
Some of the media feel that since the Pistons got to the ECF and Finals as much as they did then they are a dynasty as well.
I feel that the Spurs arent a Dynasty because they are unsuccesful defending there titles the following year
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 5:41 pm
by Sedale Threatt
I personally don't subscribe to that theory, but a lot of people feel the same way so I can understand it.
However, I can't say I've ever heard "Detroit" and "dynasty" in the same sentence. A remarkable achievement making the conference finals so many times, to be sure. But with only one ring, they're not even close to being a dynasty.
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 5:45 pm
by LAKESHOW
DYNASTYs are decided by the decade. for example, you'll always hear, the LAKERs were the dynasty of the 80s. the bulls were the dynasty of the 90s. celtics 60s. etc
if we for example win a back to back, 08 and 09. that would make 5 championships this decade. we would be the sole team of this decade, and sole dynasty.
00 - 01 - 02 - 08 - 09. the LAKERs would be the DYNASTY of this current decade. due to winning 5 titles.
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 6:22 pm
by hermes
i've never heard of the pistons being considered a dynasty either
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 8:06 pm
by SashAlex
Sedale Threatt wrote:I personally don't subscribe to that theory, but a lot of people feel the same way so I can understand it.
However, I can't say I've ever heard "Detroit" and "dynasty" in the same sentence. A remarkable achievement making the conference finals so many times, to be sure. But with only one ring, they're not even close to being a dynasty.
Plus the Lakers had already been broken apart. I'm sure that if Shq and Kobe were together, mentally, and Malone healthy, the Pistons would have no chance !
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 8:22 pm
by Tommy Trojan
LAKESHOW wrote:DYNASTYs are decided by the decade. for example, you'll always hear, the LAKERs were the dynasty of the 80s. the bulls were the dynasty of the 90s. celtics 60s. etc
if we for example win a back to back, 08 and 09. that would make 5 championships this decade. we would be the sole team of this decade, and sole dynasty.
00 - 01 - 02 - 08 - 09. the LAKERs would be the DYNASTY of this current decade. due to winning 5 titles.
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:01 pm
by bluez48
LAKESHOW wrote:DYNASTYs are decided by the decade. for example, you'll always hear, the LAKERs were the dynasty of the 80s. the bulls were the dynasty of the 90s. celtics 60s. etc
if we for example win a back to back, 08 and 09. that would make 5 championships this decade. we would be the sole team of this decade, and sole dynasty.
00 - 01 - 02 - 08 - 09. the LAKERs would be the DYNASTY of this current decade. due to winning 5 titles.
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:25 pm
by joe.linnen
San Antonio isn't one yet they have defend their title.
As for L.A. Lakers this could be the start of new dynasty. Now if the Lakers win the 08 and 09 titles then I guess that makes them the dynasty of the decade.