Spurs potential legacy

[Lurker]

The Pistons and Celtics don't belong on the list.

I pretty much agree...and don't think you can include the Spurs until another 2-3 seasons go by and see what they do/do not accomplish.  I still don't like to count the 99 title as part of this dynasty (another argument) so I look at it as 3 titles in 5 years.  Add another 2 titles in the next 3 years (5 for 8 total) and then I think they deserve to be included.

[WayOutWest]

The Pistons and Celtics don't belong on the list.

I pretty much agree...and don't think you can include the Spurs until another 2-3 seasons go by and see what they do/do not accomplish.  I still don't like to count the 99 title as part of this dynasty (another argument) so I look at it as 3 titles in 5 years.  Add another 2 titles in the next 3 years (5 for 8 total) and then I think they deserve to be included.

As long as TD is on the squad the 99 title is part of the mix.  Don't know what the definative mark of a dynasty but a repeat is an important component along with consistency.

[Lurker]

The Pistons and Celtics don't belong on the list.

I pretty much agree...and don't think you can include the Spurs until another 2-3 seasons go by and see what they do/do not accomplish.  I still don't like to count the 99 title as part of this dynasty (another argument) so I look at it as 3 titles in 5 years.  Add another 2 titles in the next 3 years (5 for 8 total) and then I think they deserve to be included.

As long as TD is on the squad the 99 title is part of the mix.  Don't know what the definative mark of a dynasty but a repeat is an important component along with consistency.

And if they win 2 of the next 3 (assuming no collapse this year - the games DO still have to be played) then they will have the requisite repeat.  But I feel much the same - consistancy with at least one repeat should be a major part of the definition.

Good thing the Lakers won in 87/88...otherwise that great team of the 80's would not be a dynasty.   

[Reality]

Good thing the Lakers won in 87/88...otherwise that great team of the 80's would not be a dynasty.    

More bad news and disunity for WOW and The Laker House ...

Repeats, however, do not seem to be an unimpeachable measure. With another championship, the Spurs would seem to surpass the Shaquille O'Neal-Kobe Bryant Lakers, winners of three consecutive titles.

"I hate to say it, but they are probably surpassing us to be honest," former Lakers guard Derek Fisher said. "We had that great four- or five-year period. ....I can probably say they are surpassing us in recent dynasties.

"They've become the class in this league, no question about it."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/4888385.html

[westkoast]

Good thing the Lakers won in 87/88...otherwise that great team of the 80's would not be a dynasty.    

More bad news and disunity for WOW and The Laker House ...

Repeats, however, do not seem to be an unimpeachable measure. With another championship, the Spurs would seem to surpass the Shaquille O'Neal-Kobe Bryant Lakers, winners of three consecutive titles.

"I hate to say it, but they are probably surpassing us to be honest," former Lakers guard Derek Fisher said. "We had that great four- or five-year period. ....I can probably say they are surpassing us in recent dynasties.

"They've become the class in this league, no question about it."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/4888385.html

Why is that bad news or 'disunity'?  This Spurs team has been a top team since 1999.  The Lakers squad with Kobe, Shaq, and The Gang was very good for 5.  Derek Fisher is right.   This team could win another championship before Duncan leaves and I don't see why they couldn't return to the finals again next year playing the way they are now.  If you are going on strickly how good a team is for a long period of time then the Spurs obviously have been better over a long period of time.

This Lakers squad has two things on SA though...a 15-1 playoff record and 3 titles in a row.

[Reality]

Fisher is alluding to Spurs 2003-2007+ run being better then the Lakers repeat.

Perhaps he factors in Duncans injury in 2000.  But i think when he says "are surpassing" he means 3-5 and continuing on.

[westkoast]

Fisher is alluding to Spurs 2003-2007+ run being better then the Lakers repeat.

Perhaps he factors in Duncans injury in 2000.  But i think when he says "are surpassing" he means 3-5 and continuing on.

No he isnt.

[Reality]

Fisher is alluding to Spurs 2003-2007+ run being better then the Lakers repeat.

Perhaps he factors in Duncans injury in 2000.  But i think when he says "are surpassing" he means 3-5 and continuing on.

No he isnt.

Yes he is.

[westkoast]

You are an idiot and there is no reason to continue on with this when it is very apparent you will read anything and before it gets processed it gets twisted to fit your own personal bias.

He is talking about comparing the dynasties.  He is not saying one run is better then the other.

[Reality]

You are an idiot and there is no reason to continue on with this when it is very apparent you will read anything and before it gets processed it gets twisted to fit your own personal bias.

He is talking about comparing the dynasties.  He is not saying one run is better then the other.

"I hate to say it, but they are probably surpassing us to be honest," former Lakers guard Derek Fisher said. "We had that great four- or five-year period. ....I can probably say they are surpassing us in recent dynasties.

Grab me a mocha latte on your way out.

[westkoast]

You are an idiot and there is no reason to continue on with this when it is very apparent you will read anything and before it gets processed it gets twisted to fit your own personal bias.

He is talking about comparing the dynasties.  He is not saying one run is better then the other.

"I hate to say it, but they are probably surpassing us to be honest," former Lakers guard Derek Fisher said. "We had that great four- or five-year period. ....I can probably say they are surpassing us in recent dynasties.

Grab me a mocha latte on your way out.

Did it maybe pop up in your pea brain that he is talking about the fact that they are still a very good team and that is where he is saying they are surpassing the Lakers team of the early 2000s?

[Reality]

Did it maybe pop up in your pea brain that he is talking about the fact that they are still a very good team and that is where he is saying they are surpassing the Lakers team of the early 2000s?

I thought you said you were leaving.
Yes, of course he is comparing the 2000-2004 Lakers with the current Spurs run.

[WayOutWest]

Fisher is alluding to Spurs 2003-2007+ run being better then the Lakers repeat.

Wrong, not even close.  Unless the Spurs win 3 in a row that will not be better than the Lakers 3Peat.  1999 to present Spurs is better than the 2000 to 2005 Lakers cause they are racking up more titles.  If there is an NBA team of the 00's, the Spurs have shot at knocking off the Lakers.  NBA team of the 80's were the Lakers, the 90's were the Bulls and the 00's is still up for grabs and the Lakers don't seem to be on track to add to their case.

[Reality]

Not even close?  Okay, so just what is Fisher refering to as "surpassing" in Laker English translation?

"I hate to say it, but they are probably surpassing us to be honest," former Lakers guard Derek Fisher said. "We had that great four- or five-year period. ....I can probably say they are surpassing us in recent dynasties.

  So you're thinking Fisher is stating that the Spurs 4 in 9 is "surpassing" the Lakers 3 in 8 ShaqKobes?

[WayOutWest]

Not even close?  Okay, so just what is Fisher refering to as "surpassing" in Laker English translation?

"I hate to say it, but they are probably surpassing us to be honest," former Lakers guard Derek Fisher said. "We had that great four- or five-year period. ....I can probably say they are surpassing us in recent dynasties.

  So you're thinking Fisher is stating that the Spurs 4 in 9 is "surpassing" the Lakers 3 in 8 ShaqKobes?

Read my entire post again, the answer is already in there.