Spurs potential legacy

[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?

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

Not a word on what Fishers "surpassing" is alluding to.  Are you trying to do some David Chase type ending?

[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.

Not a word on what Fishers "surpassing" is alluding to.  Are you trying to do some David Chase type ending?

All your questions are answered in my post, Fisher's in particular.

From now on it's gonna be an OJ esque "Read the post".

[Reality]

From now on it's gonna be an OJ esque "Read the post".

  The Lakers have only had two of what could be considered dynasties or mini dynasties in the past 20 years.  If you don't think Fisher is alluding to the Spurs as "probably surpassing" one of them, whatever.  10 years of searching for some *kryptic* message won't change a thing.  You didn't answer. 
"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.
In other legacy news, Bob Horry says Tim Dunkar is better then Shaq in his glory years.  It's in espn insider.  Is Bob just drunk off of 2005, 2007 titles or would a guy with 7 rings know?

[WayOutWest]

From now on it's gonna be an OJ esque "Read the post".

  The Lakers have only had two of what could be considered dynasties or mini dynasties in the past 20 years.  If you don't think Fisher is alluding to the Spurs as "probably surpassing" one of them, whatever.  10 years of searching for some *kryptic* message won't change a thing.  You didn't answer. 
"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.
In other legacy news, Bob Horry says Tim Dunkar is better then Shaq in his glory years.  It's in espn insider.  Is Bob just drunk off of 2005, 2007 titles or would a guy with 7 rings know?

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]

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. 

"Wrong, not even close.  Unless the Spurs win 3 in a row that will not be better than the Lakers 3Peat" = what you say or what Fisher says?  All i've wanted to know is what is Fisher referring to.
 
I'm not neccessarily disagreeing with what you said.  However my reasoning is not the 2Peat, but rather in head to head action the Lakers 200.4 win making it 3-1 Lakers in head to head playoffs.  I'm tossing out 1999 Spurs ass whooping on Shaq and Kobe in exchange for 2000 Duncan out and injured.  Leaving:
2001 4-0 Lakers swept disgraceful (short of Duncans play) Spurs
2002 4-1 Lakers
2003 4-2 Spurs
200.4 4-2 Lakers

That is why i would not give in if I was coming from the Laker point of view.  But i guess if you want to toss in 99 and 00 that would make it 4-2 Lakers head to head. 

However, a lot of us Spurs are counting from the onset of SuperManu in 2003, since which the Spurs have gone 3-5.  We shall wait until 2008.  A 4-6 SpursManu title will cement dynasty status.  Will also be 5-10 since 99, Bob Horry calls that a dynasty.

[WayOutWest]

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. 

"Wrong, not even close.  Unless the Spurs win 3 in a row that will not be better than the Lakers 3Peat" = what you say or what Fisher says?  All i've wanted to know is what is Fisher referring to.
 
I'm not neccessarily disagreeing with what you said.  However my reasoning is not the 2Peat, but rather in head to head action the Lakers 200.4 win making it 3-1 Lakers in head to head playoffs.  I'm tossing out 1999 Spurs ass whooping on Shaq and Kobe in exchange for 2000 Duncan out and injured.  Leaving:
2001 4-0 Lakers swept disgraceful (short of Duncans play) Spurs
2002 4-1 Lakers
2003 4-2 Spurs
200.4 4-2 Lakers

That is why i would not give in if I was coming from the Laker point of view.  But i guess if you want to toss in 99 and 00 that would make it 4-2 Lakers head to head. 

However, a lot of us Spurs are counting from the onset of SuperManu in 2003, since which the Spurs have gone 3-5.  We shall wait until 2008.  A 4-6 SpursManu title will cement dynasty status.  Will also be 5-10 since 99, Bob Horry calls that a dynasty.

Unless the Spurs 3Peat, they will not equal nor surpass the Lakers run BUT they are winning the race for the team of the 00's since I expect them to still challenge for a title or two more.  If the Spurs don't win another title this decade then a case can be made for either team.

[Reality]

3 straight vs 4 of 6 is debateable.

Comes down to how and vs who it was done.  Both are rare feats tho.
According to Fisher Spurs "are surpassing us" as in present tense.

[WayOutWest]

3 straight vs 4 of 6 is debateable.

Comes down to how and vs who it was done.  Both are rare feats tho.
According to Fisher Spurs "are surpassing us" as in present tense.

4 or 6?  Who what where?

[Reality]

4 of 6.  Spurs repeat in 2008 will be 4 of 6 since SuperManu joined and made the Big 3.  Altho now i hear that ingrate Michael Finley is undecided about where he will play next year.  Even Fabs is posturing about his player option.

[WayOutWest]

4 of 6.  Spurs repeat in 2008 will be 4 of 6 since SuperManu joined and made the Big 3.  Altho now i hear that ingrate Michael Finley is undecided about where he will play next year.  Even Fabs is posturing about his player option.

3 for 3 vs 3 in 5 is not debateable, try again.  Try using facts or just wait a few years before trying to have this discussion again.

I think we're done here.......

[rickortreat]

There is NO DYNASTY if your team doesn't win the Championship 3 times in a row.

That's my definition.  There are plenty of other names suitable for a team that wins one championship, or even two in a row, without sullying the word Dynasty, or what it means.

A Dynasty by definition is dominant and dominant for a long time.  3 years really isn't that long, but in the NBA with it's rules it seems like forever.  That's really the smallest length of time that the word Dynasty should be considered.

So those Laker teams just don't cut it, and neither do the Spurs.  Not when you compare them to Chicago or Boston in past decades.

You may want to think of them as a dynasty, but they're not even close.

[WayOutWest]

There is NO DYNASTY if your team doesn't win the Championship 3 times in a row.

3 years really isn't that long, but in the NBA with it's rules it seems like forever.  That's really the smallest length of time that the word Dynasty should be considered.

So those Laker teams just don't cut it, and neither do the Spurs.  Not when you compare them to Chicago or Boston in past decades.

LOL!