SA Most Low Profile/Consistently Dominant Team in History?

They've won 3 NBA titles since 1999, they dominate year after year. What do you guys think?

 

I personally think of them as the fourth best franchise of all time (after lakes, bulls, celts), and the favorite to win it all this year. But yes they are very underrated. Probably because they are the opposite of clutch and are literally about 5 points away from having four-peated.

 

Consistantly donminant in HISTORY? I gotta say Lakers. Over 58 years they have .615 win percentage. Now that is consistancy. The Spurs have been great for the last several years but, they can't even begin to compare their trophy case to that of the Celtics or the Lakers.Wait a minute. I didn't read the "most low profile" part. Well, it still doesn't matter.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Apr 12 2007, 06:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Consistantly donminant in HISTORY? I gotta say Lakers. Over 58 years they have .615 win percentage. Now that is consistancy. The Spurs have been great for the last several years but, they can't even begin to compare their trophy case to that of the Celtics or the Lakers.Wait a minute. I didn't read the "most low profile" part. Well, it still doesn't matter.</div>I think he means like one team with some kind of continuity, IE the Duncan/Popovic combo. I don't think there's anybody who's been on the lakers for 58 years.

 

As of the last 10 seasons , they have been the most dominant team in all of the major sports by far....They have won over 70% of their games...When the Celtics dominated, they had so much talent on their team compared to everyone else, their were much fewer teams, and the competiton wasnt near as great. I definitely think that the Spurs are at least the 4th best team over a ten year period, but their have been some great teams in NBA history. I like the Bulls win they won the 6 rings as #1, the Celtics at #2 (if they did it in a different era, they would for sure be #1, and it is close between the Lakers and Spurs IMO.

 

Maybe. What about the 40/50's Lakers with George Mikan though? Do they count? They won like 5/6 titles and no one ever talks about them. I know the NBA sucked back then, but still...

 

This Spurs team of recent years would rank behind (in no particular order) the Lakers and Celtics of the 80s, the Bulls in the 90s, Celtics of the 60s and Lakers of 60s/70s.They are IMO a bit better than the Pistons of the 80s/early 90s, Rockets in mid 90s, Knicks of the early 70s and the Lakers of the 40's/50s.People say because there were less team in the 80s etc then it was easier when in fact its the other way round. Thee are far more bad teams around now because of expansion teams etc. It dilutes the talent pool and spreads the talented players out.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>This Spurs team of recent years would rank behind (in no particular order) the Lakers and Celtics of the 80s, the Bulls in the 90s, Celtics of the 60s and Lakers of 60s/70s.</div>so you're saying that the lakers of the 60s/70s who won one ring total in an 8 team league across ten seasons were more consistently dominant than the Spurs who have been the best team in the league probably 5 out of the last 9 years and won three ring? How can you even call a team "dominant" that couldn't win a ring until Bill Russell retired and only won one ring then?

 

I agree with this... I f*cking LOATHE the Spurs, I've NEVER liked the sonsabitch. They're the shittiest, suckiest, most f*cking boring GOOD/GREAT team in NBA history.

 

The Spurs aren't flashy, but they get it done.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Milgod @ Apr 13 2007, 03:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This Spurs team of recent years would rank behind (in no particular order) the Lakers and Celtics of the 80s, the Bulls in the 90s, Celtics of the 60s and Lakers of 60s/70s.They are IMO a bit better than the Pistons of the 80s/early 90s, Rockets in mid 90s, Knicks of the early 70s and the Lakers of the 40's/50s.People say because there were less team in the 80s etc then it was easier when in fact its the other way round. Thee are far more bad teams around now because of expansion teams etc. It dilutes the talent pool and spreads the talented players out.</div><span style="font-family:Arial">Did I just witness a MilGod post? Welcome back.</span>

 

how about the blazers??? they have a series of 21 straight playoff appearances. hmmmmmmm...of course, they didnt get the championships, cept for 77', but they were definitely low profile and dominant.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BALLAHOLLIC? @ Apr 13 2007, 03:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><span style="font-family:Arial">Did I just witness a MilGod post? Welcome back.</span></div>and an ignorant and incorrect migod post

 

Alright, I'll give you the 60s/70s Lakers. They had a pretty great team though with West, Goodrich & Baylor. The 1972 team was possibly the greatest team ever as well.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>so you're saying that the lakers of the 60s/70s who won one ring total in an 8 team league across ten seasons were more consistently dominant than the Spurs who have been the best team in the league probably 5 out of the last 9 years and won three ring? How can you even call a team "dominant" that couldn't win a ring until Bill Russell retired and only won one ring then?</div>You have to remember that from 1959 to 1972 the Lakers may have only won one title, but they got to the finals 9 times in that span. That's 3 times as many finals appearances as the Spurs in only 13 years.Again about the Spurs. They're great, but doesn't anybody remember that from 2001-2004 they absolutely could not beat the Lakers? I mean, they did in 2003 but in 2001 they were completely dominated, in 2002 they were disasterously un-clutch and in 2004 they blew a 2-0 lead. I mean, a lot of the reason why the Spurs won it all in 2005 was because the Lakers traded Shaq.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Again about the Spurs. They're great, but doesn't anybody remember that from 2001-2004 they absolutely could not beat the Lakers? I mean, they did in 2003 but in 2001 they were completely dominated, in 2002 they were disasterously un-clutch and in 2004 they blew a 2-0 lead. I mean, a lot of the reason why the Spurs won it all in 2005 was because the Lakers traded Shaq.</div>Well from '55-69 the Lakers absolutely could not beat the Celtics. A team is not dominant if it won only 1 ring over a span of 15 years and only won that ring once Bill Russell retired and won it in the watered down seventies. You have to remember that your average team is going to make the finals 1/4th of the time in an eight team league, as opposed to 1/15th of the time in a 30 team league. Making the finals then was about the probablility equivalent of making the second round now. The bottom line is that the lakers weren't a dynasty in the sixties/seventies. They weren't dominant, and didn't dominate their opposition. As an example of how easy it was to get into the finals, they got into the finals one year without Jerry West as a 33-39 team, beating a 28 win team in the first round. How can you call a team a dynasty that, in between finals losses, goes 36-45 for a season and gets swept in the first round with their two best players healthy. And you talk about choking? Howabout the choke job it takes to lose 9 out of ten finals you're in?

 

I didn't call them a dynasty. And you're forgetting the fact that in an 8 team league, though it may take less to get to the Finals(fewer playoff rounds too), teams played each other 9 times a year. So, for example, if you can't beat the Celtics, you're going to loathe having to see them 9 times. And, for an 8 team league, the draft went three rounds so, the talent was more concentrated, where as today you have 30 teams picking from a two round draft.And I did not say choke! What, did I make some phantom post that only you can see?The Lakers played in more game 7's than any other basketball team ever, those dudes fought hard, and did it EVERY year. They were seriously outmatched each time (except for 1969 which WAS a choke-job).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>And I did not say choke! What, did I make some phantom post that only you can see?</div>oh, my apologies, you said the spurs were "seriously un-clutch", forgive me for using synonyms.

 

Hey, it happend. They maybe all clutch and badass now, but they had to learn that sh*t. In 2001, they kept saying how they wanted the Lakers. So, they got the Lakers and ended up on the business end of a 4 game ass-kicking:Game 1: LAL 104, SA 90Game 2: LAL 88, SA 81Game 3: LAL 111, SA 72Game 4: LAL 111, SA 82In 2002 they asked for redemption. Too bad, becase if they didn't fuckup and let Kobe outscore them in damn near every 4th quarter of that series, they would have had a chance.The Spurs were NOT the strongest team in the league then, that's my point. They were un-clutch, couldn't finish games.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Apr 18 2007, 04:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Hey, it happend. They maybe all clutch and badass now, but they had to learn that sh*t. In 2001, they kept saying how they wanted the Lakers. So, they got the Lakers and ended up on the business end of a 4 game ass-kicking:Game 1: LAL 104, SA 90Game 2: LAL 88, SA 81Game 3: LAL 111, SA 72Game 4: LAL 111, SA 82In 2002 they asked for redemption. Too bad, becase if they didn't fuckup and let Kobe outscore them in damn near every 4th quarter of that series, they would have had a chance.The Spurs were NOT the strongest team in the league then, that's my point. They were un-clutch, couldn't finish games.</div>And MY point is that the sixties lakers were one of the most un-clutch teams of all time, losing like 7 game sevens and nine finals.