Do you consider the Warriors to be a dynasty? (poll)

[CelticsElite]

All over espn and media,  on tv and online I see the Warriors  now being called a dynasty

Do you consider a 3 title team to be a dynasty?

I remember I believe it was Pat Riley surpriailywho said the only team to have a dynasty in all of sports  was the Russell Celtics. Requirement is 10 years of dominance minimum

[tenn_smoothie]

No

Win 16 titles in 30 years with three generations of champions and I will call you a dynasty.

[KGs Knee]

I'd call it a mini-dynasty.

3 titles in 4 years is impressive.  Best single season record is a nice cherry on the sundae, although the fact they lost the championship that year sort of negates that.

Now, if they make the finals another few times over the next 5 years, and win at least 1 more, than that would be a full fledged dynasty.  Basically what the Spurs were.

The only dynasties I consider are the 60's Celtics, 80's Lakers, 90's Bulls, and 2000's Spurs.  That 90's Bulls team is on the short end in years, but I think most people can recognize there were championships left on the table, and they were 6 for 6 in an 8 year period.

[gouki88]

I'd call it a mini-dynasty.

3 titles in 4 years is impressive.  Best single season record is a nice cherry on the sundae, although the fact they lost the championship that year sort of negates that.

Now, if they make the finals another few times over the next 5 years, and win at least 1 more, than that would be a full fledged dynasty.  Basically what the Spurs were.

The only dynasties I consider are the 60's Celtics, 80's Lakers, 90's Bulls, and 2000's Spurs.  That 90's Bulls team is on the short end in years, but I think most people can recognize there were championships left on the table, and they were 6 for 6 in an 8 year period.

Yeah, wouldn't classify it as a dynasty

[mr. dee]

Teams with 3 or more titles are considered a dynasty.

60's Celtics was a dynasty
Showtime Lakers was a dynasty
Bird Celtics was a dynasty
Jordan Bulls was a dynasty
Kobe-Shaq Lakers was a dynasty
Duncan Spurs was a dynasty

[KGs Knee]

No

Win 16 titles in 30 years with three generations of champions and I will call you a dynasty.

I feel like this is a different thing.

Like, there are dynasties for a particular era (more to do with the specific group of players) and then there are franchise dynasties.

Obviously the only two franchises that qualify for the latter are the Celtics and Lakers.

[Beat LA]

No

Win 16 titles in 30 years with three generations of champions and I will call you a dynasty.

I'm honestly not sure owing to the manner in which their team was assembled. Like, perhaps it's a matter of taste, but to me, if they had still managed to make it to four straight NBA Finals and win three titles with the same cast that brought them 73 wins, I'd probably lean towards saying yes, but it's just weird, I don't know, lol .

I'd say that they're more of a dynasty than the Spurs, though .

[gouki88]

No

Win 16 titles in 30 years with three generations of champions and I will call you a dynasty.

I'm honestly not sure owing to the manner in which their team was assembled. Like, perhaps it's a matter of taste, but to me, if they had still managed to make it to four straight NBA Finals and win three titles with the same cast that brought them 73 wins, I'd probably lean towards saying yes, but it's just weird, I don't know, lol .

I'd say that they're more of a dynasty than the Spurs, though .

How are 4 rings in 8 seasons, built around the same superstar and with the same big 3 for the majority of it, not a dynasty?

[droopdog7]

Yes, three titles in the given period, plus expectations for competing for more is a dynasty in my view.

[KGs Knee]

I feel like 5 titles is the minimum requirement for a dynasty.

[JSD]

I guess. No they’re not the 60’s Celtics, but they’re up there with, say:

Bird Celtics
Shaq Lakers

Notch below:

Jordan Bulls
Magic Lakers
Duncan Spurs

Surpassed:

James Heat
Kobe Lakers
Thomas Pistons
Dream Rockets
Cowens Celtics

[Beat LA]

No

Win 16 titles in 30 years with three generations of champions and I will call you a dynasty.

I'm honestly not sure owing to the manner in which their team was assembled. Like, perhaps it's a matter of taste, but to me, if they had still managed to make it to four straight NBA Finals and win three titles with the same cast that brought them 73 wins, I'd probably lean towards saying yes, but it's just weird, I don't know, lol .

I'd say that they're more of a dynasty than the Spurs, though .

How are 4 rings in 8 seasons, built around the same superstar and with the same big 3 for the majority of it, not a dynasty?

To me, the Spurs had a great, albeit strange run, and one of the primary reasons as to why I don't see them as a dynasty is that until 2012-13 and 2013-14, San Antonio had never even made it to consecutive NBA Finals, and prior to that they hadn't even reached consecutive Western Conference Finals for the first time until 2006-07 and 2007-08. They won their first ring in the lockout-shortened 1998-99 season, then go three straight years without getting to the ultimate stage, with the final year being Duncan's first MVP in 2001-02, finally dethrone the Lakers in 2002-03, lose to the Lakers in the second round in 2003-04, win the title in 2004-05, lose to Dallas in the second round in 2005-06, win the title in 2006-07, lose to the Lakers in the WCF in 2007-08, endure a relative down period over the next three seasons, lose to the Thunder in the WCF during second lockout-shortened season of 2011-12, Pop costs them the title in 2012-13, wipe the floor with Miami in 2013-14 and win their most recent title, lose to the Clippers in the first round in 2014-15, and then lose to OKC in the second round during 2015-16, after which Duncan retired.

Honestly, what do you call that, lol? It's a great run, yes, but rather strange, imo .

[LilRip]

Yup, 3 titles in 4 years. This is Golden State’s era right now, barring something colossal happening in the offseason. It’s really strange how despite Lebron being clearly the best player of his era, he’s not considered to have a dynasty. I mean, the consecutive Finals trips have been impressive but without the chip, it just feels incomplete.

[ozgod]

You could put a strong case forward for them being a mini-dynasty at least. They've produced sustainable success over the past 4 years. They're on par with the 2000-2004 Lakers and just behind the 6 championship Bulls or the Spurs of this century in my opinion. Clearly not a patch on the Russell Celtics but that will never happen again or if it does the salary cap mechanism would clearly be broken.

But true dynasties dominate for many, many years.

[Moranis]

I think the Warriors in many ways are more impressive and more of a dynasty then the Duncan Spurs.  5 titles but over 16 years. Only made the Finals in back to back years in year 15 and 16 (the two heat seasons).  The Spurs did win 3 titles in 5 seasons in there but the other 2 seasons they lost in the 2nd round.  It is really hard to consistently play deep into the playoffs.