An Unbalanced Debate: Spurs vs. Patriots
Which franchise is the greater sports dynasty?
Collaboration between Michael DePrisco and Kenneth Wilson
After their victory in Super Bowl LI this past Sunday, the New England Patriots cemented themselves as one of the best dynasties in NFL history. The Patriots and the San Antonio Spurs have frequently been compared to one another, as their dominance in their respective league’s is very similar.
Both teams demonstrate a team-first approach, where “the system” is far more important than an individual’s success. Each team has had legendary players, coaches, and moments over the years.
Here at The Unbalanced, Michael DePrisco and Kenneth Wilson will debate which franchise has had the best run since rising into prominence. After reading both sides of the argument, please let us know which stance you agree with.
DePrisco’s Take
This is a difficult decision for me to make, but I have to go with the San Antonio Spurs. Since drafting Tim Duncan in 1997, the Spurs have only had one season in which they did not reach the 50 win mark. In the 1998–99 season, the Spurs only won 37 games, but it was a lockout season in which they won the championship anyway.
Led by Gregg Popovich, the Spurs have been an example of sustained success, winning five championships over the span of 20 years. The titles have not been concentrated either. The years San Antonio has won championships (‘99,’03,’05,’07,’14) have been impressively spread out — the mark of a true dynasty.
In the NBA, it has always been extremely difficult to win without star power. The Spurs have never been the most talented team, but head coach Gregg Popovich knows how to get the best out of any player on the floor. The NFL simply has more players on the field, so it is easier to hide weaknesses. New England has never had the most star power either, but the Spurs’ ability to win with less talented players in a star-driven league such as the NBA is incredible.
Tim Duncan and Tom Brady are similar in that both legendary players have been the engine behind their team’s sustained success. Now that Duncan is retired, the Spurs have not suffered the pitfalls of losing their franchise player, posting an impressive 39–12 record this year. Brady, on the other hand is still playing, and we don’t know how New England will fare once he decides quarterback hangs up his cleats.
Finally, the Spurs have never cheated. The Patriots “spygate” scandal discredits the first three championships they won. When comparing each franchise’s success, it’s hard to ignore that out of the five championships the Patriots have, more than half of them shouldn’t count.
Both teams have had great success over the years by demonstrating discipline and efficiency. When comparing the two, the Spurs are definitely the better dynasty. They have an untainted legacy in a league where it is much more difficult to win when lacking the most star power. The Spurs have been the class of professional sports since they drafted Tim Duncan.
Kenneth’s Take
I’m gonna let you finish DePrisco, but the New England Patriots are the best sports dynasty of all-time. There are tons of reasons why this is the case, so I will take your cue and use your format as a blueprint.
You started by discussing the record of the Spurs since the arrival of Timmy, Tim Duncan. That’s cute — however, since Brady’s first season in which the Pats did admittedly go 5–11, they have had no other season in which they’ve lost more than 7 games. To put it more plainly, since Tom Brady arrived in New England, they have won less than 10 games only twice, with one being his rookie season. Granted, some of those are seasons in which other quarterbacks may have taken the most snaps, such as Drew Bledsoe or Matt Cassel. However, most of this success is still a direct result of the impact of Brady or the fluidity he has established.
Do you really want to talk about championships? On top of the fact that you have an 82-game season that allows SIXTEEN TEAMS into the playoffs, winning an NBA championship involves a “series,” or multiple chances to win or lose. The NFL is a one-game, single elimination type deal, which alone makes it a more difficult path to navigate. The Patriots have not only managed to navigate said path a few times, but have managed to do so 5 times. That’s right, *in my Ric Flair voice, “5 times, 5 times, 5 times.” Also, you brought up a good point by saying that the championships of the Spurs weren’t concentrated. Well, neither are the Patriots’ — in fact, every few years they are bound to win one.
I will give you this, the NBA is about star power. But that is counterintuitive to your point in a sense and helps me make my next one. When you say that it is easier to “hide” players on an NFL football field, that is just wrong. In the NFL, the offenses and defenses are finely tuned machines in which every player or “part” must “do their job” (see what I did there) in order for the machine to operate correctly. You cannot hide a player, because if everyone doesn’t do their job, plays don’t work. For example, if a motion receiver that isn’t even involved with the play and doesn’t do his simple job, which could simply be jogging all the way to the far side of the field, there are too many defenders in the play and the offensive plan doesn’t work. You can’t hide anyone in football, plain and simple. Everyone is doing something important and relevant to the success of the play.
While in the NBA ,you can hide players because it is a “super star” driven league. That’s why they say if you have one star you are competing, and if you don’t, you are looking for one. This is no more evident than when Pop, for example hides “shooters” in corners for spot-up shots during offensive sets, or sticks Boris Diaw on a defensive center who won’t ever touch the ball unless he gets it off a rebound. This is hiding players, which does not happen on an NFL field.
Brady and Duncan are very similar. They are winners who are willing to do whatever is necessary in order to triumph. I cannot agree with the rest of your point here either, though. Although Brady is still with the Pats, you can look no further than the Matt Cassel season or even earlier this year, where the great Bill Belichick took the number 2 and 3 quarterbacks on the roster and won games without Brady. This is not only due to the great scouting and drafting of the organization, but it also speaks to the greatness of one Bill Belichick.
Lastly, the Spurs may have never cheated, but to say that they have never done anything a little sketchy is an overstatement. For example, Pop admittedly sits players out not only for rest, but to hide things — he has admitted it in no certain and perhaps less terms. As far as the Patriots go, they do skirt the rules a bit, but is it really a problem that they do it to succeed, or that it isn’t your favorite team getting away with it?
Belichick likes to call this skirting of rules “competitive advantages,” and I feel that it isn’t cheating unless you get caught. The Patriots are just a “leg up,” and every team would do the same thing if not for fear of being caught. Blame the man for being a genius, not for being caught for being one.
Both franchises have had success, and both have done so in magnificent fashion. However, as the facts above show, the greater dynasty is definitely the Patriots. This is not only because they have a harder path to success, but also because they have done it with the same two people (Brady and Belichick); as opposed to the steady rotation of players that have been afforded to Pop. Even though Timmy was a pillar, Manu, Tony Parker, and Kawhi Leonard have certainly strengthened the foundation. Tainted, shmainted — the point of competition is to win, and you are asking me to be upset because he wants to win, and badly? I think not. New England is the greatest dynasty, and their latest piece of hardware solidifies that point. Kenneth out. *mic drop*
Now that you have both sides to the argument, let us know who you think won the debate.
