Re: Definition of a Celtic Fan
posted at 9/27/2010 6:21 AM EDT
In Response to Re: Definition of a Celtic Fan
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Definition of a Celtic Fan : Excellence? A 16-15 Finals record is excellence? HAHAHA!!!
Posted by P34[/QUOTE]
I think it's pretty cool to have made the NBA finals 31 times. We just hit speedhumps along the way that prevented us from winning more than 16. What matters to me is that we were in a position to win the title 31 times. That's massive.
Lost Seven times to the Celtics in the 60's? Which isn't really bad considering the Celtics had the best player in existence playing for them in Bill Russell. Take him away and you'd have an even series between the teams.
The Two loses to New York are very hard to take. Just when we see off Russell we have to deal with the Knicks. Did we underestimate them? Was it a thought that we've seen off the best, we've been runners up several times to Boston, so we surely must be the best. We were a very old team against this Knicks side, I guess that comes into the equation.
No it was a younger team from New York, we took one title in three attempts against them. Still we won a Title. And we made up the numbers in the Final so it's still not too bad.
Thinking next, we come to Philadelphia in 1983. Losing to this team I can understand more fully. They were loaded and the best team overall in the East in my opinion in the early 80's. How Boston beat them in 1981 will remain a mystery to me. I put it down to Bird. Anyway this team from '83 was one of the all time great NBA sides. We beat the sixers twice and lost to them once. Moses Malone was massive and combining him with the talent the Sixers already possessed gave them a lethal edge.
1984 Celtics. Great team. Very even series. Could have really gone either way. Mistakes made by both teams at crucial times. In the end more mistakes from the Lakers. Although I won't deny that the Celtics deserved their win in the end. Losing this series I think helped us win our 1985, 1987 and 1988 titles. You can learn as much if not more from a loss than you can from a win. Also helped a new Lakers team learn about themselves. But we also got to know the Celtics, how they play and how to beat them.
I think this phrase speaks volumes: He who knows his enemy and himself well will not be defeated easily. He who knows himself but not his enemy, will have an even chance of victory. He who does not know himself and his enemy, is bound to suffer defeat in all battles.
1989 Pistons. We don't have Magic or Byron for the series. Yes they took us to seven games in 1988. But everyone must agree that it would not have been a sweep if our guards were fit. Tainted Championship I say.... TAINTED
... sorry I couldn't resist that one
Don't know who would have won that series if our we had our team at full strength.
1991 Bulls. Case of a great team on the rise and a great team at the end. Obviously the team on the rise should win. You could almost call it a five game sweep. Happy to have taken a game off that team.
2004 Pistons. Our team was breaking apart and it was plain for the world to see, or at least the part of the world that's interested in the NBA. This Pistons team was good, no excuses on the part of the Lakers. We should have played better and we didn't. Unlike 1989 I give this one clearly to the Pistons.
2008 Celtics. Bynum being out hurts, but we did well enough to get to to the finals without his services. Faced a Celtics side that were hungrier than we were. I think the Celtics had more pressure on them to win as well. I also think that the Lakers losing helped us win our back to back titles. Almost like in 1984 we needed a catalyst to help us step up and win again.
Now looking into the future. Do I see some lean time ahead for the Lakers. Yes. But we'll rebuild quickly hopefully we won't sink like a stone mirroring our 90's mess. I can see both our teams suffering in the near future. Celtics have Rondo on their team so that's a big advantage. Lakers have Gasol, maybe Bynum but I don't hold out a lot of hope for him.