Some historical perspective

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrvAlbertsBra. Show MrvAlbertsBra's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    I always find it funny that everyone gives all the credit to Shaq for 2000 - 2002, with little for Kobe, and now only grudgingly give Kobe some credit for 2009 - 10, but overstate Pau's role the last couple years much more than Kobe's role in 2000 - 2002, even though they were pretty similar.
    The 1st championship in 2000 goes to #34, even though Kobe had large moments in the first run, like the Game 4 winner vs Phoenix, a better performance than Shaq vs. Portland in Game 7, and pulling out Game 4 of the Finals in OT after Shaq fouled out, and having just missed the prior 7 quarters with a lame ankle.  But, Kobe and Shaq were equals in the 2nd and 3rd championship runs.  Kobe absolutely destroyed the Spurs in the 4 game sweep, dunking on the Twin Towers multiple times, and either he or Horry or Fisher swung all the big moments in those runs.  Shaq rolled when the Lakers were already up double digits thanks to Kobe and company.  Actually, Kobe's Game 7 performance this year was very similar to Shaq's Game 7 performance against Portland in 2000.  There is a TV timeout when Phil told all the players "don't force anything to Shaq" because he was struggling so much on offense.  But nobody looks back and tries to tarnish Shaq's legacy because of it.  Just another example of people not being able to admit Kobe's greatness, so they come up with lame excuses to not give credit to one of the best players in NBA history. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Kobe is one of the best players ever.....but he is all about his image....he is a Jordan "wannabe"....everyone concedes that....all of his mannerisms mimicked Michael....and the smile hides a bad dude...on and off the court....he wanted to leave or send Shaq out of town....one or the other....funny how team championships didn't matter so much back then....so Shaq was delt and won another championship....Kobe's team didn't do much....until Pau came along....thank God (or Stearn) for Pau in game 7 huh?  ....without Pau, the Celtics are champions...
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrvAlbertsBra. Show MrvAlbertsBra's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    It's fine if people don't like the Mamba, but few are honest about it.  I wish people would just say "he's great, but I can't stand him" instead of trying to bring down his legacy with b.s. arguments.  Shaq was just as big of a baby, and I think even more immature, than Kobe but he has a better public perception.  Cs fans better hope he stays healthy, b/c if he gets hurt on company time, he's going to heal on company time.  And since Jordan retired, he's proved to not be so likeable either. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from drfate6. Show drfate6's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]All five Minny titles are squeezed on to one banner with the HOF players' numbers crammed on to the same banner while the LA titles each have their own banner and the retired players' number each have their own banner? Hey, if you want to claim the Minny titles as your own you should have the class to treat them like you treat the LA titles. Instead, the franchise gives them second class treatment. Pretty crass and tacky, don't you think?  Just a question.  Anyone know when the franchise chose to hoist up that single banner?  The Lakers have been in LA since 1960, right?  Did they acknowedge the Minny titles in the 60's?  The 70's?  The 80's?  The 90's? You think that they finally chose to acknowedge those five titles as a recent cynical and cheap marketing ploy to say that the number of titles is drawing near Boston's total? If you want to drink Buss's Kool-Aid, go right ahead.
    Posted by paulliu[/QUOTE]
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from drfate6. Show drfate6's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    I've always been surprised about the previous lack of acknowldgement shown to the Minn. Lakers over the years too.

    And...... it does seem to be all about arguing the point of "most titles" with Boston .........the "Honor" banner was only hoisted up, in April 2002. Kind of surprising that they waited until the 21st century to acknowledge their past.

    I have no problem in seeing this as a legit part of pro basketball history, but at least the franchise should have the decency to put up real, individual banners, and jersey numbers, to fully recognize it's own history. Otherwise, it seems bizarre that fans and critics should say they do count, if the team itself doesn't officially recognize them.

    Even the Sacramento Kings, acknowledge the great players from across their whole history. Tiny Archibald from the Kansas City Kings days, Oscar Robertson from the Cinncinnati Royals era, even Bob Davies from the 40's/50's era Rochester Royals days.

    Why don't the Lakers do the same??????? I mean, at the very least, shouldn't George Mikan's jersey be retired, fully??????? He's the first super star, and leader of a dynasty, for goodness sakes.




    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]All five Minny titles are squeezed on to one banner with the HOF players' numbers crammed on to the same banner while the LA titles each have their own banner and the retired players' number each have their own banner? Hey, if you want to claim the Minny titles as your own you should have the class to treat them like you treat the LA titles. Instead, the franchise gives them second class treatment. Pretty crass and tacky, don't you think?  Just a question.  Anyone know when the franchise chose to hoist up that single banner?  The Lakers have been in LA since 1960, right?  Did they acknowedge the Minny titles in the 60's?  The 70's?  The 80's?  The 90's? You think that they finally chose to acknowedge those five titles as a recent cynical and cheap marketing ploy to say that the number of titles is drawing near Boston's total? If you want to drink Buss's Kool-Aid, go right ahead.
    Posted by paulliu[/QUOTE]
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : I think it’s reasonable that 15 - 20 names would be different on any updated list.   Without necessarily agreeing that each of the following 9 should be include in the list of the top 50, I believe they would all be on any updated list:   Kobe, KG, Dirk, Jason Kidd, Reggie Miller, Lebron, Dwayne Wade, Iverson, and Tim Duncan.   And probably 3 or more of the following 8 would be on it (Nash, Pierce, Gasol, Ginobli, Yao, Gary Payton, Chauncy Billups, Rodman).   I am undoubtedly forgetting or ignoring 3 or 4 other top players that would be considered, and there might also be “corrections” to include players left off the original list, like McAdoo and Dominique Wilkins.   Who would be scratched is another question.
    Posted by MrvAlbertsBra[/QUOTE]

    List was chosen in 1996.  You're telling me FIFTEEN to TWENTY names are added to the list in 14 years?  Who comes off?
    koME - Definitely
    KG - nope
    Dirk - maybe after he retires
    Kidd - really, Jason Kidd?
    Miller - nope
    MeBRon - at 25?  Maybe at 35, but NO WAY right now
    MEWade - seee MeBron above
    Iverson - yes
    Duncan - definitely
    none of the players you mentioned in the  () qualify.
    McAdoo and Wilkens were already eligible the first time - this isn't the HOF - they were not voted top 50.

    So, I'll give you 3 current players - who comes off?
    How about Dolph Schayes, Nate Thurmond and Bill Walton (didn't play enough)

    How about NOT!!

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : Dude, stop pretending you're a Laker fan because it's obvious your not. As for Drew, he can wear whatever number he wants outside of those retired.
    Posted by KB24RULZ[/QUOTE]


    You got me, I'm not a Laker fan. I'm a Lakers fan. And proud of it.

    I want to ask you a question. Should the Lakers retire the numbers of the guys from the MN days who are in the hall of fame? Why are these numbers not retired?

    When did we decide to give the MN Lakers a token banner? 2002. 2002, that's 42 years after the Lakers moved from MN to LA.

    I had read in a Lakers Book by Roland Lazenby believe it was called 'The Lakers' that the early trophies are now in the hands of a private collector. And that Dr Buss didn't care to keep them. Which I find astounding if true.




     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]When I comment on the MN years of the Lakers many trolls think I'm belittling the Lakers. I have the upmost respect for the Laker Team and the many great players that played for those teams, but the Franchise itself is second rate because those titles are not treated equally to the LA won titles. When you go to the Staples Center you do not see 16 Banners hanging there. You see 11 full sixe one and this microscopic blue one with 5 titles on it. When you come to Boston you see all 17 displayed and treated the same. That's all I said. I'll leave it at that.
    Posted by DFURY13[/QUOTE]

    I commented on it and I'm not called a Lakers fan. Can't help it if I have respect for the teams history.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : You got me, I'm not a Laker fan. I'm a Lakers fan. And proud of it. I want to ask you a question. Should the Lakers retire the numbers of the guys from the MN days who are in the hall of fame? Why are these numbers not retired? When did we decide to give the MN Lakers a token banner? 2002. 2002, that's 42 years after the Lakers moved from MN to LA. I had read in a Lakers Book by Roland Lazenby believe it was called 'The Lakers' that the early trophies are now in the hands of a private collector. And that Dr Buss didn't care to keep them. Which I find astounding if true.
    Posted by RUWorthy[/QUOTE]

    amen, sister!!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : I quote: When it comes to superstars, the Lakers are so far out in front of everybody else it's not even funny -- their all-time starting five would crush any other team's; in fact, it might be better than that of the rest of the league's put together. John Hollinger-ESPN. Of course it would be a Laker!
    Posted by KB24RULZ[/QUOTE]

    I'd like to believe that, I'm sure we both have different all time Lakers starting fives. Mine being Johnson, WEST, Cooper, Worthy and Abdul-Jabbar.

    Now a leagues best team, already has Jordan and Russell in it. Through in Bird and you're looking team that is almost invincible. Have trouble for the point guard and small forward positions. I'd throw in Pippen for his defense and at Point John Stocton at point. That team would beat any all time Lakers side.

    Now if the Lakers 'all time' side was up against other teams, all time sides, I'd give the match to us every time. Except for The Celtics because of the presense of Bill Russell and I think the Bulls may give us some trouble as well. Jordan was second to Russell the greatest player in NBA history, but that's just my opinion. And Pippen is really underated for his work during the Bulls title runs.

    When it comes to Superstars, I can agree with that. We have had a lot of superstar players. But someone being a superstar doesn't necessarily equate to them winning championships. And superstar is a world that is brandied about a bit too often when describing players. Not all players that the media label as 'great' are great players. So much hype around these days.

    With greats, Karl Malone was a great, do I count him amoung the Lakers greats, no. Kareem, Mikan, Pollard, Magic, Cooper, West, Baynor, Lovellette, Chamberlain, Worthy (sorry I'm biased) Shaq and (unfortunately) Bryant are the true Lakers greats.


     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : I'd like to believe that, I'm sure we both have different all time Lakers starting fives. Mine being Johnson, WEST, Cooper, Worthy and Abdul-Jabbar. Now a leagues best team, already has Jordan and Russell in it. Through in Bird and you're looking team that is almost invincible. Have trouble for the point guard and small forward positions. I'd throw in Pippen for his defense and at Point John Stocton at point. That team would beat any all time Lakers side. Now if the Lakers 'all time' side was up against other teams, all time sides, I'd give the match to us every time. Except for The Celtics because of the presense of Bill Russell and I think the Bulls may give us some trouble as well. Jordan was second to Russell the greatest player in NBA history, but that's just my opinion. And Pippen is really underated for his work during the Bulls title runs. When it comes to Superstars, I can agree with that. We have had a lot of superstar players. But someone being a superstar doesn't necessarily equate to them winning championships. And superstar is a world that is brandied about a bit too often when describing players. Not all players that the media label as 'great' are great players. So much hype around these days. With greats, Karl Malone was a great, do I count him amoung the Lakers greats, no. Kareem, Mikan, Pollard, Magic, Cooper, West, Baynor, Lovellette, Chamberlain, Worthy (sorry I'm biased) Shaq and (unfortunately) Bryant are the true Lakers greats.
    Posted by RUWorthy[/QUOTE]

    I love this:

    Lakers:
    Magic
    koME( even West says he's the best)
    Baylor
    Worthy
    Kareem

    All-time
    Oscar
    Jordan
    Bird
    Malone
    Russell...................would it even go 7?


    Second 5:
    Stockton
    Sam Jones (10 rings, and the fatest man in the league at the time)
    Dr. J
    McHale
    Can I use Shaq?  If not, I'll go with Kareem's nemesis - the Big E!...that might go 7
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Lakers:

    Shaq-C
    Kareem-PF
    Baylor-SF
    Kobe-G
    Magic-PG
    Game over!! We bring the likes of Chamberlain, West, Worthy etc etc etc off the bench and we beat any team by 15+. I call this team SMASHMOUTH SHOWTIME!

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]Lakers: Shaq-C Kareem-PF Baylor-SF Kobe-G Magic-PG Game over!! We bring the likes of Chamberlain, West, Worthy etc etc etc off the bench and we beat any team by 15+. I call this team SMASHMOUTH SHOWTIME!
    Posted by KB24RULZ[/QUOTE]

    I thought Shaq was a traitor who shouldn't have his number retired?  And now you're starting him over Wilt?

    Can't use Kareem as power forward, c'mon that's ridiculous!

    And just for the record, Bill Russell would take Shaq's lunch money all day long!!

    Kareem can't cover the Mail Man, and Jordan would eat koME alive!!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : I thought Shaq was a traitor who shouldn't have his number retired?  And now you're starting him over Wilt? Can't use Kareem as power forward, c'mon that's ridiculous! And just for the record, Bill Russell would take Shaq's lunch money all day long!! Kareem can't cover the Mail Man, and Jordan would eat koME alive!!
    Posted by BirdandCowens[/QUOTE]

    Can't use Kareem as PF? Why not? Oh yeah, you don't think outside of the square. I want Laker Shaq to clog the lane and be a beast in the low post with Kareem operating on the other side of the paint. Both dominate the paint with their length.

    Chamberlain comes on to carry on the carnage. Russell is a 6ft10 center that Laker Shaq would dominate and crush. As for the mail man....lmao. Kobe and MJ cancel each other out, Lakers win by double digits. Imagine bringing on the likes Chamberlain, Pau, Mikan as reserve bigs. Then the skill of West, Worthy,Goodrich, Nixon and Scott to complete the massacre.

    As for Kareem at PF, you might wanna read this for those who understand SMASHMOUTH SHOWTIME.

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/205081-the-all-time-los-angeles-lakers-team
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from DoctorCO. Show DoctorCO's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    kb24rules,

    I love your journey into non reality saying a maasacre wil happen. LOL...
    Let me break it down for you son.

    1. Give Russell TODAYS workout stuff lets see what happens. What happened when Shaq in his prime played duncan..DUNCAN OWNED HIM..

    1. Celtics Vs LAkers All TIME 5.

    1. CENTER- RUSSELL vs. SHAQ   (and russell having todays workouts on his side) Russell who is a better athlete. (he did a oyl. hurdles). That would be like chamberlin vs. russell.
    2. PF- Mchale vs. KAreem they played to a push. Both hall of famers. and 50 best in NBA history.
    3. SF- BIRD vs. WORTHEY...BIRD WINS
    2. 2G- PIERCE vs. KOBE..Kobe..but paul wouldnt be shut down..
    1. MAGIC vs. COUSEY. Edge COUSEY. give bob the 80s work outs.and we will see. Cousey REVOLUTIONIZED THE GAME. and would have ran magic out of the building.

    BENCH- Parrish,KG,SHAQ,Heinson,Rondo,Cowens,Havlacheck,..
    WIth Red vs phill RED 9 rings in 11 years...
    How long did it take for phil to get 9 rings??? and how many teams..11 rings in what 20 years of coaching..LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...
    Celts WIN..........................
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    I like that match up, but I'd take Magic over Cousy. Cousy was great in his time and would be a great or good player today, I'm thinking a Steve Nash type?

    I'd still throw Cooper into the mix, he's not an all time great but I'd put him in only to guard Bird. Kareem could never be at PF as well. He's a better centre than Shaq so he has to go up against Russell. 

    Russell could deal with Shaq, but I'd like to see him up against Kareem's sky hook. Russell was a master at shot blocking so seeing him try to block that hook would be fun to watch. 

    And no matter what anyone says, Kobe is no West. And I'd have West over him.  
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from painter. Show painter's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Russell would have devised ways to play Jabbar that would have depended on shot blocking. While Kareen is a very smart person, Russell was a true defensive genius who would frustrate Jabbar into throwing up ill-advised shots or cause him to accept the challenge by hogging the ball, effectively canceling out the rest of the team.  That was Jabbar's weakness - he took things personally and more than occasionally lost it, but Russell? He was always cool.  Oh yes, Bill Russell would have eaten Jabbar's lunch and come back for dinner.    

    Cooper on an all-time anything, even a Lakers list, is laughable. Who would he eliminate, Elgin Baylor?  No possible way.  Baylor was a thing of beauty, an elegant Jordan precursor and at times the best player (save for Russell) on the floor no matter what other team the Lakers were playing.  One could never say that about Cooper.

    Let me also jump in on the 8-9 team league matter.  Having fewer teams allowed teams to have dependable players, possible starters, all the way down the roster.  Expansion in all sports has watered down the talent to where there are marginal players occupying seats at the far end of the bench.  That wasn't always the case during the earlier years, and there were second units that could start in place of most first-teams.  During the '50s and early '60s, the lower number of number of teams concentrated talent, unlike today when it's broadly distributed, weakening second units and scrubs.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    LOL I love you comment on Russell with Kareem's lunch. I think you may very well be right in regards to the matchup. Russell was just a genius for basketball. I admire the man immensly.

    Cooper wouldn't necessarily be on my all time Lakers list. But he's on my all time Lakers team as a starter. In my mind if I'm picking a team I'm not going to go with say an all defensive unit or a team that's full of offensive minded ballhogs.

    Coop is complimentary to a team as he would guard your best offensive player and limit his effectiveness. He'd be in my starting Lakers team. Just like I'd have Dennis Johnson in my Celtics team.

    Baylor would be sixth man on my Lakers team.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : Can't use Kareem as PF? Why not? Oh yeah, you don't think outside of the square. I want Laker Shaq to clog the lane and be a beast in the low post with Kareem operating on the other side of the paint. Both dominate the paint with their length. Chamberlain comes on to carry on the carnage. Russell is a 6ft10 center that Laker Shaq would dominate and crush. As for the mail man....lmao. Kobe and MJ cancel each other out, Lakers win by double digits. Imagine bringing on the likes Chamberlain, Pau, Mikan as reserve bigs. Then the skill of West, Worthy,Goodrich, Nixon and Scott to complete the massacre. As for Kareem at PF, you might wanna read this for those who understand SMASHMOUTH SHOWTIME. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/205081-the-all-time-los-angeles-lakers-team
    Posted by KB24RULZ[/QUOTE]

    Your article lists KAJ as Center on the team.  NOT PF.  And it is clear you know nothing about basketball...................you are just a lakers fan!
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrvAlbertsBra. Show MrvAlbertsBra's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : List was chosen in 1996.  You're telling me FIFTEEN to TWENTY names are added to the list in 14 years?  Who comes off? koME - Definitely KG - nope Dirk - maybe after he retires Kidd - really, Jason Kidd? Miller - nope MeBRon - at 25?  Maybe at 35, but NO WAY right now MEWade - seee MeBron above Iverson - yes Duncan - definitely none of the players you mentioned in the  () qualify. McAdoo and Wilkens were already eligible the first time - this isn't the HOF - they were not voted top 50. So, I'll give you 3 current players - who comes off? How about Dolph Schayes, Nate Thurmond and Bill Walton (didn't play enough) How about NOT!!
    Posted by BirdandCowens[/QUOTE]

    Yes, 15 - 20 names would be different.  Not everyone is stuck in the past like Celtics fans are.  If you read the initial post, I stated that I did not necessarily agree that they would all deserved to be in the top 50 (I especially don't think Kidd and Reggie Miller belong), but the accomplishments of all those players I listed are much more publicized and entrenched in the minds of the general public.  If it were the 50 best in MLB history, 90% of the names would be from pre-1980, but the NBA is progressive.  If you don't like it, go watch something else.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    I don't agree that the NBA is progressive.....they do change things but I don't see progress....among the things I do not like:

    HS players coming into the NBA....a few do make it but by the time they have learned and refined their skills they have mileage on their legs at such a young age...look at Bynum...if he went to college he would play maybe 80 games in four years...now he is being asked to play an 82 game season followed by a grueling playoff run....no wonder he keeps getting injured

    Players going to college only one or two years....once again, they don't develop an all around game

    Total lack of enforcing the rules....traveling, up and down, palming the ball...

    Too much control by the refs....I remember guys like Mendy Rudolph who argued with Red all the time......they had their differences but he did a good job.....I think the ref's did a much better job in the old days.....there is no place for the Joey Crawfords in my opinion

    I hate the 3 point shot....that's just me

    The NBA as played through the late 1980's was a much better brand of basketball.....again...just my two cents
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from CelticPride69. Show CelticPride69's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    You can slice and dice the championships any way you like, they are still NBA Championships.  You count championships obtained by the Minnesota Lakers, although they were obtained in the 50s.  Who do you think open the doors for minorities in the NBA?  Not the Lakers, the Cs.  The first team to draft an african american player, the first team to hire an african american coach, and the first to start 5 african american players that have played on the Lakers they only 1 has been the head coach.  Lakers fans never mentioned George Mikan etc from the Minny Lakers. I wondered why they count the Minny championships.  You personally love the Celtics that is why you are on our site.  Yea you squeaked by another championship with the help of the referees.  Bow down to the organization that has more NBA championship than any other team.  We look at it as we gave you 20 years to catch up and you still couldn't beat us. Of course you want to focus on the future, your past was so good.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrvAlbertsBra. Show MrvAlbertsBra's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    [QUOTE]You can slice and dice the championships any way you like, they are still NBA Championships.  You count championships obtained by the Minnesota Lakers, although they were obtained in the 50s.  Who do you think open the doors for minorities in the NBA?  Not the Lakers, the Cs.  The first team to draft an african american player, the first team to hire an african american coach, and the first to start 5 african american players that have played on the Lakers they only 1 has been the head coach.  Lakers fans never mentioned George Mikan etc from the Minny Lakers. I wondered why they count the Minny championships.  You personally love the Celtics that is why you are on our site.  Yea you squeaked by another championship with the help of the referees.  Bow down to the organization that has more NBA championship than any other team.  We look at it as we gave you 20 years to catch up and you still couldn't beat us. Of course you want to focus on the future, your past was so good.
    Posted by CelticPride69[/QUOTE]

    Why do I come on this site?  I don’t often go on Lakers sites, because it’s easy to join fellow fans and pump each other up about your own franchise.  It’s even easier when nobody offers a different perspective, and Lakers fans come here to voice a different perspective from than the standard  fare of “we won 11 championships in 13 years 40 years ago, and we’re the best”.   Of course all championships count, the 5 from the MN Lakers days, and the 11 the C’s got in 13 years.  Like most fans, Celtics fans try discredit the accomplishments of their rivals and highlight the accomplishments of their own team.  And like most fans, many fans on this site have tunnel vision and simply can’t acknowledge arguments that make them uncomfortable.  Lakers fans aren’t content to let you sit here in a dark green tunnel.  We’re here to shed some purple light on history.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    I do have a question......I just read that the "Minny Banner" with all 5 championships was put up in 2002.....is this true as a poster has stated?
    If so, it certainly became important to the franchise as they closed in on Boston...I do not recall anyone comparing the number of titles each team had through the 1990's (the only decade both teams failed to win a title)...it was never mentioned during the Magic/Bird era.....interesting...
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share