STEPHEN A. SMITH: "only been 2 dynasties, RUSSELL's celts + MJ's bulls... can't incl BIRD's or MAGIC's teams!" AGREE?

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: STEPHEN A. SMITH:

    "Dynasty" should be applied when a team dominates and wins championships for an extended and consistent period of time, so yes, I agree.  As much a I loved watching Bird and company, the championships were not steady, just as the Lakers' were not.  The Bulls had it, maybe not as much as the Russell-led Celtics, but they had it.  

    Miami can't claim "dynasty" until at least after the fourth in four years.  That's not going to happen because when they lose (this year?), the "me" player will take his talents elsewhere as soon as he can.  LaQueen and the Chipmunk Wade = HGH? Then there's that.

     

    "They don't put Ws and Ls on the paychecks" - Sidney Wicks

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from cole-ely. Show cole-ely's posts

    Re: STEPHEN A. SMITH:

    IMO the 80s Boston or la teams, or Phili the year they won, were the three best teams of my lifetime but they knocked each other around.  Any of the three and probably Detroit would smoke Miami and yes even the bulls with Jordan because they were complete teams with more balance and depth.  With the bulls, beyond Jordan and overrated pippin they were very average teams with no competition after Detroit declined.  

    So not dynasties, but better teams still than the bulls dynasty.

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

    Re: STEPHEN A. SMITH:


    THE DUKE

    I'm no Laker fan but they deserve credit for what they accomplished in the '80's...

    that team won five titles over a nine year span in an incredibly strong league....that is a dynasty in my opinion.....the Celts won three in six years and, if healthy, I think they would've beaten the Lakers three times, thus turning the tables on which team was the greatest in that decade....but the Lakers did it and they deserve the accolades...

    in order of dynasties I would go...

    1-Red & Russell's Celtics (11 titles in 13 years)

    2-The '80's Lakers

    3-MJ's Bulls....they won six titles in eight years (and MJ retired in the middle of the "three-peats)...but they didn't face nearly the level of competition that the Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, (and Bucks) faced a decade earlier.... 

    again, just my opinion....

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from lakersavenger. Show lakersavenger's posts

    Re: STEPHEN A. SMITH:


    10 titles in 30 years=dynasty

    1 title in almost 30 years=travesty

    'nuff said.

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

    Re: STEPHEN A. SMITH:


    THE DUKE

    to think I took you off ignore after a year just to see if you have grown up.....you haven't....so to stay in our usual mode before I put you back on ignore...

    losing 9 out of 12 to your biggest rival....?  ......total domination....!

    having a record of 11-15 since the era of the modern NBA (the shot clock era)....as compared to 17-4.....?  .....complete embarassement.......

    Goodbye...

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from cole-ely. Show cole-ely's posts

    Re: STEPHEN A. SMITH:

    In response to Duke4's comment:


    THE DUKE

    I'm no Laker fan but they deserve credit for what they accomplished in the '80's...

    that team won five titles over a nine year span in an incredibly strong league....that is a dynasty in my opinion.....the Celts won three in six years and, if healthy, I think they would've beaten the Lakers three times, thus turning the tables on which team was the greatest in that decade....but the Lakers did it and they deserve the accolades...

    in order of dynasties I would go...

    1-Red & Russell's Celtics (11 titles in 13 years)

    2-The '80's Lakers

    3-MJ's Bulls....they won six titles in eight years (and MJ retired in the middle of the "three-peats)...but they didn't face nearly the level of competition that the Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, (and Bucks) faced a decade earlier.... 

    again, just my opinion....



    the bucks teamwere tough, but I wouldn't out them in the it's, even with parentheses.  I think Houston deserves the parentheses.  Otherwise i agree.

     

Share