PDA

View Full Version : Dynasty or no? 80's Celtics, 00's Lakers, 00' Spurs, 50's Lakers



JordansBulls
02-21-2009, 11:44 PM
Now throughout NBA History there have been 3 NBA Dynasties that you can say for sure.

Russell's Celtics in the 60's,
Kareem/Magic's Lakers in the 80's
MJ's Bulls in the 90's


Now what I want to know is:
Do you consider Mikan Minneapolis Lakers a Dynasty?
Or how about Bird's Celtics in the 80's a Dynasty?
Or Duncan's Spurs in the 00's a Dynasty
Or Shaq's Lakers in the 00's a Dynasty?

op12
02-21-2009, 11:49 PM
i would say yes to all. 3 titles in a decade is solid for anyone. not to mention making it to the finals and winning your conference other times. all of these teams will be remembered as some of the best teams in history.

Chronz
02-21-2009, 11:55 PM
In an era of free agency with very few limitations on what you can do with trades Id say yes to the Lakers and Spurs. Theyve ruled the 2000's

Robbie7138
02-22-2009, 12:06 AM
especially the spurs in 00's bcuz theyve kept a level of consistence in terms of always being in the chase for the championship, the lakers went on a bit of a dip after shaq left
but 3 championships in a row , can qualify as a dynasty

camador22
02-22-2009, 12:21 AM
They're all dynasties. Birds Cetlics are arguably one of the greatest teams ever

hotpotato1092
02-22-2009, 12:25 AM
They're all dynasties just not on the same level as the three you named, although the 80's celtics might be of that quality, and talent wise I'm not sure any of those teams could match Kobe and Shaq.

nd4T.O.
02-22-2009, 12:27 AM
00's id say lakers are a dynasty and 00's spurs def are

camador22
02-22-2009, 12:47 AM
They're all dynasties just not on the same level as the three you named, although the 80's celtics might be of that quality, and talent wise I'm not sure any of those teams could match Kobe and Shaq.

80's Celtics would have absolutely destroyed the Lakers even with one of the most dominant players ever in a prime Shaq.

still1ballin
02-22-2009, 01:39 AM
00 lakers

still1ballin
02-22-2009, 01:40 AM
80's Celtics would have absolutely destroyed the Lakers even with one of the most dominant players ever in a prime Shaq.

Please! they would not have no answer for Shaq. Shaq in his prime would destroy them.

IDB Josh M
02-22-2009, 01:56 AM
80's Celtics would have absolutely destroyed the Lakers even with one of the most dominant players ever in a prime Shaq.


Please! they would not have no answer for Shaq. Shaq in his prime would destroy them.

That would have made for some great television!

IversonIsKrazy
02-22-2009, 02:05 AM
all r. The least would be the 00' lakers though, since they had like 3 years str8 not going pass first round.

ARMIN12NBA
02-22-2009, 02:09 AM
Now throughout NBA History there have been 3 NBA Dynasties that you can say for sure.

Russell's Celtics in the 60's,
Kareem/Magic's Lakers in the 80's
MJ's Bulls in the 90's


Now what I want to know is:
Do you consider Mikan Minneapolis Lakers a Dynasty? Yes.
Or how about Bird's Celtics in the 80's a Dynasty? No.
Or Duncan's Spurs in the 00's a Dynasty? No.
Or Shaq's/Kobe's Lakers in the 00's a Dynasty? Yes.

My rule is that you have to win at least back-to-back titles. Otherwise, I do not consider that team a dynasty. A team that is worthy of being called a dynasty should be able to defend its title and continue its dominance and reign as the best for a couple seasons straight.

BTW--I corrected you there. Shaq's/Kobe's Lakers.

ARMIN12NBA
02-22-2009, 02:10 AM
all r. The least would be the 00' lakers though, since they had like 3 years str8 not going pass first round.

Shaq's (and Kobe's) Lakers did not go 3 years straight without going passed the first round...

Afridi786
02-22-2009, 02:11 AM
Spurs r a dynasty, so were Shaq's Lakers.

IDB Josh M
02-22-2009, 02:15 AM
Spurs r a dynasty, so were Shaq's Lakers.

I'm not gonna disagree with you, because the Spurs never lost an NBA finals. Now that is impressive!

GSW fan
02-22-2009, 02:33 AM
spurs dynasty is still going on. that puts it ahead of the 00 lakers.
they are all dynasties tho

DreamShaker
02-22-2009, 02:34 AM
Shaq's (and Kobe's) Lakers did not go 3 years straight without going passed the first round...

That was after Shaq left they did that...when you replace Horry, Fox, and Fisher with Walton, Smush, and Cook it is bound to happen. Not to mention replacing Shaq with Odom and Butler and then trading Butler into Kwame and Odom refusing to show up in the playoffs yeah you are gonna suck....

KB24PG16
02-22-2009, 03:07 AM
yes to all but i dont know much bout the 50 lakers but they were good

G-Funk
02-22-2009, 03:35 AM
^^^On April 12, 1954, the Lakers won a sixth title in seven years.

BoltLakerPadre
02-22-2009, 04:04 AM
I think Showtime was the dominate force in the 80's, so I'd be hesitant to call the Celtics a dynasty.

Milkan definitely made the Laker's a dynasty in the 50's.

JordansBulls
02-22-2009, 08:44 AM
My rule is that you have to win at least back-to-back titles. Otherwise, I do not consider that team a dynasty. A team that is worthy of being called a dynasty should be able to defend its title and continue its dominance and reign as the best for a couple seasons straight.

BTW--I corrected you there. Shaq's/Kobe's Lakers.


I considered everything when naming the teams. Kareem/Magic's Lakers as each took turns leading the teams. One would win League MVP and Finals MVP in different years the years they won the titles.

op12
02-22-2009, 04:47 PM
My rule is that you have to win at least back-to-back titles. Otherwise, I do not consider that team a dynasty. A team that is worthy of being called a dynasty should be able to defend its title and continue its dominance and reign as the best for a couple seasons straight.

BTW--I corrected you there. Shaq's/Kobe's Lakers.


does this mean the bad boy pistons and hakeems rockets were dynasties. they both won back to back. does that make them more of a dynasty than birds celtics or duncans spurs. i find that a little hard to swallow. consistent contention makes it more of a dynasty to me then simple back to back.

philab
02-22-2009, 04:55 PM
My rule is that you have to win at least back-to-back titles. Otherwise, I do not consider that team a dynasty. A team that is worthy of being called a dynasty should be able to defend its title and continue its dominance and reign as the best for a couple seasons straight.

BTW--I corrected you there. Shaq's/Kobe's Lakers.

You really don't consider the Spurs a dynasty? Wow.


My rule is this:
Three or more championships in less than double the number of years with some continuity in players.
So three in five years, four in seven, etc.

Spurs did four in seven, all with Duncan and Popovich. To me, that's a dynasty.

Gnac76
02-22-2009, 05:06 PM
Dynasties don't take the year off.... no back to back championships for the spurs = no dynasty

MakaSizzle
02-22-2009, 05:10 PM
NO NO NO winning 3 titles in 10 years does not qualify for a dynasty. In 10 years you need to at least be to the finals 5 times and win at least 4 titles. IMO

MakaSizzle
02-22-2009, 05:12 PM
Dont just go be givin out "Dynasty" to every team. tsk tsk

LAKERMANIA
02-22-2009, 05:16 PM
I dont consider a team a dynasty if they dont win back to back at least..

Lakersfan2483
02-22-2009, 06:12 PM
If you don't win back to back titles at the minimum, you can't be considered a dynasty.

op12
02-23-2009, 11:18 PM
does this mean the bad boy pistons and hakeems rockets were dynasties. they both won back to back. does that make them more of a dynasty than birds celtics or duncans spurs. i find that a little hard to swallow. consistent contention makes it more of a dynasty to me then simple back to back.

nobody seemed to answer this question but everybody is talking back to back as the main point. does that mean the pistons and rockets were and birds celtics and the spurs were/are not?