PDA

View Full Version : If the Celtics win this year, will they be considered a Dynasty?



ProdigyI
03-31-2009, 01:17 AM
Thoughts

I'm pretty torn because winning 2 championships back to back is a great feat but i don't know about Dynasty because this is only their second season of dominance so i dont think so. What do you guys think?

abe_froman
03-31-2009, 01:19 AM
do you consider the rockets a dynasty or the bad boys? i dont,my criteria is is 3+ in a decade

...and thats close how its considered across all the leagues,well at least 3 in a 5 or 6 year span as the base

EHL
03-31-2009, 01:23 AM
3 in a row is a dynasty. 2 is not.

abe_froman
03-31-2009, 01:26 AM
3 in a row is a dynasty. 2 is not.

you dont consider showtime one:confused:

EHL
03-31-2009, 01:29 AM
you dont consider showtime one:confused:

showtime won more than 2 though...

pete_one
03-31-2009, 01:42 AM
i don't think so, since they put together players who were already all stars in garnett and ray allen, while real dynasties like the 3 peat lakers and the spurs were meshing for a while

abe_froman
03-31-2009, 02:06 AM
showtime won more than 2 though...

not in a row,and you said takes more than 2 in a row

DaaBoTownSox
03-31-2009, 03:27 AM
Usually dynasties consists of winning atleast 3 or more titles in a row, or multiple titles in a short period of time.

Getting 2 in a row wouldn't quite be a dynasty in my eyes.

Lakersfan2483
03-31-2009, 03:41 AM
In order to be a dynasty you have to win more than 2 titles. Examples of dynasties: Magic/Kareem's lakers, Shaq/Kobe's lakers, Jordan's Bulls, Russell's Celtics, Duncan's Spurs.

ARMIN12NBA
03-31-2009, 03:46 AM
not in a row,and you said takes more than 2 in a row

He said that 3 in a row was a dynasty and 2 in a row was not. I'm guessing he meant simply comparing those two. Magic's Lakers won 5 titles in a decade and went to the Finals 8 times. Of course they were a dynasty.

abe_froman
03-31-2009, 03:53 AM
He said that 3 in a row was a dynasty and 2 in a row was not. I'm guessing he meant simply comparing those two. Magic's Lakers won 5 titles in a decade and went to the Finals 8 times. Of course they were a dynasty.

"more than 2 in a row",more than 2 is 3

ARMIN12NBA
03-31-2009, 04:10 AM
"more than 2 in a row",more than 2 is 3

He never said the words, "more than" 2 in a row.

Exact quote:


3 in a row is a dynasty. 2 is not.

He simply said that 2 in a row, by itself, is not a dynasty. If the Celtics were to win this year then they would have won 2 titles in a row. Not 5 in a decade like the Showtime Lakers. Bad comparison by you. Next time, actually read his post.

Hotone1401
03-31-2009, 07:13 AM
What is the criteria for being a Dynasty nowadays? Seems like some pretty low standards to me. Dynasties use to be classified as being dominate for almost a decade. Boston is no where near that. The last realy dynasty to me were the 90's Bulls. Lakers were a mini-dynasty but nothing more. Spurs were never a dynasty. They were more like token winners because they remained conpetitive even when other team had their slumps. Is it still relevant to say that the Spurs never won a back to back title yet people refer to them as a dynasty. That is just BS to me and undeserved because they were a really good team for alot of alot of years but I would never say they were great.

Boston Dynasty??? No way.

Kakaroach
03-31-2009, 07:58 AM
No not quite yet. They have to win another time and be contenders for another year or two.

Rocco007
03-31-2009, 08:47 AM
do you consider the rockets a dynasty or the bad boys? i dont,my criteria is is 3+ in a decade

...and thats close how its considered across all the leagues,well at least 3 in a 5 or 6 year span as the base


This is pretty close to accurate..But also being in contention every year..Thats why I feel Boston won't be..Age and injuries..They're on the clock right now...3 out of the next 5 would do it..Too bad Kobe's going to be in the way...Trying to build his own with a younger team.

BTownTeamsRKing
03-31-2009, 09:29 AM
no. winning a few years ina row inst a dynasty.

staying in championship contention for 10 years while pulling 3-4 championships is a dynasty.

king4day
03-31-2009, 09:53 AM
They have to compete year in year out like the Spurs have. If they win 3 total in the KG era, then I'd say yes. I don't see it happening however.

BTownTeamsRKing
03-31-2009, 10:05 AM
They have to compete year in year out like the Spurs have. If they win 3 total in the KG era, then I'd say yes. I don't see it happening however.

what if they win 3 in a row, but then decline when the Big 3 retire? i dont see it as a dynasty. more like an era

DrDEADalready
03-31-2009, 10:16 AM
No way Jose.

BSD8393
03-31-2009, 10:18 AM
The bill Russell era was a real dynasty.

sep11ie
03-31-2009, 10:29 AM
Thoughts

I'm pretty torn because winning 2 championships back to back is a great feat but i don't know about Dynasty because this is only their second season of dominance so i dont think so. What do you guys think?

Didn't you kinda answer your own question?

op12
03-31-2009, 10:54 AM
They have to compete year in year out like the Spurs have. If they win 3 total in the KG era, then I'd say yes. I don't see it happening however.

i agree with this, but there was another thread asking about dynasties and people were saying you have to repeat to be considered a dynasty. i asked a couple times in that thread if those thoughts meant duncans spurs arent a dynasty and never got an answer. with that being said i think a repeat isnt a dynasty, but you dont necessarily have to repeat, you could win over a matter of time. so no, they would have to 3peat before it could be talked about.

hotpotato1092
03-31-2009, 11:02 AM
For me a dynasty needs at least 3 titles, at least two in a row and at least 5 seasons of 50 wins or more (Although the Spurs are the exception to this rule). The Celtics currently have none of the three and if they win it this year they get 1 out of 3, not good enough.

JordansBulls
03-31-2009, 12:29 PM
do you consider the rockets a dynasty or the bad boys? i dont,my criteria is is 3+ in a decade

...and thats close how its considered across all the leagues,well at least 3 in a 5 or 6 year span as the base

Winning back to back isn't a dynasty. I think it is a stretch to say winning 3 in a row is a dynasty. I would say 5 titles in a decade is a dynasty for sure with 4 a possibility depending on when it happened.

ProdigyI
03-31-2009, 01:12 PM
Winning 2 is not a dynasty IMO.

But if they win 3 in a row and even if KG, Allen go to different teams and the Celtics start sucking again, I would still consider them a dynasty regardless if it only lasted 3 years. 3 championships in a row is a dynasty team

abe_froman
03-31-2009, 03:52 PM
Winning back to back isn't a dynasty. I think it is a stretch to say winning 3 in a row is a dynasty. I would say 5 titles in a decade is a dynasty for sure with 4 a possibility depending on when it happened.

so you dont consider bird's c's a dynasty?

and what of the bulls or russell's c's

the bulls won three,than 2 years off than another 3. with jackson(coach)jordan ans pippen the only one's from the first threepeat,so since it was an entirely new supporting cast and break between each threepeat does it make it one dynasty or 2?

and same for russells c's,russell the only one constant throught the run,no one else from the start were there at the end,not even red..which depending on how you see bird's celtics,the only(or one of only twice) that the coach wasnt there throughtout the entire run.pat,phil,pop all coached theirs through out the run

ARMIN12NBA
03-31-2009, 03:58 PM
Winning back to back isn't a dynasty. I think it is a stretch to say winning 3 in a row is a dynasty. I would say 5 titles in a decade is a dynasty for sure with 4 a possibility depending on when it happened.

LOL. When did you decide your mind upon that one, JB? 2002? :laugh2:

still1ballin
03-31-2009, 06:28 PM
Heck No.

JordansBulls
03-31-2009, 07:24 PM
LOL. When did you decide your mind upon that one, JB? 2002? :laugh2:

I'm saying if you 3 peat and then nothing else for the decade.

EHL
03-31-2009, 07:25 PM
He said that 3 in a row was a dynasty and 2 in a row was not. I'm guessing he meant simply comparing those two. Magic's Lakers won 5 titles in a decade and went to the Finals 8 times. Of course they were a dynasty.

Bingo.

JordansBulls
03-31-2009, 07:25 PM
so you dont consider bird's c's a dynasty?

and what of the bulls or russell's c's

the bulls won three,than 2 years off than another 3. with jackson(coach)jordan ans pippen the only one's from the first threepeat,so since it was an entirely new supporting cast and break between each threepeat does it make it one dynasty or 2?

and same for russells c's,russell the only one constant throught the run,no one else from the start were there at the end,not even red..which depending on how you see bird's celtics,the only(or one of only twice) that the coach wasnt there throughtout the entire run.pat,phil,pop all coached theirs through out the run


5 titles in a decade is a dynasty for sure.

Bird's Celtics won 3 in a decade and never repeated so no they weren't a dynasty. Also I don't think you can have 2 dynasties the same decade unless both teams win 4-5 titles each.

Lakers4ItAll
03-31-2009, 07:30 PM
What a stupid question.

NO 2 doesn't make you a dynasty....

unwantedplayer
03-31-2009, 07:44 PM
Atleast 3 in a span of 4-5 years.

VivaLaShark
03-31-2009, 08:13 PM
Yea winning two championships in a row is NOT a dynasty. Having not won a Championship since the 80s kind of negates that as well. I could see if they went to the finals 7 out of the last 10 years won 4. But they have been good for Two years now, with a bleak future ahead of them, due to the soon to be fossils on their bench. I mean even in the 2008 Finals it wasnt clear that they would win. They arent the most Dominant team in their conference this year much less the NBA.

MossIsBoss
03-31-2009, 08:48 PM
They gotta win 3, but they don't have to win 3 in a row. If they win 3 in the next 5-6 years it would be a dynasty. The Spurs have never won back to back, but they're a dynasty

op12
03-31-2009, 10:30 PM
Yea winning two championships in a row is NOT a dynasty. Having not won a Championship since the 80s kind of negates that as well. I could see if they went to the finals 7 out of the last 10 years won 4. But they have been good for Two years now, with a bleak future ahead of them, due to the soon to be fossils on their bench. I mean even in the 2008 Finals it wasnt clear that they would win. They arent the most Dominant team in their conference this year much less the NBA.

you must not have watched the 08 finals very well. it was very clear they were the better team and were going to win. just because a team goes a number of years without winning doesnt mean a new dynasty cant be born. if they win 3 or more title over the next 5 or 6 years i think they could be considered one, especially if they repeat once. the future is not that bleak.

Kevj77
03-31-2009, 11:13 PM
I think the only dynasty in the last decade is the Spurs. Maybe the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, but IMO they aren't even though 3 peats are impressive. They flamed out to soon, but it was fun to watch. The Spurs stayed competitve longer and won 3 titles, if it wasn't for the Lakers it could be 5-6 rings in SA by now.

Jeremy5150
03-31-2009, 11:30 PM
I think to be a dynasty, you have to win 3, or more rings, and have other high playoff appearances in your team's run. AKA, Showtime, 90s Cowboys, Latter Patriots, 80s Celtics, 70s Steelers... Yadda Yadda.

"Near Dynasties" would be like, 80's Pistons, The Rockets, The Spurs (who don't qualify as Dynasty because they are boring).

I want to call Kelly's Bills a dynasty out of pure sentiment because they went to the Superbowl like 20 times in a row...that is SO hard to do...

jmastert
03-31-2009, 11:30 PM
wtf they already are a top 3 dynasties in basketball ever (Celtics, Lakers, Bulls) is jmastert gunna have to choek a *****.

Salzyballerz
03-31-2009, 11:34 PM
As much as I would like to say they would be a dynasty, I don't think they would be. If you take a look at the past all the teams that have been considered a dynasty have won 3 or more championships in the decade. The Bulls, Celtics, and Lakers. They would have to win 2 more championships in the next 5 years.

ARMIN12NBA
03-31-2009, 11:35 PM
I'm saying if you 3 peat and then nothing else for the decade.

Yah...because going to two more Finals and possibly winning one more championship in a decade is doing nothing, right? :eyebrow:

JordansBulls
03-31-2009, 11:41 PM
Yah...because going to two more Finals and possibly winning one more championship in a decade is doing nothing, right? :eyebrow:

You know what was meant buddy.
:D

GSW fan
03-31-2009, 11:49 PM
3 will do it

Cainstv28
04-01-2009, 12:09 AM
i voted no. as a celtics fan i believe they need to be an elite team for more than 2 years in a row. even 3 isn't enough unless, say they win 3 straight championships. but i see the celtics as finishing up this season well and having another 2 good seasons and as long as they win 1 or 2 more championships in the next 3 years i would say yes.

2 in 2 years = no
2 in 3 good years = maybe
3 in 4 or 5 years = yes

it's about being able to consistently be at the top, but that's just my opinion on the matter

ARMIN12NBA
04-01-2009, 12:13 AM
You know what was meant buddy.
:D

No I don't JB. How can you say the Lakers were not a dynasty? 5 Finals appearances in a decade while winning three in a row is a dynasty. No questions asked.

Big Zo
04-01-2009, 12:31 AM
What is the criteria for being a Dynasty nowadays? Seems like some pretty low standards to me. Dynasties use to be classified as being dominate for almost a decade. Boston is no where near that. The last realy dynasty to me were the 90's Bulls. Lakers were a mini-dynasty but nothing more. Spurs were never a dynasty. They were more like token winners because they remained conpetitive even when other team had their slumps. Is it still relevant to say that the Spurs never won a back to back title yet people refer to them as a dynasty. That is just BS to me and undeserved because they were a really good team for alot of alot of years but I would never say they were great.

Boston Dynasty??? No way.

I bet if the Lakers won titles every other year you'd be calling them a dynasty...

29$JerZ
04-01-2009, 12:37 AM
Back to back is impressive but it's nothing like what the Spurs have accomplished this decade.

I think it would take 3 to be honest.

abe_froman
04-01-2009, 12:54 AM
What is the criteria for being a Dynasty nowadays? Seems like some pretty low standards to me. Dynasties use to be classified as being dominate for almost a decade. Boston is no where near that. The last realy dynasty to me were the 90's Bulls. Lakers were a mini-dynasty but nothing more. Spurs were never a dynasty. They were more like token winners because they remained conpetitive even when other team had their slumps. Is it still relevant to say that the Spurs never won a back to back title yet people refer to them as a dynasty. That is just BS to me and undeserved because they were a really good team for alot of alot of years but I would never say they were great.

Boston Dynasty??? No way.

past decade(98-08):
6 div champ
4 conf champ
4 titles
no season with less than 50 wins(sans strike shortened year),never less than a .645 win % for a year(with over half the years in the .700's)

how is that not dominance?