PDA

View Full Version : Bulls Dynasty



DJHUFF2000
01-29-2013, 12:16 PM
Sometimes teams never get over the hurdle of beating a team in the playoffs,like Kings vs Lakers in the 2000s' Knicks vs Bulls in the 90's(with Jordan) Cavs vs Bulls' just to name a few,would the Bulls dynasty have been halted if they did not beat the "Bad Boy Pistons" in 91',what yaw think?

Doogolas
01-29-2013, 12:24 PM
Why would that have prevented them from winning the other five times?

Big Zo
01-29-2013, 12:29 PM
I think the word "dynasty" gets thrown around too freely.

DJHUFF2000
01-29-2013, 12:41 PM
Why would that have prevented them from winning the other five times?

Oh I'm quite sure they would have prob won,but I was wondering would they have gone forward with the same team or made changes if they lost to the Pistons again? Sorry I did not specify earlier.

Cubsfan365
01-29-2013, 12:42 PM
I think the word "dynasty" gets thrown around too freely.

Are you actually implying that the Bulls winning 6 titles in 8 years isn't considered a dynasty?

haggis
01-29-2013, 12:43 PM
Oh I'm quite sure they would have prob won,but I was wondering would they have gone forward with the same team or made changes if they lost to the Pistons again? Sorry I did not specify earlier.

Probably nothing too drastic. The core of that team was extremely young still outside of Cartwright.

king4day
01-29-2013, 12:43 PM
Are you actually implying that the Bulls winning 6 titles in 8 years isn't considered a dynasty?

Not to mention, Jordan didn't lose in the finals a single time. He single handedly altered history by preventing hall of famers from ever winning a championship.

Big Zo
01-29-2013, 12:45 PM
Are you actually implying that the Bulls winning 6 titles in 8 years isn't considered a dynasty?

The only true dynasties in the NBA are the Lakers and Celtics. They've been in/won championships in every decade since the 50's. The Bulls only have the 90's.

Pierzynski4Prez
01-29-2013, 12:51 PM
The only true dynasties in the NBA are the Lakers and Celtics. They've been in/won championships in every decade since the 50's. The Bulls only have the 90's.

Cool so just remember if the Heat win 5 of the next 7 titles, this Heat team won't be considered a dynasty because they didn't win anything in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s.

Big Zo
01-29-2013, 01:31 PM
Cool so just remember if the Heat win 5 of the next 7 titles, this Heat team won't be considered a dynasty because they didn't win anything in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s.

The Bulls were "Team of the decade" for sure. That's a great accomplishment that only a few teams can hold claim to. As far as the Heat goes: I don't care about how is or isn't calling them a dynasty years from now as long as they're winning now. If they can pull anything close to what the Bulls did, I'll be happy.

D_Rose1118
01-29-2013, 01:55 PM
The Bulls were "Team of the decade" for sure. That's a great accomplishment that only a few teams can hold claim to. As far as the Heat goes: I don't care about how is or isn't calling them a dynasty years from now as long as they're winning now. If they can pull anything close to what the Bulls did, I'll be happy.

your definition of a dynasty is different then everyone elses

i look at a dynasty as a set of years which were dominated by a certain team, the celtics and lakers have had multiple dynasties, kobe and shaqs in the 2000's, magic in the 80's, and west etc.
the bulls had a dynasty in the 90's.
its like if the thunder won 6 titles this decade, they would be considered a dynasty even though they have no history at all

KnickaBocka.44
01-29-2013, 02:05 PM
your definition of a dynasty is different then everyone elses

i look at a dynasty as a set of years which were dominated by a certain team, the celtics and lakers have had multiple dynasties, kobe and shaqs in the 2000's, magic in the 80's, and west etc.
the bulls had a dynasty in the 90's.
its like if the thunder won 6 titles this decade, they would be considered a dynasty even though they have no history at all

This. LOL what a dumbass

Big Zo
01-29-2013, 02:31 PM
your definition of a dynasty is different then everyone elses

i look at a dynasty as a set of years which were dominated by a certain team, the celtics and lakers have had multiple dynasties, kobe and shaqs in the 2000's, magic in the 80's, and west etc.
the bulls had a dynasty in the 90's.
its like if the thunder won 6 titles this decade, they would be considered a dynasty even though they have no history at all

It's a subjective term, I guess. To me it's teams that are great for multiple generations.

Big Zo
01-29-2013, 02:32 PM
This. LOL what a dumbass

Your Knicks won't be winning anything anytime soon, so don't worry about dynasties. ;)

DaBUU
01-29-2013, 02:44 PM
This. LOL what a dumbass


Your Knicks won't be winning anything anytime soon, so don't worry about dynasties. ;)

oh snap, fight fight!

abe_froman
01-29-2013, 02:44 PM
It's a subjective term, I guess. To me it's teams that are great for multiple generations.
to you maybe,but most generally define it as 3+ championships within a decade,usually with the same principal players being on board for each one

gaughan333
01-29-2013, 02:59 PM
The NBA forum has some of the dumbest threads

LongWayFromHome
01-29-2013, 03:04 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_(sports)

A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for multiple seasons or years.



National Basketball Association
-Minneapolis Lakers 1948 to 1954 (5 championships between 1949 and 1954)[15][16]

-Boston Celtics 1956 to 1986 (16 NBA titles in 30 years overall. 26 winning seasons, 20 division titles, 18 conference titles, including 11 championships in 13 years from 1957–69 and eight in a row from 1959 to 1966)[7][17][18]

-Los Angeles Lakers of 1979 to 1991 led by Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. (5 NBA championships, 10 Division titles, 9 conference championships, 12 winning seasons)[18]

-Detroit Pistons of 1987 to 1991 led by Isiah Thomas and the Bad Boys. (5 straight Conference finals appearances ('87 to '91) 3 conference championships ('88, '89, and '90) and NBA championships back to back ('89 and '90)) [18]

-Chicago Bulls of 1989 to 1998 led by Michael Jordan. (6 NBA championships in 8 seasons, 2 sets of three consecutive championships ('91, '92, '93, '96, '97, '98), 6 division titles in 8 seasons, and hold best regular season record in NBA history (72–10) during the '95–96 season).[7][18]

-Los Angeles Lakers of 2000 to 2010, led by Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal. Won 6 Division titles in 2000, 2001, 2004, 2008, 2009, and 2010 7 Western Conference championships in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009, and 2010 and 3 consecutive NBA championships in 2000, 2001, and 2002, and back to back NBA Championships in 2009 and 2010 including the best postseason record in NBA history in 2001 (15–1).[18]

-San Antonio Spurs of 1999 to 2008 led by Tim Duncan. (4 NBA championships (1999, 2003, '05, '07) in 9 seasons) are considered a dynasty by some,[18][19][20] but not by others[21][22] because they did not win consecutive titles.

Big Zo
01-29-2013, 03:07 PM
to you maybe,but most generally define it as 3+ championships within a decade,usually with the same principal players being on board for each one

So the minimum is 3? Who made that rule up? And I know most people disagree, but it's still a subjective term that I feel gets thrown around too often. Heck, there's even some crazies out there that think the Atlanta Braves winning 14 consecutive division titles is a "dynasty."

leftymo
01-29-2013, 04:25 PM
Not to mention, Jordan didn't lose in the finals a single time. He single handedly altered history by preventing hall of famers from ever winning a championship.

just not Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, and Isiah Thomas...

only got there 6 times... not all that much compared to some of the other greats.

leftymo
01-29-2013, 04:27 PM
So the minimum is 3? Who made that rule up? And I know most people disagree, but it's still a subjective term that I feel gets thrown around too often. Heck, there's even some crazies out there that think the Atlanta Braves winning 14 consecutive division titles is a "dynasty."

No rule. Just common sense. There isn't a long list of teams that win 3 titles...

Lakers, Bulls, Lakers again, Spurs...
Yankees
Patriots?

Big Zo
01-29-2013, 04:32 PM
No rule. Just common sense. There isn't a long list of teams that win 3 titles...

Lakers, Bulls, Lakers again, Spurs...
Yankees
Patriots?

There's not a long list of teams that win two, either.

JasonJohnHorn
01-29-2013, 04:51 PM
The Bulls front office would have been pressured to make moves if they could not beat the Pistons four straight seasons. So who knows what would have happened?

Chi~TwnHawksFan
01-29-2013, 04:55 PM
The Bulls were "Team of the decade" for sure. That's a great accomplishment that only a few teams can hold claim to. As far as the Heat goes: I don't care about how is or isn't calling them a dynasty years from now as long as they're winning now. If they can pull anything close to what the Bulls did, I'll be happy.

Dont worry the Heat wont come remotely close to what the Bulls did :D

By the way, the 90s Bulls ARE a DYNASTY would have went 8 straight of MJ didnt retire for 2 years

Rockice_8
01-29-2013, 05:08 PM
I do agree with Big Zo that the term dynasty does get thrown around way too much when it shouldn't but 6 titles in 8 years most certainly is a dynasty.

2 or 3 titles in 4-5 years isn't really a dynasty. Like the Spurs who won 4 in 9 years is a great run but probably just short of being called a dynasty IMO. Not that it's a rule or anything but if you can win like 5 or more with the same core of guys now you're talking dynasties. SA probably needed one more ring to cement themselves as a dynasty the past decade.

Dynasties aren't one title a decade over multiple decades it's large groups of titles with the same core of guys.