| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bean24
Starting Rotation
Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Posts: 613
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:55 pm Post subject: 80's Lakers not a dynasty |
|
|
According to Screamin A Smith, Magic's Lakers and Bird's Celtics were not dynasties. 
He says there's only been 2 in NBA history, Jordan's Bulls and Russell's Celtics.
Never know what you'll hear on BSPN. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
KobeDunk
Retired Number
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 26849
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But if the heat win he'll say they're a dynasty and Lebron almost as good as Jordan right??? LOLOL
Magic's Lakers won 5 rings in 8 years. Went to 4 straight finals and in that 8 year span went to 7 finals.
Jordan's bulls won 6 in 8 years with 6 final appearances ...
Last edited by KobeDunk on Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pd23
Star Player
Joined: 12 Mar 2008
Posts: 3037
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| didn't the Lakers win 5 and go to like 8 or 9 finals in a 10 year span? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pd23 wrote: | | didn't the Lakers win 5 and go to like 8 or 9 finals in a 10 year span? |
Yup. Against the great 80's celts no less. That's the rub. Because there were two dynastic, top 4 all time teams playing in their prime at the same time, SAS decides that isn't a dynasty.
BTW, either of those teams from the mid-late 80's would smoke Chicago (including the 72 win club), the 60's Celtics, and any current team you put up there.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KobeDunk
Retired Number
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 26849
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pd23 wrote: | | didn't the Lakers win 5 and go to like 8 or 9 finals in a 10 year span? |
From 1980 to 1988 won 5 and went to 7 finals
1980 W
1982 W
1983 L
1984 L
1985 W
1987 W
1988 W |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brandon98
Franchise Player
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 20351
Location: Are you a bad enough dude to read my posts?
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Label it what you will. Doesn't change the fact that the best teams in NBA History came from that Lakers core. Gimme the 1987 Lakers over anyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KobeDunk wrote: | | pd23 wrote: | | didn't the Lakers win 5 and go to like 8 or 9 finals in a 10 year span? |
From 1980 to 1988 won 5 and went to 7 finals
1980 W
1982 W
1983 L
1984 L
1985 W
1987 W
1988 W |
add in 3 more years and you can add in 2 more finals.
As a side note, Magic went to 9 finals in 12 years, won 5, lost 1 against the Celts, 1 against the Moses Malone led 6ers, 1 to Isiah (where he and Scott went down with injuries), and 1 to MJ (also at least in part due to injury). That's an amazing achievement.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Free_Kobe
Franchise Player
Joined: 02 Sep 2005
Posts: 13197
Location: @ the beach
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KobeDunk wrote: | | pd23 wrote: | | didn't the Lakers win 5 and go to like 8 or 9 finals in a 10 year span? |
From 1980 to 1988 won 5 and went to 7 finals
1980 W
1982 W
1983 L
1984 L
1985 W
1987 W
1988 W |
They went in 89, but Riles decided that it would be best they lose to the Pistons.
_________________
♪ ♫One good thing about music, when it hits, you feel no pain...
So hit me with music! ♪ ♫ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
composite
Star Player
Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 3043
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Because you need a ring for the other hand to be a true dynasty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67622
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You guys know I'm SAS fan but on this assertion I'm LINK . I understand his premises but disagree. He's saying there were only two dynasty's in NBA history, Chicago and Boston.
Anthony I have to ask you LINK 
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SGV-Laker fan
Star Player
Joined: 23 May 2013
Posts: 8860
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i kind of agree with SAS. a dynasty means you're the only team in the league that's winning title after title in a stretch of period. the 80's Lakers and Celtics were kind of washed out by each other. when the Bulls were dominating in the 90's, there's no dispute who was the top team in the league. but when the same question brought up for the 80's, people can debate between the Cs and the Lakers. therefore, no clear cut winner there. i would say the Laker 3 peat teams were definitely a dynasty, Kobe, Pau's back to back, not so much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
composite
Star Player
Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 3043
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SGV-Laker fan wrote: | | i kind of agree with SAS. a dynasty means you're the only team in the league that's winning title after title in a stretch of period. the 80's Lakers and Celtics were kind of washed out by each other. when the Bulls were dominating in the 90's, there's no dispute who was the top team in the league. but when the same question brought up for the 80's, people can debate between the Cs and the Lakers. therefore, no clear cut winner there. i would say the Laker 3 peat teams were definitely a dynasty, Kobe, Pau's back to back, not so much. |
What's there to debate? 5 is more than 3. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaltonFam
Star Player
Joined: 16 Mar 2013
Posts: 1825
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i love stephen a smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmorans1
Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Posts: 11669
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dynasties in my book are:
Russell Celtics
Bird Celtics
Magic Lakers
Jordan Bulls
Shaq & Kobe Lakers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67622
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Though not considered a dynasty the Spurs should be given credit for being the model of consistency.
They're small market and dull but always there at seasons end.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjiddy
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 29059
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KobeDunk wrote: | But if the heat win he'll say they're a dynasty and Lebron almost as good as Jordan right??? LOLOL
Magic's Lakers won 5 rings in 8 years. Went to 4 straight finals and in that 8 year span went to 7 finals.
Jordan's bulls won 6 in 8 years with 6 final appearances ... |
I guess because Jordan wasn't there for two ringless years, people just delete it from their memories and think of MJ's Bulls as winning 6 straight titles.
But the idea the 80s Lakers weren't a dynasty is just dumb and Stephan A is just saying it to be controversial.
Cue 24: "Sounds like someone we know." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjiddy wrote: | | KobeDunk wrote: | But if the heat win he'll say they're a dynasty and Lebron almost as good as Jordan right??? LOLOL
Magic's Lakers won 5 rings in 8 years. Went to 4 straight finals and in that 8 year span went to 7 finals.
Jordan's bulls won 6 in 8 years with 6 final appearances ... |
I guess because Jordan wasn't there for two ringless years, people just delete it from their memories and think of MJ's Bulls as winning 6 straight titles.
But the idea the 80s Lakers weren't a dynasty is just dumb and Stephan A is just saying it to be controversial.
Cue 24: "Sounds like someone we know." |
I can read tiny print...  
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67622
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjiddy wrote: | | KobeDunk wrote: | But if the heat win he'll say they're a dynasty and Lebron almost as good as Jordan right??? LOLOL
Magic's Lakers won 5 rings in 8 years. Went to 4 straight finals and in that 8 year span went to 7 finals.
Jordan's bulls won 6 in 8 years with 6 final appearances ... |
I guess because Jordan wasn't there for two ringless years, people just delete it from their memories and think of MJ's Bulls as winning 6 straight titles.
But the idea the 80s Lakers weren't a dynasty is just dumb and Stephan A is just saying it to be controversial.
Cue 24: "Sounds like someone we know." |
They won 3 straight, Jordan left, they ldidn't win for two years. He came back they won 3 straight.
There are some who believe if he hadn't left for 2 years they might have won 8 straight, tying the Celtics longest championships in a row record.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UpperMerion
Rookie
Joined: 03 Mar 2013
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is only one dynasty in the NBA: The Lakers Franchise.
Definition of Dynasty: A succession of people from the same family who play a prominent role in business, politics, or another field.
George Mikan to Elgin Baylor to Jerry West to Wilt Chamberlain to Kareem Abdul Jabbar to Magic Johnson to Shaquille O'Neal to Kobe Bryant = a succession of people from the same family (Lakers) who play a prominent role in the field of basketball.
A dynasty in its truest sense is ruling over a L-O-N-G period of time.
The Bulls reign was too short.
The Celtics have too many gaps of non-domination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrairieAve
Star Player
Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 4209
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The 3-peat Lakers might be the most dominant "dynasty" you can think of. Only 3 losses in 3 Finals appearances. All but one Bulls Finals were grind-it-out series that ended in 6 games.
The Bulls "accomplished" 2 impressive 3-peats. The "Y2K" Lakers were going to 3-peat. I remember NBA fans who ignored the 02 Finals because they already knew the outcome.
_________________
-Avenue of the Champions- -RIP Dr Buss- #824 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JUST-MING
Retired Number
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 43986
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PrairieAve wrote: |
I remember fans ignored the ’02 Finals… |
You won’t ever see the 2002 Finals on YouTube.
Games 3 and 4 were removed during the 2012 lockout, and part of Games 1 and 2 were removed as recently as last week. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RMurphy_22
Star Player
Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 4193
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lakers were a Dynasty and it can't even be argued...Magic is also GOAT just based on teams and players he beat to dominate NBA's greatest decade.
_________________
Back to Back Yeah, Yeah...and you know that!
- Magic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bballguru5000
Star Player
Joined: 06 Mar 2008
Posts: 8125
Location: Born and Raised in Los Angeles, now living in Manhattan, NY.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dmorans1 wrote: | Dynasties in my book are:
Russell Celtics
Bird Celtics
Magic Lakers
Jordan Bulls
Shaq & Kobe Lakers |
This.
I can't believe there's even a debate about it. The only thing is, I'd also add Mikan's Lakers to the list. They were the best in their era. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eh, people are going to define "dynasty" to fit their personal predisposition. As far as I'm concerned, the Spurs were a dynasty. Four titles in eight years is good enough for me. If you disagree, that's cool, but we're arguing about the proper application of an undefined term. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmorans1
Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Posts: 11669
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Eh, people are going to define "dynasty" to fit their personal predisposition. As far as I'm concerned, the Spurs were a dynasty. Four titles in eight years is good enough for me. If you disagree, that's cool, but we're arguing about the proper application of an undefined term. |
I don't think the Spurs are a dynasty but it can be argued easily. Fact is they have not repeated once and have not made the Finals two years on a row, basically they have not been the best team two years running. Plus they're not as memorable as all the other dynasties and it's because they haven't been dominant, they have never just dominated the league. Also the team has constantly changed and the only constant has been Duncan. They're not the definition of a dynasty, they are the definition of consistency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
