Hello

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Author Topic: NBA Finals: Lakers vs. Nets  (Read 11696 times)

Offline SwifDi
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9620
  • Karma: +10/-0
NBA Finals: Lakers vs. Nets
« Reply #240 on: June 10, 2002, 06:41:32 PM »
Koko, I think what makes them a great team is how much the players have matured. Shaq and Kobe comes to mind. And yes it may be a two man team at times, but wasn\'t the Bulls a great dynasty? All they had were Jordan, and maybe Pippen. Thats it, same case.

I think winning three championships in a row makes a dynasty, regardless of other factors.

Offline Fayded
  • POW
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: +10/-0
    • http://
NBA Finals: Lakers vs. Nets
« Reply #241 on: June 10, 2002, 06:44:33 PM »
But the thing is, the Bulls could have won 8 straight titles. The Rockets might have beat them one of the years but still, they could have come very close.
[color=4682B4]
Who needs a signature?
[/color]
[/size]

Offline SwifDi
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9620
  • Karma: +10/-0
NBA Finals: Lakers vs. Nets
« Reply #242 on: June 10, 2002, 06:56:53 PM »
By eight do you mean 6?

Offline kokopuphz
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
  • Karma: +10/-0
    • http://www.kokopuphz.com
NBA Finals: Lakers vs. Nets
« Reply #243 on: June 10, 2002, 07:04:58 PM »
Vapor.. Yeah, I think you\'re right about the dynasty one.  Thought about it a little, and figured.. what makes a good dynasty does boil down to how many titles they won in a row, and stuff like that.  Afterall 10 years from now, no one\'s really going to remember the little blips here and there anyhoo.

by 6 do you mean 7?
blah blah blah, blah blah blah
Oh just shut up and quit your gripin\'

Offline Fayded
  • POW
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: +10/-0
    • http://
NBA Finals: Lakers vs. Nets
« Reply #244 on: June 10, 2002, 07:05:28 PM »
No I mean 8. They won three straight, Jordan retires and the Rockets win 2 straight, then Jordan comes back and they win 3 straight again. They could have won 8 straight possibly.
[color=4682B4]
Who needs a signature?
[/color]
[/size]

Offline shockwaves
  • Read My Lips
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5288
  • Karma: +10/-0
NBA Finals: Lakers vs. Nets
« Reply #245 on: June 11, 2002, 06:32:06 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by \\/apor Snake
I think winning three championships in a row makes a dynasty, regardless of other factors.


I do not think three titles makes a dynasty.  No way.  To be a dynasty, you have the be the dominant team, and remain the dominant team for a much longer period than 3 years.  You have to constantly be the team everyone\'s gunning for.  The Bulls were a Dynasty.  The Lakers aren\'t yet.  In a year or two, probably.  If they were to lose Shaq and Kobe and not do much next year, I wouldn\'t consider the Lakers of the early 2000s a dynasty.
.::§hockwave§::.

Offline SwifDi
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9620
  • Karma: +10/-0
NBA Finals: Lakers vs. Nets
« Reply #246 on: June 11, 2002, 07:11:14 PM »
I\'m sure everyone has their own definition of dynasty. And the Lakers fall under mine.

Offline SER
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4437
  • Karma: +10/-0
NBA Finals: Lakers vs. Nets
« Reply #247 on: June 11, 2002, 08:35:00 PM »
Lakers are a dynasty too me..

Offline Fayded
  • POW
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: +10/-0
    • http://
NBA Finals: Lakers vs. Nets
« Reply #248 on: June 11, 2002, 08:39:42 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by \\/apor Snake
I\'m sure everyone has their own definition of dynasty. And the Lakers fall under mine.


I wonder why... :rolleyes:
[color=4682B4]
Who needs a signature?
[/color]
[/size]

Offline clowd
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2187
  • Karma: +10/-0
NBA Finals: Lakers vs. Nets
« Reply #249 on: June 11, 2002, 08:51:37 PM »
How many teams have won more then 3 titles in a row?

Offline Fayded
  • POW
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: +10/-0
    • http://
NBA Finals: Lakers vs. Nets
« Reply #250 on: June 11, 2002, 08:53:11 PM »
*me thinks*

I believe only the Celtics. They won somethin like 8 straight...
[color=4682B4]
Who needs a signature?
[/color]
[/size]

Offline clowd
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2187
  • Karma: +10/-0
NBA Finals: Lakers vs. Nets
« Reply #251 on: June 11, 2002, 08:56:11 PM »
So the Lakers are a dynasty

Offline Fayded
  • POW
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: +10/-0
    • http://
NBA Finals: Lakers vs. Nets
« Reply #252 on: June 11, 2002, 08:58:04 PM »
No they aren\'t, not yet. They\'ve been a great team for 3 years. That\'s not long enough. Say if they don\'t win the championship next year, but win it the next, then I think they\'ll be a dynasty. A team can\'t win 3 championships and be considered a dynasty.
[color=4682B4]
Who needs a signature?
[/color]
[/size]

Offline SwifDi
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9620
  • Karma: +10/-0
NBA Finals: Lakers vs. Nets
« Reply #253 on: June 11, 2002, 09:16:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Fayded
No they aren\'t, not yet. They\'ve been a great team for 3 years. That\'s not long enough. Say if they don\'t win the championship next year, but win it the next, then I think they\'ll be a dynasty. A team can\'t win 3 championships and be considered a dynasty.


Your talking like the definition of "dynasty" is in a dictionary under your guidelines.

It\'s all comes down to opinion. Every sports writer/announcer says they\'re a dynasty so go figure.

Offline kokopuphz
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
  • Karma: +10/-0
    • http://www.kokopuphz.com
NBA Finals: Lakers vs. Nets
« Reply #254 on: June 12, 2002, 01:03:01 AM »
The way I see it.. I figure the Lakers are damn close, if not already, a dynasty.  I figure past dynasties are teams which you look back at and say, \'darn that team was good for that amount of time\' kind of thing.  The Lakers in the 80s, the Celtics in the 60s, the Bulls in the 90s.  Those teams stood out as being brilliant.  It had star players that shined, they won championships, and they dominated most of the league.  Sure there were rivals at times, but other than those rivals, they dominated most of the league.

Now you look at the Lakers of late.  In my personal opinion, I think they\'re a great team.  I know I attempted to debate the other side of the issue, saying things like they dont have good role players, etc, but when you look at the entire package, they\'re one hell of a team.  when they want to win, they know they can win, and they do win.  They dominate any team other than Sacramento whenever they want to dominate.  I believe that it becomes a dynasty when from the start of the season, they are expected to win the entire thing.  And a lot of people expect them to be strong for at least 2 more years.  I believe they have a valid rival in the Kings, and they perhaps might not make it to the finals either next year or the year after, but they\'re definitely going to be on top of the league.

When you know a team is strong.. When you have a team that  so many people hate for being arrogant and dominating...  you definitely have a dynasty..  But then again, this is only my own opinion, and opinions of some other people.   And as Vapor said.. it all comes down to opinions.
blah blah blah, blah blah blah
Oh just shut up and quit your gripin\'

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk