Archive

Would MJ win 6 rings in todays NBA?

  • SQ_Crazies
    You're right because I said I'm not going to have one. I still disagree.
  • KnightXC1
    Pistons for the decade probably had one of the top 2-3 records in the league (Lakers and Spurs), were the best team in the East for 5 straight years (Heat and Cavs teams that beat them were not better imo), went to the conference finals 6 straight years (unprecedented in sports today), finals 2 straight years, and won a championship. They could and should be considered a dynasty of the last the decade and were one of the best franchises in the league over that 10 year period.
  • Rotinaj
    Gotta win more than 1 ring in 10 years to be considered a dynasty.
  • hoops23
    KnightXC1 wrote: Pistons for the decade probably had one of the top 2-3 records in the league (Lakers and Spurs), were the best team in the East for 5 straight years (Heat and Cavs teams that beat them were not better imo), went to the conference finals 6 straight years (unprecedented in sports today), finals 2 straight years, and won a championship. They could and should be considered a dynasty of the last the decade and were one of the best franchises in the league over that 10 year period.
    Sorry, like I said, dynasties are reserved for teams that actually win a string of League championships, like the Lakers of early 2000.

    I'd even consider the Spurs a dynasty, seeing as they won 4 championships in 8 or 9 years I believe..

    The Pistons won one championship and really, dominated a weak eastern conference. Then, as you admitted, lost to teams in successive years that were not a better "TEAM" than they were. So no, that's not a dynasty.
  • SQ_Crazies
    There it is! They dominated a weak EC.

    Hahaha, do you know how stupid that sounds coming from a Cavs fan that loves to talk about how we made the Finals in '07 and shoot down anyone who says the East was weak? Why did we always say that? Because it doesn't matter, you made it that deep and you've earned it.
  • jpake1
    I'm with you LTrain and I can't possibly phathom how somebody could call the Pistons a dynasty. All due respect.. it's a bit stupid to even think that. They won ONE championship. I think people need to get a clue what a dynasty actually is. UCLA back in the day. The Bulls with Jordan. The Lakers with Shaq. The Pats with Brady. They won ONE title. They won TWO conference championships. They got there 6 years in a row or whatever it was. That is impressive stuff, but soooo far from a dynasty. The term dynasty is reserved for GREATNESS, not the very good. I can't even say they had a hold on the eastern conference for the simply fact they only won it twice.
  • KnightXC1
    2 of the 4 years they went to the conference finals, they lost to the eventual NBA Champion, both times in 6 games. I guess if you want to define dynasty as only winning League Championships then maybe they weren't a dynasty. But to dismiss the fact that they were a great, successful franchise that did something you might not see again for a long time (6 straight conference finals), is a little bit out there.

    If the Cavs do the same thing over the next 5 years and only win once, I don't want to hear any Cavs fans claiming dynasty ;)
  • ThumperAC
    there is less talent in the NBA today, he would win at least as many
  • jpake1
    KnightXC1 wrote: 2 of the 4 years they went to the conference finals, they lost to the eventual NBA Champion, both times in 6 games. I guess if you want to define dynasty as only winning League Championships then maybe they weren't a dynasty. But to dismiss the fact that they were a great, successful franchise that did something you might not see again for a long time (6 straight conference finals), is a little bit out there.

    If the Cavs do the same thing over the next 5 years and only win once, I don't want to hear any Cavs fans claiming dynasty ;)
    Who is dismissing them? I called them very good and pointed out their achievments. As good as they were, that is not what a dynasty is. You actually have to be the best more than 1 time. Using conference championships is just a bush league way of going about it IMO.
  • SQ_Crazies
    I said they had an Eastern Conference dynasty and it turned into this...lmao...
  • 2quik4u
    EC dynasty is like 4th place in the west
  • SQ_Crazies
    2quik4u wrote: EC dynasty is like 4th place in the west
    We've heard this song and dance before--yet teams from the East continue to win titles.
  • 2quik4u
    3 in the decade congrats
  • SQ_Crazies
    How'd the West do in the 90's?
  • SQ_Crazies
    Lakers/Spurs. They were both blessed with good, long-term talent. Doesn't have shit to do with the conference.

    The rest of the conference has been overrated the entire time.
  • 2quik4u
    SQ_Crazies wrote: How'd the West do in the 90's?
    well according to you the 90's sucked compared to now, so who gives a shit
  • Al Bundy
    Doesn't the Nets "dynasty" also have 2 conference titles for decade?
  • hoops23
    SQ_Crazies wrote: I said they had an Eastern Conference dynasty and it turned into this...lmao...
    No, it actually turned into this because of a comment Knight made, then I responded back to him...

    THEN, you went ape shit about the whole situation.
  • SQ_Crazies
    Wrong sweetheart, check again. He and I were having the conversation--you're the one who butted in and had a problem with someone calling it a dynasty.
  • Footwedge
    HighRoller74 wrote: Harris did last season.

    And I wouldn't say the are perrenial doormats either.

    They did go to the Championship game 2 times in the 00's.
    Not for quite awhile. This will be their 3rd straight year missing the playoffs and picking lottery players.
  • SQ_Crazies
    Well the original point was that they're the worst team in the league and they have 2 AS caliber players. Like he said, Harris did last year. Lopez is definitely an AS level player.
  • Footwedge
    mallymal614 wrote:
    SQ_Crazies wrote: Bahahahahaha?! Shaq??? Shaq used to be a good athlete but he was never in his life anywhere near at athletic as Dwight Howard. It wasn't about who was the better player--keep up with the conversation junior..
    I guess people forgot what a freak of nature Shaq was. He didn't really become a power guy until he went to LA. But with the Magic, he use to put on shows. I don't even recall Dwight leading a fast break like a point guard as Shaq did. Shaq may have been stronger and jumped as high (remember we are talking about young Shaq). Let me refresh yall memories.

    Watching Shaq doing facials over Robert Parrish and Kevin McHale brings back the reality of just how old Shaq is.
  • Footwedge
    SQ_Crazies wrote: Well the original point was that they're the worst team in the league and they have 2 AS caliber players. Like he said, Harris did last year. Lopez is definitely an AS level player.
    What does that tell you about the rest of the Nets' team? Obviously, if the league weren't so dilluted down, then the Nets would not be 10 and 90.
  • SQ_Crazies
    LMAO. Look at old rosters...
  • hoops23
    Nets have two all star level players.

    The league is so damn deep it's great to watch.

    Minny has Al Jefferson, not to mention some young talent like Love, Flynn, and Brewer.. (some nights Ellington)

    I mean honestly, you could go down the list and see players who are budding all stars on terrible teams.