ur definition of a dynasty

So? winning it 3 straight times is a dynasty..not matter how many times it's been done.

 

all the dynasties i was thinking of have been named. future dynasty: Spurs. if they sign JKidd or Jermaine Oneal or some other big man.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">some peole think that because 3 in a row has ben done like 3 times already.. so its been done before...</div>

So does that make the 80s Celtics three championships less impressive because they weren't consecutive?

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting "Alley-oop":</div><div class="quote_post"><div class="quote_poster">Quoting "B-Ball215":</div><div class="quote_post"><div class="quote_poster">Quoting "sportsrock37":</div><div class="quote_post">there's a lot of teams that could have a dynasty though, so i don't think that there will be a dynasty for awhile.

kings
mavs
lakers
spurs
pistons
nets
magic
pacers
bulls
nuggets
cavs
suns
warriors
blazers

that's about half the teams in the league right there. and i know i'm forgetting some.</div>
add the Raptors in there. </div>

:thumbsdown:

You better be kidding.</div>

kidding about my list or adding the raps in there.

 

they have the talent, they just don't play good together, they smoke together though.

 

I think the only real dynasties are:
- Minneapolis Lakers, 5 championships in 6 years from 1948 to 1954
- Boston Celtics, 11 championships in 13 years from 1956 to 1969
- Chicago Bulls, 6 championships in 8 years from 1990 to 1998

The current Lakers still do have a chance to be a dynasty, if they win next season. Other teams have not won at least 3 in a row... so I don't think you can call them a dynasty.

 

I think the 80s Lakers should count. They may not have won three in a row, but 5 titles in a decade is good enough.

 

I wouldn't call that a dynasty, because the Celtics had 3 titles during the same decade... and I don't think you can have 2 dynasties at the same time