If The Heat 3Peat,Where Do They Rank Among The ALL Time Great NBA Dynastys?

[Rose'sACL]

if they beat thunder again then they would be one of the best given how talented OKC is. like magic and bird, bron and kd would be a great matchup to see.
Bron is already in top 10 all time and KD looks like he will get there to most probably. If KD does go on and ends up as a top 10 player all time then heat's rings would look better even though spurs are a tougher matchup for heat but 20 years from now, most people would not know that.
This is what i missed during 90s. 2 top 10 all time caliber players going against each other in the finals.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Lumping the 00-02 Lakers with the 08-10 Lakers would be like lumping the 06 Heat with the 11-14 Heat. Way too much time in between passed and too many of the major players changed.

the guy was lumping together decades, 90 bulls, 2000's Lakers..

it's not about the players it's about the organization.. the 2000 Spurs are considered a dynasty and have had mutliple rosters with only a few constants just like the 2000 Lakers and 90's BUlls

[TheMarkMadsen]

Once again, you prove your stupidity. The 3peat Lakers and the '08-'11 Lakers are completely different. You can't just club those runs together and call them a dynasty as a whole. They ****ing missed the playoffs during that stretch and even got knocked out in the first rounds.

you reeek of insecurity, anytime somebody disagrees with you you'll automatically call them stupid or something, grow up dude.


the 90's Bulls and the 2000 Lakers shared similar success, Bulls were obviously more successful..

however when boiled down the Bulls won 6 titles in the 90's and the Lakers won 5 from 00-10.. not a huge difference, to act like comparing the two franchise's success during that period is "the dumbest thing said on ISH" just shows how petty you are when it comes to giving credit to a team that you weren't a fan of.

[guy]

the guy was lumping together decades, 90 bulls, 2000's Lakers..

it's not about the players it's about the organization.. the 2000 Spurs are considered a dynasty and have had mutliple rosters with only a few constants just like the 2000 Lakers and 90's BUlls

I wouldn't really consider the Spurs a dynasty for a number of reasons. I don't know. Obviously there's no set definition on what a dynasty is. The late 00s Lakers just felt much more like a different team then the early 00s Lakers. I guess it just has to do with Shaq because he was such a dominating presence on that team. Same thing goes for the 06 Heat and current Heat because the 06 Heat don't have Lebron. Not to mention so much time in between.

[TheMarkMadsen]

I wouldn't really consider the Spurs a dynasty for a number of reasons. I don't know. Obviously there's no set definition on what a dynasty is. The late 00s Lakers just felt much more like a different team then the early 00s Lakers. I guess it just has to do with Shaq because he was such a dominating presence on that team. Same thing goes for the 06 Heat and current Heat because the 06 Heat don't have Lebron. Not to mention so much time in between.

well neither do I since they never won b2b, but it seems to be the popular opinion on ISH that they are a dynasty.

and yeah the early 2000 Lakers and late 2000 Lakers are very different, Kobe, Pjax & Fish being the only constant.

The way i'm looking at it is (and the way I believe ImKobe was looking at it) would be 'Did organization X do enough during X time period to be considered "dynasty" worthy'

[Nash]

3 peat and 4 straight finals? High.

[NumberSix]

1. Celtics
2. Bulls
3. Heat

[fpliii]

What's a dynasty? 3 or more rings with the same core? So, chronologically:

1) Mikan Lakers
2) Russell Celtics
(ABA: Indiana Pacers)
3) Showtime Lakers
4) Bird Celtics
5) Jordan Bulls (should we consider the threepeats separately?)
6) Duncan Spurs (does 99 count?)
7) Kobe-Shaq Lakers
8) Current Heat

Am I missing any?

[HOoopCityJones]

1. Celtics
2. Bulls
3. Heat

15-1 son.

Your boys aren't even in the same ball park.

[TheMarkMadsen]

What's a dynasty? 3 or more rings with the same core? So, chronologically:

1) Mikan Lakers
2) Russell Celtics
(ABA: Indiana Pacers)
3) Showtime Lakers
4) Bird Celtics
5) Jordan Bulls (should we consider the threepeats separately?)
6) Duncan Spurs (does 99 count?)
7) Kobe-Shaq Lakers
8) Current Heat

Am I missing any:

Before ever getting on ISH i remember thinking that there was somewhat of a consensus that the 99 season deserved an *. I remember back in before 03 the Spurs & Duncan were always slighted when that 99 ring was brought up and many people thought the entire season, not just the champs, deserved an *

I think that most of that talk slowly went away as the Spurs won in 03 & 05, but that year was quite literally not like any other year prior, which allowed for some pretty fluky things to happen

plus the way the scheduling was set up was a joke, it absolutly killed veteran teams like the Jazz who would have benefited greatly if they had played the regular, more spaced out 82 game season..

[NumberSix]

15-1 son.

Your boys aren't even in the same ball park.

4 straight finals doe.

[Solefade]

2002 lakers got a gift wrapped ring from tim donaghy and co. so nope.

1. Bulls
2. Celtics/Heat
3. Celtics/Heat

[Suguru101]

What's a dynasty? 3 or more rings with the same core? So, chronologically:

1) Mikan Lakers
2) Russell Celtics
(ABA: Indiana Pacers)
3) Showtime Lakers
4) Bird Celtics
5) Jordan Bulls (should we consider the threepeats separately?)
6) Duncan Spurs (does 99 count?)
7) Kobe-Shaq Lakers
8) Current Heat

Am I missing any?

How would the Bird Celtics rank higher than the Heat if they 3-peat? And Russell's Celtics should be number one on all lists... 8 straight.

[fpliii]

Before ever getting on ISH i remember thinking that there was somewhat of a consensus that the 99 season deserved an *. I remember back in before 03 the Spurs & Duncan were always slighted when that 99 ring was brought up and many people thought the entire season, not just the champs, deserved an *

I think that most of that talk slowly went away as the Spurs won in 03 & 05, but that year was quite literally not like any other year prior, which allowed for some pretty fluky things to happen

plus the way the scheduling was set up was a joke, it absolutly killed veteran teams like the Jazz who would have benefited greatly if they had played the regular, more spaced out 82 game season..

Oh no, you misunderstood me. I think the regular season deserves an *, but I'm strongly opposed to one for the playoffs. They played the entire postseason, it's good enough for me (I understand if you disagree, though).

My point was that the core wasn't all there (that was present for the other three rings), and Robinson was arguably as important as Duncan on the 99 team (or at least close).

[fpliii]

How would the Bird Celtics rank higher than the Heat if they 3-peat? And Russell's Celtics should be number one on all lists... 8 straight.

As I said:

What's a dynasty? 3 or more rings with the same core? So, chronologically:

1) Mikan Lakers
2) Russell Celtics
(ABA: Indiana Pacers)
3) Showtime Lakers
4) Bird Celtics
5) Jordan Bulls (should we consider the threepeats separately?)
6) Duncan Spurs (does 99 count?)
7) Kobe-Shaq Lakers
8) Current Heat

Am I missing any?

I didn't rank them. Though with regards to the Celtics, I personally think the 86 team is the GOAT, so there's that argument.