- 15,437
- 182
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
NBA Teams vol Rushmore
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by CP1708,
- Start date
- 2,999
- 298
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
No, it wouldn't have.
- 3,449
- 37
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- 4,058
- 11
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
Dont underestimate the Knicks.
NY is the Mecca of bball, and those teams in the 70s were some of the GOATs. Also the 90s Knicks could have won i would say at least 3 chips if they were inany other era, they had some good @%%*$#@ teams.
I would say that order is dead on.
- 3,449
- 37
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
1.Lakers
2.Lakers
3.Lakers
only team in the NBA that has won a championship in every decade (except the 60's)
2.Lakers
3.Lakers
only team in the NBA that has won a championship in every decade (except the 60's)
- 324
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
1.Bulls
2.Lakers
3.Celts
4. San Antonio
akajae
formerly akajaedeuce
- 19,123
- 28,435
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
1. lakers
2. celtics
3. bulls
2. celtics
3. bulls
- 3,831
- 59
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
1. Lakers
2. Celtics
3. Bulls
4. San Antonio
I put Lakers above Celtics not only because i'm a fan, but because the Lakers have won championships or been competitive every decade. The Celticsdominated an early NBA period, left for a decade, then returned to prominence in the 80's, then disappeared for another 20 years up until this year.
Celtics are above the Bulls because the bulls only dominated the 90's, but before and after, not so much.
Spurs and Lakers dominated the 00 era, so you have to put them up there, but after the Bulls because they haven't won back to back, let alone have 2three-peats (which the Lakers did once).
2. Celtics
3. Bulls
4. San Antonio
I put Lakers above Celtics not only because i'm a fan, but because the Lakers have won championships or been competitive every decade. The Celticsdominated an early NBA period, left for a decade, then returned to prominence in the 80's, then disappeared for another 20 years up until this year.
Celtics are above the Bulls because the bulls only dominated the 90's, but before and after, not so much.
Spurs and Lakers dominated the 00 era, so you have to put them up there, but after the Bulls because they haven't won back to back, let alone have 2three-peats (which the Lakers did once).
- 2,612
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
The Lakers didn't win one in the '90s.
- 15,762
- 517
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2005
Beat me to it
The celtics fan is correct
- 8,526
- 16
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
just thought i'd bring this in as more fuel for the arguments. i found these for the most part from another site, made some modifications
All-Time Teams:
Lakers
PG - Magic Johnson
SG - Kobe Bryant (for "greatness" factor)/Jerry West (for "legendary" factor)
SF - Elgin Baylor
PF - AC Green
C- Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Bench:
Shaq
Wilt Chamberlain
James Worthy
Celtics
PG - Bob Cousy
SG - Reggie Lewis
SF - Larry Bird
PF - Kevin McHale
C- Bill Russell
Bench:
John Havlicek
Paul Pierce
Robert Parrish
Knicks
PG - Walt Frazier
SG - John Starks
SF - Bernard King
PF - Dave Debusschere
C- Patrick Ewing
Bench:
Stephon Marbury
Charles Oakley
Willis Reed
Earl Monroe
Bill Bradley
Allan Houston
Bulls
PG - John Paxson
SG - Michael Jordan
SF - Scottie Pippen
PF - Dennis Rodman
C- Artis Gilmore
Bench:
Ben Wallace
Horace Grant
Toni Kukoc
Ron Harper
Bob Love & Jerry Sloan
just so you can go off of historical teams as well. if you go solely off of this, IMO it's Lakers #1, Celtics #2, Knicks #3, Bulls #4. but i don'tagree with that, rosters are only a factor. there should be no question that overall it's
Lakers
Celtics
Bulls
Knicks
All-Time Teams:
Lakers
PG - Magic Johnson
SG - Kobe Bryant (for "greatness" factor)/Jerry West (for "legendary" factor)
SF - Elgin Baylor
PF - AC Green
C- Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Bench:
Shaq
Wilt Chamberlain
James Worthy
Celtics
PG - Bob Cousy
SG - Reggie Lewis
SF - Larry Bird
PF - Kevin McHale
C- Bill Russell
Bench:
John Havlicek
Paul Pierce
Robert Parrish
Knicks
PG - Walt Frazier
SG - John Starks
SF - Bernard King
PF - Dave Debusschere
C- Patrick Ewing
Bench:
Stephon Marbury
Charles Oakley
Willis Reed
Earl Monroe
Bill Bradley
Allan Houston
Bulls
PG - John Paxson
SG - Michael Jordan
SF - Scottie Pippen
PF - Dennis Rodman
C- Artis Gilmore
Bench:
Ben Wallace
Horace Grant
Toni Kukoc
Ron Harper
Bob Love & Jerry Sloan
just so you can go off of historical teams as well. if you go solely off of this, IMO it's Lakers #1, Celtics #2, Knicks #3, Bulls #4. but i don'tagree with that, rosters are only a factor. there should be no question that overall it's
Lakers
Celtics
Bulls
Knicks
- 1,007
- 71
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
are knicks that really better or equal to bulls? the only thing they got going for them is city itself. and titles from a long time ago.
For me it's
1.Celtics
2.Lakers
3.Bulls
4a. Pistons
4b. Spurs
For me it's
1.Celtics
2.Lakers
3.Bulls
4a. Pistons
4b. Spurs
- 3,347
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2007
Ben Wallace
- 4,058
- 11
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
Originally Posted by DOWNTOWN43
Knicks
PG - Walt Frazier
SG - Allan Houston
SF - Bernard King
PF - Charles Oakley
C- Patrick Ewing
Bench:
Stephon Marbury
Willis Reed
Earl Monroe
Bill Bradley
and
I mean it allowed us to put Willis at center instead of Walt Bellamy where he became one of the greatest to ever play and the first player of all time to winRegular Season, all Star, and Finals MVP in the same season in 1970. DeBusschere was a machine on the glass and a great defender. I love Oak but i wouldhonestly put Dave at our starting PF considering he was kinda like an old school Oak and he won 2 rings and he was the guy that put us over the hump. i meanunless you want to put Reed at PF considering he was only 6'9 and would have to play there today, but willis was a MUCH better C than PF and he was able tobang low with the bigger guys (a la beaating wilt in the finals twice and earning MVP both times) because he was so skilled and so tough.
But i would agree with you on the rest except for moving Starks to our SG or at least even on the list, and same with DeBusschere.
- 3,347
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2007
^ damn I didn't even notice Starks wasn't on that list at all
True, but it was the 99-00 season they won.Originally Posted by FrenchBlue23
Beat me to it
The celtics fan is correctj/k
And had Magic not retired in 91, they would have been in there over the Blazers and Suns and given it another run. The Lakers MO for the whole decade of the80's was when they lost, add a peice here or there and come back strong. The year Magic retired they had brought in Sedale Threat to take pressure offMagic and give them another PG for when Scottie guarded Magic. Threat went on to lead the Lakers in scoring for the next two years, so he would havecontributed. Damn shame.
- 8,526
- 16
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
oh @@!*, i forgot to edit out Ben Wallace after i copied
anyways im not gonna argue about the teams, its not the point of the thread. i'll change it one last time, i guess
btw damn GR8, somebody knows their Knicks history
anyways im not gonna argue about the teams, its not the point of the thread. i'll change it one last time, i guess
btw damn GR8, somebody knows their Knicks history
- 3,347
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2007
^I was wondering what happened
but I'd also add Bob Love & Jerry Sloan to the Bulls list.....
but I'd also add Bob Love & Jerry Sloan to the Bulls list.....
- 5,140
- 12
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
Celtics
Lakers
Bulls
Spurs
knicks dont belong anywhere near there.
people give the knicks too much credit just because they are in the largest market. and its a very bball oriented fanbase.
on that subject theres no damn way msg should be considered the 'mecca of basketball '.
Lakers
Bulls
Spurs
knicks dont belong anywhere near there.
people give the knicks too much credit just because they are in the largest market. and its a very bball oriented fanbase.
on that subject theres no damn way msg should be considered the 'mecca of basketball '.
- 3,347
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2007
- 4,058
- 11
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
Please the Knicks were elite for the entire 1990s and no doubt they get rings if MJ wasnt there. i mean they didnt but they still had some amazing teams thatwere even better than MJ's Bulls in the reg seasson at times and had gruling playoff series with him year in and out, and were nearly unbeatable at thGarden. Plus they were led by one of the games best ever centers and one of the games best competitors alongg with some other tugh competitors. And in the 70sthose teams were some of the GOATs, and beat out chamberlain twice because they were tough and played as a team. They were a team that played the game that allcoaches woud want to play if they had their choice. plus they had some all time greats as well.
Maybe the Spurs have a ring or 2 more than the Knicks but in terms of history the Knicks are a clear #4 after Lakers, Celtics, Bulls. A few good years in themillenium dont make up for the Knicks long history, and also rings dont tell the whole story about the 1990s Knicks teams.
- 2,612
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
Originally Posted by CP1708
True, but it was the 99-00 season they won.Originally Posted by FrenchBlue23
Beat me to it
The celtics fan is correctj/k
And had Magic not retired in 91, they would have been in there over the Blazers and Suns and given it another run. The Lakers MO for the whole decade of the 80's was when they lost, add a peice here or there and come back strong. The year Magic retired they had brought in Sedale Threat to take pressure off Magic and give them another PG for when Scottie guarded Magic. Threat went on to lead the Lakers in scoring for the next two years, so he would have contributed. Damn shame.
blah blah blah...If Len Bias didn't die..If Reggie Lewis didn't die..If Larry didn't have a bad back..If the Celtics didn't get screwedoutta Duncan..
Every team can make excuses.
- 8,139
- 88
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
no doubt they get rings if MJ wasnt there.
Now that we got that cleared up
EDIT -
9,800 posts
OMGZ
Could it be a sign from Mike
- 5,140
- 12
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
you seem to be basing most of that on the 90's knicks.
well the spurs past decade is arguably (though theres not much of an argument) better than the knicks 90's.
im guessing the first response will be 'quality of play and player', however i believe that argument is irrelevant.
at any given time in any given era the NBA is always a collection of the best players in the world and to win a chip even once regardless of era is quite afeat.
well the spurs past decade is arguably (though theres not much of an argument) better than the knicks 90's.
im guessing the first response will be 'quality of play and player', however i believe that argument is irrelevant.
at any given time in any given era the NBA is always a collection of the best players in the world and to win a chip even once regardless of era is quite afeat.
- 3,347
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2007
Stringer
