Boston Celtics Dynasty
- Thread starter Nors
- Start date
Nors
Benched
- Messages
- 22,015
- Reaction score
- 1
Read the initial post in the thread copied below, I said if the Celtics win 2 to 3 more championships would you consider them a dynasty? This is a discussion board 
Boston Celtics Dynasty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They have the 1st.
Say The Big 3 wins another 2-3 would they be considered a Dynasty? If they can do that they are at Par or > 80's Celtics - jmo.
Garnett and Pierce have at least another 3-4 years left and Ray Allen is so cagy and a pure shooter that I can see him still playinh well a few more years.
With 22 year old Point guard Rajon Rondo emerging into an All Star this team could make a run.
__________________
Boston Celtics Dynasty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They have the 1st.
Say The Big 3 wins another 2-3 would they be considered a Dynasty? If they can do that they are at Par or > 80's Celtics - jmo.
Garnett and Pierce have at least another 3-4 years left and Ray Allen is so cagy and a pure shooter that I can see him still playinh well a few more years.
With 22 year old Point guard Rajon Rondo emerging into an All Star this team could make a run.
__________________
Bob Sacamano
Benched
- Messages
- 57,084
- Reaction score
- 3
look at Nors boasting about a team from a worthless sport
noone gives 2 ****s about the NBA
noone gives 2 ****s about the NBA
MC KAos
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 7,500
- Reaction score
- 39
i like the nba, but thats neither here nor there. in defense of nors, he was asking a hypothetical question. if this celtics team wins 2 or 3 more then yes, they would be a dynasty. if this spurs team won 2 or 3 more duncan might go down as the most dominant big man ever, but it hasnt happened so there really is no poing in dicussing it.
Nors
Benched
- Messages
- 22,015
- Reaction score
- 1
MC KAos;2143321 said:
I'm not sure anyone can ever beat what Bill Russell accomplished as a Big Man. Duncan wins a few more he is getting there.
In my lifetime Kareem was as good as I ever saw, missed Russell years and Hakeem in his prime maybe as dominant as there was.
Duncan in that stratosphere but what I saw this year, his game is falling off......He was never very Athletic and with age - he could have issues.
ABQCOWBOY
Regular Joe....
- Messages
- 58,929
- Reaction score
- 27,716
If I had to list Big Mean, I'd probably go:
Kareem
Hakeem
Russell
Wilt
Shaq
Moses
Duncan
Robinson
Hays
Bob Pettit
I never felt like Walton was as good as a lot of people. He was good early but too often injured IMO. George Mikan was a great player and considered the best player of the first half of the history of the NBA. Ewing was also a great player but too limited offensively IMO. He could sure play defense thou. There are some guys who played the post but can't be considered big mean. Karl Malone is better then a lot of guys on that list but he wasn't very big. Same with Charles and Baylor. Bird was a great player and at 6-9, tall but not a big man. Chief and McHale were both great post players as well but not on the list IMO. Anyway, that's my list.
Kareem
Hakeem
Russell
Wilt
Shaq
Moses
Duncan
Robinson
Hays
Bob Pettit
I never felt like Walton was as good as a lot of people. He was good early but too often injured IMO. George Mikan was a great player and considered the best player of the first half of the history of the NBA. Ewing was also a great player but too limited offensively IMO. He could sure play defense thou. There are some guys who played the post but can't be considered big mean. Karl Malone is better then a lot of guys on that list but he wasn't very big. Same with Charles and Baylor. Bird was a great player and at 6-9, tall but not a big man. Chief and McHale were both great post players as well but not on the list IMO. Anyway, that's my list.