|
|
 |
 |   |
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Video Plus Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities 
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE
|  |
Reactions: Lakers Dynasty Time will determine Lakers' legacyPosted: Monday June 18, 2001 6:44 PMUpdated: Monday June 18, 2001 6:44 PM After losing Game 1 to the Sixers, the Lakers regrouped and finished off their Eastern Conference opponents in five games to earn back-to-back NBA championships. Following the most dominating performance in NBA playoff history, we asked CNNSI.com users if the Lakers are a dynasty. A sample of the responses follow: The Lakers are just filling a void like the Rockets did. That ended for the Rockets with the return of Michael Jordan. Will history repeat itself?
The Lakers have several years to go before becoming a dynasty. According to Webster's Dictionary, dynasty means "a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time." Two years hardly qualifies as a considerable time. I think that three more appearances in the NBA Finals and they're a legitimate dynasty.
Two great years does not a dynasty make. The word "dynasty" implies greatness over a long period of time. Therefore, we can't call the Lakers a dynasty yet, no matter how much hype they generate. Let them win a few more titles with the new defensive rules, and then we'll see. Or better yet, let them try to win a title in a league in which Shaq gets the same treatment from the referees as everyone else. In that league, your dynasty would evaporate pretty quickly.
First of all, congratulations to my Lakers. I am a huge Lakers fan, but they are not a dynasty as of yet. If they stick together, they definitely have the players and the chemistry to become a dynasty. But two championships back-to-back are not enough to make them one. The Houston Rockets won back-to-back championships in 1994 and 1995, and no one considers them a dynasty.
The Lakers can't be called a dynasty by any stretch of the imagination yet. In my mind, they would have to win at least five or six titles during the Shaq/Kobe era to qualify. The Celtics of the '60s, the Lakers of the '80s and the Bulls of the '90s clearly qualified as legitimate dynasties. So the current Lakers have a ways to go to meet that standard, but they are well on their way.
If some can hail Tiger Woods as one of the greatest athletes of all time at such an early stage, I can hail the Lakers as one of the dynasties of basketball at this point and time.
Being a huge Lakers fan I have to say, slow down everyone! Let's just wait and see. I mean, give the kids a couple more years before we put the preverbial destiny crown on them. They have to earn that title, which is done with more than just two rings.
I just think it is so great to see a team like the Lakers seemingly creating a dynasty. Like the Celtics and, more recently, the Bulls, they are at the top of their collective games. I have been a Lakers fan for a long time, since before the days of Magic Johnson. And I think this is the best team they have ever put together.
For a team that is supposed to be the new dynasty, they had a pretty hard time dominating a team that was decimated by injuries and undersized. Magic's Lakers, Bird's Celtics and Jordan's Bulls -- those are true dynasties!
We are seeing a dynasty in the making. They have a young, spectacular group locked up for the next few years in Shaq, Kobe, Derek Fisher, Rick Fox and Robert Horry, to name a few. Barring injuries, I see the Lakers winning three of the next six championships, with Allen Iverson and Tracy McGrady in the mix. Sort of a throwback to the 1980s. Jordan, do not come back and make a fool of yourself.
|
