Blackout Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 which one is the #1 franchise in NBA history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toon88 Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Best/Most Successful/Most Historical Franchise in each sport, in my opinion: Baseball: Yankees Football: Cowboys Basketball: Celtics Hockey: Canadiens Think they are all pretty obvious, with the only debatable one being the Cowboys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted December 26, 2007 Author Share Posted December 26, 2007 but the Lakers and Celtics are close. what makes you choose them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toon88 Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 but the Lakers and Celtics are close. what makes you choose them 16 banners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted December 27, 2007 Author Share Posted December 27, 2007 people will say the lakers had more "dynasties" than the c's did though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 people will say the lakers had more "dynasties" than the c's did though How so? The Celtics were a dynasty in the '60's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 I'm going with the Lakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted December 27, 2007 Author Share Posted December 27, 2007 i dont agere with the lakers but my friends telling me they are i say the C's though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaspegs Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 DEFINATELY LAKERS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K2C Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 I think rooting for Boston teams automatically makes people live in the past. It's great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toon88 Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 I think rooting for Boston teams automatically makes people live in the past. It's great. uh, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyjunc Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 Boston obviously has the lead in titles but it's close, 16-14. The deciding factor I think is that Boston won most of it's Chapionships in the early stages of the NBA when there weren't many teams. Boston probably still has the edge b/c they beat the Lakers many tims for Championships but the Lakers are right on their heels and w as much hype as this Celtic team is getting I'll bet the Lakers win another title before the Celtics do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 celtics just had a statement game. went into staples center and blew out the Lakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 Boston obviously has the lead in titles but it's close, 16-14. The deciding factor I think is that Boston won most of it's Chapionships in the early stages of the NBA when there weren't many teams. Boston probably still has the edge b/c they beat the Lakers many tims for Championships but the Lakers are right on their heels and w as much hype as this Celtic team is getting I'll bet the Lakers win another title before the Celtics do. I give the nod to the Lakers. The Lakers won 5 titles inMinneapolis. If the Celtics did not go through the last 15 years of being a pretty horrible team, I would say them. However, the Lakers are only two titles behind and have lost like 10 or so Finals. I think that puches them ahead in the overall picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyjunc Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 I give the nod to the Lakers. The Lakers won 5 titles inMinneapolis. If the Celtics did not go through the last 15 years of being a pretty horrible team, I would say them. However, the Lakers are only two titles behind and have lost like 10 or so Finals. I think that puches them ahead in the overall picture. Either way they are very close and the NBA was much better when the Lakers and Celtics were competing for Championships nearly every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted January 2, 2008 Author Share Posted January 2, 2008 Boston obviously has the lead in titles but it's close, 16-14. The deciding factor I think is that Boston won most of it's Chapionships in the early stages of the NBA when there weren't many teams. Boston probably still has the edge b/c they beat the Lakers many tims for Championships but the Lakers are right on their heels and w as much hype as this Celtic team is getting I'll bet the Lakers win another title before the Celtics do. cocaines a hell of a drug huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyjunc Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 cocaines a hell of a drug huh? Thanks for the great contribution to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonnieLott#1HeadBuster42 Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 which one is the #1 franchise in NBA history? Any case can be made for LA, Or Boston......The Bulls and the run they had in the 1990's and the players they had....can be thrown in the convo after Boston and LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 Thanks for the great contribution to the discussion. no problem nyjunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 LAKERS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 LAKERS over the Celtics. Other than that I agree with Toon : Baseball, Yankees ; Hockey , Montreal ; Football, Cowboys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 How so? The Celtics were a dynasty in the '60's. Right. That's his point . There were a lot fewer teams, less traveling then so things were a bit easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildthing2022000 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Right. That's his point . There were a lot fewer teams, less traveling then so things were a bit easier. So, fewer teams = better teams. Could you imagine the talent level of the league today with only 10-12 teams? The Celtics won 8 consecutive titles in an era with some of the best players to ever play the game. Every team would have at least 2-3 All-Star level players and to have just 1 team dominate an entire decade is unthinkable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 less teams means it's easier to dominate, not harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildthing2022000 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 less teams means it's easier to dominate, not harder. how is it easier? It would be harder because other teams will see you enough to exploit your weaknesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.