NBA Talk
June 25th 2007 13:55
The NBA season is all over and the next phase is the draft. But back to the Finals. It was a dud and yes I was wrong. I thought the Spurs would win in five yet predictably they swept. Stupid me.
The Spurs will go down as an NBA dynasty. They have better claims then the Lakers (200-02), and the Celtics of the 1980s never won back-to-back. With four titles in nine seasons the Spurs are one of the great teams in modern history. They rank behind the Bulls (90s), Lakers (80s) and Celtics (50/60s) and are on par with the 80s Celtics. But they are in front of the Lakers (00s) and Pistons (88-91).
Tim Duncan is probably the most underrated superstar in NBA history. With a fourth ring (and he should have won a fourth finals MVP) he is the best player since Michael Jordan left the Bulls in 1998.
Duncan is better than Shaq. O’Neal is more dominant because of his imposing physique but Duncan is more consistent, plays better defence and exhibits better leadership. Both have won four rings but Duncan has been in the league five seasons less. Shaq won’t win another ring, Duncan will win another two and equal MJ’s six. By the time Duncan’s career is over he will clearly be ranked in the top ten players of all-time.
I am a lover of old school basketball- 80s and 90s. I love the teams that dominated that era- Celtics, Lakers and Bulls. All three teams haven’t really been relevant in recent times, even though the Bulls are building a nice nucleus of young talent.
But the Bulls don’t have a marquee player. They haven’t had one since MJ, Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman left in 1998. If Kobe Bryant is leaving LA then I hope his next destination is Chicago.
It could be like the Bulls of old. Bryant is the closest player to MJ and having him in a Bulls uniform will seem like the good old days. With Bryant, the Bulls will probably win the insipid East and who knows what Kobe could do in a finals series.
I love the Lakers of the 1980s but loathed the version from earlier this decade. I haven’t been a huge Shaq fan even from his Orlando days, but do quite like him with the Heat and did support them against Dallas in the 2006 Finals. I didn’t like the Shaq/Bryant/Jackson Lakers because I felt they were selfish and unlike the other great teams didn’t play hard for the full 82 games of the regular season. I like Phil but thought he got a bit arrogant during his LA days, after his success with in Chicago.
I love the Celtics but not from the last few years. I love the old school Celtics- the tradition, Red Auerbach, Boston Garden, Johnny Most and their success. All of the above is gone. The Celtics are just another team; they no longer have any mystique and their lady luck is gone.
The lottery seemed to perhaps represent a chance for a new chance of a golden era for the Celtics- which has been absent since Larry Bird retired in 1992. Unfortunately Boston- even though they had the second worst record- missed out on the Greg Oden/Kevin Durant sweepstakes and are consigned for more misery.
Seeing Duncan lift his fourth championship must have put a dagger though Boston fans. It could easily have been a Boston dynasty not the Spurs had the Celtics won the Duncan lottery from ten years ago.
Yep Boston appears curse ever since Len Bias died in 1986- the year of the Celtics 16th and last championship. There is one last chance of credibility. Get Kevin Garnett, who apparently wants out of Minnesota. A Garnett/ Paul Pierce combo has a nice touch to it and could do some damage in such a weak conference.
Many people are opposed to it (least of all Garnett) and it may not work but at least for a while- even if it is a fleeting moment- the Boston Celtics will once again be relevant in the NBA.
And that is the way it should be. The NBA needs a strong Celtics, Lakers, Bills and even Knicks if it is going to flourish.
The Spurs will go down as an NBA dynasty. They have better claims then the Lakers (200-02), and the Celtics of the 1980s never won back-to-back. With four titles in nine seasons the Spurs are one of the great teams in modern history. They rank behind the Bulls (90s), Lakers (80s) and Celtics (50/60s) and are on par with the 80s Celtics. But they are in front of the Lakers (00s) and Pistons (88-91).
Tim Duncan is probably the most underrated superstar in NBA history. With a fourth ring (and he should have won a fourth finals MVP) he is the best player since Michael Jordan left the Bulls in 1998.
Duncan is better than Shaq. O’Neal is more dominant because of his imposing physique but Duncan is more consistent, plays better defence and exhibits better leadership. Both have won four rings but Duncan has been in the league five seasons less. Shaq won’t win another ring, Duncan will win another two and equal MJ’s six. By the time Duncan’s career is over he will clearly be ranked in the top ten players of all-time.
I am a lover of old school basketball- 80s and 90s. I love the teams that dominated that era- Celtics, Lakers and Bulls. All three teams haven’t really been relevant in recent times, even though the Bulls are building a nice nucleus of young talent.
But the Bulls don’t have a marquee player. They haven’t had one since MJ, Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman left in 1998. If Kobe Bryant is leaving LA then I hope his next destination is Chicago.
It could be like the Bulls of old. Bryant is the closest player to MJ and having him in a Bulls uniform will seem like the good old days. With Bryant, the Bulls will probably win the insipid East and who knows what Kobe could do in a finals series.
I love the Lakers of the 1980s but loathed the version from earlier this decade. I haven’t been a huge Shaq fan even from his Orlando days, but do quite like him with the Heat and did support them against Dallas in the 2006 Finals. I didn’t like the Shaq/Bryant/Jackson Lakers because I felt they were selfish and unlike the other great teams didn’t play hard for the full 82 games of the regular season. I like Phil but thought he got a bit arrogant during his LA days, after his success with in Chicago.
I love the Celtics but not from the last few years. I love the old school Celtics- the tradition, Red Auerbach, Boston Garden, Johnny Most and their success. All of the above is gone. The Celtics are just another team; they no longer have any mystique and their lady luck is gone.
The lottery seemed to perhaps represent a chance for a new chance of a golden era for the Celtics- which has been absent since Larry Bird retired in 1992. Unfortunately Boston- even though they had the second worst record- missed out on the Greg Oden/Kevin Durant sweepstakes and are consigned for more misery.
Seeing Duncan lift his fourth championship must have put a dagger though Boston fans. It could easily have been a Boston dynasty not the Spurs had the Celtics won the Duncan lottery from ten years ago.
Yep Boston appears curse ever since Len Bias died in 1986- the year of the Celtics 16th and last championship. There is one last chance of credibility. Get Kevin Garnett, who apparently wants out of Minnesota. A Garnett/ Paul Pierce combo has a nice touch to it and could do some damage in such a weak conference.
Many people are opposed to it (least of all Garnett) and it may not work but at least for a while- even if it is a fleeting moment- the Boston Celtics will once again be relevant in the NBA.
And that is the way it should be. The NBA needs a strong Celtics, Lakers, Bills and even Knicks if it is going to flourish.
| 95 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Go to Craig Hill's home page by clicking here
