Stephen A. Smith Says Jordan's Bulls & Bill Russell's Celtics are the only DYNASTIES in NBA History
Sometimes Stephen A. Smith talks alot of Sh!t..And sometimes he's on point..This time he says only the 90's Bulls and Russell's Celtics have been the only 2 Teams he would Consider DYNASTIES!!!
He doesn't consider the Spurs or Celtics Dynasties becuz they didn't defend their crown.....And Magic's Lakers and the Pistons defended their crowns,he doesn't consider them Dynasty either becuz they had the Celtics,76'ers,Bulls and Pistons to Challenge them for the crown......
I saw that this morning, lol.
I think he was just being a contrarian, because he never even brought up the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. He's a smart guy because sometimes he just starts to argue to say the opposite of Skip and then he can think up enough info to form an opinion it seems like he had before he started talking. That being said, I think if it was really thought through he would have brought up those Lakers of the early 2000's. Three straight titles and 4 finals in 5 years is pretty dynasty-esque.
He's right, in my opinion. A dynasty should last longer than 3-4 years at peak level.
I don't think we will see any dynasties in the mold of Russell's Celtics and Jordan's Bulls for a long time. Nowadays, it is too tough to keep a team together with the restraints of the salary cap and the trends of free agency. What the Spurs have done over the past 15 years is incredible, and really tough to repeat. OKC has the best shot of any modern team of replicating the Spurs continuous success, because as long as Westbrook and Durant remain together and in peak form, the Thunder should be a contender, but it will be really hard for the Thunder to win as many championships as the Spurs have in the Duncan era.
Edit: Of course, this debate is completely based upon what you personally define a dynasty as. The issue is almost certainly going to go down to semantics if argued long enough. Personally, I agree with Smith's apparent definition of a dynasty, but I can understand how others could consider Duncan's Spurs, Shaq's Lakers, or Magic's Lakers dynasties.
What about the Magic Lakers, and Kobe's Lakers? I think the Duncan & Pop Spurs deserve to be called a dynasty.
The scary part is that if the Spurs win the title this year, I can see them REPEATING next season. Six for six. Back to back titles with 6 rings in 15 seasons spanning three decades would equal a DYNASTY to me.
Magic's Lakers went through Dr. J and the Sixers twice (lost once) and they also beat Larry Bird and the Celtics twice (lost once to them as well). Magic's Lakers also beat the Bad Boy Pistons in 1988. They beat 3 very, very good clubs to win the title. They also battled the Rockets and Blazers out West.
Those weren't Kobe's Lakers that won the 3 straight. It was Shaq's Lakers.
The Shaq and Kobe Lakers were a dynasty, The Spurs are another...
Then he missed the Magic and Bird Lakers and Celtics too...
The Bulls and Celtics may have been the most dominant dynasties but that doesn't make them the only dynasties in the History of the NBA
I think the word dynasty is used way to much same with superstar. A dynasty by definition is reigning for years without beeing 2nd so Smith is probably right. But the Spurs over the last 12 years or the 2000 Lakers are/were pretty close to me. Even Magics Lakers came pretty close.