Reply With Quote
2 rings, 4 trips to the Finals in 4 years where they played pretty good teams.
9/10.
Before I get into this thread, I want to make it clear that I'm not trolling or anything, just looking for a legitimate discussion on this because me and some friends argued about this for a while.
Ignoring Lebron's ridiculous "not 1, not 2..." shtick, was Lebron's tenure in Miami a success? If you were told when the decision was made that Lebron was only going to be in Miami for 4 years (with no devastating injuries to any of the big 3) and that he would come away with 2 MVPs, 2 rings, and 2 Finals MVPs, would you have deemed that a success? He teamed up with a prime Wade and Bosh, obviously the MVPs are a success, but was 2 rings? I mean obviously winning a championship is a tremendous accomplishment, let alone 2, but realistically there was no way they weren't going to be successful together. Overall though, was the big 3 era a success that matched the hype of pairing 2 mega stars and 1 super star, or did they fall short. There's now ay to spin it as unsuccessful I guess, but rather did they do what you would have assumed they would in a 4 year span?
2 rings, 4 trips to the Finals in 4 years where they played pretty good teams.
9/10.
The ending was ugly. 5.
^^^ Truth. They had a great run. All 4 years Bron was there 4 finals trips and won two of them (One given to them but they still won 4 games in the end). I know they played out East and had some weak teams to play a few rounds (Pacers their only challenge for a year honestly) but in the end they still made 4 trips in a row to the finals.
Four straight EC championships and B2B les against arguably the two best teams in the West?
Uh, yeah...it was a huge success...but the end was ugly...for Miami.
how was it a success when he had a cake walk to the finals in the east
seriously he didnt do , and the pacers self imploded, also helped that the heat had a super team, while the other super teams out easts were broken up...
even against bull comp out easts, im surprised t hey never even bothered breaking the cows 72-10 record, many teams out west had came close to breaking it but rather tank late in the season to get ready for the playoffs...
Based on their own criteria for success, that you have tried to eliminate from the discussion from the get go, no. Not because they didn't get more rings, but because Lebron didn't stay the course in Miami after his 1st contract was up. He decided he was now interested in being the chosen one instead of being a champion.
In terms of general basketball success, they were historically successful as a franchise during those 4 years. However, no one talks about the Nets Dynasty when they went b2b in two Finals that they lost. So you almost have to discount those two seasons as unsuccessful since only a ring is successful when you have 4 former franchise players on the floor together including the best in the world and a couple top 10-15 players beside you. All you can do is that up.
So what was the goal? You have to have a goal to know if you were successful. Lebron and Wade set the goal at not 1, not 2... etc..
Getting to the Finals in the east is like drinking a glass of water; it's not hard at all. The Hype were only dominant in one Finals and that was against a pathetic Meth team that got there due to the Spurms turning into pussies. Their other 3 Finals performances were laughable. At the end, Wade and Allen couldn't carry Lebeta anymore, which was a pathetic ending.
LeBron single-handedly dragged a trash supporting cast to rings. Of course it was a success.
How was two les a dynasty? Were the 70s Knicks a Dynasty?
Didn't live up to the hype. Especially losing to the Mavs in the first year where Lebron was awful. After year two, the team fell apart except for Lebron and role players. Wade and Bosh became useless in the postseason and no other young talent around. Not that suprising Lebron left.
I don't think its quite a dynasty either.
I mean it's easy to look at 2 rings in 4 years and say obviously a success, and for any other team it would be a success. But I just feel like having a prime wade, bosh, and lebron in the ty east, and making the finals all 4 years, should lead to more than 2 rings. It's not like any of them ever suffered a serious injury that derailed their chances, Lebron blew it the first year, and Wade and Bosh blew it the last year.
They should have 3 peated, they didn't respect the Mavs that first year and Dirk made them a nice hole in the ground.
I gave Dirk alot of credit after that. I used to think he was just a big vagina before that season. Soft as tissue paper.
i think its safe to say they lived up to the hype. they built a superteam and got the results of one. 4 years, 4 finals appearances. lebron got 2 MVP's and finals MVP's during his tenure there.
compare that to the superteam put together by the lakers...
2 rings is 2 rings. I mean, that's successful no matter what the criteria. A dynasty for me is at least 3 years of dominance which they had.
oh . I must have missed it. What were the Dynasty years?
and by the way, had any of the West's top teams from the last several years played in the East, Heat might never have even won 1 le. Sure wouldn't have gone to 4 Finals in a row. Going through the playoffs in the East is so damn advantageous to a decent team. Basically getting a playoff tune up...playing incrementally less ty teams up until you have to actually play in the Finals.
The East and West were pretty equal in the playoffs in rounds 2 and 3 from 2011 to 2013, tbh..2014 was really the only year the Heat didn't have any challenges..
People generally overrated the West, including this season, where they consider teams like Portland, Houston and Dallas as contenders
I don't see how 2 rings and 2 Finals isn't extremely successful in the NBA, especially in today's era..
The Heat really weren't that talented compared to the rest of the league, too, look at how weak they have been this year without Lebron, despite having improved role players..
Spurs wouldve done the same thing and probably won 3 les if places were switched
Interesting, just wanted to see what people thought. Don't get me wrong, 2 rings is definitely a success, but I just feel like that team should have been more dominant than they were. I thought of this because I was reading an article from way back and it was suggesting that lebron would be stacking up rings, yet he only has 2 while playing with a top 5 SG of all time and a pretty damn good player in Bosh too. In 2010 had you told me lebron was gonna be there for 4 years, I would have assumed 3-4 rings honestly. But in the grand scheme of things Lebron's stint was a success I guess, though I definitely wouldn't refer to their run as a dynasty. I only put that in the thread le cuz I didn't know what else to say, I probably should have just said the Heat run or something
it's a success no doubt but the way it ends being humiliated by the Spurs leading Lebron to sign with the cavs will tarnish the achievement imho even though it is more a compliment to the Spurs than a Heat disaster
I don't think so. The Heat were very fortunate in the playoffs regarding their compe ion.The East and West were pretty equal in the playoffs in rounds 2 and 3 from 2011 to 2013, tbh..2014 was really the only year the Heat didn't have any challenges..
People generally overrated the West, including this season, where they consider teams like Portland, Houston and Dallas as contenders
I don't see how 2 rings and 2 Finals isn't extremely successful in the NBA, especially in today's era..
The Heat really weren't that talented compared to the rest of the league, too, look at how weak they have been this year without Lebron, despite having improved role players..
Miami's matchups in '13
1st round - A scrub-laden sub .500 Bucks team.
2nd round - An injured Bulls team held together by chewing gum and scotch tape playing 2nd and 3rd stringers.
ECF - Dumb, turnover happy Pacers team with third year inconsistent, rising star Paul George as their go-to player. It's hard to believe this was a Conference Finals.
Matchups in '14 -
1st round - A terrible Bobcats team with hobbled Al Jefferson
2nd round - A terrible Nets team with a rookie coach
ECF - The Pacers were improved from the year before but still weren't a team that belonged in the Conference Finals.
That kind of compe ion is a cakewalk for any good team.
Huge success.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
