Reply With Quote
Bird was better than Magic
But the Lakers were more talented, and they had a better bench
Lakers were more talented overall.
Bird was better than Magic
But the Lakers were more talented, and they had a better bench
Not really. Maybe more athletic I suppose.
I'd have to think about that. But KC over-relied on starters. In conjunction with Stern's BS, it basically cost him the 85 and 87 finals.
Yup KC didn't develop a bench
It's no wonder the Celtics were playing on 1 leg by the time they reached the 87 Finals (that and the Pistons series didn't help either)
even the celts said the lakers were better ...and sermed to enjoy the fact they punked the better team.
you can spin that anyway you want but Lakers gave away 1984 ..
Dude, are you really going to try to sell me a half-truth? Cos if I have to post on this, I'll you pretty good.
The Pistons were better in 87 but blew game 5 on a ridiculous turnover and lost Dantley in game 7.
You can try but the 84 was more of the Lakers blowing it than the Celtics winning it.
Isiah panicked big time
& then immediately spiriting on the Celtics to defeat us. It was a disgrace.
Well, if you're speaking about 84 only then; the C's were saying that the Lakers had more athleticism. They were even arguably saying the Lakers were the better team, depending on who you ask. But I think that's a bit of an undersell. The C's didn't get homecourt advantage coming out of a tougher conference for nothing. I can see the perception that the Lakers were better; and they even arguably played better in the series; and that's why I think it's called "stolen". But this was not some Cinderella story. This would be like calling the 13 Heat Cinderella, tbh.
LOL Rodman running down the floor with his arms in the air like the game was won.
I'm jealous of those who got to watch the 84 Fina live tbh, crazy series
In a way.
But it's fair to say that the Celtics won the psychological war
you cant me on were you even old enough to stay up and watch those games?
come on internet tough guy ...bith me out!!
no one said it was a Cinderlla story a la 2011 mavs ...
regular season records dont mean Lakers had made the finals in 82 83 and 84 plus had moved to youngrr guys like worthy and scott from nixon and wilkes ...
lakers had more talent and athleticism celts more grit and experience to go along with HOF talent ..
the only year you can say celts had no doubt about better talent was 1986 which is why lakers chased Klay's dad afterwards and cefed control to maguc to be more aggressive ...
i did heartbreaking for a littke kid tbh
Sorry bro
Dude, the 80's WC is the biggest cakewalk of all-time. The fact that the Lakers didn't make it in 81 and 86 shows that they failed more than than that they didn't make it in 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87...... I might give them a small pass for 86 though because the Rockets were a near-championship level team. But no excuse for 81. And in 83 they got their asses swept by a better Sixers team. They were just lucky that they were the C's problem; just like they were lucky that in the mid to late 80's the Pistons were the C's problem. I'm sure you've heard this all before and just don't give a because you want to fantasize how good "Showtime" was. But you're living in full denial if you think the power structures of the conferences wasn't a defining feature of 80's basketball.
I think injuries affected the C's more throughout the 80's than the Lakers. 86 was the year that they were just so dominant that they were the undisputed best team in basketball. But the Lakers never had a year like that. NEVER. And even with all the bad breaks the C's had to get to only 3-3 through 86, they were still all set to be 'the team of the decade' with the arrival of Bias. Just take your breaks and be happy as about it. Yea, you got five rings; but they come with a healthy dose of perspective.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions