Is This a Piston's Dynasty?

Discussion in 'Pistons and NBA' started by lapiston, Nov 24, 2005.

  1. lapiston

    lapiston Team Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,212
    Likes Received:
    195
    I get a very special feeling about this team. And I usually scoff at the regular season. It is as if we are on the brink of greatness. Is it a dynasty? I think we have to win one more championship in the next two years to at least be a mini-dynasty. And then a lot will depend on the development of Darko as our bigs start to get older. If he can step in, then we stay at the elite level for the forseeable future and I would say dynasty. We have the best GM in the business to handle this Piston's era that he was crucial in developing. What do others think?
  2. Darth Tater

    Darth Tater All-Star Forum Donor 6x Fantasy Champion

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2005
    Messages:
    11,859
    Likes Received:
    397
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Land of the Spuds.
    Not yet, but stay tuned.

    I personally wouldn't consider them a dynasty unless they won two more championships in the next 3 years. Well...maybe two more in a row because I think (not sure) that the Spurs won 3 of the last 5 and I don't consider them a dynasty. Yeah, either way, I think I need to see 3 out of 4 to consider a team an actual "dynasty".
  3. Abe Froemen

    Abe Froemen First Round Draft Pick

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2005
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    0
    dynasty

    i agree it would take at least 2 more ships to even argue the fact but they have had a very good run if billups had not got hurt against philly we would have beat the nets and had a trip to the finals 3 years in a row but that is woulda coulda crap the jazz or blazers never earned anything for the repeated trips to the finals so it is all about winning.
  4. Slippy

    Slippy All-Star Administrator Forum Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,359
    Likes Received:
    778
    Location:
    Oakland, CA
    I think what makes the team special is not the players but Joe. I really hope Darko becomes the player Joe had in mind. The same goes for delfino, Jmax and the other two. But if not, I think the team is in good hands. Joe played through the New Edition era and saw the mistakes that the management made. I remember reading that when Joe became Pres. he tried to convince Grant Hill to stay. Grant was like, you know all the things we used to complain about with how the team was run and you now say stick around and that things are going to be different?

    Well, Joe runs things different. We all know his less than stellar drafting history but what was the net result? A lock on the EC and two trips to the finals. Most GM's luck out and grab a special kid from the draft and if they're real lucky (or good) they'll do it again within a few years. If not you get minnesota.

    I won't be surprised to see moves made in the off season that keeps us in contention for the title. And yeah, the players have to bring it home.
  5. jammertime

    jammertime Starter 1x Fantasy Champion Forum Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,404
    Likes Received:
    71
    Location:
    Windsor, Ontario
    I agree that it all starts with Joe: character, respect, leadership, playing the right way, always giving 100% effort, etc. But the core group of players are special as well. No egos, no superstars, just Piston's basketball.
  6. lapiston

    lapiston Team Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,212
    Likes Received:
    195
    I know it is early...

    I remember back to the championship year. When we got Sheed, I knew it had to be a good move. But I never thought that the Pistons could beat the Lakers like they did. I just told the Laker fans that it wouldn't be as easy as they thought. That summer I began to think that the championship was no fluke and me and my friend, a Buck fan who adopted us, began to realize that our core group was less than 30 at the time. That is the first time I thought we would be around for awhile at the top. I expected the Pistons to roll last year and we didn't. Yes, we got to the finals, but it was a struggle. That whole last year puzzled me from the get go. Suddenly, this year, it is what I thought would happen last year. We are playing at another level and it is a lot of fun. Everybody in the league knows it, even the dense analyst can see it. It is like this team has matured and can do it all--offensively and defensively. We may be in the Piston decade. Looking ahead, yes, we have to win at least another title, maybe two (like some say) to validate. If Darko can come around, we have the piece that can keep us as an elite team even a few years down the line when the Wallaces are older. And I agree with you guys, it is because Joe is at the helm, that makes these possibilities seem real. If you look back, it is like he created this team out of thin air. When Hill left, I thought we would be back in the lottery for a while. Compare him to Kubchek and Baylor here in LA--no comparison.
  7. 1989

    1989 First Round Draft Pick

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    What is a dynasty anyway?

    It all comes back to how you define "dynasty". Here's a couple from the dictionary:

    1. A succession of rulers from the same family or line.
    2. A family or group that maintains power for several generations.

    Based on those criteria, you might say that we have a potential dynasty on our hands, although much has to happen before that potential is realized.

    Certainly I agree with those that have said that, ultimately, it all comes from Joe D, from the way he strives to mold the team in his image. Is it going to happen? Who knows? Things changes quickly and unpredictably in the NBA; LeBron and the Cavs may end up dethroning our guys sooner rather than later (1991 all over again :frusty: ) or maybe the Lakers contrive to return themselves to prominence as they always have in the past. We'll see.

    They've won 3 of the last 7, and no, I don't consider them a dynasty either. Of course, they're still writing their place in history, but as of right now, their run is similar to the Celts of the '80s, who won 3 times in 6 years, and as good as they were at their best, I have never thought of them as a dynasty.

    The one indisputable dynasty in NBA history is the Celts of the '50s and '60s, who won 11 (!) championships in 13 years. (They made it to the Finals one other year, but lost to the Hawks, and only once in that span did they get bounced before the Finals, when they were beat by the incomparable 76ers in 1967.)

    I think the only other teams that even merit consideration in this discussion are Mikan's Lakers of the '40s and '50s (5 championships in 6 years), the Showtime Lakers of the '80s (5 championships in 9 years), and MJ's Bulls of the '90s (6 championships in 8 years).

    So, for example, the new millenium Lakers (3 straight championships) have not in my opinion demonstrated the requisite longevity to be considered a dynasty. If, hypothetically, Kobe and Phil managed to pull a rabbit out of the hat and win two or three more in the next five or six seasons, then we might talk about a dynasty.

    So back to the Pistons. It seems rather premature to be talking about a dynasty at this point. That would be great, and it's what I hope for, but lets have this discussion again circa 2012. :)
  8. lapiston

    lapiston Team Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,212
    Likes Received:
    195
    Spur and dynasty

    1989, some good analysis. The Spurs like the Pistons have a potential to run awhile. The reason I don't consider them further along than the Pistons is that I don't see them as having the same team. The previous championship belonged to the Robinson era. I know a dynasty means to pass something along but it seems that there was a break of sorts. The spurs will go as far as Duncan can take them. There horizon goes as far as Duncan. I wouldn't worry about the Lakers. It will be at least two years at best for them. I would call the Shaq-Kobe a mini-dynasty. If Kubchek was Joe Dumars, the Lakers show would still be running. If we win this year, I would call us a mini-dynasty but we have to win another this year or next. Strangely, besides winning another, I think our future depends on Darko. That is why I am always a little hesitant on trading him. And no, I don't have any idea if he will succeed or not. But even if we are successful, 2-3 years down the line, the Wallaces will need help as they get older. As for the Spurs, as good as they look this year, I think we will roll them this year if we can get to the finals. The whole league won't know what hit them this year...
  9. 1989

    1989 First Round Draft Pick

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Fair point about the Admiral, but I think of these three Spurs championship together because of TD. I think that as long as there's at least one key player that links the teams together, those teams should be considered as being from the same era. So while it's true that the "Robinson" era only covers the first two of their championships, the "Duncan" era covers all three.

    It's for that same reason that I don't usually consider the Celts' '74 and '76 titles as being part of the big '50s and '60s dynasty, because Russell had retired at that point. Having said that, there was some carryover -- the most notable probably being Hondo, who won his first championship in '63 and was still there running circles around the opposition when the Celts won in '76. With that in mind, if I look up at those definitions I posted, it doesn't seem unreasonable to lump in those two championships with the others, at which point we're talking about a dynasty in which the green-and-white managed 13 wins in 20 seasons!

    Anyway, if I can back up for a second...

    Last year was a bit perplexing wasn't it. It's all old news now, and I'm sure it's been discussed at great length in other threads I'm unaware of, but we certainly didn't demonstrate the kind of game I expected on a regular basis. There was a general post-championship ennui, coupled with the Palace brawl and the ensuing malaise, LB's incessant wanderlust, and at the end of it all, it seemed like we just ran out of gas within sight of the finish line. All credit to the team for making it as far as they did, but we certainly didn't make it easy on ourselves. :ohwell:

    I sense that we're playing with more of an edge this year, which is absolutely essential if the Pistons are to reclaim the title.

    I think so too. :nod:
  10. TaS

    TaS All-Star Forum Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2005
    Messages:
    17,320
    Likes Received:
    2,682
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chicaaago
    I think this means that the Pistons need to stay on top and then win after 1 of the big 5 is gone. That will probably be at least 2008. Then, they are a dynasty.

    Dynasty implies something about the organization itself, or the system. That's why I don't think the Bulls were a dynasty. Patriots are more of a dynasty because of the player turnover and the consistent results.
  11. 1989

    1989 First Round Draft Pick

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    I see what you're saying. A strict reading of those definitions might lead us to include only the Celtics of yore. Still, I include the Lakers (x2) and the Bulls simply because they were so dominant for such (relatively) long periods of time.

    As for the Bulls specifically, I consider them a dynasty not only because of their dominance, but also because, MJ and Pippen aside, their entire rosters were completely different from one threepeat to the other. Just compare the playoff rosters from 1993 and 1996:

    1993 Bulls Team: MJ, Pippen, BJ Armstrong, Horace Grant, Bill Cartwright, Scott Williams, John Paxson, Stacey King, Trent Tucker, Will Perdue, Darrell Walker, Rodney McCray.

    1996 Bulls Team: MJ, Pippen, Toni Kukoc, Ron Harper, Luc Longley, Dennis Rodman (!), Steve Kerr, Bill Wennington, Jud Buechler, Randy Brown, John Salley (!), James Edwards (!).

    Interesting to note that three of our beloved Bad Boys (Worm, Spider and Buddha) played an instrumental role in helping the '96 Bulls to become one of the most successful teams in the history of the league.
  12. MotownPride

    MotownPride Starter 2x Fantasy Champion

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,962
    Likes Received:
    34
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Tampa, Florida
    John Salley

    How many rings does Spider have again? Is it 6? I know its three teams: Pistons, Bulls, and Lakers.
  13. 1989

    1989 First Round Draft Pick

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    I count four: '89 Pistons, '90 Pistons, '96 Bulls, and '00 Lakers.

    There aren't many guys who have six -- well, guys who aren't Celtics anyway. Kareem, MJ, Pippen, Robert Horry.... I draw a blank after that, but I'm probably neglecting someone.
  14. roscoe36

    roscoe36 All-Star Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Messages:
    20,116
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dagobah
    Steve Kerr?
  15. MotownPride

    MotownPride Starter 2x Fantasy Champion

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,962
    Likes Received:
    34
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Tampa, Florida
    Okay. I thought he won more than one with Chicago. 4 sounds about right. :nod:
  16. 1989

    1989 First Round Draft Pick

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Steve Kerr won five, I think. ('96 Bulls, '97 Bulls, '98 Bulls, '99 Spurs, '03 Spurs)

    And I'm pretty sure Salley only played the '96 season with the Bulls. Actually, I think he may not have even been in the league at all between the '96 and '00 seasons -- certainly I don't remember him around, but someone will correct me if I'm wrong about that.
  17. Griffin

    Griffin First Round Draft Pick

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2005
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm wondering if history will remember the Spurs of this era less fondly because of how they won their 'ships. They won the lockout year against a Knicks team that would've been slaughtered by any team to make the Finals the past 30 years. They beat a Nets team that no one cared about and everyone expected would lose. And they beat Detroit...which was probably the best accomplishment for their legacy so far (unless you think it was their 6 game victory over the defending champion Lakers)...but it's not as if they beat MJ's Bulls or any of the great teams from the 80's.

    Even this Pistons team gets to mount the Shaq/Kobe/Mailman/GP Lakers on their Legacy Wall. And after nearly winning two Game Seven's last season, we now have a national reputation for resilience.

    My point is that the best legacies - or dynasties (maybe there's a difference, which would make me off topic) - are defined by who they defeated on their way to win their 'ships.
  18. 1989

    1989 First Round Draft Pick

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    There is a difference between legacies and dynasties, but whatever, it's interesting -- and not wholly unrelated -- so let's talk about it. :)

    It's undeniable that good competition has a way of elevating everyone involved. I think the Bad Boys squads, especially the 1989 edition, are well respected (if not liked) as great teams, and there's no question that has a lot to do with their having to play through both Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers in order to win it all.

    So the Spurs then: it's true that the '99 Knicks and the '03 Nets don't have that kind of pedigree. Having said that, it's also true that the three-time champion Lakers were dethroned by the Spurs, as were our '04 champion Pistons. So for two of their three championships, the Spurs had to beat the defending champs to advance.

    Still, it's not quite the same as when the Pistons finally supplanted the Celtics as East representatives, and subsequently ended the Lakers' championship run. In short, I think I agree with you. :nod:

    You also brought up the lockout season. In years past, that has often been bandied about as an excuse for why the Spurs '99 title was somehow illegitimate in some way. I don't read much of that anymore, thankfully, but you still see it every now and again. I think eventually people will forget about it, there will be no more calls for asterisks and the rest of it.

    The reason I have a problem with it is because that season was, in essence, no different than any other. What I mean by that is that every season has its own peculiar set of circumstances, and it's the same for everybody. The NBA title demonstrates which team was best able to deal with those circumstances.

    Some seasons there was a shotclock, in others there wasn't. Some seasons had a three-point shot, others didn't. Sometimes the three-point line extended to 23'9'', sometimes it was 22' all around. Sometimes you had to win 2 playoff series to win the title, other times 4 playoff series. Sometimes the first round has been best-of-five, now it's a best-of-seven. Well, sometimes the regular season is 82 games in a six month span, and in 1999 it was 50 games in a compressed schedule.

    What I'm trying to say is that's what the season was, and the Spurs came out on top, period. That championship is as legit as any other; it presented its own unique obstacles to overcome, as every season does, and one team was left standing. There is nothing else to say.

    Again, I hear less of this now than I used to, but that was a real pet peeve for me when people would try to denigrate that title on the basis of the 50 game season.
  19. OLD SKOOL HQ

    OLD SKOOL HQ All-Star

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    4,008
    Likes Received:
    465
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    I agree agree agree

    Joe decides the fate of this team, not the players. If u cant hang, get out. That's why I would love to have Kevin Garnett. I love Sheed..God know I do...but he aint no KG! But KG aint the defender Sheed is, but Sheed dont have the presence of a KG. .....If Joe has to decide what's best for the team, Sheed stays...if Joe has to decide what's best for the future..KG comes!...my bruddahs!
  20. OLD SKOOL HQ

    OLD SKOOL HQ All-Star

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    4,008
    Likes Received:
    465
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    all we hear is...

    radio gaga
    radio googoo
    radio gaga
    all we hear is
    radio gaga
    radio blabla.......
    i am lovin this live queen concert...
    my bruddahs!

Share This Page