Whats more difficult?

[spursfan101]

For me, winning 3 championships in 7 years WITH COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SQUADS is something you have to give considerable merit too.

[SPURSX3]

I think 3 back to back is tougher my self, but you cant take anything away from SA has done in SEVEN years!!  I mean, think about it, if not for Fish's dagger last year this could have been OUR three peat.  who knows.  Ventre is already saying Miami will win it next year.  nope.  we got a GREAT core of players locked up, and we should be able to FINALLY get Scola into a Spurs uniform.  I got a feeling SA will get a few more rings before tim is gone into the sunset.

[WayOutWest]

Back to back is definately harder.  Not many teams have done it, you can count them on one hand actually and have a thumb left over.

IMO what the Lakers did in the 80's was the toughest considering the talent level and not being able to buy AND stack the deck with HOF players like the Celts did in the 60's.

[Guest]

Completely different squads, except for the single best player.

A team that wins 3 in a row wins at least 3 in 7 years.  3 in a row is considerably more difficult.
 

[Reality]

Who is the best modern era back to back or 2 out of 3 teams?
How would you rank them?

1. Celts 84 & 86
2. Bulls 2
3. Bulls 1
4. Spurs 2003 2005
5. Piston Boys 89-90
6. Lakers 85 & 87
7. Olajuwon Rockets

Jordans 6-6 full seasons is hard to beat.

[Skandery]

Who is the best modern era back to back or 2 out of 3 teams?
How would you rank them?

1. Celts 84 & 86
2. Bulls 2
3. Bulls 1
4. Spurs 2003 2005
5. Piston Boys 89-90
6. Lakers 85 & 87

Actually the Lakers would be 85 & 87 & 88.  And that would be my pick, I don't think any team has a true answer for a 6'9 point guard, Big Game James, Cooper-Scott with open threes, and Kareem's sky-hook when things get serious.    

[Skandery]

And two answer the question that started this thread.

3 in a row is more difficult.  You have to find a way to not let boredom turn into complacency.  And it's harder to be as hungry as a team whose never tasted victory.

[Reality]

Actually the Lakers would be 85 & 87 & 88.  And that would be my pick, I don't think any team has a true answer for a 6'9 point guard, Big Game James, Cooper-Scott with open threes, and Kareem's sky-hook when things get serious. [/quote]
 Three in a row seems tougher.  3 in 7 is impressive tho.

6'9" point guard getting stuffed by 6'9" Cornbread Maxwell and DJ.
Kareem getting worked by Bob Parish/Billy W. at his best.
Danny Ainge dropping 3 bombs on the Forum crowd.
Kevin McHale countering Worthys 28 with 35 of his own.

We better move this to another thread.  

[Laker Fan]

Sorry 101, 3 in a row is climbing Mt. Everest in shorts and sandals compared to 3 over 7, the Lakers had the same basic squad in place and you could see the "switch" mentality having a profound effect by the third one and completely undoing them on the 4th attempt. now don't get me wrong, 3 over 7 is quite the accomplishment, much props, but 3 in a row is 3 over 3, not 3 over 7, and everybody, I mean EVERYBODY, except LA fans hate you and want you to lose, you never hear and have never heard chant of "beat (insert team name here)" like you did the whole country chanting "beat LA, beat LA". I daresay most of the country is happy for your little team from Tejas, not so LA and so the pressure was greater, the accomplishment much more significant.

To my way of thinking, I agree with Skandery, the Laker squad that took 3 out of 4 in 85, 87, and 88 accomplished more given the talent level of the NBA back then, the Celtics of that era and the Pistons of that era were IMO tougher than any team playing today, and in fact LA apeared in 9 of 12 Finals from 1979-1990, winning 5 titles. Only the lopsided talent level of the Celtics versus the NBA of the '60's or the Bulls in the talent drought '90's comes close and the only really talented team IMO the Bulls faced were the Jazz, and they got robbed in by the refs in 97-98.

[WayOutWest]

IMO, best playoff teams of all time (not best team!):

2001 Lakers
1986 Celtics
1983 76ers
1988 Lakers
1996 Bulls
1993 Bulls
1984 Celtics
1989 Lakers (yes they lost but they were on their way to being the greatest playoff of team of all time had they not got injured before/durring the Finals)
1987 Lakers

I've heard stories about the 1967 76ers with Wilt but I didn't see them play.

[jn]

What about the Knicks of the early 70's?  Before my time but didn't they get a pair of titles with what is often consider the smartest team to play?  

[Skandery]

What about the Knicks of the early 70's? Before my time but didn't they get a pair of titles with what is often consider the smartest team to play?

I think the first of those two teams (71, not 73) is considered one of the top ten teams of all time.  They had a super core:  Willis Reed, Walt 'Clyde' Frazier, Dollar Bill Bradley, and Dave Debushcerre (sp?).  Phil Jackson was a bench warmer for that team.  

I used to actually know the top ten teams in order.  My that was so many years ago.  I do remember the 96 Bulls were number 10, the 92 Bulls were number 9, the 67 Sixers were like number 3, and one of the Bill Russell teams was number 1.  The 83 Sixers, 87 Lakers, and one of the 80s Celtics were also in there.  

The list was drafted in the late 90s, 98 or so.......so obviously no team after that was on the list.      

[spursfan101]

Magic's showtime Lakers no question.

[westkoast]

Magic's showtime Lakers no question.

co-sign

Still 3 in 7 is very impressive!  Just not the same amount of talent in the league as the 80s.

Chicago's title run in the 90s was very impressive.