As a Boston Celtics fan, I truly believe the Philadelphia 76ers deserve a video. A lot of people don't know this but the Celtics-Sixers rivalry was one of the greatest rivalries in the NBA and both cities and teams showed respect towards each other because our cities and teams were similar.
This video is so misleading. The Celtics didn't return to prominence instantly after Pierce was drafted. Celtics had to endure early playoff exits and lottery before landing KG and Ray Allen.
I won't disagree on that, however there were a less number of teams at that time in all the pro sports teams (Baseball, football, basketball, and hockey.)
championships are championships, regardless of the times. Plus, the celtics wouldnt have struggled as much in the 90's and early 2000's if reggie lewis and len bias didnt pass away
The record setting 18x NBA Champions are none other than the Boston Celtics in 2024, Congratulations to the franchise for making sports history once again
yes indeed 1 championship in 27 years , but no team could have ever kept that level greatness going like the celtics did from 1957 to 1986 , but the celtics only needed about five more championships somewhere from 1987 to 2012 to keep the celtics dynasty going , you see i don't worry about small things like that , what beat the celtics was time , age , and injuries , not the lakers ! ! !
No they beat the Lakers 7 times, if you include 1959, when they were from Minneapolis, 1959, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1966, 1968 and 1969, they beat the Hawks 3 times, 1957, 1960 and 1961, they beat the Warriors in 1964 with Chamberlain there.
but ya know their 17th championship in 2008 , did not add much to their legacy , but if they would have won number 17 in 1987 ,it would have been a much different story
i have never seen such epic level nba championship run turn into such bad luck , but greatness of magnitude does not last forever , no way ! ! ! like i said before the celtics before 1987 was something beyond words 16 nba championships in only 30 years ! ! ! but maybe the 1987 lakers was just too damn good who knows , but there is one thing i know damn sure , the celtics turned into a completely different team from 1987 to 2012 , maybe it was the lakers curse i don't know , but who cares
they may have the most championships at 17, but they have not been nearly as Consistent as the Lakers have, and plus, 11 of the Celtics 17 rings were won before 1970, less competition back then, less teams, etc., and the Lakers have missed the playoffs only 5 times in their entire franchise history, I believe the Celtics have missed it like 13 or 14 times, and at one point missed the playoffs for 6 straight seasons.
Some dynasty! And during that "30 Year Dynasty" the Celtics went 4 of those years without making the Playoffs(1970, 1971, 1978 and 1979), and with the New Orleans Jazz saving the Celtics from falling into the Shithole. And during that time, the Celtics lost on back-to-back years(1972 and 1973) to the Most Hated Rivals, the New York Knicks in the Playoffs. Dynasty Teams are supposed to grabs those teams by the throat. Then they were Bitches to Dr. J in the 80's. That's a Dynasty for you!
It won't be long until the Lakers will cath them! The Boston Celtics so-called dynasty of 11 Championships in 13 years, and their "8 in a row" was a joke considering that they accomplished all of that back when the NBA was an 8 Team League. How many of those 11 Championships would they have won without Bill Russell? The Man Red Auerbach "Wined and Dined" Rochester for in 1956 who had the #1 Pick while Celtics had the #2 Pick. Imagine if Rochester would have Double-Crossed the Celtics.
The Lakers have won 7 Championships to the Celtics 1 after the 1986 Season. How many of those 11 Championships you had with Bill Russell would the Celtics have won if Rochester would have Double-Crossed Red Auerbach before the 1956 NBA Draft? In other words, if Rochester would have drafted Bill Russell instead?
Jiltedin2007 That might be true However.."In 1950, the NBA consolidated to eleven franchises, a process that continued until 1953-54, when the league reached its smallest size of eight franchises, all of which are still in the league (the New York Knicks, Boston Celtics, Golden State Warriors, Los Angeles Lakers, Royals/Kings, Detroit Pistons, Atlanta Hawks, and Nationals/76ers)." Boston didnt win its first title till 1957 and the lakers were part of the eight franchises that started before then infact they won their first nba championship in 1949 and had 5 Nba championships before the celtics got their first If the lakers were so good why didnt they stop the celtics dynasty? Celtics>Lakers
For the same reason noone stopped the 1st dynasty of the Lakers in Minneapolis. Sid Hartman may not be the great manager of talent that Red Auerbach was but he had the sources in colleges to built the Lakers. He knew many coaches and had a good relationship with other teams executives. Just like Red. Red of course was a great coach too, he had a system and the Celtics won 13 titles with that system even with Aurebach not being the one coaching the team for the last 4 of those titles (68-69 74 76). Teams make mistakes. It's obvious why people don't want to see Bias or Lewis as wrong picks. Their stories were tragedies. But from the Celtics standpoint, they did make 2 bad choices. Lakers did that too. Hartman had full access to manage the roster of the Lakers. He made a deal with Red that would lead the Lakers to the last place of the standings and in place to take Russell in the 1957 draft. But ownership and coach Kundla didn't want to send Mikkelsen to Boston and tank and Hartman seeing that he couldn't manage the team like before he quit his job. Lakers were nearly bankrupt 4 years later and they were saved by the talent of Elgin Baylor. As all teams that change cities they struggle and that is a struggle that the Celtics didn't have to go through. This plus the lack of free agency made the change of scenery difficult for many years. Lakers didn't have a great Center like Russell or Wilt but even when they could have they selected a local colege star and not a player like Willis Reed. Why? Because the were new in town and they had to earn a place in LA to survive financially. Then, after Russell retired Reed's Knicks took 2 out of 3 Finals from the Lakers and the franchise resulted in 1979 to having 1 title in 20 years in LA. This is typical if you see the franchises that had to move to other cities. But i have a question too. Lakers had to climb the Championship everest again to reach the Celtics and they did it having to face free agency since 1976 the Salary Cap since 1984 unrestricted free agency since 1989. And they do have right now 17 professional titles in NBL 1 BAA 1 and NBA 15. If the Celtics are that good why they resulted having 2 titles in the Salary Cap era when the team couldn't be managed by one or two person and their knowledge about basketball? Celtics are on the verge of having more seasons out of the playoffs than titles if they don't manage to make the playoffs this season. Lakers always collected talent and titles in bunches. Celtics had the greatest run when they could keep what they had going but when they couldn't they were as bad as they were great before. Lakers were there to win and they were there to lose. Celtics were there to win and then they were out of the playoffs. Lakers reached the Finals and lost many times in the 60s beacuse they were in the playoffs, in the weaker Division but playng half of their games Vs the best division. Celtics in 1990s and 2000s weren't even competing and had too little to show in All-League selections to prove their relevancy. Is not a question of how much talent the league had when the NBA had only 8 or 9 or 10 teams. Is a question of how difficult it is to manage a team and win in every era. Red made the most of it when he could control every aspect of the managing process. But HE was tha Celtics. When he stepped down the Celtics would have to wait 2 decades to find a good owner-management combination. Lakers>Celtics
@@andreaschristophorou3374 Very well fucking said. No team can see the Lakers. We also have the largest fanbase an sell the most team merchandise. LAKERS> celtics
@@ericthomas917 Both Bias and Lewis were great picks as far as talent goes. Based solely on their talent Red had done it again. What they didn't end up to be? The players that carried the Celtics forward after Bird retired. I don't know if i misspoke in my original comment but thats what i wanted to say.
as a lakers fan you should be grateful that the lakers won the 1987 nba finals , and stop your worry about celtics history from 1987 to 2012 ! ! ! do not worry about my team's recent problems ! ! ! celtics history is great enough as it is ! ! ! yes indeed great ! ! ! so what i'am saying is this if the celtics would have won the 1987 nba finals , i believe it would changed nba history.
No, the only reason why the Celtics have more Overall Championships than the Lakers is because the Celtics won their 11 Championships in 13 years with Bill Russell when the NBA was only an 8 Team League. Red Auerbach wined and dined Rochester for them not to draft Bill Russell in the 1956 NBA Draft because the Celtics only had the #2 Pick behind Rochester's #1 Pick. Imagine if Rochester were to Double-Cross the Celtics. How many of those 11 Championships would the Celtics have won then?
there is only one team that the celtics could not beat , and that is the team of time , age , injuries ! ! ! from 1987 to 2007 time , age , and juries kicked the celtics ass not the lakers ! ! !
And the Lakers have 16 Championships in all! At least the Lakers dominated in multiple eras. Could you say that about the Celtics? The closest the Celtics ever came to a dynasty(After Bill Russell) was when they won 3 Championships in a Decade dominated by the Lakers.
ok let's discuss the celtics one championship in the last 27 years , this is your moment of glory to really bash the celtics hard so please make it count ! ! ! the 1987 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 . 92 , and 93 celtics was very good teams they won division titles ! ! ! should they have won atleast three championships ? ? ? ABSOLUTELY ! ! ! but too much injuries , too much isiah thomas , too much jordan 1994 to 2007 well so what ? ? ? celtics sucked ! ! ! but in 2008 again celtics beat l.a.
And the 5 More Championships the Lakers have won from 2000 to 2010 after the 1980's? And how about if we discuss the fact that your Celtics have won only 1 Championship in the last 27 years and the fact that the Celtics actually went 6 straight years missing the Playoffs. Could we all that to the Celtics History?
lol please here is some advice ok as a lakers fan just be grateful for the 1980's and that corrupt there in a row in 2000 , 2001 , 2002 lol ! ! ! please do not make me fucking laugh anymore ! ! ! lol ! ! ! most of lakers has been a damn joke ! ! !
yes i can easily , the lakers did not dominate three eras , the lakers were the best from 1949 to 1954 , five championships in six years , that is the definition of dominance george miken built the lakers and jerry west was awesome sorry dude the lakers of the 1980's were not dominate and the lakers were not dominate in the 2000's no team was dominate in those two decades sorry dude but the celtics was only one championship away from destroying the 1980's lakers
the 1987 , 1988 , 1989 , 1990 , 1991 , 1992 , 1993 , 1995 , 2008 celtics was very good teams , but too much age , injuries , thomas , jordan these teams could have us five more championships , but you see i don't give shit ! ! ! and here is why ! ! ! because the celtics already had 16 championships in 29 or 30 years
the 1980's was the lakers best decade easily ! ! ! you say the lakers dominated the 1980's ? ? ? let's take a closer look and see ! ! ! first the 80's the lakers three biggest rivals was the celtics , 76ers , and pistons ! ! ! the celtics three championships - 1981 , 1984 , and 1986 76ers one championship - 1983 pistons one championship - 1989 that is five championships the lakers did not win ! ! ! five out of ten is not dominate ! ! ! if lakers lost in 1987 or 88 - no dynasty
ha ha ha that is not our problem dude , and it did not happen ha ha ha , plus the celtics did have a lot more great players besides bill russell , please don't make laugh any more my face is hurting dude you have serious problems you are obsessed with the lakers lol ! ! !
dude the lakers beat the celtics in the 1985 and 1987 nba finals , because at that point the celtics were old and full of injuries lol ! ! ! greatness does not last forever , players do get old and so does teams , especially in 1987 at that point the celtics already had 16 nba championships dude lol ! ! ! celtics 16th in 1986 , lakers 16th 2010 lol ! ! ! yeah sure the celtics had some bad luck from 1987 to 2007 lol ! ! ! , oh yeah celtics still has more championships lol ! ! ! oh this is fun
