A dynasty all their own

The dynasty talk is now upon us, and it very well may be legitimate considering the Lakers have just recently won their third consecutive NBA championship.

However, the constant adoration of a team with the cockiness of these Lakers grows old quickly.

While the dynasty talk will undoubtedly continue, the constant comparisons will also be thrown around.

Is Kobe Bryant better than Michael Jordan? Is Shaquille O'Neal the greatest center of all time? Are Kobe and Shaq better than Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabar?

The Lakers are obviously the best team in the NBA today, but they are also clearly one of the most dominant dynasties of the NBA's 55+ year history.

However, of all the great teams, from the Bob Cousy-Bill Russell Celtics to the MJ-Scottie Pippen Bulls, the Lakers are a unique breed due to the fact that there really are only two players who make consistent contributions.

Cousy and Russell had John Havlicek. Willis Reed had Walt Frazier and Earl "the Pearl" Monroe. Wilt Chamberlain and Jerry West had Elgin Baylor. Dr. J and Moses Malone had Mo Cheeks and Darryl "Chocolate Thunder" Dawkins among others. Larry Bird had Robert Parish and Kevin McHale.

Who do Kobe and Shaq have?

The Chicago Bulls of the 1990s were obviously led by two stars -- Jordan and Pippin -- but they also had a great supporting cast.

The 1990-93 Bulls had great shooters and floor leaders in John Paxson, B.J. Armstrong, and Craig Hodges (until the '92 season).

While the Lakers do have talented outside shooters, none are of the caliber of these three, or they are simply past their prime.

When the outside game wasn't working for the Bulls they could rely on Horace Grant and Bill Cartwright to hold their own on the blocks, as well as step it up when necessary.

However, neither of these two were anywhere near being on Shaq's level, but they were very important aspects of the Bull's offense and defense.

As for the post M.J. retirement Bulls, Steve Kerr and Toni Kukoc were able to take care of the perimeter shooting duties.

As for the post play, Dennis Rodman made a huge impact on the defensive side of the ball. He often guarded the opposing power forward and did an outstanding job of getting into his opponent's head and of crashing both the offensive and defensive glass.

This type of interior defender and rebounder is the type of player that the Lakers are lacking.

Kukoc's versatility was also a key factor in the Bull's success. He could step outside and hit a key three, as well as penetrate and create his own shot or dish it off to a teammate. No one on the Lakers' bench has Kukoc's abilities off the bench.

It's pretty safe to say that no Laker will be sixth man of the year any time soon.

Then there is Mr. Jordan, and lets face it, Kobe is nowhere near being on Mike's level. Not now, maybe later (hopefully never).

Let's just say that if one was to say that Kobe is better than Mike, they are pretty much saying that Kobe is the best.....ever (let's be realistic).

MJ was a much better defender, often putting the clamps on his opponent's best guard or small forward. Mike also was a better shooter (ask Rick Adelman's Blazers), and was never shut down by flu-like symptoms (or by bacon cheeseburgers for that matter).

The Chicago Bulls, obviously, never had nearly as dominant a post-presence as O'Neal.

However, the Shaq and Kobe Lakers do not have a player with the versatility of Pippen.

Shaq is the more "dominant" player, but Pip was able to do a lot more things on offense.

Both are strong on defense -- Shaq with his shot-blocking ability, and Pippen with the ability to shut down his opponent, guards or a forwards.

While Shaq is able to overpower his opponents and take over in that manner, Pippen was able to do various jobs for the Bulls because of his many skills with the ball and his athletic ability, whether on offense or on defense.

As for the comparisons to Kareem and Magic, while some may say that Kobe and Shaq are better, the '80s Lakers supporting cast was much more talented than that of the present day three-time champs.

First off, there is "Big Game" James Worthy. A dominant small/power forward, named to the NBA's 50 greatest players list.

There may not even be a legitimate Hall-of-Famer on today's Lakers besides the obvious two.

If there is one, he is probably sitting on the bench trying to get a ring before his NBA days are officially over.

Throw in Michael Cooper, Byron Scott, and Sam Perkins and you have three extremely talented players that could have possibly been stars on other teams.

While Kareem and Magic had a better supporting cast than Kobe and Shaq, they were never able to win three championships in a row like today's purple and gold.

Then again, today's Lakers' show has not had a true rival until this year's conference finals.

The Sacramento Kings will definitely make things more interesting in the Western Conference for years to come, but this rivalry came a bit too late.

Kareem and Magic had to deal with the Pistons and the Celtics from the get, and the Bulls at the end of their run. Needless to say, the present-day Lakers have it much easier than their purple and gold predecessors. It also doesn't help that a second rule book has basically been instituted to suit, I mean control, Shaq's dominance.

It is hard to say where Kobe and Shaq will stand in terms of NBA dynasties when their time is up, but while they are still going strong we can only hope that Sacramento will continue to challenge them for Western supremacy.

Then again, maybe a new-edition "Bad Boy" team will come around to challenge the Lakers physically and mentally.

Only time will tell what will happen to these Lakers.

They are obviously a legit dynasty, much to the dismay of many basketball fans across the country.

They are obviously dominant among their peers, much to the joy of the Bill Waltons across the league.

Where will they stand? When will the Laker reign end? Are they the greatest?

No, not now. "Greatness" may come, but first a consistent challenge to the throne must arise to threaten this -- one of a kind -- dynasty.