Some of these teams are one season, others span a decade, WTF?

Are we talking quality? Performance? Over time? Over one season? One playoff? Huh?

If we are talking a single season these Dubs and last year's are in the convo. They don't compare to the height of the Celtics dynasty though nor the best of Showtime or the '67 Sixers and you could find some pretty amazing competitors depending on what we are looking at. For a single playoff, not many teams were more dominant than the '01 Lakers. The '83 Sixers are there, too. Over time, hard to argue with the Cs' NINE STRAIGHT TITLES and 11 in 13 years! Having four superstars at that time was the minimum to compete, not an unbeatable advantage. The '70s had some incredible, deep, overlooked teams. The Lakers with Wilt, West and Goodrich? THIRTY THREE straight wins? Plenty of 12-man teams and rosters brimming with stars, but they didn't sustain excellence (there was a lot instability with a competing league, among other things).

I think anyone claiming this team is the best ever is not very up on the history of the game, or they are hiding behind a dumb "today's guys kill your heroes!" argument. By that logic, the best team in each successive year is the best ever because players keep getting bigger, stronger, faster, better trained, etc. If we are talking a legit, all-time argument, then no, you can't go for these guys.