No, I'm saying your takes are terrible and sound like old person complaints. You said 70% of the All-NBA team would be role players 20 years ago. That's hilariously awful, and it sounds like generational whining. Remember how good things were in your youth? Suck on that Werthers Original and remember the good old days of Detlef Schrempf, Reggie Miller, and Mitch Richmond. Those were some players, I tell you what. Don't forget you had guys like Juwan Howard, Glen Rice, and Vin Baker in the pipeline as well. And Starbury. Never forget Starbury.
Weakest NBA championship team I can remember
- Thread starter GOING FOR #9
- Start date
That werthers original comment was great. How about learning how to keep skid marks out of your underwear before you address the adults.
Reggie Miller was amazing. That put down kind of shows me where you are at.
If the NBA is a crap league, what would you consider College Basketball right now? Because it is much, much worse than the NBA.
I watched Reggie Miller's entire career. He's vastly overrated. Maybe it's because I now live in myopic NYC and he had big moments against the Knicks, but he's venerated a bit too much. HOFer, sure, but he's not a top 5 all time SG or anything. But I'd take Ray Allen over him in a heartbeat (and peak Wade over Allen). To say that today's All-NBA teams would be role players in an era where Miller was on All-NBA teams is ludicrous. So you can quibble with the specifics, but I'd put up today's NBA against the NBA from 20 years ago. The winner would probably depend on the rules, frankly, as today's rules favor perimeter players (hand-checking) and disfavor post players (no illegal D means doubles without hard commitments required under old NBA rules).
Not who you quoted, but I agree with him/her. The NBA is in terrific shape right now. The nadir was probably the late 1990s/early 2000s, and we can blame the lack of talent and the Pat Riley rugby revolution. I grew up watching the Bulls on WGN starting in 1989. I can't speak to the 1980s, but everything I've seen suggests there were 5 or so great teams that stayed together. Lakers (2 iterations, really), Celtics, Sixers (early 1980s), maybe the Rockets (mid to late 1980s before drugs/injuries), and Pistons (late 1980s, obv.). Put in the Bucks, Mavericks, maybe another team or 2 as solid playoff teams that can win some series. But I have a hard time watching games without seeing terrible defense. Just awful. More hard fouls (some cheap shots in the playoff clips I've watched), and less contact overall - whether initiated by the offense or defense. So maybe the 1980s were better, and I expect people that grew up watching that era to say that. That's how our minds work. But I know 1990s and 2000s NBA, and the overall quality of play (non-tanking division) in the NBA now is better. Better scouting. Better coaching. Margins are squeezed and every angle to increase efficiency and production are utilized.
People are praising players like Shaun Livingston right now. Lol.
I could of a list on this thread right now of 80's and 90's players that would shut this topic down without a fight, but I won't. It's no use. If you really think today's game is better, it's an opinion you are going to hold no matter what. 80's and 90's NBA was so much better than this wash out I wouldn't honestly know where to begin.
The Warriors were a great team this year. One of the best in NBA history as far as wins, win %, and collecting a ring. Not sure why people are trying to defecate on that.
They will be the favorites to win the West again next year. They have a crap ton of talent and go 10 deep. That's huge for a 100 game season.
Those upset with their title this year are going to have a rough few years ahead of them following the NBA.
They will be the favorites to win the West again next year. They have a crap ton of talent and go 10 deep. That's huge for a 100 game season.
Those upset with their title this year are going to have a rough few years ahead of them following the NBA.
Paxson received a ton of praise for his contribution to the Bulls '93 championship. Perspective, people.
Sure, but back then people weren't searching for players like Paxson just to try and add to their watered down product. It's not the same comparison.
Surely this is a joke. Historic numbers on their part, and it's the weakest team you can remember?
Ignore the fact that you're trying to compare eras of the NBA to one another (which is incredibly complex), but you're basing this off of a few (not even many, just a few) players staying in college for 1 season? Hell, for the longest time, some players were leaving for the NBA out of high school, so I don't know if that's a valid argument.
Ignore the fact that you're trying to compare eras of the NBA to one another (which is incredibly complex), but you're basing this off of a few (not even many, just a few) players staying in college for 1 season? Hell, for the longest time, some players were leaving for the NBA out of high school, so I don't know if that's a valid argument.
Knee-jerk reaction after the highs of a title. People forget the talented players on GSW. Barnes, Iggy, Lee, Green, heck even Livingston was the #2 prospect out of HS (off-topic, how cool is it for him to be where he is after blowing his leg apart?), GSW is only sustainable for another year or two before players want the pay-day. You think Green, with that mouth and ego is going to be an easy negotiator? No way you're pulling his head out of his ass. GSW, like any title-team is going to have to be gutted at some point. Will they put the right young pieces around Curry again? Maybe.. maybe not.
I was not confident at all with my Rockets going up against GSW at the start of the WCF, but from what I've seen, I love their chances if they had Beverly to be Dellevedova on steroids. Rockets are going to make a strong push for a PG or a PF, and I wouldn't bet against Morey not getting what he wants.
You can't count on all the top talented teams to have a plethora of injuries year after year. It'd be dumb to just handover the West to GSW right now..
What does that even mean? Paxson played a number of years in the NBA because he was valuable. Just like Livingston, he was expected to do a limited amount of things in a limited amount of playing time. And watered-down is about as cliche as it gets. Might as well throw in a reference to toughness and jump shooting teams while you're at it for the Barkley trifecta.
Also, let's remember the back-to-back champion Houston Rockets, the only non-Bulls champion in an 8 year stretch, which played a similar style to today's teams - 3 and D role players surrounding a player that can create his own offense. Warriors have Curry to bend the D, Rockets had Olajuwon. But they subsisted on the same type of high value shots (3 pointers) that allow role players (that are good at other things) to survive and thrive in an effective offense.
Weakest NBA champion in the last 30 years. I didn't say weakest team. I'm waiting for someone to make a legit arguement to the contrary. They are deep, they are athletic, they have shooters but in the grand scheme of the NBA this is the weakest champ I can remember. You complement Lebron with another allstar and Cleveland would be champs
Whoa.. I wouldn't say GSW is the weakest in 30 years, that's way too harsh. But they might be #1 or #2 over the last decade.
And Lebron didn't need another All-star, He literally just needed a 9th body to soak up minutes and preserve legs. It honestly could have been someone decent from the stands to throw a jersey on. Cleveland ran out of gas. GSW had the ability to throw bodies at them, and then change up defensive schemes on Lebron.. Cav's had no moves to make. It was check-mate. One more might have done it.
And Lebron didn't need another All-star, He literally just needed a 9th body to soak up minutes and preserve legs. It honestly could have been someone decent from the stands to throw a jersey on. Cleveland ran out of gas. GSW had the ability to throw bodies at them, and then change up defensive schemes on Lebron.. Cav's had no moves to make. It was check-mate. One more might have done it.
I think the NBA, like college basketball, is hard to watch now. I personally think both of them suffer due to the fact that kids leave schools so early now. Granted....guys like KG, Lebron, Anthony Davis and their ilk gain nothing from college but they are the exception to the rule. Most guys are best served by learning to play in college or overseas.
It is too bad that Patrick Ewing didn't play in this era....he would have numerous championships because he would thrive in today's game. He could pick and pop and score on the block too. Overall I think that the guard play is better now than in the past but take those great Lakers, Pistons, Rockets or Bulls teams of the recent past and they toy with anyone in the league right now.
I do however disagree with the OP on Steph Curry. I think he has a skill set that really has not been seen in the NBA. He is a freakish ball handler and shooter and would be great, along with many other current NBA guys, irregardless of era.
It is too bad that Patrick Ewing didn't play in this era....he would have numerous championships because he would thrive in today's game. He could pick and pop and score on the block too. Overall I think that the guard play is better now than in the past but take those great Lakers, Pistons, Rockets or Bulls teams of the recent past and they toy with anyone in the league right now.
I do however disagree with the OP on Steph Curry. I think he has a skill set that really has not been seen in the NBA. He is a freakish ball handler and shooter and would be great, along with many other current NBA guys, irregardless of era.
You're the Rockets fan, right?
Nothing like hearing others try and unrealistically diminish what a great team just accomplished due to sour grapes. As a KY fan, you should know better.
Here is an interesting article ranking the 50 greatest teams of all time. Of course the methodology has some flaws, but its interesting none the less. Just scanned it briefly but thought the rankings were reasonable. The GSW were a very good team this year but I agree that they wouldn't be top 10 all time. But they definitely are not a weak champion when you look at their regular season dominance. They did not dominate in the playoffs to the same degree but still won without having to play a single game seven. Yes some of the teams they played had injury issues but you can only play who is in front of you. That Cleveland team even with its injuries was way better than any other team the east could have offered. One thing I would change in the rankings, I think all 6 of Jordan's Bulls teams were better than this Golden State team.
http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/201...den-state-warriors-rank-50-greatest-nba-teams
http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/201...den-state-warriors-rank-50-greatest-nba-teams
Last edited:
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
I know they could at least beat Nowitzki's Mavericks team and a couple others.
weak ass Golden State. no doubt about that. buzz all around Cleveland this morning is David Griffin is so pissed off - he's throwing everybody and everything under the bus. Told his staff in two emails and several text messages he's taking Larry Nance Jr. in the first round just to make a point.
Just to play along with the OP, i'd argue this GS team is better than the Mavs team that beat LeBron his 1st year in Miami if can remember back then. I bet LeBron wishes he had Wiggins now for these finals.
Advancements in technology mean that teams, players, and their management are more aware of injuries than they were years ago.
Players are much more likely to be shut down to preserve their bodies and the longevity of their careers.
More opportunistic scorer? LOL. He averaged five points a game. He only made more than two field goals in ONE game. He was barely a blip on the radar as far as scoring goes for the first 5 games. What a joke of a statement.
I disagree with that. it was a chore for Cleveland to put up points, so when Golden State would go on their ridiculous runs Cleveland would have chip away at big leads, and they didn't have the personnel to do that.
They maybe win with a healthy Irving.
I was just making a crack. But I was more talking about the thought in todays sporting world that eating green and being extremely cautious with your body somehow relates to a healthier league, in any sport. I don't buy it for the most part. Take baseball for example - Pitchers injuries are as bad or worse than ever, and pitchers threw way more innings back when. Why? Eat a damn steak, put some meat on your bones, put down vanity fair.....
but It's not really about the health of anyone anyway, as we see by the NFL still being an organized sport. I wasn't really making a point though.
Golden State isn't getting the respect they deserve from the OP. Sixty-seven wins in that conference is nothing to sneeze at. Curry beat AD, Gasol, Harden and James in the playoffs...those were the other four members of the all-NBA team. They had the MVP AND they were the deepest team in the NBA. What more do you want?
That Detroit team was a machine on defense. Absolutely DESTROYED the "superior" Lakers team.
I'd take Det over GS
I'd take Det over GS
I tend to lean toward the idea that the league is watered down and most title teams would have taken care of GS.
Karl Malone was hurt, and Kobe had legal trouble hanging over his head. Nobody was doing the Lakers any favors in that series.
Detroit was sort of the perfect storm, but that team and this GS bunch would have had interesting match ups across the board.
