>>Jazz had 2 top 50 players at their peaks.
>>
>Malone & Stockton were in their mid-30s, Stockton was a 12/8
>guy, Malone was Malone, Hornacek was a spot up shooter & the
>rest of the core was Adam Keefe, Greg Foster, Howard Eisley,
>Ostertag & Byron Russell.
>
>Were they more a problem on a court than Durant, Westbrook &
>Harden with Ibaka swatting shots inside?
>
>I don't think so.....not even a little bit.
You think they'd be scared of Ibaka inside? Zach Randolph ate him for breakfast. You don't think Karl Malone would do twice as much damage?

And it's not about the talent. The biggest issue with OKC was in the half-court defense and half-court execution. Utah would pick and roll that team to death, and they would have no answer. On the other end, their offense would revolve around Durant and Westbrook taking turns how to figure out what to do. Once one of them went cold it'd be over.

It's not even about the talent on the court. It's about the talent on the bench. Sloan would teach Brooks such a lesson

>>Sonics had one HOF & another who looked like he was on his
>>way.
>>
>They were a mentally weak team who never put it all together.
Wait, what?
That team held Jordan to his worst Finals in his career. They choked twice (against Golden St. and Denver), but it took 44 and 24 from Sir Charles and Olajuwon to knock them out the playoffs. The year they made the Finals, they had to deal with a 72 win Bulls squad. Mentally weak is a stretch

>>Blazers were a great team.
>>
>First of all, I only included the last three-peat but even
>still, no the Blazers were not a great team.
>
>They were a good team, they were basically the same level of
>team Rick Adelman was as a coach.
>
>And this wasn't even one of their best years.
>
>They won the same amount of games as the Knicks did this
>year.
>
>
>>Suns might be the weakest of that bunch.
>
>Nope. Suns were actually the best team the Bulls beat.
The Suns would wreck OKC AND Dallas as well. SA is the only team that could probably hang with them or Utah