(c) Myles Brown


https://twitter.com/mdotbrown/status/342362294329692161


I can't with this nigga yo. Now I can see the argument that the Spurs (07 team) are better than 1993 Phoenix/Old Lakers Squad. I'd honestly say they aren't clear cut above the Seattle/Utah/Portland teams though I'd prob pick them vs. Portland & Utah. Tryin to make it like OKC is clearly better than Seattle/Utah/Portland on some easy shit is just stupid.

I can't.

And the 92 Blazers = prime Drexler, '93 Suns = prime Barkley, '96 Sonics = prime Payton. He's straight up trippin. I don't think this current Heat team could beat any of those teams Jordan played with maybe the exception of the Blazers. And that's a maybe. But Malone would have dropped 40 a game on this Heat team.

they were not that good.

None of those second three-peat finals teams were that good, that's the reason the Pacers were the only team that gave them a battle.

They were up 3-0 on those Sonics, then started filming public-service commercials pleading for the fans not to riot after they win & took their eye off the ball while out in Seattle basically ditching Game 5 to win at home.

The Sonics had lost first-round the year before to the Eddie Jones Lakers.

Those Jazz teams got there by *hanging around*. They weren't really any better than the Jazz teams getting carried in the first or second round the entire ten years before except that there wasn't anybody left to play them out West.

Suns/Blazers were done, Rockets were old, Sonics were choking & couldn't beat the Rockets, the Dell Harris Kazaam Lakers weren't ready yet.

Please.

I don't hold any of those teams in high regard, Jazz included & the only reason anyone would is to pump up MJ's legacy.

That mid-to-late-90s era was probably the weakest competition era team-wise of my lifetime outside Chicago.

that Utah team was complete.

>that Utah team was complete.

sorry, that team was not scary.

Teams with MVP's? Check.

HOF's? Check.

Finals experience? Check (Lakers, Blazers and Utah)

Jazz had 62 wins in 98 and 64 in 97. The Sonics won 64 in 96. Suns won 62.

>None of those second three-peat finals teams were that good,
>that's the reason the Pacers were the only team that gave them
>a battle.
>
>They were up 3-0 on those Sonics, then started filming
>public-service commercials pleading for the fans not to riot
>after they win & took their eye off the ball while out in
>Seattle basically ditching Game 5 to win at home.
>
>The Sonics had lost first-round the year before to the Eddie
>Jones Lakers.

Wait...didn't Dirk and co. get sonned by Baron fucking Davis and choked away a title to Miami before Bron got there? Sure Dirk balled out but NOT better than Barkley in 93.

>Those Jazz teams got there by *hanging around*. They weren't
>really any better than the Jazz teams getting carried in the
>first or second round the entire ten years before except that
>there wasn't anybody left to play them out West.
>
>Suns/Blazers were done, Rockets were old, Sonics were choking
>& couldn't beat the Rockets, the Dell Harris Kazaam Lakers
>weren't ready yet.
>
>Please.

You do realize you just dissed Shaq with 5 yrs of exp, David Robinson (with a rookie duncan none the less that won the title the very next season), Kobe with 2 yrs under his belt, Garnett with 3?

>I don't hold any of those teams in high regard, Jazz included
>& the only reason anyone would is to pump up MJ's legacy.
>
>That mid-to-late-90s era was probably the weakest competition
>era team-wise of my lifetime outside Chicago.

The Spurs? Prolly better than any of the teams the bulls played.
The Mavs? No. Of the teams the Bulls played, I think that Dal team would lose to 4-5 of them.
The Thunder? A team in it's first finals? No. Utah, Seattle, Phx and Portland woulda beat last years Thunder.

You mofo's love to throw rocks at the throne tho. So I'ma let ya'll cook. Have at it.

>Teams with MVP's? Check.
>
>HOF's? Check.
>
uh, name me a Finals team here that doesn't have that.

>Finals experience? Check (Lakers, Blazers and Utah)
>
That Laker team had 'experience' with a different core, we know that '91 team was Magic dragging them there.

The other two had experience losing.

>Jazz had 62 wins in 98 and 64 in 97. The Sonics won 64 in 96.
>Suns won 62.
>
We're talking second three-peat & I said what I said. You don't need to Google win totals.

Tell me why those Jazz teams were better than the 07 Spurs or 11 Thunder.

>>None of those second three-peat finals teams were that good,
>>that's the reason the Pacers were the only team that gave
>them
>>a battle.
>>
>>They were up 3-0 on those Sonics, then started filming
>>public-service commercials pleading for the fans not to riot
>>after they win & took their eye off the ball while out in
>>Seattle basically ditching Game 5 to win at home.
>>
>>The Sonics had lost first-round the year before to the Eddie
>>Jones Lakers.
>
>Wait...didn't Dirk and co. get sonned by Baron fucking Davis
>and choked away a title to Miami before Bron got there?
So you really brought up *the other time* they went to the Finals to cyse the Sonics?

Sure
>Dirk balled out but NOT better than Barkley in 93.
>
>>Those Jazz teams got there by *hanging around*. They weren't
>>really any better than the Jazz teams getting carried in the
>>first or second round the entire ten years before except
>that
>>there wasn't anybody left to play them out West.
>>
>>Suns/Blazers were done, Rockets were old, Sonics were
>choking
>>& couldn't beat the Rockets, the Dell Harris Kazaam Lakers
>>weren't ready yet.
>>
>>Please.
>
>You do realize you just dissed Shaq with 5 yrs of exp,
yup, those Del Harris Shaq squads couldn't get it together mentally, they were immature & undisciplined.

David
>Robinson (with a rookie duncan none the less that won the
>title the very next season),
Yup. DRob was never winning anything, was considered having fallen off by then. Duncan was the difference maker which manifested itself by his second year & the Jazz were never heard from again.

>Kobe with 2 yrs under his belt,
yeah dude, he was 19 then reading his poetry on the Cindy Crawford Show, you trying to make my point for me?

>Garnett with 3?
>
So? 21, playing on an expansion team, never good enough to carry a team on his own anyway.

Your case is making mine.

>>I don't hold any of those teams in high regard, Jazz
>included
>>& the only reason anyone would is to pump up MJ's legacy.
>>
>>That mid-to-late-90s era was probably the weakest
>competition
>>era team-wise of my lifetime outside Chicago.
>
>The Spurs? Prolly better than any of the teams the bulls
>played.
>The Mavs? No. Of the teams the Bulls played, I think that Dal
>team would lose to 4-5 of them.
Disagree. Suns only team with a shot.

>The Thunder? A team in it's first finals? No. Utah, Seattle,
>Phx and Portland woulda beat last years Thunder.
>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAA

>You mofo's love to throw rocks at the throne tho. So I'ma let
>ya'll cook. Have at it.

Please. Nobody's coming to take rings away. I got nothing against MJ. Just don't try to sell me on those foes being some murderer's row because they weren't. The late-90's West was a joke.

>they were not that good.
>None of those second three-peat finals teams were that good,
>that's the reason the Pacers were the only team that gave them
>a battle.
It's all about match-ups, the Pacers had Reggie to make MJ work, the Jazz had Russell.

>Those Jazz teams got there by *hanging around*. They weren't
>really any better than the Jazz teams getting carried in the
>first or second round the entire ten years before except that
>there wasn't anybody left to play them out West.
Again, it's all about match-ups, the Jazz used to own everyone in the West(including Admiral's Spurs/Kazzam's Lakers) but could get past teams Clyde's Blazers nor GP's Sonics....Dream also wouldn't be denied in 94/95.

>Sonics were choking & couldn't beat the Rockets,
The Sonics had the Rocket's number but they just didn't face each other during Houston's 2-peat run.

>I don't hold any of those teams in high regard, Jazz included
>& the only reason anyone would is to pump up MJ's legacy.
MJ's greatness & bling has been known to blind haters all over.

>That mid-to-late-90s era was probably the weakest competition
>era team-wise of my lifetime outside Chicago.
So, you're basically admitting that MJ made the Bulls invincible.

>>they were not that good.
>>None of those second three-peat finals teams were that good,
>>that's the reason the Pacers were the only team that gave
>them
>>a battle.
>It's all about match-ups, the Pacers had Reggie to make MJ
>work, the Jazz had Russell.
>
>>Those Jazz teams got there by *hanging around*. They weren't
>>really any better than the Jazz teams getting carried in the
>>first or second round the entire ten years before except
>that
>>there wasn't anybody left to play them out West.
>Again, it's all about match-ups, the Jazz used to own everyone
>in the West(including Admiral's Spurs/Kazzam's Lakers) but
>could get past teams Clyde's Blazers nor GP's Sonics....Dream
>also wouldn't be denied in 94/95.
>
>>Sonics were choking & couldn't beat the Rockets,
>The Sonics had the Rocket's number but they just didn't face
>each other during Houston's 2-peat run.
>
>>I don't hold any of those teams in high regard, Jazz
>included
>>& the only reason anyone would is to pump up MJ's legacy.
>MJ's greatness & bling has been known to blind haters all
>over.
>
>>That mid-to-late-90s era was probably the weakest
>competition
>>era team-wise of my lifetime outside Chicago.
>So, you're basically admitting that MJ made the Bulls
>invincible.

>they were not that good.

yeah..they were very good.


>
>None of those second three-peat finals teams were that good,
>that's the reason the Pacers were the only team that gave them
>a battle.
>
>They were up 3-0 on those Sonics, then started filming
>public-service commercials pleading for the fans not to riot
>after they win & took their eye off the ball while out in
>Seattle basically ditching Game 5 to win at home.
>
>The Sonics had lost first-round the year before to the Eddie
>Jones Lakers.

again.... that Sonic team had a great coach...2 outstanding players in their primes..

the Lakers upset them...but that Laker team had guys who made all star teams...Eddie..Nick Van...Ced Ceballos....




>
>Those Jazz teams got there by *hanging around*. They weren't
>really any better than the Jazz teams getting carried in the
>first or second round the entire ten years before except that
>there wasn't anybody left to play them out West.
>
>Suns/Blazers were done, Rockets were old, Sonics were choking
>& couldn't beat the Rockets, the Dell Harris Kazaam Lakers
>weren't ready yet.
>
>Please.
>
>I don't hold any of those teams in high regard, Jazz included
>& the only reason anyone would is to pump up MJ's legacy.
>
>That mid-to-late-90s era was probably the weakest competition
>era team-wise of my lifetime outside Chicago.
>

they weren't garbage teams....not the level of teams the Lakers beat during show time..... but those it was still a fairly challenging road for those Bulls teams.

then Byron Russell, Hornacek, Adam Keefe, Ostertag & Harold Eisley.

Sorry my dude, that ain't some big scary team to contend with.

They did nothing collectively that makes me respect them more than even last year's Thunder let alone the '07 Spurs.

>>they were not that good.
>
>yeah..they were very good.
>
>
>>
>>None of those second three-peat finals teams were that good,
>>that's the reason the Pacers were the only team that gave
>them
>>a battle.
>>
>>They were up 3-0 on those Sonics, then started filming
>>public-service commercials pleading for the fans not to riot
>>after they win & took their eye off the ball while out in
>>Seattle basically ditching Game 5 to win at home.
>>
>>The Sonics had lost first-round the year before to the Eddie
>>Jones Lakers.
>
>again.... that Sonic team had a great coach...2 outstanding
>players in their primes..
>
a great coach who never wins shit but stays getting fellated in the media & a power-forward who made a punchline of himself with a PG who never won til he was done.

>the Lakers upset them...but that Laker team had guys who made
>all star teams...Eddie..Nick Van...Ced Ceballos....
>
>
so?
>
>
>>
>>Those Jazz teams got there by *hanging around*. They weren't
>>really any better than the Jazz teams getting carried in the
>>first or second round the entire ten years before except
>that
>>there wasn't anybody left to play them out West.
>>
>>Suns/Blazers were done, Rockets were old, Sonics were
>choking
>>& couldn't beat the Rockets, the Dell Harris Kazaam Lakers
>>weren't ready yet.
>>
>>Please.
>>
>>I don't hold any of those teams in high regard, Jazz
>included
>>& the only reason anyone would is to pump up MJ's legacy.
>>
>>That mid-to-late-90s era was probably the weakest
>competition
>>era team-wise of my lifetime outside Chicago.
>>
>
>they weren't garbage teams....not the level of teams the
>Lakers beat during show time..... but those it was still a
>fairly challenging road for those Bulls teams.

We're talking about whether they were better than the 07 Spurs, the '10 Mavs or the '11 Thunder.

I don't think any of them were.

The Spurs might've though.

the only thing that would have people pretending they'd make light work of them is their own nostalgia.

Those teams weren't that good.

Jazz had 2 top 50 players at their peaks.

Sonics had one HOF & another who looked like he was on his way.

Blazers were a great team.

Suns might be the weakest of that bunch.

The careers aren't close, but prime KJ was better than Stockton IMO. And I always thought Barkley at his peak was a little better than Malone at his. He could do more.

The Suns had one of the great "what if" players in Richard Dumas too. I think they had more talent than Utah 97-98.

>The careers aren't close, but prime KJ was better than
>Stockton IMO. And I always thought Barkley at his peak was a
>little better than Malone at his. He could do more.
>
>The Suns had one of the great "what if" players in Richard
>Dumas too. I think they had more talent than Utah 97-98.

That's when he started being injured guy

they were able to rest him throughout the season & give him time off since they were balling with Barkley regardless.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>>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

>>>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?
>
Karl Malone was gonna run that same pick-and-roll he always did.

Karl Malone was one of the most easily frustratable, least clutch great players there ever was & he was that team's only All-Star.

Sorry, those teams weren't that good.

They won a war of attrition in the late 90's West is all.

Durant/Westbrook/Harden outscores Malone/Stockton/Hornacek by a wide-ass number.

>And it's not about the talent.
uh, yes, it is.

talent is always the biggest factor.

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.
>
There was three of them last year.

And Utah had nobody that could defend any of them.

The difference in their respective atleticism, talent & offensive firepower is so vast I'm mad you're making me waste my time telling you.

>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.
dude, it was 3-0.

That only looked like a series after the fact.

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
>
Mentally weak. Always were, nothing you wrote there has changed my mind. Payton I loved but he was a hot-head, Matt Maloney dropped 26 on his ass in that Houston series because he was stubborn. Kemp's issues were well-documnted. As are George Karl's playoff collapses.

>>>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

Suns are the only team that you could make an argument about for me, luckily I only said second three-peat anyway.

last year's thunder team would really murk them

faced them

and now 6 seasons later this same core group of players is playing for their 5th title

Jordan never faced a team anywhere close to being a dynasty during those Bulls title runs. The 91 Lakers were a different team that really shouldn't have been in the finals to begin with...

Phoenix was all offense
Seattle just didn't have enough firepower..ditto for Utah

I dot trust your sense of history.

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=2190727&mesg_id=2190727&listing_type=search

-------------------------
“Floyd Mayweather should be taking fights up to 157 or 160 pounds...His frame can hold the weight..it's not even a lot of weight....Go to the gym and lift weights man..lol.”-- Warren Coolidge

but you know - that does seem like such a looooooooong time ago



>-------------------------
>“Floyd Mayweather should be taking fights up to 157 or 160
>pounds...His frame can hold the weight..it's not even a lot of
>weight....Go to the gym and lift weights man..lol.”-- Warren
>Coolidge

>Jordan never faced a team anywhere close to being a dynasty
>during those Bulls title runs.
i'm not going to point out the obvious, because your logic, being third grade level, needs to develop and expand into something that a middle schooler can be proud of

>
>Phoenix was all offense
>Seattle just didn't have enough firepower..ditto for Utah

>
>>Jordan never faced a team anywhere close to being a dynasty
>>during those Bulls title runs.
>i'm not going to point out the obvious, because your logic,
>being third grade level, needs to develop and expand into
>something that a middle schooler can be proud of

Which team was a dynasty? "Point out the obvious" instead of your failed attempt at snark...lol
>
>>
>>Phoenix was all offense
>>Seattle just didn't have enough firepower..ditto for Utah
>

>>
>>>Jordan never faced a team anywhere close to being a dynasty
>>>during those Bulls title runs.
>>i'm not going to point out the obvious, because your logic,
>>being third grade level, needs to develop and expand into
>>something that a middle schooler can be proud of
>
>Which team was a dynasty? "Point out the obvious" instead of
>your failed attempt at snark...lol
when one team wins 6 of 8 titles, who the fuck else CAN be a dynasty? has it occurred to you that they're the reason no other team was "close to being a dynasty" since being a dynasty requires, um, winning a lot of championships??

smh

you floundering in here

>>
>>>
>>>Phoenix was all offense
>>>Seattle just didn't have enough firepower..ditto for Utah
>>
>

Now the Heat are beating a prime Barkley & KJ, Kemp and Payton, Malone, Stockton and Hornacek? Really?
When this team struggled with Hibbert and West?

Those defensive minded squads like the Knicks, Pacers & 91 Pistons I would say isn't far from the shit that the Spurs threw out in 07. Except even when the Pistons thumped Chicago out the 'offs Jordan wasn't bitching the fuck up in fetal position as Bron did in 07

those Lakers back in 91 were old and done and they got hurt over that series and still took the Bulls to overtime. those Lakers shouldn't have beaten those Blazers back then.

those Blazers were choking and looking out of place mentally and even Scottie alluded to that and they still took the Bulls to 6 games and it was the bulls bench who won that game 6 in the CHI. Drexler was out of his element as being a leader and they didn't have a legit center and cats with talent, however nobody you feared.

Suns played wild and didn't play any defense and still were there in game 6.

the next 3 peat

against the mentally challenged 3 point shooting sonics. Shawn Kemp IMO was the best player on that floor in that series. Dennis Rodman though stole that series for the Bulls. aside from game 3 the Bulls were busted and just kinda there in that series. and the sonics still took them to 6.

the Jazz never had a Center and it cost them big time both times. also once they were limited in the half court they didn't have enough to muster up that next and yet both them series still went 6 games.

Bron went against a Duncan and Parker who were prime and Pumped up and they were something else period then.

Dirk and Dallas was the thing that the Blazers of 92 didn't have that one guy who you could climb on his back for the Jewelry.


Durant and Russy would be a handful for the bulls back in the 90's only one scottie Pippen to cover that. harden off the bench would be a nightmare.

finals teams except the 91 Lakers. 07 Spurs? yeah. But I don't think this Spurs team is as good as their playoff run suggests. They're good. But they also benefited from Westbrook going down. I'm not sure they're clearly better than the Jazz were.

Russy/KD > GP/Kemp
Harden/Fish > Schrempf/Hawkins
Ibaka > Sam Perk
Thabo = Nate
Perk/Collison > Ervin Johnson

And Harden pulled a Starks in the Finals; it's hard to say that he was better than anyone given the way he played.

Russy was getting toasted by Top5 that Scott Brooks had to put Thabo on him. Meanwhile Beard was out there jacking up daggers in Kawhi's face. Harden always struggles when he has to expand energy on the defensive end which is why he played subpar against the Lakers(Kobe)/Heat (Wade). .........LMAO @ Starks being anywhere as talented as Harden

I said he pulled a Starks, not that Starks was as good.

And your Russ example is yet another reason why GP was better than Westbrook.

And it's WCF as in Western Conference Finals, not whatever you think WFC is.

they were better than any of those finals teams minus my lakers. They weren't ready.

cause you had to know some of these idiots would come in here trying to lend it credence.

trying to justify the times lebron came up SMALL by trying to overhype his competition?

I'm not gonna even talk about the Mavs or OKC.

The same spurs team who was taken to seven games two years prior by the pistons team that lebron shit on in the palace in that legendary game?

The same Spurs team on which Tony Parker was the best player in that series?

The same Spurs team that despite Lebron and a bunch of stiffs and a sweep, could have been beaten in each game if Lebron didn't play like ABSOLUTE SHIT. The nigga shot 35% from the field. It wasn't ALL their defense.

MJ went against the 86 celtics and got swept, but he put up a playoff record number of points and forced overtimes before he was done. you high school ass motherfuckers need to read some books before you come in here spouting this johnny come lately.

To try and judge a player or a team against competition of another time is an exercise in foolishness. All a player can do is play who is in front of them. To try and hype that dude's opponents just cause he looked SHITTY or turned BITCH against them is some desperate ass revisionist history.

as players and as a team

If they couldn't handle Hibbert, how the hell were they handling Ewing? Shit, Rik Smits would've given 'em fits.

This is the natural conclusion to shitting on today's ballers by constantly comparing them to older players. This is what happens when you use legends to routinely knock down today's players. Someone got tired of the "he'll never be Jordan" argument and made an argument against it.

even beyond the accurate breakdown that Bomb provided
you have to consider the fact that the athletes are better now
there were no Durants, Lebron, or PG's to deal with
the game has evolved and the elite teams now are better deal with it
even the offensive and defensive philosophies are much more intricate
the spurs and heat would have ran thru that era like diaherria just off the fact i'm not sure what teams(outside of the bulls) could have defended the perimeter well enough to deal with the ball rotation and raining threes
it was a simpler era and the parity of quality teams is more nostalgia than anything else

n/m

>even beyond the accurate breakdown that Bomb provided
>you have to consider the fact that the athletes are better now

this is a ridiculous statement to make. on a purely measurable level, players can only be compared to contemporaries. its a way of standardizing things.

>there were no Durants, Lebron, or PG's to deal with
>the game has evolved and the elite teams now are better deal
>with it

so guys in their mid 20's werent on rosters 20 years ago?

shit bro

>the spurs and heat would have ran thru that era like diaherria
>just off the fact i'm not sure what teams(outside of the
>bulls) could have defended the perimeter well enough to deal
>with the ball rotation and raining threes
>it was a simpler era and the parity of quality teams is more
>nostalgia than anything else

lol

They'd have to cry themselves to sleep every night.

And I also think this is more about the Mavs and Thunder. You can argue that the Spurs team that LeBron faced in Cleveland was better. I'm not sure this current, older version is better than most of the teams Jordan faced. The Thunder were young and the Mavs weren't really all that.

Maybe Battier.

reason being is that he doesn't have the mental toughness to play in that era so taking it is the problem

replies lol
it's ALL EMOTION :(

Yeah.

This Heat team would need a huge attitude adjustment to fit into the 90's NBA. The idea that they are somehow going to get tougher because they can hand check just isn't true. Bosh is soft. Period. One Cartwright elbow and he'd be asking to get taken to the morgue.

Jordan and Pippen and hell, even Kukoc would have a MUCH easier time adapting to the touch foul era than the Superfriends would to the hand-check era.

People acting like Chicago played a bunch of teams from the '50's with no athletes or outdated talent is laughable.

like i said didn't even put a millisecond of thought into the shit
just fucking DUMB

I would love to see Bosh, Battier and Birdman try and bang with Charles and Cedric Ceballos. At least one of them would go into early retirement before the series was over.

>I would love to see Bosh, Battier and Birdman try and bang
>with Charles and Cedric Ceballos. At least one of them would
>go into early retirement before the series was over.

yea, i think i'ma stop checking this thread
kinda frustrating

>there were no Durants, Lebron, or PG's to deal with

Gary Payton? John Stockton? Magic johnson? Kevin Johnson? Hell, even Terry Porter was nothing to sneeze at.

noted

I am honestly not sure if today's Spurs/Thunder/Mavs are objectively better than any of these teams of the past.

But if you skipped forward 15 years from now, couldn't you make almost the exact same arguments for these teams?

Is it inconceivable that we look back at last years Thunder team and go "whoa, there were 3 HOFers on that team?" I mean, injuries or drastic fall off could still happen, but Durant and Westbrook are clearly on the right track, and if Harden's career continues on it's current arc, people might completely forget he was a 6th man and shat the bed in the Finals back then.

And won't the Spurs be looked back as one of the great dynasties of all time?

I honestly don't know what history will think of the championship Mavs team, it already seems people forgot about them and the story was more of the Heat collapse, anyway.

this is an effort to prop the Heat up prematurely
it's not about the other teams or anything like that, it's about keeping the objects of their dicklust in a place they haven't earned yet

Half the fans think today's Heat would win 75 games in the 80s NBA.

And the other half think that the top 5 seeds in the 1993 Western Conference playoffs would sweep through this years Finals. With Cedric Ceballos shutting down Bron to 12/4/4 cause he could hand check.

vee-lover is putting in so much overtime in here I hope he's getting paid under the table

Of course this Heat nonsense is premature and annoying and we should just let it unfold--though maybe we just aren't patient enough?--instead of determining the value of undefined variables as of yet.

But on the other hand some people are too stuck in their nostalgia to understand that the Heat would probably fare pretty well in the 90's just as the Bulls would in today's league. The rule changes are important, but I don't think removing hand-checking made the game any easier, necessarily. One would wonder how those volume scorers from the 90's/early 2000's would do against the Thibodeau style of strong side flooding defenses... It certainly has proven to make iso scorers have much more difficulty scoring at a higher volume when you look at the drastic decline in PPG amongst the league's top gunners. I think it's at least somewhat as important as introducing hand-checking to today's top scorers in Lebron and Durant, certainly.

y'all dudes can't just let history / legacy unfold organically. stay tryna pre-write the shit. smfh.

I will just not sit around & have folks telling me the Utah Jazz were a great team.

'Can Do It'(c)Mike Singletary.

in his own conference.

two years of a rose-less bulls team. one year of the keith bogans era bulls.

a dumb knicks team.

a young pacers team without (arguably) franchise guys. granger hurt as well.

a very old boston squad.

and the old, past their peak pistons.

bron bron has had a somewhat easy/lucky path on the way to the finals. we should talk about this as well.

it's either
-crotchcaressing the Heat as an organization
-you mad?

haters hate and everybody gets hurt and then catches hurt feelings however a dynasty is happening right before your eyes.

when Oscar Robertson says that Lebron James is in his own lane well that is enough for me

and the Heat are battle tested and are always there, that is a Champion and always a force period.

RE: 3 Straight trips and it feels so Good

ain't no Gasol, Lamar and Bynum were bums and he also had Jacob the Jeweler as his coach. you better win with that lineup and coach.

Those 90's Bulls teams benefitted from injuries as well.

Having said that, you're right. The Heat win 6 but if they don't someone needs to talk about it.

They've had an easy path to the finals for a while now but that's how it is.

Nigga ain't make a damn argument but Oh they're old and Oh whos gonna guard Durant & Westbrook. Like them other teams aint got problems to watch out for.

removed from their back-to-back titles.

Their lack of depth and interior production would have gotten them crushed before they made it to the ECF in most cases.

It's easy to say they would've beat the Bulls finals opponents, but the Bulls generally won those series easily and never threatened to trail in those series, much less lose them. But the Pacers in 98, the Knicks squads, the Rockets squads, the 95 Magic (as someone mentioned earlier) would have beat the Heat in six.

While the Heat have LeBron, the fact is that the Heat are terribly flawed, and those teams had what it took to isolate Lebron's production and contain the rest, ESPECIALLY this year where you have Wade not playing at a high level and Bosh nursing that ankle. They'd get ate up in the 1990s NBA.
_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.formspring.me/KMBReferee