Shaq says his 2001 Lakers team would beat the Warriors

[Snaq O'Meal]

Former NBA players love to say that their teams would beat the Golden State Warriors. Even as the 73-win Warriors are two wins away from a second straight NBA championship, the comparisons are not stopping.

Shaquille O’Neal spoke to the Associated Press at an American Express event in New York on Monday, and guess what — he thinks his 2001 Lakers could also beat the Warriors.

Kobe and Shaq in their primes vs. Steph Curry and Klay Thompson? That would be some matchup. Too bad we’ll never see it.

Although NBA rules have changed to favor offenses, Shaq still had confidence in his 2001 Lakers team. He said via the AP:

“If you’re using those rules, we’d win. Now we use these rules these days, we’d still win, because you wouldn’t be allowed to touch me, you wouldn’t be allowed to touch Kobe. So yeah, that’s how I always look at it.”

The 2001 Lakers went 56-26, which would have put them 17 games back of the Warriors.

Source: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/06/shaq-2001-lakers-beat-golden-state-warriors

[Robz4000]

That 2001 Lakers team would be a horrible match up for GS, so I could see it.

[Kawhitstorm]

That 2001 Lakers team would be a horrible match up for GS, so I could see it.

Hack-a-Shaq then exchange 1 FT for a 3.:lol

[TheGoldStandard]

If Stern is running the show then Lakers sweep GS with some well timed 4th quarter 30 FT type closeouts.

[Robz4000]

Hack-a-Shaq then exchange 1 FT for a 3.:lol

As we've seen plenty of the past few seasons, Hack-a-whoever rarely ever works.

[TheGreatYacht]

Shaq > Curry
Kobe < Thompson
Horry < Green

Shaq was a monster... But he can't carry a bunch of scrubs against a TEAM

[offset formation]

As we've seen plenty of the past few seasons, Hack-a-whoever rarely ever works.

Bogut is a better defender than you seem to be giving him credit for, though he would have likely had foul trouble against Shaq, like much of the rest of the league.

But that tempo that GS uses, including with Bogut likely wears him out over a 7 game series.

[Kawhitstorm]

As we've seen plenty of the past few seasons, Hack-a-whoever rarely ever works.

Hack-a-DeAndre is different since DeAndre isn't going to destroy anyone in the post, teams sometimes do it b/c of his defense which isn't Shaq's forte.:lol

Put Draymond at center & run PnR w/ Curry all day long like the Kings did w/ Divac/Bibby.:lol (Just have a designated hacker like Brandon Rush & sub him out while Shaq is shooting FTs)

[Caltex2]

Only Eagle, CO prostitutes can touch Kobe Bryant. :wakeup

But seriously, the snowball effect was huge with those Lakers and the Warriors had no one to guard Shaq (who ever did after 1999?). Heck, who is there to check Kobe? Maybe the Warriors would get lucky like Iverson and pull through in a game but I'd bet money it'd be a sweep.

[Molotov]

2001 Shaq's Lakers would curbstomp this overrated Warrior team, that padded its record on soft tanking teams of :lol today's NBA.

[offset formation]

Only Eagle, CO prostitutes can touch Kobe Bryant. :wakeup

But seriously, the snowball effect was huge with those Lakers and the Warriors had no one to guard Shaq (who ever did after 1999?). Heck, who is there to check Kobe? Maybe the Warriors would get lucky like Iverson and pull through in a game but I'd bet money it'd be a sweep.

Iggy and Klay could work him. Hell, Steph played LeBron a few times the other day and did well enough. Though, of course he fouled the shit out of him with no call.

[Kawhitstorm]

But seriously, the snowball effect was huge with those Lakers and the Warriors had no one to guard Shaq (who ever did after 1999?).

Shaq shot 44% against the Spurs in 2002 despite not taking a shot outside of the paint.:lol

[Sean Cagney]

Shaq > Curry
Kobe < Thompson
Horry < Green

Shaq was a monster... But he can't carry a bunch of scrubs against a TEAM
You really honestly think Thompson is better than Kobe Bryant? A better shooter no doubt but the rest of his game?

[Kawhitstorm]

Bogut is a better defender than you seem to be giving him credit for, though he would have likely had foul trouble against Shaq, like much of the rest of the league.

But that tempo that GS uses, including with Bogut likely wears him out over a 7 game series.

Bogut in his prime used to get sonned by Orlando Dwight, he has no chance against 2001 Shaq who destroyed Mutombo.:lol

[StrengthAndHonor]

2001 Kobe would eat Thmpson alive, it's not even a debate. That was Option B Kobe at his finest.

[HarlemHeat37]

It would have been interesting to see that Lakers team against teams that actually had legit contending rosters, rather than a couple of RS win-padding teams tbh:lol

[spursistan]

let's not act like OKC didn't have these Warriors on a chokehold before they did it to themselves :lol..

[Caltex2]

It would have been interesting to see that Lakers team against teams that actually had legit contending rosters, rather than a couple of RS win-padding teams tbh:lol

What? The Kings with basically that same roster should have beaten them that very next season without rigging. The Spurs were still the Spurs and recently had a title under their belt. I'm not buying that.

[offset formation]

Bogut in his prime used to get sonned by Orlando Dwight, he has no chance against 2001 Shaq who destroyed Mutombo.:lol

See, I think he's a better defender now than 2009/2010. He has much better leverage, and is a better blocker.

And his ability to pass and run the floor would put Shaq in a uncomfortable defensive position.

[Molotov]

let's not act like OKC didn't have these Warriors on a chokehold before they did it to themselves :lol..


:lol

[lefty]

The 2001 Lakers would obliterate the Warriors tbh

[Thread]

let's not act like OKC didn't have these Warriors on a chokehold before they did it to themselves :lol..

You had 'em in hammer lock & ended up in a small package with pansies growin' up over ya's..

[ambchang]

The Lakers couldn't guard Mike Bibby and Damon Stoudamire because Derek Fisher is slow and Shaq never shows on a screen.

Curry will average 60 points a game and Thompson 40 points a game against those Lakers.

[~O~]

Meh

[Killakobe81]

The Lakers couldn't guard Mike Bibby and Damon Stoudamire because Derek Fisher is slow and Shaq never shows on a screen.

Curry will average 60 points a game and Thompson 40 points a game against those Lakers.

A bit of hyperbole ... but I agree that would most definitely be a problem ...Shaq was a horrid pnr defender. In that aspect of basketball Steven Adams was a far superior big. That being said prime shaq would shit on Bogut and Fez let alone what he would do to Draymond and Speights. Fox was one of the bestter perimter defenders at chasing through screens (so he would chase Klay)

All of this is fantasy talk ... and cannot be proven.

a couple of thoughts ...
State benefits from a weak NBA ... with a lack of quality bigs to make them pay for small bAll (as I said a few weeks back a big like David Robinson who could run with state, show and hedge in pnr and recover to protect the rim would be ideal way to nullify state, David had the best qualities of Ibaka/Adams/Kanter/roberson in one big, minus the 3pt shooting and look at the problems they caused the State offense)

The 2001 Lakers and especially Showtime era Lakers benefit from the lack training, defensive schemes etc. has advanced so when they dominated things were less modern ... 2001 Lakers run was unprecedented ... and Showtime dominated the west like Lebron on steroids.

Best team by decades:

80's: I lean 1987 Lakers because Kareem was still effective but Magic/worthy/Scott or in their primes. The numbers bear it out as the most efficient of the Showtime teams. Plus they were so hungry after Hakeem pushed their shit in in 1986. they were the most efficient offense in NBA history by metrics/

90's: 92 Bulls 2nd most efficient team Jordan in his prime ...

00's: 2001 Lakers. The regular season was shitty to start but post ASB and playoffs most dominant team since MJ

10's: 2014 Spurs* playoff efficiency off the charts and like the 1987 Lakers, a team on a mission. Soon to be replaced by the 2016 warriors.

Comparing the teams to others of their own era is the only fair way to judge

1987 Lakers edge the 1986 Celts and 83 sixers
2014 Spurs edge 2015 State (based on post-season dominance)
2001 Lakers edge over 2005 Spurs etc.
92 bulls over clutch city, Bad boys or 2nd 3peat bulls

Those were the 4 best teams I ever saw with the 86 Celts 83 sixers, Badboy Pistons

[rude1_79]

let's not act like OKC didn't have these Warriors on a chokehold before they did it to themselves :lol..

agree. i dont see those lakers losing a 3-1 lead if they had it.

[LkrFan]

Shaq > Curry
Kobe < Thompson
Horry < Green

Shaq was a monster... But he can't carry a bunch of scrubs against a TEAM

:lmao

[LkrFan]

The Lakers couldn't guard Mike Bibby and Damon Stoudamire because Derek Fisher is slow and Shaq never shows on a screen.

Curry will average 60 points a game and Thompson 40 points a game against those Lakers.

There's two sides. Who guards 22 year old Kobe - Green? Iggy? :lol

[LkrFan]

It would have been interesting to see that Lakers team against teams that actually had legit contending rosters, rather than a couple of RS win-padding teams tbh:lol

Lakers went thru the 210 that year IIRC. What you tryna say HH? :lol

[LkrFan]

Iggy and Klay could work him. Hell, Steph played LeBron a few times the other day and did well enough. Though, of course he fouled the shit out of him with no call.

LeHype is not nearly as good as Kobe as a one on one player. Curry could not guard Kobe. Even prime Bruce Lee Bowen had issues with him. You think Klay and Iggy could deal with a spry 22 year old? :lol

[ambchang]

A bit of hyperbole ... but I agree that would most definitely be a problem ...Shaq was a horrid pnr defender. In that aspect of basketball Steven Adams was a far superior big. That being said prime shaq would shit on Bogut and Fez let alone what he would do to Draymond and Speights. Fox was one of the bestter perimter defenders at chasing through screens (so he would chase Klay)

All of this is fantasy talk ... and cannot be proven.

No question, Shaq will eat the Warriors alive, and I don't see anyone on the Warriors stopping Kobe with today's rules, but their offensive output would be negated by Klays and Currys, and Warriors simply has a better supporting casts in the other areas, and you are talking about trading 2s for 3s.


a couple of thoughts ...
State benefits from a weak NBA ... with a lack of quality bigs to make them pay for small bAll (as I said a few weeks back a big like David Robinson who could run with state, show and hedge in pnr and recover to protect the rim would be ideal way to nullify state, David had the best qualities of Ibaka/Adams/Kanter/roberson in one big, minus the 3pt shooting and look at the problems they caused the State offense)

Robinson would kill the Warriors, as would a big like Hakeem, or even Ewing. Hell, I can see Rik Smits causing issues for GSW. A team with a big who is mobile enough to shut down the paint and defend his man out to 18 can cause all kinds of issues for the Warriors. They can simply have the other four hone in on their man, and show on every Curry/Thompson PnR.


The 2001 Lakers and especially Showtime era Lakers benefit from the lack training, defensive schemes etc. has advanced so when they dominated things were less modern ... 2001 Lakers run was unprecedented ... and Showtime dominated the west like Lebron on steroids.

2001 Lakers were legit. Can't really argue otherwise.


Best team by decades:

80's: I lean 1987 Lakers because Kareem was still effective but Magic/worthy/Scott or in their primes. The numbers bear it out as the most efficient of the Showtime teams. Plus they were so hungry after Hakeem pushed their shit in in 1986. they were the most efficient offense in NBA history by metrics/

86 Celtics for me. The 83 6ers get criminally underrated as well.

Of the Lakers, it's between the 87 or 85 Lakers, but I'd side with 87 Lakers if I had to choose.


90's: 92 Bulls 2nd most efficient team Jordan in his prime ...

I thought you were arguing the 2nd three-peat bulls were better. Or did I get the guy wrong. But yeah, 92 Bulls were incredible.


00's: 2001 Lakers. The regular season was shitty to start but post ASB and playoffs most dominant team since MJ

Yes, we agree on this one. i think the 04 Pistons or the 05 Spurs should come in 2nd. 08 Celtics would be 3rd.


10's: 2014 Spurs* playoff efficiency off the charts and like the 1987 Lakers, a team on a mission. Soon to be replaced by the 2016 warriors.

Can't agree on the 16 Warriors. The playoffs exposed the 16 Warriors as an overrated team. Their record is a function of a weak league, and not the other way around. Conversely, the 14 Spurs got hot at the right time, and really played the Finals in a way that was dominant. That said, the 12 Heat can make a case as well.


Comparing the teams to others of their own era is the only fair way to judge

1987 Lakers edge the 1986 Celts and 83 sixers
2014 Spurs edge 2015 State (based on post-season dominance)
2001 Lakers edge over 2005 Spurs etc.
92 bulls over clutch city, Bad boys or 2nd 3peat bulls

Those were the 4 best teams I ever saw with the 86 Celts 83 sixers, Badboy Pistons

Yeah, we can agree on those.

I think the Warriors are going to do to NBA offense what the Badboy Pistons do to NBA defense.

[ambchang]

A bit of hyperbole ... but I agree that would most definitely be a problem ...Shaq was a horrid pnr defender. In that aspect of basketball Steven Adams was a far superior big. That being said prime shaq would shit on Bogut and Fez let alone what he would do to Draymond and Speights. Fox was one of the bestter perimter defenders at chasing through screens (so he would chase Klay)

All of this is fantasy talk ... and cannot be proven.

No question, Shaq will eat the Warriors alive, and I don't see anyone on the Warriors stopping Kobe with today's rules, but their offensive output would be negated by Klays and Currys, and Warriors simply has a better supporting casts in the other areas, and you are talking about trading 2s for 3s.


a couple of thoughts ...
State benefits from a weak NBA ... with a lack of quality bigs to make them pay for small bAll (as I said a few weeks back a big like David Robinson who could run with state, show and hedge in pnr and recover to protect the rim would be ideal way to nullify state, David had the best qualities of Ibaka/Adams/Kanter/roberson in one big, minus the 3pt shooting and look at the problems they caused the State offense)

Robinson would kill the Warriors, as would a big like Hakeem, or even Ewing. Hell, I can see Rik Smits causing issues for GSW. A team with a big who is mobile enough to shut down the paint and defend his man out to 18 can cause all kinds of issues for the Warriors. They can simply have the other four hone in on their man, and show on every Curry/Thompson PnR.


The 2001 Lakers and especially Showtime era Lakers benefit from the lack training, defensive schemes etc. has advanced so when they dominated things were less modern ... 2001 Lakers run was unprecedented ... and Showtime dominated the west like Lebron on steroids.

2001 Lakers were legit. Can't really argue otherwise.


Best team by decades:

80's: I lean 1987 Lakers because Kareem was still effective but Magic/worthy/Scott or in their primes. The numbers bear it out as the most efficient of the Showtime teams. Plus they were so hungry after Hakeem pushed their shit in in 1986. they were the most efficient offense in NBA history by metrics/

86 Celtics for me. The 83 6ers get criminally underrated as well.

Of the Lakers, it's between the 87 or 85 Lakers, but I'd side with 87 Lakers if I had to choose.


90's: 92 Bulls 2nd most efficient team Jordan in his prime ...

I thought you were arguing the 2nd three-peat bulls were better. Or did I get the guy wrong. But yeah, 92 Bulls were incredible.


00's: 2001 Lakers. The regular season was shitty to start but post ASB and playoffs most dominant team since MJ

Yes, we agree on this one. i think the 04 Pistons or the 05 Spurs should come in 2nd. 08 Celtics would be 3rd.


10's: 2014 Spurs* playoff efficiency off the charts and like the 1987 Lakers, a team on a mission. Soon to be replaced by the 2016 warriors.

Can't agree on the 16 Warriors. The playoffs exposed the 16 Warriors as an overrated team. Their record is a function of a weak league, and not the other way around. Conversely, the 14 Spurs got hot at the right time, and really played the Finals in a way that was dominant. That said, the 12 Heat can make a case as well.


Comparing the teams to others of their own era is the only fair way to judge

1987 Lakers edge the 1986 Celts and 83 sixers
2014 Spurs edge 2015 State (based on post-season dominance)
2001 Lakers edge over 2005 Spurs etc.
92 bulls over clutch city, Bad boys or 2nd 3peat bulls

Those were the 4 best teams I ever saw with the 86 Celts 83 sixers, Badboy Pistons

Yeah, we can agree on those.

I think the Warriors are going to do to NBA offense what the Badboy Pistons do to NBA defense.

[Kawhitstorm]

See, I think he's a better defender now than 2009/2010. He has much better leverage, and is a better blocker.

And his ability to pass and run the floor would put Shaq in a uncomfortable defensive position.

Bogut was a better shot blocker with the Bucks even with their shitty defensive schemes. He used to own the Spurs.:lol

[LkrFan]

You really honestly think Thompson is better than Kobe Bryant? A better shooter no doubt but the rest of his game?

He trolling. :lol

[Kawhitstorm]

What? The Kings with basically that same roster should have beaten them that very next season without rigging. The Spurs were still the Spurs and recently had a title under their belt. I'm not buying that.

Same roster?:lmao

Bibby was the MVP of the 2002 WCF while Jason Williams was WestBrick status during crunch time.:lol

[TheGoldStandard]

The glorious thing is that all the nut riders that GS has picked up along the way would go back to cheering for their precious Lakers. Silver is no fool and would easily go the Stern route encouraging the refs to allow LA to play as aggressive as they wanted meanwhile benefiting from some really favorable calls if they were needing it in crunch time.

Lakers would live at the foul line while Draymond, Bogut, Iggy and Livingston would all be in early foul trouble in the 1st half.

[Thread]

The glorious thing is that all the nut riders that GS has picked up along the way would go back to cheering for their precious Lakers. Silver is no fool and would easily go the Stern route encouraging the refs to allow LA to play as aggressive as they wanted meanwhile benefiting from some really favorable calls if they were needing it in crunch time.

Lakers would live at the foul line while Draymond, Bogut, Iggy and Livingston would all be in early foul trouble in the 1st half.

Only pussies & assholes (primarily Spur Fan) blame the officiating.

[TheGoldStandard]

Only pussies & assholes (primarily Spur Fan) blame the officiating.

27 FT's in the 4th quarter alone..

[Thread]

27 FT's in the 4th quarter alone..

Only pussies & assholes blame the officiating.

[Floyd Pacquiao]

Did the 01 Lakers even beat anyone good? They beat a 1 man lead spurs team and a 1 man sixers team.

[Killakobe81]

No question, Shaq will eat the Warriors alive, and I don't see anyone on the Warriors stopping Kobe with today's rules, but their offensive output would be negated by Klays and Currys, and Warriors simply has a better supporting casts in the other areas, and you are talking about trading 2s for 3s.



Robinson would kill the Warriors, as would a big like Hakeem, or even Ewing. Hell, I can see Rik Smits causing issues for GSW. A team with a big who is mobile enough to shut down the paint and defend his man out to 18 can cause all kinds of issues for the Warriors. They can simply have the other four hone in on their man, and show on every Curry/Thompson PnR.



2001 Lakers were legit. Can't really argue otherwise.



86 Celtics for me. The 83 6ers get criminally underrated as well.

Of the Lakers, it's between the 87 or 85 Lakers, but I'd side with 87 Lakers if I had to choose.



I thought you were arguing the 2nd three-peat bulls were better. Or did I get the guy wrong. But yeah, 92 Bulls were incredible.



Yes, we agree on this one. i think the 04 Pistons or the 05 Spurs should come in 2nd. 08 Celtics would be 3rd.



Can't agree on the 16 Warriors. The playoffs exposed the 16 Warriors as an overrated team. Their record is a function of a weak league, and not the other way around. Conversely, the 14 Spurs got hot at the right time, and really played the Finals in a way that was dominant. That said, the 12 Heat can make a case as well.



Yeah, we can agree on those.

I think the Warriors are going to do to NBA offense what the Badboy Pistons do to NBA defense.

1. Amb I did argue initially that I liked the 2nd 3-peat Bulls better. But after diving deeper in to the numbers based on our previous discussion, I have revised my thoughts on the matter. I think having MJ at his apex is more valuable than prime Pippen. Also, I think Rodman was vastly overrated on defense by the Bulls era ... (better rebounder) compared to his Piston's days ... SO having Grant as a the primary front-court defender is probably a wash plus he has the more reliable 15-20 feet jumper.

2. It's funny how David Robinson has become underrated from being overrated. I think Smits would give the Dubs problems but not like david. Obviously dream was also mobile and agile and a better rim protector than David but when you talk about a big that would thrive in the modern NBA Robinson comes to mind to me first. Great mid range jumper, great pnr defender probably the fastest big man end-to end I ever saw. Of course prime Ewing/Hakeem/shaq/Duncan would murder the Dubs down low ... but they would murder any era. I think Robinson in particular would benefit most from the new rules and cause the dubs so many problems. Many consider him a notch below most those other guys and career-wise they may be right ... but if David played in 2016 I think his impact would be tremendous like a combo of prime Dwight Pippen and Ibaka.

3. Obviously Kobe would wreck guys with no hand checks in his prime but I do think Iggy could defend him reasonably well or at least better than most.

4. As for the Dubs should we also hold the first round vs. RC and the Mavs against the 2014 Spurs? Is the Dubs 7 game series vs. OKC any more "exposed" than the Spurs getting pushed by an 8th seed? That doesn't make any sense. IF the dubs repeat not only is the the two year run more impressive but when they were "exposed" their best playerwas less than 100% and facing 2 of the 5 best players in the NBA and had to beat a rested LeBron to repeat. Hell yes the 2016>2014 Spurs if they finish the job.

4. Those Celts were an amazing passing team but again the numbers and my eye test will give the Lakers the edge but for me it is close. I think the 1987 Lakers played a similar game to those Celts but with better speed and finishers ...the celts were the better shooting team though.

5. Nice when we can agree for a change Like I said, I love talkin' hoops with you when a certain player is omitted or only a side note to the story. I respect your history of the game even if I think you overrate Moses and Chuck Daly a bit ...:toast

[Killakobe81]

Did the 01 Lakers even beat anyone good? They beat a 1 man lead spurs team and a 1 man sixers team.

Revisionist history.

IIRC We beat Spurs, Blazers, Sixers and Kings HOF players on those teams:

David Robinson
Tim Duncan
Allen Iverson
Scottie Pippen

All-stars:

Webber, Bibby, Rasheed, Mutombo, Steve Smith, Damon Stodamire, Peja, Zbo, Jermaine O'neal etc.

[Gummi Clutch]

if the bigs on OKC gave them problems...yea he's right

[Floyd Pacquiao]

Revisionist history.

IIRC We beat Spurs, Blazers, Sixers and Kings HOF players on those teams:

David Robinson
Tim Duncan
Allen Iverson
Scottie Pippen

All-stars:

Webber, Bibby, Rasheed, Mutombo, Steve Smith, Damon Stodamire, Peja, Zbo, Jermaine O'neal etc.

Portland was a 7th seed. They wasn't that good. Kings maybe the only solid all around team the Lakers beat. Duncan was all alone playing with a group of TOSBs as was iverson. Mutombo is a solid role player, but isn't really a 2nd or 3rd option.

[HarlemHeat37]

What? The Kings with basically that same roster should have beaten them that very next season without rigging. The Spurs were still the Spurs and recently had a title under their belt. I'm not buying that.

:lol basically the same team? Their 2nd best player/biggest matchup advantage(Bibby) wasn't even on that 2001 squad, tbh..

There's a lot of revisionist history involving that Lakers team, with people strictly looking at the records of their opponents during the RS(which is largely irrelevant, as we have seen throughout time, RS records are usually irrelevant)..have you taken a look at the perimeter competition that the Lakers went up against during that run?

35-year old Scottie Pippen/32-year old Steve Smith/Damon Stoudamire/Bonzi Wells:lol
pre-prime Peja Stojakovic/Doug Christie/Jason Williams:lol
2 games of Derek Anderson/Antonio Daniels/37-year old Terry Porter/35-year old Avery Johnson:lmao
Allen Iverson/Aaron McKie/Eric Snow

They went up against only one star perimeter player throughout the playoffs..Kobe could coast on D for the entire run, Shaq's lack of mobility couldn't be exploited, etc..the same Lakers team couldn't even stop Mike Bibby from torching them the following season..

[baseline bum]

Only pussies & assholes (primarily Spur Fan) blame the officiating.

Only pussies and assholes get waxed by the NVA

[Killakobe81]

:lol basically the same team? Their 2nd best player/biggest matchup advantage(Bibby) wasn't even on that 2001 squad, tbh..

There's a lot of revisionist history involving that Lakers team, with people strictly looking at the records of their opponents during the RS(which is largely irrelevant, as we have seen throughout time, RS records are usually irrelevant)..have you taken a look at the perimeter competition that the Lakers went up against during that run?

35-year old Scottie Pippen/32-year old Steve Smith/Damon Stoudamire/Bonzi Wells:lol
pre-prime Peja Stojakovic/Doug Christie/Jason Williams:lol
2 games of Derek Anderson/Antonio Daniels/37-year old Terry Porter/35-year old Avery Johnson:lmao
Allen Iverson/Aaron McKie/Eric Snow

They went up against only one star perimeter player throughout the playoffs..Kobe could coast on D for the entire run, Shaq's lack of mobility couldn't be exploited, etc..the same Lakers team couldn't even stop Mike Bibby from torching them the following season..

Although ESSENTIALLY true ...you cant compare 2002 shaq to 2001 shaq who was horribly out of shape .
Using the Lakers getting torched by Bibby in 2002 has little bearing on 2001.
Those teams were not great ... not even arguing they were ... but isnt that what great teams do ...dominate teams that are not?!
The 2001 Lakers lost only 1 game ...and based on what you guys arguing they did what they were supposed to do.
Many argue today's NBA is even shittier yet neither the Heat/Spurs/Dubs over the past 5-6 years were able to get close to that.

[HarlemHeat37]

Although ESSENTIALLY true ...you cant compare 2002 shaq to 2001 shaq who was horribly out of shape .
Using the Lakers getting torched by Bibby in 2002 has little bearing on 2001.
Those teams were not great ... not even arguing they were ... but isnt that what great teams do ...dominate teams that are not?!
The 2001 Lakers lost only 1 game ...and based on what you guys arguing they did what they were supposed to do.
Many argue today's NBA is even shittier yet neither the Heat/Spurs/Dubs over the past 5-6 years were able to get close to that.

The 2001 Lakers were arguably the best team of all-time in relation to their competition, I'm not arguing against that..

There's just a double standard when people use level of competition in arguments against teams when in reality, virtually all "historically dominant" teams had poor competition(especially DK's Bulls)..

[Thread]

Only pussies and assholes get waxed by the NVA

They were selling Only your shit.

[Killakobe81]

The 2001 Lakers were arguably the best team of all-time in relation to their competition, I'm not arguing against that..

There's just a double standard when people use level of competition in arguments against teams when in reality, virtually all "historically dominant" teams had poor competition(especially DK's Bulls)..

most of the goat teams faced only one other truly great team if any ... though in the late 80's you can say that Pistons/celts had to beat each other plus Lakers. Same for early 80's sixers/Celts ...

[Jzone]

Fucking Durant:lol and Westbrook:lol almost put them away. 2001 Lakers would eat them alive :lol:lol:lol

[ambchang]

1. Amb I did argue initially that I liked the 2nd 3-peat Bulls better. But after diving deeper in to the numbers based on our previous discussion, I have revised my thoughts on the matter. I think having MJ at his apex is more valuable than prime Pippen. Also, I think Rodman was vastly overrated on defense by the Bulls era ... (better rebounder) compared to his Piston's days ... SO having Grant as a the primary front-court defender is probably a wash plus he has the more reliable 15-20 feet jumper.

I think Grant > Rodman overall. Rodman is just so much of a detriment on offense that he couldn't really be used much other than rebounding, and his defense was really overrated during the Bulls years. He was the greatest defensive player of all time during his Pistons days though.


2. It's funny how David Robinson has become underrated from being overrated. I think Smits would give the Dubs problems but not like david. Obviously dream was also mobile and agile and a better rim protector than David but when you talk about a big that would thrive in the modern NBA Robinson comes to mind to me first. Great mid range jumper, great pnr defender probably the fastest big man end-to end I ever saw. Of course prime Ewing/Hakeem/shaq/Duncan would murder the Dubs down low ... but they would murder any era. I think Robinson in particular would benefit most from the new rules and cause the dubs so many problems. Many consider him a notch below most those other guys and career-wise they may be right but if Davis played in 2016 I think his impact would be tremendous likw a combo of prime Dwight Pippen and Ibaka.

I agree. Another player who would benefit with today's rules would be Chris Mullin. That guy would be like a Warren Buffet's Klay in today's game.


3. Obviously Kobe would wreck guys with no hand checks in his prime but I do think Iggy could defend him reasonably well or at least better than most.

Funny how I am advocating for Kobe now, but I don't see Iggy defending him that well. I know Iggy had that one game where he shut Kobe down, but over a series, Kobe's offensive skills would take Iggy out, especially in one on one situations. Iggy matches up with Lebron well because he is strong and quick, which helps with the physical aspect, Kobe is a lot more skillful than Lebron, and the 3-peat Kobe was the best Kobe there was.


4. As for the Dubs should we also hold the first round vs. RC and the Mavs against the 2014 Spurs? Is there 7 game series test any more "exposed" than the Spurs getting pushed by an 8th seed? That doesn't make any sense. IF the dubs repeat not only is the the two year run more impressive but when they were "exposed" their best playerwas less than 100% and facing 2 of the 5 best players in the NBA and had to beat a rested LeBron to repeat. Hell yes the 2016>2014 Spurs if they finish the job.

The Spurs were historically great in the Finals and Finals alone, they really weren't that impressive in the rest of the playoffs or the regular season. I just think they got hot at the right time, honestly.


4. Those Celts were an amazing passing team but again the numbers and my eye test will give the Lakers the edge but for me it is close. I think the 1987 Lakers played a similar game to those Celts but with better speed and finishers ...the celts were the better shooting team though.

This could be argued until the end of time, and nobody would be more right than the other. I am just putting my money on prime Bird.


5. Nice when we can agree for a change Like I said I love talkin' hoops with you when a certain player is omitted or only a side note to the story. I respect your history of the game even if I think you overrate Moses and Chuck Daly a bit ...

I admit I may be doing that because the two of them got underrated so much.

[Killakobe81]

I think Grant > Rodman overall. Rodman is just so much of a detriment on offense that he couldn't really be used much other than rebounding, and his defense was really overrated during the Bulls years. He was the greatest defensive player of all time during his Pistons days though.



I agree. Another player who would benefit with today's rules would be Chris Mullin. That guy would be like a Warren Buffet's Klay in today's game.



Funny how I am advocating for Kobe now, but I don't see Iggy defending him that well. I know Iggy had that one game where he shut Kobe down, but over a series, Kobe's offensive skills would take Iggy out, especially in one on one situations. Iggy matches up with Lebron well because he is strong and quick, which helps with the physical aspect, Kobe is a lot more skillful than Lebron, and the 3-peat Kobe was the best Kobe there was.



The Spurs were historically great in the Finals and Finals alone, they really weren't that impressive in the rest of the playoffs or the regular season. I just think they got hot at the right time, honestly.



This could be argued until the end of time, and nobody would be more right than the other. I am just putting my money on prime Bird.



I admit I may be doing that because the two of them got underrated so much.

1. I can agree on the grant issue but so many on here overrate Bulls era Rodman. I agree on Pistons era.
2. Yes, Mullin would benefit despite not being super quick because of the IQ and the crazy accuracy
3. I agree that was the best version of Kobe because although he still had to much ego he was much more coachable. His game was not as refined as later versions but his quickness/athleticism was elite and he already had some go to moves plus back then he actually played defense. He would be a tougher cover, skill-wise.
4. 1987 Lakers vs. 1986 Celts Lakers robbed us of 4 straight Matchups (1984 -1987) that would not answer the question but would have given us at least a better chance to make the case. But since the Lakers won on both sides of 1986 I think Im right but like you said you could argue it all day.

5. Those guys are underrated. Especially Daly who was every bit the coach Riles was but is not mentioned quite on the level of Phil/Pop/Riles when people talk best coaches even on here. Moses was a beast but I missed most of his prime. I saw him beat us down in 1983 he murdered Jabbar on the boards but I dont remember him being a great passer or shooter just a dominant scorer/boarder. But I was so young maybe I remember him wrong ...

[ambchang]

1. I can agree on the grant issue but so many on here overrate Bulls era Rodman. I agree on Pistons era.
2. Yes, Mullin would benefit despite not being super quick because of the IQ and the crazy accuracy

Mullin's got incredible hands though. He was kinda like Bird-lite back in the day, and his ability to run around all game would be extremely useful in today's game with all the screens and movement.


3. I agree that was the best version of Kobe because although he still had to much ego he was much more coachable. His game was not as refined as later versions but his quickness/athleticism was elite and he already had some go to moves plus back then he actually played defense. He would be a tougher cover, skill-wise.

I really liked the three-peat Kobe. Too bad he let his ego destroy it. He's much more successful reputation-wise, and certainly profited greatly from it, but if he kept his Robin role, he would have won stacks more championships, and we'd see one of the greatest two way players of all time.


4. 1987 Lakers vs. 1986 Celts Lakers robbed us of 4 straight Matchups (1984 -1987) that would not answer the question but would have given us at least a better chance to make the case. But since the Lakers won on both sides of 1986 I think Im right but like you said you could argue it all day.

5. Those guys are underrated. Especially Daly who was every bit the coach Riles was but is not mentioned quite on the level of Phil/Pop/Riles when people talk best coaches even on here. Moses was a beast but I missed most of his prime. I saw him beat us down in 1983 he murdered Jabbar on the boards but I dont remember him being a great passer or shooter just a dominant scorer/boarder. But I was so young maybe I remember him wrong ...

Moses was a beast, his game would be horrible in today's game, but he was really the ultimate garbagemen, and I can't really think of another player like him. He really has no grace in his game, he just bulldozes his way through and bully people down under. His offensive rebounding was unreal (Rodman level), and he can score quite well. he has a nice jumper within 10 feet of the basket, maybe up to 15, but his bread and butter is his put back. He isn't that great of a defender despite his strength, quickness, and long arms, and he was really a poor passer, but he stuck to what he did well and was one of the greatest of all time in those aspects.

Daly, for me, is at the upper echelon of coaches. He is with Phil, Pop, Riles, Larry and Red. The problem is that people look strictly at titles won and dismisses a lot of the great coaches.

[Kawhitstorm]

4. As for the Dubs should we also hold the first round vs. RC and the Mavs against the 2014 Spurs? Is the Dubs 7 game series vs. OKC any more "exposed" than the Spurs getting pushed by an 8th seed? That doesn't make any sense. IF the dubs repeat not only is the the two year run more impressive but when they were "exposed" their best playerwas less than 100% and facing 2 of the 5 best players in the NBA and had to beat a rested LeBron to repeat. Hell yes the 2016>2014 Spurs if they finish the job.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The Mavs pushing the Spurs to 7 was the equivalent of the '08 Hawks pushing the Celtics to 7. Both the Spurs/Celtics took their 1st rd opponent lightly & got themselves in a dog fight w/ Monta/Joe being a pain in the ass to their respective opponents. At no point of either series did anyone SERIOUSLY believe that the Mavs/Hawks were going to win & they BOTH got demolished in Gm 7 when they had their opponent's full attention.

Meanwhile, GSW knew OKC was a threat after the Spurs series & got UTTERLY outplayed in 2 of the first 4 games. They were on the brink of elimination in the 4th quarter of Gm 6 & were in a dog fight in Gm 7. GSW basically only outplayed them in one game, Gm 2.

LoL @ "well rested Bron" when dude is on the tail end of his prime & can't hit a jumper to save his life.

[whitemamba]

Im takin the lakers tbh, Shaq in the post was the most dominant force ive ever seen in sports. Literally nothing anyone could do. And the Big Aristotle made Ft's when we had to. Kobe > Klay easily.

[Caltex2]

1. I can agree on the grant issue but so many on here overrate Bulls era Rodman. I agree on Pistons era.
2. Yes, Mullin would benefit despite not being super quick because of the IQ and the crazy accuracy
3. I agree that was the best version of Kobe because although he still had to much ego he was much more coachable. His game was not as refined as later versions but his quickness/athleticism was elite and he already had some go to moves plus back then he actually played defense. He would be a tougher cover, skill-wise.
4. 1987 Lakers vs. 1986 Celts Lakers robbed us of 4 straight Matchups (1984 -1987) that would not answer the question but would have given us at least a better chance to make the case. But since the Lakers won on both sides of 1986 I think Im right but like you said you could argue it all day.

5. Those guys are underrated. Especially Daly who was every bit the coach Riles was but is not mentioned quite on the level of Phil/Pop/Riles when people talk best coaches even on here. Moses was a beast but I missed most of his prime. I saw him beat us down in 1983 he murdered Jabbar on the boards but I dont remember him being a great passer or shooter just a dominant scorer/boarder. But I was so young maybe I remember him wrong ...

Fixed and it's more like the Rockets took it from them. If not for an inner squad implosion, the Lakers may have actually had some competition out West for the next 5 years. ;)

[baseline bum]

The Spurs were historically great in the Finals and Finals alone, they really weren't that impressive in the rest of the playoffs or the regular season. I just think they got hot at the right time, honestly.


They were pretty impressive in the WCF too, especially Games 2 and 5.

[baseline bum]

4. 1987 Lakers vs. 1986 Celts Lakers robbed us of 4 straight Matchups (1984 -1987) that would not answer the question but would have given us at least a better chance to make the case. But since the Lakers won on both sides of 1986 I think Im right but like you said you could argue it all day.


I'm going to have to take the 86 Celtics all day over any other 80s team, even the 83 Sixers and their ridiculous starting lineup. That Celtics team had the most beautiful fast break I have ever seen. I mean they didn't have Magic's baseball passes but god damn the ball moved fast on those breaks. That was the most fun team in league history to watch. I can't believe bringing a guy like Walton off the bench.

I can see the argument though, the 87 Lakers had a lot depth with Green, Thompson, and Cooper off the bench along with one of the all-time great starting lineups with 4 out of 5 guys being allstar level. But I'll take the Celtics' size and the absolute prime of Bird's career.

[baseline bum]

2. Of course prime Ewing/Hakeem/shaq/Duncan would murder the Dubs down low ... but they would murder any era. I think Robinson in particular would benefit most from the new rules and cause the dubs so many problems. Many consider him a notch below most those other guys and career-wise they may be right


I can't see rating Robinson below Ewing. I mean he is way below Shaq / Duncan / Olajuwon, but Ewing was a playoff choker too. I can understand Robinson getting lots of shit from the media about the 95 WCF, but I can't understand why Ewing didn't hear it for the 94 Finals. I mean a bigman in his prime shooting like 37% in the Finals?

[Caltex2]

Other than the Rockets winning, that was an awful Finals in general. Ewing never recovered from his knee troubles.

[Killakobe81]

I can't see rating Robinson below Ewing. I mean he is way below Shaq / Duncan / Olajuwon, but Ewing was a playoff choker too. I can understand Robinson getting lots of shit from the media about the 95 WCF, but I can't understand why Ewing didn't hear it for the 94 Finals. I mean a bigman in his prime shooting like 37% in the Finals?

I dont have an issue just saying david is one of the most adaptable bigs to the modern era of hoops.

[Killakobe81]

Btw lol this squad beating showtime or Lakeshow Lakers ...
Grwt team best of this,decade so far ...but lets not get crazy.

[dbestpro]

72 Lakers would have swept Gst.

[ViceCity86]

2001 Lakers PPG diff: 3.1 :lol

Automatically disqualifies them from GOAT teams.

[therealtruth]

The same Lakers teams that got killed by good point guards that could shoot? Troy Hudson ring a bell. Curry would have a field day.

[spursreport]

The 2001 Lakers humiliated teams and played at a level of basketball that is pretty much untouchable. 15-1 in the playoffs but 8-0 on the road. Their role players were solid/clutch, had a killer 1-2 punch, had an elite coach, and had a killer instinct. They seemed to play their best basketball in closeout games which was remarkable. Horry would cause Draymond Green to self-implode easily. Fox (who was a GREAT lockdown defender that year) would take Thompson out of the game and even rough him up and fluster him. Shaq would have his way as would Kobe. Curry would have to do all the scoring, and against a Laker team of that caliber...it won't even be close to enough. The rest of the Warrior role players would be taken out of the game as well. Warriors would be lucky to win a game if Curry has an Iverson 2001 game 1 like Finals and the Lakers find multiple ways to beat themselves along the way. That is how GREAT that 2001 Lakers team was.

[Mark Celibate]

Shaq is right, this warriors team is flawed and all you need to beat this team is a solid rotation of quality bigs like what the 01' Lakers had featuring the prime shaq. OKC only had two white bigs who're horribly overrated (adams and kanter) plus fake nigga Ibaka and still managed to push the Warriors to the brink of precipice, though they ended up blowing 2 match points and losing the series somehow. Bogut is their only big that they can count on to prevent themselves from being bullied in the paint, and dude's fat and slow as shit. Their midget lineup may turns things around every now and then (like game 6 against OKC) but it doesn't always work. Today's warriors are just a revised version of the Phoenix Suns of the mid 00s imho, and they're only kicking asses in the league today because the old contenders have either been going downhill for a while (like Mavs and Spurs) or started rebuilding already (Lakers).

[Killakobe81]

I'm going to have to take the 86 Celtics all day over any other 80s team, even the 83 Sixers and their ridiculous starting lineup. That Celtics team had the most beautiful fast break I have ever seen. I mean they didn't have Magic's baseball passes but god damn the ball moved fast on those breaks. That was the most fun team in league history to watch. I can't believe bringing a guy like Walton off the bench.

I can see the argument though, the 87 Lakers had a lot depth with Green, Thompson, and Cooper off the bench along with one of the all-time great starting lineups with 4 out of 5 guys being allstar level. But I'll take the Celtics' size and the absolute prime of Bird's career.

The same prime that lost to the Lakers in 85 and 87?

[baseline bum]

The same prime that lost to the Lakers in 85 and 87?

Walton made a pretty big difference in the team in 86.

[tbdog]

Did the 01 Lakers even beat anyone good? They beat a 1 man lead spurs team and a 1 man sixers team. Have the Warriors?

[ambchang]

They were pretty impressive in the WCF too, especially Games 2 and 5.

They did alright vs. the Thunder, but it's no where close to the display they put on in the Finals, which was what have a lot of people putting them as the top team in league history.

If you look at the other three rounds, the Spurs were good, but most definitely not GOAT level stuff.

[Killakobe81]

Walton made a pretty big difference in the team in 86.

Of course he did. And that 1986 was truly special.
Look we are talking fantasy and we are talking one year runs ...and no doubt that 1986 team was one of the best passing, shooting and they defended their home-court like no other.

yet and still despite the romaticism of that team ...the Lakers of 87 had the more efficient offense. so were the 1992 Bulls. In fact, the 1986 is not even the most efficient Boston team all-time that would be the 1988 team that lost to the Pistons.
in 1987 Klay's dad added the needed bench size to counter Walton.. Magic was in MVP form. And worthy was at his apex. Kareem was still scoring 17.5 ay 39 and Scott averaged 17 on 43.6% from the 3pt line .... Add the fact that tthe core of that team beat prime Bird in 1985 and 1987 I just dont think they could beat the 87 Lakers ... in fact, after 1984 they never did.

I do think they beat us in 1986 if the Rox did not that was their year ...

[Killakobe81]

They did alright vs. the Thunder, but it's no where close to the display they put on in the Finals, which was what have a lot of people putting them as the top team in league history.

If you look at the other three rounds, the Spurs were good, but most definitely not GOAT level stuff.

I think the brutal efficiency they displayed in the finals and the fact Lebron was on the other side have people overrating that team tbh. I am not sure where 2014 ranks on the spurs list of great teams but Im leaning 2005 as the best of the bunch. Manu was in his attacking prime. Tony was young and inconsistent but lighting quick attacking the paint. Horry was at some of his clutch best. and of course duncan was in his prime. I was rooting for the spurs that year because of Horry, Duncan and Manu ...I may be biased but I think that was the best Spur team.

[ambchang]

I think the brutal efficiency they displayed in the finals and the fact Lebron was on the other side have people overrating that team tbh. I am not sure where 2014 ranks on the spurs list of great teams but Im leaning 2005 as the best of the bunch. Manu was in his attacking prime. Tony was young and inconsistent but lighting quick attacking the paint. Horry was at some of his clutch best. and of course duncan was in his prime and David was the leader of the defense I was rooting for the spurs that year because of Horry, Duncan and Manu ...I may be biased but I think that was the best Spur team.

David retired after 03, but yeah, I agree 05 was the best Spurs team. 99 and 03 was too much of a defensive team, with very little offense. 07 was not really that great as Duncan was already past his absolute prime and so was Manu. 14 was great but it was really a got hot at the right time team.

If it wasn't for Duncan's ankles, 05 was by far the best. Manu was playing like a top 5 SG of all time in that playoff. Tony wasn't that great as his outside shot was still horrible, but the Duncan/Manu 1-2 punch was as good as any we have ever seen, including the Shaq/Kobe, Jordan/Pippen, Bird/McHale, Kareem/Magic.

[Killakobe81]

David retired after 03, but yeah, I agree 05 was the best Spurs team. 99 and 03 was too much of a defensive team, with very little offense. 07 was not really that great as Duncan was already past his absolute prime and so was Manu. 14 was great but it was really a got hot at the right time team.

If it wasn't for Duncan's ankles, 05 was by far the best. Manu was playing like a top 5 SG of all time in that playoff. Tony wasn't that great as his outside shot was still horrible, but the Duncan/Manu 1-2 punch was as good as any we have ever seen, including the Shaq/Kobe, Jordan/Pippen, Bird/McHale, Kareem/Magic.

My bad you are right about David ... wasit Nazy or Rasho the big for 2005?
I do think though Duncan/Manu is a notch below the guys you mentioned more so on the Manu side ...
Dont get me wrong I loved his game ... but Manu is probably lowest on that list of the all time great players and I hate McHale tbh. I think Kevin is the only one you can make a case for bumping Manu over.

[ambchang]

My bad you are right about David ... wasit Nazy or Rasho the big for 2005?
I do think though Duncan/Manu is a notch below the guys you mentioned more so on the Manu side ...
Dont get me wrong I loved his game ... but Manu is probably lowest on that list of the all time great players and I hate McHale tbh. I think Kevin is the only one you can make a case for bumping Manu over.

It was Nazr.

Manu, overall, is most definitely multiple notches below the other mentioned in that group, but the 2005 playoff Manu was every bit as good as those second bananas were in their respective title runs.

People see the raw numbers and felt that Manu wasn't as good, but they don't remember that the Spurs play a very slow pace, and also played against a team like the Pistons in the finals, which also played at a very slow pace. Manu's ability to create for the Spurs were huge in that playoffs, and if he didn't pull the groin in Game 2 (or was that Game 3), the Spurs would have won the series in 5 or 6.

86 McHale, coincidentally, could be considered as one of the best 2nd banana seasons of all time.

[Killakobe81]

It was Nazr.

Manu, overall, is most definitely multiple notches below the other mentioned in that group, but the 2005 playoff Manu was every bit as good as those second bananas were in their respective title runs.

People see the raw numbers and felt that Manu wasn't as good, but they don't remember that the Spurs play a very slow pace, and also played against a team like the Pistons in the finals, which also played at a very slow pace. Manu's ability to create for the Spurs were huge in that playoffs, and if he didn't pull the groin in Game 2 (or was that Game 3), the Spurs would have won the series in 5 or 6.

86 McHale, coincidentally, could be considered as one of the best 2nd banana seasons of all time.

Not shitting on his 1986 run which IIRC included a 50 point game ...
Im saying career wise Manu is the lowest ranked of the #2 punches on that list.
Like i said Manu was at his attacking and play-making best but I still dont think he was as good as those other guys.
TBH though Wade is the better player overall (career) 2005 era Manu is my 2nd favorite SG (post MJ)

I just think as a 1-2 they are a notch below

Shaqobe (2000-2002)
Magic/Kareem (circa 85)
Magic/Worthy (circa 87)
Bird/Mchale (84-86)
Lebron/Wade (2011-2014)

and of course Jordan Pippen (both 3 peats)
but they do deseerve mention with those great duos to bad Manu couldnt hold his end for very long at that level ...

[ambchang]

Not shitting on his 1986 run which IIRC included a 50 point game ...
Im saying career wise Manu is the lowest ranked of the #2 punches on that list.
Like i said Manu was at his attacking and play-making best but I still dont think he was as good as those other guys.
TBH though Wade is the better player overall (career) 2005 era Manu is my 2nd favorite SG (post MJ)

I just think as a 1-2 they are a notch below

Shaqobe (2000-2002)
Magic/Kareem (circa 85)
Magic/Worthy (circa 87)
Bird/Mchale (84-86)
Lebron/Wade (2011-2014)

and of course Jordan Pippen (both 3 peats)
but they do deseerve mention with those great duos to bad Manu couldnt hold his end for very long at that level ...

I think we agree more than disagree. 2005 was the bomb, but yeah, his career most definitely do not stack up.

McHale though, as much as you hate him, is up there for sure. I would say he has an argument as the 2nd best PF of all time, over Barkley, Garnett, Dirk or pedo. I would personally go Duncan, Dirk, Garnett, Barkley, Pedo, McHale, but an argument could be made that McHale was really that great. his post moves were second to none, including Hakeem, and he was great defensively. he was smart, and the only thing that wasn't elite in was passing. He could easily be a 1st option on a perennial contender, but then he played with Bird.

The Duncan/Manu 2005 duo really gets underrated. They were really dominant in their run, and they went up against some of the best defenses in modern NBA history and still produced. That said, Duncan really wasn't at his absolute prime, and was playing on two bum ankles. Going head to head, 03 Duncan would eat 05 Duncan alive.

[Caltex2]

NT

[lefty]

Fucking Durant:lol and Westbrook:lol almost put them away. 2001 Lakers would eat them alive :lol:lol:lol

/thread

[lefty]

Of course he did. And that 1986 was truly special.
Look we are talking fantasy and we are talking one year runs ...and no doubt that 1986 team was one of the best passing, shooting and they defended their home-court like no other.

yet and still despite the romaticism of that team ...the Lakers of 87 had the more efficient offense. so were the 1992 Bulls. In fact, the 1986 is not even the most efficient Boston team all-time that would be the 1988 team that lost to the Pistons.
in 1987 Klay's dad added the needed bench size to counter Walton.. Magic was in MVP form. And worthy was at his apex. Kareem was still scoring 17.5 ay 39 and Scott averaged 17 on 43.6% from the 3pt line .... Add the fact that tthe core of that team beat prime Bird in 1985 and 1987 I just dont think they could beat the 87 Lakers ... in fact, after 1984 they never did.

I do think they beat us in 1986 if the Rox did not that was their year ...

The Lakers had a bench and the Celtics didn't.

Boston starters played a lot during many years and the FO and coaching staff n3ver developed a real bench.

Add to that the fact that the EC was way tougher than the WC and also the fact that Bird hurt his back on 85

It's no wonder they went into the 87 Finals hobbling (they also played the Pistons that year)

[Thread]

It's no wonder they went into the 87 Finals hobbling (they also played the Pistons that year)

A ruse to get the Lakers to ease up. Uh, uh. Alcindor had been thru the same fucking machination with the Bucks and had learn't his lessons.

[Fabbs]

psssh.
Lenny Bias died or you Gaykers would have never titled again.

LakerPhan talking about LeBrons waltz thru the East.
1987 West Conf was the biggest joke in history.
Stern took out Houstons backcourt with the cocaine busts (the entire league and nation was tooting, not just Houston)
Spurs owner accepted regular blowjobs in exchange for deadline trading Michelle Thompson for Kwame Brown.
Celtics injured to boot. Pull your feathers away from your eyes.

[Horse]

I think we can now say many teams would've beat these warriors. They are so mentally weak that when it's not going their way they fall apart. I think the '99 Spurs would beat them, they could slow it down and kill them inside while that D was amazing. Ofcourse which set of rules they played by could make a big difference.

[Killakobe81]

I think we agree more than disagree. 2005 was the bomb, but yeah, his career most definitely do not stack up.

McHale though, as much as you hate him, is up there for sure. I would say he has an argument as the 2nd best PF of all time, over Barkley, Garnett, Dirk or pedo. I would personally go Duncan, Dirk, Garnett, Barkley, Pedo, McHale, but an argument could be made that McHale was really that great. his post moves were second to none, including Hakeem, and he was great defensively. he was smart, and the only thing that wasn't elite in was passing. He could easily be a 1st option on a perennial contender, but then he played with Bird.

The Duncan/Manu 2005 duo really gets underrated. They were really dominant in their run, and they went up against some of the best defenses in modern NBA history and still produced. That said, Duncan really wasn't at his absolute prime, and was playing on two bum ankles. Going head to head, 03 Duncan would eat 05 Duncan alive.

I dont diagree on Mchale ...his post game is filthy.
But if you stack his career including his time as a high level collegian

versus

Manu's winning as a Spur ...
Success for Agentina etc.

I think Gino might have a case, because McHale's feet betrayed him. My point was that Manu's career may come closest to Mchale's as far as accomplishments go ...
I do think we mostly agree here.


Both ESPN and SI lists have McHale ranked below Pippen, Wade, Kobe, Magic etc.
SO although I agree McHale's career was and is greater than Gino's that was the only career of the guys we mentioned he had any shot at "catching" or "eclipsing"

[Caltex2]

I think we can now say many teams would've beat these warriors. They are so mentally weak that when it's not going their way they fall apart. I think the '99 Spurs would beat them, they could slow it down and kill them inside while that D was amazing. Ofcourse which set of rules they played by could make a big difference.


That and if their long range shot is off, they're in trouble. Not to mention, how do you compare them to teams either before the 3-point shot was brought into the NBA or before it became a very important part of the game?

[Stalin]

Shaq is right, this warriors team is flawed and all you need to beat this team is a solid rotation of quality bigs like what the 01' Lakers had featuring the prime shaq. OKC only had two white bigs who're horribly overrated (adams and kanter) plus fake nigga Ibaka and still managed to push the Warriors to the brink of precipice, though they ended up blowing 2 match points and losing the series somehow. Bogut is their only big that they can count on to prevent themselves from being bullied in the paint, and dude's fat and slow as shit. Their midget lineup may turns things around every now and then (like game 6 against OKC) but it doesn't always work. Today's warriors are just a revised version of the Phoenix Suns of the mid 00s imho, and they're only kicking asses in the league today because the old contenders have either been going downhill for a while (like Mavs and Spurs) or started rebuilding already (Lakers).



http://i68.tinypic.com/24134ao.jpg

[lefty]

Not to mention 2001 Kobe would have killed GS' backcourt

[Floyd Pacquiao]

Have the Warriors?

16 Thunder.

[tbdog]

16 Thunder.

They were 3rd in the west, and 5th overall, and 5 games less than their 2013 finals team. I suppose they are good. They did beat the Spurs, but they also peaked early in the playoffs. While the Warriors have had 2 playoff runs and up to this point, this would be their second 'good' team they are playing. In 01, all 8 teams in the Western conference won over 50 wins. Compared to this year rockets 41, Portland 46.

[Clipper Nation]

Not to mention 2001 Kobe would have killed GS' backcourt
:lol Kobe? The only thing that scrub ever "killed" was his own teams.

[Thread]

:lol Kobe? The only thing that scrub ever "killed" was his own teams.

Had he not "killed" Portland in '00 we'd be light 5 NBA Titles.

[Caltex2]

More like Portland committed suicide.

[Killakobe81]

Had he not "killed" Portland in '00 we'd be light 5 NBA Titles.

CN's Kobe hate is so over the top ...
not worth responding to the low-brow humor ...
At least Amb has some subtext to his ...

[dbreiden83080]

Nobody was allowed to touch you back then. Shot what like 5,000 free throws in the 2002 WCF..

[lefty]

:lol Kobe? The only thing that scrub ever "killed" was his own teams.
Kobe was unstoppable during the 2001 playoffs tbh

[littleavery1948]

Nobody was allowed to touch you back then. Shot what like 5,000 free throws in the 2002 WCF..


Do you know what's comical? The Kings actually shot more FT's than the Lakers during the series. So without the rigging in the fourth quarter, the Kings shot 37 more free-throws than the Lakers. Game 5 was just as bad, but it was throughout the entire game, while the Kings got screwed in one quarter.

[Thread]

Do you know what's comical? The Kings actually shot more FT's than the Lakers during the series. So without the rigging in the fourth quarter, the Kings shot 37 more free-throws than the Lakers. Game 5 was just as bad, but it was throughout the entire game, while the Kings got screwed in one quarter.

Only pussies & assholes blame the officiating.

[Capt Bringdown]

Kobe was unstoppable during the 2001 playoffs tbh

Fuck Kobe.
There's not a big man that in today's league that can come close to guarding Shaq in his prime. GS? LOL.
Shaq would have his way inside against GS.

[Thread]

Fuck Kobe.
There's not a big man that in today's league that can come close to guarding Shaq in his prime. GS? LOL.
Shaq would have his way inside against GS.

Without Kobe Daddy would be hangin' from a yard arm.

[littleavery1948]

Fuck Kobe.
There's not a big man that in today's league that can come close to guarding Shaq in his prime. GS? LOL.
Shaq would have his way inside against GS.

Unless you're allowed to hack and grab Shaq with impunity like teams are doing to Lebron. The officiating greatly favors perimeter players now. Shaq would get kicked out of every game because he would be getting tackled on every play.

[hitmanyr2k]

Unless you're allowed to hack and grab Shaq with impunity like teams are doing to Lebron. The officiating greatly favors perimeter players now. Shaq would get kicked out of every game because he would be getting tackled on every play.

Shaq used to get hacked anyway and it wasn't always called lol. He was so strong hacking him on his shot was like throwing a grape at him and he didn't feel it so the refs let it go. Besides that Shaq dished out his own punishment on defenders getting away with plenty of offensive fouls so it evened out.

[StrengthAndHonor]

Kobe was unstoppable during the 2001 playoffs tbh