Anyone think its tougher to win in the NBA now days vs in the past? Now days, at least on paper, teams are loaded! Opinions please.
Printable View
Anyone think its tougher to win in the NBA now days vs in the past? Now days, at least on paper, teams are loaded! Opinions please.
You can say athletes are better today but you know if the 96 Bulls played any team...Cavs, Spurs, Lakers, Magic, Boston etc. The Bulls would fucking demolish them still.
Depends what you mean, the mid 90's bulls would destroy many teams in the league now, but if you are putting the best players from every era together then this decade would win, IMO.
the 96 Bulls would have trouble beating the 1987-88, 1985 Lakers, possibly the '83 Celtics and I would not give them the series against the 2003 Spurs, though the Bulls would be the favorite for sure. Don't forget the 2001 lAKERS
The 2003 Spurs, really? That was our weakest title team ever man. Personally I like the 99' Spurs, started out 6-8 and ended up winning 46 of their last 53 games. Including a 16-2 record in the playoffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by galvatron3000
I wouldve loved to have seen the 99' Spurs go up against MJs Bulls. Wouldve been a classic.
It was the most versatile team that played D, the other teams would have more problems matching up and match ups are the only reason I included them. The 2005 Spurs were good but I think in the end the 1996 Spurs had the advantage in matchup, the 2003 team was turnover prone which would have benefited the Bulls, Parker didn't get great til 2007 ( jumper). So I give them a chance but favor the Bulls..lolQuote:
Originally Posted by FkLA
The '99 team would have lost to the Bulls, too predictable on offense
Nah 2003 Spurs were pretty weak, it was pretty much all Tim Duncan. Robinson was a shade of what he once was, Manu was a second yr player that was barely starting to make an impact, and Tony was inconsistant as fuck. He got benched in favor of Speedy Claxton alot of times. Stephen Jackson was probably our second best player during those playoffs, which in itself says alot...as much as a I love Jack he has no business being the second best player in a title winner.
The 99' team was special, at that time their 15-2 playoff record was the best ever I believe. If that team woulve been wearing a Lakers or Celtics jersey they wouldve been considered one of the best teams ever. That team just didnt get much love cause it was the Spurs first title and theyre a small-market.
the 2003 spurs were our best imo! I think this team coulda given any team present or past, a run for their money if not beaten themQuote:
Originally Posted by galvatron3000
well, I siad the Spurs weren't favored but they did dethrone the Lakers, big a good Mavs team, went on a nice run at the end of the season and Manu was great off the bench, he was the x factor and Bruce was still st the top of his game defending Kobe and whoever on the wing, and David would have beasted whoever the BUlls had in the center spot as he played well the against the Nets. I never said they'd win but the had a good chance with the matchups and bench depth. The 2005 team had no real depth, Barry was poor his first season, Parker was not good either really the 2007 team was good defensively with Parker coming alive so I guess I would give them a chance but the BUlls had a decent bench with the x factor for them being Toni KuchocQuote:
Originally Posted by FkLA
Im not really arguing whether theyd beat the Bulls or not, all of that is pretty much speculation. Im just saying that in my opinion our 2003 team was the weakest.Quote:
Originally Posted by galvatron3000
2005 Both Parker and Ginobili came into their own, especially Ginobili. It was no longer just throw the ball into Timmy and have him go to work or draw double teams for open shots.
2007 Same as the above, Ginobili and Parker had already established themselves. Especially Parker who had proven to be an elite guard.
2003 was all Duncan. Parker and Ginobili were still young and inconsistant and Robinson, as much as I love him, was old and a shade of the player he once was.
1999 was the best though. The numbers speak for themselves. Won 46 of their last 53 including a 15-2 playoff record. That was dominance.
Oh, I'm not saying you're arguing, I enjoy a good debate and respect where you're comiing from. Just remember I understand Robinson wasn't the same but wasn't the same what is the question. Who did the Bulls have? Longley? Wellington? Parish? RObinson would have been the better of them all with Willis backing him and Rose the advangtage was the SPurs (to me). Duncan= advantage. Jackson/Pippen = Pippen, Jordan/Bowen/Ginobili= Jordan but with wear, Parker/ Harper= Parker but the Bulls would have adjusted a la Lakers 2004. Bench I favor the Spurs but well who knows...Quote:
Originally Posted by FkLA
teams today are better, athletes are bigger stronger faster, the talent pool is larger, players are starting younger, the game is faster...
Harper was better than a 2003 Parker, he got benched if favor of Speedy Claxton so many games during those playoffs. Jordan wouldve eaten Bowen and Ginobili alive, Manu was not close to being an all-star in 2003...he was a second year player or rookie I forget which. Our front court was better but Pippen/MJ/Harper wouldnt even our backcourt alive.
I honestly dont see how you can think our 2003 team was the best. That is by far our weakest championship team in my opinion. Id say it was, from strongest to weakest....99', 05', 07', than 03'. Although 05' and 07' are pretty much even.
the fucking late 90's bulls are so hypedup ts not even fnny, yes they were a great team but they played in a period when there were no real contenders besides the fing utah jazz.
the '95 rockets would have beat the bulls, as well as the '01 lakers and probably the '99 spurs as well.
Players didn't move around as much, and I think the overall talent in the NBA was at its highest around 88-92. Look at the centers that were around David, Hakeem, Ewing. Who is there today, Howard? Plus Bird was still around, Magic, I mean the players where just better. I saw somewhere people trying to argue the Redeem Team could take the Dream Team. Never, not even on the Dream Teams worst day.
I never said they were the best...I stated matchup as the reason for my choice. the 99 Spurs were too predictable IMO for a team like the 96 BullsQuote:
Originally Posted by FkLA
AGREED! THE REdeem team would have went home like all the other countries did, losersQuote:
Originally Posted by bishopospurs
Shaq___ Hakeem
Duncan___Malone
Garnett VS Pippen
Bryant___Jordan
Kidd___Stockton
90's vs 00's this woulda been good. I consider Shaq part of the 00's cause thats when he won a chpamionship
The 83 Celtics got swept by Milwaukee.Quote:
Originally Posted by galvatron3000
86Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
No way to compare eras really. The rules have changed and the game isn't the same due to those changes.
I agree that the 90's Bulls were over hyped, like most any championship team is. Didn't the 90's Bulls have long 1st round series against the like of the Hawks etc?
While the Bulls would have the backcourt advantage, the spurs would clearly have an advantage in the frontcourt.
All we can do as fans is speculate about the outcome with our natural bias being part of the equation.
The only reason a person thinks players are better today is because they never saw the players of yesterday. David "skywalker" Thompson, Dr Dunkenstien Griffen, Tiny Nate Archibald, Dr J, Iceman, The Big E Hayes, Wilt the Stilt, Jerry West, Havlichek, Clyde the glide, Earl the pearl, Spencer Wayward, McGinnis, McAdoo, Lanier and the list goes on and on.
Some people never even got to see guys like Robinson, Jordan pre wizards, Ewing, Hakeem, Barkley, Magic, Bird, 90's all stars, y'all know the names. Think Blair was about 14 when D Rob retired, he was six in 95, that is crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbestpro
Many of today's athletes benefit from better training, weight lifting, steroid taking and overall more scientific approach to developing the body.
However, player's from the past were often better shooters and worked harder, as the current generation is pretty lazy. They let them play a lot more physical before the rule change of no hand checking. The way the 1988-90 Pistons played defense wouldn't even be allowed under the rules of today. So it is very hard to compare teams of different eras.
As far as the 1999 Spurs. In 1998 The Jazz came very close to beating the Bulls in Michael's last championship year. In 1999 The Jazz had more or less the same team back and many epected them to win it. Then the Blazers got real hot and beat the Jazz. The Spurs beat the Blazers. The also beat the first Kobe-Shaq team. Easily. That is why maybe it isn't true to say the 1999 Spurs had an easy run to the championship. That was a year when several good teams had been waiting for Jordan to retire to have a chance at a championship, and it was the Spurs that won.
Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
The 1996 Bulls were the sh%t -but by 1998 the act was getting stale and old. That 1996 team was awesome, and they have the best record ever to prove it. Rodman could contain any big man, even Shaq in his prime, which is something very few could do. And then they had Jordan, who was only THE BEST PLAYER EVER, and his sidekick Pippen. The most accurate 3 pt shooter ever, Steve Kerr. Anyone who tries to diminish that team either didn't watch them play a lot or has forgotten.
IMO the current generation has slightly superior athletic ability (on an average) but is somewhat lacking in work ethic, toughness and IQ (on average). I attribute that to the enormous amounts of money that is doled out to players nowadays, and a CBA that is very favorable to the players. Even mediocre players get huge contracts in today's NBA. In 1992, Jordan (the face of the league) made $3.25 million and the league salary cap was around $12 million.
No wonder you get players like Vince Carter who's insanely athletic and talented to boot, but lacks the toughness and desire to be a great player. The Knicks have thrown boatloads of money at players like Marbury and Crawford and Jerome fucking James, and every one of them is an underachiever.
The current era is probably better than any era in terms of skills and athletic ability, but basketball at this level is a team game that demands intelligence and mental discipline. The teams from the 2000s have great individual atheletes, but they'd get owned by the 90s and the 80s teams.