Me and a friend were talking about what eras since the NBA merged are the toughest. We pretty much agreed that 80s, with Showtime, Bird's Celtics, and the Bad Boys, were the toughest. There was literally not one weak year that entire decade.
I think the second toughest era is the years between 2008 up until this current season. The NBA hasn't seen this amount of talent in the league since the 80s. The West had 8 50 win teams last year. Amazing.
The third toughest would have to 2000-2002. The Lakers three peated, the Spurs, Kings, and Jailblazers all had the best team's in their franchise's history, and every team had size.
The fourth is the expansion heavy 90s. I know Jordan fanboys are gonna be upset, but it's the truth. Only in a very weak era could one team win 70. There was no parity, no compe ion for the Bulls, and it wasn't because MJ was so great, it was cause the talent was thinned out because of expansion, and the Bulls were lucky to have much deep talent relative to the other teams.
The weakest era would have to be 2003-07. I know Spurs fans are gonna be mad, but I only speak the truth. Who did the Spurs, Pistons and Heat beat? The no defense Suns, a feuding, injured Lakers, the choking Mavs? Very weak era, populated with decent teams that probably would not have won in any other era.
I think this is a pretty good list that most NBA experts would agree with.
what a clever troll attempt. the spurs beat a 3 peat lakers, the pistons beat the lakers dream team, and the spurs beat one of the best defensive teams in nba history.
imo 2009 was the weakest year. every contending team except the lakers suffered an injury lost in the playoffs.
I pretty much agree with this. Especially about the 2003-2007 era being the weakest. The Kings had dismantled, Stockton/Malone retired, and of course Shaq left for Miami. There weren't as many superstars in the league, and the ones that were around were isolated on ty teams (Kobe in LA, Gasol in Memphis, Pierce in Boston, Garnett in Minny, Allen in Seattle, etc.) and the younger superstars of today hadn't quite developed yet (Howard, Durant, Roy, Paul, Williams).
idk about this era as it compares to the 80's as I didn't watch back then, but the West for sure seems as loaded as it could possibly be. Even the ty teams have guys that can take over games like Love Griffin, and Ellis
2008 to now is currently the toughest era the NBA has ever had
80s had a weak west quite frequently, and pretty much yearly had under .500 teams on each side, usually 2-3 in each conference.
I have to respectfully disagree, my man.
While it's true that the talent pool is insanely deep, the problem is it's very perimeter heavy. To contend with the 2006 rule changes that were implemented to boost scoring on the perimeter, coaches have focused more on running an outside/inside game rather than the traditional inside/out game.
It's why you see so many stretch 4s now, why Pop loves his Matt Bonner, and why Rashard Lewis is the second highest paid player in the league. In the past, a PF essentially played like a center, but ever since 2006, when perimeter players started going to the line more than bigs on average, coaches have been forced to devise a new offensive philosophy, one that's built around the perimeter. Sure, this gameplan works in the regular season, you can rack up a lot of wins with it, as D'Antoni's Suns have proven, but when the playoffs arrive, the biggest team who can play in the post and rebound will be the odds on favorite.
The Lakers cruised through the Western Conference playoffs, their huge and versatile frontline having the luxury to match up against Boozer and Fesenko, Amare and Brook Lopez, Ibaka and Jeff Green. In the past, they might had to go up against Webber, Divac, and Miller, Prime Rasheed Wallace and Sabonis, Duncan and Robinson, Prime Garnett and Nesterovic, and if they played themselves, Shaq and Horry. Essentially, only two teams have a frontline that's tailor made for the playoffs: The Lakers and Celtics. In the past, all contending teams had a big and capable frontline. That's not the case anymore, and why I believe the current era to be somewhat weak despite the large collection of superstar talent.
Agreed that the weakest era was 2003-07. Most people lack the critical perspective necessary to understand this but in reality that was arguably the weakest little stretch in the history of the NBA. It was really just a period in which the league was in flux, with the traditional powerhouses reloading.
The 80s were undoubtably the toughest era of any pre or post merger. The talent level was unparalleled, the contenders were stacked like no other era. It was really the golden era of the NBA. It's one of the reasons why I don't hold it against Karl Malone for not winning a championship; How many 'ships would Duncan have if he was drafted by Utah in 1985? Zero.
Translation:
When the Lakers win les, it's a tough era.
When the Spurs win les, it's a weak era.
I think teams with frontlines like Portland and Sacramento would definitely give LA more problems, but they also have Kobe which would be too hard to stop ultimately. I think the reason that this era is so good is because of the domino theory with LA/Boston.
By stacking their teams with superstars they pretty much forced other teams to go out and get good players to be in a win now mode. At first it made the league top heavy, but now with guys like Blake Griffin going to ty teams I think that makes this era the toughest (since the 80's atleast).
wtf?
I typed a paragraph response to the first part and it disappeared
fail
Yeah, the traditional powerhouses didn't reload when they signed 2 Hall of Fame players in Malone and Payton. That team then proceeded to get destroyed by a Pistons team who had the best defensive frontline in recent memory. The Spurs beat that same Pistons team a year later.
And of course '03 was the start of the "weak era." Naturally. Lakers get curbstombed, so that means it's a weak year, despite the fact that all you gots back then, along with the media, were predicting the Lakers to once again repeat. But once they lost, the excuses of "fatigued," "old" etc started pouring in, and the year was suddenly "weak."
I could easily say Kobe snuck in a couple of les during this current run, that the league is in "flux" because the leaders of the championship teams from the mid-2000s, Shaq and Duncan, got old. I mean, really. Who have these current Lakers beaten? West has been undersized and small for 3 years. The Magic were a 3 point shooting team with a big man who couldn't play in the post. That leaves the Celtics, who are not better than the 04-05 Pistons.
But yeah, strong run
Last edited by midnightpulp; 12-15-2010 at 07:25 PM.
Look at the teams around them as well. Utah, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, and New York--all of them had their time in the sun and a lot of it is hidden because the Lakers and Celtics were winning every season. No one would've remember the Pistons either if they hadn't been so persistent.
I disagree. I think an era ended in 2008. Since that time we have seen leaner and leaner interpretations of the hand-checking rule and that has led to inflated numbers, bad ticky-tack fouls, and a decrease in the quality of play because of it. How many times do you see airballs now? How many times do you see a guy drive, get a fingernail on the hand and miss the shot? The game has adapted to the new rules. Because it was a defensive era and the shackles were taken off players like Kobe Bryant and Dirk Nowitzki, we saw some honest-to-goodness basketball.
The top 3 in the West was fantastic (Spurs, Kings, and Lakers). However, the rest of the league stunk, including the Jailblazers). I could turn on a game in 2000 and watch a team, with very little defense, shoot 30% from the field or I could watch a team with all the skill but very little in the way of speed and athleticism (the Utah Jazz come to mind) win 50 games. The league was young, too young, and we didn't have any good coaches. There was no mid-range game. There was very little passing. It was a superstar league, and no one made teams pay for giving the ball to Vince Carter or Allen Iverson. We're talking about some historically bad Eastern Conference teams. The New Jersey Nets wouldn't last in the 80s. They would've won 39 to 42 games and flame out in the first round. They won the damn conference!
From 1995 to 2003 we had some really, really bad basketball. It was because the league had no way of getting through to these young players. We had no way of evaluating overseas talent. It led to draft picks like Nikoloz Tskitishvili and Kwame Brownin the lottery, and Michael Redd and Carlos Boozer in the second. Just some historically bad draft picks because the league couldn't evaluate talent. It was happening to everyone. There was an overemphasis on "potential." That's the weakest era. Young, underdeveloped talents starting with Kevin Garnett and working your way up. And the 90s stars were contending way past 35 (Reggie Miller, Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, David Robinson, Mark Jackson, Chris Mullin, Tim Hardaway, Karl Malone, John Stockton). God forbid they play each other because the air was out of the ball.
2004-2008 is the best era I have ever seen with my eyes. I watched Dwyane Wade play harder than any guard I have ever seen in my life. I watched him mature from hitting a game-winner against New Orleans in the first round to winning the damn Championship. Name me the last star player under 25 years old to have perfomances like he had in the NBA Finals. That's just one player. We had the running team in Phoenix, the Pistons and Spurs opened up the offense, we had a deep team in Indiana, Miami, Cleveland, Sacramento, Minnesota, Dallas. Our mid-level teams were talented. Boston with Walker, Pierce, and Payton come to mind. Jason Kidd and Vince Carter in New Jersey. Washington with Arenas, Hughes, and Jamison. Philadelphia. The Clippers with Elton Brand and Sam Cassell. The Chicago Bulls. We had 45-win teams sitting out the playoffs IN BOTH CONFERENCES. The air was back in the ball, defense could be played, and the league had talented and skilled players on almost every team.
The beginning of the 1990s was a distinct era of good defense. I would put them third to the 2004-2008 era. then 1995-2003.
80's
Early 90's
not sure, but 94 and 95 were by far the easiest
whatever man! We gave the Bulls a hard time in the regular season! They're lucky they didn't see us in the Finals!!!!
Yeah, the traditional powerhouses didn't reload when they signed 2 Hall of Fame players in Malone and Payton. That team then proceeded to get destroyed by a Pistons team who had the best defensive frontline in recent memory. The Spurs beat that same Pistons team a year later.
And of course '03 was the start of the "weak era." Naturally. Lakers get curbstombed, so that means it's a weak year, despite the fact that all you gots back then, along with the media, were predicting the Lakers to once again repeat. But once they lost, the excuses of "fatigued," "old" etc started pouring in, and the year was suddenly "weak."
I could easily say Kobe snuck in a couple of les during this current run, that the league is in "flux" because the leaders of the championship teams from the mid-2000s, Shaq and Duncan, got old. I mean, really. Who have these current Lakers beaten? West has been undersized and small for 3 years. The Magic were a 3 point shooting team with a big man who couldn't play in the post. That leaves the Celtics, who are not better than the 04-05 Pistons.
But yeah, strong run
You can say whatever you like psycho. No one should take it seriously considering your mental state.
Lol @ the 2004-05 Pistons, a team that never returned to the Finals and was broken up not too long after this. Yeah, that was dynasty-caliber team.
Meanwhile the Lakers and Celtics are on pace for their 4th consecutive domination of their respective conferences (KG 2009 injury not withstanding)....
When have the Spurs or Pistons ever come close to this level of play? Never. Pistons are 2 season wonder and the Spurs are the benefactors of Laker rebuilding. Nothing more.
And history will remember them both exactly this way, lol.
Can you imagine 20-30 years from now, after 3 or 4 Lakers-Celtics meetings and 5 ships between them in a 5 year span everyone will be talking about the awesome 2004-05 season where the powerhouse Detroit Pistons played the unstoppable San Antonio Spurs.... L M F A O!. Aim high Willis.
So the Spurs benefited from Laker rebuilding when they went through them twice for two of their les? May want to rethink that there, champ. And I'm sure you'll pull the Laker homer move of trying to denigrate those les by saying the Spurs beat weaker Laker teams, but I could just as easily counter that for two your les, you beat a Spurs team with Danny Ferry, Steve Smith, Terry Porter, and Sean Elliott as their perimeter players. We can play that silly game all-night, but at the end of the day, the Spurs went through a 99 Lakers one year removed from the WCF and an '03 Lakers team who were the defending champions. But the Lakers were "rebuilding."
What's also funny is that you criticize the Pistons for their one le and two Finals appearances, yet laud the current Celtics for doing exactly the same thing: one le and two Finals appearances. But I get it, the Lakers beat the Celtics, so they're an all-time powerhouse, while the Pistons aren't because they were beaten by the Spurs. Furthermore, this Celtic team has only been constructed for 4 years. Those Pistons appeared in 6 Eastern Finals, but yeah, these Celtics are the more successful team.
What this is really about is your irrational hatred of the Spurs and their fans, and it's pathetic how you came to be that way. All because of one troll, Tipsy, on the ESPN boards. Ever since he gave your Kobe fanboy ass about Duncan having more les as the team leader, more MVPs, and more Final MVPs, you've been butthurt and out for revenge against all things Spurs ever since.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
