OT: Top 20 teams of all time

[Killakobe81]

You can't cherry pick one game. In 85, Kareem can still score, but he couldn't rebound and defend like he used to. He averaged 26 ppg during the Finals, but "only" 22 and 8 in the entire playoffs and the regular season.

We are rating the team as a whole, not just through one game, or one even just the finals series.

I would take the 87, 80, or even the 88 Lakers over the 85 Lakers.

I didnt give you one ... I gave you two. And I watched that series and all those teams extensively except the 1980 squad because I was to young ..and I am telling you they were every bit as good or better than those other teams because we could run, defend and when all failed we had the "skyhook" ...

[Killakobe81]

Also Amb, yes I get you rate champions by factoring the regular season it's why the 2001 Lakers dont get as much credit as they should ...but you were discussing Kareem being in decline which was true but wouldnt his decline be more significant in 87 and 88? My point I woudl rather have 1985 Kareem over the 87-88 even if it means I get a prime Worthy or Scott.

The 2014 Spurs are much better than the 2007 squad as a team But I would rather have Timmy and Manu closer to prime than the all around play of the 2014 team if I was competing against Mj's Bulls, Shaqobe LAkers or 80's Celts/Lakers.

2014 Spurs were great amazing. But overrated on here ... but I get it.

[ambchang]

I didnt give you one ... I gave you two. And I watched that series and all those teams extensively except the 1980 squad because I was to young ..and I am telling you they were every bit as good or better than those other teams because we could run, defend and when all failed we had the "skyhook" ...

The 85 Lakers can score, no doubt, but I didn't see them as any dominating defensive force.

[The Gemini Method]

The 85' Lakers were a behemoth offensively and did enough to survive on the D side of things. Pretty good list. Though, I wasn't around for the 70s and 60s.

[Killakobe81]

The 85 Lakers can score, no doubt, but I didn't see them as any dominating defensive force.

No not dominate but the team was young outside of Kareem, McAdoo and Kupchak we could play passing lanes really well. Look I think 1987 might be better I just dont think 85 is as overrated as you stated. They are not top 5 but top 10 absolutely.

Best team I saw:

1985 and 1987 Lakers

1984 and 1986 Celts

2001 Lakers

1983 Sixers

1992 Bulls

1997 Bulls

1989 Pistons

In some order ...

[ambchang]

Also Amb, yes I get you rate champions by factoring the regular season it's why the 2001 Lakers dont get as much credit as they should ...but you were discussing Kareem being in decline which was true but wouldnt his decline be more significant in 87 and 88? My point I woudl rather have 1985 Kareem over the 87-88 even if it means I get a prime Worthy or Scott.

The 2014 Spurs are much better than the 2007 squad as a team But I would rather have Timmy and Manu closer to prime than the all around play of the 2014 team if I was competing against Mj's Bulls, Shaqobe LAkers or 80's Celts/Lakers.

2014 Spurs were great amazing. But overrated on here ... but I get it.

Yeah, I agree Kareem was a s of his former self in 87 and 88, and likely would have retired if not for his losses in investments, but the 85 Kareem, though still All-NBA in caliber, is far removed from Kareem's prime.

Again, my issue with Kareem in 85 wasn't offense, it was purely defense. He couldn't rebound, he couldn't defend. And the thing is, Magic wasn't really taking in the reigns at that point yet, the offense still ran through Kareem at that point, whereas the 87 offense was built around Magic.

I saw the 87 team as the much well rounded team over the 85 version.

As for the Spurs, the 14 version is very overrated here, but I'd still take them over 07. I felt 05 was the best, and 03 was great based solely on the greatness of Duncan. 99 was the best ever on defense, but not even good offensively. The 14 team was very balanced, I'd say they are second best after the 05 Spurs of the 5 Spurs championship winning team.

[ambchang]

No not dominate but the team was young outside of Kareem, McAdoo and Kupchak we could play passing lanes really well.

When you count on the 85 Kareem and McAdoo (one of the greatest sieves in NBA history) for defense, you know you aren't that good.

The wing defense was pretty good though, Cooper was great, Magic has always been underrated defensively, and Scott as well.

[spurraider21]

Two best are 96 Bulls and 83 sixers imo

[Infinite_limit]

2015 Warriors vs 2012 Thunder

Who wins?

[jsandiego]

I think 2014 Spurs are the hardest to quantify because the lack of a superstar and all around team game. They won several games by double-digits in a historically tough Western Conference. Both offense and defense were incredible. Won the Finals by the biggest margin in history, and it was against a pretty good team. Won 62 games and still didn't play anyone more than 30 mpg.

I'm a big laker-hater by nature, but I agree that the 2001 team should be ranked higher. Once they all got healthy I think they ended the season 23-1, or something ridiculous like that.

[da_suns_fan]

Do a little research will you?

I did. They lost to the 2015 Clippers.

[baseline bum]

Yeah, I agree Kareem was a s of his former self in 87 and 88, and likely would have retired if not for his losses in investments, but the 85 Kareem, though still All-NBA in caliber, is far removed from Kareem's prime.

Again, my issue with Kareem in 85 wasn't offense, it was purely defense. He couldn't rebound, he couldn't defend. And the thing is, Magic wasn't really taking in the reigns at that point yet, the offense still ran through Kareem at that point, whereas the 87 offense was built around Magic.

I saw the 87 team as the much well rounded team over the 85 version.

As for the Spurs, the 14 version is very overrated here, but I'd still take them over 07. I felt 05 was the best, and 03 was great based solely on the greatness of Duncan. 99 was the best ever on defense, but not even good offensively. The 14 team was very balanced, I'd say they are second best after the 05 Spurs of the 5 Spurs championship winning team.

05 was the best Spurs team on paper, but with Duncan's injured ankles no way I'd take them over the 14 team.

[baseline bum]

Two best are 96 Bulls and 83 sixers imo

I think I'd take the 86 Celtics over the 83 Sixers, such a ridiculous frontcourt with Bird, McHale, Parish, Walton. The 87 team took such a hit with Greg Kite having to play lots of Walton's and McHale's minutes though. Damn if that was Len Bias taking Greg Kite's minutes instead though.

[ElNono]

This agree 100%. also fisher regaining health was huge as well. I know he gets hated on here. But adding his leadership and clutch 3's to Big shot BOb Foxy's defense and the dominance of SHaqobe ...that team was a true pleasure to watch especially come playoffs.

The only guys here that hate on Fish leadership are Lakerfans themselves, tbh...

[spurraider21]

I think I'd take the 86 Celtics over the 83 Sixers, such a ridiculous frontcourt with Bird, McHale, Parish, Walton. The 87 team took such a hit with Greg Kite having to play lots of Walton's and McHale's minutes though. Damn if that was Len Bias taking Greg Kite's minutes instead though.

talent wise, maybe. but that sixers team gelled immediately with moses on board, won 65 games, and obliterated the postseason. fo fo fo (almost)... including a sweep of the defending champ lakers

[da_suns_fan]

Do a little research will you?

I looked it up. They got bounced in the first round.

Paper champs.

[baseline bum]

talent wise, maybe. but that sixers team gelled immediately with moses on board, won 65 games, and obliterated the postseason. fo fo fo (almost)... including a sweep of the defending champ lakers

Worthy broke his leg and was out for the Finals.

[baseline bum]

I looked it up. They got bounced in the first round.

Paper champs.

Nothing says weak like setting the Finals record for average point differential against the two time defending champions. Where do you think the 07 Suns would have stacked on that top 20 list if Nash hadn't flopped in Game 4?

[ambchang]

I did. They lost to the 2015 Clippers.

Thats defensiveness talking.

If they were sooo good, why did they lose in the first round with the exact same roster the next year? Who was hurt? Who retired?

You seemed confused about what you are asking for.

[ambchang]

I did. They lost to the 2015 Clippers.

I looked it up. They got bounced in the first round.

Paper champs.

No need to respond to the same quote twice.

Are you hung over? You seemed disoriented.

[whitemamba]

2014 Spurs,??? Lmao for s sake, this site is getting worse every day.

[Caltex2]

15' warriors are probably the tiest NBA champion of all time tbh. Plus, the 11' Mavs could've beaten any team since the 1990s barring the Bulls led by Jordan imho.

The Warriors looked too vulnerable far too many times in every series, even against the Pelicans. They're up there but not too far up there.

And the '72 Lakers are way underrated on that list.

[da_suns_fan]

You seemed confused about what you are asking for.

Why did they get bounced in the first round the next season? Did they lose a key player from the previous year?

[da_suns_fan]

Nothing says weak like setting the Finals record for average point differential against the two time defending champions. Where do you think the 07 Suns would have stacked on that top 20 list if Nash hadn't flopped in Game 4?

Nothing says weak like losing in the first round with the same squad.

Which other "top 20 team" lost in the first round with same roster the next season?

[baseline bum]

Why did they get bounced in the first round the next season? Did they lose a key player from the previous year?

But nothing says weak like setting the Finals record for average point differential against the two time defending champions. Where do you think the 07 Suns would have stacked on that top 20 list if Nash hadn't flopped in Game 4?