Warriors: Shaq says his 2001 Lakers team would beat the Warriors

[Jzone]

ing Durant and Westbrook almost put them away. 2001 Lakers would eat them alive

[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. 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 les 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. 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 compe ion 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 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 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

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 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 . 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.