Reply With Quote
Trivia note:
Rick Carlisle was on the '86 Celts.
Where do these All Time Legit Champions place?
How would they do vs each other?
Occasionally the NBA forum needs some legit Championship talk. You Laker posters can take a break and talk about hosiery on sale or some other Lakerworthy subject.
Trivia note:
Rick Carlisle was on the '86 Celts.
Both great teams. 86 Celts were better. 2 of the best team I ever saw besides the 72 win Bulls, 2001 Lakers, 85 and 87 Lakers and those Bad boy Pistons squads. and the 83 Sixers.
The 86 Celtics had the most devastating break I have ever seen thanks to Bird's touch passes. Bird and Walton on the same team was so ing unfair to the rest of the league.
Those 72 win Bulls team are overrated. The 92 Bulls were the best of the Bulls.
85 wasn't that great. Bad boys probably won't stand the test of time because of the way they introduced thug ball, which is why I consider daly to be one of the best coaches of all time.
92 Bulls, 83 Sixers, 01 Lakers, 87 Lakers and 86 Celtics were legit though. I'd throw in the Walton Blazers, and even the Reed Knicks. Those were some devastating team.s
I long considered making this thread....
I think the 86 C's are the best team ever; but if they have a weakness it's the lack of an athletic wing. That's what made Len Bias's death extra tragic.
I agree actually on 92. but what made the 72 version filthy want Rodman who was overrated if you ask me (bulls not Pistons version) but Pippen was in his prime while MJ was at the end of his. in 92 Jordan was abeast but Pip was nowwhere as good as he was on the 72 team. That is also why the 2001 Laker team was so deadly becuase Kobe became a 1B in 2000. Kobe was the clear #2
All those teams you mention would kick the 01 Lakers ass though. The 01 Lakers (technically 02) basically needed the refs mercy to survive the Kings, who had their 1A playing injured.
Stop putting your Kobe bull in here. 2001 lakers were great because shaq was a one man wreaking crew. Kobe was 1b until 2003, when shaqs dominance declined. 2001 shaq had one of the greatest seasons ever and you had to say Kobe was a 1b that year. And you wonder why people don't take you seriously?
96 Pippen was great but 96 Jordan was no where near the 92 Jordan.
Calm your ass down, clown ... you do realize you agreed with me, that Kobe was the 1B? Shaq was dominant in 2000 yet the Blazers pushed us to 7 in the WCF and Sacto pushed us to a last game in the first round as well if iirc. I am not here saying that shaq wasnt the dominant force of the 3 peat ... same with MJ in 1992 but when you are talking about what makes a TEAM truly dominant its the quality of the #2 that makes a difference. You are always talking team accomplishment all the time but what makes truly all time great teams it's not just the quality of the #1 it's the quality of the #2
That is why for me the 85 Lakers were the better team than 87 because 85 Kareem was superior to the 87 version. Worthy was better in 87, sure but Cooper was also better in 1987 athletically.
Back to the 2001 LakersShaq's dominance didnt mean when the Lakers were getting swept by the Jazz and the Spurs. It took Kobe getting closer to his level for us to become dominant as a team.
That is the same for the 72 bulls as good as MJ was in 1992 Pippen was not a reliable scorer and MJ had to do a whole bunch more he wasnt even as good a play-maker in 92 ...Pip got more dominant as the Bulls continued to win.
I'll be honest Amb I am disappointed you took a simple statement and turned it in to Kobe bashing bull . We were having a good discussion about all-time great teams and then had to ruin it.
My comment was not taking anything away from Shaq who was a truly dominant player but until Kobe became one as well the Lakers were getting swept by a choker like Mailman because he had a great #2 ...get the point? Or was the one-man wrecking crew not good enough to beat a player that everyone on here bashes repeatedly?
It was Until kobe became great that the those Lakers became great ...that was a fact. Shaq was already dominant. Fox and horry were established role players. We even had Glen Rice a proven shooter. But our role players like horry couldnt help Shaq win he needed that #2 ...just like Lebron needed Wade.
and I would say out of the teams mentioned above the best ones have great #2's.
86 Celts McHale
72 win bulls prime pippen
2001 Lakers Frobe
85 Lakers Kareem
87 Lakers Worthy
83 Sixers Dr.J
That is where you seperate the great teams ...
Last edited by Killakobe81; 03-24-2016 at 11:06 PM.
WTF you talking about? We are talking the 2001 team that went 16-1 through the playoffs. they swept Sacramento. Please get out of this thread if you do not know your facts, no disrespect.
2001 Lakers had Shaq (by the playoffs) in dominant form ...
Fisher who was rested from a broken foot bombing 3's all over the spurs in the playoffs ...
Horry in his prime
Fox at the end of his ...
Kobe ascendant ...
I think you can make a case for the 2001 Lakers being at least a top 3 or 4 dominant team, tbh.
How old are you?
Did you actually see those teams play? And if you did... your Kobe hate makes more sense .to me now. if you watched those teams play even as kid of course Kobe's ball dominant ways would rub you the wrong way ...although not sure why Mj's ways dont do the same ...but whatever.
ESPN had them ranked 7th alltime a few years back behind the 1987 squad and the 86 Celts and the 72 win Bulls but when you say wasnt that great that seems dismissive to me. I think they are better than the 1983 Sixers tbh ...
The 2001 Lakers faced:
-A dysfunctional Blazers squad that was equivalent to the current Rockets
-A Kings squad w/ Jason Williams committing more turnovers than assists
-A Spurs squad w/ a geriatric supporting cast & without it's 2nd leading scorer
The 2001 Sixers were a Vince 3 away from being bounced in the 2nd rd & beat the Bucks only b/c of the Zebras. Those same Sixers had a chance to win the first 3 games (Gm 3 was for the taking until the final second); they went down 2-1 after Horry hit the dagger 3 in Gm 3 & never recovered.
Kirby was pretty ordinary when he FINALLY went up against a team w/ hard-nosed perimeter defenders & ACTUALLY had to play defense on the other end. He was more inefficient that Iverson who was playing 1-on-5 on offense.(Reggie/Ray Allen/Vince fared MUCH BETTER against the Sixers than Kirby)
The 2004 Pistons would have been the 2001 Lakers kryptonite b/c they played the same brand of defense as the Sixers except with better personnel & had perimeter players that would make Kirby work while making his life miserable on the other end.
That blazers team was uber talented ... this year's Rox is not even close even those Jwill Kings were also better.The 2001 Lakers faced:
-A dysfunctional Blazers squad that was equivalent to the current Rockets
-A Kings squad w/ Jason Williams committing more turnovers than assists
-A Spurs squad w/ a geriatric supporting cast & without it's 2nd leading scorer
The 2001 Sixers were a Vince 3 away from being bounced in the 2nd rd & beat the Bucks only b/c of the Zebras. Those same Sixers had a chance to win the first 3 games (Gm 3 was for the taking until the final second); they went down 2-1 after Horry hit the dagger 3 in Gm 3 & never recovered.
Kirby was pretty ordinary when he FINALLY went up against a team w/ hard-nosed perimeter defenders & ACTUALLY had to play defense on the other end. He was more inefficient that Iverson who was playing 1-on-5 on offense.
The 2004 Pistons would have been the 2001 Lakers kryptonite b/c they played the same brand of defense as the Sixers except with better personnel & had perimeter players that would make Kirby work while making his life miserable on the other end.
Prime Cwebb is a better player than Harden. they also had a better coach and role players.
LOL NO WAY THOSE Pistons beat the 2001 Lakers ... but whatever. Cant be proven. but I do notice spur fan always tries to discredit teams when they dont like them. It's the same whining about the Warriors last year or the Heat in 2013 ... yawn.
Bruh, you claimed those Lakers were top 3 & I gave you a rebuttal. The 2001 Sixers would have been swept by an all-time top 5 squad while not breaking 90.
I said a case can be made I didnt say I would make it ...
Losing one game is a dumb argument especially when that Laker steam had almost 2 weeks off before the first Finals game.
Also didnt the 2014 Spurs get pushed to 7 games in round one?
The 86 Celts did not sweep a ty rox teams that had multiple guards who were rumored to be snorting cocaine
We can do that all day.Cherry pick losses that makes X team not so dominant. I am taking the 2001 Lakers mostly because of Shaq but Kobe was rising the role players were filthy clutch ... over everyone sans 80's Lakers/Celts and Mj's Bulls. just my opinion arguing hypotheticals on the internet bores me. You said your piece I said mine let's move on.
If you want to pick apart a great Lakers team the repeat Kobepau Lakers were very good but outside of the Rox probably the weakest team to repeat as champs ...
yet they did it and the great 2014 Spurs were one shot away ... and didnt finish. They did.
I do think the 2014 spurs were than THOSe Laker teams.
Last edited by Killakobe81; 03-25-2016 at 12:48 AM.
I CLEARLY stated the Sixers had a chance to win the first THREE games. Gm 3 came down to an Horry 3 w/ under a minute & the Sixers still had a chance to send it to OT. Once they lost Gm 3, they lost all the momentum the had from Gm 1.
Yeah, the Spurs weren't sleep walking (esp. Porker w/ his dribble, dribble) b/c it was a 1st rd series against an opponent they had trashed in the regular season. The Mavs had all the momentum going into Gm 7 & absolutely got trashed by the REAL Spurs squad.Also didnt the 2014 Mavs get pushed to 7 games in round one?
Dummy, Cocaine is a performance ENHANCING drug. Plus, the Rockets also had Hakeem/Sampson to go up against the Chief/McHale. Oh, they only beat your beloved Lakers in 5.The 86 Celts did not sweep a ty rox teams that had multiple guards who were rumored to be snorting cocaine
Kirby in '00-01 wasn't better than Iverson, Ray Allen, Vince, Pierce, T-Mac so let's not act like he was 2006 Wade or some shyt. His Finals appearance have been underwhelming when he had to expend energy on defense: 2001, 2004, 2008, 2010.We can do that all day.Cherry pick losses that makes X team not so dominant. I am taking the 2001 Lakers mostly because of Shaq but Kobe was rising the role players were filthy clutch
MVPau was MARGINALLY better than Kirby in 2010If you want to pick apart a great Lakers team the repeat Kobepau Lakers were very good but outside of the Rox probably the weakest team to repeat as champs .
Last edited by Kawhitstorm; 03-25-2016 at 12:50 AM.
Sure, cocine is a uva drug ...in my rick James voice.I CLEARLY stated the Sixers had a chance to win the first THREE games. Gm 3 came down to an Horry 3 w/ under a minute & the Sixers still had a chance to send it to OT. Once they lost Gm 3, they lost all the momentum the had from Gm 1.
Yeah, the Spurs weren't sleep walking (esp. Porker w/ his dribble, dribble) b/c it was a 1st rd series against an opponent they had trashed in the regular season. The Mavs had all the momentum going into Gm 7 & absolutely got trashed by the REAL Spurs squad.
Dummy, Cocaine is a performance ENHANCING drug. Plus, the Rockets also had Hakeem/Sampson to go up against the Chief/McHale. Oh, they only beat your beloved Lakers in 5.
Kirby in '00-01 wasn't better than Iverson, Ray Allen, Vince, Pierce, T-Mac so let's not act like he was 2006 Wade or some shyt. His Finals appearance have been underwhelming when he had to expend energy on defense: 2001, 2004, 2008, 2010.
MVPau was MARGINALLY better than Kirby in 2010
Just ask Len Bias how much it helps.
I am done. Agenda is an agenda.
not getting in to any Kobe debates amb tried that . We are talking the 2001 Lakers and shaq was ting on every team he faced as long as he did not get in foul trouble. including dikembe and those sixers. Kobe provided the defense play-making and the role guys clutch shooting. Out of the teams i have seen with my own eyes they are arguably top 5. You disagree? Make your own list.
Len Bias had a heart problem that was induced by cocaine. Energy drinks can cause the same effect.
Oh, we're going to act like Tim didn't drop 40/15/3/4 (15-26) compared to his 19/14/4/1 (8-21) in Gm 2 of the WCF?We are talking the 2001 Lakers and shaq was ting on every team he faced as long as he did not get in foul trouble.
Tim whooped his ass in '99 when it was a fair fight, neutralized him in 2001 while playing 1-on-5, outplayed him & Kirby in 2002 when he was undermanned & ended their *tainted* 3peat single handily in 2003. (Kirby was playing 1-on-1 the entire time
*Tim was injured in 2000 & the Kings got hosed by the refs in 2002.
Last edited by Kawhitstorm; 03-25-2016 at 01:25 AM.
Only pussies & assholes blame injuries & the officiating.
Only sore losers claim asterisk after actually PLAYING in the postseason, being a 100% healthy & not having any officiating controversies.
Only pussies & assholes blame injuries & the officiating.Only sore losers claim asterisk after actually PLAYING in the postseason, being a 100% healthy & not having any officiating controversies.
My fault, I meant to say Kobe wasn't 1b until 2003. He was the clear robin until then. If you can even call him robin. He's the Hawkeyes or black widow up till around 2002. Became robin for the year, then more of an equal billing in 2003 when shaq declined and the lakers went nowhere.
And no, shaq didn't get swept by the Jazz because he didn't have a #2, it's because he had rambis or whoever it was as a patch instead of kfc, and 98 shaq is no where as dominant as 2001 shaq. It's like you saying 85 Kareem was as dominant as 80 Kareem, it's just not the case.
I'm fine with with Kobe being the number 2, he earned it since around 1999/2000, but no way in was he the 1b until at least 2003. Shaq ran that team. Nobody called Pippen a 1b, he was the clear #2. Same with mchale, and Kobe had that role during the three peat.
And you are disappointed with me? Look at the quote I originally responded to, the entire thing was Kobe propaganda, trying to sneak Kobe into the conversation and draw equivalence of him with the most dominant version of shaq. If I said Parker was the clear 1b to Duncan in 2003, it would be a clear propaganda move to boost up Parker and would be an insult to Duncan as well.
Sure the best teams needed a #2. Pippen was that on the 92 bulls, and Kobe was that on the 01 lakers. Neither of them were 1bs.
To nitpick, magic was 1b in 85 still. Kareem was the 1a.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
