PDA

View Full Version : How much does Patrick Ewing's legacy change with title in '94?



JordansBulls
03-22-2009, 06:51 PM
How much does Patrick Ewing's legacy change with title in '94?

Knicks were down in the ECF to the Pacers 3-2 and came back to win that series. Then in the NBA Finals the Knicks were up 3-2 over the Rockets and were playing well in game 6 in Houston and had a chance to win until Hakeem blocked Starks at the end.

Had the Knicks held on that game and won the title, how much does Ewing's legacy improve?

I use Ewing in this case because the Knicks were up in the series and one game away from winning the NBA championship.

NYC Alex
03-22-2009, 07:29 PM
Winning just one ring, with a team that was very good but not great would have elevated Ewing into the premier center discussion. That being said - it would remove one ring from Hakeem. So the two would have been on par ring wise. You would still have to look at Russell, Kareem, Shaq, and Wilt and Moses (despite Wilt and Moses only winning 1) are in another echelon, as it is now - Hakeem ranks with those names.

As it stands now, I feel Russell, Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem and Moses are tier 1 all timers. Ewing, David Robinson, Bill Walton (despite the rings), Willis Reed (despite the rings) are tier 2 all timers. Then you've got the lesser big men who still put up some very impressive numbers like the fiery Alonzo Mourning, Brad Daughtery and Dave Cowens. I also acknowledge that I omitted Mikan.

FOBolous
03-22-2009, 07:34 PM
Winning just one ring, with a team that was very good but not great would have elevated Ewing into the premier center discussion. That being said - it would remove one ring from Hakeem. So the two would have been on par ring wise. You would still have to look at Russell, Kareem, Shaq, and Wilt and Moses (despite Wilt and Moses only winning 1) are in another echelon, as it is now - Hakeem ranks with those names.

As it stands now, I feel Russell, Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem and Moses are tier 1 all timers. Ewing, David Robinson, Bill Walton (despite the rings), Willis Reed (despite the rings) are tier 2 all timers. Then you've got the lesser big men who still put up some very impressive numbers like Brad Daughtery and Dave Cowens. I also acknowledge that I omitted Mikan.

:clap:

PJAF
03-22-2009, 07:50 PM
No way. Maybe Kareem and Wilt. Possibly Shaq. But not Moses over Patrick. Hakeem and Pat equal. Russel was a greast defensive player. But Patrick was probably the all time best jump shooting center of all time. MaCadoo maybe equal or a close second with Elvin Hayes.

goku
03-22-2009, 07:52 PM
^^ hakeem is better than ewing especially with the dream shake

DreamShaker
03-22-2009, 07:53 PM
Winning just one ring, with a team that was very good but not great would have elevated Ewing into the premier center discussion. That being said - it would remove one ring from Hakeem. So the two would have been on par ring wise. You would still have to look at Russell, Kareem, Shaq, and Wilt and Moses (despite Wilt and Moses only winning 1) are in another echelon, as it is now - Hakeem ranks with those names.

As it stands now, I feel Russell, Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem and Moses are tier 1 all timers. Ewing, David Robinson, Bill Walton (despite the rings), Willis Reed (despite the rings) are tier 2 all timers. Then you've got the lesser big men who still put up some very impressive numbers like the fiery Alonzo Mourning, Brad Daughtery and Dave Cowens. I also acknowledge that I omitted Mikan.

Wilt had 3 rings my good sir.

DreamShaker
03-22-2009, 07:55 PM
^^ hakeem is better than ewing especially with the dream shake

Comparing Hakeem to Pat is like comparing John Stockton to Magic. It's not close.

KnicksorBust
03-22-2009, 08:00 PM
Wilt had 3 rings my good sir.

I hate to correct a correction but I'm pretty sure it's 2 rings. Either way Hakeem would have still be an all around better center than Ewing but it definately would have elevated his career. I thought the post above with the different tierings was very accurate.

da wood
03-22-2009, 08:03 PM
No way. Maybe Kareem and Wilt. Possibly Shaq. But not Moses over Patrick. Hakeem and Pat equal. Russel was a greast defensive player. But Patrick was probably the all time best jump shooting center of all time. MaCadoo maybe equal or a close second with Elvin Hayes.

no way pat and hakeem are equal hakeem is arguable the greatest center to play the game depending on who your arguing with because he was so good on offense and he was the best defensive big in the league also in his day. not to metion he was the best big in the league when the league was a big man league. i would have liked to see him go against jordan in the finals.

da wood
03-22-2009, 08:06 PM
yeah i do believe he was in the second tier just as ol boysaid earlier

NYC Alex
03-22-2009, 08:10 PM
No way. Maybe Kareem and Wilt. Possibly Shaq. But not Moses over Patrick. Hakeem and Pat equal. Russel was a greast defensive player. But Patrick was probably the all time best jump shooting center of all time. MaCadoo maybe equal or a close second with Elvin Hayes.


Moses Malone man, 3 time MVP, 1 time Finals MVP, career averages of 20.6 points/12.2 rebounds. 9 consecutive seasons at 13 or more rebounds, career high average of 31 points per game, career high average of 17 rebounds per game. 8 seasons of 23 or more points, with a few more in the low 20's, career averages lowered by playing till the age of 40 some spot minutes.


I'm not underestimating Patrick Ewing's greatness, but lets not sell Moses Malone short.

goku
03-22-2009, 08:12 PM
no way pat and hakeem are equal hakeem is arguable the greatest center to play the game depending on who your arguing with because he was so good on offense and he was the best defensive big in the league also in his day. not to metion he was the best big in the league when the league was a big man league. i would have liked to see him go against jordan in the finals.

that would have been a series of heart and determination between hakeem and mj

The Answer3
03-22-2009, 08:20 PM
No way. Maybe Kareem and Wilt. Possibly Shaq. But not Moses over Patrick. Hakeem and Pat equal. Russel was a greast defensive player. But Patrick was probably the all time best jump shooting center of all time. MaCadoo maybe equal or a close second with Elvin Hayes.

Sam Perkins, Sabonis, Laimbeer, Sikma were probably better shooters than Ewing. But, if you're talkin' about HOFers than Pat is probably the GOAT.

DreamShaker
03-22-2009, 08:42 PM
I hate to correct a correction but I'm pretty sure it's 2 rings. Either way Hakeem would have still be an all around better center than Ewing but it definately would have elevated his career. I thought the post above with the different tierings was very accurate.

You are correct I was wrong....although if you count his Globetrotters championship against the Washington Generals....I'm right:nod:

SteveNash
03-22-2009, 11:45 PM
I don't think it would change very much at all. At least it wouldn't in my eyes. Most people don't bring up Ewing winning an NCAA championship against Olajuwon because Ewing didn't play that well and Olajuwon didn't have a lot of help. And of course Ewing was upset against Villanova the following year. Similar thing probably would have happened if he had won in '94.

JordansBulls
03-23-2009, 12:21 AM
Just so that people know, I'm not comparing him by position but all time ranking. Currently he is in the 25-30 ranking range. Would he have been in the 20-25 ranking range with a title as the man?

superkegger
03-23-2009, 12:38 AM
I'm not sure it changes his legacy all that much. I mean, he wouldn't be one of those greats to never win a ring, and he'd be a champion, but really I don't see it making that much of an impact on his legacy.

abe_froman
03-23-2009, 12:55 AM
he'd be thought of alittle better,legacy jump for sure but not by alot(maybe a few spots of your fictional all time list),but it would have hurt hakeem more than it would have help pat

Lakersfan2483
03-23-2009, 03:17 AM
If Ewing had won that title in 94, it definitely would have changed where he currently is ranked amongst the all time greats, but he still would be behind guys like O'neal, Hakeem, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, M. Malone and David Robinson. He would still be in the next tier of great players and big men. I have him in the top 25 to 30 players of all time, he may have gotten down to the top 20 to 25 with a title.

Chronz
03-23-2009, 03:30 AM
Not at all, he played horribly that finals, the fact that the series went to 7 is a huge knock against Ewing. He had the talent, he just didnt lead them. If they wouldve won a title it wouldve been in spite of Ewing, not because of him.

KG2TB
03-23-2009, 04:22 AM
IMO, it wouldn't have changed his legacy a whole lot. Hakeem has two rings and is still underrated and not talked about enough. I think if in 94, he had gotten past a Bulls team with Jordan on it, and THEN won a title...it would have maybe improved it a little bit. Overall though as it was, if Pat would have gotten a title that year, he'd still probably rank the same when it comes to the best big men ever.

JordansBulls
03-23-2009, 08:34 AM
If Ewing had won that title in 94, it definitely would have changed where he currently is ranked amongst the all time greats, but he still would be behind guys like O'neal, Hakeem, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, M. Malone and David Robinson. He would still be in the next tier of great players and big men. I have him in the top 25 to 30 players of all time, he may have gotten down to the top 20 to 25 with a title.

Yeah that is what I was thinking personally as well.

Chronz
03-23-2009, 03:35 PM
How does the fact that he won a title while playing so horribly mean anything?

abe_froman
03-23-2009, 03:40 PM
How does the fact that he won a title while playing so horribly mean anything?

because he has the ring,kobe has put up some of the worst finals performances of all time and yet doesnt hurt his legacy,top 15-20 all time(or by laker fans who put him number 1)

JordansBulls
03-23-2009, 03:41 PM
How does the fact that he won a title while playing so horribly mean anything?

Did anyone else on the team play better than he did?

Chronz
03-23-2009, 03:55 PM
Did anyone else on the team play better than he did?
What a ridiculous statement, they did their jobs, its NOT in their job description to outplay the teams All-Star or else they wouldnt be role players and would be much higher paid guys.

Obviously they all played well enough to take the Rockets to 7 even with Ewing choking, when the supporting cast fails the star its one thing, but when the star fails the supporting cast its entirely different. Ewing didnt play well enough to win, he lost to a 1-man show. Dream showed up, Ewing didnt and he had the better team. He did his part defensively I give him that, but Dream did it on both ends. Had Dream lost that finals it wouldnt have changed my opinion of him one bit, he played like a champ, Ewing didnt.

So again I ask you, why would winning a chip matter when you didnt deserve to win one?

JordansBulls
03-23-2009, 04:02 PM
What a ridiculous statement, they did their jobs, its NOT in their job description to outplay the teams All-Star or else they wouldnt be role players and would be much higher paid guys.

Obviously they all played well enough to take the Rockets to 7 even with Ewing choking, when the supporting cast fails the star its one thing, but when the star fails the supporting cast its entirely different. Ewing didnt play well enough to win, he lost to a 1-man show. Dream showed up, Ewing didnt and he had the better team. He did his part defensively I give him that, but Dream did it on both ends. Had Dream lost that finals it wouldnt have changed my opinion of him one bit, he played like a champ, Ewing didnt.

So again I ask you, why would winning a chip matter when you didnt deserve to win one?

Yes Dream outplayed him, but it doesn't change the fact that had Ewing won it would have affected Hakeem's ranking quite a bit. Right now Hakeem is probably top 7-9 all time. Ewing is around 25-30.

I'm not saying Ewing moves past any of these Centers all time:

Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Hakeem
Shaq
Moses Malone

But he could be on par with D Rob with a ring as the best player on the team.

Chronz
03-23-2009, 04:03 PM
because he has the ring,kobe has put up some of the worst finals performances of all time and yet doesnt hurt his legacy,top 15-20 all time(or by laker fans who put him number 1)
Depends, Kobe has gone to the Finals so many times, his play didnt cost the team as they did not lose to a clearly inferior squad. Examples would help me know what specific event you were talking about, but who says it hasnt hurt his legacy? It doesnt shape his entire legacy, but thats what Im saying, neither should it for Ewing. He was still the same player, ring or not. Had he won I still wouldve remembered it as the chip that rightfully belonged to Hakeem, due to Ewings choke job. Any other star bigman wouldve won that title, replace Ewing with Shaq or even D-Rob and they wouldve won. So would that chip put Ewing above either of those guys at that time?

Chronz
03-23-2009, 04:09 PM
Yes Dream outplayed him, but it doesn't change the fact that had Ewing won it would have affected Hakeem's ranking quite a bit. Right now Hakeem is probably top 7-9 all time. Ewing is around 25-30.
Not in my book, so many things have to go right in order for a team to win a chip, in most cases the luck of the draw in terms of matchups, a bounce in the right direction those are things I can look past, but when a team loses because of their star player, or if that star player utterly failed then the chip loses much of its luster.


I'm not saying Ewing moves past any of these Centers all time:

Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Hakeem
Shaq
Moses Malone

But he could be on par with D Rob with a ring as the best player on the team.

God no, when D-Rob was outplayed he fought back, Ewing kept chucking jumpshots and his team carried him in the Finals. You dont need a title as "The Man" to be a better player than a guy who won as "the man".

Let me just add, that Ewing had played great in his playoff run, his legacy is fortified by that run to the finals (Although it doesnt compare to the beasts Dream had to slay to get there) thats what we should remember most about Ewing that year, but his play in the Finals did not deserve to elevate his status.

JordansBulls
03-23-2009, 05:23 PM
Not in my book, so many things have to go right in order for a team to win a chip, in most cases the luck of the draw in terms of matchups, a bounce in the right direction those are things I can look past, but when a team loses because of their star player, or if that star player utterly failed then the chip loses much of its luster.


God no, when D-Rob was outplayed he fought back, Ewing kept chucking jumpshots and his team carried him in the Finals. You dont need a title as "The Man" to be a better player than a guy who won as "the man".

Let me just add, that Ewing had played great in his playoff run, his legacy is fortified by that run to the finals (Although it doesnt compare to the beasts Dream had to slay to get there) thats what we should remember most about Ewing that year, but his play in the Finals did not deserve to elevate his status.

When did Robinson win a title as the MAN?

Hawkeye15
03-23-2009, 07:06 PM
Winning just one ring, with a team that was very good but not great would have elevated Ewing into the premier center discussion. That being said - it would remove one ring from Hakeem. So the two would have been on par ring wise. You would still have to look at Russell, Kareem, Shaq, and Wilt and Moses (despite Wilt and Moses only winning 1) are in another echelon, as it is now - Hakeem ranks with those names.

As it stands now, I feel Russell, Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem and Moses are tier 1 all timers. Ewing, David Robinson, Bill Walton (despite the rings), Willis Reed (despite the rings) are tier 2 all timers. Then you've got the lesser big men who still put up some very impressive numbers like the fiery Alonzo Mourning, Brad Daughtery and Dave Cowens. I also acknowledge that I omitted Mikan.

great post. I agree 100%

Hawkeye15
03-23-2009, 07:09 PM
that would have been a series of heart and determination between hakeem and mj

the Rockets benefited from MJ taking time off. Embrace it. Don't push it. MJ never lost in the finals. Why would it have been any different?

EddieB
03-23-2009, 08:18 PM
The Knicks were robbed that year, how many times was Charles Smith fouled in game 5, complete robbery

madiaz3
03-23-2009, 08:18 PM
the Rockets benefited from MJ taking time off. Embrace it. Don't push it. MJ never lost in the finals. Why would it have been any different?

Because he's never faced as dominant a big man from the top tier of centers in a series? As this thread shows, Ewing was considered a notch below.

JordansBulls
03-23-2009, 08:57 PM
The Knicks were robbed that year, how many times was Charles Smith fouled in game 5, complete robbery

Knicks won game 5.

Hawkeye15
03-23-2009, 10:16 PM
Because he's never faced as dominant a big man from the top tier of centers in a series? As this thread shows, Ewing was considered a notch below.

My point is, it didn't matter what Jordan faced. He beat it anyways. He was the best player of all time, and was the ultimate winner. I don't think Houston would have posed any more threat than LA, Seattle, Utah, or whomver. Hakeem is unreal, but Jordan does not lose in the finals.

SteveNash
03-23-2009, 11:39 PM
Did anyone else on the team play better than he did?

If they had won game 6 John Starks probably should have won Finals MVP for his "clutchness" in leading them to 3 straight victories.


Yes Dream outplayed him, but it doesn't change the fact that had Ewing won it would have affected Hakeem's ranking quite a bit. Right now Hakeem is probably top 7-9 all time. Ewing is around 25-30.

I'm not saying Ewing moves past any of these Centers all time:

Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Hakeem
Shaq
Moses Malone

But he could be on par with D Rob with a ring as the best player on the team.

In terms of winning games in clutch situations, Ewing is around 25-30 in the big man rankings. Yeah there have been other good big men that have choked, but they were all better than Ewing's chokejobs.

Here's another question, if Ewing had been drafted, by lets say the Clippers would Ewing be as overrated as he is today?


My point is, it didn't matter what Jordan faced. He beat it anyways. He was the best player of all time, and was the ultimate winner. I don't think Houston would have posed any more threat than LA, Seattle, Utah, or whomver. Hakeem is unreal, but Jordan does not lose in the finals.

Never beat prime Lakers/Celtics/Pistons of the 80's.

Also Russell is the ultimate winner.

Chronz
03-24-2009, 12:04 AM
When did Robinson win a title as the MAN?

Where did I say he did?

JordansBulls
03-24-2009, 12:28 AM
Here's another question, if Ewing had been drafted, by lets say the Clippers would Ewing be as overrated as he is today?


Why is he overrated?




Never beat prime Lakers/Celtics/Pistons of the 80's.

Also Russell is the ultimate winner.

Those teams never beat him when he had a good team. Hell the Pistons were ended by the Bulls and never heard from again. Knicks actually pretty much ended the Celtics in 1990 when the Celtics went up 2-0 on them and proceeded to lose the next 3 including game 5 at home.

Russell was a great winner, but let's not forget for the most part there were only 2 rounds during his time he played in to win it all.

JordansBulls
03-24-2009, 12:30 AM
Where did I say he did?

This is what you mentioned about DRob.


when D-Rob was outplayed he fought back, Ewing kept chucking jumpshots and his team carried him in the Finals. You dont need a title as "The Man" to be a better player than a guy who won as "the man".

superkegger
03-24-2009, 12:32 AM
And that points out that Drob fought back instead of chucking up jumpshots. Never says Drob was the man...

JordansBulls
03-24-2009, 12:37 AM
And that points out that Drob fought back instead of chucking up jumpshots. Never says Drob was the man...

Maybe I misunderstood him. Since he was talking about Robinson it made it seem that he was saying that Robinson won his titles as the man. Which is why it seemed that he hinted that had Ewing done so that would not put him above a guy who won titles as the man also.

superkegger
03-24-2009, 12:50 AM
Maybe I misunderstood him. Since he was talking about Robinson it made it seem that he was saying that Robinson won his titles as the man. Which is why it seemed that he hinted that had Ewing done so that would not put him above a guy who won titles as the man also.

Oh, well, I'm not going to put words in Chronz's mouth, but I thought he was saying that Drob doesn't need a title as "the man" to be better than ewing, who had he won a title in 94, would be the man on that team.

Chronz
03-24-2009, 01:21 AM
This is what you mentioned about DRob.


when D-Rob was outplayed he fought back, Ewing kept chucking jumpshots and his team carried him in the Finals. You dont need a title as "The Man" to be a better player than a guy who won as "the man".


Ive underlined and bolded what I was getting at.




Oh, well, I'm not going to put words in Chronz's mouth, but I thought he was saying that Drob doesn't need a title as "the man" to be better than ewing, who had he won a title in 94, would be the man on that team.
In the words of the great Ralph Lawler, BINGO!

SteveNash
03-24-2009, 02:39 AM
Why is he overrated?

Era, city he played for.


Those teams never beat him when he had a good team. Hell the Pistons were ended by the Bulls and never heard from again. Knicks actually pretty much ended the Celtics in 1990 when the Celtics went up 2-0 on them and proceeded to lose the next 3 including game 5 at home.

Russell was a great winner, but let's not forget for the most part there were only 2 rounds during his time he played in to win it all.

Lakers/Celtics/Pistons were done before Jordan. It's like Miami going against Chicago a few years back when they were the defending champions. You knew they were done and were a shell of their former self.

Russell had to go through three rounds towards the end. And he made it to the second round more than Jordan. And the first round wasn't a throwaway to great teams like it was when Jordan was playing because there was no expansion diluting the talent.

abe_froman
03-24-2009, 02:50 AM
Era, city he played for.



Lakers/Celtics/Pistons were done before Jordan. It's like Miami going against Chicago a few years back when they were the defending champions. You knew they were done and were a shell of their former self.

Russell had to go through three rounds towards the end. And he made it to the second round more than Jordan. And the first round wasn't a throwaway to great teams like it was when Jordan was playing because there was no expansion diluting the talent.
yes,but overall talent level wasnt that high then(as it was with most of jordan)either

and what are you talking about? there was massive expansion during russell's day,including a whole a rival league to dilute the talent pool

SteveNash
03-24-2009, 05:01 AM
yes,but overall talent level wasnt that high then(as it was with most of jordan)either

and what are you talking about? there was massive expansion during russell's day,including a whole a rival league to dilute the talent pool

Overall talent was higher, that's what a smaller league does. When you expand you're thinning out the talent and lowering the value level of the average player. Russell had to go up against Wilt you call that low talent?

Russell came into the league with 8 teams and won 9 titles in 10 years with 1 expansion team all before the ABA even got started.

JordansBulls
03-24-2009, 07:56 AM
Era, city he played for.

Ewing up until 1994 was pretty much the same level as Hakeem and Robinson. It was after that that Hakeem and Robinson distanced themselves from him.





Lakers/Celtics/Pistons were done before Jordan. It's like Miami going against Chicago a few years back when they were the defending champions. You knew they were done and were a shell of their former self.

Russell had to go through three rounds towards the end. And he made it to the second round more than Jordan. And the first round wasn't a throwaway to great teams like it was when Jordan was playing because there was no expansion diluting the talent.

Not quite!! Pistons were the 2x time defending champion and many were still predicting a 3 peat for them. Bulls ended them. There was no need to beat the Celtics when the Celtics were finished pretty much after 1988.
You tried to use the Miami example but that isn't the case because Miami was still the champion. It is like saying once the Sixers won it all in 1983 and then lost in the 1st round the next year to the Nets that the Sixers only lost because they were a shell of there former self.

Besides how did the thread turn in the first place? This thread was about Ewing and the 1994 season had he won the title.

TruthFreesYou
03-24-2009, 08:45 AM
How much does Patrick Ewing's legacy change with title in '94?

Knicks were down in the ECF to the Pacers 3-2 and came back to win that series. Then in the NBA Finals the Knicks were up 3-2 over the Rockets and were playing well in game 6 in Houston and had a chance to win until Hakeem blocked Starks at the end.

Had the Knicks held on that game and won the title, how much does Ewing's legacy improve?

I use Ewing in this case because the Knicks were up in the series and one game away from winning the NBA championship.

It's just the saddest sports memory of all time for me, and my father. it is the only sport we haven't experienced the championship together for our favorite teams! (Giants, Rangers, Mets) - no Knicks. And that was our one year we had to get it done for obvious reasons (like the screenname of the original poster)...

Chronz
03-24-2009, 04:03 PM
Ewing up until 1994 was pretty much the same level as Hakeem and Robinson. It was after that that Hakeem and Robinson distanced themselves from him.
He was overrated, never really deserved to be ahead of D-Rob in most of the All-NBA teams but playing in NY did that for him.



Not quite!! Pistons were the 2x time defending champion and many were still predicting a 3 peat for them. Bulls ended them. There was no need to beat the Celtics when the Celtics were finished pretty much after 1988.
You tried to use the Miami example but that isn't the case because Miami was still the champion. It is like saying once the Sixers won it all in 1983 and then lost in the 1st round the next year to the Nets that the Sixers only lost because they were a shell of there former self.

Miami was a shell of their former selves, that tends to happen when you win a chip with an aging core and do nothing to improve the team. His point about never beating the Celtics was that he never got the chance when they were at the peak of their games. And the Pistons, yea I can agree with that one, though they were obviously not the same team either they were still championship material.

SteveNash
03-25-2009, 02:17 AM
Ewing up until 1994 was pretty much the same level as Hakeem and Robinson. It was after that that Hakeem and Robinson distanced themselves from him.

I always felt Hakeem was better than him. I was skeptical of Robinson at first, but he quickly proved he was better than Ewing. You also left out


Not quite!! Pistons were the 2x time defending champion and many were still predicting a 3 peat for them. Bulls ended them. There was no need to beat the Celtics when the Celtics were finished pretty much after 1988.
You tried to use the Miami example but that isn't the case because Miami was still the champion. It is like saying once the Sixers won it all in 1983 and then lost in the 1st round the next year to the Nets that the Sixers only lost because they were a shell of there former self.

Who were the many people predicting the Pistons would win?

The Pistons barely made it to the ECF where Isiah couldn't make it against Boston and from what I remember, Dumars was banged up as well. Jordan had the better team and the HCA (something you've brought up in the past). Most people didn't expect a sweep, but the Bulls should have won that series. It would be like the Magic going up against the Pistons right now, Magic are clearly the better team but some people will just look at past history.

As I said "Never beat prime Lakers/Celtics/Pistons of the 80's."

To say that they were as good as the were in 91 compared to 88, 89, or even 90 is a joke.


Besides how did the thread turn in the first place? This thread was about Ewing and the 1994 season had he won the title.

-Someone posted about a Hakeem/Jordan matchup in the Finals.

-Jordan fan comes in and says not to push it, apparently Jordan is the only player with heart/determination, and for some reason Jordan is invulnerable in the Finals yet can somehow lose earlier in the playoffs despite him being the only player to have heart/determination.

-Same Jordan fan posts that whoever Jordan faced he beat, I corrected him. He said he was the ultimate winner, I corrected him.

11 to 6 is that even really debate worthy?

shep33
03-25-2009, 02:59 AM
Hakeem in my opinion is far better that moses malone, and possibly the greatest center of alltime. 2 rings with decent teams, i mean in '94 he carried that team to a title, winning the MVP, Defensive MVP, and Finals MVP. No one in my opinon had a more dominant season than the Dream that year. What I really would have loved to see was Rockets vs. Bulls. Hakeem and MJ in their prime woulda been sick, probably the best finals ever. I put Hakeem up there with Wilt, Karrem, and Russel. Pat was terrific, but you give me Olajuwan or Ewing to start my franchise, no doubt go for the Dream.

abe_froman
03-25-2009, 03:15 AM
Overall talent was higher, that's what a smaller league does. When you expand you're thinning out the talent and lowering the value level of the average player. Russell had to go up against Wilt you call that low talent?

Russell came into the league with 8 teams and won 9 titles in 10 years with 1 expansion team all before the ABA even got started.

not when the sport isnt as popular and doesnt attract the best athletes as their first option.really think your overrating the league and talent level of the average player back then,even the good ones,how about great teams,yes got philly,hawks and lakers.but who else was competing?
you bring up wilt,great player..and i'll spot you west,baylor,petit and oscar(on a sub par team),now name all these all time greats he had to go against?(hal greer is good playe ,but compared with likes of thomas,magic,stockton..seriously?)

your not going full career?

SteveNash
03-25-2009, 07:12 AM
not when the sport isnt as popular and doesnt attract the best athletes as their first option.really think your overrating the league and talent level of the average player back then,even the good ones,how about great teams,yes got philly,hawks and lakers.but who else was competing?
you bring up wilt,great player..and i'll spot you west,baylor,petit and oscar(on a sub par team),now name all these all time greats he had to go against?(hal greer is good playe ,but compared with likes of thomas,magic,stockton..seriously?)

your not going full career?

What are you talking about? Basketball was very popular back then, it's just that the BAA/NCAA had a slow start, still most of the good NCAA players moved onto the pros.

The only impressive thing about the teams Jordan beat were their win loss records because there were so many bad teams in the league. 4 teams added before he won his first three, another 2 teams added before his next three. That really doesn't weaken the league.

And why single out Hal Greer? He wasn't even a point guard. I'd be taking Robertson over Magic, Thomas, and Stockton if you want to compare PGs.

JordansBulls
03-25-2009, 08:54 AM
I always felt Hakeem was better than him. I was skeptical of Robinson at first, but he quickly proved he was better than Ewing. You also left out


He may have been better, but in reality up thru 1993 all 3 big men were considered the same level and interchangeable.



Who were the many people predicting the Pistons would win?

The Pistons barely made it to the ECF where Isiah couldn't make it against Boston and from what I remember, Dumars was banged up as well. Jordan had the better team and the HCA (something you've brought up in the past). Most people didn't expect a sweep, but the Bulls should have won that series. It would be like the Magic going up against the Pistons right now, Magic are clearly the better team but some people will just look at past history.

As I said "Never beat prime Lakers/Celtics/Pistons of the 80's."

To say that they were as good as the were in 91 compared to 88, 89, or even 90 is a joke.


Watch the championship video and you see many were predicting the Pistons to still win and even when the Bulls won, no one expected them to beat the Lakers. They said the Bulls were a deceiving team.




-Someone posted about a Hakeem/Jordan matchup in the Finals.

-Jordan fan comes in and says not to push it, apparently Jordan is the only player with heart/determination, and for some reason Jordan is invulnerable in the Finals yet can somehow lose earlier in the playoffs despite him being the only player to have heart/determination.

-Same Jordan fan posts that whoever Jordan faced he beat, I corrected him. He said he was the ultimate winner, I corrected him.

11 to 6 is that even really debate worthy?

I see what you are saying. Magic called Russell the ultimate winner and MJ the greatest player. MJ did however whomever he faced with a better record, same record, same seed, HCA always won. Nearly every other top 20 player all time has lost series when they had the better record, same seed, same record or HCA.