PDA

View Full Version : Which teams did you think looked GREAT on paper, but just never did anything?



JasonJohnHorn
08-14-2014, 06:47 PM
There have been some really great players put together that just never ended up doing very well together. One of ones that comes to mind for me is the 89/90 Hawks:

PG: Doc Rivers (29)
SG: Sidney Moncrief (33)
SF: Dominque Wilkins (31)
PF: Kevin Willis (28)
C: Moses Malone (35)

I always thought that line-up was great, even if Moncrief was 33 and Malone was 35, but Bob Weiss (the coach that year) insisted on playing Jon Koncak over Malone and gave Moncrief limited minutes. The team only won 43 games and got knocked out in the first round.

What teams did you think looked great on paper but just couldn't get it done?

east fb knicks
08-14-2014, 06:52 PM
steve nash
kobe Bryant
mwp
pau gasol
d12

:laugh2:

KnicksorBust
08-14-2014, 06:54 PM
Rockets with Tmac and Yao.

flea
08-14-2014, 06:59 PM
97 Rockets with Drexler, Barkley, and Olajuwon all either 33 or 34. Kevin Willis was also on that team.

PacersForLife
08-14-2014, 07:02 PM
steve nash
kobe Bryant
mwp
pau gasol
d12

:laugh2:

First team that came to my mind.

Bostonjorge
08-14-2014, 07:10 PM
Bosh
James
Shane
Wade
Chalmers

Allen
Lewis
Beasley
Cole
Oden
Haslem

On paper this team had one out of a million chance of being #1 on worst lost in finals history list.

sixer04fan
08-14-2014, 07:16 PM
Brooklyn last season comes to mind for sure. And obviously the Lakers team with D12 and Nash as others have mentioned.

Raidaz4Life
08-14-2014, 07:26 PM
the Nash led Suns and the Durant led Thunder have always managed to disappoint.

ManRam
08-14-2014, 07:28 PM
steve nash
kobe Bryant
mwp
pau gasol
d12

:laugh2:

First that came to my mind too. I remember being terrified to watch Lakers games because of the fear of how dominant they'd be. I was terrified of them. On paper those pieces just seemed to match so damn perfectly.

ManRam
08-14-2014, 07:29 PM
On paper this a team had 1 out of a million chance of being #1 on worst lose on finals history.

Come again?

archdevil84
08-14-2014, 07:38 PM
the brooklyn nets last year were supposed to be a dangerous elite team but turned out they realy werent that good

JasonJohnHorn
08-14-2014, 08:01 PM
97 Rockets with Drexler, Barkley, and Olajuwon all either 33 or 34. Kevin Willis was also on that team.

Great pick! I remember thinking they had $#!T locked up that year.

JasonJohnHorn
08-14-2014, 08:02 PM
steve nash
kobe Bryant
mwp
pau gasol
d12

:laugh2:

I attributed that more to injury (Kobe missed the playoffs, Nash missed the first half of the season, I think MWP missed the last half and DH12 was playing with a bad back.

MonroeFAN
08-14-2014, 08:12 PM
Wow 2 mentions of Brooklyn last year. I'm honestly surprised they made it as far as they did.

east fb knicks
08-14-2014, 08:13 PM
I attributed that more to injury (Kobe missed the playoffs, Nash missed the first half of the season, I think MWP missed the last half and DH12 was playing with a bad back.

probably but they were all healthy including nash early on and they sucked

east fb knicks
08-14-2014, 08:15 PM
Wow 2 mentions of Brooklyn last year. I'm honestly surprised they made it as far as they did.

the only people who really thought they were a contender with an aging kg and pp were nets fans:laugh:

Munkeysuit
08-14-2014, 08:28 PM
The Dwight Howard Lakers experimental months.

bluefire7002
08-14-2014, 08:32 PM
probably but they were all healthy including nash early on and they sucked

Nash broke some bone on his leg the 2nd game of the season... He's been **** ever since...

curtcocaine
08-14-2014, 08:39 PM
Gary
Kobe
Shaq
Karal Malone

JasonJohnHorn
08-14-2014, 08:53 PM
Gary
Kobe
Shaq
Karal Malone

Well.... they did make it to the finals.... and won a division and conference title that year, so it's not like they were bad. And Malone was injured in the finals, playing hurt.

bucketss
08-14-2014, 08:59 PM
nash
kobe
mwp
gasol
dwight

^^^^^^^^^^^ hilarious how they imploded.

JasonJohnHorn
08-14-2014, 08:59 PM
the only people who really thought they were a contender with an aging kg and pp were nets fans:laugh:

Well..

D-Will
JJ + JT
PP + AK47
KG + Blatche
Lopez + Evans

I think people had good reason to be excited about that.

flea
08-14-2014, 09:06 PM
Come again?

I think he means this year's Finals, where the Heat were on the wrong end of the worst beatdown (by point differential) in Finals history. Hard to say they underachieved though in making it to the Finals. The '14 Spurs were one of the best teams of all time, but it does hurt to get your *** slammed that hard.

east fb knicks
08-14-2014, 09:11 PM
Well..

D-Will
JJ + JT
PP + AK47
KG + Blatche
Lopez + Evans

I think people had good reason to be excited about that.

all the bolded players were at the tail end of their career also any real nba fan who doesn't just look at the big names realized kg and pp were done the year before they even got traded listen to nets fans op of pp now it's hilarious

DODGERS&LAKERS
08-14-2014, 09:21 PM
all the bolded players were at the tail end of their career also any real nba fan who doesn't just look at the big names realized kg and pp were done the year before they even got traded listen to nets fans op of pp now it's hilarious
You say those players were at the tail ends of their career but you list a team with a starting lineup of guys 39, 34, 34, 32, and 27? With two of those guys playing in their 17th season? One coming of back surgery. One playing with plantar fasciitis the whole year. Under two head coaches they were still starting play well going 28-12 down the stretch while missing Nash, Metta and Gasol for at least one month each and no Kobe for the playoffs in the west. That team over achieved consisting the circumstances.

east fb knicks
08-14-2014, 09:25 PM
You say those players were at the tail ends of their career but you list a team with a starting lineup of guys 39, 34, 34, 32, and 27? With two of those guys playing in their 17th season? Under two head coaches they were still starting play well going 28-12 down the stretch while missing Nash, Metta and Gasol for at least one month each and no Kobe for the playoffs in the west. That team over achieved consisting the circumstances.

stop defending them bro I know d12 hurt lakers fans pride but that team was an embarrassment to the whole franchise

east fb knicks
08-14-2014, 09:27 PM
Nash broke some bone on his leg the 2nd game of the season... He's been **** ever since...

lmao I doubt nash was the main piece to that puzzle kobe and d12 alone was enough but you guys also had pau and mwp no excuses bro:no:

B'sCeltsPatsSox
08-14-2014, 09:42 PM
the Nash led Suns and the Durant led Thunder have always managed to disappoint.

How so?

Steelers23_06
08-14-2014, 09:51 PM
I'm shocked nobody said shaq and penny or kemp and payton. both of those teams should have easily won a championship. Both made it but never got that ring. Also all of the 90's knicks/pacers. lol damn looking back it MJ held A LOT of people from getting rings haha

B'sCeltsPatsSox
08-14-2014, 09:55 PM
I'm shocked nobody said shaq and penny or kemp and payton. both of those teams should have easily won a championship. Both made it but never got that ring. Also all of the 90's knicks/pacers. lol damn looking back it MJ held A LOT of people from getting rings haha

I feel like it's a bit unfair to put that Magic team up there because Shaq and Penny were together for only the first three years of Penny's career and that they had to deal with the 72 wins Bulls team in their last year together.

lamzoka
08-14-2014, 09:55 PM
Clippers the past 3 seasons

Steelers23_06
08-14-2014, 09:57 PM
I feel like it's a bit unfair to put that Magic team up there because Shaq and Penny were together for only the first three years of Penny's career and that they had to deal with the 72 wins Bulls team in their last year together.

penny played 6 years on magic and they made the finals against rockets and got swept...UGLY haha.

Steelers23_06
08-14-2014, 09:59 PM
Clippers the past 3 seasons

you sound silly. they have gotten better plus they went through hell and back during playoff season. if they dont make finals this season then you can start to grumble but as of now they definitely havent underachieved

JustinTime
08-14-2014, 10:02 PM
The 2014-2017 cavs.

Steelers23_06
08-14-2014, 10:12 PM
The 2014-2017 cavs.

your just a waste of PSD space

JasonJohnHorn
08-14-2014, 10:13 PM
all the bolded players were at the tail end of their career also any real nba fan who doesn't just look at the big names realized kg and pp were done the year before they even got traded listen to nets fans op of pp now it's hilarious

That's fair, but that's why I included the back-ups. They could split minutes and remain effective.

Garnett had still played very well in the playoffs the year before, and PP played well enough last year that the Nets did have the best record in the league for the second half of the season.


And last year Garnett had his highest per36 rebounding average since he was 30. And highest per36 block numbers since 32. His steals per36 average was consistent with his averages in his 20's The only thing that was down was his FG% and the number of shot he got.

PP's per36 rebounding numbers were slightly above his career average (his assists were down because DWill, JJ and JT did most of the ball handling), and his steals per36 were his highest since he was 27....

As for AK-47... he's only 32, and the T-Wolves thought he was playing well enough to give him 10 million, so he wasn't that bad.

These older guys can usually still play at a high level in limited minutes, like Mark Jackson and John Stockton.... they split minutes at PG for Utah in Stockton was 40 and Jackson was 37 and neither could play effectively for 40 minutes a game any more, but when they split the minutes, they could both play well enough to finish first and second in assists per36 that year. So old though they were, they had the best assist numbers in the league for the PG position.

east fb knicks
08-15-2014, 12:41 AM
That's fair, but that's why I included the back-ups. They could split minutes and remain effective.

Garnett had still played very well in the playoffs the year before, and PP played well enough last year that the Nets did have the best record in the league for the second half of the season.


And last year Garnett had his highest per36 rebounding average since he was 30. And highest per36 block numbers since 32. His steals per36 average was consistent with his averages in his 20's The only thing that was down was his FG% and the number of shot he got.

PP's per36 rebounding numbers were slightly above his career average (his assists were down because DWill, JJ and JT did most of the ball handling), and his steals per36 were his highest since he was 27....

As for AK-47... he's only 32, and the T-Wolves thought he was playing well enough to give him 10 million, so he wasn't that bad.

These older guys can usually still play at a high level in limited minutes, like Mark Jackson and John Stockton.... they split minutes at PG for Utah in Stockton was 40 and Jackson was 37 and neither could play effectively for 40 minutes a game any more, but when they split the minutes, they could both play well enough to finish first and second in assists per36 that year. So old though they were, they had the best assist numbers in the league for the PG position.

lmao first off Stockton imo is the goat of pg's you can't compare players like that it's just like Duncan right now but for the most part kg and pp looked bad their last year in boston and if not for jr being an idiot they should have gotten swept by my knicks

the one thing I do agree on was pp was great in these playoffs lmao where did that come from and the reason the nets had the best record the 2nd half was cuz deron got hurt Livingston took over and when deron came back he played the 2 letting Livingston go was a huge blow for the nets as Livingston got the full mle from the dubs for his nice play and ak didn't get burn last year mirza took his minutes ak47 had been dealing with a back injury since the year before hopefully he's healthy this year

KnicksorBust
08-15-2014, 08:14 AM
2010 Utah Jazz

PG - Prime Deron Williams
Wing Rotation - Wes Matthews, AK47, Kyle Korver, Ronnie Brewer
Bigs - Carlos Boozer, Paul Millsap, Mehmet Okur

That team got swept in the 2nd round.

FriedTofuz
08-15-2014, 02:25 PM
Gotta be the Lakers After getting Nash and Howard. I thought the ship was in the bag for them, I was really disappointed.

omdigga
08-15-2014, 03:18 PM
Gotta be the Lakers After getting Nash and Howard. I thought the ship was in the bag for them, I was really disappointed.

this is the first team i thought about. thats why "you have to play the game."

KnicksorBust
08-15-2014, 05:24 PM
In video games this lineup was good but atrocious in real life.

PG - Starbury
SG - Stevie Franchise
SF - Jalen Rose
PF - Zbo
C - Eddy Curry

SanPitte
08-15-2014, 06:59 PM
the blazers from 1998 to 2002: sabonis,sheed, pippen, stoudamire, brian grant, steve smith, detlef schrempf, bonzi wells, shawn kemp, rod strickland, dale davis, stacey augmon, jermaine o'neal, derek anderson, isiah rider, jim jackson... so many good players through those years

benny01
08-15-2014, 07:04 PM
the blazers from 1998 to 2002: sabonis,sheed, pippen, stoudamire, brian grant, steve smith, detlef schrempf, bonzi wells, shawn kemp, rod strickland, dale davis, stacey augmon, jermaine o'neal, derek anderson, isiah rider, jim jackson... so many good players through those years
They got screwed by the zebra's more than most any team in history too.

SanPitte
08-15-2014, 07:07 PM
They got screwed by the zebra's more than most any team in history too.

which reminds me of another great team on paper, the Kings from 2000 to 2005

benny01
08-15-2014, 07:09 PM
which reminds me of another great team on paper, the Kings from 2000 to 2005
yes the team that got screwed the worst.

ManRam
08-15-2014, 09:21 PM
I think he means this year's Finals, where the Heat were on the wrong end of the worst beatdown (by point differential) in Finals history. Hard to say they underachieved though in making it to the Finals. The '14 Spurs were one of the best teams of all time, but it does hurt to get your *** slammed that hard.

Yeah, but was that English?

Also, the Spurs were favored.

mightybosstone
08-16-2014, 12:03 AM
How is it possible that nobody brought up the Malone/Stockton Jazz duo? That's two all-time top 25 caliber players on the same team for 18 years. And they had a pretty damn good No. 3 in Jeff Hornacek in the mid-late 90s.

Other teams that are worth mentioning that I haven't seen mentioned:
85, 85 76ers: Erving, Moses, Barkley and Mo Cheeks
90s Suns: Barkley, KJ, Chambers, Marjerle
69, 70 Lakers: Wilt, West and Baylor

Iron24th
08-16-2014, 01:23 AM
nash
kobe
mwp
gasol
dwight

^^^^^^^^^^^ hilarious how they imploded.
They imploded? Actually they improved during the season, they started the season 17-25 and then went 28-12 with a moron as a coach.

Then kobe gets injured.

CityofChaos
08-16-2014, 03:00 AM
I remember the 07' Knicks being hyped

Stephon Marbury, Jamal Crawford, David Lee, Zach Randolph, Eddy Curry, Nate Robinson, Wilson Chandler

rhino17
08-16-2014, 03:14 AM
97 Rockets with Drexler, Barkley, and Olajuwon all either 33 or 34. Kevin Willis was also on that team.

they barely missed the finals after a bogus john stockton 3 sent them home, i wouldn't call that "nothing"


Rockets teams that just didn't figure it out

1998 (Pippen pissed everyone off all the time)
Pg: Matt Maloney
SG: Michael Dickerson
SF: Scottie Pippen
PF: Charles Barkley
C: Hakeem Olajuwon
6th man: Cuttino Mobley

2008 Rockets (too many injuries)
PG: Aaron Brooks
SG: Tracy McGrady
SF: Ron Artest
PF: Luis Scola
C: Yao Ming
6th: Shane Battier
7th: Carl Landry
8th: Kyle Lowry

Iron24th
08-16-2014, 04:33 AM
they barely missed the finals after a bogus john stockton 3 sent them home, i wouldn't call that "nothing"


Rockets teams that just didn't figure it out

1998 (Pippen pissed everyone off all the time)
Pg: Matt Maloney
SG: Michael Dickerson
SF: Scottie Pippen
PF: Charles Barkley
C: Hakeem Olajuwon
6th man: Cuttino Mobley

2008 Rockets (too many injuries)
PG: Aaron Brooks
SG: Tracy McGrady
SF: Ron Artest
PF: Luis Scola
C: Yao Ming
6th: Shane Battier
7th: Carl Landry
8th: Kyle Lowry

The 2008/2009 rockets team did pretty good while being depleted they pushed a game 7 against LA the future champions.

mightybosstone
08-16-2014, 08:46 AM
2008 Rockets (too many injuries)
PG: Aaron Brooks
SG: Tracy McGrady
SF: Ron Artest
PF: Luis Scola
C: Yao Ming
6th: Shane Battier
7th: Carl Landry
8th: Kyle Lowry

The 2008/2009 rockets team did pretty good while being depleted they pushed a game 7 against LA the future champions.
I'm convinced that if Yao and T-Mac could have given Morey 2-3 relatively healthy seasons, he could have gotten him a title. I love Carroll Dawson, but the best help he could get Yao and T-Mac was Battier and then he failed in literally every other significant play acquisition. The team the year before was basically Yao, McGrady, Luther Head, Rafer Alston, Juwan Howard, Deke and Hayes. Ugh.

In one offseason, Morey signed Artest, stole Scola from San Antonio and drafted Landry and Brooks. Then he dealt Alston for Lowry mid-season in a deal everyone questioned that turned out to be a complete steal.

But that's also the reason why I'm not concerned about the Current Rockets team. Once the man gets his stars in place, he can take little to no assets and turn them into quality rotational players. Hell, given his knack for finding talent, I'm not convinced that guys like Canaan, Johnson, Daniels, Payne, Dorsey and Pananikolau aren't those rotational guys.

b_russ
08-16-2014, 09:38 AM
How is it possible that nobody brought up the Malone/Stockton Jazz duo? That's two all-time top 25 caliber players on the same team for 18 years. And they had a pretty damn good No. 3 in Jeff Hornacek in the mid-late 90s.

Other teams that are worth mentioning that I haven't seen mentioned:
85, 85 76ers: Erving, Moses, Barkley and Mo Cheeks
90s Suns: Barkley, KJ, Chambers, Marjerle
69, 70 Lakers: Wilt, West and Baylor

I am genuinely surprised you consider Stockton and Malone top 25 players, but not shocked that you included them on a list of teams associated with failure.

theheatles
08-16-2014, 09:44 AM
Bosh
James
Shane
Wade
Chalmers

Allen
Lewis
Beasley
Cole
Oden
Haslem

On paper this team had one out of a million chance of being #1 on worst lost in finals history list.

yeah, but essentially that exact lineup won a championship a year before, so how did they never do anything?

mightybosstone
08-16-2014, 09:52 AM
I am genuinely surprised you consider Stockton and Malone top 25 players, but not shocked that you included them on a list of teams associated with failure.

Personally, I wouldn't put Malone in my top 25. Probably Stockton, though. But my point is simply that those guys are certainly in the top 25 all-time discussion. If you were looking at specific criteria to prove your point, anybody could put those guys in their top 25. That's reasonable. But that's two top 25 all-time caliber athletes that played 18 years together, appeared in only two Finals and came away with zero championships.

In the entire history of the NBA, how many duos of top 25 all-time caliber players have there been? If you were to say there are 40-50 guys who are worthy of the discussion, there's probably 10-20 pairings of top 25 caliber guys all-time in their primes. How many of them played nearly a decade or more together? Magic and Kareem. MJ and Pippen. Bird and McHale. Stockton and Malone. And how many of those duos lasted at least 15 years? Only Stockton and Malone.

And yet they appeared in only two NBA Finals and came away with zero rings. How is that not considered failure?

JasonJohnHorn
08-16-2014, 09:55 AM
How is it possible that nobody brought up the Malone/Stockton Jazz duo? That's two all-time top 25 caliber players on the same team for 18 years. And they had a pretty damn good No. 3 in Jeff Hornacek in the mid-late 90s.

Other teams that are worth mentioning that I haven't seen mentioned:
85, 85 76ers: Erving, Moses, Barkley and Mo Cheeks
90s Suns: Barkley, KJ, Chambers, Marjerle
69, 70 Lakers: Wilt, West and Baylor

For me, Stockton and Malone never had the supporting cast.... they had Jeff Malone for a while and Hornacek as you mention, but as good a shooter as Hornacek was (and he was AMAZING), he wasn't a defensive player. He was respectable, but you couldn't expect him to even come close to slowing down Jordan, and in the middle, they had a 'lane clogger' with Ostertag, not a defensive player.


If you had given them a defensive rebounder like Mutmbo, like Jordan and Pippen had Rodman, then that Jazz team would have won no less than three titles, but where the Bulls had Rodman, the Jazz had Ostertag... and what could you expect from that?


Those Jazz team were really only three players deep. And by the time they got decent role players, Stockon was already 34 years old by the time they reached the finals, and Malone was 33. Before that they were competing with Hakeem/Thorpe or Hakeem/Drexler with Horry, Cassel, Smith and Maxwell helping him out, of Barkley, Kevin Johnson. TOm Chambers, Dan Majerle, Danny Ainge and Cedric Cebollas.

I mean... they never had that kind of depth.


Pippen and Jordan had Rodman, Harper and Kukoc.

Stockton and Malone has Hornacek, Ostertag and Russell.... really?



And that said, back-to-back conference titles against teams with Shaq, Robinson (with Duncan) and Hakeem + Drexler is pretty impressive. That is something of an accomplishment, so it's not like they did nothing.

ewing
08-16-2014, 10:13 AM
TMac and Yao

ewing
08-16-2014, 10:14 AM
the Nash led Suns and the Durant led Thunder have always managed to disappoint.

I remember the Suns as being extraordinarily entertaining making deep runs and losing to better teams

mightybosstone
08-16-2014, 11:05 AM
For me, Stockton and Malone never had the supporting cast.... they had Jeff Malone for a while and Hornacek as you mention, but as good a shooter as Hornacek was (and he was AMAZING), he wasn't a defensive player. He was respectable, but you couldn't expect him to even come close to slowing down Jordan, and in the middle, they had a 'lane clogger' with Ostertag, not a defensive player.

If you had given them a defensive rebounder like Mutmbo, like Jordan and Pippen had Rodman, then that Jazz team would have won no less than three titles, but where the Bulls had Rodman, the Jazz had Ostertag... and what could you expect from that?

Those Jazz team were really only three players deep. And by the time they got decent role players, Stockon was already 34 years old by the time they reached the finals, and Malone was 33. Before that they were competing with Hakeem/Thorpe or Hakeem/Drexler with Horry, Cassel, Smith and Maxwell helping him out, of Barkley, Kevin Johnson. TOm Chambers, Dan Majerle, Danny Ainge and Cedric Cebollas.

I mean... they never had that kind of depth.

Pippen and Jordan had Rodman, Harper and Kukoc.

Stockton and Malone has Hornacek, Ostertag and Russell.... really?

And that said, back-to-back conference titles against teams with Shaq, Robinson (with Duncan) and Hakeem + Drexler is pretty impressive. That is something of an accomplishment, so it's not like they did nothing.
They're supporting cast wasn't great, but it wasn't the train wreck you're making it out to be. They got 3+ seasons of a very competent SG in Jeff Malone, a couple of years of a just-past-his-prime Tom Chambers, and 6-7 years each out of Russell and Hornacek. No, they didn't have a great center. But Jordan and Pippen won six titles without a legitimate starting center in the era of great centers. Let's not make excuses for them and pretend like it was just Stockton and Malone versus the world. They had help.

Chronz
08-16-2014, 11:19 AM
I'm convinced that if Yao and T-Mac could have given Morey 2-3 relatively healthy seasons, he could have gotten him a title. I love Carroll Dawson, but the best help he could get Yao and T-Mac was Battier and then he failed in literally every other significant play acquisition. The team the year before was basically Yao, McGrady, Luther Head, Rafer Alston, Juwan Howard, Deke and Hayes. Ugh.

In one offseason, Morey signed Artest, stole Scola from San Antonio and drafted Landry and Brooks. Then he dealt Alston for Lowry mid-season in a deal everyone questioned that turned out to be a complete steal.

But that's also the reason why I'm not concerned about the Current Rockets team. Once the man gets his stars in place, he can take little to no assets and turn them into quality rotational players. Hell, given his knack for finding talent, I'm not convinced that guys like Canaan, Johnson, Daniels, Payne, Dorsey and Pananikolau aren't those rotational guys.

That was actually Morey too, pulling strings from his assistant spot.

Chronz
08-16-2014, 11:25 AM
They're supporting cast wasn't great, but it wasn't the train wreck you're making it out to be. They got 3+ seasons of a very competent SG in Jeff Malone, a couple of years of a just-past-his-prime Tom Chambers, and 6-7 years each out of Russell and Hornacek. No, they didn't have a great center. But Jordan and Pippen won six titles without a legitimate starting center in the era of great centers. Let's not make excuses for them and pretend like it was just Stockton and Malone versus the world. They had help.

Why no mention of the DPOY center they had back in the 80's? The Jazz tried to win in every way imaginable with that core but Malone was never up to the challenge of sustaining his regular season play into a post season run.

Chronz
08-16-2014, 11:35 AM
How is it possible that nobody brought up the Malone/Stockton Jazz duo? That's two all-time top 25 caliber players on the same team for 18 years. And they had a pretty damn good No. 3 in Jeff Hornacek in the mid-late 90s.

Other teams that are worth mentioning that I haven't seen mentioned:
85, 85 76ers: Erving, Moses, Barkley and Mo Cheeks
90s Suns: Barkley, KJ, Chambers, Marjerle
69, 70 Lakers: Wilt, West and Baylor
90's Suns?
70's Lakers? LOL wat? Those teams accomplished as much as they should have.

mightybosstone
08-16-2014, 11:43 AM
Why no mention of the DPOY center they had back in the 80's? The Jazz tried to win in every way imaginable with that core but Malone was never up to the challenge of sustaining his regular season play into a post season run.

Wow, I can't believe I forgot about Mark Eaton. He's one guy who always slips my mind, because he retired the year before I started watching basketball and really hating the Jazz. But that's such a great point as Eaton was one of the greatest defensive centers of all-time. Eaton and Thurl Bailey made for a nice foursome in the late 80s, and that team accomplished nothing.

In fact, in 88-89 that Jazz team was a 2 seed and got swept by that no-defense Mullin/Richmond Warriors squad. In 1990, that squad was a 4 seed and won 55 games, but got beat again in the first round by the KJ/Chambers/Hornacek Suns pre-Barkley. Those were the two years before Jordan's Bulls came into dominance and was the prime opportunity for the Malone/Stockton Bulls to have an impact. But instead they couldn't even get out of the first round despite having home court advantage.

YoungOne
08-16-2014, 11:44 AM
wizards arenas-stevenson-butler-jamison-haywood/thomas

never really healthy together tho..

mightybosstone
08-16-2014, 11:51 AM
90's Suns?
70's Lakers? LOL wat? Those teams accomplished as much as they should have.
The West/Baylor/Wilt trio in 69 and 70 accomplished nothing. Sure they made the finals in 69 and 70, where they got beat by a way-past-his-prime Bill Russell and the Frazier/Reed Knicks. I'm not saying the 70s Lakers as a whole accomplished nothing, because they still went on to win a title with West and Wilt two years later, but that trio with Baylor were failures considering how much talent they had on paper.

As for the 90s Suns, I think they should be in the same boat as the Jazz and Sonics in the 90s. All three squads had a ton of talent and made it to the Finals but were ultimately beaten by a superior team in Jordan's Bulls. BUT as I've already pointed out, those squads had the same opportunity as Hakeem's Rockets did in 94 and 95. Hakeem took advantage of the situation. Those squads didn't. And if I'm not mistaken, both Barkley's Suns and the Stockton/Malone Bulls had a series lead against the Rockets in 95 with home court advantage and a chance to end their season at home. Both teams failed.

JasonJohnHorn
08-16-2014, 12:02 PM
They're supporting cast wasn't great, but it wasn't the train wreck you're making it out to be. They got 3+ seasons of a very competent SG in Jeff Malone, a couple of years of a just-past-his-prime Tom Chambers, and 6-7 years each out of Russell and Hornacek. No, they didn't have a great center. But Jordan and Pippen won six titles without a legitimate starting center in the era of great centers. Let's not make excuses for them and pretend like it was just Stockton and Malone versus the world. They had help.


Well, first off, let's not pretend that they didn't accomplish anything. The thread asks for teams that didn't do anything... winning back-to-back conference titles when facing off against Hakeem's Rockets, D-Rob+Duncan's Spurs and Shaq+Kobe Lakers is not 'nothing'.

As to their supporting cast... it was as bad as I suggest. You mention Tom Chambers. You mean the Tom Chambers that averaged 6.2 and struggled to even make an NBA roster the next season? Do you mean 'Just-past-his-prime'? Or 'on-the-way-out-of-the-league'?

And if you are going to say that Bill Cartwright was not a legit starting center, then you have NO clue how effective he was at guarding Ewing.

The second three... yes...Longley was not a legit starting center, but they had RODMAN. Are you going to suggest that Hornacek had the kind of impact on the game that Rodman had? Hornacek wasn't even as good as Ron Harper. He was a spot up shooter that spread the floor... Kyle Korver could do that. Harper could shoot, defend and rebound. And Russell? Are you seriously going to compare a guy who couldn't even get a starting job on a lottery team like the Wizards to a player like Tony Kukoc? The Jazz started him because they had nobody else, not because he was that good.

Yes... Luc Longley was awful, but they had a monster rebounder in Rodman and good defensive perimeter players like Jordan and Pippen, so that negated the lack of interior defense.

That said, are you going to try and argue that Hornacek, Russell and Ostertag were a better that or even comparable to a supporting cast that included Rodman, Harper and Kukoc? And Bison Dele? Please.



You try dragging Greg Ostertag to the NBA finals in a year when you got to go against David Robinson, Hakeem and Shaq. You think a combo like Chris Paul and Blake Griffin could do that?

Stockton and Malone were great... Hornacek was good... but they had nothing else worth even mentioning on their roster, and Hornacek was an under-sized shooting guard who was six years removed from his first and ony All-Star appearance and never even sniffed at an All-NBA team selection. The Bulls had the league's best rebounder, best scorer and best perimeter defenders. They had three guys who made the All-Defensive team every year..... you give the Jazz a defensive stopper/rebounder like Mutumbo and they would have had it locked up, but they never had that level of help, which is what Jordan and Pippen got from Rodman: a DPOY who could lead the league in rebounding.


Had they had Mark Eaton in his prime at the same time that Stockton and Malone were in their prime, they might have been able to pull it off, but Eaton had his own set of deficiencies despite his impressive shot blocking ability.

JasonJohnHorn
08-16-2014, 12:04 PM
The West/Baylor/Wilt trio in 69 and 70 accomplished nothing. Sure they made the finals in 69 and 70, where they got beat by a way-past-his-prime Bill Russell and the Frazier/Reed Knicks. I'm not saying the 70s Lakers as a whole accomplished nothing, because they still went on to win a title with West and Wilt two years later, but that trio with Baylor were failures considering how much talent they had on paper.

As for the 90s Suns, I think they should be in the same boat as the Jazz and Sonics in the 90s. All three squads had a ton of talent and made it to the Finals but were ultimately beaten by a superior team in Jordan's Bulls. BUT as I've already pointed out, those squads had the same opportunity as Hakeem's Rockets did in 94 and 95. Hakeem took advantage of the situation. Those squads didn't. And if I'm not mistaken, both Barkley's Suns and the Stockton/Malone Bulls had a series lead against the Rockets in 95 with home court advantage and a chance to end their season at home. Both teams failed.

Do you think getting to the finals is 'nothing'? And the Lakers actually WON a championship in the 70's with West and Wilt... how is that 'nothing'?

And the Suns got to the finals... where they got beat by one of the best teams in the history of the game and arguably the best player ever.

Let's get this clear right now: A CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP is NOT NOTHING. That is SOMETHING. Only two teams get that done each year.

Chronz
08-16-2014, 12:17 PM
Wow, I can't believe I forgot about Mark Eaton. He's one guy who always slips my mind, because he retired the year before I started watching basketball and really hating the Jazz. But that's such a great point as Eaton was one of the greatest defensive centers of all-time. Eaton and Thurl Bailey made for a nice foursome in the late 80s, and that team accomplished nothing.

In fact, in 88-89 that Jazz team was a 2 seed and got swept by that no-defense Mullin/Richmond Warriors squad. In 1990, that squad was a 4 seed and won 55 games, but got beat again in the first round by the KJ/Chambers/Hornacek Suns pre-Barkley. Those were the two years before Jordan's Bulls came into dominance and was the prime opportunity for the Malone/Stockton Bulls to have an impact. But instead they couldn't even get out of the first round despite having home court advantage.

They laughably underachieved those 2 years.


The West/Baylor/Wilt trio in 69 and 70 accomplished nothing. Sure they made the finals in 69 and 70, where they got beat by a way-past-his-prime Bill Russell and the Frazier/Reed Knicks. I'm not saying the 70s Lakers as a whole accomplished nothing, because they still went on to win a title with West and Wilt two years later, but that trio with Baylor were failures considering how much talent they had on paper.
When we look at talent on paper, we dont ignore the stages they were at. Wilt was recovering from an injury that many predicted would END his career, he should have been out the entire year but he played through the pain and willed LA into the Finals. That they got as far as they did was a miracle. And they were beat by more than Russell, they were beat by a team that had superior depth/talent and had the better regular season. Baylor and Butch are the reason they never won, the minute they lost Baylor to injury the team posted the greatest winning streak in NBA history. I dont know why you put more value in name recognition than on court impact. In the role he demanded to play, Baylor's name value doesn't mean as much as you think it does.



As for the 90s Suns, I think they should be in the same boat as the Jazz and Sonics in the 90s. All three squads had a ton of talent and made it to the Finals but were ultimately beaten by a superior team in Jordan's Bulls. BUT as I've already pointed out, those squads had the same opportunity as Hakeem's Rockets did in 94 and 95. Hakeem took advantage of the situation. Those squads didn't. And if I'm not mistaken, both Barkley's Suns and the Stockton/Malone Bulls had a series lead against the Rockets in 95 with home court advantage and a chance to end their season at home. Both teams failed.
Hardly, the Sonics choked in the 1st round 2 years in a row, I always felt the Rockets had better teams despite lacking HCA so I wont agree here. They just didn't have HCA because Dream went down and the team was integrating a new superstar. I feel like the Suns accomplished what their talent dictated. Not sure who I can point the finger at on that team and blame for their decline. I guess if I had to nitpick, it was Charles play in the clutch. Maybe Im confusing the years but he did like to pound the ball alot, killing any sort of ball movement down the stretch of games.

mightybosstone
08-16-2014, 12:18 PM
Do you think getting to the finals is 'nothing'? And the Lakers actually WON a championship in the 70's with West and Wilt... how is that 'nothing'?
:facepalm: Did you even read what I wrote? I literally wrote in the same post you just quoted that I wasn't listing the 70s Lakers as a whole as a contender for this thread, JUST the Wilt/West/Baylor trio in 69 and 70.


And the Suns got to the finals... where they got beat by one of the best teams in the history of the game and arguably the best player ever.
Getting to the Finals one time and not winning does not impress me. That squad had a ton of talent on paper, and I think you could argue might have been the most talented starting five in the Western Conference in the early 90s. I just think they could have accomplished more given how much talent they had and considering that in the four years Barkley was in Phoenix, two of those seasons were 94 and 95.


Let's get this clear right now: A CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP is NOT NOTHING. That is SOMETHING. Only two teams get that done each year.
First off, calm down a little bit. I never said it was "nothing." I'm saying that few people care about the team that came in second place most seasons. There is not victory parade in your city's downtown streets for being the runner-up. And if you compile a team with a boatload of talent within your respective era, that team has at least a 4-5 year window to win a title and you don't win a title, then you have failed to accomplish your goal.

Should those two squads be in the same discussion as the 12-13 Lakers team which barely made the playoffs? No. Not at all. But they still ultimately failed to achieve their goals.

Also, let's not give too much credit for those 69 and 70 Lakers teams just for reaching the Finals. There were only 14 teams in the NBA in 1969 and only two of the teams in the Lakers' conference even finished with a record over .500. Their biggest competition to winning the conference championship was a Hawks team in which Zelmo Beaty and Lou Hudson were the two best players. Not exactly that impressive, is it?

mightybosstone
08-16-2014, 12:31 PM
When we look at talent on paper, we dont ignore the stages they were at. Wilt was recovering from an injury that many predicted would END his career, he should have been out the entire year but he played through the pain and willed LA into the Finals. That they got as far as they did was a miracle. And they were beat by more than Russell, they were beat by a team that had superior depth/talent and had the better regular season. Baylor and Butch are the reason they never won, the minute they lost Baylor to injury the team posted the greatest winning streak in NBA history. I dont know why you put more value in name recognition than on court impact. In the role he demanded to play, Baylor's name value doesn't mean as much as you think it does.
I'm not saying that "on paper" and "name recognition" are always synonymous with each other in terms of debating NBA teams historically, but they're damn close. Sure, Baylor wasn't the same guy he was in his prime, but Baylor's actual peak was pretty damn short and pretty much ran from 24-28. Actually his numbers in 69 and 70 were probably better than any two seasons he had had since that peak ended, so I would argue Baylor was actually better than he was the previous six years.

Wilt being banged up is a better argument, but it's not like Russell was the same guy he was at his peak either. Both guys kind of played like **** in that series compared to their previous matchups.


Hardly, the Sonics choked in the 1st round 2 years in a row, I always felt the Rockets had better teams despite lacking HCA so I wont agree here. They just didn't have HCA because Dream went down and the team was integrating a new superstar. I feel like the Suns accomplished what their talent dictated. Not sure who I can point the finger at on that team and blame for their decline. I guess if I had to nitpick, it was Charles play in the clutch. Maybe Im confusing the years but he did like to pound the ball alot, killing any sort of ball movement down the stretch of games.
So you're saying the Suns don't deserve to be in the same boat as the Jazz and Sonics? I dunno, man. The Sonics accomplished just as much as the Suns did in the 90s getting beat by Jordan's Bulls once in the Finals. Sure, the Sonics underachieved a few times. But the Suns had a 3-1 series lead against Houston in 95 with two of the last three games left at home. And they blew it. That's as big a choke job as anything Seattle did in those years.

mightybosstone
08-16-2014, 01:11 PM
Well, first off, let's not pretend that they didn't accomplish anything. The thread asks for teams that didn't do anything... winning back-to-back conference titles when facing off against Hakeem's Rockets, D-Rob+Duncan's Spurs and Shaq+Kobe Lakers is not 'nothing'.
See my other comment above.


As to their supporting cast... it was as bad as I suggest. You mention Tom Chambers. You mean the Tom Chambers that averaged 6.2 and struggled to even make an NBA roster the next season? Do you mean 'Just-past-his-prime'? Or 'on-the-way-out-of-the-league'?
You totally ignored the conversation Chronz and I had about the 89 and 90 Jazz teams with Mark Eaton and Thurl Bailey. Hell, the 91 and 92 teams had those four guys and a prime Jeff Malone. That's a pretty damn solid supporting cast that you're underrating.


And if you are going to say that Bill Cartwright was not a legit starting center, then you have NO clue how effective he was at guarding Ewing.
Cartwright was way past his prime by the time the Bulls were winning titles. By the time 93 rolled around, he was playing less than 20 minutes per game with an 8.3 PER and a .048 WS/48. Also, he had nothing to do with the latter three titles. If it had been prime Cartwright, I wouldn't argue with you in the slightest. But it wasn't.


The second three... yes...Longley was not a legit starting center, but they had RODMAN. Are you going to suggest that Hornacek had the kind of impact on the game that Rodman had? Hornacek wasn't even as good as Ron Harper. He was a spot up shooter that spread the floor... Kyle Korver could do that. Harper could shoot, defend and rebound. And Russell? Are you seriously going to compare a guy who couldn't even get a starting job on a lottery team like the Wizards to a player like Tony Kukoc? The Jazz started him because they had nobody else, not because he was that good.
Is a prime Jeff Hornacek better than a past-his-prime Rodman? If we're going by advanced numbers, then yes. But that's totally debatable. You could yell "defense" at the top of your lungs all day, but it wouldn't prove your point. But I'm saying that the Jazz collectively had a pretty damn good supporting cast in the late 80s all the way through to the early 90s. You think Hakeem wouldn't have appreciated having Stockton and those guys in the late 80s and early 90s when he was toiling away with mediocre talent after Sampson's decline?


That said, are you going to try and argue that Hornacek, Russell and Ostertag were a better that or even comparable to a supporting cast that included Rodman, Harper and Kukoc? And Bison Dele? Please.
How many guys won DPOY playing with Pippen and Jordan in the 90s? Zero. How many guys won DPOY playing with Stockton and Malone? One - Mark Eaton. How many guys consistently averaged 15+ points a game for those Bulls teams aside from Pippen and Jordan? Zero that I can think of. How many did it with Stockton and Malone? Two - Malone and Hornacek.

Those Jazz teams had plenty of additional talent. You're just ignoring them for the sake of your argument.


You try dragging Greg Ostertag to the NBA finals in a year when you got to go against David Robinson, Hakeem and Shaq. You think a combo like Chris Paul and Blake Griffin could do that?
You keep bringing up Ostertag, but the guy didn't even come into the league until 95. And even as mediocre as he was, you could argue that he had a better season in 97 than any season Cartwright ever had with Chicago's Finals teams in the early 90s.


Stockton and Malone were great... Hornacek was good... but they had nothing else worth even mentioning on their roster, and Hornacek was an under-sized shooting guard who was six years removed from his first and ony All-Star appearance and never even sniffed at an All-NBA team selection.
Why is it you give so much love to Kukoc and Harper and so little love to Hornacek and Russell? Both guys were just role players. Really efficient role players, but still role players.


The Bulls had the league's best rebounder, best scorer and best perimeter defenders. They had three guys who made the All-Defensive team every year.....
Bringing up Jordan and Pippen is pretty unfair, considering we're talking about just the supporting casts in this discussion. Stay on topic.


you give the Jazz a defensive stopper/rebounder like Mutumbo and they would have had it locked up, but they never had that level of help, which is what Jordan and Pippen got from Rodman: a DPOY who could lead the league in rebounding. Had they had Mark Eaton in his prime at the same time that Stockton and Malone were in their prime, they might have been able to pull it off, but Eaton had his own set of deficiencies despite his impressive shot blocking ability.
Eaton won DPOY in 88-89 and made his only All-Star team. That season was the first year of Malone's peak and the second year of Stockton's peak. If you think that peak Malone, Stockton and Eaton never coincided with one another, you're wrong. And Eaton was still a very competent defender years later.

Chronz
08-16-2014, 01:35 PM
I'm not saying that "on paper" and "name recognition" are always synonymous with each other in terms of debating NBA teams historically, but they're damn close. Sure, Baylor wasn't the same guy he was in his prime, but Baylor's actual peak was pretty damn short and pretty much ran from 24-28. Actually his numbers in 69 and 70 were probably better than any two seasons he had had since that peak ended, so I would argue Baylor was actually better than he was the previous six years.
It would be a losing argument, especially if its just based on negligible regular season stats. Its CLEAR that Baylor's best season in that stretch actually comes when he combines the stats (both reg+post season) with the health. Those seasons are not the ones you came up with. The man missed missed the most games due to injury to that point in his career in 1970, he only played in 2 more games than when he had that military commitment cutting into his schedule. The year before that he shot 38% in a wildly inconsistent playoff run. Thats why his 68 season is FAR more impressive. Hes more productive overall and is definitely a better player in his youth. Unless you expect me to believe his improved defensive numbers are his own doing, I dont even see how the regular season numbers are any better. In any event, they are all close, which is why his playoff showing is of the utmost importance. Hell Id rather take the Baylor that struggled with injuries in 66 but actually played his best stretch of ball come playoffs.

Even if you had a point, thats a sad level of play to suggest as his best, its not noteworthy in the slightest. Had he been set in the proper role, he may have flourished abit more and the team would have definitely won alot sooner. Still tho, gotta respect the man's drive, its partly why he came back to at least All-Star form when most considered his injury a career ender. Prolly why it was so hard for him to relent and allow the superior player to lead.



So you're saying the Suns don't deserve to be in the same boat as the Jazz and Sonics? I dunno, man. The Sonics accomplished just as much as the Suns did in the 90s getting beat by Jordan's Bulls once in the Finals. Sure, the Sonics underachieved a few times. But the Suns had a 3-1 series lead against Houston in 95 with two of the last three games left at home. And they blew it. That's as big a choke job as anything Seattle did in those years.
That doesn't make any sense, that 3-1 lead against a superior team represents a far greater accomplishment than laying an egg to FAR inferior squads 2 years in a row. Again, Im struggling to pinpoint someone whom I can blame for Phx underachieving, its not as easy as looking at Karl Malone's chokes over the years or seeing how badly GP performed vs LA. That Phoenix was actually in a position to win against the eventual champion is a sign of overachieving to me. Especially given the performances by Chuck those years.

JasonJohnHorn
08-16-2014, 01:38 PM
See my other comment above.


You totally ignored the conversation Chronz and I had about the 89 and 90 Jazz teams with Mark Eaton and Thurl Bailey. Hell, the 91 and 92 teams had those four guys and a prime Jeff Malone. That's a pretty damn solid supporting cast that you're underrating.

I'm not ignoring those rosters... you want to talk about 88? They lost to Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Green Cooper..... you think that Baily and Eaton should have help Malone and Stockton beat Magic and Worthy when they had Kareem, Green and Scott?

As for 89... people bemoan that Malone doesn't play well in the post season... he average 30 points and 16 boards a game in that series and Stockton chipped in 27 points and 13 assists and both shot over .500... Baily.. the guy who never made the All-Star team that you are talking about shot UNDER .400 and Eaton was always a liability on offense. And Eaton only blocked two shots the entire series... that loss is not on Stockton and Malone, and they didn't have help. You act like Mark Eaton is on a par with Mutumbo when he is closer to Manute Bol.

And the next year they lost to a very deep Suns team; Kevin Johnson, Tom Chamber (actually in his prime) Jef Hornacek (coming up on his first and only All-Star appearance) Dan Marejele, and solid support guys like Eddie Johnson and Armen Gilliam (who was close to a 20/10 player for several seasons).

The Jazz had Stockton, Malone...... Eaton and Baily... and Bailey, again, never even made an All-Star team and Eaton has ZERO offensive game.... what are they supposed to do with that?

In 91, they lost to a much better and deeper Trailblazers team: Drexler, Porter Duckworth, Kersey, Robinson, Ainge, Walter Davis. These guys were so good that Drazen Petrovic, one of the best shooters ever, could hardly crack the rotation.


The Jazz were four players deep... maybe... Stockton, Malone and Malone... Bailey is not even worth mentioning... he had not range, no three-point shot, and still only shot .440.... and Eaton was getting slower every minute by that point. If you watched him play, you'd know that.

Then they lost to the same Trailbalzers in 92 after losing Bailey (who you seem to think was a borderline All-Star but was never even close to that).


And in 93 they lost to a very talented Sonics roster who had Payton and Kemp to match up very well with Stockton and Malone and they actually had another rebounder in Michael Cage who had led the league in rebounding, and they had 6th man Ricky Pierce and Derrick McKey and Samp Perkins, and Dana Barros and Nate McMillin and a back log of center like Benoit Benjamin

And in 94 and 95 they lost to the champion Rockets... and 96 the Sonics again.... outside of one series against the Warriors... I can't think of one team they actually SHOULD have beat...

Let's stop talking about Bailey like he's Pippen and Eaton like he's anything other than a glorified Manute Bol.

mightybosstone
08-16-2014, 02:51 PM
It would be a losing argument, especially if its just based on negligible regular season stats. Its CLEAR that Baylor's best season in that stretch actually comes when he combines the stats (both reg+post season) with the health. Those seasons are not the ones you came up with. The man missed missed the most games due to injury to that point in his career in 1970, he only played in 2 more games than when he had that military commitment cutting into his schedule. The year before that he shot 38% in a wildly inconsistent playoff run. Thats why his 68 season is FAR more impressive. Hes more productive overall and is definitely a better player in his youth. Unless you expect me to believe his improved defensive numbers are his own doing, I dont even see how the regular season numbers are any better. In any event, they are all close, which is why his playoff showing is of the utmost importance. Hell Id rather take the Baylor that struggled with injuries in 66 but actually played his best stretch of ball come playoffs.
Why would it necessarily be a "losing argument?" I don't agree with that statement whatsoever. Even looking at numbers is subjective.Your argument is based primarily on playoff numbers, which isn't exactly fair. My point isn't that he performed better in the postseason. It's that he was every bit as capable in 69 and 70 and he was from 64-68. And I'm basing on that regular season production that was every bit as impressive as the previous five years, if not more so.

Just because a player performs poorly within a single postseason doesn't mean he isn't capable of being the same player he was in previous postseason. You're talking about an extremely small sample size. And yeah, the guy missed time in 1970 due to injury. I completely fail to see why that means he wasn't as productive in previous seasons. You're missing the point of the argument completely and just looking solely at the minor details.

My point wasn't that Baylor was necessarily a far better player in 69 and 70 than he was in previous seasons. It's that he was every bit as good as he was those previous years and those two seasons could very well be considered part of his prime. And if that's the case, then you had prime Baylor, prime West and just-past-his-prime Wilt all playing together for two seasons.


That doesn't make any sense, that 3-1 lead against a superior team represents a far greater accomplishment than laying an egg to FAR inferior squads 2 years in a row. Again, Im struggling to pinpoint someone whom I can blame for Phx underachieving, its not as easy as looking at Karl Malone's chokes over the years or seeing how badly GP performed vs LA. That Phoenix was actually in a position to win against the eventual champion is a sign of overachieving to me. Especially given the performances by Chuck those years.
Just because you can't pinpoint who choked the most doesn't mean a team can't choke collectively. Also, I don't necessarily buy into the argument that the Rockets were a superior team to the Suns that season. I just think they played better basketball in the postseason. It's worth noting that the Suns also had a 2-0 lead on the Rockets in the 94 playoffs despite being the road team and lost that series in seven games as well.

mightybosstone
08-16-2014, 03:37 PM
I'm not ignoring those rosters... you want to talk about 88? They lost to Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Green Cooper..... you think that Baily and Eaton should have help Malone and Stockton beat Magic and Worthy when they had Kareem, Green and Scott?
First off, I never brought up 88. I brought up 89 and 90, because those would have been the ideal seasons for the Jazz to make a run. Also, I wanted to bring up the seasons when all three players could have been perceived to be in their primes and Malone wasn't quite there yet.


As for 89... people bemoan that Malone doesn't play well in the post season... he average 30 points and 16 boards a game in that series and Stockton chipped in 27 points and 13 assists and both shot over .500...Baily.. the guy who never made the All-Star team that you are talking about shot UNDER .400 and Eaton was always a liability on offense. And Eaton only blocked two shots the entire series... that loss is not on Stockton and Malone, and they didn't have help. You act like Mark Eaton is on a par with Mutumbo when he is closer to Manute Bol.
Since when are All-Star teams the only barometer of a good NBA player and when are blocked shots the only indicator of a good defensive performance?

Actually, based on your own "All-Star" logic, the Jazz had a far better supporting cast from the late 80s to early 90s than Jordan's Bulls teams from 91-93 and from 95-98. Mark Eaton played in more All-Star games (1) than Toni Kukoc, Horace Grant and Dennis Rodman combined in those seven years, which is zero.


And the next year they lost to a very deep Suns team; Kevin Johnson, Tom Chamber (actually in his prime) Jef Hornacek (coming up on his first and only All-Star appearance) Dan Marejele, and solid support guys like Eddie Johnson and Armen Gilliam (who was close to a 20/10 player for several seasons).
So what? The Jazz were the better team, had the better record and home court advantage and still lost the series. It's the playoffs. You're going to play good teams and you're going to have to beat good teams.


The Jazz had Stockton, Malone...... Eaton and Baily... and Bailey, again, never even made an All-Star team and Eaton has ZERO offensive game.... what are they supposed to do with that?
I don't understand your logic, dude. You tout Dennis Rodman has this significant contributor and then turn around and **** on Eaton because of his lack of offensive game. Fact: Dennis Rodman never averaged 6 points per game in a Chicago Bulls uniform and never boasted a TS% over 50.1%. That sounds like the epitome of an atrocious offensive player to me. Eaton topped both of those figures in 88-89, therefore he was a superior offensive player than Rodman was in Chicago.


In 91, they lost to a much better and deeper Trailblazers team: Drexler, Porter Duckworth, Kersey, Robinson, Ainge, Walter Davis. These guys were so good that Drazen Petrovic, one of the best shooters ever, could hardly crack the rotation. The Jazz were four players deep... maybe... Stockton, Malone and Malone... Bailey is not even worth mentioning... he had not range, no three-point shot, and still only shot .440.... and Eaton was getting slower every minute by that point. If you watched him play, you'd know that.
You just keep making excuses for the Jazz and don't seem to understand the fact that it doesn't matter how many good teams you face in the playoffs. How many bad basketball teams play in the NBA Finals? Zero. Stockton and Malone had 18 years together and couldn't get a ring. Yeah, they played in an era of insanely talented players from the late 80s to the late 90s and in the era of Jordan. You know who else did? Isiah Thomas and Hakeem Olajuwon. Those guys won rings. Malone and Stockton didn't.


Then they lost to the same Trailbalzers in 92 after losing Bailey (who you seem to think was a borderline All-Star but was never even close to that).
I already destroyed your All-Star argument earlier, but I'll address this poor argument about Bailey as well. You suggest that he was never remotely close to an All-Star caliber player. In 88-89, he averaged essentially 20/6/2/1/1 with a 55% TS%, a 16 PER and a .115 WS/48. Not great seasons, but two really solid seasons that would warrant him making the All-Star game in the right conference at the right time. Don't believe me? Let's look at this All-Star game last year. All JJ did last season was post 16/3/3/1/1 with a 56% TS%, a 15.5 PER and a .091 WS/48. That's a worse season that Bailey's two year stretch, but he made the team. I looked at Millsap and Parker's numbers last year, as well, and hey weren't significantly better.


And in 93 they lost to a very talented Sonics roster who had Payton and Kemp to match up very well with Stockton and Malone and they actually had another rebounder in Michael Cage who had led the league in rebounding, and they had 6th man Ricky Pierce and Derrick McKey and Samp Perkins, and Dana Barros and Nate McMillin and a back log of center like Benoit Benjamin

And in 94 and 95 they lost to the champion Rockets... and 96 the Sonics again.... outside of one series against the Warriors... I can't think of one team they actually SHOULD have beat...
If you have home court advantage in a series and you have a better record than the opposing team, you will likely be favored to beat that team and "should" beat that team. The Jazz failed to beat teams they were better than far more often than any team that talented should have.


Let's stop talking about Bailey like he's Pippen and Eaton like he's anything other than a glorified Manute Bol.
lol... Again, you're TOTALLY wrong. I never talked about Thurmon Bailey like he was Scottie Pippen and if you were paying attention to the conversation, you would know that. We're not comparing the two stars, just the supporting casts. If anything, I'm comparing he and Hornacek to Toni Kukoc and Eaton to Grant and Rodman, which are more than fair comparisons.

Also, if you think Eaton was just Manute Bol, you have no clue what you're talking about. Bol was just a shot blocking specialist who did very little else well and averaged 20+ minutes only twice in his entire career. Mark Eaton was a two-time DPOY and a five-time All-Defensive team guy who started for good playoff teams and averaged 31+ minutes per game six times in his career.

kingkenny01
08-16-2014, 03:53 PM
Brooklyn nets this year, team looked like a title contender on paper but I think most people knew better

FriedTofuz
08-16-2014, 03:58 PM
I'm going to say the knicks.
They won 54 games the season before, and added bargnani, a proven 18ppg scorer.
James Dolan was expecting a championship, and it was really disappointing to see them get injured and to only win 37 games. Rest assured, it was just one bad season.

#1 Romo fan
08-16-2014, 04:05 PM
03-04 Mavericks

PG Steve Nash (last year in Dallas
SG Michael Finley
SF Antwan Jamison
PF Dirk Nowitzki
C Antoine Walker

They all averaged over 14 PPG

Phantom Dreamer
08-16-2014, 04:08 PM
97 Rockets with Drexler, Barkley, and Olajuwon all either 33 or 34. Kevin Willis was also on that team.


1998 (Pippen pissed everyone off all the time)
Pg: Matt Maloney
SG: Michael Dickerson
SF: Scottie Pippen
PF: Charles Barkley
C: Hakeem Olajuwon
6th man: Cuttino Mobley

That was the lockout shortened '99 season. Who did Pippen "piss off"? All he did was call out Barkley about his poor work ethic. Pippen played every game that season and averaged over 40 minutes a game.

JasonJohnHorn
08-16-2014, 05:07 PM
First off, I never brought up 88. I brought up 89 and 90, because those would have been the ideal seasons for the Jazz to make a run. Also, I wanted to bring up the seasons when all three players could have been perceived to be in their primes and Malone wasn't quite there yet.


Since when are All-Star teams the only barometer of a good NBA player and when are blocked shots the only indicator of a good defensive performance?

Actually, based on your own "All-Star" logic, the Jazz had a far better supporting cast from the late 80s to early 90s than Jordan's Bulls teams from 91-93 and from 95-98. Mark Eaton played in more All-Star games (1) than Toni Kukoc, Horace Grant and Dennis Rodman combined in those seven years, which is zero.


So what? The Jazz were the better team, had the better record and home court advantage and still lost the series. It's the playoffs. You're going to play good teams and you're going to have to beat good teams.


I don't understand your logic, dude. You tout Dennis Rodman has this significant contributor and then turn around and **** on Eaton because of his lack of offensive game. Fact: Dennis Rodman never averaged 6 points per game in a Chicago Bulls uniform and never boasted a TS% over 50.1%. That sounds like the epitome of an atrocious offensive player to me. Eaton topped both of those figures in 88-89, therefore he was a superior offensive player than Rodman was in Chicago.


You just keep making excuses for the Jazz and don't seem to understand the fact that it doesn't matter how many good teams you face in the playoffs. How many bad basketball teams play in the NBA Finals? Zero. Stockton and Malone had 18 years together and couldn't get a ring. Yeah, they played in an era of insanely talented players from the late 80s to the late 90s and in the era of Jordan. You know who else did? Isiah Thomas and Hakeem Olajuwon. Those guys won rings. Malone and Stockton didn't.


I already destroyed your All-Star argument earlier, but I'll address this poor argument about Bailey as well. You suggest that he was never remotely close to an All-Star caliber player. In 88-89, he averaged essentially 20/6/2/1/1 with a 55% TS%, a 16 PER and a .115 WS/48. Not great seasons, but two really solid seasons that would warrant him making the All-Star game in the right conference at the right time. Don't believe me? Let's look at this All-Star game last year. All JJ did last season was post 16/3/3/1/1 with a 56% TS%, a 15.5 PER and a .091 WS/48. That's a worse season that Bailey's two year stretch, but he made the team. I looked at Millsap and Parker's numbers last year, as well, and hey weren't significantly better.


If you have home court advantage in a series and you have a better record than the opposing team, you will likely be favored to beat that team and "should" beat that team. The Jazz failed to beat teams they were better than far more often than any team that talented should have.


lol... Again, you're TOTALLY wrong. I never talked about Thurmon Bailey like he was Scottie Pippen and if you were paying attention to the conversation, you would know that. We're not comparing the two stars, just the supporting casts. If anything, I'm comparing he and Hornacek to Toni Kukoc and Eaton to Grant and Rodman, which are more than fair comparisons.

Also, if you think Eaton was just Manute Bol, you have no clue what you're talking about. Bol was just a shot blocking specialist who did very little else well and averaged 20+ minutes only twice in his entire career. Mark Eaton was a two-time DPOY and a five-time All-Defensive team guy who started for good playoff teams and averaged 31+ minutes per game six times in his career.

My logic is this simple: The Jazz never had a team that was so 'good' on paper that were expected to contend. Period. Outside of the 97 and 98 seasons at any rate.

It is not complicated. A team that is good on paper has a number of All-Defensive/All-NBA/All-Stars.... The Jazz NEVER had a team during the 80's that was as good on paper as the Lakers... and outside of one year when Eaton made it, only every had two All-Stars and no supporting cast.... and without a supporting cast, you DON'T LOOK GOOD ON PAPER... which is what this thread is about.



Oh... the Jazz had Thurly Bailey as their third option in a Western conference with Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Green, Scott and Perkins... how did they not win it all? Um... because they had a $#!T team that was NOT GOOD ON PAPER.


But yes... my comparison of Eaton to Bol is unfair... but you are makign Eaton sound like he is something more than he was, which was a VERY slow player, who was a decent rebounder, and because he was 7'4 was able to block a lot of shots. Back then, if you led the league in blocks shots, they gave you the DPOY. It wasn't complicated. Obviously Eaton was better than Bol, but Eaton was still an offensive liability, so having him on the court, regardless of how much it helped your defense, killed your offense.

The Jazz only had the third best record on the West that year: the Lakers and the Suns both had better records. And in the east there were four teams with better records, so let's not pretend that the Jazz had a chance of even getting past the second round that year, even if they won that first-round match up.

Seriously. You pick a team that only had two All-NBA caliber players in a season where they finished 7th in the league and their only real help was a defensive player who had zero offesnive game as a team that should have went all the way in a league that featured the Bad Boy Pistons, the Showtime Lakers, Bird's Celtics and Jordan's Bulls?

And Bailey.... if you watched the game back then you'd know that he was their third option because he was their only option.... for a PF/SF who shot inside the elbow almost all the time, his FG% was AWFUL at .440.

Chronz
08-17-2014, 02:14 AM
Why would it necessarily be a "losing argument?" I don't agree with that statement whatsoever.
Because its an argument that even if I agreed with, would still be based on the less impressive sample set and it STILL wouldn't elevate the "support" argument you're trying to make.


Even looking at numbers is subjective.
Point? This would hold true for both of our arguments, only mine has a larger sample size.


Your argument is based primarily on playoff numbers, which isn't exactly fair.
Incorrect, its based on BOTH regular season and Playoff numbers in ADDITION to considering the health of Elgin.


My point isn't that he performed better in the postseason.
That should be the first sign that we're not on the same page. How you perform in the post season matters in a discussion about the post season success of a team/player, at the very least its something we have to consider as opposed to ignoring it entirely. If a players game can no longer translate into the post season as easily as it once could, or he enters the post season in worse shape physically/mentally, it should go without saying that its a detriment to the team.



It's that he was every bit as capable in 69 and 70 and he was from 64-68.
And I'm basing on that regular season production that was every bit as impressive as the previous five years, if not more so.
Elgin's health was inconsistent during this stretch, his defense declined dramatically from his youth and he would NEVER go on to perform as well in the post season as the years I mentioned. So to make the kind of blanket statement over that long of a time period is nonsensical to me. Feel free to explain because Im trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Depending on which year you stop at, Elgin could have been in REALLY bad shape. I much prefer to actually LOOK at the players performance in the given years we are critiquing.


Just because a player performs poorly within a single postseason doesn't mean he isn't capable of being the same player he was in previous postseason. You're talking about an extremely small sample size.
Nonsense, Baylor could never perform as well he did in the 66 and 68 playoffs. Not buying any of the statistical claims you've made so far and I dont just ignore injuries or the context behind a players role. Elgin's health was always the key factor come playoffs, hes very much like Wade in that way. And in his first season with Wilt, was not willing to defer and his dunce of a coach backed him up (somewhat like Wade). BTW, what are your expectations for Wade this year and would his performance now change ur perception on the kind of help Bron had?


And yeah, the guy missed time in 1970 due to injury. I completely fail to see why that means he wasn't as productive in previous seasons. You're missing the point of the argument completely and just looking solely at the minor details.
Ever heard the saying, the best part of ability being availability? Durability matters bro. If you have a season that is somewhat comparable but the other sustained it for far longer and INTO the post season, you have yourself an open and shut case. Simply put, nothing you've argued in favor of Baylor is concrete and the aspects you've ignored entirely are something we just dont see eye to eye on.


My point wasn't that Baylor was necessarily a far better player in 69 and 70 than he was in previous seasons. It's that he was every bit as good as he was those previous years and those two seasons could very well be considered part of his prime. And if that's the case, then you had prime Baylor, prime West and just-past-his-prime Wilt all playing together for two seasons.
I dont agree that it was "Prime" Baylor, he certainly didn't live up to that billing when it mattered most, but for the sake of argument lets go down this road. "Prime Baylor" was inferior to "past his prime Wilt". Knowing this fact, it tells us that its more important to actually look at the performance of that player than these kind of distinctions when dissecting a players support.



Just because you can't pinpoint who choked the most doesn't mean a team can't choke collectively.
I never said it did, but if you cant pinpoint the players in question (ANY of them), then its hard for me to change my opinion on it.


Also, I don't necessarily buy into the argument that the Rockets were a superior team to the Suns that season. I just think they played better basketball in the postseason. It's worth noting that the Suns also had a 2-0 lead on the Rockets in the 94 playoffs despite being the road team and lost that series in seven games as well.
Why is it worth noting if it STILL represents a far greater accomplishment than losing to MASSIVE underdogs 2 years in a row?

You dont have to agree with me that the Rockets were better (2 superstars in the 90's was a massive advantage to me), but you cannot deny the gap between those 2 is minuscule when compared to the CHASM between the Sonics and the Nuggs/Lakers. And we can obviously pin point the decline in the players most responsible. That we cant do that for the Suns is my point.

Chronz
08-17-2014, 02:29 AM
My logic is this simple: The Jazz never had a team that was so 'good' on paper that were expected to contend. Period. Outside of the 97 and 98 seasons at any rate.
Dont mean to jump in so late but I just wanted to give my take .

What I held against the Jazz isn't that they didn't win, its that they were led by Malone. The guy who either underachieved or declined the deeper he got into the post season. Its true that there were more talented teams in the league, as you've noted, the Bulls had FAR more talent. But there were plenty of seasons where they should have done more, where they were in position to accomplish more, and the main reason their talent on paper isn't as good, was because Malone himself wasn't as great of a playoff performer. Seldom did he raise his game, his longest playoff runs aren't a result of him showcasing 2-way efficiency, its a result of his teammates stepping up for him.


Maybe being so low on Malone is the point you're trying to make for me about this team not being that talented on paper. But I just had to throw that in there. Also Cartwright was filling the same role for Chicago (to check Ewing) that Ostertag did against Shaq.

JasonJohnHorn
08-17-2014, 10:07 AM
Dont mean to jump in so late but I just wanted to give my take .

What I held against the Jazz isn't that they didn't win, its that they were led by Malone. The guy who either underachieved or declined the deeper he got into the post season. Its true that there were more talented teams in the league, as you've noted, the Bulls had FAR more talent. But there were plenty of seasons where they should have done more, where they were in position to accomplish more, and the main reason their talent on paper isn't as good, was because Malone himself wasn't as great of a playoff performer. Seldom did he raise his game, his longest playoff runs aren't a result of him showcasing 2-way efficiency, its a result of his teammates stepping up for him.


Maybe being so low on Malone is the point you're trying to make for me about this team not being that talented on paper. But I just had to throw that in there. Also Cartwright was filling the same role for Chicago (to check Ewing) that Ostertag did against Shaq.

There is no denying that Malone's FG% when down in the playoffs... about 5% over his career, which is pretty significant, but his minutes also went up, as did the number of shots he took. All his numbers were down a little in the playoffs.

That said, I still think that team could have won. I think part of the big reason the numbers went down is because defenses are better in the playoffs. Teams adjust for your style of play. In the regular season, for coaches to really prepare and practice for a team, they need time. If you have three games in a week, or even four sometimes, you'll be lucky to specialized defensive set-ups for two of those teams. You don't get to practice in between every game, and as a coach you don't always have time to watch game footage of the teams coming in, so you aren't always as prepared.

In the playoffs, you have to make time to prepare for the team you are playing, and have time to practice your defensive sets. Part of the reason this impact Malone so much was because he didn't have the supporting cast to make defenses pay for doubling him. The Jazz were essentially a one-trick-pony, and that trick was the Stockton/Malone pick-and-roll.


Looking at a guy like Jordan, for instance, early in his career his reg-season number and his playoff numbers didn't suggest an increase in level of play. Later in his career, when he had a supporting cast, defenses couldn't focus on him, He had guys like Kerr shooting over .400 from behind the arc.


Now, I'm not suggesting Malone was a great playoff performer, but he did play at an All-Star level in the playoffs, and with a good team they could have won. Was he as good a playoff performer as Jordan? Absolutely not. Your criticism of Malone in the post seasons are fair for the most part, but having a better team would have helped his performance.

Assuming that Stockton and Malone cancel out Jordan and Pippen and we look at the rest of the roster, Stockton and Malone never had a player on their roster that impacted the game the way Rodman did. They had a great spot up shooter in Hornacek, and early they had a defensive center, but that came in a very deep West (and an even deeper East), and Eaton was a liability on offense and wasn't so quick on defense that he could play the kind of defense we saw in Hakeem, Mutumbo or Mourning. Where the Jazz had Hornacek, the Bulls had Rodman, Harper and Kukoc. Don't get me wrong, I think Russell was a good defender, but the Bulls had Ron Harper who was the alpha dog on his former team and took a small role with the Bulls, where as Byron Russell, when he played for other teams, struggled to even get a starting job on a lottery team. That speaks to the level of play their supporting cast had.

And Hornacek was a GREAT shooter... amazing... exactly the kind of shooter the Jazz needed to spread the floor, but on defense... he was 6'3. There are point guards bigger than that. And he's got to guard Jordan? He'd get posted up on non-stop and lose every time, which means moving Russell on Jordan and Russell can' shoot like Hornacek...

I think Cartwrigth was a much better player than Ostertag.... he was a mentor to Ewing when he was n NY, and he provided good fundamental defense in the post. He's wasn't a strong rebounder, or a defensive anchor in the post, but he knew how to defend guys one-on-one and make things harder for them, especially Ewing. And he had an offensive game as well, which neither Ostertag or Eaton could claim they had.

I mean, if Ostertag were playing today, he'd struggle to make an NBA roster (as he did when he was playing anywhere other than Utah), where as Cartwright would likely be an All-Star center in today's NBA.

WadeKobe
08-17-2014, 03:33 PM
Did people really think that a Laker's squad with an over-the-hill Nash, oth Kobe, and oth Gasol was going to be scary?

JasonJohnHorn
08-17-2014, 04:05 PM
Did people really think that a Laker's squad with an over-the-hill Nash, oth Kobe, and oth Gasol was going to be scary?


The season before Nash got there, he averaged 17.5 assists per100pos, the highest average of his career. and averaged 12.2 assists per36, so I think it was assumed that with limited minutes, he could still be effective, since he had played 33 minutes the season before and was only one season removed from leading the league in assists. So, over the hill? Had he not been injured, he would have played more.

As for Kobe, he was still ranked as the best SG in the league by PSD (for whatever that's worth) the season before, and Howard was ranked as the best center. You say Gasol was over the hill, but he was only 32 and averaged 17 points and 10+ boards the season before AND made the ASG the year before that. And this past year he average 20/11 per36, so he is STILL playing at an All-Star level of play. And then they had MWP, who was only a year older than Gasol.

So yea... there was pretty good reason to be excited about that... and the thread asks for a team that looked good on paper, and bottom line, you put together a line-up with Nash (MVP) Kobe (MVP) MWP (DOPY) Gasol, and Howard (DPOY), yeah, that team looks pretty good on paper to me.

WadeKobe
08-17-2014, 04:14 PM
The season before Nash got there, he averaged 17.5 assists per100pos, the highest average of his career. and averaged 12.2 assists per36, so I think it was assumed that with limited minutes, he could still be effective, since he had played 33 minutes the season before and was only one season removed from leading the league in assists. So, over the hill? Had he not been injured, he would have played more.

As for Kobe, he was still ranked as the best SG in the league by PSD (for whatever that's worth) the season before, and Howard was ranked as the best center. You say Gasol was over the hill, but he was only 32 and averaged 17 points and 10+ boards the season before AND made the ASG the year before that. And this past year he average 20/11 per36, so he is STILL playing at an All-Star level of play. And then they had MWP, who was only a year older than Gasol.

So yea... there was pretty good reason to be excited about that... and the thread asks for a team that looked good on paper, and bottom line, you put together a line-up with Nash (MVP) Kobe (MVP) MWP (DOPY) Gasol, and Howard (DPOY), yeah, that team looks pretty good on paper to me.

Not at those ages they didn't. They looked like a 3-5 seed.

JasonJohnHorn
08-17-2014, 05:21 PM
Not at those ages they didn't. They looked like a 3-5 seed.

I just debunked the 'age' by referencing their actual production.

Age doesn't matter in the NBA. It is about performance. The Spurs by your standards are 'old', and they are NBA champions. Tim Duncan is WAY older than Gasol was that season (37 > 32) and Parker is 31, only a year younger than Gasol, who you said is 'old'. And Manu is 36, 2 years older than Kobe was that season. And Kobe, mind you, was the same age as Jordan in his last season with Chicago, when the Bulls won the NBA championship with a 36 year-old Rodman, a 34-yeard-old Harper and a 32-year-old Scottie Pippen.

Nash is the only guy that was 'old', and he had just made the All-Star team the year before he arrived in LA, so he was still playing a high level going into the season.

But let me guess, your response is 'Because old.'

Thanks for the insight. I'll tell that to Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Giniboli and they can give their rings to the Heat opening night.

There are guys who hit a wall a 30 (Isiah Thomas) and guys who play at a high level until they are 40 (Stockton). It is not about the year they were born, it is about the level of play they are performing at.

WadeKobe
08-17-2014, 05:30 PM
I just debunked the 'age' by referencing their actual production.

Age doesn't matter in the NBA. It is about performance. The Spurs by your standards are 'old', and they are NBA champions. Tim Duncan is WAY older than Gasol was that season (37 > 32) and Parker is 31, only a year younger than Gasol, who you said is 'old'. And Manu is 36, 2 years older than Kobe was that season. And Kobe, mind you, was the same age as Jordan in his last season with Chicago, when the Bulls won the NBA championship with a 36 year-old Rodman, a 34-yeard-old Harper and a 32-year-old Scottie Pippen.

Nash is the only guy that was 'old', and he had just made the All-Star team the year before he arrived in LA, so he was still playing a high level going into the season.

But let me guess, your response is 'Because old.'

Thanks for the insight. I'll tell that to Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Giniboli and they can give their rings to the Heat opening night.

There are guys who hit a wall a 30 (Isiah Thomas) and guys who play at a high level until they are 40 (Stockton). It is not about the year they were born, it is about the level of play they are performing at.

Kobe had already started a steady decline, as had Nash. Gasol was a safe bet to start declining.... And he did.

I find it funny how I said these exact things that offseason, was told I was wrong, then I ended up right, and we are saying that I was crazy? Come on.

We can ignore age curves all we like. The Spurs had a lot of excellent young talent like Leonard, Green, Mills, and Splitter. The Lakers two years ago had none of that. But that's a good comparison?

Look, Duncan, Manu, and Parker are all shells of their former selves. Without the great young roster and coach, they alone would not constitute a great team on paper. Just like that Lakers team didn't.

ewing
08-17-2014, 11:02 PM
jimmy jackson, j kidd, and micheal finley.

Lloyd Christmas
08-18-2014, 12:14 AM
That suns team with Shaq.

Nash
Bell
Diaw
Amare
Shaq

I know Shaq was a shell of himself but still...

JasonJohnHorn
08-18-2014, 01:06 AM
That suns team with Shaq.

Nash
Bell
Diaw
Amare
Shaq

I know Shaq was a shell of himself but still...

Shaq actually played really well in Phoenix.... the Suns medical team works miracles. Shaq gave them credit for extending his career.... I think the issue there was Nash-Amare pick and roll + Shaq = Zero chemistry.

Shaq needed to be in the lane to be effective on offense. Nash and Amare needed the lane clear to be effective on offense. And because Shaq never had range, defenders could leave him if he stepped out side the lane to clear space and then go 3-2 against the P&R.

Amare and Shaq just didn't mesh well. That was all. But yeah... in terms of overall talent, that team did look pretty good. They had Grant Hill there as well, who was also playing pretty good basketball at the time.

And they picked up Jason Richardson too that year, didn't they? But they lost Bell in that deal?

Nash
Richardson
Grant Hill
Amare
Shaq

Put those guys together in their prime and they'd find a way to win 4 in row.

Chronz
08-18-2014, 01:12 AM
Shaq actually played really well in Phoenix.... the Suns medical team works miracles. Shaq gave them credit for extending his career.... I think the issue there was Nash-Amare pick and roll + Shaq = Zero chemistry.

Shaq needed to be in the lane to be effective on offense. Nash and Amare needed the lane clear to be effective on offense. And because Shaq never had range, defenders could leave him if he stepped out side the lane to clear space and then go 3-2 against the P&R.

Amare and Shaq just didn't mesh well. That was all. But yeah... in terms of overall talent, that team did look pretty good. They had Grant Hill there as well, who was also playing pretty good basketball at the time.

And they picked up Jason Richardson too that year, didn't they? But they lost Bell in that deal?

Nash
Richardson
Grant Hill
Amare
Shaq

Put those guys together in their prime and they'd find a way to win 4 in row.
It had nothing to do with the players and everything to do with their coach. Once they went back to their running and gunning ways, the team picked up where it left off. Amare actually was at his best with Shaq that year, he just got injured and the team wasn't able to replicate its prior success. That team was one of the best to ever miss the playoffs.

Shaq is a lane clogger but he was never someone you could sag off of.

Crackadalic
08-18-2014, 02:41 AM
That Laker squad with Nash/Kobe/Metta/Pau/Dwight

rhino17
08-18-2014, 02:51 AM
That was the lockout shortened '99 season. Who did Pippen "piss off"? All he did was call out Barkley about his poor work ethic. Pippen played every game that season and averaged over 40 minutes a game.
That team blew up, had nothing to do with the short season

And there is a reason Scottie Quitten is arguably the most hated rocket by both fans and players alike. He was a total *** hole in houston, wasn't a team player, and hurt the team a lot. Barkley never finished the job off in Houston but he played his *** off the time he was there. He cleaned the boards like an animal until he retired.

Run&Gun
08-18-2014, 03:12 AM
In 04, when the Lakers got Malone and Payton I always thought that lineup was gonna for sure win it all. Especially cuz Shaq and Kobe were still in their prime, even if Malone and Payton weren't.

Another team I always thought looked good on paper but underperformed was when AI and Carmelo were on the same team they had some good pieces but not a lot of chemistry and two scorers who didn't play defense didn't really work but their starting lineup was pretty good

PG: Anthony Carter
SG: Allen Iverson/ JR Smith
SF: Carmelo Anthony
PF: Nene/Kenyon Martin
C Marcus Camby
They also had some decent bench players, Von Wafer was pretty good back then, Diawara was a good defensive player, and Najera was a good hustle PF who had some shooting abilities.

JasonJohnHorn
08-18-2014, 10:24 AM
It had nothing to do with the players and everything to do with their coach. Once they went back to their running and gunning ways, the team picked up where it left off. Amare actually was at his best with Shaq that year, he just got injured and the team wasn't able to replicate its prior success. That team was one of the best to ever miss the playoffs.

Shaq is a lane clogger but he was never someone you could sag off of.

Fair enough.... I only got to watch a couple games from the squad, so I won't pretend to be an authority. I know Shaq looked great against the Raptors that year. There was another game I saw later in the season when they were chasing the last playoff spot.... I remember think Shaq and Amare didn't play very well on the court at the same time.... but man... it would have been great to see them in their prime together.

thenaj17
08-18-2014, 11:23 AM
probably but they were all healthy including nash early on and they sucked

No they were never all fit at 1 time until after the all star break when they went on a great run. Dwight missed games early and Sacre started a few. Pau was also injured for a chunk of games and the Nash shin injury. Kobe also wasn't training between games to start the season due to a foot injury. When trying to implement a new offence, i'm sure you can agree that's not the least bit helpful

valade16
08-18-2014, 11:53 AM
That team blew up, had nothing to do with the short season

And there is a reason Scottie Quitten is arguably the most hated rocket by both fans and players alike. He was a total *** hole in houston, wasn't a team player, and hurt the team a lot. Barkley never finished the job off in Houston but he played his *** off the time he was there. He cleaned the boards like an animal until he retired.

I think there is more to the story because once Scottie got to Portland he was the ultimate team player and was the driving force off the court for the Blazers WCF run.

Lloyd Christmas
08-18-2014, 12:16 PM
Shaq actually played really well in Phoenix.... the Suns medical team works miracles. Shaq gave them credit for extending his career.... I think the issue there was Nash-Amare pick and roll + Shaq = Zero chemistry.

Shaq needed to be in the lane to be effective on offense. Nash and Amare needed the lane clear to be effective on offense. And because Shaq never had range, defenders could leave him if he stepped out side the lane to clear space and then go 3-2 against the P&R.

Amare and Shaq just didn't mesh well. That was all. But yeah... in terms of overall talent, that team did look pretty good. They had Grant Hill there as well, who was also playing pretty good basketball at the time.

And they picked up Jason Richardson too that year, didn't they? But they lost Bell in that deal?

Nash
Richardson
Grant Hill
Amare
Shaq

Put those guys together in their prime and they'd find a way to win 4 in row.

Great call about the J-Rich for Bell trade. Forgot about that one.

flea
08-18-2014, 01:19 PM
TBH, the Suns were at their best before Shaq. Nash/Bell/Hill/Marion/Stat with Diaw/Barbosa playing heavy minutes was a fun as hell rotation. They got jobbed in 2007, and cheated out of their best shot at a ring in a typically heavy-handed David Stern way.

EDIT: Hill wasn't with that 07 team. Maybe it makes a difference after the Stat/Diaw suspensions if he is.

Lloyd Christmas
08-18-2014, 05:29 PM
TBH, the Suns were at their best before Shaq. Nash/Bell/Hill/Marion/Stat with Diaw/Barbosa playing heavy minutes was a fun as hell rotation. They got jobbed in 2007, and cheated out of their best shot at a ring in a typically heavy-handed David Stern way.

EDIT: Hill wasn't with that 07 team. Maybe it makes a difference after the Stat/Diaw suspensions if he is.

No doubt. But still that team still performed somewhat up to expectations where that Suns team with Shaq never really did anything.

todu82
08-19-2014, 08:57 AM
That Lakers team a few years ago with Malone and Payton.

sixers247
08-19-2014, 09:07 AM
03-04 Mavericks

PG Steve Nash (last year in Dallas
SG Michael Finley
SF Antwan Jamison
PF Dirk Nowitzki
C Antoine Walker

They all averaged over 14 PPG

Any team that has fat Antoine Walker at center doesn't deserve to win. Center lol.