PDA

View Full Version : Who would win in a series between the 01 Sixers and the Warriors?



Gametime
03-11-2016, 05:06 PM
This series would be played with the good rules from the 90's.

Shady66
03-11-2016, 05:34 PM
Lmao you troll

Gametime
03-11-2016, 05:43 PM
I guess all of you are going to cry and then act like you didn't hype these warriors when they lose in this years playoffs.

valade16
03-11-2016, 05:55 PM
There is no rules or way in which basketball has ever been played where those 76ers would beat these Warriors in a series.

Whether it's modern rules, 01-05 rules, 90's rules, pre-3 point line, or even a peach basket.

The Warriors would win.

Gametime
03-11-2016, 05:59 PM
There is no rules or way in which basketball has ever been played where those 76ers would beat these Warriors in a series.

Whether it's modern rules, 01-05 rules, 90's rules, pre-3 point line, or even a peach basket.

The Warriors would win.

prove it.

Hawkeye15
03-11-2016, 06:03 PM
The Sixers would be lucky to win more than 1 game. They would be blown off the floor.

Chronz
03-11-2016, 06:11 PM
prove it.

He just did.....

Gametime
03-11-2016, 06:16 PM
he didn't prove anything.

Mutombo would be under the rim and blocking every layup there is. This would allow for the better and quicker athletes like Iverson, McKee, Lynch to play a pressing defense and tight defense forcing the GS players to drive into Mutombo.

The Sixers would win in 6 games. Even James with no coach, no pg, no PF, still had a 2 -1 lead.

SeoulBeatz
03-11-2016, 06:34 PM
Dubs sweep.

aman_13
03-11-2016, 06:37 PM
Lol

Gametime
03-11-2016, 06:37 PM
Dubs sweep.

care to explain with the x's and o's as to why you're on the band wagon and don't understand the game.

Gametime
03-11-2016, 06:38 PM
Usually when you follow the internet trend you will be WRONG

Hawkeye15
03-11-2016, 06:41 PM
why do you have such a hard on for 90's basketball? I am 40, grew up loving it. But by no means is that ****** Sixers team even competing with the Warriors. The Sixers had zero interior scorers to force the Warriors to go big, they couldn't stay with the Warriors perimeter guys (whomever Iverson is guarding has a huge offensive series), and the Sixers were not offensively even in the realm of being able to keep up.

They would get destroyed.

Gametime
03-11-2016, 06:48 PM
you're gay hawkeye.

Mutombo averaged 16 ppg one of his seasons all within 2 feet of the rim.

T. Hill was a 11 ppg scorer all at the rim and had a very high FG% every season.

that's basically 30 ppg at the rim by those two because GS is easier to score on inside so their average would go up some.

Then you have Iverson who would score another 15 in the lane and if you didn't have legit shot blockers he would score 25 in the lane on you.

Then Lynch was a pretty good post up player that could average about 10 points in the lane

Gieger could grab rebounds and score about another 6 points.
It all adds up.

then the warriors have ZERO chance of scoring. Go check the three point defense the Sixers had. It was the best.

McKie was a very athletic workman like player that would own Thompson and shut him down.


You're the same exact clown that thought Miami would beat the Mavs in 2011.

FOXHOUND
03-11-2016, 06:56 PM
I think a better series would be Rick Carlisle's ECF Pacers vs the Warriors. Mainly because Rick Carlisle was coaching.

sjbirds
03-11-2016, 07:01 PM
So they would beat this warriors team but could only get 1 from the Lakers?

Gametime
03-11-2016, 07:07 PM
The Lakers had Shaq. you can't beat them. Also the Refs loved the Lake Show.

Shady66
03-11-2016, 07:19 PM
He's got you there Hawkeye

IKnowHoops
03-11-2016, 07:28 PM
you're gay hawkeye.

Mutombo averaged 16 ppg one of his seasons all within 2 feet of the rim.

T. Hill was a 11 ppg scorer all at the rim and had a very high FG% every season.

that's basically 30 ppg at the rim by those two because GS is easier to score on inside so their average would go up some.

Then you have Iverson who would score another 15 in the lane and if you didn't have legit shot blockers he would score 25 in the lane on you.

Then Lynch was a pretty good post up player that could average about 10 points in the lane

Gieger could grab rebounds and score about another 6 points.
It all adds up.

then the warriors have ZERO chance of scoring. Go check the three point defense the Sixers had. It was the best.

McKie was a very athletic workman like player that would own Thompson and shut him down.


You're the same exact clown that thought Miami would beat the Mavs in 2011.

hahahahahahahahahaha

IKnowHoops
03-11-2016, 07:29 PM
Dubs sweep

Gametime
03-11-2016, 07:31 PM
Dubs sweep

so the dubs would sweep in your follower internet opinion.

Lets see then why couldn't they sweep a team of Tony Allen, Zach Randolph and over rated Marc Gasol?

How would they sweep

Mutombo
Hill
Lynch
Mckie
Iverson
Snow
Geiger
Bell
Ollie

Scoots
03-11-2016, 08:47 PM
The fans.

mavwar53
03-11-2016, 08:51 PM
so the dubs would sweep in your follower internet opinion.

Lets see then why couldn't they sweep a team of Tony Allen, Zach Randolph and over rated Marc Gasol?

How would they sweep

Mutombo
Hill
Lynch
Mckie
Iverson
Snow
Geiger
Bell
Ollie

Do you have a hard tide typing this stuff? I know you must be cracking up thinking this is a thought any sane person would have.

More-Than-Most
03-11-2016, 09:06 PM
If there was ever a time a series could end in 2 games instead of 4 it would be this one after we lose by 30 in both games.

More-Than-Most
03-11-2016, 09:07 PM
you're gay hawkeye.

Mutombo averaged 16 ppg one of his seasons all within 2 feet of the rim.

T. Hill was a 11 ppg scorer all at the rim and had a very high FG% every season.

that's basically 30 ppg at the rim by those two because GS is easier to score on inside so their average would go up some.

Then you have Iverson who would score another 15 in the lane and if you didn't have legit shot blockers he would score 25 in the lane on you.

Then Lynch was a pretty good post up player that could average about 10 points in the lane

Gieger could grab rebounds and score about another 6 points.
It all adds up.

then the warriors have ZERO chance of scoring. Go check the three point defense the Sixers had. It was the best.

McKie was a very athletic workman like player that would own Thompson and shut him down.


You're the same exact clown that thought Miami would beat the Mavs in 2011.

:laugh:

why is this dude so mad?

Jeffy25
03-11-2016, 09:24 PM
troll job isn't very good


If the 76ers won one game out of twenty, I would be genuinely surprised.

Jeffy25
03-11-2016, 09:26 PM
GS is getting 115 ppg this year, and their starters aren't even playing in the 4th quarter.

The sixers had some good defense, but lol come on.

They couldn't defend the perimeter anywhere close to good enough to slow them down. Meanwhile, GS is very good defensively and the sixers would flat out never score on them.

I venture the average game would end around 110-90

Alayla
03-11-2016, 10:04 PM
Warriors Sweep this coming from someone arguing about how Iverson's gravity was one of the most deadly weapons in league history in another tread rn there simply was not even ammo on that team to even put a dent into the Warriors.
With Iggy covering Iverson and the rest of the guys being totally outclassed there no way in hell the Sixers win a series with the Warriors come on now man.

Curry's Natural Gravity is comparable to Iverson's to begin with the difference being having Klay Tompson Dreymond Green Iggy and Barnes as Release valves. Curry is better than Iverson to begin with but when you take into account the supporting cast its fans like YOU who make Iverson such a polarizing player and give fans of Iverson's game such a bad name!

Alayla
03-11-2016, 10:10 PM
GS is getting 115 ppg this year, and their starters aren't even playing in the 4th quarter.

The sixers had some good defense, but lol come on.

They couldn't defend the perimeter anywhere close to good enough to slow them down. Meanwhile, GS is very good defensively and the sixers would flat out never score on them.

I venture the average game would end around 110-90

90 is giving Phillys offense to much credit would look something like 105-78 both teams played alot in transition and used pace as a open court weapon and that's the only reason i can even see Philly cracking 75 is due to pace.

Alayla
03-11-2016, 10:13 PM
The 2001 Sixers wouldn't even stand a chance vs the 2016 Thunder what the hell makes anyone think that team could stand a stones throw of a chance vs Golden State.

A really interesting on paper macth up however would be 2008 Nuggets (assuming perfect health across the board)
VS the 2016 Thunder!~ Thunder in 7?

tredigs
03-11-2016, 10:20 PM
I definitely think they could steal a game in Philly under perfect circumstances. Series? Lol I mean, no. I don't even feel like acknowledging that argument, especially given that it is via a clear dupe and/or troll. Let's put it this way, that team beat the Raps in round 1 in game 7 by ONE point in order to advance (to another 7 game series, before being smashed in the Finals).

Monta is beast
03-11-2016, 11:27 PM
A.I pretty much admitted Curry is better than him, and that's all phi had. Sweep or 4-1 dubs

aman_13
03-12-2016, 12:08 AM
you're gay hawkeye.

Mutombo averaged 16 ppg one of his seasons all within 2 feet of the rim.

T. Hill was a 11 ppg scorer all at the rim and had a very high FG% every season.

that's basically 30 ppg at the rim by those two because GS is easier to score on inside so their average would go up some.

Then you have Iverson who would score another 15 in the lane and if you didn't have legit shot blockers he would score 25 in the lane on you.

Then Lynch was a pretty good post up player that could average about 10 points in the lane

Gieger could grab rebounds and score about another 6 points.
It all adds up.

then the warriors have ZERO chance of scoring. Go check the three point defense the Sixers had. It was the best.

McKie was a very athletic workman like player that would own Thompson and shut him down.


You're the same exact clown that thought Miami would beat the Mavs in 2011.

hahahahahahahahahaha

Haha

IKnowHoops
03-12-2016, 12:21 AM
Warriors Sweep this coming from someone arguing about how Iverson's gravity was one of the most deadly weapons in league history in another tread rn there simply was not even ammo on that team to even put a dent into the Warriors.
With Iggy covering Iverson and the rest of the guys being totally outclassed there no way in hell the Sixers win a series with the Warriors come on now man.

Curry's Natural Gravity is comparable to Iverson's to begin with the difference being having Klay Tompson Dreymond Green Iggy and Barnes as Release valves. Curry is better than Iverson to begin with but when you take into account the supporting cast its fans like YOU who make Iverson such a polarizing player and give fans of Iverson's game such a bad name!

But fans shouldn't have any power on another fan like that. I'm a huge Iverson fan. I think he is severely underrated. No fan could change my opinion on that.

He's not Curry. Curry's shooting is unreal, its just not even fare. It doesn't seem possible. This is for all intensive purposes tied for the best season that I have seen by a player.

jason
03-12-2016, 01:27 AM
The better question is Warriors vs Heat last year if Lebron never left...

basch152
03-12-2016, 01:40 AM
But fans shouldn't have any power on another fan like that. I'm a huge Iverson fan. I think he is severely underrated. No fan could change my opinion on that.

He's not Curry. Curry's shooting is unreal, its just not even fare. It doesn't seem possible. This is for all intensive purposes tied for the best season that I have seen by a player.

Intensive purposes lol

Alayla
03-12-2016, 01:57 AM
But fans shouldn't have any power on another fan like that. I'm a huge Iverson fan. I think he is severely underrated. No fan could change my opinion on that.

He's not Curry. Curry's shooting is unreal, its just not even fare. It doesn't seem possible. This is for all intensive purposes tied for the best season that I have seen by a player.

Well yeah of course Curry is the better and more efficient of the 2 players im not comparing Iverson to Curry im comparing there gravity to make a point basically im saying they have the same effect on the defense of everyone crowding there airspace curry just has more range and makes smarter choices with the ball than Iverson its an argument of substance vs style when talking about Curry vs Iverson.

But my point was if they both have high levels of gravity and one has teammates to play off of there gravity and the other doesn't its natural the one with the teammates wins. Easy Sweep for GS not sure why this is a thread ya know?

joedaheights
03-12-2016, 02:41 AM
There is no rules or way in which basketball has ever been played where those 76ers would beat these Warriors in a series.

Whether it's modern rules, 01-05 rules, 90's rules, pre-3 point line, or even a peach basket.

The Warriors would win.

I'm not so sure. Win, no. I think this example is like saying, "86 Celtics v. 11 Bulls." I just picked a buster *** team to put up against the 86 Celtics.

I think that you look at Warriors fans and they want to have it both ways. Steph Curry is the best ever and that's why the Warriors are messing up the league, but then they can't wait to tell you that Andre Iguodala could "reasonably check" Jordan (I read that on a comment from a fiend of a bay area Facebook friend last week) or that Draymond Green could check Pippen (read that beauty here).

So which is it? Is Steph Curry THE best thing to ever happen to basketball, or through years and years of tanking and sucking, did he end up as a player who will probably go down as ONE of the all time greats.. on a team just stacked full of lotto talent.

I do think that the current Warriors are a great team.. but they're also a team that was able to stockpile talent due to sucking at a much higher level than other all time great teams.

I'll ask it this way. Would the 86 Celtics beat the 01 Lakers? YES! But does that make Bird and McHale better than Shaq and Kobe? No. Because we all know that if you took two talents of the level of Robert Parish and Dennis Johnson and PUT them with Shaq and Kobe, that team would beat the 86 Celtics.

I want to see what this Warriors team looks like when Harrison Barnes and/or Festus Ezeli signs a bigger deal elsewhere, Andre Iguodala, Leandro Barbosa, Shaun Livingston and Andrew Bogut age and those leaving are replaced by 28th picks. If Lebron were to join very legit players who actually fit with him, or were at least as good as the 2012 Heat and then THAT team were to beat Lebron handily, okay, now you can talk about how Steph is just one of the best ever.

"Ah ha! But they'll get Durant!" Well, for one, we don't know that big names always make things go better.. case in point, the Heat. They were supposed to be on what, title 6 by now? Second, the Kobe thing. Kobe never did win a title without Shaq or a dominant scoring duo down low (the points and FG% of Bynum/Gasol were very, very good). And I think his legacy suffers compared to what it would be had he won with a Bill Cartwright down low.

What is happening here is like the Celtics and Lakers in the 80s. You have a dynamic that gave one or more of the league's stars an abnormally great supporting cast early or early enough in his career. As time goes on and that comes back down to earth, we'll see.

Another thing you're going to see is teams tool their roster to beat GSW.

Personally I think it's good for the league, but I'd love to get a time machine into the future.

Steph and GSW? Probably better than their detractors think and not as good as their fans think.

Scoots
03-12-2016, 02:44 AM
I can't believe this joke of a thread made it to 3 pages :)

I'd love to see this matchup. But Warriors in 5

tredigs
03-14-2016, 12:06 PM
I'm not so sure. Win, no. I think this example is like saying, "86 Celtics v. 11 Bulls." I just picked a buster *** team to put up against the 86 Celtics.

I think that you look at Warriors fans and they want to have it both ways. Steph Curry is the best ever and that's why the Warriors are messing up the league, but then they can't wait to tell you that Andre Iguodala could "reasonably check" Jordan (I read that on a comment from a fiend of a bay area Facebook friend last week) or that Draymond Green could check Pippen (read that beauty here).

So which is it? Is Steph Curry THE best thing to ever happen to basketball, or through years and years of tanking and sucking, did he end up as a player who will probably go down as ONE of the all time greats.. on a team just stacked full of lotto talent.

I do think that the current Warriors are a great team.. but they're also a team that was able to stockpile talent due to sucking at a much higher level than other all time great teams.

I'll ask it this way. Would the 86 Celtics beat the 01 Lakers? YES! But does that make Bird and McHale better than Shaq and Kobe? No. Because we all know that if you took two talents of the level of Robert Parish and Dennis Johnson and PUT them with Shaq and Kobe, that team would beat the 86 Celtics.

I want to see what this Warriors team looks like when Harrison Barnes and/or Festus Ezeli signs a bigger deal elsewhere, Andre Iguodala, Leandro Barbosa, Shaun Livingston and Andrew Bogut age and those leaving are replaced by 28th picks. If Lebron were to join very legit players who actually fit with him, or were at least as good as the 2012 Heat and then THAT team were to beat Lebron handily, okay, now you can talk about how Steph is just one of the best ever.

"Ah ha! But they'll get Durant!" Well, for one, we don't know that big names always make things go better.. case in point, the Heat. They were supposed to be on what, title 6 by now? Second, the Kobe thing. Kobe never did win a title without Shaq or a dominant scoring duo down low (the points and FG% of Bynum/Gasol were very, very good). And I think his legacy suffers compared to what it would be had he won with a Bill Cartwright down low.

What is happening here is like the Celtics and Lakers in the 80s. You have a dynamic that gave one or more of the league's stars an abnormally great supporting cast early or early enough in his career. As time goes on and that comes back down to earth, we'll see.

Another thing you're going to see is teams tool their roster to beat GSW.

Personally I think it's good for the league, but I'd love to get a time machine into the future.

Steph and GSW? Probably better than their detractors think and not as good as their fans think.
A) GSW does not have some abnormal ultra-star cast created from "years and years of tanking and sucking" (there was one season that they for all intents and purposes "tanked", and it was the 2nd half of the season that they were going to lose their top-7 protected pick, which ended in Barnes. Who... let's just say does not move the needle for them)
B) You're trying to paint a black/white picture about "GSW fans and their detractors" and assuming that this is simply the way their fans think. You've been in a lot of arguments with the fanbase due to your unrelenting allegiance to the Bulls - I get it - but there is some nuance in the debate to be had and I think the vast majority of GSW fans respect that.

A roster that was truly built on tanking/sucking would have been OKC. In concurrent/successive years they had the #2/#3/#4/#5 picks (KD/Harden/Westbrook/Green), or Philly, or Cleveland, or Minnesota. The Warriors best players are the #7 pick (Curry), #11 pick (Klay) and #35 pick (Draymond). Their other best young piece is the injured Ezeli (#35 pick). So, zero top five picks and multiple 2nd rounders carrying the burden for them.

As far as their team dynamic, it is definitely a solid cast, and a great cast defensively. Where they lack is on the offensive side of the ball. If Curry were not on the team (and replaced by a par for the course PG), they would be a middling offensive team. He truly makes the rest of the players around him appear much better than they are at times (simply allowing them looks on that end that are more open than anywhere else they've played), and the on/off #'s playing with/without him certainly back that up. Even as great as Klay is, he is just not the same player without Curry breaking down defenses. He thrives in the catch/shoot role.

Long story short, Curry is clearly playing as one of the best-ever right now. Every stat/eye-test and soon to be broken records are showcasing that. Their road to the Finals will be a brutal one that could include going through a team with two top 10 players, another with two top 5 players, and a third with a top 5 player and a ~70 win season. That's just in the West. Last season, they played/beat every player of the All-NBA 1st Teams squad en route to the title (a distinction scoffed at due to injuries to some of the opposing teams). That had never been done, and it was an incredible leap for a team that had lost in the 1st round the prior season and did not add anybody. That does not happen.

This year, they'll need to do better.

joedaheights
03-15-2016, 01:50 AM
A) GSW does not have some abnormal ultra-star cast created from "years and years of tanking and sucking" (there was one season that they for all intents and purposes "tanked", and it was the 2nd half of the season that they were going to lose their top-7 protected pick, which ended in Barnes. Who... let's just say does not move the needle for them)
B) You're trying to paint a black/white picture about "GSW fans and their detractors" and assuming that this is simply the way their fans think. You've been in a lot of arguments with the fanbase due to your unrelenting allegiance to the Bulls - I get it - but there is some nuance in the debate to be had and I think the vast majority of GSW fans respect that.

A roster that was truly built on tanking/sucking would have been OKC. In concurrent/successive years they had the #2/#3/#4/#5 picks (KD/Harden/Westbrook/Green), or Philly, or Cleveland, or Minnesota. The Warriors best players are the #7 pick (Curry), #11 pick (Klay) and #35 pick (Draymond). Their other best young piece is the injured Ezeli (#35 pick). So, zero top five picks and multiple 2nd rounders carrying the burden for them.

As far as their team dynamic, it is definitely a solid cast, and a great cast defensively. Where they lack is on the offensive side of the ball. If Curry were not on the team (and replaced by a par for the course PG), they would be a middling offensive team. He truly makes the rest of the players around him appear much better than they are at times (simply allowing them looks on that end that are more open than anywhere else they've played), and the on/off #'s playing with/without him certainly back that up. Even as great as Klay is, he is just not the same player without Curry breaking down defenses. He thrives in the catch/shoot role.

Long story short, Curry is clearly playing as one of the best-ever right now. Every stat/eye-test and soon to be broken records are showcasing that. Their road to the Finals will be a brutal one that could include going through a team with two top 10 players, another with two top 5 players, and a third with a top 5 player and a ~70 win season. That's just in the West. Last season, they played/beat every player of the All-NBA 1st Teams squad en route to the title (a distinction scoffed at due to injuries to some of the opposing teams). That had never been done, and it was an incredible leap for a team that had lost in the 1st round the prior season and did not add anybody. That does not happen.

This year, they'll need to do better.

Well, first, when I said tanking, I'm talking in terms of not being a team that has been in a lot of playoffs by volume over time, and also not being a team where one player joined the team and bam.. a losing Celtics team gets Larry Bird and goes up by a huge amount of wins overnight. They've had a chance to get a lot of good picks and have those picks work out. It's not a morality thing. It's a "you can't pay everyone" thing. It's not that kind of thing when you have Jordan and Pippen or Kareem and Magic or Shaq and Kobe and all you really need to pay beyond that are guys who play defense, rebound and hit an open shot.

The way the NBA works is that you'll inevitably have Curry, Thompson, Green and they'll have to be surrounded by the Buechlers, Kukocs and Harpers of the world. You have to remember, that none of those guys including Rodman were as good AND young as Horace Grant even. Rodman was 35 in 1996. Kukoc was a shooter who really didn't have a lot going for himself as a defender or creator. He'd have moments creating, and then moments where Jordan would be screaming at him because of how bad he looked creating. Ron Harper.. NOT young in 96. Maybe have been younger than Rodman, didn't play like it.

Teams get old fast. Don't believe me. When you looked at LA in 2000, you thought they'd live forever. Literally four years later it was Kobe and Shaq surrounded by Karl Malone looking like he was 90, Slava Medvedenko, and on and on.

My stance on Curry is that he's great, but he's not one of the best of all time IF you make him be an athlete. Second tier? Top 20, maybe even fringe top 10? Sure.

But take that 01 Sixers team… you have a guy like Iverson who at the very least can be quick enough to make Curry come underneath his initial far launch point, then you had the kind of quick defenders that could force him further and further down..

Forcing the idea of "look, we'll overplay your shot at any cost from three, but if you just go closer to the basket, NOW you'll be open. Then they continue to force that idea more so and more so, until you are open but you've got Dikembe Motumbo waiting for you. That's how teams played Jordan… the problem was he was 6'6" with unparalleled quickness for his size, elite leaping ability and the strength of a big man… so a lot of centers got dunked on.

Were he playing a very strong team with a big time center, the game plan would be to "make him be an athlete.. make his only opening be near the rim, but then use Patrick Ewing or Dikembe Motumbo or a young Tim Duncan to say "look, you can't DUNK on us, so you're going to have to resort to those giant killers."

I'm telling you, you may say "that won't work, Curry is the bomb" and that's fine. But that's what teams are going to inevitably try to do if this league has ANY credibility.. and I don't doubt there are players in this league.. I doubt if the right players are together on individual teams in this league.

If they try it and all the sudden you're hearing how Curry is still doing it… 4 years from now we could be having a different conversation. And I never said that about Kobe Bryant or Lebron James after only one title. I was much more skeptical.

Monta is beast
03-15-2016, 03:24 AM
Its funny how people think it would be easy to stop curry if he were in a different era or if coaches played him differently.

Curry is shooting the 5th best percentage in the paint, the top 4 on that list are all atleast 6"10. So i think its fair to say he's the best guard near the rim.

He owns anything outside the arc, i dont need to explain that. His release is so quick he hasn't had a 3 attempt blocked all season.

His dribble makes it so if you pick him up early he'll get right past you everytime.

Let me just recap that real quick. He's the best guard in the paint, best shooter in the history of the game, arguably best handle in the history of the game. Yall wanna make it so the rules make curry what he is. Everyone right now has the same rules why arent they doing what curry is? I watch every game curry dont get the whistle like an mvp should. This dude is an all time great and imo will go down as the best to ever do it.

Monta is beast
03-15-2016, 03:32 AM
Men lie, women lie...numbers dont lie. Curry is putting together what has never been done before. Not jordan, magic, lebron anybody.

MonroeFAN
03-15-2016, 05:08 AM
GSW wins in 4 by an average of 20 PPG.

MonroeFAN
03-15-2016, 05:19 AM
This is for all intensive purposes tied for the best season that I have seen by a player.

http://i.imgur.com/GEYXg.jpg

IBleedPurple
03-15-2016, 06:29 AM
This is for all intensive purposes tied for the best season that I have seen by a player.For all intents and purposes. If you are getting intensive on Curry, lower your flag.

ewing
03-15-2016, 08:06 AM
^^^

JasonJohnHorn
03-15-2016, 09:07 AM
I'm going to respond like this isn't a troll thread.


First and foremost, NOBODY on the 76ers was as efficient as GSW's top 4 or 5 scores, but I think what people seem to overlook is the fact that GSW is also one of the very best defensive teams in the last 20 years. Yes, the pace of the game they play means teams score triple digits, and no, Bogut is not the defender that Mutumbo was, but IS a very good defender, and Green is arguably the most versatile defender in this league.

Iggy is also one of the best wing defenders of his generation.

On top of that, both Klay and Curry are very good defenders.

Now, the 76ers had some stronger defenders as well: Mutumbo, Hill, McKie and Snow, but with Iverson chasing down steals and taking gambles, he often left his teammates to pick up his mess, and with the ball movement that the Warriors have, that means easy buckets, many of them 3's.

Anybody who says the Sixers would kill the Warriors in the paint is smoking crack or is willfully blind. The Sixers had no post scorers. None. Mutumbo (one of my fav players all time) had no post game to speak of. Hill had some moves, but nothing that would scare either Bogut our Green. Not to mention the fact that the Sixer's defensive strengths would be a moot point against the Warriors because they don't rely on post scoring at all. Neither do they need guys driving to the hoop. They thrive on the three-ball. Mutumbo and Hill woulnd't be stopping that, and Curry (6'3) would be shooting over Iverson's (6'0) head, and Klay (6'7) would be shooting over Snow's (6'3) head. And should you switch those defensive assignments around, Curry would dance around Snow, and Klay would have an even larger edge in terms of the space he'd need to shoot over Iverson. It would literally be like having Barkley post up on Isaiah Thomas.


Now, as to the 3-ball, Iverson and Mad Max led the Sixers in 3pt attempts that season. Neither shot over .320. That means that their best 3pt shooters wouldn't even rank in the top 10 players in that series for 3pt shooting. Can you imagine facing a team that has TEN 3pt shooters who are ALL better than your best 3pth shooter?



And no, Mutumbo and Hill's rebounding won't be a difference maker. Both are better rebounders than anybody on the Warriors, but the Warriors are one of the best rebounding teams in the league. Everybody chips in. Klay and Curry would likely end up with twice as many rebounds as Iverson and Snow.


This isn't a question of who would win the series; it's not even a question of how many games it would take. GSW in 4.

The only question here would be: how large would the average margin of victory be?

My guess is that it would be no smaller than 25 points a game.

Alayla
03-15-2016, 10:27 AM
I'm going to respond like this isn't a troll thread.


First and foremost, NOBODY on the 76ers was as efficient as GSW's top 4 or 5 scores, but I think what people seem to overlook is the fact that GSW is also one of the very best defensive teams in the last 20 years. Yes, the pace of the game they play means teams score triple digits, and no, Bogut is not the defender that Mutumbo was, but IS a very good defender, and Green is arguably the most versatile defender in this league.

Iggy is also one of the best wing defenders of his generation.

On top of that, both Klay and Curry are very good defenders.

Now, the 76ers had some stronger defenders as well: Mutumbo, Hill, McKie and Snow, but with Iverson chasing down steals and taking gambles, he often left his teammates to pick up his mess, and with the ball movement that the Warriors have, that means easy buckets, many of them 3's.

Anybody who says the Sixers would kill the Warriors in the paint is smoking crack or is willfully blind. The Sixers had no post scorers. None. Mutumbo (one of my fav players all time) had no post game to speak of. Hill had some moves, but nothing that would scare either Bogut our Green. Not to mention the fact that the Sixer's defensive strengths would be a moot point against the Warriors because they don't rely on post scoring at all. Neither do they need guys driving to the hoop. They thrive on the three-ball. Mutumbo and Hill woulnd't be stopping that, and Curry (6'3) would be shooting over Iverson's (6'0) head, and Klay (6'7) would be shooting over Snow's (6'3) head. And should you switch those defensive assignments around, Curry would dance around Snow, and Klay would have an even larger edge in terms of the space he'd need to shoot over Iverson. It would literally be like having Barkley post up on Isaiah Thomas.


Now, as to the 3-ball, Iverson and Mad Max led the Sixers in 3pt attempts that season. Neither shot over .320. That means that their best 3pt shooters wouldn't even rank in the top 10 players in that series for 3pt shooting. Can you imagine facing a team that has TEN 3pt shooters who are ALL better than your best 3pth shooter?



And no, Mutumbo and Hill's rebounding won't be a difference maker. Both are better rebounders than anybody on the Warriors, but the Warriors are one of the best rebounding teams in the league. Everybody chips in. Klay and Curry would likely end up with twice as many rebounds as Iverson and Snow.


This isn't a question of who would win the series; it's not even a question of how many games it would take. GSW in 4.

The only question here would be: how large would the average margin of victory be?

My guess is that it would be no smaller than 25 points a game.

Right.

TheMightyHumph
03-15-2016, 03:23 PM
care to explain with the x's and o's as to why you're on the band wagon and don't understand the game.

You're a funny kid.

Chronz
03-15-2016, 08:04 PM
Depends, are the Warriors waiting for the Sixers to finish off far inferior teams in 7? Cuz if the Dubs have to rest for a week they will enter G1 rusty and AI can steal that game. Then its a sweep the rest of the way

Jamiecballer
03-15-2016, 08:12 PM
The most troublesome part of this thread is that anyone that knows this much about the '01 Sixers is likely more than 12 years old

Alayla
03-15-2016, 08:54 PM
Depends, are the Warriors waiting for the Sixers to finish off far inferior teams in 7? Cuz if the Dubs have to rest for a week they will enter G1 rusty and AI can steal that game. Then its a sweep the rest of the way

If this was meant to reference the actual 2001 season ... you realize the 76ers where underdogs in every series that season right? like literally every round people predicted Philly gets knocked out.
That being said GS Smashes this series 4-0 in any situation no way in hell philly steals a game.

Chronz
03-15-2016, 09:14 PM
If this was meant to reference the actual 2001 season ... you realize the 76ers where underdogs in every series that season right? like literally every round people predicted Philly gets knocked out.
That being said GS Smashes this series 4-0 in any situation no way in hell philly steals a game.
They were favored every round from what i remember and if they weren't they should've been. It's very rare when the 1 seed is the underdog in literally every round, particularly when the team wins every award there is to win. Despite their accolades and talent, they were pushed to elimination in every round and needed some negligent reffing to get past Milwaukee.

dizbeanil
03-15-2016, 09:57 PM
People forget how great a player iverson was. His personality and off court antics is the reason why he is disliked. In today's nba he would be right up there

JasonJohnHorn
03-15-2016, 10:42 PM
If this was meant to reference the actual 2001 season ... you realize the 76ers where underdogs in every series that season right? like literally every round people predicted Philly gets knocked out.
That being said GS Smashes this series 4-0 in any situation no way in hell philly steals a game.


Um... they had homecourt though to the finals. This sounds like revisionist history to me. Underdogs in every series? So they were the underdogs as the first seed playing the 8th seed?

JasonJohnHorn
03-15-2016, 10:48 PM
People forget how great a player iverson was. His personality and off court antics is the reason why he is disliked. In today's nba he would be right up there

On this site, I find that it is not that people forget how 'great' he was; they overrate how great he was.


Consider this. That season, Iverson averaged 31 points a game playing 42 minutes, taking 25 FGA, AND using several other possession to draw fouls to get to the line.

Curry is scoring 30 points (one less), and taking five fewer shots per game and getting it done in 34 minutes.


As for Iverson being 'right up there' today; he wouldn't be. He'd be eaten alive by the likes of CP3, Curry, and Westy. If you see him as a shooting guard, he'd have guys like Klay shooting over him without even having to create much space, which was already a problem for him when he played.

I love Iverson's heart, and he was a great playmaker when he wanted to be, but he was a gloryhound/ballhog that was a liability on D. Defense is SO important today. It was important then, but teams/coaches evaluate players with advance stats defensively, and Iverson would struggle to get the kind of touches he got in Philly on most teams today, with the exception, coincidently, of Philly.

Alayla
03-15-2016, 11:16 PM
Um... they had homecourt though to the finals. This sounds like revisionist history to me. Underdogs in every series? So they were the underdogs as the first seed playing the 8th seed?

Go do some research on the subject no one considered them a serious contender.
The Pacers had knocked them out 2 seasons in a row in the 2nd round and where seen as a brick wall the team couldn't pass.
Don't forget the pacers where in the 2000 Finals

Then there was the Carter Iverson match up where everyone was convinced Iverson would be utterly destroyed Due to the difference in size the national media hyped the hell out of Toronto until the last couple games in the series especially since Toronto often doubled and even at times tripled Iverson on the catch. They and the media both had the perspective that if you beat Iverson you beat the Sixers because he's to selfish to pass the ball Larry Brown talked to Iverson mid series about sharing the basketball to take advantage of the attention he was demanding. Iverson did exactly that dropping 16 assists in the last game of the series.
By the time the Bucks game came around Injuries where a major issue for the team many of the same ones that worsened by the time they got to LA
http://a.espncdn.com/nba/playoffs2001/2001/0612/1213013.html
Then of course for good reason the popular expectation for the NBA finals was a sweep but as we all know and admit Philly stole one game.
So yes they where underdogs throughout.

JasonJohnHorn
03-16-2016, 12:07 AM
Go do some research on the subject no one considered them a serious contender.
The Pacers had knocked them out 2 seasons in a row in the 2nd round and where seen as a brick wall the team couldn't pass.
Don't forget the pacers where in the 2000 Finals

Then there was the Carter Iverson match up where everyone was convinced Iverson would be utterly destroyed Due to the difference in size the national media hyped the hell out of Toronto until the last couple games in the series especially since Toronto often doubled and even at times tripled Iverson on the catch. They and the media both had the perspective that if you beat Iverson you beat the Sixers because he's to selfish to pass the ball Larry Brown talked to Iverson mid series about sharing the basketball to take advantage of the attention he was demanding. Iverson did exactly that dropping 16 assists in the last game of the series.
By the time the Bucks game came around Injuries where a major issue for the team many of the same ones that worsened by the time they got to LA
http://a.espncdn.com/nba/playoffs2001/2001/0612/1213013.html
Then of course for good reason the popular expectation for the NBA finals was a sweep but as we all know and admit Philly stole one game.
So yes they where underdogs throughout.

I watched every Toronto game in the post season that year; people were going on about how this was Iverson's best chance. The Bucks were a joke (as was most of the east). People were droning on about how weak the east was and how easy it should be for the Sixers. The addition of Mutumbo was viewed as a move that put the Sixers over the top (like the Pistons getting Sheed).

The Raptors had no playoff experience. The Pacers were an 8th seed. I have NEVER, even when the 8th seed won, EVER heard of an 8th seed being a 'favorite' in any series in sports, let along in the NBA, let alone that year. Their back up C was almost 40; their SG was 35. They'd lost Mark Jackson and Dale Davis. They were hardly the same team they had the year before. They didn't even have the same coach, and though they played well the first half of the season, they lost SO many games in the second half of the season that they dropped from first or second at the All-Star game to a .500 club by the end of the season who just barely got into the playoffs. I don't remember anybody saying the Pacers were the favorites.

And I remember quick specifically that the Raptors were considered underdogs by anybody outside of Toronto. The fact that it went 7 games shocked most people.

And if you want links, here you go: http://a.espncdn.com/nba/news/2001/0222/1101977.html

ESPN: First line "The Philadelphia 76ers hope they traded for an NBA championship Thursday". That is a pretty high expectation.

"The Sixers believe the 7-foot-2 Mutombo, 34, will match up well against the Western Conference's big, elite centers -- particularly the Los Angeles Lakers' Shaquille O'Neill". The implication being that THEY'D GET TO THE FINALS!!



But whatever. Iverson won MVP + led the league in scoring; Mutumbo won DPOY and led the league in rebounding; McKie won 6th man of the year; they had the best record in the East, and people were fawning over the Mutumbo aquisition, but they were expected to lose in round one to a team that hadn't played .500 ball since before the All-Star break and had lost several key players.

Right.

Jamiecballer
03-16-2016, 09:33 AM
People forget how great a player iverson was. His personality and off court antics is the reason why he is disliked. In today's nba he would be right up there
In today's NBA he would be right up there waving the towel on the bench is more likely.

KingPosey
03-16-2016, 10:35 AM
Obviously the Bulls are going to be the most asked about era match up with these Warriors, but the funnest match up for me to think about of all time, and a team I legitimately think would beat this warriors team is not a title winner.

I wish so bad I could see these Warriors play the 01-02 Kings

Monta is beast
03-16-2016, 02:10 PM
^warriors in 5 or 6. Draymond on webber bogs on divac and that kinda solves itself. No one has an answer for curry. Not really a good choice of team imo.

Hawkeye15
03-16-2016, 02:42 PM
^warriors in 5 or 6. Draymond on webber bogs on divac and that kinda solves itself. No one has an answer for curry. Not really a good choice of team imo.

The Kings would have made the Warriors go bigger though, which is a wrinkle for them. Those Kings teams were very good. I think the Warriors win that series in 6 though.

Would Doug Christie guard Curry? That is how I try and do it if I am Adelman, and slide Peja onto Klay.

Hawkeye15
03-16-2016, 02:44 PM
Outside the Bulls, the one team I would love to see matched up with the current Warriors is the 86' Celtics. That would be an awesome series.

TheIlladelph16
03-16-2016, 03:28 PM
The Sixers basically got ran off the floor against an inferior Lakers team (compared to the current Warriors). They wouldn't stand a chance and would be lucky to sneak a single win in.

JasonJohnHorn
03-16-2016, 03:43 PM
Outside the Bulls, the one team I would love to see matched up with the current Warriors is the 86' Celtics. That would be an awesome series.

The '86 Celts would be great, as would the 96 Bulls.

The team I'd like to see them play is either of Hakeem's rockets teams (94/95). I think the 95 team would match up better with the Warriors.

That would be a sweet match-up. Hakeem vs. Curry. Deep three-point shooting on both teams, great defenders all over the floor. Versatile wing players.

JordansBulls
03-17-2016, 09:06 PM
Sixers went 7 games in back to back series in 2001 and won game 7 by 1 point at home against a mid 40+ win team. No chance against the Warriors.

Miltstar
03-17-2016, 09:56 PM
Warriors in 4

KingPosey
03-18-2016, 02:27 PM
^warriors in 5 or 6. Draymond on webber bogs on divac and that kinda solves itself. No one has an answer for curry. Not really a good choice of team imo.

Dreymond on Webber and Bogut on Vlade is your "lock it up"? Webber would be bad news for him in every way offensively and vlade isn't getting shut down by bogut, especially because he doesn't need to score to produce. Hed take bogut up to the high post away from the basket and distribute on him all day long.

Youre so wrong. Bibby isn't curry but hed score plenty, Christie or bobby Jackson were a better on ball defenders than anyone on GSW and could give either guard fits. Whos guarding Peja in this scenario? Ya youre crazy to just dismiss them and clearly don't remember much about them.

They have plenty of "answers" for Steph. Now steph will probably be the best player on the court at all times but that's a silly and dismissive statement.

KingPosey
03-18-2016, 02:30 PM
The Kings would have made the Warriors go bigger though, which is a wrinkle for them. Those Kings teams were very good. I think the Warriors win that series in 6 though.

Would Doug Christie guard Curry? That is how I try and do it if I am Adelman, and slide Peja onto Klay.

Bobby Jackson was an elite on ball defender too so you could run Christie and him at their back court all night long.

What makes it so interesting is the King's wouldn't have to go small to run and move the ball. Webber and Vlade are possibly the two best passing bigs of all time, Brad Miller was great out of the high post as well. If you HAD to go small, Peja was almost 6'10" and could stretch the **** out of them while CWebb plays the 5.

I guess I should have said the King's easily COULD win that series not WOULD win it. But other than saying "duuhhhhh but steph curry" IM interested in people looking at the actual match up and saying its not a highly questionable match up.

Hawkeye15
03-18-2016, 02:49 PM
Bobby Jackson was an elite on ball defender too so you could run Christie and him at their back court all night long.

What makes it so interesting is the King's wouldn't have to go small to run and move the ball. Webber and Vlade are possibly the two best passing bigs of all time, Brad Miller was great out of the high post as well. If you HAD to go small, Peja was almost 6'10" and could stretch the **** out of them while CWebb plays the 5.

I guess I should have said the King's easily COULD win that series not WOULD win it. But other than saying "duuhhhhh but steph curry" IM interested in people looking at the actual match up and saying its not a highly questionable match up.

I wouldn't call Jackson an elite on the ball defender dude.

The Kings front line was big, but played out of the paint mostly. I don't think they had the defense to be able to stop GS. They were a great passing team, and ran a corner 3 offense that was very tough to guard due to spacing. But the Warriors are even better at what the Kings were good at, and the Kings would have no ability to stop the Warriors perimeter scorers, outside Christie, but who is he guarding?

Chronz
03-18-2016, 02:55 PM
The Sixers basically got ran off the floor against an inferior Lakers team (compared to the current Warriors). They wouldn't stand a chance and would be lucky to sneak a single win in.

Not buying this inferiority. Those Lakers sport the best post season record of all-time, Im not gonna hold alil internal strife/injuries during the less meaningful regular season game against them given their cast.

TheIlladelph16
03-18-2016, 02:58 PM
Not buying this inferiority. Those Lakers sport the best post season record of all-time, Im not gonna hold alil internal strife/injuries during the less meaningful regular season game against them given their cast.

I mean it's certainly subjective to some degree. I just think the Warriors are the best team I've seen since the early 90's Bulls teams. Not to say those Lakers teams weren't close (having two top 10 players ever will do that haha), just not quite as good as the Warriors currently are. Wouldn't really disagree with you if you feel the opposite on that.

Either way, that Sixers team is getting swept out of the gym by the current Warriors.

Monta is beast
03-18-2016, 06:57 PM
Vlade ans bogs are the same player, vlade could score better but basically tje same. Bogs is a betyer defender. And c webb would not own draymond in any way. I give a slight edge to c webb with that one. And theres plenty of elite defenders that have tried to stop curry that are better than doug christie and moke bibby and it hasnt worked. Warriors in 5 or 6. That team was really good not great. Warriors are an all time great team

basch152
03-18-2016, 11:39 PM
Vlade ans bogs are the same player, vlade could score better but basically tje same. Bogs is a betyer defender. And c webb would not own draymond in any way. I give a slight edge to c webb with that one. And theres plenty of elite defenders that have tried to stop curry that are better than doug christie and moke bibby and it hasnt worked. Warriors in 5 or 6. That team was really good not great. Warriors are an all time great team

You give a slight edge to webber?

Webber had one of the best primes we've seen from a PF, and you could easily argue he had one of if not thr most complete game we've ever seen from the position.

It would be about as bad to have prime duncan against green and going, "eh, duncan is only a little bit better, no CLEAR advantage".

JasonJohnHorn
03-19-2016, 09:06 AM
Not buying this inferiority. Those Lakers sport the best post season record of all-time, Im not gonna hold alil internal strife/injuries during the less meaningful regular season game against them given their cast.

Coming from a guy who hated that Lakers team, and thought they got a LOT of help from the officials in 00 and 02, even I have to concede that the 01 Lakers squad was amazing. They went up a tough match-up for Shaq in every series: Sabonis and the Blazers (one of the best 8th seeds ever), the Kings (who were one year removed from one of the best rosters every), and the Spurs, who had Duncan and D-Rob, both in great health and playing solid ball on both sides of the court: Duncan entering his prime years, and D-Rob just coming off his). Then he goes into the finals and meets Mutmbo, perhaps the best post defender of all time?


To go 16-1..... that roster was amazing. Horry. Grant. Fisher, Shaw. Harper. Fox. That is a great supporting cast to put around Shaq and Kobe. I think this roster would lose to the current Warriors team, but it'd be a helluva series, and neither team would be 'inferior'.

Though they'd stand a better chance if they still had Glen Rice.

IamAlwaysRight
03-20-2016, 03:24 PM
Looks like Sixers would probably beat the Warriors in a series especially with homecourt advantage.

Everyone now knows that good defense owns the sorry warriors. Spurs owned the warriors by 8 points 87-79. Spurs only shot 42% for the game and still won by 8 points which is about 12% better than the warriors. That is a blowout.