PDA

View Full Version : All-Time teams: Is GSW now on the Lakers/Celtics level?



valade16
02-08-2017, 06:54 PM
Generally when people talk about all-time teams two stand head and shoulders above the rest:

Los Angeles Lakers
Boston Celtics

The Lakers have Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Wilt Chamberlain (albeit older), James Worthy, Pau Gasol, and Gail Goodrich among many others.

The Celtics have Larry Bird, Bill Russell, John Havlicek, Kevin McHale, Paul Pierce, Robert Parish, Dave Cowens, Kevin Garnett (albeit older), Ray Allen (albeit older), Dennis Johnson and Sam Jones among many others.


My question is, have the Golden State Warriors had enough talent roll through that they are now comparable?

Steph Curry / Tim Hardaway
Chris Mullin / Klay Thompson / Mitch Richmond
Kevin Durant / Rick Barry
Draymond Green / Jamaal Wilkes
Wilt Chamberlain / Nate Thurmond

And that is not including several old-timers like Paul Arizin, Neil Johnston, and the great Jumpin' Joe Fulks.

Simple question: Would that team measure up to the all-time Lakers and/or Celtics teams?

(Shout-out to the all-time 76ers, which also have a very good team with Wilt Chamberlain, Moses Malone, Charles Barkley, Dr. J, Allen Iverson, Bobby Jones, Hal Greer, Maurice Cheeks, Billy Cunningham, etc.)

Shammyguy3
02-08-2017, 06:59 PM
Generally when people talk about all-time teams two stand head and shoulders above the rest:

Los Angeles Lakers
Boston Celtics

The Lakers have Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Wilt Chamberlain (albeit older), James Worthy, Pau Gasol, and Gail Goodrich among many others.

The Celtics have Larry Bird, Bill Russell, John Havlicek, Kevin McHale, Paul Pierce, Robert Parish, Dave Cowens, Kevin Garnett (albeit older), Ray Allen (albeit older), Dennis Johnson and Sam Jones among many others.


My question is, have the Golden State Warriors had enough talent roll through that they are now comparable?

Steph Curry / Tim Hardaway
Chris Mullin / Klay Thompson / Mitch Richmond
Kevin Durant / Rick Barry
Draymond Green / Jamaal Wilkes
Wilt Chamberlain / Nate Thurmond

And that is not including several old-timers like Paul Arizin, Neil Johnston, and the great Jumpin' Joe Fulks.

Simple question: Would that team measure up to the all-time Lakers and/or Celtics teams?

(Shout-out to the all-time 76ers, which also have a very good team with Wilt Chamberlain, Moses Malone, Charles Barkley, Dr. J, Allen Iverson, Bobby Jones, Hal Greer, Maurice Cheeks, Billy Cunningham, etc.)

Rick Barry starts over Mullin ;)

HandsOnTheWheel
02-08-2017, 08:28 PM
Yes.

tredigs
02-08-2017, 09:42 PM
KD would have to re-sign to guarantee it (i don't count rentals, even if in their prime) but yeah for sure if so. Having an All time Great/perreniel 1st Teamer who had arguably the best "1 Man Show" for a title (along with 94 Dream/03 Duncan imo) on the bench is a signifier.

Saying something + strange for such a franchise of dismal success. But I guess the fact that the story is to be written for half the squad plays a part in that.

FlashBolt
02-08-2017, 10:11 PM
gotta win first. On paper, they are the most talented IMO.

ManRam
02-09-2017, 12:01 AM
They won 73 games and then added a former MVP. If the winning comes, it's as talented as it gets...so yes.

LakersEaglesLA
02-09-2017, 01:12 AM
I would need to see a Dynasty, both Lakers and Celtics had multiple Dynasties

Shlumpledink
02-09-2017, 06:00 AM
Nope

Magic
Bryant
Cooper
Worthy
Shaq

Dominate


DJ
Pierce
Bird
McHale/Garnett
Russell

are too much.

The dynasties of both those all time teams were won because of phenomenal players.

In time though, more ring chasers will glom onto the Warriors so they will have a fun team to draw players from. It will be fun to see the coming years as they rack up championships/finals appearances which lead to more big names coming (even though some may be too old to be at their best)

Shlumpledink
02-09-2017, 06:11 AM
What about Houston?

Calvin Murphy?/John Lucas?/Steve Francis?/Kyle Lowry?/Kenny Smith?/Goran Dragic? Yikes, a lot of goods but not greats.
Harden/Drexler
McGrady/Pippen/Artest
Barkley/Ralph Sampson/Elvin Hayes
Hakeem/Moses Malone/Yao

ewing
02-09-2017, 09:03 AM
^^^ this guy said Steve Francis


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mightybosstone
02-09-2017, 09:08 AM
In terms of sheer talent across the board of all the players who have ever played for the franchise, no. Hell, I could probably name several franchises who have had more talent over the last 50 or so years than the Warriors. In addition to Boston and LA, I would put Philly and Houston ahead of the Warriors.

Ask yourself this question: not accounting for the players on this team, how many guys from that franchise would you say are in the top 50 all-time discussion? Pretty much just Barry and Wilt, right? If we extend it to 100, maybe Mullin and Thurmond sneak in. But I take a look at those other franchises, and they're stacked with guys who would be in that conversation.

Vinylman
02-09-2017, 10:15 AM
Seriously

This is laughable beyond belief.

off the top of my head HOF for the lakers that aren't on your list

Adrian Dantley, Bob McAdoo, Jamaal Wilkes, Spencer Haywood, Vern Mikkelsen, George Mikan, Clyde Lovellette


Draymond Green? LMFAO

mightybosstone
02-09-2017, 10:32 AM
^^^ this guy said Steve Francis


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why is that so funny? You realize that peak Steve Francis was a 21/6/6/1 player, right? He was a 3-time All Star. I'm not saying that's amazing or anything, but he's probably the No. 2 or No. 3 PG. There are a lot of franchises who would be lucky to have him as their second or third greatest all-time PG.

ManRam
02-09-2017, 10:43 AM
They won 73 games and then added a former MVP. If the winning comes, it's as talented as it gets...so yes.

I should have actually read the OP. Thought he was talking about this current team stacking up with the all-time greats. Obviously if you collect all the talent on the Lakers and Celtics respectively, the Warriors don't stack up.

Vinylman
02-09-2017, 10:48 AM
I should have actually read the OP. Thought he was talking about this current team stacking up with the all-time greats. Obviously if you collect all the talent on the Lakers and Celtics respectively, the Warriors don't stack up.

yeah... your post had me totally confused LOL

And I agree... talent wise their current team would stack up easily to any of the best of those other teams... until they win multiple championships though they aren't as good

Hawkeye15
02-09-2017, 11:18 AM
at a single time? Yes, the Warriors talent stacks up against any single collection of talent at a single point in time, another team can put together. But overall? Hell to the no. Celtics/Lakers are far better, especially Lakers. Just putting a 12 man team together for the Lakers leaves off probably 10ish HOF'ers

valade16
02-09-2017, 12:26 PM
What about Houston?

Calvin Murphy?/John Lucas?/Steve Francis?/Kyle Lowry?/Kenny Smith?/Goran Dragic? Yikes, a lot of goods but not greats.
Harden/Drexler
McGrady/Pippen/Artest
Barkley/Ralph Sampson/Elvin Hayes
Hakeem/Moses Malone/Yao

I think the top all-time teams are probably Lakers, Celtics, Warriors, 76ers, Rockets, Pistons, Spurs and possibly the Heat (not necessarily in that order)

If you're going Houston you have to go Harden, Clyde, T-Mac in the backcourt/wings I think. Pippen and Barkley were both old shells of their former selves so they shouldn't be starting.

valade16
02-09-2017, 12:33 PM
Nope

Magic
Bryant
Cooper
Worthy
Shaq

Dominate


DJ
Pierce
Bird
McHale/Garnett
Russell

are too much.

The dynasties of both those all time teams were won because of phenomenal players.

In time though, more ring chasers will glom onto the Warriors so they will have a fun team to draw players from. It will be fun to see the coming years as they rack up championships/finals appearances which lead to more big names coming (even though some may be too old to be at their best)

I'm interested to know why your starting unit for the Lakers features cooper and Worthy at PF? Mine would likely be:

Magic
West
Kobe
Kareem
Shaq

valade16
02-09-2017, 12:37 PM
at a single time? Yes, the Warriors talent stacks up against any single collection of talent at a single point in time, another team can put together. But overall? Hell to the no. Celtics/Lakers are far better, especially Lakers. Just putting a 12 man team together for the Lakers leaves off probably 10ish HOF'ers

And that's what I'm asking, a 12 man team. Obviously the depth of the Lakers is unparalleled but it's hard to imagine a team with Curry/KD/Barry/Wilt not being able to compete with any other starting unit that steps on the floor. Lakers probably still win just because they are loaded beyond belief (IMO far more than the Celtics even), but GS has a stacked team now as well.

Hawkeye15
02-09-2017, 12:47 PM
And that's what I'm asking, a 12 man team. Obviously the depth of the Lakers is unparalleled but it's hard to imagine a team with Curry/KD/Barry/Wilt not being able to compete with any other starting unit that steps on the floor. Lakers probably still win just because they are loaded beyond belief (IMO far more than the Celtics even), but GS has a stacked team now as well.

I don't think the Warriors have the bigs to be able to keep up. Even with Wilt, the depth of the Celtics/Lakers frontcourt lineups just pummels anything in site.

valade16
02-09-2017, 01:41 PM
I don't think the Warriors have the bigs to be able to keep up. Even with Wilt, the depth of the Celtics/Lakers frontcourt lineups just pummels anything in site.

PF would be problematic though the Lakers don't have a ton of big PFs outside Pau which is why many iterations I see have Kareem playing that position.

I mean, the Warriors also have Nate Thurmond, who was no slouch and was probably one of the top 5-10 best defensive Centers ever.

What's interesting is everybody talks about how offenses today are so much better and the 3pt shooting makes it so much easier, and it's so much more efficient etc. then as soon as people start talking all-time nobody cares about that.

Would a team with Magic/Kobe/Kareem/Shaq even be able to function against zones of today (relatively) considering they have near zero 3pt shooting? How would that affect them?

Hawkeye15
02-09-2017, 01:50 PM
PF would be problematic though the Lakers don't have a ton of big PFs outside Pau which is why many iterations I see have Kareem playing that position.

I mean, the Warriors also have Nate Thurmond, who was no slouch and was probably one of the top 5-10 best defensive Centers ever.

What's interesting is everybody talks about how offenses today are so much better and the 3pt shooting makes it so much easier, and it's so much more efficient etc. then as soon as people start talking all-time nobody cares about that.

Would a team with Magic/Kobe/Kareem/Shaq even be able to function against zones of today (relatively) considering they have near zero 3pt shooting? How would that affect them?

the biggest issue trying to go head to head across era's, is the game changes. For instance, we both know Kobe, and Magic, would have worked much harder, and been much better, from long range in today's game, since it demands it. And vice versa, the bigs from today would have more post skills if you sent them back 20 years.

So, we then need to ask, how good would player A be in era B? Or, what players would dominate any era?

I find it personally hard to believe, Steph Curry would dominate the slow down grind of the early 90's for example. Would he still be really good? Sure he would. But MVP level? Nah

Someone like Shaq? LeBron? MJ? Duncan? Dominate any era, any rules..

PhillySportFan
02-09-2017, 02:02 PM
I mean talent wise for sure, they have to do the winning those teams did to match their legacies though.

Vinylman
02-09-2017, 02:56 PM
PF would be problematic though the Lakers don't have a ton of big PFs outside Pau which is why many iterations I see have Kareem playing that position.

I mean, the Warriors also have Nate Thurmond, who was no slouch and was probably one of the top 5-10 best defensive Centers ever.

What's interesting is everybody talks about how offenses today are so much better and the 3pt shooting makes it so much easier, and it's so much more efficient etc. then as soon as people start talking all-time nobody cares about that.

Would a team with Magic/Kobe/Kareem/Shaq even be able to function against zones of today (relatively) considering they have near zero 3pt shooting? How would that affect them?

ummm.... wrong

Maurice Lucas, Bob McAdoo, spencer Hayward, Mychal Thompson and since you are adding guys that weren't on the Warriors long periods we can add rodman, Horace grant, etc... etc... etc...

If you are so convinced that you can put an all time 12 together that is close to the Lakers lets see it...

It isn't even close especially when you got a guy like Wilkes on your list who had his best years in LA... Wilkes doesn't even make the top 12 Lakers

valade16
02-09-2017, 03:12 PM
ummm.... wrong

Maurice Lucas, Bob McAdoo, spencer Hayward, Mychal Thompson and since you are adding guys that weren't on the Warriors long periods we can add rodman, Horace grant, etc... etc... etc...

If you are so convinced that you can put an all time 12 together that is close to the Lakers lets see it...

It isn't even close especially when you got a guy like Wilkes on your list who had his best years in LA... Wilkes doesn't even make the top 12 Lakers

McAdoo and Thompson were primarily Centers and McAdoo was also incredibly skinny and not very tall for a C (6'9" 210 lbs), not to mention McAdoo didn't arrive on the Lakers until he was 30 and not near his prime days.

Jamaal Wilkes was 6'6" and played primarily SF not PF. The years he won titles with the Lakers it was Jim Chones at PF and him at SF.

Maurice Lucas played 1 season at 33 with the Lakers and averaged 10 PPG and 7 RPG; not scared of old Lucas.

Spencer Haywood played 1 season with LA and averaged 9 PPG and left the NBA for Italy he next season.

I'm not sure if you understand the question, you only get them as good as they were on that team, meaning if you pick Rodman you get 37 year old Rodman who averaged 2 PPG...

So I'll ask again, how many top tier players played PF in their prime in LA? Pau. After that it's all older guys or SF/PF hybrids like Wilkes or Odom.

ewing
02-09-2017, 03:14 PM
Why is that so funny? You realize that peak Steve Francis was a 21/6/6/1 player, right? He was a 3-time All Star. I'm not saying that's amazing or anything, but he's probably the No. 2 or No. 3 PG. There are a lot of franchises who would be lucky to have him as their second or third greatest all-time PG.

He was an overrated ball dominate slob


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Vinylman
02-09-2017, 03:30 PM
McAdoo and Thompson were primarily Centers and McAdoo was also incredibly skinny and not very tall for a C (6'9" 210 lbs), not to mention McAdoo didn't arrive on the Lakers until he was 30 and not near his prime days.

Jamaal Wilkes was 6'6" and played primarily SF not PF. The years he won titles with the Lakers it was Jim Chones at PF and him at SF.

Maurice Lucas played 1 season at 33 with the Lakers and averaged 10 PPG and 7 RPG; not scared of old Lucas.

Spencer Haywood played 1 season with LA and averaged 9 PPG and left the NBA for Italy he next season.

I'm not sure if you understand the question, you only get them as good as they were on that team, meaning if you pick Rodman you get 37 year old Rodman who averaged 2 PPG...

So I'll ask again, how many top tier players played PF in their prime in LA? Pau. After that it's all older guys or SF/PF hybrids like Wilkes or Odom.

I would take any of those guys over Draymond Green and Wilkes (the guys you listed)...

all of a sudden Wilkes isn't a PF except on the GS listing... got it

Also, if those are your PF's ... I would easily take AD and MWP to go up against them...

fwiw... Jim Chones played on one Lakers championship and two years total Wilkes won other Chips without him despite your contention... McAdoo was used at the 4 on the Lakers

but like I said... that is all irrelevant... I would take any of those guys against a guy like Draymond...

valade16
02-09-2017, 03:39 PM
I would take any of those guys over Draymond Green and Wilkes (the guys you listed)...

all of a sudden Wilkes isn't a PF except on the GS listing... got it

Also, if those are your PF's ... I would easily take AD and MWP to go up against them...

fwiw... Jim Chones played on one Lakers championship and two years total Wilkes won other Chips without him despite your contention... McAdoo was used at the 4 on the Lakers

but like I said... that is all irrelevant... I would take any of those guys against a guy like Draymond...

First, I listed Wilkes at PF for GS because they also lack a lot of quality PFa in their history, something I pointed out in an earlier post.

Second, no the Lakers didn't use McAdoo as a PF on the other title team, yes Chones was gone by the 2nd title but the starting Kurt Rambis and Mitch Kupchak at starting PF. McAdoo came off the bench...

Third, I see if your willing to take older Haywood or Thompson it's less to do with this analysis and more to do with your valuation of Draymond Green.

I've already said in an earlier post that I think the Lakers would win. So you're being attacking and argumentative for no reason, apparently it has more to do with your biases than my analysis.

I'd imagine more people would take Dray over a prime Haywood let alone the shell that played for the Lakers.

tredigs
02-09-2017, 03:53 PM
Seriously

This is laughable beyond belief.

off the top of my head HOF for the lakers that aren't on your list

Adrian Dantley, Bob McAdoo, Jamaal Wilkes, Spencer Haywood, Vern Mikkelsen, George Mikan, Clyde Lovellette


Draymond Green? LMFAO

Nothing laughable about Draymond on an All-Time team, specifically as he's the most unselfish player imaginable and would cater to the other superstars offensively. B2b runner up DPOY (who will likely win this year) who can hit 3's, give you 8+ rebounds and 7+ assists a game. Guards PG's in ISO down the stretch off switches, guards Centers in arguably the most impactful lineup of this generation for half quarters+ at a time? Always among the league leaders in RPM. Now making the All-NBA Teams on top of his 1st Team All-D teams. He is an absolute boss, make no mistake about it. You'd have to be an armchair observer to not realize this (granted, I do see that most talking heads nationally don't recognize his massive input, so it's understandable if you don't watch the team a lot to echo those takes).

mightybosstone
02-09-2017, 08:06 PM
He was an overrated ball dominate slob


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:rolleyes: And I'm sure the fact that he was underwhelming in his time in New York has nothing to do with your opinion of him.

YAALREADYKNO
02-09-2017, 11:32 PM
C-Webb>Draymond even though C-Webb was only in GS for 1 season

ewing
02-10-2017, 12:34 AM
:rolleyes: And I'm sure the fact that he was underwhelming in his time in New York has nothing to do with your opinion of him.

I hated him before ny. Houston did well to cut ties. Pgs that do nothing well other the attack the rim are always overrated

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bostncelts34
02-10-2017, 09:45 AM
No....And I don't think playing for a team for 1 or 2 years considers you a "GSW ALL TIME GREAT" or when someone has had their better years in another city. If that's the case as others have said, there have been MANY, MANY players who have rolled into Boston or LA for a couple of years, after having their best years with other teams.

Wilkins,Payton,maravich etc (BOS).

Nash, Malone,Payton etc

Those are just named to add on to all the ones the OP stated, as well as great players not mentioned such as Cousy Parrish,Heinsohn.


GSW players have a ton a talent, I am not denying that. But to compare them to LA or Boston with naming guys like durrant,curry, draymond freaking green against guys who played for a decade with LA and BOS and have multiple DYNASTIES together is just non sense to me.

tredigs
02-10-2017, 10:47 AM
No....And I don't think playing for a team for 1 or 2 years considers you a "GSW ALL TIME GREAT" or when someone has had their better years in another city. If that's the case as others have said, there have been MANY, MANY players who have rolled into Boston or LA for a couple of years, after having their best years with other teams.

Wilkins,Payton,maravich etc (BOS).

Nash, Malone,Payton etc

Those are just named to add on to all the ones the OP stated, as well as great players not mentioned such as Cousy Parrish,Heinsohn.


GSW players have a ton a talent, I am not denying that. But to compare them to LA or Boston with naming guys like durrant,curry, draymond freaking green against guys who played for a decade with LA and BOS and have multiple DYNASTIES together is just non sense to me.
What are you saying here? Nash/Malone/Payton were washed in LA. Payton a rental and in his 15th season. Malone at the same time as a 40 yr old who missed half the year. Nash, done/injured while pushing 40. KD is a current MVP level talent in his peak with prime seasons on the horizon. IF he stays (agreed 1 year is not enough), he will earn a spot on their all time roster. Nash, Payton etc are meaningless comparisons. Ditto Pistol playing 20 games or whatever it was in his final season for Boston.

Draymond aside (I already talked about how underrated he is to casual fans), you mention Curry as some questionable inclusion? Lmfao. He is a b2b MVP/Champion who has played his entire career for their team. And yes Hawk, Curry would be MVP level in the same era where Mark Price was an All-NBA 1st Team level talent. Lol. This ****ing thread. I will say it's clear that LA and Boston are deeper. But at the top it's a debate if KD stays. A lot of MVPs and record setters on that roster. And the accolades/chips will likely add up in the next few years.

bostncelts34
02-10-2017, 11:30 AM
What are you saying here? Nash/Malone/Payton were washed in LA. Payton a rental and in his 15th season. Malone at the same time as a 40 yr old who missed half the year. Nash, done/injured while pushing 40. KD is a current MVP level talent in his peak with prime seasons on the horizon. IF he stays (agreed 1 year is not enough), he will earn a spot on their all time roster. Nash, Payton etc are meaningless comparisons. Ditto Pistol playing 20 games or whatever it was in his final season for Boston.

Draymond aside (I already talked about how underrated he is to casual fans), you mention Curry as some questionable inclusion? Lmfao. He is a b2b MVP/Champion who has played his entire career for their team. And yes Hawk, Curry would be MVP level in the same era where Mark Price was an All-NBA 1st Team level talent. Lol. This ****ing thread. I will say it's clear that LA and Boston are deeper. But at the top it's a debate if KD stays. A lot of MVPs and record setters on that roster. And the accolades/chips will likely add up in the next few years.

I would not put payton, Malone etc on all time LA or BOS either.. My point is that the OP has a guy such as Wilkes on there, who played 3 seasons for GS and 8 for LA, where he clearly had the best season's of his career. You cant include a guy who has 3 seasons in GS, and his best times for another team. That's all. A guy like Durant, is a phenomenal player, but hes played what....52 games for GSW? I would not consider him yet to be on the "GSW ALL TIME LIST" Just my opinion.

My curry " inclusion" was not based off his individuals talent, I grouped him in the thought process of championships, dynasties. Curry has one ring and 2 MVP's. That is impressive for his short amount of time in the league, I agree. However, comparing them to the likes of BOS and LA guys I don't see the comparison at all, nor the argument.

bostncelts34
02-10-2017, 11:41 AM
Im not saying that the GSW all time greats are not amazing players. But to compare them to Russell,Havlicheck,Jabbar,Bird,Kobe,Cousy,Magic,Sh aq,Cooper..... That's 48 Titles and 21 League MVP's of talent just right there.

ewing
02-10-2017, 11:49 AM
What are you saying here? Nash/Malone/Payton were washed in LA. Payton a rental and in his 15th season. Malone at the same time as a 40 yr old who missed half the year. Nash, done/injured while pushing 40. KD is a current MVP level talent in his peak with prime seasons on the horizon. IF he stays (agreed 1 year is not enough), he will earn a spot on their all time roster. Nash, Payton etc are meaningless comparisons. Ditto Pistol playing 20 games or whatever it was in his final season for Boston.

Draymond aside (I already talked about how underrated he is to casual fans), you mention Curry as some questionable inclusion? Lmfao. He is a b2b MVP/Champion who has played his entire career for their team. And yes Hawk, Curry would be MVP level in the same era where Mark Price was an All-NBA 1st Team level talent. Lol. This ****ing thread. I will say it's clear that LA and Boston are deeper. But at the top it's a debate if KD stays. A lot of MVPs and record setters on that roster. And the accolades/chips will likely add up in the next few years.

Healthy Mark Price would have wreaked it in todays league. Guy was lights outs and a demon in pick and roll. He played and shot an a lot like Nash


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

tredigs
02-10-2017, 12:02 PM
I would not put payton, Malone etc on all time LA or BOS either.. My point is that the OP has a guy such as Wilkes on there, who played 3 seasons for GS and 8 for LA, where he clearly had the best season's of his career. You cant include a guy who has 3 seasons in GS, and his best times for another team. That's all. A guy like Durant, is a phenomenal player, but hes played what....52 games for GSW? I would not consider him yet to be on the "GSW ALL TIME LIST" Just my opinion.

My curry " inclusion" was not based off his individuals talent, I grouped him in the thought process of championships, dynasties. Curry has one ring and 2 MVP's. That is impressive for his short amount of time in the league, I agree. However, comparing them to the likes of BOS and LA guys I don't see the comparison at all, nor the argument.

Well, Curry is the GOAT shooter and could retire tomorrow as a top 50 player in history. Ditto KD. ESPNs expert panel last year already had them at #22 and #23 All Time with Curry as the 4th highest PG. Clearly the stories are not done being written, but Curry is a lock as a legend and his prime stacks up. KD needs more seasons as a Warrior, but absolutely if he plays 5+ years in Golden State (very likely as he will get a max offer this summer) as a current MVP caliber talent contending for titles, he will rightfully earn a spot on their All Time team. Do you take issue with Wilt being in a Lakers fans All Time list? He only had a couple prime seasons with them before entering his twilight years. And less years there then on the Warriors (1 season mostly missed to injury).

PhillyFaninLA
02-10-2017, 12:20 PM
I don't put GSW all time team as high as the all time Lakers and Celtics, taking them out of the equation....

Is the Warriors all time team as good as the Bulls, Rockets, Sixers, or Knicks....how about Pacers or Pistons or even the Magic or Heat....I have a hard time putting the Warriors in that second group, to me they are a fringe second level or definitive third level all time team.

I'm not sure the all time Warriors team is as good as the all time Lakers and Celtics second team, and I don't think they are as good as the all time Bulls, Rockets, or Sixers.

I think the All Time Warriors can score with anyone but I'm not sure they are as well rounded as other all time teams are.

PhillyFaninLA
02-10-2017, 12:21 PM
Just curious what do people think of an all time Seattle/OKC team verse an all time Warriors team?

tredigs
02-10-2017, 12:24 PM
Healthy Mark Price would have wreaked it in todays league. Guy was lights outs and a demon in pick and roll. He played and shot an a lot like Nash


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, Price's little *** would be awesome in today's game, just like he was awesome in that day. He wouldn't be as good as Curry though.

bostncelts34
02-10-2017, 12:31 PM
Well, Curry is the GOAT shooter and could retire tomorrow as a top 50 player in history. Ditto KD. ESPNs expert panel last year already had them at #22 and #23 All Time with Curry as the 4th highest PG. Clearly the stories are not done being written, but Curry is a lock as a legend and his prime stacks up. KD needs more seasons as a Warrior, but absolutely if he plays 5+ years in Golden State (very likely as he will get a max offer this summer) as a current MVP caliber talent contending for titles, he will rightfully earn a spot on their All Time team. Do you take issue with Wilt being in a Lakers fans All Time list? He only had a couple prime seasons with them before entering his twilight years. And less years there then on the Warriors (1 season mostly missed to injury).


I agree with Curry and Durant, by the times their careers are over, they will be right up there with some of the other greats. But it still doesn't compare with LA or BOS. As for Wilt, I would consider him GSW, even though his career years were about split his prime was their. That's why I said its way to early to have Durant, Klay freaking Thompson(really?), Dray as all time GSW greats.

bostncelts34
02-10-2017, 12:34 PM
I don't put GSW all time team as high as the all time Lakers and Celtics, taking them out of the equation....

Is the Warriors all time team as good as the Bulls, Rockets, Sixers, or Knicks....how about Pacers or Pistons or even the Magic or Heat....I have a hard time putting the Warriors in that second group, to me they are a fringe second level or definitive third level all time team.

I'm not sure the all time Warriors team is as good as the all time Lakers and Celtics second team, and I don't think they are as good as the all time Bulls, Rockets, or Sixers.

I think the All Time Warriors can score with anyone but I'm not sure they are as well rounded as other all time teams are.

This is what I am saying lol. Not trying to bash the GSW all time, but they don't belong anywhere near LA or BOS. (and BTW this hurts me a lot to praise LA so much, just for the record)

tredigs
02-10-2017, 12:47 PM
It will look less and less silly as time passes. Their heyday is now and the accolades and playoff success is building. Boston and LA are all past legends. Not saying they'll match those two, but in a theoretical series they'd be a battle for anyone. Offensively Curry/KD/Wilt would be about as strong a trio as possible.

ewing
02-10-2017, 01:05 PM
Just curious what do people think of an all time Seattle/OKC team verse an all time Warriors team?

Reaf lefrentz would lock up KD


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bostncelts34
02-10-2017, 01:32 PM
It will look less and less silly as time passes. Their heyday is now and the accolades and playoff success is building. Boston and LA are all past legends. Not saying they'll match those two, but in a theoretical series they'd be a battle for anyone. Offensively Curry/KD/Wilt would be about as strong a trio as possible.


Isnt this about NOW? not possibly 10 years from now? GSW would need ALOT of players to come there to even be close to compete with a 12 man team.

mightybosstone
02-10-2017, 01:52 PM
I hated him before ny. Houston did well to cut ties. Pgs that do nothing well other the attack the rim are always overrated

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK, but whether the guy is overrated or not has almost nothing to do with this conversation. The conversation is about whether he was worthy of being one of the 2-3 best PGs on a team's all-time list. If we took all 30 teams and looked at the history of their point guard positions, you don't think he'd be capable of cracking a few all-time 15-man rosters? Because I absolutely think he would.

Take 30 teams and consider three point guards per team. That's 90 point guards. And even assuming some overlap with guys playing for multiple teams, you're looking at least probably 50-60 point guards in total across every franchise's all-time teams. Are you telling me you could name 50-60 point guards who had better peaks than Steve Francis had in Houston? Because I'm fairly positive you can't.

ewing
02-10-2017, 02:21 PM
OK, but whether the guy is overrated or not has almost nothing to do with this conversation. The conversation is about whether he was worthy of being one of the 2-3 best PGs on a team's all-time list. If we took all 30 teams and looked at the history of their point guard positions, you don't think he'd be capable of cracking a few all-time 15-man rosters? Because I absolutely think he would.

Take 30 teams and consider three point guards per team. That's 90 point guards. And even assuming some overlap with guys playing for multiple teams, you're looking at least probably 50-60 point guards in total across every franchise's all-time teams. Are you telling me you could name 50-60 point guards who had better peaks than Steve Francis had in Houston? Because I'm fairly positive you can't.

That's a lot of thinking but if I go Knicks I'll take

Walt Frazier
Earl Monroe
Mark Jackson
Micheal Ray
Hot Rod
And Dereck Harper

Before peak Stevie

I'm sure an arguement can be made for dick McGuire too but I think he shot at a peach basket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mightybosstone
02-10-2017, 02:49 PM
That's a lot of thinking but if I go Knicks I'll take

Walt Frazier
Earl Monroe
Mark Jackson
Micheal Ray
Hot Rod
And Dereck Harper

Before peak Stevie

I'm sure an arguement can be made for dick McGuire too but I think he shot at a peach basket.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Frazier and Jackson are locks, and those are fair points. You could debate Jackson, but he's a good example of longevity trumping peak sometimes in all-time conversations.

I don't consider Earl the Pearl to be a PG, and I think pretty much any all-time discussion including him would list him as a 2 guard, so he's out. Michael Ray Richardson is actually a really good comparison, because both guys were versatile guards who rebounded well and posted similar production at their peaks. Francis was a far more efficient, effective scorer, but Richardson was clearly a better distributor. I'd call that a push.

I don't know which "Rod" you're referring to, so you'll have to clarify that one. But I think Derek Harper's time in New York doesn't remotely stack up to Francis' time in Houston. Harper played in only two and a half seasons with the Knicks, and his best year was 14/4/3/2. He earned no accolades, and his advanced stats are that of a role player. Obviously he was a pretty good defensive player in his career, but his best days were well behind him by the time he joined New York. The Dallas Maverick version of Derek Harper would easily be ahead of Stevie, IMO. But not the Knick version.

So you just took one of the oldest franchises in the league, and (depending on which Rod you're referring to), I think the Houston Rockets version of Francis could make a case to crack the top 3 at his position. Imagine doing this same exercise with a new franchise without nearly as much talent at the position as New York has been lucky enough to have?

ewing
02-10-2017, 02:59 PM
Frazier and Jackson are locks, and those are fair points. You could debate Jackson, but he's a good example of longevity trumping peak sometimes in all-time conversations.

I don't consider Earl the Pearl to be a PG, and I think pretty much any all-time discussion including him would list him as a 2 guard, so he's out. Michael Ray Richardson is actually a really good comparison, because both guys were versatile guards who rebounded well and posted similar production at their peaks. Francis was a far more efficient, effective scorer, but Richardson was clearly a better distributor. I'd call that a push.

I don't know which "Rod" you're referring to, so you'll have to clarify that one. But I think Derek Harper's time in New York doesn't remotely stack up to Francis' time in Houston. Harper played in only two and a half seasons with the Knicks, and his best year was 14/4/3/2. He earned no accolades, and his advanced stats are that of a role player. Obviously he was a pretty good defensive player in his career, but his best days were well behind him by the time he joined New York. The Dallas Maverick version of Derek Harper would easily be ahead of Stevie, IMO. But not the Knick version.

So you just took one of the oldest franchises in the league, and (depending on which Rod you're referring to), I think the Houston Rockets version of Francis could make a case to crack the top 3 at his position. Imagine doing this same exercise with a new franchise without nearly as much talent at the position as New York has been lucky enough to have?

Stevie was a stat padder. When you dominate the ball you get numbers. IMO he was not in Mark Jackson's league as Mark was one of better true pg in the NBA. One of the better floor generals ever. Earl Monroe and Walt were a dual pg backcourt. Dude did it all. Rod is Rod Strickland and Dereck Harper was one the better defenders and leaders you could find even late in his career. I don't think there is any argument for peak Stevie. It seems we have a different view of him as a player. I always thought of him as overrated in his prime and thought people started to recognize how empty his stats were later in his career


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mightybosstone
02-10-2017, 04:12 PM
Stevie was a stat padder. When you dominate the ball you get numbers. IMO he was not in Mark Jackson's league as Mark was one of better true pg in the NBA. One of the better floor generals ever.
I would agree. I never said Mark didn't have the better overall career. If I were ranking PGs, I would rank him well ahead of Francis.


Earl Monroe and Walt were a dual pg backcourt. Dude did it all.
But Monroe was not a point guard and was never really considered a PG in New York. The guy averaged like 4 assists per game and was clearly not the primary playmaker. Any competent fan of the game's history would call him a 2, not a 1. So whether he was a better player than Francis (which he was), is totally a moot point.


Rod is Rod Strickland
OK.... Are you really going to try to justify that dude as having a better stretch of basketball in New York than Francis had in Houston? That's mind numbingly ignorant. He played all of one and a half seasons in New York and averaged like 8/4/2.


and Dereck Harper was one the better defenders and leaders you could find even late in his career. I don't think there is any argument for peak Stevie.
Yes, there is. If you don't think there's an argument to be made, then you're being intentionally dense because of your hatred for Francis as a player (which doesn't surprise me given how obtuse you tend to be about Lebron). The guy was considered a star player at his peak and posted some really good numbers, albeit on some pretty mediocre basketball teams. Harper was a role player. Francis was the best player on the Rockets between Hakeem and Yao. To say there's no argument to be made is just stupid.


It seems we have a different view of him as a player. I always thought of him as overrated in his prime and thought people started to recognize how empty his stats were later in his career
:shrug: Well maybe you should be more open minded and stop taking such extremely one-sided opinions on players just because you're not a fan of them. You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to suggest Francis wasn't a damn good player at his peak aside from a vague, opinion-based take that doesn't consider his production or play on the court whatsoever. I don't like a lot of players. But you don't see me saying things like "Cousins sucks because of his crappy attitude and selfishness on the court. He's not even a top 25 player." Because I can recognize a player's abilities regardless of that player's faults.

ewing
02-10-2017, 05:29 PM
I have always given Bron credit for a being a great player. He is a top 10 player ever and a legit MVP. He is also a douche. That doesn't take away from the fact that he is great player it just makes me root against him. Demarcus Cousin is a ball dominate slob and a menace. You would be a fool to start a team with him over a guy like Gordan Haywood, Dam Lillard, IT, and a bunch of other guys ranked below him in that thread. His numbers are not commensurable to his impact as player. If you want me argue this based on his stats i am sorry i can't. Same is true for Stevie. He is the type of player we have seen a lot more of though and who generally put up big numbers but never leads a team to real success. Weather its Marbury, Treke Evens, D Rose, or Steve Francis the ball dominate point with little J, that that plays primarily at one speed, and doesn't have great eyes will put up big numbers and generally not achieve a lot of team success. Rose is the most successful i've seen and it was b/c of the Bulls D. With all his talents he still wasn't going to run and elite offensive regardless of who you put out there with him.


Btw Rod Strickland didn't stick in NY bc everyone knew it was him or Jackson. Rod was too good for them to both be here

tredigs
02-10-2017, 05:35 PM
Isnt this about NOW? not possibly 10 years from now? GSW would need ALOT of players to come there to even be close to compete with a 12 man team.
12 deep sure. But in a theoretical series with an 8 man rotation they would be a contender. You're taking arguably the strongest roster in history and replacing Zaza with Wilt Chamberlain, and tossing in a Chris Mullen, Rock Barry and Mitch Richmond into the rotation. They'd be monsters. By "in time" I'm saying that the legacy of these players will grow enough that it won't be seen as premature to have them on the team, despite their skill level already being there as is.

PhillyFaninLA
02-11-2017, 08:50 AM
Reaf lefrentz would lock up KD


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure what they would do with Payton or Kemp.....I'm not sure Kemp wouldn't get fouled so much that you take away the value of the PF and C position for the Warriors.

I suppose what era rules you use would also make a difference, but I think Kemp would be a huge problem for the Warriors along with the gloves defense and stealing ability. I'm not saying the Warriors team isn't better, I just think its a really bad match up for them. Starting guards Payton and Westbrook with Kemp at center might be a nightmare matchup scenario for the Warriors, they wold foul and foul and foul

PhillyFaninLA
02-11-2017, 09:16 AM
Forgetting about which team is more talented for a second...is this topic talking about which team is better based on talent, who could win head to head, or a combination? If its about head to head do we need to take the rules of that era into consideration?

mrblisterdundee
02-13-2017, 12:14 AM
I think the Heat, Bulls and Spurs should be in the conversation too.
Warriors/Lakers/Celtics/Bulls/Heat/76ers/Spurs
PG:Curry, Hardaway/Magic, West/Cousy, Jones/Rose, Paxson/Hardaway, Dragic/Iverson, Cheeks/Parker, Johnson
SG: Richmond, Thompson/Bryant, Goodrich/Havlicek, Allen/Jordan, Butler/Wade, Allen/Greer, Cunningham/Gervin, Ginobili
SF: Barry, Mullin/Baylor, Worthy/Bird, Pierce/Pippen, Sloan/James, Rice/Erving, Iguodala/Leonard, Elliott
PF: Durant, Green/Gasol, Mikan/Garnett, McHale/Rodman, Kukoc/Bosh, Haslem/Malone, Barkley/Duncan, Aldridge
C: Chamberlain, Thurmond/Abdul-Jabbar, O'Neal/Russell, Parish/Grant, Gilmore/Mourning, O'Neal/Chamberlain, Dawkins/Robinson, Gilmore

I switched some players around, most notably Durant, to get the best players on the team.