ZoomSlowik

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 04:47 PM) Of course teams packed the paint more back then. You could do that and get away with it. The 3-point shot has evolved into the most dangerous weapon in the game. Players are taking and making WAY more 3's at better percentages than at any point in the 90's, let alone the 80's. It all started with the D'antoni Suns. Try to pack the paint today and you're gonna get blitzed from the outside more times than not. All these stretch fours, something that didn't exist in the 90's outside of I guess Cliff Robinson, and 6'10+ guys that can actually put the ball on floor and create makes for better spacing. Those Pistons/Knicks tactics would fail miserably in the modern era. Name two of those. The only one that I can think of is Kevin Durant. Lebron, George, Josh Smith, ect are all 6'8"/6'9" much like 80's/90's players like Magic, Bird, Scottie, Schrempf off the top of my head.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 01:14 PM) There is no doubt in my mind LeBron is the second most dominant player I have ever seen in my lifetime. That is my usual standard when it comes to GOAT discussions. It isn't about comparisons to other players and eras, it is about what you can compare and that is what they did in their own time. Using that standard my top 3 (again that I have seen) would be Jordan, James, and Shaq. Hakeem was pretty monstrous for about a 4-year stretch too. Check out his career playoff numbers, pretty ridiculous.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 12:51 PM) I think if he consistently played in a tough league, he'd learn to get past the physical play (where as right now he rarely has to deal with it) cause he clearly has the physical strength to deal with it. Durant would be great in any era. Like LBJ, he is an elite player in any era. That gets into another argument entirely that is purely hypothetical, kind of like arguing that Larry Bird's 3-point production would improve if he'd played 10 years later in a league that embraced the 3 more (I don't remember his exact quote, but I think it was something like "I only shoot 3's if it'll get me more money", which is why he did the 3-point contests). Both guys would still be extremely good, I want to make that clear.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 11:30 AM) There is absolutely no way that Charles Barkley, Hill or Pippen would ever be ahead of LBJ on an all NBA team. That is just asinine. All are tremendous players but use your eyes people. Lebron would struggle? The dude is a freak athlete and a beast. I think he'd have been better because he'd get more angry from getting fouled a lot more. I wouldn't say "better". He'd still be a superstar, but we've seen what can happen if you're physical with him. Lebron is bigger and more athletic than everyone he plays now, but he occasionally goes through stretches where he can't get to the rim and basically stops trying to score. He starts becoming a passer and doesn't shoot it unless he's within 5 feet of the rim or it's a wide open jumper. See the 2011 Finals, the last two games and chunks of the Chicago and Indiana series (yeah, he still was quite good in those last two, especially against Indiana. I mean he does have 4 MVP's). Teams in the 90's packed the paint a lot more (watch Michael against the Pistons or Knicks sometime) and had big men a lot more imposing than Chandler and Hibbert. He'd likely have to lean on his jumper more, which is good but not great. It's nitpicking to the highest degree since he'd still be at the top of the league with MJ (and arguably Hakeem/Shaq, but I hate big/small arguments), but I honestly think Durant's game would translate a little better offensively. Durant is a much better jumpshooter and teams in that era definitely had stretches where they conceeded the long jumper (Depending on how teams tried to guard him of course. Under the "Jordan Rules", he'd have issues because he can struggle to get open. If they guard him like Chris Mullin, he'd do well). Lebron would still be better overall because of his ball-handling and defensive versatility though.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 11:24 AM) I have to go with the Sacremento Kings & Portland Trailblazer teams which choked to the Lakers. The Kings are probably in the conversation. I like the late-90's Sonics too, though a better center would help their case considerably (not even a star-level player, just someone tougher inside). On pure talent, the Suns when they had Joe Johnson were pretty damn impressive as well, but they had defensive issues and didn't pay to keep him around. Portland, I just can't put them on the same tier. If they had a prime Scottie and Sabonis, okay, but those guys were 34 and 35 respectively. I have a hard time calling a team "great" if their three leading scorers are Rasheed, Steve Smith at the tail end of his prime and Damon Stoudamire. I side with Orlando though because you had two studs in their mid-20's. They just weren't together as a team long enough. We saw what Shaq did throughout his peak and Hardaway had a shot to be the best PG of the 90's. He averaged 21 a game his second and third year taking less than 15 shots, good for a TS% around 60. Anyone that reads this thread extensively knows that efficiency like that gets me all tingly downstairs. They had two lethal shooters on the wing too and we know what Grant could do as a role player. Who knows what happens if they don't run into the Bulls juggernaut in 95/96 and/or they had been able to keep a healthy Shaq/Penny duo together.

QUOTE (Boogua @ Jun 9, 2013 -> 08:57 PM) Parker, Duncan, and Ginobili are playing really, really bad. I was actually shocked that they were within striking distance for that long. Combined 10-31 with 8 TOs. Before this Heat run, it was pretty ugly for both teams outside of the 3-point shooting. It's mostly the Heat role players blowing it open (Chalmers, Anderson, Allen and Miller). I guess Bosh has hit a few mid-range J's too, but Lebron and Wade have done little. Edit- Lebron waking up the last few minutes hasn't hurt either.

Kind of scary that the Heat are up 10 with Lebron playing like crap, the Spurs hitting most of their 3's, and the Heat getting destroyed on the glass (actually, guess the Heat closed the gap a bit, but 12 offensive boards and several putbacks for the Spurs is still big).

I don't get Miami's offense the last several possessions. They're running several Cole/Birdman pick-and-rolls with Lebron on the floor.

I don't know which is a worse sign for the respective teams: the Spurs are trailing before Lebron scores a point or Wade tweaking something.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jun 9, 2013 -> 03:42 AM) I just posted NBA.com's All 90's team. And I dunno if LeBron trumps Hakeem. And there would be years where Pippen, Hill, Barkley or Malone could be better at forward. Thing is we don't know. But a lot of those guys would be the undisputed #2 in today's NBA, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that LeBron wouldn't easily be the second best player. For fun, let's replace Larry Johnson with LeBron on those Hornets teams. Taken at the same time. Is LeBron winning any titles? Yeeeaaaahhhh, most of those guys aren't "undisputed" #2 over Durant. That guy is kinda good. J4L laughing off people because they're white is pretty ridiculous, but this goes to the other extreme. Obviously MJ and a couple of the bigs, but far from "a lot" of those guys. To me, "a lot" means at least half, and you just can't go that far. As for the latter, I don't know about championships, but Larry Johnson wasn't exactly a world-beater, especially after his back injury. A few solid years, but not very good longevity, not a particularly diverse offensive game, defensive impact was iffy, streaky shooting, ect. He was closer to Blake Griffin than Lebron. Replacing a somewhat garden variety All-Star with a multi-time MVP makes a big difference. Alonzo Mourning is certainly better than anyone Lebron played with in Cleveland.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 9, 2013 -> 03:19 AM) I'm the best thing to ever happened to this thread. Without me, this thread is a bunch of middle-aged homers crying about referees every single day of the year. Not even close. Putting your hands on the most physically gifted player the game has ever seen wouldn't mean a thing. He'd even be better against inferior, one dimensional athletes, and no zone defense. C'mon, q. You weren't even a fetus when most of these guys were playing. Other than Jordan, LeBron trumps every player here without question. Mark Price? C'mon, dude. People like to make fun of Nash and his d. Who's Price checking today? lol. I will respond to Zoom and Booqua (amazing that he actually came with something besides piggybacking zoom) in detail later when I'm sober. Don't bother, I'm done with the 90's/2000's crap. Come on now, teams very rarely play an actual zone defense and it's not like he'd suddenly be playing guys from the local rec league. They didn't invent the slam dunk last year. There were quite a few good athletes in that era, which is easy to see thanks to youtube.

I found this kind of funny (via Rotoworld): Seriously? Your team went out and got Dwight Howard and Steve Nash last year and had a $100 million payroll. What are they supposed to do, find a way to get Durant?

QUOTE (Boogua @ Jun 8, 2013 -> 03:17 PM) Yes, he put up good numbers, but averaged 4 turnovers a game. His PER in the playoffs was the lowest ever outside of his first playoffs experience. I think that was the biggest issue. If Jordan was his normal self I think they win that series. I mean he went 8-22 with 19 points, 5 rebounds, 3 assists, and 8 turnovers in game one that series. They lost by 3... Maybe, he did have 3 mediocre to poor games. The Bulls got killed inside though. Shaq got his 23 a game, but the real issue was Grant, who averaged 18 a game on 65% shooting. I doubt he does that against Rodman.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Jun 7, 2013 -> 04:01 PM) I don't think stopping Shaq would have been the key to beating those Laker teams, anymore than it was in beating his Orlando teams (excluding the series when Jordan had just come back from baseball). They'd play hack-a-Shaq, and he'd get his points, but it would come down to other match-ups. I do agree that the Bulls still win. That Magic team wasn't together nearly long enough to establish any kind of pattern. They were really only together for three seasons. 93-94 was Hardaway's rookie year and they lost in the first round. They didn't face the Bulls. 94-95 they added Horace Grant and beat the Bulls before getting swept by Hakeem/Drexler in the finals. Yes, Michael wasn't quite right yet, but he still put up 31-6-5 that postseason while shooting 48% from the floor. It's not like he pulled an '11 Finals Lebron. The bigger issue was that they didn't have Rodman yet so their frontcourt was pretty weak. 95-96 the Bulls smoked them, but Grant missed most of that series and Nick Anderson missed a game as well. Shaq left for LA in 96 and Penny started getting hurt after that. Had that team been together longer or had better timing/luck, they might have been a juggernaut. They had two stars and three very solid role players. IMO, that's the best/most talented team I've seen that didn't win a ring.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 8, 2013 -> 12:57 AM) Zoom, I was referring to the '96 Supersonics. Not the '91 Lakers. Jenks said LeBron is great but to reach his true potential he would've had to play in the 80's. Jason said the only team that could even bother the Bulls since '98 are the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. Wite said the Heat couldn't break 85 ppg with handchecking against the Bulls. Nobody disagreed. Let me say something that can even be mistaken for anti-Bulls or anti 90's, my stalkers commence. This is a homer thread and everybody knows it. Mex, John Starks was garbage. An all-star or close to all star sg by 90's standards because the position was garbage. Other than MJ, there was no sg that could shoot, put the ball on the floor/penetrate, and create for teammates. Clyde Drexler was the closest but he couldn't even dribble with his left hand. The Knicks were nasty defensively and could board. But they were complete tools on the offensive end and were exposed every year (couldn't even win when MJ was gone). Ah, I honestly forgot Johnson started because Sam Perkins played when it mattered. Johnson played about 18 MPG, Perkins played 26 in the regular season and 31 in the playoffs. He was a guy that could step out and hit a jumper, but definitely hurt them because he lacked toughness inside. Sound like someone we know (Before you freak out, Bosh is clearly better. He looks like crap now though and Perkins was their 5th best player, not 3rd)? Those Sonics were extremely talented and would have a much easier time if they didn't have to go through guys like Hakeem, Barkley, Robinson and Malone every year (yeah, I know Mutombo got them once). John Starks was pretty mediocre. He had a couple good years and snuck onto an All-Star team. Weird things happen occasionally, kind of like Luol Deng getting onto the last two All-Star teams. Drexler, Reggie, Dumars and Mitch Richmond were all far better shooting guards and there were others better as well. You mentioned Hersey Hawkins, but I don't think you actually looked at his stats page. He was a damn good shooter and put up 20 PPG early in his career on solid efficiency before fitting in as a 3rd/4th scorer on good teams. Also, it's not like Starks was New York's obvious second "best" player. Second leading scorer, okay, but others were more valuable to the team. Charles Oakley and Anthony Mason were both key inside and Mark Jackson was pretty solid at the point when he was there. It's not like it was Ewing, Starks and crappy role players. As I've said before, who are all these modern shooting guards that can do EVERYTHING? You have a few geriatrics hanging around at the tail end of their career (guys like Manu, Pierce and Johnson aren't nearly as effective getting to the rim as they used to be), but the only younger guy is Harden. Maybe Eric Gordon, but he's always hurt. I'm sure you'll say Klay Thompson, but he hasn't shown much ability to get to the rim yet (Marco Belinelli had about as many attempts at the rim despite far less PT and fewer touches). Look at the shooting guards on all your contenders. Wade is a fading stud, but even with him he's a highly mediocre shooter. Danny Green is a fantastic shooter, but has limited offensive skills outside of that. Thabo Sefolosha, Tony Allen and Lance Stephenson all suck on offense, and Stephenson really just sucks. Jimmy Butler is okay, but scored 13 points in like 4,000 MPG. The Clippers trotted out Willie Green (awful) and Chauncey Billups (chalk outline of his former self) all year. Wow, such awesome shooting guards that can do it all! Don't give me guys like T-Mac and Carter either, the former was done several years ago and Carter has been a role player for a while. If you want to talk closer to 2005, there were more legit wings, but very few teams had CENTERS that could bother the Bulls. That's an important distinction because they handled teams led by guys like Barkley, Kemp and Malone in the playoffs. Grant and Rodman weren't exactly issues on that end. Every one of those teams you mentioned had an offensive liability at one of their big spots except for the the Lakers with Bynum in 09/10. Every era has their strengths and weaknesses. The league was horrible from the late 90's to the mid-2000's, largely because of weak PG's, but they had very good wings and a few stellar bigs. The late 80's/early 90's had a ton of bigs and some scattered stars and a lot of solid players, but not a lot of super-duper stars on the perimeter. And as I've said a few times, the modern era has two elite SF's and a plethora of point guards, but they also have pretty horrible bigs and few wings that can consistently dominate.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 7, 2013 -> 04:43 PM) Well, I hate to be that guy again - but I will. 1:So, 54 year old/old-timer comes out publicly and says his era was tougher, this era sucks, LeBron would be average, yadda, yadda, yadda. Gee, what a shock! Past players are always going to pump up their own era while dismissing others. The things Wilt used to say about Michael and his era? Sheet. 2: Who the f*** from the 80's is checkin' LeBron? lol. He'd be the biggest player on the court by far with athleticism and a skill-set at his size nobody had ever seen. He'd force multiple rule changes by himself. LeBron would f***in' destroy the 80's. 3: Now I do concede I drink a lot. But I don't recall the Bulls ever sweeping through a post-season. They did lose every now and then. They damn near lost to a team with John Starks as it's second best player. They needed 6 games to beat a team that employed Ervin (don't ever call him Magic) Johnson as it's starting C. They needed superhuman efforts from MJ to beat a team (the Jazz) who ran out a 6'1 white SG, a 7'0 sloth at C and Bryon Russell. The Bulls never saw a team during their entire run as good as the Heat. This notion that the Bulls would sweep the Heat by an average of 25 ppg is ridiculous and blatant homerism at it's finest. 4: People need to stop acting like hand-checking is the equivalent to steroids in baseball. It is not a skill to hold, grab, shove, jab and molest somebody. If the internet and social media had been around in the 80's, everybody would be cursing the league for allowing that type of defense to be played. Look at how you guys b**** about the refs now. lmao. stop it. 5: Not only would the Heat present a ton of problems for the Bulls, but so would every NBA champion since '07 save for the '11 Mavs. Duncan by himself is a major issue (especially the '07 version). Bowen is one of the top 5 on-ball, lockdown defenders of the last 20 years. Yes, Michael's gonna get his. But Bowen is a little better on D than Byron Scott, Hersey Hawkins, Craig Ehlo, Dan Majerle and Jeff Hornacek. Parker and Ginobili's quickness, athleticism and skill-sets on the perimeter could/would cause major problems. Especially if we're talking the late 90's Bulls (early 90's is different). the '08 Celtics would also cause problems. That team for that year was every bit as good defensively as any of those Bulls teams (check the numbers). And guess what?!!! They did IT WITHOUT handchecking!!! yayyyy. KG and his size, length, and skill-set would be a problem. Pierce/Allen/Rondo would be better than anything the Bulls saw. They'd be able to throw Pierce, Posey or Tony Allen, all three being good to great defenders at MJ. '09/'10 Lakers. The Bulls would be at a major disadvantage size wise against that freak of a Laker front-court. Kobe's going to come as close as anybody to matching Jordan. Already covered the Heat. I am not saying ANY of these teams would beat the Bulls. But to act as if they could just rollover every recent NBA champ? Get the f*** outta here. -No one in this thread said Lebron would struggle in the 90's, or that the Bulls would "beat the Heat every game by 25". -The handchecking is brought up for exactly that reason. The physicality makes it harder for the really talented players to do their thing, and yet numerous guys did it anyways. -The Bulls beat the Lakers in 5, not 6. I don't really care if Magic was their center, he was really damn good. Besides, Lebron is frequently the biggest/toughest guy in Miami lineups, so I don't see how that matters. Other than that, I'm not going to write a bunch of stuff that you'll dismiss with "lol, athletes". The Bulls won 6 titles for a reason, and it's not like it was a white only, 6-feet and under league before 2005.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2013 -> 10:57 PM) The last three times Miami was done 0-1 in a series, they won the next four games. Plus the Spurs were up 2-0 on OKC last year. I expect most of the games to be like this one.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 6, 2013 -> 10:45 PM) Queue "heat have no guts"... Spurs are a lot of fun to watch. I love Leonard's game. Spurs' top-6 is very good. Leonard would probably average in the high-teens if he played on a horses*** team instead of the Spurs. Green is deadly from 3 and Manu still has his moments too.

Good game. Heat were great early but Spurs just kept playing their game. Lebron will probably score more in future games, but the Spurs missed some wide-open shots on the other end. Somebody needs to slap the s*** out of Bosh and tell him he's not Dirk. I can get one or two 3's, but 6? Come on... Edit- Guess it was only 4 for Bosh. Could have sworn he was 0-5 then missed it at the buzzer (which I guess didn't count). Point remains, you need SOME shots within 15 feet of the basket.

When did Bosh turn into Antawn Jamison? I knew he shifted to more jumpers/less post play, but damn.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 6, 2013 -> 10:21 PM) Lebron with a very quiet triple double Depends on how you define "quiet". Seems like they've mentioned it (or his rebound total) at least half a dozen times.

Heat haven't had a good look in a while.

Man, Spurs could be up if they made a few of these wide-open 3's.

Looks more like vintage Wade tonight, but the Spurs are hanging around with solid play pretty much all-around.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jun 6, 2013 -> 08:31 PM) Duncan looks old so far. He is old, but he's killed the Heat in the post the last few minutes. Their D hasn't been great though, Heat getting to the rim and causing problems on kickouts if they collapse.