Jump to content

NBA Thread


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, rico said:

Meh, now that '83 Sixer team is underrated!  

Pretty crazy they only won that 1 championship...the Atlantic conference in the early 80s...Boston, New Jersey, Philly...I guess even the Knicks...yikes!! Tough teams!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Pretty crazy they only won that 1 championship...the Atlantic conference in the early 80s...Boston, New Jersey, Philly...I guess even the Knicks...yikes!! Tough teams!

To me that is the difference between the Lakers and the Celtics.  Boston had to go through that Eastern gauntlet....Showtime usually had cakewalks to the Finals.  For what they did to win that championship that '83 Sixer team is etched in my mind.  IMO the greatest team ever that doesn't get talked about enough.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder...imagine the nba didn't expand so much like it did in the late 80's and mid 90's...would we be better off with 4 less teams (sharing all that talent) or do we need to expand more? To possibly entice stars to spread out or would it just still be a barren wasteland for more bottom teams. 🤷‍♂️ Or do we keep it the same and just move some teams....OKC back to Seattle....Orlando to Tampa....Kings to Las Vegas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rico said:

To me that is the difference between the Lakers and the Celtics.  Boston had to go through that Eastern gauntlet....Showtime usually had cakewalks to the Finals.  For what they did to win that championship that '83 Sixer team is etched in my mind.  IMO the greatest team ever that doesn't get talked about enough.

Or you could say that battle tested the Celtics for the finals. Actually it probably hurt them more as they would get beaten on in conference play but it's hard to say. They definitely got pushed no doubt!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dgambill said:

I wonder...imagine the nba didn't expand so much like it did in the late 80's and mid 90's...would we be better off with 4 less teams (sharing all that talent) or do we need to expand more? To possibly entice stars to spread out or would it just still be a barren wasteland for more bottom teams. 🤷‍♂️ Or do we keep it the same and just move some teams....OKC back to Seattle....Orlando to Tampa....Kings to Las Vegas?

I agree with you about expansion because I think it hurts the product.  I know it will never happen but they need to cut the league by 4-6 teams.  I think that about all the pro leagues and not just the NBA.  There were always super teams but they were built by the orginization and not by the players.  The Lakers were able to make trades for draft picks which turned out to be #1 draft pick.  They got Magic and Worthy this way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I agree with you about expansion because I think it hurts the product.  I know it will never happen but they need to cut the league by 4-6 teams.  I think that about all the pro leagues and not just the NBA.  There were always super teams but they were built by the orginization and not by the players.  The Lakers were able to make trades for draft picks which turned out to be #1 draft pick.  They got Magic and Worthy this way.

Well...not sure it's hurt their product overall. I mean it's expanded tv markets and enriched the owners obviously...overall product on the floor perhaps...I guess. The NBA has always been dominated by a few teams...not really sure expanding has hurt, made it better...which is why I ask. Certainly the nba has benefited from the influx of talented players in the last 10 years...the skill level especially shooting has never been better...but I wonder about the overall competition level....guess the league has always had bottom dwellers...just without the media scrutiny we didn't notice it before?? Just like to see a way these middle/smaller markets can keep their players in the long run. I say that but then stars force themselves out of big markets too so it just may be the way it is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I agree with you about expansion because I think it hurts the product.  I know it will never happen but they need to cut the league by 4-6 teams.  I think that about all the pro leagues and not just the NBA.  There were always super teams but they were built by the orginization and not by the players.  The Lakers were able to make trades for draft picks which turned out to be #1 draft pick.  They got Magic and Worthy this way.

That is total BS.  You and your contraction thoughts.  The American population is growing, or have you noticed?  More people=more talent out there.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while we are on that topic …dgambill you named two Pacers teams that made the list …the jazz and Sonics teams from the bulls second three peat stand out to be with those Pacers teams and the magic team with penny Shaw grant Anderson and Shaw ….anyone else got a list of the best assembled teams NOT to win a championship excluding any lakers or Celtics team that was beaten by either the Celtics or lakers ( lots of them would qualify )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rico said:

That is total BS.  You and your contraction thoughts.  The American population is growing, or have you noticed?  More people=more talent out there.

Actually it's grew last year by only .35% the smallest growth rate since 1900. Given the baby boomer generation is entering their retirement years it isn't getting better. Americans age 55-75 grew by 27% over the last 10 years while those under 55% only grew by 1.3%....population is actually headed in the opposite direction....but for the sports argument I understand your point...there has never been more talent out there then there is now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Well...not sure it's hurt their product overall. I mean it's expanded tv markets and enriched the owners obviously...overall product on the floor perhaps...I guess. The NBA has always been dominated by a few teams...not really sure expanding has hurt, made it better...which is why I ask. Certainly the nba has benefited from the influx of talented players in the last 10 years...the skill level especially shooting has never been better...but I wonder about the overall competition level....guess the league has always had bottom dwellers...just without the media scrutiny we didn't notice it before?? Just like to see a way these middle/smaller markets can keep their players in the long run. I say that but then stars force themselves out of big markets too so it just may be the way it is.

I think if you subtracted a few teams and then distribute those players then it would make each team stronger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, dgambill said:

It is very hard to say but I would have loved to watch those finals. I'm just not sure MJ would have let them lose. Kenny Smith trying to guard MJ??? HAHAHAHAHA LOL Then in 94-95 I mean over history look at how Michael just killed....MURDERED Clyde Drexler. Remember 92 finals...35.8pts, 6.5 ast, 4.8 reb, 1.7 steals....I mean wow...and older Clyde...no way no way....now with Olajawon protecting the rim and having Pippen and Jordan attacking getting him in foul trouble... Hard to say but I can't doubt Michael and Scottie...Measured against any non-Bulls team yes...very good underrated champions...very San Antonio-esq ....but there are not many champions that could have faired well against those Bulls during that run.

I’m not sure that’s true. The Bulls played incredibly weak competition most years in the Finals. 
 

I don’t want to get into a debate about how the Bulls were, because they were great, but I also think it's an over looked fact of history that they didn't exactly beat up on great teams in the Finals. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, rico said:

That is total BS.  You and your contraction thoughts.  The American population is growing, or have you noticed?  More people=more talent out there.

That is your opinion which is fine but I disagree when it comes to pro Sports

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I’m not sure that’s true. The Bulls played incredibly weak competition most years in the Finals. 
 

I don’t want to get into a debate about how the Bulls were, because they were great, but I also think it's an over looked fact of history that they didn't exactly beat up on great teams in the Finals. 

First three peat I agree ….aging lakers, a Drexler carried blazers team , and then a Barkley carried suns team ( with Kevin Johnson and 3 point majerle)……….the second three peat Sonics jazz jazz were loaded teams with at least two stars and two or three solid rotational player.  They earned the second three and full disclosure I dislike Michael fairly strongly .  
 

 

think you’re right about it being close I liked the first prediction that bulls and rockets would have split 94 and 95 titles 

Edited by IU/Butler/Notre Dame
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I’m not sure that’s true. The Bulls played incredibly weak competition most years in the Finals. 
 

I don’t want to get into a debate about how the Bulls were, because they were great, but I also think it's an over looked fact of history that they didn't exactly beat up on great teams in the Finals. 

I would say Utah with Malone and Stockton was really good.  The Sun's had Barkley which is one of the best players ever to play.  Even Portland with Drexler was a really good team.  The Pacers in 98 should have beaten the Bulls in game 7 but was not given a fair shake by the officials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I’m not sure that’s true. The Bulls played incredibly weak competition most years in the Finals. 
 

I don’t want to get into a debate about how the Bulls were, because they were great, but I also think it's an over looked fact of history that they didn't exactly beat up on great teams in the Finals. 

All we can do is base them on the generation in which they played. Historically hard to compare...No one in 90's could really handle them. I think a couple years the Pacers and Knicks were the best teams they went up against but it's very hard for me to believe at full strength that MJ and Scottie would lose to either of those Houston teams (which was the only argument I guess I was talking about). That was prime Scottie and prime MJ....not even old back Scottie and tail end MJ. Of course if that happened who knows if MJ retires earlier or they get too run down to win the last of the 2nd 3peat.

Edited by dgambill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dgambill said:

All we can do is base them on the generation in which they played. Historically hard to compare...No one in 90's could really handle them. I think a couple years the Pacers and Knicks were the best teams they went up against but it's very hard for me to believe at full strength that MJ and Scottie would lose to either of those Houston teams (which was the only argument I guess I was talking about). That was prime Scottie and prime MJ....not even old back Scottie and tail end MJ.

Maybe it is my bias but when I look at the rosters of the top teams I just see the teams of the 80's and 90's having a lot more depth.  I look at some of the top teams today and can't believe some of the players who actually play big minutes.  I think to myself  that no way some of these players would have played for those Lakers or Celtics teams of the 80's.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On to something much more fun....is it me or does anyone else HATE the fact we sit right behind the Spurs in the draft lottery??? I think I might just move Myles Turner to Hornets for the right to swap our picks because even if someone great falls you know the Spurs won't miss them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, dgambill said:

On to something much more fun....is it me or does anyone else HATE the fact we sit right behind the Spurs in the draft lottery??? I think I might just move Myles Turner to Hornets for the right to swap our picks because even if someone great falls you know the Spurs won't miss them.

Or we could let the Spurs make their pick (it will be better than the Pacers) and then trade Turner to them. But then, he'd become Tim Duncan....

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of the draft I'm looking through the mock drafts (probably not close to reality) but I am seeing Johnny Juzang in mid 2nd round. So are you telling me the guy I watched at UCLA score from everywhere on the floor ala Klay Thompson should be passed up by even playoff teams with late first rd picks. If I'm the Pacers and he is there in the second round I think I give up a future 2nd to move up and get him in 30's somewhere. At worst he is a 3pt specialist but if he get's stronger and can focus on his defense...could be a steal imo.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 13th&Jackson said:

Or we could let the Spurs make their pick (it will be better than the Pacers) and then trade Turner to them. But then, he'd become Tim Duncan....

If Pops turns Turner into Tim Duncan a NBA team should be named in his honor.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dgambill said:

Actually it's grew last year by only .35% the smallest growth rate since 1900. Given the baby boomer generation is entering their retirement years it isn't getting better. Americans age 55-75 grew by 27% over the last 10 years while those under 55% only grew by 1.3%....population is actually headed in the opposite direction....but for the sports argument I understand your point...there has never been more talent out there then there is now.

Whoa.  There are more people...they are just having fewer kids.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...