Series Thread: 2) Phoenix Suns vs 7) LA Lakers

[msgkings322]

Don't disagree. But I never said anything about Hakeem having a super star next to him. Because he didn't.

Looking back you said "great" supporting cast. I get what you mean but I just think it's pretty impressive what Hakeem did because his support wasn't so much "great" as "good" especially before Clyde got there.

It's arguing over not much but that's what we do here!

 

[Black Adam]

Looking back you said "great" supporting cast. I get what you mean but I just think it's pretty impressive what Hakeem did because his support wasn't so much "great" as "good" especially before Clyde got there.

It's arguing over not much but that's what we do here!

 

[Wamu]

Looking back you said "great" supporting cast. I get what you mean but I just think it's pretty impressive what Hakeem did because his support wasn't so much "great" as "good" especially before Clyde got there.

It's arguing over not much but that's what we do here!

Dammit I said great? Well that was certainly the wrong word. Should have went with good instead. And I gotta say I don't recall ever arguing with anyone. I'm the voice of reason around here!

 

[shopson67]

Every title has a "good" supporting cast. What he didn't have was another big time star.

Drexler (2nd of back to back years), Horry, Cassel and Kenny were more than just good. Drexler was top 50. No co-superstar for that given year though, but really only got those rings because Jordan was on sabbatical.

 

[msgkings322]

Drexler (2nd of back to back years), Horry, Cassel and Kenny were more than just good. Drexler was top 50. No co-superstar for that given year though, but really only got those rings because Jordan was on sabbatical.

Drexlerr was old and like you said not there both years. I stand by it.

 

[trojanfan12]

It's kind of hard, imo, to really say whether a team had a "great" supporting cast in most cases. A bunch of good players who fit together well and compliment the star(s) can be a great supporting cast even though each individual player might not be great themselves.

 

[Pastafazul]

No matter how hard I try to help, some just cannot be.... Pasta ‘21

 

[Black Adam]

No matter how hard I try to help, some just cannot be.... Pasta ‘21

 

[dtgold88]

Don't be a fool. he never won anything without being Tonto to Jordan's Lone Ranger. And when he got butt hurt and went to Houston and Portland he didn't win squat

Bulls won 55 with Pippen and no MJ. Never won more than 40 with MJ and no Pippen.

 

[tlance]

Looking back you said "great" supporting cast. I get what you mean but I just think it's pretty impressive what Hakeem did because his support wasn't so much "great" as "good" especially before Clyde got there.

It's arguing over not much but that's what we do here!

Again though, this goes back to the state of the league in the 90s.

Literally anybody who won a championship, aside from Jordan and Karl Malone would have been doing it without another superstar teammate.

The top players were more spread out in the 90s than any other time in NBA history.

So was it impressive for Hakeem to win 2 without another star?

Yes. But it isn’t like he beat a bunch of stacked teams to do it. All the good teams were built like the Rockets. Maybe 1 elite star and either a 2nd or 3rd tier star or a collection of quality role players.

And let’s face it, somebody had to win those titles.

 

[Jiddy]

Bulls won 55 with Pippen and no MJ. Never won more than 40 with MJ and no Pippen.

That Bulls team was one ref call from being in the ECF, probably the finals that year. Peeps have weird remembrance of that team because of the chair deal...but the funny thing is the chair deal should be what reminds you of how good they were...as it happened vs. the Knicks, who DID go to the finals that year.

 

[Montalban]

Well, hiding IS what racists do best. But hey, I'll give it up to you, Monty. At least you ain't the type of racist that denies it, so props for that. I honestly hate the other ones worse...

I'm not afraid to speak my mind, that's true. If you see that as racism, so be it. I too prefer the person who tells you how they feel. Nothing worse than the guy, no matter what race he is, starts a sentence with "I am not a racist, but..........."

 

[Montalban]

Who's acting like "tough guy"? You bring nothing to the NBA threads. You never talk about any of the current topics. You just stop by to ridicule black players. Then you try to act surprised when you get called out for your nonstop racism.

You

 

[Jiddy]

Again though, this goes back to the state of the league in the 90s.

Literally anybody who won a championship, aside from Jordan and Karl Malone would have been doing it without another superstar teammate.

Hall of Famers don't grow on trees...but this kind of statement does a serious disservice to the next best players on playoff teams of that time. I mean...The Rockets didn't beat slouches.

I guess you could run down the playoff teams they faced those 2 years...Portland/Phoenix/Utah/NYK/SAS/Orlando

Anthony Mason/John Starks/Charles Oakley/etc was pretty stout after Ewing for the Knicks. That team got screwed over so hard by one man. Multiple championships and why you don't view that second tier as good as it was...is because of that same man.

Phoenix was f*cking insane after Barkley. KJ/Ceballos/AJ Green...and f*cking Majerle...Hell, even Danny Ainge was hiding off the bench. More players put in the backdrop of history because of one man. But those of us that watched them play know the deal.

Utah you know was insane because of Malone/Stockton. I grew to hate Hornacek so much...but that just reassures me that the dude was good and I was just biased. LOL. Houston went through them both years. With and without Clyde the Glyde.

San Antonio after the Admiral? Well...I mean other than hall of famer Dennis rodman...Sean Elliott was pretty damn good. Def not a Superstar but every bit a #2 that could have taken that team to the promised land next to Robinson. It still blows me away that that team got Tim f*cking Duncan a couple years later. That just wasn't fair.

Orlando? I mean...Shaq obv #1...But Penny Hardaway was crazy good in those first few seasons. Every bit as good as most superstars would produce out there during those years. Horace Grant and Nick Anderson rounded that team out crazy.

Portland was an odd team. Porter, Strickland and the Headband were a pretty good supporting cast, but I think that team just threw in the towel after 93. Another MJ casualty. The media and fans constantly bemoaned for Clyde the Glyde during that post-finals loss period and you knew he was going to abandon ship eventually. LOL...If you can't beat 'em...Join 'em.

 

[tlance]

Hall of Famers don't grow on trees...but this kind of statement does a serious disservice to the next best players on playoff teams of that time. I mean...The Rockets didn't beat slouches.

I guess you could run down the playoff teams they faced those 2 years...Portland/Phoenix/Utah/NYK/SAS/Orlando

Anthony Mason/John Starks/Charles Oakley/etc was pretty stout after Ewing for the Knicks. That team got screwed over so hard by one man. Multiple championships and why you don't view that second tier as good as it was...is because of that same man.

Phoenix was f*cking insane after Barkley. KJ/Ceballos/AJ Green...and f*cking Majerle...Hell, even Danny Ainge was hiding off the bench. More players put in the backdrop of history because of one man. But those of us that watched them play know the deal.

Utah you know was insane because of Malone/Stockton. I grew to hate Hornacek so much...but that just reassures me that the dude was good and I was just biased. LOL. Houston went through them both years. With and without Clyde the Glyde.

San Antonio after the Admiral? Well...I mean other than hall of famer Dennis rodman...Sean Elliott was pretty damn good. Def not a Superstar but every bit a #2 that could have taken that team to the promised land next to Robinson. It still blows me away that that team got Tim f*cking Duncan a couple years later. That just wasn't fair.

Orlando? I mean...Shaq obv #1...But Penny Hardaway was crazy good in those first few seasons. Every bit as good as most superstars would produce out there during those years. Horace Grant and Nick Anderson rounded that team out crazy.

Portland was an odd team. Porter, Strickland and the Headband were a pretty good supporting cast, but I think that team just threw in the towel after 93. Another MJ casualty. The media and fans constantly bemoaned for Clyde the Glyde during that post-finals loss period and you knew he was going to abandon ship eventually. LOL...If you can't beat 'em...Join 'em.

Sorry man, but you are proving my point.

I am not trying to knock the era. There were lots of good teams and lots of good players.

However, I stand by what I said. The talent was spread out.

Take the Knicks for example. They had a lot of very good role players around Ewing. But that is just not even close to what we see today in terms of teams stacking top talent.

The only recent champ that was built like those Rockets in terms of star power was the ‘19 Raptors. And they need 2 season ending injuries from the Warriors to get that title.

 

[flyerhawk]

Sorry man, but you are proving my point.

I am not trying to knock the era. There were lots of good teams and lots of good players.

However, I stand by what I said. The talent was spread out.

Take the Knicks for example. They had a lot of very good role players around Ewing. But that is just not even close to what we see today in terms of teams stacking top talent.

The only recent champ that was built like those Rockets in terms of star power was the ‘19 Raptors. And they need 2 season ending injuries from the Warriors to get that title.

Pretty much agree. Back then, the league was structured so that the teams more or less had control of player movement. Since each team had the same incentives for building a team, it would always be difficult to create super teams. Not impossible certainly but difficult because each team would do what they could to get the best players.

But with player empowerment today, that screws up the entire system because the blow the entire economic model out of the water. The Nets didn't do anything remarkable or better than other teams to amass their team. They just had 2 Hall of Famers decide they want to play there.

 

[Jiddy]

Sorry man, but you are proving my point.

I am not trying to knock the era. There were lots of good teams and lots of good players.

However, I stand by what I said. The talent was spread out.

Take the Knicks for example. They had a lot of very good role players around Ewing. But that is just not even close to what we see today in terms of teams stacking top talent.

The only recent champ that was built like those Rockets in terms of star power was the ‘19 Raptors. And they need 2 season ending injuries from the Warriors to get that title.

There's really not that many super teams in a given year. 2-3? We just glorify players that would be role players because some of these kids are media darlings from high school.

 

[Jiddy]

Pretty much agree. Back then, the league was structured so that the teams more or less had control of player movement. Since each team had the same incentives for building a team, it would always be difficult to create super teams. Not impossible certainly but difficult because each team would do what they could to get the best players.

But with player empowerment today, that screws up the entire system because the blow the entire economic model out of the water. The Nets didn't do anything remarkable or better than other teams to amass their team. They just had 2 Hall of Famers decide they want to play there.

Meh...Super Teams were around. The Bulls were one once Rodman showed up. Lakers when Malone jumped ship...They lost...Houston was brought up earlier with Pippen moving over...Lost. Sometimes team makeup is better without multiple stars. I think the talent/ability has improved overall since we're in the GNC and maximum output generation with sports and that is the biggest difference in sports overall. That said, 90s Shaq wasn't getting dominated by any of these jabronis, so some things stand the test of time.

 

[flyerhawk]

Meh...Super Teams were around. The Bulls were one once Rodman showed up. Lakers when Malone jumped ship...They lost...Houston was brought up earlier with Pippen moving over...Lost. Sometimes team makeup is better without multiple stars. I think the talent/ability has improved overall since we're in the GNC and maximum output generation with sports and that is the biggest difference in sports overall. That said, 90s Shaq wasn't getting dominated by any of these jabronis, so some things stand the test of time.

Super teams did exist in the past, which I think I said. But it was just harder to build them back then and they usually involved players on the back 9 of their careers.

 

[shopson67]

Meh...Super Teams were around. The Bulls were one once Rodman showed up. Lakers when Malone jumped ship...They lost...Houston was brought up earlier with Pippen moving over...Lost. Sometimes team makeup is better without multiple stars. I think the talent/ability has improved overall since we're in the GNC and maximum output generation with sports and that is the biggest difference in sports overall. That said, 90s Shaq wasn't getting dominated by any of these jabronis, so some things stand the test of time.

If you're going to count the Lakers version of Malone or Payton, then you have to count the Rockets version of Drexler.