The Cavs without Lebron

[bksballer89]

So what part of my comment was bullshit? Did the Cavs not have a great season last year? Are they not off to a good start this year? They have the best record in the E & the 3rd best record in the NBA right now. And I think to be called a super team a team should have more than 1 title.

I disagree with your last sentence. You don't have to win a title first before you're called a super team. Just look at the Heat as well as this version of the Warriors

 

[bksballer89]

Would you guys consider Boston a super team? I'm talking about when they acquired KG.

 

[Wamu]

I disagree with your last sentence. You don't have to win a title first before you're called a super team. Just look at the Heat as well as this version of the Warriors

Well you should have been more specific rather than saying the entire comment was bullshit. And I think in today's NBA the term super team gets thrown around a bit too much. To me a super team has multiple titles, so yeah in today's NBA the Heat w/ LeBron/Wade/Bosh should be called a super team.

 

[Wamu]

Would you guys consider Boston a super team? I'm talking about when they acquired KG.

I wouldn't. They only won 1 title.

 

[bksballer89]

Well you should have been more specific rather than saying the entire comment was bullshit. And I think in today's NBA the term super team gets thrown around a bit too much. To me a super team has multiple titles. But now it can mean 2+ All Star's on the same team.

Yeah I agree about the super team term being thrown around a lot. Seems like since LBJ joined the Heat now that term gets thrown around pretty frequently

 

[bksballer89]

I wouldn't. They only won 1 title.

Just basing it on their roster? KG, Pierce, Ray,and Rondo.

Pierce was one of the top SF at that point. Rondo became a top PG over that time period. Ray was Ray. KG was one of the best in the league when he joined

 

[Wamu]

Yeah I agree about the super team term being thrown around a lot. Seems like since LBJ joined the Heat now that term gets thrown around pretty frequently

No doubt about that.

 

[Wamu]

Just basing it on their roster? KG, Pierce, Ray,and Rondo.

Pierce was one of the top SF at that point. Rondo became a top PG over that time period. Ray was Ray. KG was one of the best in the league when he joined

No question KG, Pierce & Allen are sure-shot HOFers. Rondo had a couple of good years when he had a great team around him but the only why he gets into the HOF is if he buys a ticket.

 

[tlance]

Yeah I agree about the super team term being thrown around a lot. Seems like since LBJ joined the Heat now that term gets thrown around pretty frequently

But, this is the key:

That was the first time I ever heard it used. The way they came together was more important than the number of titles they won. The term was used when they all signed. It is 100% in reference to the collection of talent and has nothing to do with results.

 

[bksballer89]

But, this is the key:

That was the first time I ever heard it used. The way they came together was more important than the number of titles they won. The term was used when they all signed. It is 100% in reference to the collection of talent and has nothing to do with results.

Yep which is why I don't get the whole they didn't win this many titles talk. As you said it is about the collection of talent. Nothing to do with results at all

 

[OutlawImmortal]

Just basing it on their roster? KG, Pierce, Ray,and Rondo.

Pierce was one of the top SF at that point. Rondo became a top PG over that time period. Ray was Ray. KG was one of the best in the league when he joined

They had too many injuries during pivotal stretches. Rondo didn't become a great player until the very end, he was nothing but a liability when Boston was contending. The stars aligned for them when they won that championship but I wouldn't call them a superteam compared to something like the Heat who had all 3 superstars in their prime. Boston had a great team but they weren't at their best all at the same time.

 

[trojanfan12]

Just basing it on their roster? KG, Pierce, Ray,and Rondo.

Pierce was one of the top SF at that point. Rondo became a top PG over that time period. Ray was Ray. KG was one of the best in the league when he joined

Yeah, they were a super team. The Lakers were just superer.

 

[trojanfan12]

Yep which is why I don't get the whole they didn't win this many titles talk. As you said it is about the collection of talent. Nothing to do with results at all

The Kobe/Dwight/Nash Lakers fit that exactly. The results were a disaster, but that was a superteam.

 

[tlance]

The Kobe/Dwight/Nash Lakers fit that exactly. The results were a disaster, but that was a superteam.

Honestly, that group was a lot closer to being a "superteam" than Cleveland.

I am not sure I would classify them that way, but all 3 were established studs. The problem was that Nash was completely washed up and Kobe/Dwight was an awful pairing.

 

[Black Adam]

Yeah, they were a super team. The Lakers were just superer.

kinda like the 2k Blazers...?

they were the team the Lakers had no business beating, but did it anyhow...

 

[OutlawImmortal]

Honestly, that group was a lot closer to being a "superteam" than Cleveland.

I am not sure I would classify them that way, but all 3 were established studs. The problem was that Nash was completely washed up and Kobe/Dwight was an awful pairing.

Kobe having to be the primary ball handler in a D'Antoni offense might have had something to do with that.

 

[Kold]

Maybe,

But what many interpret as Jordan just being better than everybody else (I agree that he was)
a large portion of the Bulls' success was due to the rest of the league not being great. Sure, the Knicks and Pacers could beat them up, but they were not winning the series. I think the Magic could have been a legitimate peer if Penny stayed healthy and Shaq resigned, but it didn't happen.

Also, those Bulls teams were awesome. Horace Grant was an all star caliber player. Paxson and BJ Armstrong provided shooting and strong guard play. Cartwright was a seasoned vet who was an all star caliber player in his own right. Add in role players like Stacy King and Cliff Levingston and you had a heck of a group. In fact, the bench almost always outscored the other team's second unit because Pip and MJ staggered their minutes.

In the late 90s, Rodman was the 3rd best player and Kukoc was 6th man. Longley, Wennington and James Edwards formed a solid 3 headed monster at center and Rob Harper was another former all star playing a role for a great team.

Those groups were great. But it wasn't all Jordan. It had a lot to do with Jordan's teammates and with the fact that the other league stars were spread around and none had legit superstar teammates. Stockton and Malone were the closest. There were no super teams back then.

Horace Grant was a very, very good player, but he was never a star for me. Like, he did MAKE the all-star team once in those years, but when I think back on third wheels of big three's, I don't consider Horace Grant to be one of the best players in the game at that time.
As for Paxson and BJ, they were guards that could shoot and that was about it, atleast that's how I remember them being. For Cartwright, he was decent, but he was never even close to being an all star in those years. I don't even remember who Levingston was, and I don't recall Stacy King being a player that everyone remembers as a legit contributor.
These guys made nice contributions, and in no way am I saying that Jordan did it alone, but that team was nowhere near(imo) being stacked.


As for the late 90's, Rodman was considered the 3rd best because of who he was imo. He could definitely rebound and play defense, but offensively he would average single digit points per game. He was more so a niche player than anything else. Kukoc, even off the bench was the player with the most talent outside of Jordan and Pippen when you really think about it. As for those centers, quite honestly I never remembered them as anything other than just guys that were there to grab boards.


And lastly as for the competition that they faced, I disagree on that front(with 2 exceptions) as far as not facing multiple stars.
Looking at the ecf's during those six titles- vs Pistons(bad boys), vs Cavs(one exception, although their entire starting five avg double digits per game), vs Knicks(Starks and Ewing), vs Magic(Shaq and Penny), vs Heat(Tim Hardaway and Alonzo Mourning), and versus Indy(2nd exception although Mark Jackson was still a reliable 2nd hand).
As for the Finals, they faced stiff competition as well outside of the Lakers(they got injured). The Blazers didn't have 2 stars although they did have a deep team with Drexler and Terry porter leading it. From there with the Suns, it was Barkley with Kevin Johnson and Dan Majerle whom was another deep team....and for the last three it was versus Payton/Kemp, and Stockton/Malone

 

[tlance]

Horace Grant was a very, very good player, but he was never a star for me. Like, he did MAKE the all-star team once in those years, but when I think back on third wheels of big three's, I don't consider Horace Grant to be one of the best players in the game at that time.
As for Paxson and BJ, they were guards that could shoot and that was about it, atleast that's how I remember them being. For Cartwright, he was decent, but he was never even close to being an all star in those years. I don't even remember who Levingston was, and I don't recall Stacy King being a player that everyone remembers as a legit contributor.
These guys made nice contributions, and in no way am I saying that Jordan did it alone, but that team was nowhere near(imo) being stacked.


As for the late 90's, Rodman was considered the 3rd best because of who he was imo. He could definitely rebound and play defense, but offensively he would average single digit points per game. He was more so a niche player than anything else. Kukoc, even off the bench was the player with the most talent outside of Jordan and Pippen when you really think about it. As for those centers, quite honestly I never remembered them as anything other than just guys that were there to grab boards.


And lastly as for the competition that they faced, I disagree on that front(with 2 exceptions) as far as not facing multiple stars.
Looking at the ecf's during those six titles- vs Pistons(bad boys), vs Cavs(one exception, although their entire starting five avg double digits per game), vs Knicks(Starks and Ewing), vs Magic(Shaq and Penny), vs Heat(Tim Hardaway and Alonzo Mourning), and versus Indy(2nd exception although Mark Jackson was still a reliable 2nd hand).
As for the Finals, they faced stiff competition as well outside of the Lakers(they got injured). The Blazers didn't have 2 stars although they did have a deep team with Drexler and Terry porter leading it. From there with the Suns, it was Barkley with Kevin Johnson and Dan Majerle whom was another deep team....and for the last three it was versus Payton/Kemp, and Stockton/Malone

Starks a star? No way. He was a good player.

All of those teams you mentioned had 2 stars, and Pippen was better than their best guy in most cases. Malone is the only one that is almost surely better. Ewing and Barkley were comparable to Pip in star status. Stockton, Payton, Drexler, and Zo all somewhat below.

If you get into depth and benches, they might have had slightly more, by it didn't matter.

All this brings me back to my original point. Talent was not as concentrated on a few teams like it is today, so the best player (Jordan) always won. If Jordan played in an era when his main competitors had 4 of the top 12 players in the league, that might have been different. Jordan never faced a team like that. If he had, he probably would not have been 6-0 in the Finals.

 

[OutlawImmortal]

Starks a star? No way. He was a good player.

All of those teams you mentioned had 2 stars, and Pippen was better than their best guy in most cases. Malone is the only one that is almost surely better. Ewing and Barkley were comparable to Pip in star status. Stockton, Payton, Drexler, and Zo all somewhat below.

If you get into depth and benches, they might have had slightly more, by it didn't matter.

All this brings me back to my original point. Talent was not as concentrated on a few teams like it is today, so the best player (Jordan) always won. If Jordan played in an era when his main competitors had 4 of the top 12 players in the league, that might have been different. Jordan never faced a team like that. If he had, he probably would not have been 6-0 in the Finals.

Great point. This bolsters both LBJ and Kobe's case when compared to Jordan.

 

[trojanfan12]

Honestly, that group was a lot closer to being a "superteam" than Cleveland.

I am not sure I would classify them that way, but all 3 were established studs. The problem was that Nash was completely washed up and Kobe/Dwight was an awful pairing.

Nash had an all star caliber season the season before. Kobe and Dwight may have been an awful pairing, but they were still superstar players.