1996 vs Sonics

I see it differently and disagree.
As noted the sonics had the rockets number. They had beat olajuwon in 89.
And again in 93


To understand 97 you have to look at 96...You have to look at things with context and it cannot be understated enough the idea that the rockets had not beaten the sonics really ever. People in this thread noting the same..
then when rockets do get their chance against sonics they get killed as op suggests.
This 96 sonics team sweeping rockets 4 -0...

I have no doubt the 2 championship teams would have beat the sonics but by the time we got to 96 the championship team was over and cassell and horry had become stale. The team was basically olajuwon coming out of his absolute prime and an aging drexler. Horry and cassell had regressed to invisible. The entire team was on a downward trend.

Getting barkley was absolutely the right move and for parts I would do it again right now. Rockets beat the sonics after that. This cannot be overlooked Look at the jubilation on olajuwon face when beat sonics



That is the most excitement you will ever see from olajuwon and the culimination of years and years of getting that sonic monkey off their backs. He looks more excited then when he won the titles..

Barkley absolutely was the reason and to think rockets would have beaten sonics without barkley is simply false since it didnt happen.

Horry and cassell were nice but it was clear we needed to get past the sonics and it wasnt going to happen.

It took stockton stabbing in heart for barkley to not get his rockets match with jordan. People forget how close we got in 97 and later on you cant expect pippen to be the tomato can he was with rockets.

Those mid late 90s teams with barkley were fun and rockets wouldnt havd beaten sonics in 97 with horry and cassell. Its nice to think that but it was hardly panic or dollar signs but more the right move basketball wise.

Horry turned out to be a great compliment glue guy 6th man and cassell had a nice career but that wasnt going to get it done in 97 and exactly why we got barkley and won. Friggin stockton ugg

The bigger mystery is how did sonics lose in 95 to lakers in playoffs. That team had elden campbell ceballos eddie jones lol

this is the one that perplexes me in the bulls/rockets debate- that sonics were such a buzzsaw then laid an egg against bulls in finals. Its like any swag was taken from sonics. I think the sonics were an amazing team with bad timing and got star struck perhaps or moment too big. I haven't revisited that bulls sonics series but that was the 72 win bulls team so hard to say the sonics were trash. They did manage 2 wins against a team that lost only 10 all season.

 

Man. I remember being pissed as a teenager when Barkley missed all those layups like we were cursed against the Sonics

 

A lot of people hated that trade when it went down and even more people probably hate it because we know it ultimately didn’t work out in a championship coupled with the careers that Casell and Horry went on to have. But sometimes teams need a reboot or players need new scenery. That team needed a spark and was oh so close to a finals appearance with Barkley. I’m ok with what they tried to do in getting him.

 

the goal in getting barkley was getting past the sonics. To that extent barkley was a success.

Jazz played well and rockets / bulls in 97 would have been a fun matchup. I think that 97 rockets team would have given the bulls trouble but lost. I would have love to see bulls in that 95 finals instead of Orlando. Even the 97 bulls team I believe would have lost to that 95 rockets team.

The next year after 97 beating sonics barkley played well in playoffs and tore his tricep and rockets lost that game and the next decisive one.. Sure that 98 team probably wouldn't have done anything if they had beaten jazz but still a team of olajuwon drexler barkley could have made it something. Instead they lost without barkley

That 98 team was 41-41 and had barkley olajuwon and drexler. Seems like drexler was mailing it in and that 98 team is a head scratcher. Why did they lose so much and only get 8th seed?

You keep cassell and horry you lose 97 likely again and unless you got someone else and didnt lose much 98 wouldnt have been much better than 41-41? That 98 season is weird. I think there were tons of injuries.

Barkley played well 97 and if he hadn't been hurt they would have played better in 98 past that first round.

Oh well

 

The 90's Rockets, regardless of trades/no-trade, were only going to be about as good as what Hakeem could deliver for them.

Should be noted that Hakeem was not a huge Cassell fan. Cassell even mentioned it on occasion. Granted, Sam was a very young PG who was largely going to do what he was instructed to at all times, even if it was simply to be a spot- up 3 point shooter. He was supremely confident and probably could have played a bigger role, on offense, compared to what he was asked to do.

In the end, Hakeem needed low block help against the Sonics. Having Barkley accomplished that and allowed him to be more effective in the 97 series against Seattle's illegal defense.

 

In trying to connect with my Gen Z son, I got a face tattoo with the dildo rocket on my cheek pointing at my mouth. Am I doing it wrong?

 

Interesting. I never heard that about Olajuwon and Cassell. What is the source? Not that I don't believe you, just interested in the details.

Sam Cassell wasn't perfect, but we wouldn't have won those championships if we were just running Kenny Smith out there. we needed Sam's driving ability and aggressiveness in those big games. He had huge games against both New York and Orlando in the Finals.

 

Instagram it

 

Man, if Barkley didn't get hurt in that 98 Utah series.., Houston was so damn close to beating Utah as the 8th seed. I remember him shooting the free throws with the other hand and knew it was over.

 

Yup.

this thread got me going through some of the old stats and videos from that timeframe. Barkley was good and im glad rockets got him. He played well and of the big 3 to me he played the best / biggest impact.

If you think about how barkley took the suns to the finals and also carried that suns team that lost to rockets. Then you look at him in 97 on rockets ..then consider he was still playing at a high level in 98 it is fair to put barkley up there as a player.

Getting back to that 98 with 41-41 season what went wrong?
Why were they so mediocre? I assume it was injuries.

To think as well that losing barkley in 98 as you mention was a big reason rockets lost..

Hindsight is what it is and I dont fault drexler but he looked pretty checked out in that game 5 and without barkley I thought a bit of a poor showing.

Even bigger and more hindsight to think and know 97 and 98 were seemingly our only real chances after the 2 titles and until ming/mcgrady. And of those 2- 97 and 98 it was 98 that was lost to injury so really 97.

And 97 rockets probably would have lost to that bulls team although maybe not.

Past barkley olajuwon drexler the trail ran pretty thin.

So in grand scheme it was 97 and one real shot

 

which brings me to my final conclusion and that is f**uck john stockton

 

They were 41-41 because of injuries

Drexler 70 games played
Olajuwon 47 games played
Barkley 68 games played

Dream had his knee injury that year and he was really never the same dominate force he was before the injury

 

What's funny is tinman really believes this ;-)

I say goodbye and good riddance to those fugly mustard and ketchup uniforms. The logo was so damn boring and ugly, too. It was basically just a basketball with a "ROCKetS" written on it. Something is not better just because it's old.

 

It was not better because it was old. It was better because it was better.

(A) It was the championship uniform. Why mess with something that became instantly iconic in 94 and 95. Red, Yellow, and white will always be associated with the Rockets because of the championships. NOT navy blue. Changing the uniforms so drastically after winning two championships felt wrong at the time, and seems especially stupid now.

(B) The old uniforms were simple, but elegant. No stupid color gradients, no changing font sizes from one letter to the next. The numbers were below the team name where they should be. No horrendous squiggly, thick pinstripes. Above all, no dildo rocket with teeth.

It seems the garish ugly cartoon pajamas of the late 90s are becoming in fashion again, but I wish they would stay dead. The Jazz beer can, Toronto Jurassic Park, and that horrible blue-green color that seemingly every team adopted (Grizzlies, Wizards, and even the Pistons for some reason.) All total crap. Iconic teams knew to stick with their simple, classic uniforms that they were famous for. You won't see the Lakers, Celtics, or Bulls totally reinvent their image. As a championship team, the Rockets should have followed their lead. I was glad when the Pistons, Wizards, and Jazz reverted to their classic looks in recent years. I hope they stick with it, and don't get tempted to mess around again.

 

Thank you for sharing this.

 

I understand why people didn't like the pinstripe uniforms and whatnot (personally, as a kid, I thought they were super cool, but looking back, I don't think they were great... but not gonna lie, still like the logo, heh), and I can kind of buy your argument about not changing uniforms right after a back-to-back. My guess is they just hoped everybody wanted Rockets gear so badly at that point that they would re-buy everyone's jerseys and hats and shizz.

... BUT I stand by my comments about the "classic" unis being just fugly. The mustard and ketchup combo is/was relatively unique in the NBA, which is worth something, but it was certainly not easy on the eyes. And aside from that, the logo was just boring and meaningless. Almost no artistic or expressed meaning whatsoever to any one of the city of Houston, to Texas, or to the term "Rockets". It was a damn basketball with a circle around it and some text. The uniforms were just solid colored with some text (and I hate that the NBA is moving back to that, although at least with a little more style). What you call "simple", I call "boring". An artist would never sell a blank canvas with their signature at the bottom, marketing it as "simple but elegant".

You also contradicted yourself about not preferring the old uniforms or logo just because they were old. You ended your post just listing teams that never changed their logos, and explaining how great that is. Just because they never changed doesn't mean they're good. You're probably right that they didn't change them because they were "iconic", but that doesn't mean they were aesthetically pleasing or "good" logos. It just means those organizations were worried about people who are terrified of change throwing hissy fits. There are some diehard, long time, stubborn ass fans in some of those cities.

To each their own, but I was ready to move on from those godawful uniforms before any championship banners ever went up in The Summit.

 

I'd rather err on the side of simple and boring, if the alternative is tacky and ugly.

 

I was in a Motel 6 in Beaumont with a high fever when I watched that game. It was surreal.

 

Dikembe is a true Rocket and always was. He was helping the Rockets even when he was a Nugget.