What would you do diffrently after the Rockets won the two championships?

Jazz didn't kill us, we had them down double digits late in game 6 before we choked away the lead and got screwed by a bear hug. The following year we had them down 2-1 and 17 points late in the 3rd in game 4 but Barkley got hurt and the Jazz took over.

 

I would have sent prostitutes and cheese enchiladas to shawn kemp much sooner, so that he would have gotten fat by fall of 1995. we go the finals in 96 and beat the bulls, and go back to the finals in 1997, where we do lose. In all,we threepeat.

 

Actually I was around for those championships.

Something tells me you weren't around for all those Barkley championships.

 

You would know they didn't play the sonics. If they did good chance they lose.

 

Oh cmon man, he had 12 pts 8 rebounds and 4 assists on 30% shooting in that game 1 loss against Utah. He was a huge reason we lost. Yeah he had some good games, but he was no where near consistent. It's hard to believe he had a great PER in that series.

 

Two words: Scottie Pippen

 

That's assuming the Sonics even were to play us had we not gotten Barkley. There is no way to predict the future if that Barkley trade went down as there are so many variables that apply when changing a past scenario. Also, I am pretty confident the Clutch City Rockets could take'em.

 

dudes,
when we got barkley and beat seattle,
i don't remember a single soul regretting the trade.

when we got all of those nationally televised games, i don't remember regretting the trade.

charles was great for the rockets. he was hungry for a title.

 

It's not like he shot 30% on 30 shots dude. He averaged like 10 shots a game that series, while trying to cover for Matt Maloney's awful pick and roll defense... In a sense, most of our guys struggled in that series, especially Clyde who didn't show up until game 6, and it's not like he was involved in trying to guard the best pick and roll of all time. In my mind, Barkley should have been way more aggressive with his shot than he was. He was still trying to let Dream and Clyde run the show more than he should have...

Again, Barkley was the 4th best player in the league that year according to PER.

 

Just like they took'em a year before!!!

 

All this was quite a few years ago, memories are not always reliable, but I watched every game, and my thoughts at the time were:

1) Matt Maloney the and an aging roster were the reason I felt we fell off after '95.

2) I liked the Barkley trade and felt he was playing his heart out for us.

3) Pippen seemed like a last ditch effort to get a title before the Dream was completely washed up. As it turned out, another aging vet with his best years behind him wasnt what was needed.

Misc thoughts.....

Its a shame we didnt get Dream a better palate of players around him sooner. Dream was the key to winning it all, and 94-95 were the final years of his prime, not the middle or beginning.

In my mind the '96-98 years as well as the '86 finals loss came up short because of an inadequate PG. Losing Lucas to drugs in '86, and depending on Threatt/Price/Maloney circa 96-1998 was costly. I keep remembering how poor ball distribution, execution and a lack of an outside scoring threat from the PG position just keep undermining our other strengths.

What would I have done differently?

Not signed Price or Threatt.
Not depended on Maloney to lead our starting team. (ok as a 2nd unit player)
Found a way to keep Horry.
Found a different option than Pippen to bolster that line-up.

All in all, it probably would have turned out about the same though. Although those memories are long gone, im guessing we would have gone better at PG had we been able to.

 

barkley didn't play defense. that's what you sacraficed.

people just don't get it till this day. why could the bulls win so many rings, they turned on the DEFENSE when they could. even shaq's lakers and definitely the rocket champions.

but hey, i'm still iffy on the drexler trade.

 

don't forget Sampson , Lloyd and Wiggins.

 

Dude, we get it. You have a hard on for Barkley.

 

Thorpe had no problem with the Sonics, check 93 playoffs, so that wouldn't have been a problem in 96 nor 97 had they kept him. People forget that Thorpe was still a great player in his Piston days (95-97). We didn't need Barkley had we not traded OT before.

 

come on dude, you know Stockton is NOT Barkley's man on D.

 

Of all people I thought tinman would be against the Barkley trade... it fixed what clearly wasn't broken.

 

Maybe True but then we don't win the 2nd title...chicken or the egg.

That said, even with OT we couldn't beat them in 92-93.

 

We got swept 4-0 the year before...how was that not broken?