These can be franchises, teams, players, rules, myths, style of play, cities, feats, culture, or anything you can think of. 1. “You need a great point guard and/or big man to win a championship.” People say MJ was the one that proved this wrong, which I don’t disagree with…but Rick Barry, Larry Bird (super early in his career), and in a sense LeBron and Steph Curry, because they are both high caliber scorers and can win without necessarily being an initiator, like say a Stockton, Andre Miller, or Mark Jackson. I want to almost add Kevin Durant, Harden, Wade, Dirk, and Dr. J, since many of them played on the perimeter and had a lot of team success without a all-star caliber center or power forward. 2. Big market team success is not as imperative as the media thinks or makes out to be. For one the teams in Chicago/New York/Los Angeles are less than 10% of the leagues teams and only account for their own teams’ success and occasional TV appearances, with an actual superstar player, now and then. It’s far more important, if they have a superstar, like any other NBA team. Most people, outside of New York, do not care about the Knicks, like the Jazz or Thunder. But, in any situation, if you add a competitive team and … or a possible superstar, the team will instantly gain fan points across and beyond the league. LeBron, similar to MJ, Kobe, or Magic/Bird are going to sell out arenas; grab headlines; and peak fan interests. If MJ in his absolute prime somehow ended up on an expansion team in smaller market. There’s no universe that team would not be one of the most popular teams in the league. 3. The 1995-96 Chicago Bulls (along with the 96-98 Bulls and 90-93 teams) are arguably the some of the greatest squads to play…if not the best, but they are becoming increasingly…overrated. I think they might be the greatest squads ever, but are they unbeatable… absolutely not. Could they very well lose to other all-time teams in an even field environment, yes? Would they lose to teams who were weaker or failed to ever win a title? I believe so. I believe every championship team wins with either talent, strategy, favorable matchups, injury-free, and a perfect storm. The three teams that gave them the most trouble in the playoffs— Knicks, Pacers, and perhaps the Jazz for a hot second. And, most of all, pre-title teams, the Pistons, Celtics, and Bucks. In the regular season, they’d occasionally finish behind the Hawks and Cavs. The team they were lucky to never face in the playoffs…the Houston Rockets. [I also think the absolute best versions of the ShowTime Lakers]. Both teams would’ve been absolute nightmare matchup wise. Houston had the best center on defense and offense. Dream presents matchup problems everywhere on the court, the Bulls have no one to guard Olajuwon 15-40 min per game. Old heads will scream Rodman or Horace Grant. Dream literally took Rodman out of several games with little. People always laugh David Robinson for getting embarrassed in the playoffs. But, Dream was demolishing every post defender the Spurs used. Olajuwon also has no bigs to really be overly concerned about in the post. He could lurk and switch a lot more onto Pippen and MJ. That’s not me speculating, but 10 years of game footage. 1988-98. The Rockets also had playmakers, like Cassell and Smith who could score and hit 3s. Also, add Horry, Elie, and Maxwell. Most of them also did not dominate the ball. The ball movement could be incredibly deadly. What’s crazy about those Rocket teams, too, they were this good without Drexler. And, in 95, they essentially played without Mad Max. It’s a defensive nightmare for the Bulls. They’d have almost no way slowing down Hakeem, yet cover the perimeter. It’s not a style they encountered a lot. It’s a lot of past and present teams they do not matchup well with. I think it’s so many Lakers and Celtics teams with so much more talent. There’s no way beat those teams in certain scenarios. I don’t think they would have an easy time with a team that had a prime Wilt or Kareem. Especially a Wilt with Jerry West and Baylor. I think the 82 76ers could steamroll them as well. I think some of the later Spurs squads from 04-07, 11-14. Are bad matchups because of Duncan and Popovich. The Spurs have guys who can create on the perimeter, like Parker and Ginobili, later Kawhi. They never faced any teams, like that the 90s. I think teams, like the Warriors (especially with KD), 03-06 Pistons (their team defense was better than any Bad Boys), the Gasol-Kobe Lakers, and even some of the LeBron or KD teams would be very difficult to beat. Even, teams, like the 02 Kings, Dirk teams, or the Giannis teams present interesting scenarios.
championships In the cba it states that the nba playoffs are a bonus tournament, the nba gets most of its revenue from the regular season where all 30 plus teams are involved. Players also get paid on their regular season performance not their playoff performance.
petrik tillmen. i don’t think he is needed. tillmen sr will live forever and his generosity will win this team many championships* for years to come. *see @RocketsDraftTV post #7
bill russell has 11 rings, does anyone consider him the goat are cousy, havlicheck seen as top 20 guys alltime.. players like reggie miller, barkley and james harden still rate higher than them all time and they have zero rings
People thinking just because an opposing coach or player says something positive about another player, it must be true. No, you're not going to hear LeBron say KPJ is a nut case and he'd never want him as a team mate because of *lists multiple reasons why.
Eh? If Bill Russel had 2 rings, he wouldn't get the treatment he got . I wonder if #13 is going to get retired here given his championship pedigree/trajectory, not to mention the entire league. (I hope your traitorous avatar gets banned at some point btw. Although I do respect the 1st amendment).
Feel like you miss the point on that, it's about having an elite tier playmaker on the team, not necessarily a classic point guard. All the examples like Steph, LeBron, Harden, Bird are great playmakers that replace a pg, and most of them also had units with elite ball iq and passing, where things weren't necessarily always initiated by the playmaker. Then Dirk and KD had very competent big men (Chandler, Haywood, Draymond) that helped contain the opposing bigs and were crucial to defense, but also not needed on offense too much because the NBA changes and is more perimeter focused (no one today is really saying you need an all-star center to win).
He's constantly in the top 5 or top 10 mentioned, and that's mainly because of rings, people know he falls off compared to modern players. So you're completely missing the point or are ingenuine if you act like his huge legacy isn't about championships and that the 11 ring mythos still has him in the god tier, even though most fans weren't even born when he played. Bringing up Russell makes you immediately lose your own argument honestly. Havlicek is rated very highly yes, and Cousy had glaring issues compared to modern players, but still has high reputation, as the outrage over the JJ comments have shown. If it wasn't about championships and legacy, he wouldn't even be in the top 200 of point guards. So yes, championships very much account for the legacy and reputation of players, like you involuntarily have shown yourself by coming up with always mentioned players that had success in an era where people don't know 99% of the players and never have seen the games.
The amendment doesn't have anything to do with protecting or allowing highly offense avatars or ones that are just there to troll and agitate people, many confuse freedom of speech with a free pass do to everything.
harden hasn’t made an all nba team the past 2 seasons. And didn’t get the supermax, how can he be overrated when no one considers even a top 25 player currently in the league