Rocket champs worst in NBA history of last 15 years?

People will talk about these Laker teams the same way in a few years.

 

No... this debate has been done here many times, but what really gets me is that you think most folks here would agree with that premise. I don't.

 

OK, I get it now. You have a good point about the competition (or lack of it!).

 

Personally, I'd take the Laker's over the Rockets.

I love Hakeem and think he's the greatest center of all time, but I think the current Shaq(minus toe injury), is just as dominate.
And Kobe is better than Clyde....fact for me, but y'all can take it as an opinion.

Another reason I'd take them over the Rockets is that it doesn't matter who the Lakers would play.........unlike the Rockets with their achilles heel.....the Sonics.

 

How in the hell can there be such a thing as the worst champ? The 1994-1995 squad beat some of the most dominant teams of the regular season. I guarantee you if the Magic had won, all we would be hearing is how great Shaq became, and how the torch was passed from Hakeem to Shaq, blah, blah, blah, bull****. No one ever gives any credit to the Rockets, so I say to hell with any sports publication that lists the Rockets as the "worst" champions. They won it fair and square, they fought hard and perservered to become back-to-back champs.

And for those who say X team would have beaten Y team and such nonsense thats what video games and absurd ESPN games of the century are for. Its comparing oranges and apples. Its like saying well the Celtics of the 60's were great, but the early 90's Bulls' teams would've given them a run for their money.

 

They won't be talking the same way about the Lakers in a few years because the Lakers will still be contending, and dominating, in the NBA.


Their role players are a bit better than ours though. Fisher, Horry, Fox, George, Medvedenko, Hunter.

It could be a perfect matchup though. I don't know how Hakeem would hold up against Shaq. Shaq is a much better player now than he was then, minus the toe problem.


Personally, I think the worst Champions were the Spurs. They just didn't hit me as the best team in the NBA.

 

The idea that a championship team could be bad is r****ded. Someone has to win the championship, am I wrong? How could the Rockets make the top of this when they repeated proving this was no fluke? In my opinion the Rockets were one of the strongest to withstand such odds tossed their way in both years. I strongly feel if the Lakers had such a run ESPN wouldn't consider them the worst at all. ESPN needs to find a better way for their staff to spend their time than taking the piss out of what franchises have accomplished. You can't label a championship team bad; they are the best at what they do at least for that season. Trying to take away from that is low. Then again we're talking ESPN here...

 

I dont know if they can be called champions , but the Spurs are probably the worst in the past 15 years, if not ever. They couldnt even get out of the first round the following year!!!

 

You do know Duncan didn't play in that round, right? Or maybe you were too young to remember that...

 

Umm, dc, don't you think Finals MVP Tim Duncan being out for the season had something to do with that?

The Spurs absolutely torched the entire NBA that postseason to a 15-2 record and a championship, topped only by the Lakers of last season. There aren't many teams ever that could've beaten that team.

Personally, I think the worst Champions were the Spurs. They just didn't hit me as the best team in the NBA.

If a 15-2 postseason record won't make you believe, I don't know what would...

 

just two words...

WHO CARES?

 

Yeah , i can barely remember being 22

How about refraining from the personal attacks, because youre the one who sounds very immature

 

Uhm the cat, cant ''championship'' teams find a way to win? especially against a poor phoenix suns team in the first round?

 

93-95 Rockets vs 99-Present Lakers

I will take whichever team has Robert Horry on it!

 

Sorry.....I guess with the Democrats thing and the Laker bandwagoning, I figured you were just a kid. My bad.

 

Laker bandwagoning? uhm no, Ive been a fan of the lakers since the 80's , my two favorite players of all time our Hakeem Olajuwon and James Worthy. I dont know where you're getting that from . I dont bandwagon

 

The Spurs aren't a championship team without Tim Duncan.

Do you seriously think the 93-94 Rockets without Hakeem Olajuwon are still a top 4 team in the entire Western Conference? If you do, you're completely delusional.

 

I had a friend of mine who used to be serious when he said the Rockets were the weakest team to win the title.I find it humorous and infuriating at the same time.Matchups go a long way in deciding the outcome of a series...and when it came to...say the Bulls,the Rockets owned them in the regular season.Reason,being they had no interior game to deal w/us..and we could always toss Vernon on M.J.Maybe we would be a little more legitimate if we had the chance to deal w/ the Bulls.
On the Lakers,I don't care what era you put them in.That is a great team out there.They turn up the team's defensive intensity and get the stops when they need it.They have two GO TO guys like noone else that can do it on the other end in prime time plus the aformentioned complimentary players.The Lakers often play to the level of the competition.When you consider that they are something like 1-7 against the spread(during this years playoffs),and all those games that they don't cover end up being within 1 or 1 1/2 of the number(despite the nagging injuries),it says the Lakers can pretty much do whatever they want.
I love the Rockets,but we are watching a dynasty in progress.