I wonder who would win a seven games series if these teams played!!! Here the matchups and who I think would win. C: Dream over Shaq Shaq today is smarter, bigger and a fundamentally better center today than back in '95. But Olajuwon is a better center all-around with foot-speed, defense, and skills. They made a point last-night that Shaq is the all-time scorer in a finals beating out Olajuwon. Shaq faced nobody, Olajuwon faced Shaq. PG: Smith, Cassell combo over Fisher These guys would have schooled Fisher and Shaw off the bench. SG: Bryant over Drexler I know I know I will probably get reemed for this but I believe that Kobe is better. Though Drexler was a better defender, Kobe could take over a game which Drexler did seldom. PF: Horry of Rockets Horry of '95 is a better player than with the Rockets, though he has always possessed the ability to knoch down a big shot. He's slowed down and stands around too much today. SF: Elie over Fox Come on! Elie was a defensive marvel who could knock down big shots. Fox does neither and is slow. Coach: Jackson over Rudy T. 9 rings, enough said!! '95 Rockets in 6! A fundamentally smarter and deeper team! What do you guys think????
I agree with EVERYTHING you just said...except.... 9 rings is deceptive...I think Rudy would have just as many rings if he jumped from the Bulls to the Lakers during the same period of time. Not to take anything away from Phil...I'm just not convinced he's the second coming.....and I'm not convinced there aren't others who could have done the EXACT same thing.
That would be a series that I wish we could see; in fantasyland, I think it would be similar to the Kings series. Rockets in seven. Drexler would have given Kobe some problems. Hakeem and Shaq would have canceled each other out, and the Rockets would have had the better role players.
Also Rudy vs Phil - str8 up is about even and phil always seem to have the 'more talented' team... Rocket River
This is a really hard question. The biggest mistake the Rockets ever made was when they broke up the our championship team. By the way, thought I would mention that I started following the Rockets a year or so after their championship seasons. I don't really quite know how good they were. I'll try to break down the reasoning into steps... What really was the reason they broke up the 95 team? I heard it was because they could no longer get past the Sonics or was it because they thought Horry wouldn't be able to take Rodman? If this is true, I might have to say the Lakers are better because championship teams don't lose their swagger very often. I mean, if the team is starting to struggle against teams that they would beat easily before, then that means either one of two things: your team is getting weaker or other teams are getting better. Thus, this would mean that maybe the talent was weaker in '95 than it is today. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. The only way that Phil Jackson will ever prove to me that he is the best coach ever would be if he could take a team from scratch and put together a championship team. I mean, it just so happens that each time that each and every one of his championship teams just so happened to have the most dominant player in the game at that time.
Rudy definitely would have won the recent champs with the Lakers roster as he would have Shaq. I don't think he would have won all 6 with the Bulls rosters. Rudy can't do a damn thing without a dominating center and he'd probably be so stubborn he wouldn't change his game plan even with Michael Jordan on the floor unless Michael did it himself. Seriously I wanted to choke Rudy when he blamed this past season on injuries and wouldn't want to change anything. C'mon dude get a grip you *HAVE* to change your system to fit your personnel.
actually....this should be true for all championship teams--having the most dominant player in the game (at that time) and not winning it all means there are internal issues within that team
One interesting thing I heard was that it is MORE difficult to coach superstars and get them to play together than coaching everyday players. If that is the case than Jackson has had a lot of work getting his rings. But, it can't hurt having players with such god-given ability, Jordan, Shaq & Kobe. Man I miss the days back in '95, it was so awesome. Especially when they won in '94 against the Knicks. I get tears in my eyes when I watch the "Double Clutch" VHS tape!!!!!
Hey Sphere why you start MY THREAD . I am the one who starts these Rockets 95 vs Lakers. Anyway Id take Rockets in 6 over these Lakers and probably any Laker team of the past three years. I would take the 94 Rockets over any Laker team in 7 games cause of Mad Max ability to neautralize Kobe as he has done against MJ. Also saying Drexler never took over is RIDICULOUS. Go watch game 1 and game 3 of the 95 Finals and youll see that Drexler carried them in certain stretches of the game. When Hakeem sat Drexler easily took over. Drexler almost averaged a triple double in that finals at 21ppg 10rpg 7apg. I think he pretty much did TAKE OVER in that finals right behind Hakeem.
It wasn't that all of a sudden we couldn't get by the Sonics. We never really could "beat them easily" during the championship years, either. We were lucky not to have to face them in the playoffs either year (thanks to some incredible choking on the Sonics' part). The two championships were sandwiched between playoff losses to the Sonics. Its hard to say if the Rockets really had lost something in '96 or if they just faced a challenge that they weren't ready for. The Rockets DID NOT look good in getting swept by the Sonics in '96, so I personally understood the need to add more punch to the team. Lo and behold, the next year, we took out the Sonics in 7. In terms of losing swagger, yes the Rockets of '96 did not look like the confident and determined bunch from '95. Maybe Dream and Clyde were aging. (it WAS pretty much downhill after '95 for both of them.) Kenny Smith's weaknesses were getting exposed. And injuries killed any continuity that year. So, on a one year basis, I think the '95 Rockets could've beaten the 2002 Lakers. But in terms of year after year, no. The age difference is a major factor here. Dream and Clyde had already had long and illustrious careers by the time the second championship was won, and Shaq and Kobe are relative spring chickens (Shaq's boo-boos notwithstanding). There were serious thoughts that Clyde was past his prime well before we traded for him, so his career as a Rocket was almost like a footnote. (better than that as it turned out!). I don't think you can second guess the breakup (trading Horry and Cassell) too much. It did make us instant contenders the following year, and we got within two games of the finals. That team might have competed well with the current Lakers, too. So...(sorry for rambling)...my vote is that the '95 Rockets could've taken the current Lakers team. . (What about Horry? Can he play for both teams? Does he guard a younger version of himself? This seems like some sort of Back to the Future-like time warp mind-screw or something.)
This is the easiest question ever. Rockets over Lakers. My ego wants to say sweep but... forget that I'm listning to it. Dream dominated the 95 version of Shaq and he would also dominate the 02 version. Everything else almost cancels each other out except for Murry and Herrera would wipe the court clean against George and Medemelenkleo (or however you spell it). I had to put that in their big ups to Murry and Herrera wherever you guys are, polish the rings one time for me.
The pro-Rocket sentimentality in this thread is overwhelming, to a degree that objectivity is nowhere to be found. Could anyone explain why the general consensus among basketball pundits would side with the Lakers of 2000/2001? Although my heart would go with the '95 Rockets, my brain tells me that the lakers of 2001 would prevail in 6 games. This is just a symptom of the fan, that they're always suckers for a bet. ~The Absolute~
It would be close... but Hakeem was too good. He destroyed Robinson and outplayed Shaq that year. Drexler wouldn't nullify Kobe, but he might have kept him under 20 points. Rockets in 7.
Let me add a Laker fan's perspective to this: PG: Smith, Cassell over Fisher Fisher is a too-short, too-slow SG playing PG. He has never finished a fast break in his entire life, lacking any and all PG skills. The only reason he's on the roster is that he can hit the 3. Jerry West to Magic Johnson to Van Exel to Fisher....geez. SG: Kobe Bryant over Drexler The kid is amazing. Drexler might be able to slow him down a bit, but not enough. Kobe would school Drexler. Keep Kobe under 20? Maybe till the 4th quarter. SF: Elie over Fox Slightly. Two guys with about the same roles on both teams. I give the edge to Elie because he's basically Fox but a bit better. Plus Fox has one of the ugliest games in the NBA..he looks like he's constantly stuck on slow-motion instant replay. PF: Rox Horry I'm sure you could argue space-time continuum about how Horry will know what Horry would do, but ignoring that, the Rocket's version played all-star ball, arguably the finals MVP. The Lakers version is bulked up, but also slowed by age. On a side note, Horry's probably my favorite player in the league. C: Shaq over Hakeem Hakeem's dreamshake would give Shaq fits, but realize that Shaq now is just too powerful and too big for Hakeem to handle. Shaq's game has improved exponentially since the Orl-Hou finals, and Shaq would get Hakeem in foul trouble very early, especially when Shaq flashes from the weak side, exposing Hakeem's size disadvantage by gaining great position down low for the slam. Coach: Phil Jackson over Rudy 9 championships as a coach. Count em, 9. People say that he's always had great talent, well no kidding, all championship teams have always had great talent. The guy lost Michael Jordan to baseball for a year and led SCOTTIE PIPPEN's bulls to a regular season identical, minus two games. You don't accidentally win 9 championships. 9 > 2. I'd have to say Lakers in 6.
The thing about Drexler though in my honest opinion is that Drexler never posessed the killer instinct. He was damn good but Kobe would've had his way with Drexler and it makes me sad saying this because Drexler is my favorite player all time.
That's a weak assertion, Asian, and predicated largely on a very questionable and subjective definition of "killer instinct" of your own: i could object and point to Drexler's constant head-long forays to the basket that kept Orlando on their heels in '95. Just check out the fourth game in the fourth quarter in a tight battle, where Clyde snatched a rebound and stormed down the court, outstripping players 10 years his junior and jamming one mother of a dunk down. ~Absolute~
If Shaq is so dominant that he can just dunk on anybody, why has he scored about 23 ppg against the Spurs over the past 3 years in the playoffs? Perhaps it's a little harder to establish position under the hoop against a real bigman like Duncan than a stiff like McCullough. Perhaps when Shaq actually has to guard someone with talent like Duncan as opposed to coasting on D when guarding McCullough, he uses up a lot of energy on D (God knows Shaq isn't exactly the most physically fit guy). If Shaq can't dominate the Spurs bigmen, he aint' going to dominate Hakeem, who was way better than Duncan. And if Shaq wasn't quick enough to stop Hakeem from scoring 33 ppg in 95, why would a bigger, slower Shaq have more success 80 lbs later? Dominating McCullough ain't like dominating a HOF Center in his prime, something Shaq never did.
