Watch the series. Show me where we dominated the Knicks? It was evenly matched. Each team was better in different areas. But their collective skills ended up balancing each other out (take away Hakeem, and we instantly become an average defensive team, not to mention virtually all of our offense). Oh, wow! The statement of the century! You mean to tell me that having a predictable offensive is a good thing? Please... No they don't. For one, Shaq has Kobe. And that system is more like the 95 team (w/Drexler), rather than the 94 team. Stay on track here... Not the triangle? Are you blind? Are you saying they ran one-on-one plays all the time? I like the way you save-face by saying, "Bulls success was MJ going one-on-one....(and then you caveat that with)...as well and great D...(Then, you completely discount the triangle. Lastly, you go on a tangent about how the league in the 90's was 1-on-1 and some how that's the way things should be done). Sigh...you sound like an ISO-only advocate. Are you serious? It's stupid to get creative? And who said anything about fancy? And if creativity was implemented in a TEAM basis, we could have won more than 2. and the Lakers could have won more than 3. It's that "boring" style offensive that ends up catching up to you sooner or later. So you can keep your boring offense. Also, the currently Lakers played like the 95 Rockets team, not the 94 team... I'm sorry. But I'm for the Celtic style offensive/defense where you DO feed your best player, but you ALSO get your other players involved.
No. The 95 Rockets had Drexler, and the current Lakers had Kobe. Don't discount that. The 94 Rockets were completely different (one star, and a bunch of 3 point shooters). And the currently Lakers run more pick-and-rolls than the 95 Rockets ever did! So, there is a difference there too!
David, "Larry Bird is not walking through that door ............Kevin McHale is not walking through that door...........Robert Parrish is not walking through that door" Sorry ......had to be said
That's right! The 94 Rox team would have no chance against the 86 Celtics or Lakers. The 95 team, maybe. The 86 Rox TEAM was better! They also had tougher competition. At least they played more of a team system. What was their weakness? Hakeem (and his team) had less experience than Kareem, Magic and Bird and Mchale.
-What did the Kings and Mavs creativity and offensive artistry get them the last few years? The dump it down may be boring, but it got Hakeem and Shaq 5 rings and is getting the Spurs 2. All these teams' fans may whine about the boring offense, but that's accounted for 7 rings now after the Spurs win this year and they will. I disagree the Rockets would have won more than 2 if they had a different offense; they didn't have much talent besides Hakeem except for the 95 team with Clyde and that team was very good offensively. Also, those Rockets teams DID play as a team. All the players knew their roles and played within those confines. -As for the bulls, spare the triangle baloney. The triangle didn't get many buckets. It usually netted in nothing but getting Jordan the rock with the shot clock winding town and him schooling whoever was on him. The Bulls strength was their team defense and Jordan's talent, not the system. The Mavs tried the triangle offense and it got them 12 wins with Jason Kidd, Mashburn, and Jim Jackson. It's always going to boil down to talent. -Not to be rude, but you completely misread what i said about the rockets. What i said was show me where chicago dominated that knicks team. REmember, your argument is that the Rockets 94 team barely beat a so-so knicks team and was thus not very strong. well, the bulls struggled equally with that same so-so knicks team so that argument does not fly if you are saying the 94 Rockets would have gotten beat by the Bulls. their series with NY ususally went 6 or 7 very closely contested games. NY played football and wouldn't let you get away from them with their style which was so aggressive that the NBA implemented rules changes the next year.
How can anyone call these teams the "best" or "worst" championship teams? They won. .. they beat what they needed to beat to get there. Houston in 94 went through Portland, Phoenix (a year after phoenix made the finals), Utah (in 5 games I might add), and the Knicks.. whom I believed were playing their best basketball in awhile. NY had it all, a credible backcourt, a nice abusive front court, and c'mon guys, Ewing was good regardless of what anyone thinks. Least talented???!?? Otis Thorpe was a huge contributer, Sam Cassell showed flashes... between him and Maxwell I think you have two of the biggest clutch shooters that year... who could forget Cassell's 3 at game 3 of the finals. Kenny Smith was a great shooter and the emergence of people like Horry with veterans such as Herrera, Bullard, Elie, etc... What makes this team worse than Jordan, Pippen, Grant, with... Paxson, Armstrong, Cartwright, Purdue, Levingston, Scott Williams, Hodges, Hudson (not troy), and such... or maybe in the later championships.. the likes of Kerr, R Harper, (Kukoc, Rodman), Buechler, James Edwards, Salley, Willington, Longley, and whatever they can throw up there. Let's see what happen to these players... Kerr went to SA ... pretty much fell off the faces of the NBA, Purdue went to SA too.. 3 7 footers that year... he didn't do much. Buechler went to Detroit as a scorer. that didn't work. Scott Williams... no Paxson didn't bother. Armstrong became somewhat of a scorer.. they just didn't have a choice and he can only shoot from that corner (I dunno if anyone remembered that.) Harper went nonexistant even in LA although he won championships. Longley.. let's not go there. Houston's main core fared a lil better. Elie earned a name in SA, Maxwell disappeared, Kenny Smith disappeared but they were aging. Cassell turned into somewhat of a star, Horry kept his heroics alive. Why do people like Salley, Rodman, Elie, Horry keep winning championships?? They are ROLE PLAYERS and they do their roles well!! Why did Team USA lose? You can have all the stars you want, but if you don't have chemistry, it does not make your team a great team. TEAM USA last year was NOT a great team no matter who they got. Sure they got awesome talent... but a great team... (in a great, best, worst fasion), involves people doing what they need to do TO WIN! The Bulls "scrubs" did their roles well. Kerr hit a shot when needed, Paxson hits a shot when needed. horace Grant (not that great after he left the bulls but good) don't forget what he did in their 3rd championship. He passed out a shot to give Paxson a better look at a 3 to beat Phoenix by 1.. then what?... on the ensuing timeout, he blocked Majerle's shot to end the game and tossed the ball into midair to run out the time. How bout first championship... Paxson hit the shot that deflated the Lakers in game 5. Kerr knocked in the winning shot later on... now the Rockets. Elie's kiss of death.. 'nuff said. Cassell's game winning shot. Maxwell's 3 in game 7 against the Knicks. A great team is a team that know their roles and although some are talented, they give a little to contain team chemistry. I always say... every point that Francis gives up per game to create a shot probably will end up being 2 rockets points in the future. But that's just my thoughts. I'm also sure if TEAM USA let their egos deflate a little and play team basketball, I can't imagine them losing. If Cassell decides that he can do whatever he wanted like game 2 against Orlando where he scored 31... I don't know if rockets will win because it'll hurt Hakeem, it'll hurt Kenny Smith's big game 1, it'll hurt Horry's big game 3 and his clutch 3s, it'll hurt Mario Elie's 22 pts in game 4. The right person stepping up is what makes the team great. I'm sure Drexler can still score 25-30 a game, but he doesn't have to. He does what he needed to win the game for the Rockets. Remember game 5 against Phoenix 1995? Drexler didn't score a basket till 3rd quarter on a breakaway dunk. He scored 8 pts that entire game, (he had a high fever too ... but for some reason I'm sure nobody remembered that unlike every time Jordan had the flu)... but was able to allow team basketball to take over. KEYWORD.. best TEAM!! worst TEAM!!! A team does not rely on their talents alone... and if a team wins back to back championships.. unless every team has a Ricky Davis who's just looking to pad stats at the team's expense (i think he did better at the end of the year), then there should not be anyone taking away any credits that the Rockets SHOULD receive those years. Remember... Drexler was getting old in 95... we STILL beat what was supposed to be the best team.. (SA) in 6.. and in 94 we beat a nice Phoenix team that was the 3rd ranked in the West with Charles Barkley, Majerle, Kevin Johnson, Danny Ainge, etc etc... Utah and Malone only won game 3... in Utah of course. You can say teams like the bulls never struggled against the knicks... but they DID struggle against the Jazz. They and the Rockets struggled against the Suns (Jordan had a career type finals season to beat the Suns... scoring 30+ in game 1 40+ in game 2 55 in game 3 etc etc.. and drew 11 fouls off Oliver + West) I kinda have what u might call a photographic memory, but seriously though... If we're talking about teams... how can the Rockets be the worst? Even 95 when we finished 6th and had the worst record and lowest seed to win the finals. Look at who we beat when it counts. Utah in 5 (down 10 in second half and came back) Phoenix in 7 (down series 3-1 and down 15 in 3rd quarter before the 3 point barrage... speaking of "The Heart of a Champion"... who would not feel deflated down 15 on a game 7 even if it's the 1st quarter), SA and their 62-20 record that year.. (lost game 3 and 4 at home to tie and came back with style) and then Orlando.. (Penny, Nick, Dennis Scott, Grant, O'Neal)...that's some talent there. I know this is a long thread, but I do feel that this needs to be said. We won the finals, and almost 10 years later we start saying that those teams were the worst champions in the past quarter decade cuz we don't have Bird, Magic, Isiah, Michael, Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, Irving, McHale, Parish, etc and just have Hakeem?.... noooo rockets stepped up and faced the challenge. As corny as it may sound, their hearts were in the right place. They wouldn't lose. They did what they need to do and I can't imagine better team Chemistry. With an offense like ours. no specific person shoots. You pass until you get that open shot.. if not, Hakeem tries to beat the defender. You don't have... "play for jordan", "play for Bird, Mchale", you can't just call the dream shake unless the defense reacts so that there's no better shot. If a better shot's there, they pass it.. they know where each other are. That, in MY opinion, makes them one of the best teams of all time
That's....just....stupid. We "barely" beat the Knicks? We played a damn 7-game series and won! And the Rockets had control of game 7, if I remember correctly. Does going to seven games in your eyes somehow make the title less legit? Does playing a tough series down to the wire make it less legit? And you were b****ing about the "dump it down to Dream" offense and just generally trashing the Rockets and our titles, but I'm not particularly inclined to search through your drivel to find the quote I'd want, so I'll say this: That "boring, dump-it-down-to-Dream" offense got us two championships in a row, but since you seem able to muster some respect for the '95 team, I'll try to stick to '94 and earlier. We very likely would have made it to the 1993 Finals AND the 1996 Finals had we not run into the one team that owned us: Seattle. Your b****ing about us not being a good "team" got us the 2nd-best record in the league in 1994 with 58 wins. Our horrible "team" was tied with Seattle for the 4th best record in the league in 1993 with 55 wins. In terms of everyone knowing their role and doing what needed to be done, the Rockets teams of the mid-90's were some of the best teams ever, imo. Grit, heart, chemistry. That's the essence of a team. They did what needed to be done and they did it to a man. The only team who could and did f*ck our sh*t up was Seattle Every team has a nemesis. The one team who just flat-out owned the Rockets was the Sonics. They could stop us and they did stop us. We may never have gotten the opportunity to play Chicago for the championship, but our regular season record against the Jordan-lead Bulls indicated that at worst, it would have been a fantastic series to watch. And until MJ went to play for the Wizards, the Rockets were the only team to have a winning record against MJ. Sorry man, I'm not buying your slams. So the media doesn't like our titles. So f*cking what? Yeah, it pisses me off, and so does your apparent assumption that attaining the 1994 NBA Championship with the 2nd- best record in the league and a MVP/Defensive Player of the Year, while playing in one of the great eras with guys like Chuck, Ewing, Stockton, Malone, Pippen, Drexler, etc is somehow illegitimate.
Uh, all Champions that win the title have those qualities. You're acting like the Rockets hold the patent on grit, heart, chemistry. And we're not taking about whether or not the Rockets had those ingredients. We're talking about "the worst NBA champs" ever. That's 1994. Not 93, 95, 96... And this argument that the current Lakers play the same way as the 94 Rocket team is not true. The current Lakers team is more like the 95 Rocket team. No it didn't. The "dump-it-down-to-Dream" offense got us our first ring, the 2nd ring got more use from it's supporting cast. I said stay on track. We're talking about the 94 team. The "Worst NBA champs" title fits the 94 team. Sorry. But you're a homer and you're blind. It's ok. I forgive you. A common side-effect of "Homerism" is that you don't know good basketball when you see it. And most "Homers" are not basketball fans. They only watch the team of their city.
So, are you going to "sing" before the "fat lady has? (regarding the Kings/Mavs). And the Spurs DO NOT PLAY LIKE THE 1994 ROCKET TEAM! Open you eyes man! The mere fact that a team "dumps it down to their big guy" is NOT the issue. It's the style or system they implement throughout the whole game and how much of an offensive role the 2nd, and 3rd players get. The dump it down to Hakeem was run 95% of the time. The Spurs do NOT do that. Parker, Ginobli, Jackson, Rose all have part in the offensive sets. They are options and have plays called specifically for them. You need to go back and watch the first game of the 94 Knick series. You're memory has faded. By the way, you were right about "not much talent" on the 94 team. And it was for that reason that Rudy just gave the supporting players simple "stand on the 3 point line" roles. If you watched the "game" you'd see that the triangle was used to get the highest percentage shot (person that was open) an opportunity to score. And it was those "meat and potato" plays that gave the Bulls consistency. I'm not a big fan of the triangle, but reading what you said, it seems to me that the only reason you discount the triangle is because you only paid attention when Jordan got the ball. I mean, isn't it possible that you wouldn't remember a lay-up by Cartwright, or a screen set by Grant for Armstrong's jump-shot. Or a pick and roll set by Jordan for Pippen? When the game was on the line, true, Jordan broke his opponent down. But that's not the point. You were completely discounting the triangle existence! Anyways, this is a different subject that we can debate later if you like. No, it's the physical defense that created the success for the Knicks. Add a mix of offensive from a lot of players. The physical play is what gave the Bulls trouble. But the Bulls' powerful offensive and defense overcame in the end. And the same would have happened to the Rockets. We didn't have a powerful offense, and we surely didn't have a physical defense like the Knicks (we had Hakeem). My point was that the Knicks and Rockets of 94 were as evenly matched as you could get. But not better overall than the Bulls.
The 94 Rockets would wipe the floor with the 99 spurs. Those spurs were the worst champs ever. Avery Johnson and Jaren Jackson as their starting backcourt. If u think the 94 knicks were bad, how bout the sorry 99 knicks the spurs beat that year?
-Also, the Rockets matched up much better with Chicago than NY ever did. Hakeem was much much better and more clutch than Ewing, who often was contained by Cartwright and Co and always came up short in big games. Maxwell was a better defender on MJ than anyone and Horry always D'd up in the playoffs and would have matched up very well w/ Pippen. -Throw in Thorpe's physical presence w/ Hakeem and the Rockets should clean up on the glass. -The teams the mid 90's rockets struggled against were teams with great PG's like Seattle and Utah (payton and stockton) to exploit the defensive sieve at the PG position.
DavidS, the 1994 rockets were not as pitiful on offense as you make them out to be. Sure, they played an uglyball, sub 100 pts finals against the Knicks when they (stupidly, it nearly cost them the title) allowed the Knicks to dictate the pace and play a slowdown game. Throughout the regular season, and the playoffs up until the finals, they were one the leagues higer scoring teams, I can't find the statistics, but they averaged around 103-4+ points a game or so I recall. Were they (mostly) Olajuwon and a bunch of shooters? yeah,, but nobody could stop them when they were hot.
Regardless of predictability, that team knew how to win. They played within(Probably slightly too within) their talents and trusted their star to hit them with the ball when they were open. Simple, yet effective. I don't know how well that would work today(With the zone in effect), but that does not matter. Those teams had some great advantages, and used them. You digress. I said nothing of style, only of the team's clutchness. When we needed shots, when Hakeem was off, the specialists hit them. Also, Vernon Maxwell was a pretty damn good scorer, not just a spot up specialist. He was obviously not a dynamic midrange extraordinaire, like MJ, but he was not camped out on the line as you have suggested(Not of him personally, but the whole supporting cast). One more point...Was there anyone as good as Hakeem during that season? Ever? Personally, that is as dominant a playoff run as I have ever seen by a single player.
vj23k, Actually, I think David S might be right about Maxwell. That is pretty much what he did (sit at the 3 point line). In fact, I believe he holds multiple Rocket and NBA records for 3s attempted in a season (didn't shoot a very good % either).
We may not have had the patent on grit, heart, and chemistry, but those qualities got us the title of "Clutch City." And some champions have greater tendencies than others. Outside of sheer talent at the 5, our greatest attributes were, in fact, grit, heart, and chemistry. I never said the current Lakers were like the '94 Rockets. Yeah, I know. I meant to mention that. You make no mention of our record (2nd best) during the '94 season. The "worst team" doesn't tie the record of starting 15-0 to begin a season. You make no mention of our title of "Clutch City." Those qualities alone make this whole idea of us as the "worst champions" ludicrous. And who in the hell do you think you are? All of your points are that the Rockets played ugly-ball and no one on the team outside of Dream was any good. And first and foremost, I am a Rockets fan, but I AM basketball fan, and I know good hoops when I see it. Since this discussion has led to the inevitable "what-if" scenarios of Rockets vs. Bulls, I've got to mention that you also make no mention of the Rocket's record against MJ (only team with a winning record). Several of us here are comparing match-ups and giving honest assessments of over-all talent vs. over-all talent. All you're doing is denying a legitimate-as-any-other championship. I think you're the blind one.
Sure, some nights he did, but when he decided to explode he would score a lot of baskets in transition and driving to the hoop as well. Particulary I remember the one game in Phoenix (game 3 I think, maybe 4) in 94 in which he poured in 31 out of his 34 points in the second half and singlehandedly put the Suns down, he was driving, bombing threes, scoring FT's; he did it all that night. Also, he did take a spot up shot, but he didn't just sit htere, catch and shoot, he would dribble around a bit and then launch the off balance 3.
I remeber that Suns game vividly (great game). In that game (someone correct me if I am wrong), Vernon hit something like 8 or 9 three pointers, which would account for the majority of his points. When Vernon had monster games, it was more often than not because he was hot from long range. Lets talk as a whole here. When people remember Vernon Maxwell, they dynamic player that you described doesn't come to mind most of the time. I am never saying that Mad Max never did the things that you spoke of. However, his game was highly dependent on whether or not his 3 point stroke was working. That was his gig. There was a season or two where he attempted more 3s than 2s.
Max did jack up his fair share of treys, but I remember him taking it to the whole, also. He was no Clyde, but he did occasionally venture into the lane. He was also at the receiving end of a few Hakeem outlet passes. But, pardon me if I am wrong...We were in the middle of a championship run, and I was young and stupid. Some things are vivid, while others are vague. That really wasn't one of my main points...The main point is that the Rockets matched up well with the Bulls, and would have played them down to the wire.
