True. But what about this...? If you have THREE super stars at the top tier on your team, and the other two players are just scrubs. That's not a guarantee that the team will be a better "TEAM." The system the coach implements is just as important. So, not only did the 94 team play an ISO type offense (as in, dump it down to Hakeem every-time), but the other players really didn't have a important roles (except for standing out on the 3 point line). Part of the problem was that Rudy really didn't know how to design a sophisticated offense, Hakeem didn't know how to pass off the dribble, and the other players really weren't that coordinated to create their own shot (except for Sam, and sometimes Maxwell).
Really? The healthy David Robinson of 1995 certainly, the David Robinson of 1999, post injuries, went for slightly under 16 and 10. Could he have dominated Otis Thorpe (14 and 10 in 1995)? Probably, but not for seven games, or even four games, due to age and injuries, which is why he went for 16 and 10. Was he a far greater player in his heyday? absolutely. In 1999? No.
which shows why hakeem is way more badass than he'll ever be given credit for, but then you probably know that as well as I.
those stats are pretty close, but the one thing that really separates drob from thorpe, and the thing that was that 99 team's trademark, is defense. thorpe was great for playing in the trenches, getting tough boards, etc as was drob. but robinson blocked 2.4 a game that year, thorpe 0.3 for us in 93-94. that's a massive difference and one reason san antonio could just shut down the middle at will while we either had hakeem in the game or it was a parade down the lane for layups. on a side note, i think that's one thing people ignore today when comparing duncan and garnett's supporting casts. yeah garnett has some pretty good shooters and both have a lot of just role players and no-names, but SA's role players can bring D. malik, willis, drob, ginobili, jackson. all these guys can play D better and help on the boards and dong dirty work than almost everyone but garnett on minny. thus SA can actually stop the lakers while still scoring, while minny just has to hope to outscore them. i wonder what SA fans think of who was less talented. certainly sa had people like jaren jackson (who?) but we had pete friggin chilcutt. chilly pete! that just ain't right. i think he may have started a few games in the finals even. as did bullard. i think drob was better than our 2nd best and sean elliott was better than our 3rd best, thus sa had more talent.
Horry would have handled Pippen. Maxwell defended Jordan as well as anyone. But who the hell would have stopped Hakeem?
That's always been my point when arguing about this. Of course Pippen and MJ were better than Horry, Maxwell, and Elie, but if I couldn't have Pip or MJ on my team, and I had to play against them, I'd gladly go to war against them with Horry, Max, and Mario. Gladly. Especially if I had Dream in the middle. Not to mention OT on Ho Grant.
olajuwon was a singular bad-ass back then. unstoppable on O and dominating on D. man he was fun to watch. he'll probably never get his due from a historical perspective, but perhaps a more enlightened media will come along to fully appreciate his accomplishments in the future.
You're own argument goes both ways...The mid-90's Rockets were notorious for stepping it up in the playoffs(Hence, the name Clutchcity). Who's to say that Hakeem doesn't absolutely spank Cartwright/Grant/King/etc... the same way that MJ might have spanked MadMax/Mario? If anything, we had the advantage in the #1 player category. Hakeem would have easily outscored the Bulls centers(Yes, even collectively) by more than MJ could have outscored MadMax. When MadMax was hot, he could match anyone point for point. Anyone. These would have made for legendary series. Anyway, back to topic(Or back to answering the question) No, I don't think so. When you are talking championship teams, you reach a level where all the teams are just on a plateau...it has levelled off. They are the best of the best. Sure, there are a few teams lagging behind and a few that stand above, but most of these teams are of equal quality. I think that our beloved '94 (and '95) team are on this plateau. IMO, they were every bit as good(Or better) as the '99 Spurs, the Lakers of the past three years, and a few 50's-80's teams(They would have a chance against the 80's Pistons, but none at all against Bird's Celtics or the Showtime Lakers).
You might say something if the Rockets had only won one championship. Then you could say it was a fluke. But with or without Jordan, to repeat in the National freaking Basketball Association deserves recognition. Especially the second year when they were what, like the fifth seed? C'Mon. Give those guys some credit.
It's not what Hakeem would do to Cartwright/Grant/King or what Jordan would do to Max/Mario. It's what Cartwright/Grant/King/Pippen could do to the Rockets supporting cast! Those Bulls players were better "basketball" players than the Rockets supporting cast. That's the determining factor. The Bulls used their supporting cast better than the Rockets did, AND they were better trained in the skill of "basketball" as opposed to just being "specialist." As far as "stepping it up..." (in 95, 96...) Ask yourself why we *had to step it up* in the play-offs? Prior to getting Drexler, we had no other options beside Hakeem. It was the same "dump it down to Hakeem" offense. The league caught on, and they stopped double-teaming; stopped leaving the 3 pt shooters open. So, when Hakeem had a off-night, we lost. To make matters worse, we had no supporting players that knew enough "basketball" to get open (sometimes Casell). AND Rudy's offense wouldn't allow them to do so if they chose too. It was basically a ONE option offense. All or nothing. NO flexibility, only predictability. So, then we got Drelxer. He gave us that other option, but since we still ran basically the same play over and over again (Hakeem) not much changed except when Drelxer would go one-on-one. And we know what going one-on-one can do to a teams consistency (Francis/Mobley). It's not a solid game plan to do that. Thus, we never had a system that got the best out of ALL its players. Rudy only milked the two stars. BORING and PREDICTABLE. No coaching, really. So this "stepping it up in the playoffs" was really because, slow-down, one-on-one, half court game was better suited for the playoffs. But it wasn't a very effective system in the regular season (sound familiar?). Also, we were so determined to "shut Barkely" up, it fueled the fire. We also wanted to "save face" and prove people wrong. It was bascially a "the WORLD is against us, so what's to lose" mentality. It wasn't team talent, other than Hakeem. To contrast... The Bulls had it all. Three-point shooting, 2 point shooting, post play from guards, small-forwards, centers, driving plays, pick-and-rolls, screens, incredible defense, dynamic and flexible. You never knew where the next shot was going to come from ( great system). Oh, and they had Jordan and Pippen to go one-on-one when needed.
We had no chance in 94. Remember, we barely beat the Knicks. Maybe in 95. See my reply to vj23k. "Stop," "Slow down," "Frustrate." You can use any word you like. It's all semantics. The fact of the matter is that the Piston HAD to play tough nosed defense against the Lakers, Bulls, Celtics because they didn't have same level of offensive weapons the Laker, Bulls and Celtics had. The Pistons had very good offensive players, but not as dominating as the other teams. But my point wasn't whether or not they "stopped" those teams or "stopped" Jordan. You're getting off the subject. The point is that they had a better defense than the Rockets 94 team did and they showed it by defending the most offensively dominating teams of the 80's. So, not only did the 94 Rockets have a less dominating defense, but even their offense wasn't as potent as the Pistons. Now, before you start freaking out and start yelling "Hakeem!" I talking about their TEAM offense. Collective power! Not just one guy. Again, I'm talking about the 94 team here. On a side note. Regarding the 88 Finals. If you recall, Isiah had the Lakers on the ropes in the 6th game. But, it was he that came down with a major ankle sprain. Unable to play in the 7th game the Laker won the title. The Pistons were the better team in 88 AND in in 89 as well (regardless of Magics injury). As far as the Bulls. You asked about "stopping just Jordan." That was true before they got Cartwright, Pippen, Armstrong, Grant...but the 89, 90's Bulls had all the talent to win it all. Why didn't they? The Piston could get into their heads. So at that point the Pistons had an advantage. A defensive mental edge. That's where they got their nickname: Bad Boys. It was vicious. No team could play that way today. The refs wouldn't allow it.
If it wasn't for the Sonics in 93, the Rocks would have been the one facing off the Bulls instead of the Suns. I remember reading a magazine interview on Hakeem and he was lamenting the fact that he wasn't going to the WCF against the Suns and their "small" line-up. Charles has an MVP year but so did Hakeem averaging 26 ppg, 13 rpg and 4.2 bpg. I have no doubt that Hakeem would have torched the Suns the way he did to D-Rob in 95 and taken the Rocks to meet the Bulls in the Finals. I would love to have seen Hakeem square off against Mike in their prime. The best centre in the game versus the best player in the game. IMHO Hakeem would have willed and carried the Rocks to a series victory the same way he did in 94 and 95 when everybody else doubted the team. Then all the disrespect Hakeem and the Rocks has put up with regarding their 94 and 95 titles would have been erased permanently. For all the Jordan mystique, I believe that of all the West teams the Bulls played, the Rocks were the only ones who really stood a chance if they could just get there. In the perfect world, if all the stars were aligned, it would be the Rocks who owned the first three-peat in decades not the Bulls.
Actually, most sports writers acknowledge the 95 team as a very good team; respected (Hakeem vs Robinson, Mario's kiss of death, Kenny's 3's, Sams 33 point game vs the Magic, Chucky Brown making Charles mad...") It was the 94 team that is not respected.
So your saying the '94 and (?)'95 teams would have had no chance against Bird's Celtics and the Showtime Lakers? The '86 Rockets crushed the Showtime Lakers in the WC Finals and took Bird's Celtics in the '86 Finals to 6 games. So I suppose your saying that the '94 and '95 Championship Rockets weren't as good as the '86 team. You may not have intended to, but it's an interesting point of discussion and might make a great thread sometime. I think the '86 team was better. Just my opinion. I also think it's absurd to say that the '94 Rockets were the worst Championship team ever. It may have been the wettest series ever, with Ewing spraying sweat in all directions. Yes, I'd give it that distinction.
The argument about the Rockets "barely beating the Knicks" is weak and makes no sense. The Bulls never manhandled the Knicks either. They needed a colossal choke job by Charles Smith when he missed 5 layups in the last 3 seconds to win in 93 and always beat NY in 6 or 7 ugly games. Besides, the argument is that Hakeem vs. Chicago's frontline is a bigger mismatch than Jordan vs. Maxwell. That can't really be disputed effectively and has nothing to do w/ how badly the Rockets struggled against a NY team. Also, the being predictable argument is weak too. The current Lakers are the same as the Rockets were. Dump it down to Shaq or let Kobe go 1 on 1. They don't have a "dynamic" offense either and for that matter the Bulls success was MJ going one on one as well and great D, not the triangle offense. The NBA is a 1 on 1 league from the 90's onwards. Thats why the team with the best player wins it all every year (MJ, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan). When you have a guy like Hakeem or Shaq, it's stupid to get creative and fancy. Get the ball to your superstar every play and feed off him. Call it boring but Houston won 2 titles that way and LA won 3. It's effective and that's all that matters. Substance over style. If it were that easy to stop, Hakeemand Shaq would be ring-less.
The Rocks cannot be blamed for being dragged into a wrestlefest by the Knicks. That was the only way they could slow Hakeem down.
You hit it right on the head! The last 4 champions have used the same dump it to the low post offensive scheme and wait till the defense picks it poison. How is that any different from what the Rocks used in 94 and 95?! The only variation with the Lakers is that they have a perimeter player in Kobe Bryant who can freelance on the wing. Hakeem's dreamshaking is better to watch than Shaq's bulldozing "should be called offensive foul" 5ft tosses.
