Your post is worth this, see above! Please stop trying to aggravate Clutch BBS Members who are true Rockets Fans. They know just how good the 1994 Champs were! Thank you Better than Chicago[incl Jordan}, better than New York and all Teams in the WEST!
Yeah, but our problem WAS our TEAM scoring. NOT our team defense. You can say we scored 100+ points in the regular season all you want. Those points were only achived because of the "stand on the 3 point line" thing was working that day. It was a system that worked smoothly sometimes. But when we weren't hiting, we looked bad. Real bad. That was the only system we had. So, when that failed, we didn't have another game plan (scoring talent) to fall back on. Team scoring wasn't an issue with he Jazz or Bulls. No. It's what type of team you are to start with. If you are a defensive team first, and then you make it to the Finals, then your true colors will show. The same thing that the Nets are showing now. The only difference is that they are able to play the fast break because of Kidd. At least they have that. The 94 Rox were missing that one guard that could run the break or orchestrate the offense. We didn't have that until we got Clyde. Cassell was the closes to that. But he was a rookie. And Rudy didn't want to put him "in charge." You still don't get it. If a defensive team plays another defensive team then it's a lot easier to keep them from scoring than it would be for a offensive team. Again, it's the type of team you are to begin with and how much scoring talent you have collectively. There is a difference between guys that just can't put the ball in the basket (because they just don't have the offensive talent), vs great offense met by greater defense. The Jazz and Bulls series had some low scoring games. But it was interesting to watch because the defense was tactical moves; playing the lanes, prevention of passing, doube team timing... The 94 series was brute force. It's not like the supporting players could score a lot anyways even if the defense wasn't that great. Thus, ulgy ball was inevitable. Two defensive teams, with average scoring supporting casts. Guess what happened if Hakeem or Ewing were on the bench? Even uglier! Like I want to watch Horry go one-on-one, then fall on his face. Or Smith try his Payton impression and get the ball stripped. Or maybe Thorpe could try that thing called a jump shot...nothing but air. Those guys alone on the court, it was hideous.
You do understand that there was a reason Jordan was called a "star" right? Could it be because he could score? Take Stockton away too, and see what happens.... Let's take Tim Duncan and Jason Kidd off their respective teams and see what happens to the offense. Would their teams struggle offensively? Can you say, DUH! If the 94 Rockets had Clyde, we would have won the Finals 4-2. Not seven games. And the offense would have beem more efficient (prettier) and succeded beause of it. That's why the 95 Finals has clout. It's replayed on Classis Sports a lot more than any of the 94 games. Was the the 95 Rockets team any worse a defensive team than the 94 team? No. The difference maker was that we had Clyde to give us that other option.
C'mon dave, when the rockets and knicks score in the 90's, its ugly basketball, but when the Jazz and Bulls repeatedly turn in games in the 70s and 80's, its offensive efficiency? That doesn't make any sense at all, and you know it. Our problem WAS team scoring? that's funny, cause over 100 regular season and playoff games, they averaged 101 per, in the top third or so of the league. "Those points were only acheived because of the "stand on the 3 point line" thing was working that day." That has to be one of the hands down silliest statements I have read on this BBS. In other words, you are saying that offense sucked, but they only scored points when the offense was WORKING as it was DESIGNED that day (which, on average, was every single one)????? That has to be the single weakest argumeent ever advanced in an attempt to discredit the 94 rockets. "Their offense only scored points when they made baskets, which was often" What an insight there. But Ok, DavidS, let's take your logic at face value and say that regular season scoring doesn't matter, its the finals that count, so I'll hold you to that Well, judging by your 'regular season doesn't matter 'logic, evidently it was. I know you don't think the 94 Rox were all that, and i'm sure you have valid reasons for doing so, but if you want to criticize them, you got to bring stronger stuff than that to the table. That was weak, weak, weak.
Like I wanna see a series between Dallas and New Jersey.Though it wouldnt be that bad because I cant stand San Antonio as a team.If Dallas was in the finals it would be a lob-fest all the time.Keyon would have a break out series.Nash would run in tha lane then run back out like a chicken wit his head cut off.Micheal Finley would just stand outside all night waiting for a pass.Dirk would run the floor like Larry Legend and embarass the Nets.Richard Jefferson would just ack a fool on the rim.J-Kidd would show Nash why he is the complete point gaurd in the league right now.Nick Da Quick would shred the defense like a mandilin and it's ova.The benchs would go to Dallas (sike).I would say the avrage score in the series would be 103(Dallas) 105(New Jersey).Jersey would win because they paly DEFENSE
i didn't mean it in the sense of take away jordan's talent from the bulls and replace it with nothing, i meant if jordan the most hyped player ever, the media darling, the league darling weren't in the series. say if someone like hakeem had been in that series and not jordan, it doesn't get the same treatment and is labeled ugly simply b/c jordan the star isn't there, not jordan the talent. i obviously know it wouldn't be the same if you just started taking the best players off team's willy nilly (have always needed to get that phrase into a post). and i agree with Sam Fisher's point, the offense scored but sucked b/c it only worked when it was working? it obviously worked enough to score 101 ppg. sounds like an effective offense.
What you call an offense, were role players standing on the 3 point line. How predicable is that? Don't you remember what happened after the 10th game of the 94-95 season? The league stoped double teaming Hakeem. Then what? No players left open on the 3 pointline. Now what? Do we expect Smith to create something? Do we expect Horry to "take the game over?" Do we expect Thorpe to start dominating? What? I tell you what. Our offesnive "talent" was exposed. And that's why we brought in Clyde. The league wasn't buying it anymore. Our offense was limited. It was one dimensional, stagnant and predictable. Because it wan't really offensive talent; it was Hakeem and some role players. AND THIS IS THE MAIN REASON THAT THE NATIONAL MEDIA and the rest of national fans thought that the Rockets 94 season was a fluke. They resented that such an talentless team could have won it all. This does show Hakeems greatness. But still. Remember, I'm talking collectively. This is the same problem that the Lakers are facing. Except they have two guys who still have a lot to offer. Their not at the end of their careers (Kobe/Shaq).
This also deals with hot and cold offense. That means, when it wasn't working, we looked bad because we didn't have balance on offensive. It was ALL or NOTHING. Remember, Rudy implemented a SIMPLE offense. Dump it down to Hakeem, and when he was doubled, kick it out to the 3 point man. Over and over and over and over again... So, as long as that SIMPLE plan worked, we were fine, boring but fine. But when it wasn't working, we looked BAD!!!! VERY BAD. And that couldn't have been more evident than the 95 season (before Clyde). Hot and Cold. No balance attack. No even distribution when Hakeem was off. It as Hakeem and 3s or NOTHING. Dynamics man? Can you see that?
Please.....reason no one complained about the Bulls-Utah games is because of JORDAN! Same reason golf's ratings have increased since Tiger's 'arrival'. Star Power. Not everyone has IT. Difference between then and now is what people call DEFENSE. Inside of Stern's head: Yay, let's all go college and introduce zone defense to cover up what 80% of our current NBA players can't do/won't do.....PLAY DEFENSE! Inside of the average NBA player's head: What, you mean I don't have to play defense anymore, just cover a 'zone' and if someone gets near me just flop? What about offense coach? Coach: ............. Ahhhh, that makes sense. Just go into the lane and it doesn't matter if I feel the slightest bit of contact.....just swing my arms in the air, and fall awkwardly as if Shaq just body-slammed me. Sweet. What if I don't get the call? Coach: ................ OK, just stare at the ref as if we were going to get into a fight so I won't have to worry about getting back on defense. Keep doing until I get a technical you say..... Brilliant. I think it's gotten to the point where every Finals was a good finals except for the two we won.......they would include the Spurs-Knicks series, but that seems to have an '*'.
Bulls Scoring = Jordan creating, Pippen running the fast break dunking or dishing, Rodman 3 offesnive rebound put backs, Longly's 15 foot jumpers, Harper's swooping layups, Kerr's clutch 3 pointers, Kukoc's finger rolls and threes.... Jazz Scoring = Stockton to Malone pass, pick and rolls, Stockton on the fast break, Jeff Hornacek's runners in the lane off glass, Stockton back door layup, Malone fade away jumper... ======================= Rockets Scoring = Hakeem doing anything, role players 3s, more Hakeem, and a little more Hakeem. Knicks Scoring = Ewing fade away jump shot, Harper's driving layps, Harper 3s, Mason's post play, John Starks fast break dunks...(They didn't have much either)
The current Rocket team has the most talent/depth they've ever had! How do you know that a player has talent (other than just watching them yourself)? Other fans (not Rocket fans) actually want to see them play. We're not talking biased homerism. We're talking about an objective perspective. Posey! Exciting 4th year wing-man with tons of talent. A player that has the ability to take over a game, and he's not even the 4th best player on the team! Denver regrets letting him go! Griffin! A young player with potential, gets his props from fans from other cites. They recognize him. They acknowledge his talent. New Jersey is holding their breath on this guy...you know it's true! Mobley! Quick, agile and exciting slashing 2 guard that is known around the league; his first step quickness bring fear to opponents. Even Kobe can't stop this guy. Francis! Voted starting All-Star next to Kobe. One of the top guard in the league. Famous world wide. Has lots of style. Very well known in big and small markets. Yao Ming! World Wide recognition only rivaled by Jordan and Tiger Woods. Enough said. This team has TALENT!!! This is not the 94 Rockets. Van Gundy needs to harness this talent, and then, and only then will you see what you've been missing!
are you gonna win something if you post enough in a row in this thread? we need to realize it before we can harness it. cuttino and steve are the only two that are close to fully realizing their potential (although they can grow), everyone else is still quite a bit away. and that's a good thing, b/c it means there is tremendous hope for the future. Bulls Scoring = Jordan creating, Pippen running the fast break dunking or dishing, Rodman 3 offesnive rebound put backs, Longly's 15 foot jumpers, Harper's swooping layups, Kerr's clutch 3 pointers, Kukoc's finger rolls and threes.... jordan creating, ok that's good. pippen running the break, well that's good if you're actually on a fast break, but that's not part of a set offense. rodman's offensive rebounds? extremely valuable and highly underrated part of bulls success? yes. great offensive talent people want to watch, hardly. longley's 15 footers? are you kidding? he got his 15 footers off kickouts, same exact way our role players got their shots. harper's layups? same thing, created by someone else, still the same as getting a wide open 3 in that you didn't create it, there's just more variety, wow. kerr's 3's. horry's 3's. kukoc's finger rolls and 3's. elie's finger rolls and 3's. i won't argue we had more individual talent on offense, but as long as you have one guy the other team can't stop and everyone can make you pay if you stop him with 2+ people, then you can still have equal team talent. just because we did the same thing most of the time doesn't make it less effective. you seem to be confusing variety with better. hakeem against anybody i consider good. one of our bevvy of 3 point shooters taking a wide open 3 b/c the other team doubled hakeem to stop him, i consider good. except for seattle (who cheated), who found a way to stop it consistently? you picked your poison. if you got lucky and the 3's weren't falling you could win. if we were average on 3's, we'd probably win. if we were good on 3's, it was all over. simple but effective. don't act like being able to hit a 3 isn't talent. it may not be pretty finger roll/swooping layup talent, but it's a valuable, usually team-oriented, talent. potentially having 3 or 4 guys out on the floor with that talent combined with an amazing inside scorer is a good thing and it proved to be so for 2 years.
Guess how you beat the zone? That thing called "shooting." When someone beats the zone, you're actually forced to play real defense. Can't shoot. Then you will loose to the zone. How embarrassing.
What you call talent, I call a specialized skill. There is a difference. Horry was good a 3's and defense. But he was not a complete basketball player. Kenny Smith. 3 point shooter. Decent ball handler. A talented player is some one like McGrady, Mobley, Yao, Francis or Garnett, or Duncan. They have natural talent and can take over games. Sorry, but just because Thorpe can rebound and play defense doesn't mean that he's talented as a complete basketball player. He's a specialist. There's a difference. We had a bunch of specialist in 94. "what does well known have to do with talent. people seem to find duncan boring to watch, yet he has a tremendous amount of talent. " What does being "well known" have to do with talent? What???? Let me ask you this. Is Tim Duncan "well known" or not? Come on... If you really believe your statement above, then you just bashed your very own Francis. (Yao's) overhypedness also rivals jordan's. his hype far outweighs his game at this point. again, we are potential right now, not talent. Oh yeah. It's only potential...yeah right. Come on man! If you can't see that Yao has tremendous talent for a 22 year old rookie, you're blind. There's a reason that he took it to Shaq his rookie season and did pretty well. How about this? Don't double team him. See what happens. Dude! That's pure talent. Period! Forget the hype. Just look at Yao play.
Set offensive has nothing to do with it. Offense is offense. The point is that the Bulls got their offesnive many different ways. Not including when Jordan, their leader, took over when he had to. The Rockets did not have those options. They relied on a simple repetitive play, over and over again... But those "role" players gave the Bulls the *other* scoring options that the Rocket didn't have. It's not that the Bulls didn't have "role" players, but that those players had a bigger ROLES in terms of what type of plays were run for them. It was different most of the time. You never knew what player was going to score. It was unpredictable because the offensive was dynamic. And your confusing predictability with better. As long as you have a "leader," variety is always better for scoring when talking about TEAM contribution. TEAM and VARIETY should be synonyms in terms of offensive contributions.
but since it's 3 am, i don't think i believed my own statement, so there. in fact, i'm so tired, i keep typing 3 am while it's actually 4 at this point but i don't feel like going back and correcting it.
but i haven't said either was better. i am simply saying predictability can easily be equal to variety. if you can't stop predictable, predictable will score. and we scored, predictable as we were. the bulls scored, as varied as they were. both scored. both worked. and one could argue hakeem was the most unpredictable player in the game in the post which made it that much harder. we didn't have pippen/mj/kukoc, we had hakeem dream shake, hakeem jump hook, hakeem up and under, hakeem face up, hakeem alley-oop, and hakeem baseline spin. you didn't always know what was coming, which meant you couldn't stop him. which meant you had to double, which meant we had open 3's, and isn't offense all about the open shot? we could get the open shot, and the fact that we got 3 instead of 2 if it went in really sucked for the opponent. and with that i go to sleep.
DavidS wrote: A talented player is some one like McGrady, Mobley, or Francis or Garnett, or Duncan. They have natural talent and can take over games. francis 4 prez wrote: well yeah, but there's not many on a given team. one or two complete players then limited role players. our limited role players were just limited in the right way though and thus we succeeded. ------- Exactly. That's my point. It's that level of support that can be adjusted (scouting/team building). And Jordan just had better people around him, which made for a better over-all balanced offense. The Rockets did what they had to do, given their "talent." But at the cost of "ugly ball" or boring offense. It's a technical issue (offensive dynamics), as well as a sujective issue (entertaiment value). That's why it's hard to discuss because most Rocket fans are blinded by the first ring (pun not intended).
