The Spurs were the better team...but lot of analyst, writers, and even people on this board complained for weeks....that the Suns got shafted and where the better team....probably closet Suns fans. But, the Spurs are whole lot better them....in most areas, both teams are fairly evenly matched, except Spurs have advantage on post play (off/def) and overall defense. But people swore up and down the Phoenix was the better team and that Tim Duncan was not that much to make difference...but really he was the main reason they won the series...and Phoenix lack of real defense. Insert Dream....I think he would almost put up record numbers against the Suns, while even think he would probably even shut down Amare slightly better than Duncan with a little (very) help from Oberto. They would almost be forced to start Kurt Thomas and move Amare to his natual position, because Duncan nowhere near as agile as Dream. As we know how great Suns defense is? I see what you're saying...the Dream could win easily with help of Finley, Parker, Bowen, and Ginobili. I think that complement Dream well and even make them slightly better than are now....but I still think Phoenix would still give them a little troube....because they're very great offensive team with Nash Marion Amare and etc they would be able to squeeze a win or two....but I don't think they would struggle with them alot.
that team was stacked that said, the 90s sonics, jazz, spurs, suns couldve been better competition than the blazers, kings, spurs, and sixers that year.....
I think so too, but that team if they played in the West against sonics, suns, spurs, and jazz.....would still be the best team. You've got Kobe and Shaq, both in their prime with Fox, Fisher, Horry, and etc. I thought the 99-00 team was their best team...though they didn't go 15-1 in playoffs they did have tougher road to finals....Suns, Trailblazers, and Pacers. with that being said...none of those teams would have answer for Shaq...he probably have his way with those teams same as Kobe...I think the team would give the most trouble would probably the Jazz. The sonics and suns can't match really stop both them...but I think Jazz team defense might slow them down abit and having Stockton and Malone. Skill wise at the time...wasn't it almost like Shaq was the best player with Bryant being Top 5. That's pretty what made the Lakers better than everybody else...no other team in league now or for the last 10 or 15 years could say that. Which why the Rockets got so good in 95? Shaq and Kobe the next year where both averaging over 27 ppg a game and the Lakers almost had the best record again....I mean they won 3 titles almost uncontested.
I've got no problem with someone picking Shaq over Hakeem. The statement you make about either being better than the other applies to them. Duncan is a notch below the 2. Of course he will make hte team because he has much less comp at PF than Hakeem does at C. If DUncan was a C, he doesn't make many all time NBA teams either.
The Trailblazers had them down in game 7 in the fourth quarter before they choked in the WCF in 2000. The Kings had them down until the Kings got called for 27 fouls in the fourth quarter of game 6 in 2002. The Lakers really only dominated the playoffs in 2001.
HAKEEM! Absolutely! Duncan and Hakeem are different type. I like the type of Hakeem better. I was not a fan of HOUSTON ROCKET when I watched the NBA games in 1993. "What a great player! What a great center!"I said when I watched his games in that time. Before I know the HAKEEM,I don't think a big man can do that!
99-00 Blazers included younger Rasheed Wallace 20 ppg fresh out of Atlanta Steve Smith old, but still adquate and great defending Pippen aging, but still above average Sabonis younger Bonzi Wells aging Schrempf Damon Stoudemire Brian Grant With Stacey Augmon, Greg Anthony, and Jermaine O'Neal not getting significant minutes. That team could beat and win a series against the best Western teams of today. That team was like the Celtics lite...but imagine how good that team would've been if you had that Blazer team with all of those players in or near their prime. That was the Best Blazers team in recent years....and arguably the best team not win a championship in the last 10 years. That team kept most of the games competitive against the Lakers, and they didn't really let Shaq and Kobe dominate...
Could you imagine the Suns/Mavs going up against that Blazer team? With Suns could you imagine Amare trying to guard Sabonis and slow down Wallace at the same time? Could see how Pippen would guard Nash and Barbosa? It would be nice match up with Marion and Bell trying to stop Bonzi and Smith..but how could Marion try to stop them and be on the front line trying to Amare...someone would have to guard Damon...he would render Nash useless on defense...Nash would have to guard him, Bonzi, Pippen, or Steve Smith. It would be an fair series, but the Blazers would win in 4 or 5 games. They would do the same to the Mavs...that could stifile Nowitzki with Rasheed and slow everyone else down like the Warriors did
I think that period was funny period in basketball you had yesteryears best players (perhaps some of greatest of all time) with todays best players being somewhat younger at the time. Now you've just got a portion of that. I think that team would the win the west today, too. I could see both Suns and Mavs stuggling again with the Rockets big men, Olajuwon and Barkley...those teams have never really any teams like that...except for maybe San Antonio. but that's not good measure. Amare would find his away again having trouble in paint and getting into foul trouble trying to stop Dream or even Barkley. They wouldn't make him totally none factor...because he is sorta similar to Shawn Kemp and he always gave Houston trouble...but he wouldn't run wild on the Rockets though. They would probably put Marion on Barkley and let Bell guard Drexler. Let Nash play Elie or Maloney. I think Phoenix would have few games hot steak games that would win but, the Rockets win 5 or 6, regardless of where homecourt is. It wouldn't be sweep, but it would be sort of like Spurs/Suns series, but Houston might be a bit more stifling and giving Suns fewer opportunities.
Regardless of your opinion of the relative strength of that Blazers team as compared to current teams, that the Lakers were pushed so hard by them means that the Lakers hardly won 3 titles almost uncontested. They faced elimination games in 2 of the 3 years they won the title.
But they never lost a championship from 99-00 to 01-02, no one ever defeated them for championship for almost 4 seasons. They were the best team in league and beat all of their opponents...Blazers, Suns, Spurs, and Kings. No one ever took the title away from them until 02-03 Spurs beat them in 6. They were the undisputed 3 time champs. No one interferred in their title runs, so they were an uncontested champ.
I mention the Blazers as team to show how great that team was how that team could in another year have won the title or even winning that year with that been said...the best team won that series....the Lakers won in 7 games and they were leading the series 3 to 1, which lets me believe that the best team won. Even though, the 2nd best team that year almost and probably should've beaten them given the circumstances.
By that reasoning, every championship is uncontested, because no one stopped the team from winning it that year. Using a normal definition, only the 2001 championship was nearly uncontested, in that they mostly just steamrolled all of their opponents. The other years they were fortunate to squeak out game 7 victories against teams that had them on the ropes. Meh, just different ideas on terminology, no big deal.
This another point...that no one some mentioned about Duncan and Dream...surprised nobody really brought up two titles in row .... something the Spurs with Duncan have never done also....Dream's finals where against most likely the 2nd and 3rd best centers in league Shaq and Ewing....i thought would've brought that up especially with title talk. Duncan's biggest challenge was the new age Pistons.
don't forget the phoenix suns, dallas mavs, and the 3 peat lakers..the Spurs have been the best team in the West 3 of the last 5 yrs and we all recognize that the if you get out of the West then you are the prohibitive favorite to win.. Don't think it's very honest to belittle the Spurs comp in the finals when they had to get out of the west first..
The 03 Spurs beat less competition and struggled more than any champion in the history of the NBA. You beat a Nets team in 6 in the finals that the Lakers trounced the year before in a sweep. You beat a Dirkless Mavs team in the WCF in 6. You beat a Lakers Dynasty by an Horry miss that was done with injuries to Fisher and Fox. It was the least impressive run I've ever seen. This years Spurs played extremely well throughout, although your toughest matchups would have been the Mavz, Pistons, and even the Rockets. 99 was a short season but the Spurs were impressive. This was a great run. But again in the finals you played an 8th seeded Knicks team without Ewing. In 05 I think they played by far their only competition in the finals. And they came out on top. And I give this team the most credit of all Spurs teams and of Duncan lead teams. First Championship without Robinson. But Duncan's numbers were not that great and I still think the 94 Knicks had a much tougher deffense than the Pistons. They did struggle against the Kings in the west, even though Artest missed a game and they easily beat the Suns who were without Joe Johnson. In reality the Spurs beat 2 really good teams with full rosters in 4 championship runs. The 05 Pistons and the 07 Suns(Amare did miss game 6). Hell the 04 Pistons and the 06 Heat, even beat 2 really good teams in one Championship run each. They beat each other and the 04 Lakers and the 06 Mavs.
I think the Spurs are very good and have one of the best runs in history...but I don't think they are as dominate as the Lakers or Bulls. Mainly, because as great as Duncan is he is not on the same level M.J., Shaq, Dream, Kareem or Magic. Even though the Spurs as whole have a great rosters with Duncan...he is just not as dominating like those players were. He does dominate...not like those others did.
Why didn't you save everyone the time by just saying that during (only) the Spurs runs everyone else in the league sucked.
