Rank these past NBA Teams

[ClarkNasty]

[ QUOTE ]
i think the 03-04 pistons would take this, probably pretty easily.

i also think many here underestimate how good the teams are now, compared to then, as well as how different the game is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is actually totally untrue, and it's evidenced by 40 year olds like Malone, Stockton, Jordan all doing well in their late 30's and even at 40. There is without a doubt something to the concept that today's players, in general, aren't as fundamentally sound. It shows in the types of teams that win today.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I'm confusing the 96-97 Bulls with the 97-98 Bulls. The last Bulls team was the weakest of the bunch, and weaker than the 89-90 team IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
ITA with the '98 team being the weakest of the second run, but you really think they're worse than the '93 team? I don't even know win-loss, it just seemed like the '93 team was more beatable (e.g. if Charles Smith knew how to dunk a goddamned ball instead of attempting ghey banks off the glass they may not have even made the finals).

That's not an attempt to reopen the Suns-Bulls debate, it's a Bulls-Bulls debate.

[ClarkNasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I'm confusing the 96-97 Bulls with the 97-98 Bulls. The last Bulls team was the weakest of the bunch, and weaker than the 89-90 team IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
ITA with the '98 team being the weakest of the second run, but you really think they're worse than the '93 team? I don't even know win-loss, it just seemed like the '93 team was more beatable (e.g. if Charles Smith knew how to dunk a goddamned ball instead of attempting ghey banks off the glass they may not have even made the finals).

That's not an attempt to reopen the Suns-Bulls debate, it's a Bulls-Bulls debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think first 3 > second 3. Cartwright, Paxson, Grant > Longley, Harper, Rodman. I certainly understand why others would disagree though.

[tuq]

Clark,

You're forgetting Toni Kukoc!

Surprised with your assessment though. I could see Medical Bill being a better defender than Longley, think Harper was a better overall contributor on both sides of the ball than Paxson (aside from Paxson's performance in two title-clinching games...not to mention the later Bulls had his near-clone in Steve Kerr), and Rodman I would take well before Grant, because MJ was good at babysitting him and minimizing his distraction.

[kidcolin]

clark,

I'd love to hear your reasoning there. I'm not seeing that at all. Cartwright > Luke, but it's not like he was a beast. Rodman >> Grant. Paxson and Kerr might as well have come out of the same test tube. Harper was a great defender.

[ClarkNasty]

Tuq and KidCollin,

Like I said, I understand those who differ. however:

The Kerr Clone was Craig Hodges.

Paxson was way better than Kerr. He didn't play quite the defense of Harper obviously, but was way better at the offensive end. Harper was a terrible perimeter shooter, which is what the Bulls needed offensively between Jordan's godliness and Pippen slashing.

Rodman was fun and a great rebounder, but I always thought he was a little overrated as a defender, at least during his Bulls tenure when he really was already past his prime (he was flat-out bad on defense the last year of the 2nd 3peat). And, of course, he was an all-time bad offensive player. Horace was in his prime. Played good defense. Could post up and had a good midrange game.

Cartwright was at least as good as Luc offensively and way better defensively. He did great work against Ewing when very few could slow him down.

Honestly, I think all 3 are greater than their counterparts.

Also, and I know I'll catch flack for this, I think it's evidenced by the bulls (IMO) beating better teams in the first run. That Lakers team wasn't as good as in years prior, but were still good. The Portland team was great, as was the Suns team.

The Seattle team the 2nd 3peat team played was IMO always overrated, though I understand those who liked them. And Utah was good, but really, were they any better than those Portland or Phoenix teams? I don't think so. That last Bulls team was life and death vs. Indiana in the conference finals (I was at Game 6 in Indianapolis, the Reggie Miller pushoff game), and that Indy team was nice, but certainly not any kind of great team IMO. Jordan simply willed that last team to a title.

Further reason for my opinion is the weakness of the league during Jordan's absence, both before and after the 2nd run. The year immediately before and after the 2nd 3peat were both very poor. I don't think it was magically better during those 3 years, and it's likely evidenced by the obnoxious 72 wins. Said another way, I think early 90's NBA teams at the top were better than late 90's teams, and I don't think it's that close. The NBA, excluding the Bulls, was pretty poor for a good while and it really took until the Lakers-Kings rivalry in 01-02 to really recover. (The exception being the Lakers and Blazers in 99-00).

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
Paxson was way better than Kerr.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really.

Kerr- 5 seasons w/ Bulls: 3 pt.% .479 430/898
Career FG% .479

Paxson- 9 seasons w/ Bulls: 3 pt.% .363 259/713
Career FG% .499

I know you are going to say they are two different players (your Hodges comparison) and that is my point except for that Kerr was in another atmosphere of talent compared to Hodges--but yea their game is similar. Kerr did so much more than Paxson.

Kerr's career FG% is only slightly lower which is impressive considering he shoots a considerable amount of his shots from 3pt. unlike Paxson. Kerr's peak was w/ the Bulls during the second 3-peat, his shooting numbers are crazy good. Paxson was really never anything more than a role guy whereas when Kerr was on the floor he could be a huge part of the offense--he has always been a weapon.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paxson was way better than Kerr.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really.

Kerr- 5 seasons w/ Bulls: 3 pt.% .479 430/898
Career FG% .479

Paxson- 9 seasons w/ Bulls: 3 pt.% .363 259/713
Career FG% .499

I know you are going to say they are two different players (your Hodges comparison) and that is my point except for that Kerr was in another atmosphere of talent compared to Hodges--but yea their game is similar. Kerr did so much more than Paxson.

Kerr's career FG% is only slightly lower which is impressive considering he shoots a considerable amount of his shots from 3pt. unlike Paxson. Kerr's peak was w/ the Bulls during the second 3-peat, his shooting numbers are crazy good. Paxson was really never anything more than a role guy whereas when Kerr was on the floor he could be a huge part of the offense--he has always been a weapon.

[/ QUOTE ]

ditto

[ClarkNasty]

Dude, neither was ever a major offensive threat. Kerr never averaged double digit ppg, Pax did only once or twice I think. Paxson was far more involved in the offense, he could drive, handle the ball, and most importantly, wasn't a complete and utter liability on the defensive end.

By comparison, as I mentioned before, Harper played better D but was a joke on offense.

I maintain his true comparison is Hodges, who was slightly less useless on D, and not quite as good a shooter.

Regardless, we're talking about 4 players who between them averaged about 8ppg during relevant Bulls years. I think Paxson was without a doubt the best of the group, and ignoring Kerr's total inadequacy on defense is to overlook a serious deficiency.

[ClarkNasty]

It's not a "who was the better 3-pt shooter" contest.