So in the 80s

[rlsmooth775]

The Utah Jazz with two superstars in their prime and better role players never went to the finals. But in the 90s with the best players much older and worse role players they make it to the finals 2 years in a row

[SHAQisGOAT]

Well, 80s >> late 90s

[riseagainst]

did you know that 97 and 98 were 2 of Karl Malone's best seasons? oh wait you were still sucking on your mom's boobies at that time.

[rlsmooth775]

the whole team was worse

[JohnnySic]

Duh, in the 80's you had to get past the Showtime Lakers.

Not a ton of competetition by '97 and '98. Hakeem, Barkley, and others got old. Really only the Kemp-Payton Sonics to contend with.

[CelticBaller]

Stockton hit his prime in the late 80s and Malone peaked later in his career

[Marchesk]

Dallas was good in the 80s too.

[Rose'sACL]

Duh, in the 80's you had to get past the Showtime Lakers.

Not a ton of competetition by '97 and '98. Hakeem, Barkley, and others got old. Really only the Kemp-Payton Sonics to contend with.
like 87 lakers who had to get by 37 wins nuggets, 42 wins warriors and 39 wins sonics to get to the finals?

[atljonesbro]

90s was an extremely weak era and the eye test backs this theory.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Dallas was good in the 80s too.

And Portland.

[97 bulls]

What changed was a commitment on the defensive end. Malone improved, they never had perimeter defenders like Byron Russell, Chris Morris, and Shandon Anderson on theblate 80s Jazz. Their only defender was Mark Eaton who was an excellent shot blocker and defender. Mark Ivaroni and Bob Hanson weren't good defenders at all. Everyone on the 90s Jazz were exceptional defender except Jeff Hornacek.

The late 80s Jazz was better offensively. The late.90s Jazz were better defensively.

[SHAQisGOAT]

What changed was a commitment on the defensive end. Malone improved, they never had perimeter defenders like Byron Russell, Chris Morris, and Shandon Anderson on theblate 80s Jazz. Their only defender was Mark Eaton who was an excellent shot blocker and defender. Mark Ivaroni and Bob Hanson weren't good defenders at all. Everyone on the 90s Jazz were exceptional defender except Jeff Hornacek.

The late 80s Jazz was better offensively. The late.90s Jazz were better defensively.

Mark Eaton alone had tremendous defensive impact and you're also underrating the defense of (some of) the rest of them.. They were #1, in the regular season, in terms of DRtg for 3 straight seasons, from 1987 to 1989, also 1st in opp FG% during 2 of those seasons (2nd the other), and the team that gave up less points in 1989... guess they didn't care about playing defense and were average on that end though :rolleyes:

Late 80s Jazz vs late 90s Jazz, tbh I'd probably put my money on the late 80s squad, with Malone and Stockt already in their primes, DPOY-level center Mark Eaton, really good scorer Thurl Bailey, Darrell Griffith still balling, some solid role players (Hansen, Tripucka, Iavaroni, Brown...).

[97 bulls]

Mark Eaton alone had tremendous defensive impact and you're also underrating the defense of (some of) the rest of them.. They were #1, in the regular season, in terms of DRtg for 3 straight seasons, from 1987 to 1989, also 1st in opp FG% during 2 of those seasons (2nd the other), and the team that gave up less points in 1989... guess they didn't care about playing defense and were average on that end though :rolleyes:

Late 80s Jazz vs late 90s Jazz, tbh I'd probably put my money on the late 80s squad, with Malone and Stockt already in their primes, DPOY-level center Mark Eaton, really good scorer Thurl Bailey, Darrell Griffith still balling, some solid role players (Hansen, Tripucka, Iavaroni, Brown...).

Well, the Jazz of the late 80s sucked offensively and were ranked 1 and 2 as far as defensive rating in 97 and 98. But I'm sure you'd say that they were better offensively in the late 80s.

The players on that Jazz team (90s) were more known for their defense and foucused on it. The late 80s Jazz had some great offensive players but they were great defenders. It has alot to do with the era.

[Round Mound]

Mark Eaton alone had tremendous defensive impact and you're also underrating the defense of (some of) the rest of them.. They were #1, in the regular season, in terms of DRtg for 3 straight seasons, from 1987 to 1989, also 1st in opp FG% during 2 of those seasons (2nd the other), and the team that gave up less points in 1989... guess they didn't care about playing defense and were average on that end though :rolleyes:

Late 80s Jazz vs late 90s Jazz, tbh I'd probably put my money on the late 80s squad, with Malone and Stockt already in their primes, DPOY-level center Mark Eaton, really good scorer Thurl Bailey, Darrell Griffith still balling, some solid role players (Hansen, Tripucka, Iavaroni, Brown...).


This. 80s > 90s

[Xiao Yao You]

did you know that 97 and 98 were 2 of Karl Malone's best seasons? oh wait you were still sucking on your mom's boobies at that time.
He had great seasons every year as did Stockton. That's the whole point.


in the 80's you had to get past the Showtime Lakers

There's always excuses for them. If it hadn't been for MJ. :rolleyes:


What changed was a commitment on the defensive end. Malone improved, they never had perimeter defenders like Byron Russell, Chris Morris, and Shandon Anderson on theblate 80s Jazz.

They had similar players before. Sloan committing to them was another story. He liked high IQ guys over athletes. Chris Morris for example had some great games when Sloan allowed him to play and didn't get worked up over what he wasn't doing.


Their only defender was Mark Eaton who was an excellent shot blocker and defender.

Him retiring was one of the reasons they got better. There was an adjustment period after he was through but they were able to play 5 on 5 again offensively and defensively they weren't relying on a clueless brick wall at the rim anymore.


Mark Ivaroni and Bob Hanson weren't good defenders at all. .

Neither of those guys should have been playing either. Hansen was 3rd string before Darrell Griffith held out for more money and than breaking his foot. Frank Layden held it against him and he never got his job back after being on the verge of being an all-star before the holdout.


The late 80s Jazz was better offensively. The late.90s Jazz were better defensively.

They were the best half court team in basketball when they went to the finals. Sadly they stopped running under Sloan. The '88 playoffs when they out ran Showtime before giving the series away was the best they ever looked.


some solid role players (Hansen, Tripucka, Iavaroni, Brown...).
Hansen and Ivararoni were stiffs. Tripuka could have helped them if they'd let him. No one mentioned Frank Layden was their coach in the 80's and was known more as a comedian than a coach. When it's all said the Jazz as a franchise blew a golden opportunity. They got two of the greats in back to back drafts who were consistent and healthy and they have nothing but excuses to show for it. It was always wait until next year and next year eventually never came. :wtf:

[JTatStarranch]

The Utah Jazz with two superstars in their prime and better role players never went to the finals. But in the 90s with the best players much older and worse role players they make it to the finals 2 years in a row


They got a little better in the 90's and even later 90's. Stockton got stronger, as did Malone. They all became better defensive players aswell.

Also Hornacek was money in the playoffs and they didn't have someone like that in the 80's. Hornacek was also a very clever and scrappy defender that would come up with timely steals and hustle plays. Good defender.

Also they had trouble with the Lakers and Blazers in the 80's. However those teams broke up in the 90's. It was players like Magic, and Drexler they struggled against.

But those 90's teams had good bench players like Antoine Carr and Shandon Anderson.

[97 bulls]

No one mentioned Frank Layden was their coach in the 80's and was known more as a comedian than a coach.*
This is a great point. Sloan taking the helm was a huge upgrade as well

[Xiao Yao You]

They got a little better in the 90's and even later 90's. Stockton got stronger, as did Malone. They all became better defensive players aswell.

Also Hornacek was money in the playoffs and they didn't have someone like that in the 80's. Hornacek was also a very clever and scrappy defender that would come up with timely steals and hustle plays. Good defender.

Hornacek was certainly the biggest difference.


Also they had trouble with the Lakers and Blazers in the 80's. However those teams broke up in the 90's. It was players like Magic, and Drexler they struggled against.

They matched up well against the Lakers. Magic couldn't go through the lane at will with Eaton standing there. Porter was the Jazz killer as far as the Blazers went.


But those 90's teams had good bench players like Antoine Carr and Shandon Anderson.

Carr was great the first year they had him. Kept him way too long as they often did. Letting Shandon Anderson get away hurt.


Sloan taking the helm was a huge upgrade as well

Yes but they stuck with him way too long.

[1987_Lakers]

NBA got weaker during the mid-late 90's due to expansion and weak talent from college. You could win 60 games with 2 All-Stars and a bunch of nobodies in that era, Miami did it in '97.

[JTatStarranch]

No,
Malone and Stockton became more seasoned and got a little better. Also Magic retired.


But the 96 Jazz went through some awesome teams like Sonics, Lakers, Rockets, Spurs etc.

[Rose'sACL]

NBA got weaker during the mid-late 90's due to expansion and weak talent from college. You could win 60 games with 2 All-Stars and a bunch of nobodies in that era, Miami did it in '97.
87 lakers had to get by 37 wins nuggets, 42 wins warriors and 39 wins sonics to get to the finals

[1987_Lakers]

87 lakers had to get by 37 wins nuggets, 42 wins warriors and 39 wins sonics to get to the finals

I know.

[97 bulls]

NBA got weaker during the mid-late 90's due to expansion and weak talent from college. You could win 60 games with 2 All-Stars and a bunch of nobodies in that era, Miami did it in '97.
Miami had two Hall of Famers playing at a high level, and a Hall of Fame coach. PJ Brown, Ike Austin, Dan Marjle, and Mashburn were all very good. Hell Brown played a huge in the 2008 Celtics run. Remember him dunking on Bryants head?

I understand you can't see past your agenda, but damn, How many hall of famers did the Bucks of the 80s have? If I'm not mistaken, they had the third best record of the 80s behind the Lakers and Celtics.

[1987_Lakers]

I believe the Spurs in '95 won 62 games with Robinson and a bunch of scrubs.:oldlol:

What a joke.

[deja vu]

I believe the Spurs in '95 won 62 games with Robinson and a bunch of scrubs.:oldlol:

What a joke.
Cavs won 66 games with LeBron and scrubs.

Also, the Spurs had Rodman back then.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Miami had two Hall of Famers playing at a high level, and a Hall of Fame coach. PJ Brown, Ike Austin, Dan Marjle, and Mashburn were all very good. Hell Brown played a huge in the 2008 Celtics run. Remember him dunking on Bryants head?

I understand you can't see past your agenda, but damn, How many hall of famers did the Bucks of the 80s have? If I'm not mistaken, they had the third best record of the 80s behind the Lakers and Celtics.

Those Bucks, at full force, could've very well been the best team in the mid-to-late 90s after the Bulls, and they would easily shit on a team like Miami :lol
Sidney Moncrief, who's lonngg overdue at the HoF, is arguably the greatest defensive SG ever and was putting up like 21/6/5 during his prime years before injuries hit in 1986, Jordan praised the hell out of him with good reason. Peak/prime Marques Johnson was a great all-around SF, and looking at guys already in the HoF, he should receive solid consideration, underrated af. Bob Lanier was still valuable, and ofc a HoFer. Paul Pressey was a really good passer, played great D, was athletic, could score and rebound, overlooked. Terry Cummings was a beast before injuries. Ricky Pierce is one of the greatest 6th man ever. Junior Bridgeman was a legit 15+ ppg threat. They had really good spot-up shooters like Hodges or Dunleavy. They played as a team offensively and had great D. They had a HoF coach too... Those Bucks are underrated af and were unlucky in playing in the 80s EC.

[Roundball_Rock]

I believe the Spurs in '95 won 62 games with Robinson and a bunch of scrubs.:oldlol:

:biggums:

The Spurs had Rodman, Sean Elliot, and Avery Johnson in addition to Robinson. So essentially 3 all-star caliber players and a fourth good player.

[1987_Lakers]

Cavs won 66 games with LeBron and scrubs.

Also, the Spurs had Rodman back then.

They valued Rodman so much that they traded him for Will Purdue.:oldlol:

[JellyBean]

The Utah Jazz with two superstars in their prime and better role players never went to the finals. But in the 90s with the best players much older and worse role players they make it to the finals 2 years in a row

You make the statement like it was dirty or something for the Jazz to struggle in the 80s. You had a hot Dallas Mavericks team with Ronlado Blackman, Mark Aguirre, and Sam Perkins just to name of few on that team. Then you had Denver and Portland, along with the Lakers. Throw in the Golden State Warriors with Purvis Short (that brother was a rebounding machine), Chris Mullins, and Joe Barry Carroll. Bottom line, the Western Conference was brutal back in the 80s.

[Roundball_Rock]

They valued Rodman so much that they traded him for Will Purdue.:oldlol:

That is because he became a cancer on the team (Madonna!). He remained a top talent on the court, as he continued to show in Chicago during the threepeat. The 95' Spurs were comparable with other top teams of that era in terms of talent. One superstar, two other all-star caliber players and another good starter in Johnson.

[1987_Lakers]

You make the statement like it was dirty or something for the Jazz to struggle in the 80s. You had a hot Dallas Mavericks team with Ronlado Blackman, Mark Aguirre, and Sam Perkins just to name of few on that team. Then you had Denver and Portland, along with the Lakers. Throw in the Golden State Warriors with Purvis Short (that brother was a rebounding machine), Chris Mullins, and Joe Barry Carroll. Bottom line, the Western Conference was brutal back in the 80s.

Not really.:oldlol:

Eastern conference was the brutal conference back then.

[SHAQisGOAT]

87 lakers had to get by 37 wins nuggets, 42 wins warriors and 39 wins sonics to get to the finals

You're only looking at wins and nothing else? Cool :rolleyes: :facepalm
The EC was certainly greater (arguably the GOAT conference) but I woulnd't call the WC, of those days, weak at all, there were plenty of good teams but none with clear domination or the edge over the other (except for LA)... Mavs had Aguirre, Blackman, Perkins, Harper, Donaldson.. and would go on to win 53 the following year; Blazers were already pretty good with Drexler, Porter, Kiki, Kersey.. developing the same core will later go to the Finals; Like said here, Jazz already had Malone and Stock, with Eaton, Baley, Griffith, Tripucka, Green..; Warriors had Sleepy, Barry Carroll, Purvis Short and Mullin; Seattle had Ellis, Chambers, McDaniel and some nicer role players; Denver with English, Lever, Dunn and Wayne Cooper; Rockets were still good even with Sampson's "downfall".
....
Nobody would call those average teams but like I've said, plenty of good teams with no clear edge over the other made that conference more balanced, except for LA of.

[SHAQisGOAT]

You make the statement like it was dirty or something for the Jazz to struggle in the 80s. You had a hot Dallas Mavericks team with Ronlado Blackman, Mark Aguirre, and Sam Perkins just to name of few on that team. Then you had Denver and Portland, along with the Lakers. Throw in the Golden State Warriors with Purvis Short (that brother was a rebounding machine), Chris Mullins, and Joe Barry Carroll. Bottom line, the Western Conference was brutal back in the 80s.

I wouldn't say brutal (East was brutal) but good and underrated by people who'll only look at wins and such, and ofc, gotta realize LA had one of the GOAT teams and "belonged" to that conference too.

Purvis Short a rebounding machine? Huh, not really at all, more like a scoring machine at his best, dude had lots of scoring skills and that rainbow jumper, which touched the ceiling, was too sweet and great to watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxdV-LSntkc

[97 bulls]

You're only looking at wins and nothing else? Cool :rolleyes: :facepalm
The EC was certainly greater (arguably the GOAT conference) but I woulnd't call the WC, of those days, weak at all, there were plenty of good teams but none with clear domination or the edge over the other (except for LA)... Mavs had Aguirre, Blackman, Perkins, Harper, Donaldson.. and would go on to win 53 the following year; Blazers were already pretty good with Drexler, Porter, Kiki, Kersey.. developing the same core will later go to the Finals; Like said here, Jazz already had Malone and Stock, with Eaton, Baley, Griffith, Tripucka, Green..; Warriors had Sleepy, Barry Carroll, Purvis Short and Mullin; Seattle had Ellis, Chambers, McDaniel and some nicer role players; Denver with English, Lever, Dunn and Wayne Cooper; Rockets were still good even with Sampson's "downfall".
....
Nobody would call those average teams but like I've said, plenty of good teams with no clear edge over the other made that conference more balanced, except for LA of.



Only looking at wins? What else is there? That's the most ridiculous assessment.

[97 bulls]

Those Bucks, at full force, could've very well been the best team in the mid-to-late 90s after the Bulls, and they would easily shit on a team like Miami :lol
Sidney Moncrief, who's lonngg overdue at the HoF, is arguably the greatest defensive SG ever and was putting up like 21/6/5 during his prime years before injuries hit in 1986, Jordan praised the hell out of him with good reason. Peak/prime Marques Johnson was a great all-around SF, and looking at guys already in the HoF, he should receive solid consideration, underrated af. Bob Lanier was still valuable, and ofc a HoFer. Paul Pressey was a really good passer, played great D, was athletic, could score and rebound, overlooked. Terry Cummings was a beast before injuries. Ricky Pierce is one of the greatest 6th man ever. Junior Bridgeman was a legit 15+ ppg threat. They had really good spot-up shooters like Hodges or Dunleavy. They played as a team offensively and had great D. They had a HoF coach too... Those Bucks are underrated af and were unlucky in playing in the 80s EC.
Those Bucks were the second best team after the Celtics. Whoopty-damn-do?

And cut the ambiguous arguments. The Warriors in 97 had Latrell Spreewell, Chris Mullin, Joe Smith, BJ Armstrong, and Mark Price. They only won 30 games. A bad record is a bad record.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Only looking at wins? What else is there? That's the most ridiculous assessment.

:rolleyes:
Quality of the players, quality of the team, teams they were facing, even things like injuries or what they did later (in a weaker league) with the same core roster, so on.... If you put a good team on a really shitty league/conference, they gonna win a whole lot, if you put that same team in a league with other good teams, pretty much on their level, they gonna have less wins and you're gonna see more parity. Again, there were plenty of good teams in the 80s WC, only great being the Lakers though (well, Rockets were at really high level in 1986 but fell apart due to many things, afterwards). East was more like 4 great teams at the top then with some good teams below them, so on..

[SHAQisGOAT]

Those Bucks were the second best team after the Celtics. Whoopty-damn-do?

And cut the ambiguous arguments. The Warriors in 97 had Latrell Spreewell, Chris Mullin, Joe Smith, BJ Armstrong, and Mark Price. They only won 30 games. A bad record is a bad record.

Again, those Bucks in the mid-to-late 90s, would've most likely been the best team after the Bulls lol.

What ambiguos arguments?
Sprewell, the head case (could ball though, don't get me wrong but...)? 33 yo Mullin after injuries, way below his prime level?? Same as Mullin for Price... BJ was not even close to being a factor lmfao. Joe was good but never that good to begin with..... But yea, you're actually saying all that like they had some really quality players all balling like crazy :oldlol: That team wouldn't have won 30 in 1987, I'll tell you that.

[97 bulls]

Again, those Bucks in the mid-to-late 90s, would've most likely been the best team after the Bulls lol.

What ambiguos arguments?
Sprewell, the head case (could ball though, don't get me wrong but...)? 33 yo Mullin after injuries, way below his prime level?? Same as Mullin for Price... BJ was not even close to being a factor lmfao. Joe was good but never that good to begin with..... But yea, you're actually saying all that like they had some really quality players all balling like crazy :oldlol: That team wouldn't have won 30 in 1987, I'll tell you that.
Really? Spreewell was a head case? Literally half the league in the 80s was strung out on crack.

But I see what you're doing. Attempting to compare eras based on stats. The 19/9 Smith pit up in 97 would translate to 21/10 roughly in the 80s.

Mullins minutes were limited but he did shoot 55% that year. He was still a damn good player bottom line.

The bottom line is a bad team is a bad team. I could essentially go to any team any year and their three or four best players stats are gonna be pretty good.

I never said the Bucks weren't a great team. My point was that they were a great team and they weren't full of hall of famers and allstars.

[deja vu]

They valued Rodman so much that they traded him for Will Purdue.:oldlol:
Rodman was a locker room cancer or something. I read his autobiography and he said that he hated his time with the Spurs. Phil Jackson managed to tame him though.