Charles Barkley just said the 3 best teams he's ever seen are...

[1987_Lakers]

'86 Celtics
Magic's Lakers
Shaq's Lakers


Pretty surprised he left off Jordan's Bulls.:oldlol:

[72-10]

:lol

[Marchesk]

At what point do we include this Warrior's team?

[Mr. Jabbar]

good list.

throw in this warriors team at the end of season tho :pimp:

[plowking]

'86 Celtics
Magic's Lakers
Shaq's Lakers


Pretty surprised he left off Jordan's Bulls.:oldlol:

Damn.

[theaussieguy]

lol @ not choosing Rondo's Kings.

[tontoz]

'86 Celtics
Magic's Lakers
Shaq's Lakers


Pretty surprised he left off Jordan's Bulls.:oldlol:

Yeah pretty glaring omission, especially since the Bulls beat his Suns in the Finals.

[90sgoat]

No suprise?

The Celtics and Lakers of the 80s were clearly better player for player than MJs Bulls.

[He Strong]

'86 Celtics
Magic's Lakers
Shaq's Lakers


Pretty surprised he left off Jordan's Bulls.:oldlol:
MJ's Bulls need in there, but otherwise those are probably 3 of the best 4.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

No suprise?

The Celtics and Lakers of the 80s were clearly better player for player than MJs Bulls.

Those teams played in the same era, though. MJ's Bulls were playing against 1 star teams surrounded by a bunch of roleplayers. It's kind of like saying Kobe's stacked front court teams weren't that great compared to those, but they should be compared to Dwight's Magic and LeBron's Cavs which were some of the other top teams of that time. Context, my friend. Context.

[Sarcastic]

Outside of Jordan, the Bulls weren't really that good. 1994 was a fluke. Their SRS was very low for a 50+ win team. That was one of the biggest overachieving years for a team ever.

[La Frescobaldi]

Outside of Jordan, the Bulls weren't really that good. 1994 was a fluke. Their SRS was very low for a 50+ win team. That was one of the biggest overachieving years for a team ever.

That right there is purest agenda hot garbage.

[Akhenaten]

Outside of Jordan, the Bulls weren't really that good. 1994 was a fluke. Their SRS was very low for a 50+ win team. That was one of the biggest overachieving years for a team ever.

Ok what the PHUCK is a SRS man!?

everyday yall got some new advanced stat, bunch a frigging garbage man :banghead:

[72-10]

Yeah pretty glaring omission, especially since the Bulls beat his Suns in the Finals.

:lol

[72-10]

Those teams played in the same era, though. MJ's Bulls were playing against 1 star teams surrounded by a bunch of roleplayers. It's kind of like saying Kobe's stacked front court teams weren't that great compared to those, but they should be compared to Dwight's Magic and LeBron's Cavs which were some of the other top teams of that time. Context, my friend. Context.

No, they were not.

1995-96 Seattle SuperSonics: 64-18, Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp
1996-97 Utah Jazz: 64-18, Karl Malone and John Stockton
1997-98 Utah Jazz: 62-20, Karl Malone and John Stockton

And teams like the Suns were just great teams.

You must have not watched these teams play.

[Sarcastic]

That right there is purest agenda hot garbage.

Show me the 50 win teams with a 2.87 SRS. The Cavs and Pacers had higher SRS that year, and both were under 50 wins.

[La Frescobaldi]

Show me the 50 win teams with a 2.87 SRS. The Cavs and Pacers had higher SRS that year, and both were under 50 wins.
there have been 39. you really want me to list all of those? look it up yourself on bb ref.

The Lakers went to the Finals several times. The '03 Lakers was a really good shaq-kobe team. Getting beat by Duncan's 03 Spurs means they weren't contenders?

The Celtics won a Finals with an SRS of 2.24
Lots of teams went to advanced playoff series with SRS 2.87 or lower. Many of them went to Conference Finals.
Very seldom does a team do that and is not SOME kind of contender because you can't ever rule out a team that can win close games.

[Sarcastic]

there have been 39. you really want me to list all of those? look it up yourself on bb ref.

The Lakers went to the Finals several times. The '03 Lakers was a really good shaq-kobe team. Getting beat by Duncan's 03 Spurs means they weren't contenders?

The Celtics won a Finals with an SRS of 2.24
Lots of teams went to advanced playoff series with SRS 2.87 or lower. Many of them went to Conference Finals.
Very seldom does a team do that and is not SOME kind of contender because you can't ever rule out a team that can win close games.

Common theme with all of them is they are over achieving teams. 2003 Lakers fit the exact same mold as 1994 Bulls. Team coming off a 3 peat that knows how to win. Winning on guile and guts, rather than supreme talent. Shaq was coming off his peak, and there was a clash with Kobe over the future of the team. They weren't nearly as good as the past 3 teams.

[nathanjizzle]

when has barkley's opinion ever been right.

[La Frescobaldi]

when has barkley's opinion ever been right.
man is correct a lot tho also he does have his outlandish moments.

but really is he so far off being correct? i mean if you had to have a top 3 list of teams those could be right in the argument

also Sir Charles gets paid to create conversations right. Not too many better things to talk about than who had the best teams ever.

Lot better & more meaningful than what player is the goat or... "look I have listed off the 500 greatest rock n roll albums of all time and you can't argue that moody blues should have been #313 instead of #315 because.... I know. I KNOW. OK? I FREAKING JUST KNOW

[La Frescobaldi]

Common theme with all of them is they are over achieving teams. 2003 Lakers fit the exact same mold as 1994 Bulls. Team coming off a 3 peat that knows how to win. Winning on guile and guts, rather than supreme talent. Shaq was coming off his peak, and there was a clash with Kobe over the future of the team. They weren't nearly as good as the past 3 teams.

sure, we can agree a lot of nba conference finalists and champions have been over-achievers. absolutely do not disagree with that.

[HOoopCityJones]

Those teams played in the same era, though. MJ's Bulls were playing against 1 star teams surrounded by a bunch of roleplayers. It's kind of like saying Kobe's stacked front court teams weren't that great compared to those, but they should be compared to Dwight's Magic and LeBron's Cavs which were some of the other top teams of that time. Context, my friend. Context.

Shaq for the 3peat.

Gasol and Bynum for the repeat who averaged less than 8ts and 8rebs a game :facepalm

Guess Manu and Tony should be considered the third best SG after Kobe and Wade of the 00's and Tony the best PG.

[DaRkJaWs]

The Lakers of Shaq and kobe was only dominating in the 2001 postseason, I haven't seen basketball as dominating as that since that time.

[choppermagic]

I agree with that list.

I'd take those three teams over any other NBA in history.

Those 3 can probably beat the vast majority of All Star Teams too.

[Showtime80']

In my opinion since starting watching the NBA around 1978 the best teams are in order:

86' Celtics
87' Lakers
83' Sixers
89' Pistons
96' Bulls

That's it. Those teams had EVERYTHING you could want. The 80's teams were the last built before the salary explosions of the early 90's when teams were forced to go with the 1/2 all-stars surrounded by role players route. I don't think the 96' Bulls were as good top to bottom as the other teams because of that fact. Jordan, Scottie and Rodman were not in their primes by that time, the league was also weaker in 1996 but they DOMINATED that season in such a way that you have to put them in that company.

I enjoyed the Lakers run in the early 2000's but let's be real, the NBA in those years was WORSE than in the mid 90's with the East turning into absolute crap and the West a two team race with the Lakers and Spurs! Not accounting for the fact that there were no more dominant big men to challenge Shaq in his prime. That team should've won 5 or 6 straight from 99 to 2004! The Kings and Mavs presented some challenged but were absolutely HORRIBLE on the glass and general defense during crunch time to ever dethrone the Lakers or SPurs.

People love to site names when comparing eras but the early 2000's had the misfortune of having A LOT of the star players on bad to average teams that had no hope of challenging for the title. KG, Carter, T-Mac, JO, Baron Davis, Iverson, Francis, Kidd, Allen, Pierce etc...

[Papaya Petee]

2001 Lakers > any MJ bulls team

[Bosnian Sajo]

Ok what the PHUCK is a SRS man!?

everyday yall got some new advanced stat, bunch a frigging garbage man :banghead:

It stands for super regular season, takes into account preseason games and playoff games. lol idk

[La Frescobaldi]

In my opinion since starting watching the NBA around 1978 the best teams are in order:

86' Celtics
87' Lakers
83' Sixers
89' Pistons
96' Bulls

That's it. Those teams had EVERYTHING you could want. The 80's teams were the last built before the salary explosions of the early 90's when teams were forced to go with the 1/2 all-stars surrounded by role players route. I don't think the 96' Bulls were as good top to bottom as the other teams because of that fact. Jordan, Scottie and Rodman were not in their primes by that time, the league was also weaker in 1996 but they DOMINATED that season in such a way that you have to put them in that company.

I enjoyed the Lakers run in the early 2000's but let's be real, the NBA in those years was WORSE than in the mid 90's with the East turning into absolute crap and the West a two team race with the Lakers and Spurs! Not accounting for the fact that there were no more dominant big men to challenge Shaq in his prime. That team should've won 5 or 6 straight from 99 to 2004! The Kings and Mavs presented some challenged but were absolutely HORRIBLE on the glass and general defense during crunch time to ever dethrone the Lakers or SPurs.

People love to site names when comparing eras but the early 2000's had the misfortune of having A LOT of the star players on bad to average teams that had no hope of challenging for the title. KG, Carter, T-Mac, JO, Baron Davis, Iverson, Francis, Kidd, Allen, Pierce etc...

See.

This right here is factual, saw-it-myself based knowledge on full display.

I saw those teams too and while I go back farther still and will add '67 & 68 Sixers, '71 Bucks, '72 Lakers and that string of great Knicks early '70s teams you can't go wrong choosing any of that list of great 80s squads over any team ever. I didn't see glory years 8 in a row Celtics but older guys will argue for those early '60s teams too.

Shoot I'd take that '83 Sixer team and argue all day that one was the best ever if it wasn't for fully stacked Celtics and Lakers of mid-80s.

To me though these last few seasons has seen a powerful resurgence in the League not seen since the 80s. Great great teams out there right now!!

[He Strong]

2001 Lakere > any MJ bulls team
I don't believe you. :pimp:

[tontoz]

when has barkley's opinion ever been right.

Barkley was the one who predicted Memphis would beat 1st seed SA in the first round a few years back. Pretty bold call.

[Showtime80']

To me the league is still to uneven and large to compete with the concentrated quality of the 1980's. The East is basically a second tier league and the best squad is basically which ever team LeBron is playing at the moment and even the Cavs don't stand a shot against the Spurs or Warriors in a 7 game series.

Go back to an even 24 teams, scratch the last 6 out of the 7 that came into the NBA except for the Heat which have actually built a decent resume in the years they have been in the league. Imagine the talent spread around the NBA if you took out:

T-Wolves
Grizz
Magic (stupidest name ever)
Raptors
Hornets
Pelicans (second stupidest name ever)

Honestly would anybody miss these franchises if they were gone?!? What have they contributed in their history to the league except for a few glimpses of respectability.

Do that and you have a new golden age in your hands! With players that SHOULD BE second and third options actually having the PLAY as such instead of getting offered absurd amounts of money from mediocre teams to become the number one guy! The market would come back down to earth and stop with this non-sense of offering guys like DeAndre and Tristan Thompson ridiculous offers.

[La Frescobaldi]

To me the league is still to uneven and large to compete with the concentrated quality of the 1980's. The East is basically a second tier league and the best squad is basically which ever team LeBron is playing at the moment and even the Cavs don't stand a shot against the Spurs or Warriors in a 7 game series.

Go back to an even 24 teams, scratch the last 6 out of the 7 that came into the NBA except for the Heat which have actually built a decent resume in the years they have been in the league. Imagine the talent spread around the NBA if you took out:

T-Wolves
Grizz
Magic (stupidest name ever)
Raptors
Hornets
Pelicans (second stupidest name ever)

Honestly would anybody miss these franchises if they were gone?!? What have they contributed in their history to the league except for a few glimpses of respectability.

Do that and you have a new golden age in your hands! With players that SHOULD BE second and third options actually having the PLAY as such instead of getting offered absurd amounts of money from mediocre teams to become the number one guy! The market would come back down to earth and stop with this non-sense of offering guys like DeAndre and Tristan Thompson ridiculous offers.

yeah

or go to 2 leagues, let those teams be the core of the renamed D League and bring it up in quality to say 12 teams. You still have a D League per se...... can't help it that Isiah Thomas completely wrecked, bankrupted and ruined the CBA but that is what you would have, an elevated CBA.

Or in fact another way to do it...... you could just send Isiah to those teams, one season after the other.... they'd fold just like dominos under the devastation of his historic incompetence

[Showtime80']

Jeje!!!

I love the European Football model, have a 20 team elite tournament with the rest of the teams battling to get into that field in a separate tournament and the ones that don't cut it send their as!es to relegation!!!!

Let's see how the tanking approach works when you've got relegation to the B division staring right at you.

Right know the bad teams get REWARDED by getting the top picks in the draft, with my model you can only benefit from the Division A draft if you are in that division. The B division can draft after.

I think you'll start seeing teams DYING to win games to stay or join the top division with this model.

Right know with 30 teams lumped together is absolutely ridiculous! Teams can sell the promise of "wait till next year" after they get their 4th straight top 5 pick to their fanbase while getting to benefit from the rewards of being joined together with the top teams.

[guy]

Pretty sure yesterday he also said that it's a 2 player MVP race between Steph and Kawhi. :rolleyes: he's losing it lately.

[Heavincent]

Pretty sure yesterday he also said that it's a 2 player MVP race between Steph and Kawhi. :rolleyes: he's losing it lately.

I hate to say it because I like Barkley and find him hilarious, but he sounds more like an idiot every year when it comes to actual analysis.

[Nikola_]

I love me some 80s (especially movies), but man...people seriously believe this is the goat basketball level...:lol :lol couldnt watch it anymore after 5mins. and im not one of the "errything better now" guys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kic5fbaFdn4
:biggums:

[Showtime80']

Now that is beautiful basketball!!!

Five players on the floor for each team that can create their own opportunities without running through a million screens, great post play from both teams, precise outside shooting, textbook fast breaks on every opportunity, strong inside defense. 4 HOF players, 8 all-star players in all. Just amazing!

You want to know why the game seemed so simple?!? Parish, McHale, BIrd, Sampson and Olajuwon!!!! Everything in the half court stemmed from the inside out system both teams had. What does an opposing team do? Double down and leave deadly mid range shooters open? Or go one on one and watch anyone of those guys dissect your defense down low!

You want to watch boring, one dimensional, uncreative, uninspired basketball? Get a tape of last years Finals with LeBron James doing his best 2001 Iverson impression and EATING EVERY POSSESION like there was no tomorrow!

The 86' Rockets absolutely MURDER the 2015 Cavs and the 86' Celtics would clobber the 15 Warriors! So there you have it, in 30 years the NBA still can't produce teams with the quality of those in the video.

Like I've said a million times, the NBA shot itself in the foot when it valued raw athleticism over mastery of fundamentals. You see the results today!

[72-10]

In my opinion since starting watching the NBA around 1978 the best teams are in order:

86' Celtics
87' Lakers
83' Sixers
89' Pistons
96' Bulls

That's it. Those teams had EVERYTHING you could want.

No they did not. Could you please explain to me how the Pistons had a great offense?

[Showtime80']

The 89 Pistons averaged 106ppg(13th in the league) but just 2 years earlier in 1987 they averaged 111ppg(8th in the league) with basically the same lineup sans Adrian Dantley.

By 1989 they had 5 (4 of them all-stars) players that could drop between 18 to 30 points on any given night creating their own offense in Laimbeer, Isaiah, Dumars, Aguirre and Vinny Johnson.

However, what they learned in 1987 and in 1988, was that to maximize the bulk, youth and athleticism of guys like Edwards, Mahorn, Rodman and Salley they were better served to slow the pace down and turn the game into a slugfest where possessions became more important. That style riddled the Celtics, Lakers and Bulls for 5 years!!!

But make no mistake that team could go toe to toe on offense with ANYBODY in the league and could've probably won the same number of titles being more offensive oriented because by 1989 they arguably had the most talented team 1 through 9 in the entire league.

[72-10]

I don't think they could. That's why they lost 19 games. We all know that their defense was the best.

[MiseryCityTexas]

'86 Celtics
Magic's Lakers
Shaq's Lakers


Pretty surprised he left off Jordan's Bulls.:oldlol:

Because Jordan and Barkley aren't friends anymore.

[MiseryCityTexas]

No they did not. Could you please explain to me how the Pistons had a great offense?


Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, Vinnie Johnson, and Mark Aguirre.

[MiseryCityTexas]

Hell, even Rick Mahorn could post up and score inside as well as knock down the midrange jumper.

[Tarik One]

The 89 Pistons averaged 106ppg(13th in the league) but just 2 years earlier in 1987 they averaged 111ppg(8th in the league) with basically the same lineup sans Adrian Dantley.

By 1989 they had 5 (4 of them all-stars) players that could drop between 18 to 30 points on any given night creating their own offense in Laimbeer, Isaiah, Dumars, Aguirre and Vinny Johnson.

However, what they learned in 1987 and in 1988, was that to maximize the bulk, youth and athleticism of guys like Edwards, Mahorn, Rodman and Salley they were better served to slow the pace down and turn the game into a slugfest where possessions became more important. That style riddled the Celtics, Lakers and Bulls for 5 years!!!

But make no mistake that team could go toe to toe on offense with ANYBODY in the league and could've probably won the same number of titles being more offensive oriented because by 1989 they arguably had the most talented team 1 through 9 in the entire league.

Yep. That Pistons backcourt rotation could have averaged 25+ per game if they wanted to, but they preferred a slower tempo which made them even more dominant.

If a team was down by 10 points to Detroit, the game was pretty much over.

[no pun intended]

At what point do we include this Warrior's team?
This. I'm pretty sure more credit will be given to them, in retrospect. That's how it usually is with sports teams, unfortunately.