Pre-2003 teams weren't deep enough to win titles today

[TAZORAC]

With the exception of the LAKERS (only because they had SHAQ the most dominate player in NBA history) PRE-2003 teams who won titles weren't deep enough to be championship contenders today. Most of those teams were only 5-6 deep..the ROCKETS the years they won the title may also been able to compete. Those BULLS teams couldn't score enough points to compete with the Warriors during the Golden Years.

Who agrees?

[Kblaze8855]

The showtime lakers at one point started 3 hall of famers and an all star along with a 31 ish former mvp, another hall of famer, and a DPOY all off the bench. Kareem aside they were all 22 to 31.

Nba teams were crazy deep before expansion.

[LAmbruh]

It's actually kind of funny watching 90's games, you couldn't even name 95% of the players off the bench and most were on 25k/1yr contracts - then out of the league

[SouBeachTalents]

Agreed, teams like the 80's Celtics & Lakers had like 1 good player

[LAL]

With the exception of the LAKERS (only because they had SHAQ the most dominate player in NBA history) PRE-2003 teams who won titles weren't deep enough to be championship contenders today. Most of those teams were only 5-6 deep..the ROCKETS the years they won the title may also been able to compete. Those BULLS teams couldn't score enough points to compete with the Warriors during the Golden Years.

Who agrees?

It was Kobe and Shaq carrying bums out West.

[dbugz]

LeQuit will be a 6th man dude at best if he played in the 90s. FACT

[KD7]

1991-2003 = weakest NBA era

[Axe]

1991-2003 = weakest NBA era
It means 2002 & 2003 nets are weak af manny.

[Wally450]

86 Celtics would compete today.

[TAZORAC]

86 Celtics would compete today.

86 Celtics weren't athletic enough

[HoopsNY]

The showtime lakers at one point started 3 hall of famers and an all star along with a 31 ish former mvp, another hall of famer, and a DPOY all off the bench. Kareem aside they were all 22 to 31.

Nba teams were crazy deep before expansion.

Excellent point. Not to mention a Celtics team that had 5 HOF'ers, with 4 of them still in their prime and one coming off the bench winning 6th man of the year. Then there's the Sixers that had 4 HOF'ers and Andrew Toney who was an all-star.

Let's not forget the Pistons that had 3 HOF'ers and 2 all-star caliber players in Laimbeer and Aguirre. Aguirre was putting up 25 ppg for six seasons prior to being traded to Detroit, and obviously had to take a reduced role with a team that deep. (Isiah, Joe Dumars, Aguirre, Vinnie Johnson, Laimbeer, etc).

The Phoenix Suns were a deep team in 1993-1996, as were the Sonics in 1996, Rockets between 1995-1997. Each team had HOF'ers and all-stars stacked in the roster. At one point the Rockets had Clyde, Hakeem, Barkley, with Eddie Johnson and Kevin Willis off the bench both averaging 11-12 ppg.

The Portland Trailblazers were a deep team in the late 90s-early 00s. Pippen, Wallace, Sabonis, Stoudamire, Bonzi Wells, Schrempf. Then they traded Jermaine O'Neal and got Shawn Kemp and Dale Davis.

Let's not forget the Dallas Mavericks from 2000-2003 winning 53, 57, and 60 games, respectively, with teams that included Michael Finley, Steve Nash, Dirk, Juwan Howard, Nick Van Exel, Raef Lafrentz, and co.

Orlando between 1994-1996 had Penny, Shaq, Dennis Scott, Horace Grant. That team made the finals, beat MJ and the Bulls, and won 60 games.

Honestly, there are too many examples to list. I didn't even go through the Blazers of the late 80s and early 90s or the Warriors with Mitch Richmond, Chris Mullin, and Timmy Hardaway putting up 118 ppg.

[HoopsNY]

With the exception of the LAKERS (only because they had SHAQ the most dominate player in NBA history) PRE-2003 teams who won titles weren't deep enough to be championship contenders today. Most of those teams were only 5-6 deep..the ROCKETS the years they won the title may also been able to compete. Those BULLS teams couldn't score enough points to compete with the Warriors during the Golden Years.

Who agrees?

What your post lacks is an understanding that teams back then weren't built simply to score. The ability to defend was a central part of the game as the mid 80s shifted towards the Pistons era of the late 80s.

This is why teams like Golden State with Tim Hardaway, Mitch Richmond, and Chris Mullin each scoring 22-26 ppg, and having a team average that mirrored today's GSW, couldn't be successful. Teams back then had a balance of offense and defense. If you had too much of one or the other, you weren't going to be successful.

The Rockets were deep with role players but had a cheat code in Hakeem, one of the top 10 players of all time (he's in my top 5). Those Bulls teams you're referring to in the late 90s were sound defensively. But take a look at the early 90s Bulls who averaged 110, 109.9, and 105.2 ppg between 1990-93, and were ranked 1st, 1st, and 2nd in Ortg. They could score with the best of them and play solid defense as well.

[DoctorP]

nonsense, the league was thinning like lebrons scalp from 92-99 at the most... then the international talent pool improved enough to thicken the league

[Axe]

86 Celtics weren't athletic enough
Congrats for responding to a 20-day old reply.

[3ball]

Some decades have 2 teams with more talent than everyone else, like the 80's (Lakers/Celtics) or 2010's (Heat/Spurs or Cavs/Warriors) - these teams have 3+ perennial all-stars and this was the Finals standard.

Otoh, talent was more spread-out in the 90's and other decades, so many teams met the lower Finals standard of 1 or 2 stars.. some of these teams were incredibly well-balanced, like Reggie's Pacers

It's harder to win a championship being one of many Finals-caliber teams (90's), then to win as 1 of 2 Finals-caliber teams (10's)

[Duncan21formvp]

1991-2003 = weakest NBA era

1990's was greatest era. Only top 3 players in the league won league and or finals mvp's.