Printable View
[QUOTE=97 bulls][B]id pick a 28 year old williams over an old mcadoo.[/B] and that all kerr needed to do was shoot. that was his job and thats what they paid him to do. and he was great at it. and yeah he was puting up those numbers in a faster pace league normalize it to 90s pace and it probably about 5 ppg.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. The Bulls didn't even need Williams. McAdoo was better offensivly.
[QUOTE=guy]Sorry I would have to disagree with you. Put prime Pippen in place of Bird on the Celtics, and they probably never win a title. Put prime Bird in place of Pippen on the Bulls, and they never lose more then 10 games a year, and they might still win the title that year Jordan retired. Defense is more about the structure of the team, and I think its much harder to be a great offensive player then great defensive player. If you really think Pippen is close to Bird, would you say Bruce Bowen or Shane Battier are close to as valuable as Carmelo Anthony or Steve Nash? Cause there's probably about 30 head coaches in the league that would say no.[/QUOTE]
B..b...but DEFENSE !!!!111oneone :oldlol:
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]I disagree. The Bulls didn't even need Williams. McAdoo was better offensivly.[/QUOTE]
not at 33 he wasnt. i live in la i remember the 80s lakers your not talking to a young kid
[QUOTE=97 bulls]not at 33 he wasnt. i live in la i remember the 80s lakers your not talking to a young kid[/QUOTE]
Williams didn't even do much as a Bull why would i put him ahead of a HOFer? Who averaged 10 PPG, 4.5 RPG, and shot over 50 FG%.
The lakers bench in '85 was wayyyyyyy deeper than the Bulls bench in '87
[B]'85 Lakers Bench[/B]
Bob McAdoo
Michael Cooper
Mike McGee
Jamaal Wilkes
Mitch Kupchak
Larry Spriggs
NOW THAT IS A DEEP BENCH!!!!
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]Williams didn't even do much as a Bull why would i put him ahead of a HOFer? Who averaged 10 PPG, 4.5 RPG, and shot over 50 FG%.
The lakers bench in '85 was wayyyyyyy deeper than the Bulls bench in '87
[B]'85 Lakers Bench[/B]
Bob McAdoo
Michael Cooper
Mike McGee
Jamaal Wilkes
Mitch Kupchak
Kurt Rambis
Larry Spriggs
NOW THAT IS A DEEP BENCH!!!![/QUOTE]
yeah, i think the 85 lakers have one of the best benches ever. but i still think brian williams and kukoc would be the best players out of all those guys you mentioned. at that particular time of the age of the 85 lakers bench. and kerr is far and away the best shooter. and please stop jumping years. its like me saying the 97 bulls are better because jordan averaged 37 ppg in 87 8 rbds and 8 ast in 89 and about 2 blks a game in 87. it makes no sense.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]yeah, i think the 85 lakers have one of the best benches ever. but i still think brian williams and kukoc would be the best players out of all those guys you mentioned. at that particular time of the age of the 85 lakers bench. and kerr is far and away the best shooter. and please stop jumping years. its like me saying the 97 bulls are better because jordan averaged 37 ppg in 87 8 rbds and 8 ast in 89 and about 2 blks a game in 87. it makes no sense.[/QUOTE]
Williams better than Cooper??? LOL:roll:
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]ENGLISH MOTHER ****ER! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?!?!?!?!
[IMG]http://www.weeklyfilm.com/images/Moviepics/jules.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Lmao ebonics man that's all lol
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]Williams better than Cooper??? LOL:roll:[/QUOTE]
i d give the edge to coop due to him being a beast defensively. i really feel that coop could have been a 15-16 ppg scorer if he started. but i also feel williams would have been a 20 10 guy if he was able to start earlier in his career. remember, he was playn behind shaq and mutombo.
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]I disagree. The Bulls didn't even need Williams. McAdoo was better offensivly.[/QUOTE]
better to have him and not need him than to need him and not have him.
[QUOTE=willds09]Lmao ebonics man that's all lol[/QUOTE]
lol. i know
another point i would like to make is, from the 50s to now there has always been a dominate team or two a "dynasty" that has ruled an era. \
in the 50s it was minneapolis in the 60s it was boston, in the 80s it was the lakers and celtics. the pistons in the late 80s early 90s. in the 90s it was the bulls and rockets and in this decade, it is the spurs and lakers and through the years all those teams had to overcome an established team in order to assert themselves as the dominate team in the league. the only era to not have that is the 80s lakers and celtics. why? because the 70s had no dynasty. if there was a dominate team that was wininng in the 70s to carry over in the 80s i think magic and bird would be minus a couple of titles.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]another point i would like to make is, from the 50s to now there has always been a dominate team or two a "dynasty" that has ruled an era. \
in the 50s it was minneapolis in the 60s it was boston, in the 80s it was the lakers and celtics. the pistons in the late 80s early 90s. in the 90s it was the bulls and rockets and in this decade, it is the spurs and lakers and through the years all those teams had to overcome an established team in order to assert themselves as the dominate team in the league. the only era to not have that is the 80s lakers and celtics. [B]why? because the 70s had no dynasty. if there was a dominate team that was wininng in the 70s to carry over in the 80s i think magic and bird would be minus a couple of titles[/B].[/QUOTE]
Actually the Seattle Supersonics made the NBA Finals in 1978 and 1979. Winning the championship in 1979. In 1980 they were still one of the best teams in the NBA They even won more games in 1980 than in 1979 and they made it to the WCF. But the Lakers beat the Sonics in five games to advance to the NBA Finals.
If there was a dynasty in the 70's it would not carry over to the 80's. There were bad teams in that decade. A 42-40 Suns team made the Finals in '76. A Warriors team who only won 48 games won the title in '75. In 1978 the Washington Bullets won only 44 games and went on the be NBA Champs. The 70's was a horrible time for the NBA. It was IMO the worst decade in NBA History. And the teams who won a championship from '74-'79 wouldn't stand a chance vs Magic's Lakers and Bird's Celtics.
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]Actually the Seattle Supersonics made the NBA Finals in 1978 and 1979. Winning the championship in 1979. In 1980 they were still one of the best teams in the NBA They even won more games in 1980 than in 1979 and they made it to the WCF. But the Lakers beat the Sonics in five games to advance to the NBA Finals.
If there was a dynasty in the 70's it would not carry over to the 80's. There were bad teams in that decade. A 42-40 Suns team made the Finals in '76. A Warriors team who only won 48 games won the title in '75. In 1978 the Washington Bullets won only 44 games and went on the be NBA Champs. The 70's was a horrible time for the NBA. It was IMO the worst decade in NBA History. And the teams who won a championship from '74-'79 wouldn't stand a chance vs Magic's Lakers and Bird's Celtics.[/QUOTE]
we finally agree on something:cheers:
[QUOTE=97 bulls]to answer your bowen battier question NO, although in bowens case if you can take the other teams best scorer and make him a volume shooter or virtually non-existant id say thats equal to a player scoring 25 points.[/QUOTE]
Yea and its more likely for a guy like Carmelo to score 25 points in a given night then Bowen to make the best scorer non-existant.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]
not to mention in all sports the better defensive team almost always win out in the end. look at new england and new york in the super bowl. look at the lakers and celtics, or how about san antonio and phoenix. [/QUOTE]
Yes, and tell me how many average offenses with great defenses have won championships? All championship teams need to be great on both ends of the court. San Antonio and Boston have been two of the best defensive teams, but they have also been two of the best offensive teams. The Lakers and Phoenix can only say that about offense.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]
and i dont agree that bird instead of pippen on those bulls helps against magic in 91, or kevin jhnson in 93 or peyton or mark jackson. even when pippen wasnt defending those guys it was like he was because of his ability to hinder an oppositions offensive scheme. [/QUOTE]
First of all, the team would've probably been built a little differently around Jordan/Bird instead of Jordan/Pippen. Maybe the Bulls focus on getting a better interior defender. The Bulls would still be a good defensive team, especially with players like Jordan, Grant, Rodman, and Harper. They'd probably still be better defensively then any of those teams you just mentioned except for maybe Seattle, but there's really no way of telling, caus e like I said, the Bulls would probably be built a little differently. But the Bulls would be WORLDS ahead of any of those teams offensively. There's no way any of those teams, and maybe any team in history, are shutting down and outscoring a team led by Jordan and Bird in a best of 7 series.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]
and its definately harder to be a great defensive player than offensive player. for every 1 great defensive player you name ill give you six offensive players scoring 20 or more points a night. offense is more glamerous. a good coach will say that the object of basketball is to score more than the opponent a championship coach will tell you that the object is to keep the opponent from scoring more than you.[/QUOTE]
Yes offense is more glamorous, which is why you see more players trying to be great scorers then great defenders, which is why there are more of them, not cause its easier. Great scorers have more impact then great defenders. For example, a great scorer with bad defense and horrible teammates is more likely to give his team better chances at winning games then a great defender with bad offense and horrible teammates.
Damn....wrong thread.