Recreating '94 Rockets today with Hakeem - How far would they go?

[QUOTE=iamgine;14860020]Really think Kenny was more than a Dinwiddie level player? Horry didnt even average 10 ppg although I do think he's the 2nd best player in that team. Stop the overrating.[/QUOTE]

The important question is could the roster you put together be the 2nd ranked defense over an 82-game season?

**** no.

[QUOTE=bizil;14860170]There is a side of the court CALLED DEFENSE!!!!! Kenny Smith was a better long ball shooter AND defender than Dinwiddie. And the thing with Horry ONCE AGAIN IS DEFENSE!!!! Would Dinwiddie BE WILLING TO PLAY largely a floor space role often like the Houston trio of guards?? That team functioned best LIKE THAT!! That Rockets team was built A CERTAIN WAY around the Dream to win rings. Plus Kenny, Mad Max, and Casell COULD ALL RUN THE PG! AS WELL AS play off the ball. So EVEN THOUGH none of those guys were superstar or perennial All Star type players, they had MORE FLEXIBILITY in that regard than most guard rotations in the league at that time!!!

When Drexler came in for the 2nd ring, they added a living legend in the backend of his prime to give them them another guy who could takeover games along with Dream. But in the grand scheme the Rockets title teams WEREN'T CLOSE to being the most talented team in the league on paper. BUT they had the best player in the world (since MJ was playing baseball) in Dream. And FROM THERE had the perfect role players around them WHO KNEW THEIR PLACE!!!! The role players the OP laid out DOESN'T CHECK ALL THOSE BOXES!

Even though ON PAPER somebody like a Dinwiddie is more talented than Kenny. But Kenny LEVELED down his scoring to become more of a floor space on those Rockets teams. It comes down to if it ain't broke DON'T FIX IT! The 93-94 title team ALSO had an underrated hoss in Otis T. as well. Who was an All Star only a couple of years prior to them winning a chip. So when you use the word RECREATE, that means MIMIMICKING to a large extent something from the past. THE TEAM the OP laid out DOESN'T DO THAT!!![/QUOTE]

Well you can't just recreate it 1 to 1. The team would be horrible since that Rockets team only had Vernon and Kenny as 3pt shooters. Kenny was decent but Vernon was horrible. In a shortened line era no less. He'd be way worse than last season Dillon Brooks.

A modern equivalent would naturally have more shooting and less defense.

[QUOTE=iamgine;14860280]Well you can't just recreate it 1 to 1. The team would be horrible since that Rockets team only had Vernon and Kenny as 3pt shooters. Kenny was decent but Vernon was horrible. In a shortened line era no less. He'd be way worse than last season Dillon Brooks.

A modern equivalent would naturally have more shooting and less defense.[/QUOTE]

Check out their 3 point shooting in the postseason, they picked it up quite a bit.

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon;14860310]Check out their 3 point shooting in the postseason, they picked it up quite a bit.[/QUOTE]
Sure. Cant base it on that alone though. Also Vernon's still horrible.

[QUOTE=iamgine;14860280]Well you can't just recreate it 1 to 1. The team would be horrible since that Rockets team only had Vernon and Kenny as 3pt shooters. Kenny was decent but Vernon was horrible. In a shortened line era no less. He'd be way worse than last season Dillon Brooks.

[B]A modern equivalent would naturally have more shooting and less defense.[/b][/QUOTE]

This is such an unintelligent analysis.

This is the same as recreating the 2004 Pistons team who was also the 2nd ranked defense and greatly reducing their defense at the expense of shooting and then claiming they are the equivalent.

You're literally stripping the team's identity.

[QUOTE=iamgine;14860315]Sure. Cant base it on that alone though. Also Vernon's still horrible.[/QUOTE]

Ironically Vernon was a big heart guy for the team. Some of these things you can't replicate with facsimiles. That old saying "greater than the sum of.their parts" was a perfect way to describe this team.