And the best team of all time is....

[Dice]

Re: And the best team of all time is....

Rodman's weight wasn't an issue, but against legendary strongmen it would be. Rodman had decent strength in his 6'7 frame but it was his incredible athleticism that made all the difference. Rodman could certainly beat a guy to his spot and root them out.

I said that Shaq would score his points against Russell but that Howard would struggle. Howard doesn't know how to carve out position in the post, doesn't have a really powerful ***, and doesn't have reliable moves. Howard isn't as strong as Shaq, not even close. Russell generated more power through his 6'10 frame than Rodman did.

For sure, Wilt should have won more than two rings. He was intimidated by Reed in a game 7 and he inexplicably took some games off in the playoffs. DeBusschere was physically stronger than Rodman but Wilt was defeated mentally after Reed made his first couple jumpers. Good point.

Still, for the 72 Lakers, Wilt proved that he was a winner after all by cutting down his scoring in favor of rebounding, defending, passing, and screening. In the end, Wilt's two rings tower over Malone's spectacular collapses.

Well, agree to disagree about Rodman's strength. In the way you discribed Bill Russell as having deceptive strength, I feel that about Rodman in the same way. He wasn't the strongest player in the league but I feel he can hold his own against anybody all time. Includung Wilt. If Rodman was able to fight Shaq for post position then he can do it against Wilt.

And in light of all of Wilt Chamberlian's accomplishments, he to me still disappoints when it comes to all time greats and championships. Yes, Wilt has two rings over Malone BUT what is that saying? Malone is not considered a top 5 player like Wilt. And most of the guys that Wilt's name is mentioned with(Jordan,Magic,Bird,Russell) they all have 3+ rings. When the game is on the line, you cannot give this guy the ball because of his free throw shooting. Yeah, he won a championship in 67 as their best player BUT from my understanding, Greer was the player that they went to in the clutch. And on that 72 Lakers team, Wilt probably wasn't even the 4th scoring option. Wilt was a great REGULAR season guy. BUT his playoff accomplishments are thin. You look at Jordan, Magic, Bird and Russell and I can run off their playoff accomplishments for days.

[Dice]

Re: And the best team of all time is....

That 83 Sixers team featured too many inferior players. Marc Iavaroni was the starting power forward and he was a mediocre player. Their perimeter shooting wasn't very good as Toney was the only threat from out there. And aside from Bobby Jones, their bench was very thin.

The one thing I hated about this Sixer team is their title defense. They were a great team in 83 BUT what they did in 84 kind of defeats the purpose of what they accomplished the previous year. They go into 84 with virtually the same team and they end up winning 52 games with no major injuries? And the kicker is that they loose in the first round to the Nets? What! Not the Celtics! Not even the Bucks! The Nets!

[Moses Shuttlesworth]

Re: And the best team of all time is....

I remember watching Rodman I could not fathom how strong he truly was, at the time. Now that I look back, he must have been one of the strongest players to ever play.

[AlexBrady]

Re: And the best team of all time is....

Well, agree to disagree about Rodman's strength. In the way you discribed Bill Russell as having deceptive strength, I feel that about Rodman in the same way. He wasn't the strongest player in the league but I feel he can hold his own against anybody all time. Includung Wilt. If Rodman was able to fight Shaq for post position then he can do it against Wilt.

And in light of all of Wilt Chamberlian's accomplishments, he to me still disappoints when it comes to all time greats and championships. Yes, Wilt has two rings over Malone BUT what is that saying? Malone is not considered a top 5 player like Wilt. And most of the guys that Wilt's name is mentioned with(Jordan,Magic,Bird,Russell) they all have 3+ rings. When the game is on the line, you cannot give this guy the ball because of his free throw shooting. Yeah, he won a championship in 67 as their best player BUT from my understanding, Greer was the player that they went to in the clutch. And on that 72 Lakers team, Wilt probably wasn't even the 4th scoring option. Wilt was a great REGULAR season guy. BUT his playoff accomplishments are thin. You look at Jordan, Magic, Bird and Russell and I can run off their playoff accomplishments for days.

Rodman had all the strength he needed, that wouldn't be a problem against the vast majority of his checks. With Wilt though, you're dealing with a guy who was so incredibly off the charts strong. Rodman was banging a slimmer Shaq but that feat is still worthy of respect.

Wilt should have won more than two rings, I agree. He became obsessed with assists after the Sixers won the Title in 67 and would pass up wide open layups so he could pad his stats. Cunningham also broke his arm in 68 which totally killed their chances. Yeah, the Sixers went to Greer and Cunningham when the game was on the line.

The one thing I hated about this Sixer team is their title defense. They were a great team in 83 BUT what they did in 84 kind of defeats the purpose of what they accomplished the previous year. They go into 84 with virtually the same team and they end up winning 52 games with no major injuries? And the kicker is that they loose in the first round to the Nets? What! Not the Celtics! Not even the Bucks! The Nets!

The starters wore down from all the minutes and the lack of bench support. There was also some friction between Malone and Toney/Erving if I remember correctly.

[Dice]

Re: And the best team of all time is....

The starters wore down from all the minutes and the lack of bench support. There was also some friction between Malone and Toney/Erving if I remember correctly.

I don't remember the friction between Malone and Erving back then. I was about 10 years old back then and didn't follow the off the court stuff that much. BUT even still, If Shaq and Kobe could pull out 3 titles with all the bickering they went through in their time together with the Lakers, then Moses and Dr. J should have won more than one championship.

Maybe it was their bench. I don't know. BUT looking at this list, the 72 Lakers didn't have a great bench but they still made it to the Finals in 1973. The 71 Bucks didn't look like they had some great players coming off their bench but they made it to the conference Finals in 1972.

The 83 Sixers is the one enigma on this list of all-time great teams. How can a team be that great one year and then the next year bomb out? Your points are well taken Alex BUT I'm still puzzled. The 'bench' and the 'stars bickering' reason would have made a whole lot of sense if it just happened to that team. I know Bird and McHale weren't the best buddies off the court. Neither Jordan and Pippen. BUT they continued to established contending teams after their respective season. The Sixers were never heard from after 83.

[bamalam]

Re: And the best team of all time is....

I remember watching Rodman I could not fathom how strong he truly was, at the time. Now that I look back, he must have been one of the strongest players to ever play.

agreed.


"bionic"

chuck daley quote. in the context of his strength,motor,energy,etc
dude would ride a stationary bike all game long and after games for hours.

definately wouldnt be worn down by 67 sixers - that is just wrong.

[AlexBrady]

Re: And the best team of all time is....

I don't remember the friction between Malone and Erving back then. I was about 10 years old back then and didn't follow the off the court stuff that much. BUT even still, If Shaq and Kobe could pull out 3 titles with all the bickering they went through in their time together with the Lakers, then Moses and Dr. J should have won more than one championship.

Maybe it was their bench. I don't know. BUT looking at this list, the 72 Lakers didn't have a great bench but they still made it to the Finals in 1973. The 71 Bucks didn't look like they had some great players coming off their bench but they made it to the conference Finals in 1972.

The 83 Sixers is the one enigma on this list of all-time great teams. How can a team be that great one year and then the next year bomb out? Your points are well taken Alex BUT I'm still puzzled. The 'bench' and the 'stars bickering' reason would have made a whole lot of sense if it just happened to that team. I know Bird and McHale weren't the best buddies off the court. Neither Jordan and Pippen. BUT they continued to established contending teams after their respective season. The Sixers were never heard from after 83.

Yeah, Malone was irritated with Erving and Toney for not giving him enough touches in the post. Shaq and Kobe had more gas in their tanks than Malone and Erving did. And Shaq was a much better player than Malone was.

Having a guy like Iavaroni in their starting lineup was detrimental and they only had one reliable bench player in Jones. Dont forget, they had no perimeter shooting besides Toney. I didn't think they were all that great and thats precisely why they didn't crack my list.

Dice, the 72 Lakers did have a great bench with Flynn Robinson (a jump shooting machine), LeRoy Ellis (a jet setting big man with scoring ability), Pat Riley (a tough defender who could make a jumper), and John Trapp (a tough guy who could bang a jumper). In 73, they dumped everyone except Riley and it turned out to be a huge mistake.
The Bucks had a mediocre bench in their repeat season, you're right.

An unreliable bench puts too much strain on the starters and its hard to repeat as champions to begin with.

[Dice]

Re: And the best team of all time is....

Just got this actual issue and read it yesterday. Michael Cooper says the 86-87 Lakers would've swept this Bulls team.

The 2nd Bulls championship team also made the top 10.

I read the article as well and that's ludicrous for Cooper to think that his team would sweep the 96 Bulls 4-0. He also added that the Bulls wouldn't compete with any other team on this list. You know, I can understand these players protecting their legacies BUT let's not go overboard. If you think your team is better, then that's fine. BUT let's not treat the Bulls like their chopped liver. Yes, I've had my doubts with the pre-70's teams on this list competing with the Bulls. BUT that's only because the athletes of that time weren't physically better than the athletes of the modern era. And that's because of the advancements of physical conditioning and strengthening of modern day athletes. This is why I felt the 67 Sixers couldn't compete with the 96 Bulls. NOW if that 67 team would have had the advantages of physical training for the modern athlete, then I would probably be more inclined to believe AlexBrady on his argument of that team taking the Bulls to 7-games and maybe winning the series.

But in Coopers argument, we're talking about 2 modern day teams in the 96 Bulls and 87 Lakers. Trust me, I loved watching that 87 Lakers team. Before the 96 Bulls, I though they were the best team I seen. But those passionate about a particular team, we get near-sighted when we start talking about the match-ups. Cooper stated that Kareem would sky-hook Longley to death. Which is fine. BUT Cooper never mentions the mismatch between Jordan and Byron Scott. He never mentions how Worthy is going to guard Scottie Pippen. NOW Pippen is going to have a hell of a time guarding Worthy BUT I'll take my chances of Pippen stopping Worthy THAN Worthy stopping Pippen. Magic obviously will have the advantage over Harper BUT it's not like it's a cake-walk for Magic because Harper is pretty good defensively. He'll make Magic work for his. So for Cooper to magnify the Kareem-Longley mismatch, I think the Jordan-Scott matchup is a bigger mismatch. Yes, Kareem even at 39 would still take Longley. BUT, he's 39 and not 29. He'd win BUT it's not a domination. Jordan would dominate Scott. No questions asked. Jordan on the blocks against Scott is not a good thing for the Lakers.

BUT we're not even getting into the bigger mismatch for the Lakers when Kukoc comes off the bench. A 6'10 player who can't be guarded by bigs because he was too quick for them. Nor could he be checked by wing players because he'd shoot right over them. The Lakers had nobody off their bench that poses the mismatch like the Bulls.

So looking at it overall, I'd take the Jordan, Pippen(offense) and Kukoc mismatch over the Kareem and Magic mismatch.

NOW one thing I somewhat agree with Cooper and that he stated that the Bulls would have trouble with the 86 Celtics. Which I somewhat agree with him on this. I think the 86 Celtics would probably be more equipped of beating the Bulls than the 87 Lakers. That 86 Celtics teams had as much size and skill as the 96 Bulls. What would worry me about that team would be their hall of fame front line. Parish would have the advatage over Longley and McHale would be able to shoot over the 6'8" Rodman in the post. Although Rodman would make him work. And Bird would have to pull out all of his tricks to get through Pippen's defense BUT I think in the end Bird would come out on top.

[ZB9]

Re: And the best team of all time is....

2010-2011 Dallas Mavs of course, especially if there is a 3 point line and Caron Butler can play!

[AlexBrady]

Re: And the best team of all time is....

I read the article as well and that's ludicrous for Cooper to think that his team would sweep the 96 Bulls 4-0. He also added that the Bulls wouldn't compete with any other team on this list. You know, I can understand these players protecting their legacies BUT let's not go overboard. If you think your team is better, then that's fine. BUT let's not treat the Bulls like their chopped liver. Yes, I've had my doubts with the pre-70's teams on this list competing with the Bulls. BUT that's only because the athletes of that time weren't physically better than the athletes of the modern era. And that's because of the advancements of physical conditioning and strengthening of modern day athletes. This is why I felt the 67 Sixers couldn't compete with the 96 Bulls. NOW if that 67 team would have had the advantages of physical training for the modern athlete, then I would probably be more inclined to believe AlexBrady on his argument of that team taking the Bulls to 7-games and maybe winning the series.

But in Coopers argument, we're talking about 2 modern day teams in the 96 Bulls and 87 Lakers. Trust me, I loved watching that 87 Lakers team. Before the 96 Bulls, I though they were the best team I seen. But those passionate about a particular team, we get near-sighted when we start talking about the match-ups. Cooper stated that Kareem would sky-hook Longley to death. Which is fine. BUT Cooper never mentions the mismatch between Jordan and Byron Scott. He never mentions how Worthy is going to guard Scottie Pippen. NOW Pippen is going to have a hell of a time guarding Worthy BUT I'll take my chances of Pippen stopping Worthy THAN Worthy stopping Pippen. Magic obviously will have the advantage over Harper BUT it's not like it's a cake-walk for Magic because Harper is pretty good defensively. He'll make Magic work for his. So for Cooper to magnify the Kareem-Longley mismatch, I think the Jordan-Scott matchup is a bigger mismatch. Yes, Kareem even at 39 would still take Longley. BUT, he's 39 and not 29. He'd win BUT it's not a domination. Jordan would dominate Scott. No questions asked. Jordan on the blocks against Scott is not a good thing for the Lakers.

BUT we're not even getting into the bigger mismatch for the Lakers when Kukoc comes off the bench. A 6'10 player who can't be guarded by bigs because he was too quick for them. Nor could he be checked by wing players because he'd shoot right over them. The Lakers had nobody off their bench that poses the mismatch like the Bulls.

So looking at it overall, I'd take the Jordan, Pippen(offense) and Kukoc mismatch over the Kareem and Magic mismatch.

NOW one thing I somewhat agree with Cooper and that he stated that the Bulls would have trouble with the 86 Celtics. Which I somewhat agree with him on this. I think the 86 Celtics would probably be more equipped of beating the Bulls than the 87 Lakers. That 86 Celtics teams had as much size and skill as the 96 Bulls. What would worry me about that team would be their hall of fame front line. Parish would have the advatage over Longley and McHale would be able to shoot over the 6'8" Rodman in the post. Although Rodman would make him work. And Bird would have to pull out all of his tricks to get through Pippen's defense BUT I think in the end Bird would come out on top.

There is no way the 87 Lakers sweep the 96 Bulls. The Lakers had to get out and run themselves into easy scores. The Bulls would play within the confines of the triangle and keep the mistakes to a minumum. The Lakers had some poor defenders in their starting lineup so the Bulls would carve them up with their precision. And Rodman would turn the Lakers glass into a mad scramble.
You beat the 96 Bulls with physical strength and board power. The 87 Lakers have neither and can only succeed playing one style. Which is why they only ranked tenth on my list.

86 Celtics wouldn't beat the 96 Bulls either. Besides McHale, where are the power players? The mediocre Danny Ainge was starting. Theres no Maxwell so where is the bench depth? Robert Parish was on the decline and could always be counted on to choke in the clutch. The 84 Celtics were better than the 86 version.

[Dice]

Re: And the best team of all time is....

There is no way the 87 Lakers sweep the 96 Bulls. The Lakers had to get out and run themselves into easy scores. The Bulls would play within the confines of the triangle and keep the mistakes to a minumum. The Lakers had some poor defenders in their starting lineup so the Bulls would carve them up with their precision. And Rodman would turn the Lakers glass into a mad scramble.
You beat the 96 Bulls with physical strength and board power. The 87 Lakers have neither and can only succeed playing one style. Which is why they only ranked tenth on my list.

86 Celtics wouldn't beat the 96 Bulls either. Besides McHale, where are the power players? The mediocre Danny Ainge was starting. Theres no Maxwell so where is the bench depth? Robert Parish was on the decline and could always be counted on to choke in the clutch. The 84 Celtics were better than the 86 version.

Well, I’m not going to say that the 87 Lakers is chopped liver either. Yes, they ran BUT with Kareem, Magic and Worthy being post up threats, their half court game was very efficient. Their defense would be a huge gamble to be picked apart since their signature defense was the ‘LA Trap’, which was nothing but a modified half court zone defense. Back then, the Lakers got away with running this defense because the Lakers were tall and athletic enough to disrupt teams who were shorter and didn’t have good ball handlers outside of their guards. But when your dealing with the Bulls who have three ball handlers in the line up with that’s 6’6” and taller in Jordan, Harper and Pippen, you can easily pick apart a trap. Put Kukoc in at the 4 and you have four ball handlers over 6’6” and that defense is useless.

The Celtics would give the Bulls a fair share of their issues because of shooting, length, height and skill. That team was one of the best passing teams I’ve seen and they spaced their offense to a tee. Rarely did I see that teams offense work with players jumbled up on a spot on the court. BUT when you got three post up guys in Parish McHale and Bird, you can do that. I think the Bulls would pull out a the series against the 86 Celtics BUT I’ll tell you it won’t be a walk in the park. Yeah, Ainge is out there BUT he won’t be guarding Jordan. Most likely DJ will guard Jordan and Ainge will be on Harper or the guard opposite of Jordan. McHale would be guarding Pippen, who was a very good perimeter defender for a big man. Not saying McHale will stop him but he’ll disrupt him a bit because of McHale long arms and lateral quickness. That means Bird will cover Rodman, which will ease the defense a little since Bird doesn’t have to do much defensively against Rodman. NOW, we get into the rebounding battle against Rodman and I’ll tell you that Bird ain’t no punk under the boards. Bird, is probably the most underrated rebounder in NBA history. Of course, he’s tangling against the best pound-for-pound rebounder in Dennis Rodman. BUT it’s not going to be ‘free money’ against Bird. He’ll make him work under the glass. The 96 Bulls will do enough defensively to pull it out BUT the 86 Celtics offense will make the Bulls defense work. McHale will be a problem for the Bulls because the Bulls don’t have a cover for him. And don’t write off Parish because he’ll still be a factor. And Parish would not be called in for the clutch because he didn’t need to. He had other players around him to take care of that.

[Dice]

Re: And the best team of all time is....

There is no way the 87 Lakers sweep the 96 Bulls. The Lakers had to get out and run themselves into easy scores. The Bulls would play within the confines of the triangle and keep the mistakes to a minumum. The Lakers had some poor defenders in their starting lineup so the Bulls would carve them up with their precision. And Rodman would turn the Lakers glass into a mad scramble.
You beat the 96 Bulls with physical strength and board power. The 87 Lakers have neither and can only succeed playing one style. Which is why they only ranked tenth on my list.

86 Celtics wouldn't beat the 96 Bulls either. Besides McHale, where are the power players? The mediocre Danny Ainge was starting. Theres no Maxwell so where is the bench depth? Robert Parish was on the decline and could always be counted on to choke in the clutch. The 84 Celtics were better than the 86 version.

AlexBrady, let me ask you this. If you say that the 96 Bulls can be beaten with power then would you say that the 89 Pistons stand a chance of beating them? As far as my generation, the 89 Pistons was probably the best 'power' team I seen play.

[slimm44]

Re: And the best team of all time is....

I didn't start watching basketball until the late '80's, so I don't know much about the teams you guys are throwing out there. But in terms of "Power" teams, wouldn't some of the Knicks (and to a lesser degree, Pacers teams with the Davis brothers and Smits) be considered that type of team? Those Knicks teams had Ewing, Oakley, Mason, Chuck Smith, Mark Jackson, players who were strong for their size that would literally beat you up at times if you tried to come into the paint.

The Pistons teams from the late '80's come to mind, also.

[AlexBrady]

Re: And the best team of all time is....

Well, I’m not going to say that the 87 Lakers is chopped liver either. Yes, they ran BUT with Kareem, Magic and Worthy being post up threats, their half court game was very efficient. Their defense would be a huge gamble to be picked apart since their signature defense was the ‘LA Trap’, which was nothing but a modified half court zone defense. Back then, the Lakers got away with running this defense because the Lakers were tall and athletic enough to disrupt teams who were shorter and didn’t have good ball handlers outside of their guards. But when your dealing with the Bulls who have three ball handlers in the line up with that’s 6’6” and taller in Jordan, Harper and Pippen, you can easily pick apart a trap. Put Kukoc in at the 4 and you have four ball handlers over 6’6” and that defense is useless.

The Celtics would give the Bulls a fair share of their issues because of shooting, length, height and skill. That team was one of the best passing teams I’ve seen and they spaced their offense to a tee. Rarely did I see that teams offense work with players jumbled up on a spot on the court. BUT when you got three post up guys in Parish McHale and Bird, you can do that. I think the Bulls would pull out a the series against the 86 Celtics BUT I’ll tell you it won’t be a walk in the park. Yeah, Ainge is out there BUT he won’t be guarding Jordan. Most likely DJ will guard Jordan and Ainge will be on Harper or the guard opposite of Jordan. McHale would be guarding Pippen, who was a very good perimeter defender for a big man. Not saying McHale will stop him but he’ll disrupt him a bit because of McHale long arms and lateral quickness. That means Bird will cover Rodman, which will ease the defense a little since Bird doesn’t have to do much defensively against Rodman. NOW, we get into the rebounding battle against Rodman and I’ll tell you that Bird ain’t no punk under the boards. Bird, is probably the most underrated rebounder in NBA history. Of course, he’s tangling against the best pound-for-pound rebounder in Dennis Rodman. BUT it’s not going to be ‘free money’ against Bird. He’ll make him work under the glass. The 96 Bulls will do enough defensively to pull it out BUT the 86 Celtics offense will make the Bulls defense work. McHale will be a problem for the Bulls because the Bulls don’t have a cover for him. And don’t write off Parish because he’ll still be a factor. And Parish would not be called in for the clutch because he didn’t need to. He had other players around him to take care of that.

The Lakers needed to get out and score easy buckets on the run. That was where Magic, Worthy, and Scott were at their best. The Bulls would never be tricked into playing that style though and they would score at will against the Lakers' starters. Its tough to run when you're inbounding the ball every time, not to mention the Bulls were terrific at transitioning from offense to defense.

The Celtics would be playing a precision game against the Bulls and I just don't think they could out execute them. Bird could obviously play a crazy game and pull out a win but I see too many problems. Who is going to handle Kukoc? Where is the Celtics' bench scoring? Will Rodman limit the Celtics' advantage on the boards? Every aspect of Parishs' game worsened in the clutch, not just his scoring.

AlexBrady, let me ask you this. If you say that the 96 Bulls can be beaten with power then would you say that the 89 Pistons stand a chance of beating them? As far as my generation, the 89 Pistons was probably the best 'power' team I seen play.

I think I ranked that Pistons team seventh on my list. They had a deep front line and four terrific one on one scorers. The Sixers could match their toughness though and wouldn't be intimidated. I think the Sixers beat them in six games.

[Dice]

Re: And the best team of all time is....

The Lakers needed to get out and score easy buckets on the run. That was where Magic, Worthy, and Scott were at their best. The Bulls would never be tricked into playing that style though and they would score at will against the Lakers' starters. Its tough to run when you're inbounding the ball every time, not to mention the Bulls were terrific at transitioning from offense to defense.

The Celtics would be playing a precision game against the Bulls and I just don't think they could out execute them. Bird could obviously play a crazy game and pull out a win but I see too many problems. Who is going to handle Kukoc? Where is the Celtics' bench scoring? Will Rodman limit the Celtics' advantage on the boards? Every aspect of Parishs' game worsened in the clutch, not just his scoring.



I think I ranked that Pistons team seventh on my list. They had a deep front line and four terrific one on one scorers. The Sixers could match their toughness though and wouldn't be intimidated. I think the Sixers beat them in six games.

I already know that you think the 89 Pistons wouldn't beat your 67 Sixers

I wanted to know if the 89 Pistons would stand some sort of chance against the 96 Bulls.