Go Warriors
- Thread starter Summy1
- Start date
Does anyone else think the quality of the teams in the NBA is much weaker in this era than in the past? I mean, how did Golden State get so dominant so fast? Curry is good, but how did he get to be this dominant, so fast. It just seems like the past stars are all aging and the new stars are not great team players. Golden State plays the best team ball, in a league that not many teams play team ball. I know the rules have changed also from the 90's, but really how good would Golden State be if the played back then. The GSW of Mullen, Hardaway and Richmond may have been just as good offensively, but they barely won any playoff series.
The Warriors had a good foundation, Curry was injured, Steve Kerr is a much better coach than Mark Jackson, the emergence of Draymon Green and The Warriors bench have lead to the the team they are. The league isn't any weaker than it was a few years ago, The Warriors are just one of the most revolutionary teams ever in basketball, along with Bulls, the Celtics of the 60s.
I do think the NBA is watered down. I mean, most of the teams suck. Only the top 8 teams in each league are .500 or above. One problem is these young kids coming into the NBA based on potential. It takes them years to develop and know how good of a player they will be.
I would throw the 80's Lakers in there as well.
I do think that gradually over a few decades, expansion and free agency, and the rules changes have somewhat "diluted" the teams. Those that have flourished over a consistent period of time had very good organizations and were able to capitalize on opportunities (some with the draft; some with free agency). The best organization right now is San Antonio. With the change in the Lakers at the top when Jerry Buss passed on and the mistakes with handling Kobe Bryant's contract, it's not surprising to see them tumble. But think about it, Minneapolis/LA has appeared in close to half of the NBA Finals.
As to the Warriors, it's hard to compare eras, especially with rule changes.....that's the big debate going on now.....would the '96 Bulls sweep them as Pippen suggests? Probably not, but I think the Bulls probably are the better team and would win like 4-2 under either set of rules, especially because the Warriors don't have a dominant post man. That's the one thing those Bulls never really had to face with LA, Portland, Phoenix, Seattle, or Utah once they got out of the East past Detroit or New York.
Curry is a phenomenal shooter......there have been great ones before with range (like Dale Ellis and "Downtown" Freddie Brown), but even they didn't have Curry's range nor his ability to handle the ball and drive and dish. I think teams can slow him down (Boston did a great job with it in snapping the Warriors home winning streak recently), but GS also has a few guys who can play multiple positions or switch.....Green, Iguodala, and Barnes, namely. I'm probably an old-school guy, but I have enjoyed watching GS this year, and it is impressive to do what they have done so far. I still think the Spurs have a decent shot to knock them off. I don't see any other team who could do it.
Also, don't forget the impact of some teams "hinting" that the Warriors were "lucky" last year because the Spurs and Clippers met in the first round and then Houston took out the Clippers. Then, Cleveland was beset with injuries. I think the Warriors had a collective chip on their shoulders from that.
We'll see how long it lasts......but they definitely have infused some energy into the league and created some story-lines for the playoffs. I probably won't watch any more than I normally would except for a Spurs/Warriors series.......that could be one to rank up there with some of the great series of years past.
This record would not mean crap for them if they don't win it all. The Spurs and Cavs are deadly. Spurs just know how to win and have arguably the greatest coach ever. For the Cavs Lebron is playing at a level maybe higher than Steph this last month and the Cavs appear to be finally meshing. I personally am not a Warriors fan. Go Grizzlies!
Rules have changed since those days. Can you imagine Curry and Chapman going against the Bad Boys of Detroit with Lambeer and team cheapshotting all the time with no consequences, Back then you could stay on the outside shooter; and any slash to the basket resulted in blood.
And handchecking on perimeter - it is just a different game now.
Does anyone else think the quality of the teams in the NBA is much weaker in this era?
I certainly do. How well I remember thinking the mid-90's Bulls would not hold a candle to the '86 Celtics. Still believe that actually. Which goes to show what the passage of time can do...
Definitely seems watered down and "team ball" is barely a concept anymore. I personally think the 95-96 bulls could handle any team from any era. That's when I was 13 or 14 and really into the NBA and particularly Jordan, but I'm sure my bias has nothing to do with my opinion
How is "team ball" not a concept? Have you watched a high-level NBA game in the last five years? The ball movement is better than it is in college basketball.
I wish, but dont see it happening. I am sure ABC wants it to be Cavs vs Warriors so they can get their high ratings.
That's why the Lakers aren't relevant any more, and the Spurs/Warriors are because of their ball movement.
I will root against the Warriors at all cost. Draymond Green is the biggest crybaby and hot head in the NBA right now. Another problem is as good as Steph is Klay Thompson and Draymond seem to never get the recognition and credit they deserve. When you think of the Bulls team you think of Rodman, Pippen, and Jordan but today the media is trying to make the Warriors only about Steph.
At which point you'll undoubtedly offer up definitive opinions despite not having watched a single game.
My definitive opinion is that the NBA is horrid. I will offer that up now, two weeks from now, in two years, or even two decades. I had the flu a few years back. I don't need to experience it over and over to verify my opinion that I don't like it.
You've made your position abundantly clear. The question is, given your admitted obstinance and ignorance, why would you continue to participate in NBA related threads?
Your last glimpse of the NBA was probably shaq knocking over folks like bowling pins and the Knicks beating the Heat 76-71 with both teams shooting 34%. That's like saying today's music sucks because your moldy 8 tracks don't sound all that great.
Give the western conference finals a shot. But yeah, that will be over a month from now.
If we're going to have NBA threads on this board with other people giving their thoughts on the NBA, why should mine be excluded?
Delusional. What we are seeing from Curry is truly phenomenal. The shooting and skill that he puts on display is one of a kind. Give credit where credit is due. It's okay to say this is a legendary team. They won 73 games.
I can appreciate the accomplishment but don't think it garners as much weight as when the Bulls did it. I look around the NBA (I honestly don't care it that much but do follow it) and I sort of compare it to the NFL. The game is slanted toward the offensive side of the ball so much now, that it makes it nearly impossible to watch for me. DB's can barely touch WR's and QB's are over protected. The same could be said for offensive players in the NBA. As good as Steph Curry is, I'm not sure he would be as effective with the way defense was played in the early and mid 90's where defensive players could get in to someone and body them up. Also, if he were doing those shimy-shakes after three pointers, someone like Rodman or Lambeir would have knocked him in to next week the first time he stepped in to the lane.
The bulls did it in an expansion year and with the expansion draft most teams got weaker. No way you can say the 97 season season wasn't diluted. By any statistical measure that was one of the worst NBA seasons. At the top of the league there's an argument. In terms of an 82 game schedule, the point is settled.
Nothing more annoying that people who admit they don't watch the nba and haven't watched in decades trying to make definitive statement about a topic they are admittedly ignorant of.
Go back. Read my statement again. Think about what you wrote and tell me where in my post I claimed to have a ton of knowledge. I wrote about the true aspects of the game not the talent differences between 1997 and 2016. I said, and I still believe, the Warriors team right now would have a difficult time competing day in and day out in the NBA when it was clearly more physical and defenders were placed on a more level playing field than they are right now.
No, players have just become more skilled. I definitely agree with the hand-checking rule resulting in a more "offensive slanted" game, but you didn't see big me with the skill that they do now.
Guys like Anthony Davis, Draymond Green, Demarcus Cousins, Karl Anthony-Towns are supremely skilled big men; you didn't see many of those until recently.
It's a generational thing; you don't like the shimmy shakes; we love them. Nothing wrong with showboating a bit; it comes with swagger. It's part of the game.
I'm not about showing up opponents, but I don't think a mini celebration qualifies as that.
I didn't say I didn't like the shimmy shakes...hell, I love Cam Newton for example and everything he does. If you don't want them celebrating, shut them down. Just that had Steph shimmy shaked in front of the Lambear or Rodman or any host of other early to mid-90's players, he would have to pick his jaw off the floor the first time he went in to the lane. Nothing wrong with that but that was how the game was played and it was much more interesting. Honestly, in today's game, Jordan would be averaging 40+ a game...imagine him being guarded with today's rules...you think Steph is scary, Jordan would be able to get 60-80 on a frequent basis.
Last edited:
I think that 86 Celtics would definitely lose in a series to this year's Warriors, probably in 4 or 5. They would be able to score on Golden State, but their lack of team quickness would make it very hard for them to slow the Warriors down. Detroit might have a chance if allowed to play by the old rules, but I still think that the Warriors would win by either set of rules. The 97 Bulls might have a chance because they had the best NBA player ever, plus a top 50 all time player, but I still would go with the Warriors, because I think that the quality of play in the NBA has progressed in the past 20 years. Three point shooting has advanced, more big men can spread the court with perimeter games and open up driving lanes, players are stronger and more explosive due to advancements in training, schemes have advanced, etc.
they had the best NBA player ever Not quite. The '86 Celtics had one better, plus another top 50 or two. When the 85-86 Celts picked up Willie Walton, the rest of the League was running scared!
Yeah, because no one celebrated making big shots during Rodman's and Laimbeer's time. Just silly.
The Warriors' accomplishment this year was every bit as impressive as the Bulls in 98 or the Lakers in 71.
As a big Bulls fan and obviously a big MJ fan, I will indeed tip my hat to GSW's championship last year and season's record this year. They are definitely the best thing the NBA has to offer now. However, until they win this year's championship, I will hold of on giving them the best season in NBA history title. If they win it, they will have earned it. Then they can work on besting 6 rings in 8 years.
No way 6 rings in 8 years stretch like that happens again. The NBA has too many stars now.
