1990s NBA teams vs Current teams.

[THE MACHINE]

You saying Oakley wouldn't be overmatched guarding him just shows you have no idea what you're talking about. The reason Green is on the floor is because he presents a matchup problem for almost every team in the league, he's strong enough to hold his own in the post, but can still stretch the floor and go off the dribble when run at. He pulls your PF from the rim because he's going to shoot the 3 when open, and can pass when you chase him off the line. They're basically playing an SF at PF, and unlike every team before them that tried to go small they're giving up almost nothing by playing him there.





It didn't fly over my head at all, you're using the Grizz as an example, yet they hit more threes than 90s teams, and even then that wasn't good enough. The thread is about taking a team from the 90s, and putting them against a team from today.




More than the Knicks Barbosa and Livingston would be the best creators on those Knick teams



The Knicks would get WASHED by the Warriors, you're arguing like it would be some competitive series. I don't care if they played in different eras, if you put the two teams as constructed on the floor vs one another the Warriors would win. You keep harping on the rule changes, but the core of the game is still the same, and the Warriors are stomping people because the line is still at 23'9" when the Knicks won 60 games. You're not stopping Curry at all, and your whole point is idiotic, because there were players who took 3s in the 90s, but none of them could shoot like Curry (Tim Hardaway started taking 5 a game before the line moved). Matter of fact, those perimeter oriented Warriors teams in the 90s never had trouble scoring, they just couldn't defend one bit. The high pick and roll between Curry & Green isn't going to magically stop working because it's 1993, matter of fact Oakley would get absolutely destroyed when he has to switch or jump out on Curry.

Jeff Green is better than Charles Smith, and you don't know what type of player Conley would be in the 90s? He'd be the same player he is today, your point about the rules is just dumb to be honest and is always the easy out for people who struggle with what they're seeing.



This Warriors team matches up extremely well with that Bulls team, we just saw LeBron go for 44, his PG get 23, they hit 9 threes, and still lost because the Warriors are perfectly happy and content to guard everyone and let LeBron go 1 on 1 with their defense. I already said the 94-95 Rockets are similar to teams today, but it's hard to know what they'd shoot from 3 because of the fact their best year was with the short 3 line

Breh, those Knicks squads would be in a dog fight with this years Bulls team. I think Bulls in 6 or 7

2008 - 2012 celts beat them
2010 - 2012 bulls beat them
2012 - 2014 pacers beat them
2010-2014 Heat wash them easy in the 2nd round, they would put bosh at the 5 on offense and bring big Pat out of the paint. Pat would get his too though on the other end.

 

[Gravity]

You saying Oakley wouldn't be overmatched guarding him just shows you have no idea what you're talking about. The reason Green is on the floor is because he presents a matchup problem for almost every team in the league, he's strong enough to hold his own in the post, but can still stretch the floor and go off the dribble when run at. They're basically playing an SF at PF, and unlike every team before them that tried to go small they're giving up almost nothing by playing him there.

Nothing you said here proves that Oakley would be overmatched. Again, you're talking like Green is some kind of go to scorer. He's not.

It didn't fly over my head at all, you're using the Grizz as an example, yet they hit more threes than 90s teams, and even then that wasn't good enough. The thread is about taking a team from the 90s, and putting them against a team from today.

You keep citing stats as if you don't understand that the game/league is different. When I say that the league/game is different, where are you getting lost? While more consistent outside shooting would've helped that team, to imply that they lost because they didn't hit enough 3s is disingenuous. In the 2 games that they won't they only hit 10 3s combined.

More than the Knicks Barbosa and Livingston would be the best creators on those Knick teams

In other words you can't name anybody on the Warriors who can consistently get good shots besides Steph. at your histrionics.

The Knicks would get WASHED by the Warriors, you're arguing like it would be some competitive series. I don't care if they played in different eras, if you put the two teams as constructed on the floor vs one another the Warriors would win. You keep harping on the rule changes, but the core of the game is still the same, and the Warriors are stomping people because the line is still at 23'9" when the Knicks won 60 games. You're not stopping Curry at all, and your whole point is idiotic, because there were players who took 3s in the 90s, but none of them could shoot like Curry (Tim Hardaway started taking 5 a game before the line moved). Matter of fact, those perimeter oriented Warriors teams in the 90s never had trouble scoring, they just couldn't defend one bit.

You don't even understand my point. The core of the nba game is not the same. The NBA game used to be played inside-out. The core of the NBA game used to be the low-post players. It's clear that you don't care about the "different era different game" point because you don't comprehend the relevance. In a league where you can be more physical with guys with and without the ball, this GS team would be a lot easier to guard offensively. In a league that featured big time centers/post players and teams that played inside out, this small finesse GS team would have a lot harder time playing defense.

Jeff Green is better than Charles Smith

Based on what? Your feminine need to be right just because? The hell has Green done in his career for you to say that he's better? Nothing.

and you don't know what type of player Conley would be in the 90s? He'd be the same player he is today, your point about the rules is just dumb to be honest and is always the easy out for people who struggle with what they're seeing.

Pointing out that the rules and the way that game is played/called is "dumb" to you because it makes your whole argument invalid. Under different rules and a different way that the game was ref'ed, obviously those 90s teams would've been constructed a little differently. That's the point that you don't seem capable of understanding.

This Warriors team matches up extremely well with that Bulls team, we just saw LeBron go for 44, his PG get 23, they hit 9 threes, and still lost because the Warriors are perfectly happy and content to guard everyone and let LeBron go 1 on 1 with their defense. I already said the 94-95 Rockets are similar to teams today, but it's hard to know what they'd shoot from 3 because of the fact their best year was with the short 3 line

Your analysis is on some simple elementary school level shyt. "Well we just saw Lebron get 44 and lose so I think they'd match up well against Mike's Bulls". This Cavs team plays nothing like those championship Bulls teams. Plus, Lebron ain't Mike and Blatt ain't Phil Jackson. I luv Lebron, but he's not as good as Mike.

You're also taking like the Warriors couldn't have easily lost that game. I suspect Kerr would've tweaked or even changed that "let Lebron get his" had either one of those shots gone in at the end of regulation and Kyrie wasn't hurt.

 

[Liquid]

We are still here with this shyt? The only player besides Ewing on those 90's knicks teams that would match up well with the Warriors is Anthony Mason because of his ball handling and passing ability.

They might get swept tbh

 

[JYoung24]

look at the last couple of drafts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_NBA_draft; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NBA_draft; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_NBA_draft; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_NBA_draft

2010: John Wall, Demarcus Cousins, and Paul George are the only all-stars. None of em are or will be superstars.
2011: Kyrie Irving, Klay Thompson, and Jimmy Butler are the only all-stars. None of em are or will be superstars. *Kawhi was also part of this class.
2012: Anthony Davis and Damian Lillard are the only all-stars. Davis is the only superstar to enter the NBA from 2010-2013.
2013: Arguably the worst draft ever. Only Giannis and Gobert have all-star potential. However, none will be superstars.

thats a horrible 4 year stretch of talent coming into the league. maybe the worst EVER.

just look back at this stretch of drafts from the 90s.

1992: Shaq and Alonzo Mourning
1993: Penny Hardaway and Chris Webber
1994: Jason Kidd and Grant Hill
1995: Kevin Garnett and Rasheed Wallace
1996: Iverson, Kobe, Nash, and Ray Allen
1997: Duncan and T-Mac
1998: Dirk, Vince, and Pierce


7 straight years where you had on average 2-3 superstar/HOF caliber players arriving per draft. right now we're at a talent deficit in the NBA. the old guard from the early 00s are done. and the recent drafts have not been good enough to help replace the talent that is retiring.

Cousins will be a superstar

 

[MrFantastic]

This is exactly the point, look at how overrated the 90s are, dudes realistically think the 90s Knicks have a shot vs the Warriors, unreal


Yall talk about the rules making it easier for perimeter players to score, like John Starks was some caged beast that would be getting 28ppg without handchecking or some shyt.

Let's be real..the Knicks would get washed but you also comparing an 5 or 6th best team in the 90 to the best team in bball right now Ewing not even top center of that era....compare the Warriors to the Bulls or Magic or Houston some of the better teams of that decade and tell me the Warrior swould wash them..

 

[The War Report]

Gonna be so emasculating for the dude to need to call for help while another nikka brutalizes him in the post, and knowing nobody else can help cause it'll be splash from 3. The hopelessness as the post dominates

Embiid and Okafor.

 

[Malta]

Nothing you said here proves that Oakley would be overmatched. Again, you're talking like Green is some kind of go to scorer. He's not.

Like I said, you have no clue what you're talking about. Green doesn't need to be a go-to scorer when he's getting by Oakley and forcing the defense to rotate.

You keep citing stats as if you don't understand that the game/league is different. When I say that the league/game is different, where are you getting lost? While more consistent outside shooting would've helped that team, to imply that they lost because they didn't hit enough 3s is disingenuous. In the 2 games that they won't they only hit 10 3s combined.

They didn't hit enough 3's The analytics said that all year, eventually they were going to run into a better 3 point shooting team, their defense wouldn't be enough to compensate for the lack of shooting and you cannot keep trading 2 pts vs 3pts.

In other words you can't name anybody on the Warriors who can consistently get good shots besides Steph. at your histrionics.

There's literally nobody on that Knick roster that can create off the dribble, yet you think they'd hang

You don't even understand my point. The core of the nba game is not the same. The NBA game used to be played inside-out. The core of the NBA game used to be the low-post players. It's clear that you don't care about the "different era different game" point because you don't comprehend the relevance. In a league where you can be more physical with guys with and without the ball, this GS team would be a lot easier to guard offensively. In a league that featured big time centers/post players and teams that played inside out, this small finesse GS team would have a lot harder time playing defense.

You don't even understand what you're talking about. You have repeatedly said the rules were changed to bolster perimeter scoring, yet here you are saying the NBA used to be inside-out. So which is it, which rule are you trying to talk about? Because the Zone was implemented to limit interior scoring, handchecking was eliminated because of the fact teams were using the zone & handchecking at the same time, those two things only existed together for 3 years from 2001-2002 to 2004-2005. The handcheck rule had nothing to do with interior scoring, the zone did and the zone was effective vs perimeter players as well, so pick which one you're talking about.

You're one of these people that think handchecking is apparently the answer to stopping great offensive perimeter players, please explain to me how Michael Adams had a 27ppg 11apg season in 1990-91, he is 5'11" 160lbs, yet the might of handchecking didn't stop him. You'll sit here and talk out your ass, saying you don't know how Mike Conley would do because of physicality , yet a 160lbs PG averaged 27/11 in the 90s.

And your last point is just as stupid as well, the Warriors have a 7'0" 260lbs center, their entire gameplan is designed to limit 3s, contain your big with single coverage, then spread and shred you on the other end.

Based on what? Your feminine need to be right just because? The hell has Green done in his career for you to say that he's better? Nothing.

Based on the fact he sucked with the Knicks? Clown.

Pointing out that the rules and the way that game is played/called is "dumb" to you because it makes your whole argument invalid. Under different rules and a different way that the game was ref'ed, obviously those 90s teams would've been constructed a little differently. That's the point that you don't seem capable of understanding.

You don't understand the rule changes, and it is very dumb. These teams today would be able to play in the 90s, there's literally nothing that would stop them from excelling other than the idea that teams would apparently try to hurt them. If those 90s teams had to be constructed differently they are no longer the teams we're talking about, which is the point. You keep glossing over the fact a lot of people on this forum seem to think you could drop almost any 90s team in the league right now and they'd win the title, but having to be "constructed differently" means that's not true.

Your analysis is on some simple elementary school level shyt. "Well we just saw Lebron get 44 and lose so I think they'd match up well against Mike's Bulls". This Cavs team plays nothing like those championship Bulls teams. Plus, Lebron ain't Mike and Blatt ain't Phil Jackson. I luv Lebron, but he's not as good as Mike.

It's actually not simple and I outlined how modern teams would win vs 90s squads, you have yet to say why the 90s teams could win. You want to talk about some simplistic shyt, look at your breakdown "Bron ain't mike" "Blatt ain't phill" How about telling me how a team with Charles Oakley would expose Draymond Green defensively, since we've seen Draymond hold his own against Marc Gasol I want to know how a dude that didn't have a great post game would get Dray off the floor.

You're also taking like the Warriors couldn't have easily lost that game. I suspect Kerr would've tweaked or even changed that "let Lebron get his" had either one of those shots gone in at the end of regulation and Kyrie wasn't hurt.

The Cavs hit 9 threes to the Warriors 10, the Bulls and those other 90s squads would be lucky to hit 9 threes in a 3 game stretch. I've already outlined how the teams today would beat 90s squads, you have yet to say how the opposite could happen

 

[mastermind]

Why dont u explain your position breh instead of tellibg me to shut up. Im a father with 3 kids u cant talk to me that way.

Because you just said one of hte least talented teams to ever win an NBA title would beat a team with 3 HOFers playing at a level that is close to their HOF peak and one of the best young players in the NBA.

You can have 40 kids and I would still tell you to shut up.

 

[Swagnificent]

Cousins will be a superstar

never made the playoffs. i can't consider you a superstar if you've never played a playoff game.

 

[JYoung24]

never made the playoffs. i can't consider you a superstar if you've never played a playoff game.

Thats why I said will be if he gets a better team

 

[GoonbergScandal]

That's more philosophy then talent.If those teams played today then those players would work on shooting 3's more

The truth is none of the teams in the 90's or now are a pimple on the ass of those great 80's teams in terms of talent

90s era basketball was all about every individual star having they're own NBA squad without joining other stars on other teams in free agency while they're still in their primes. Each NBA team during the mid 90s had at least one or two All Star caliber players on it with the rest of the whole team being role players and scrubs. I agree the 80s was the best era of basketball talent wise, with the mid 90s being a close second, and the 70s being a close third. The 70s era of basketball was very underrated talent wise. Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Rick Barry, Jamal Wilkes, Caldwell Jones, Marvin Webster, Fred Brown, Jo Jo White, Doctor J, George Mcginnis, Word B Free, Maurice Lucas, Gail Goodrich, Alvan Adams, Gus Williams, Bob Macadoo, Nate Archibald, Norm Van Lier, Bob Love, Jim Mcmillian, Mel Daniels, Calvin Murphy, Moses Malone, David Thompson, Spencer Haywood, Dave Cowens, Elvin Hayes, Pete Marivich, Lou Hudson, Bob Dandridge and Artis Gilmore were absolute beasts back in the 70s.

 

[gluvnast]

Lol talking about the 90's Knicks ain't shyt.... yet NYC is STILL begging for the KNICKS to be as relevant as they were back in the 90's.

 

[jwinfield]

Derek Harper/John Starks vs Curry/Klay

NY's bench against the Warriors' 2nd unit

Other than Pat, they're worried about a shorter, less athletic, worse ball handling/shooting JR Smith

 

[blackestofpanthers]

Im a father with 3 kids u cant talk to me that way.

this might legit be the funniest post I've ever read

 

[Houston911]

Why dont u explain your position breh instead of tellibg me to shut up. Im a father with 3 kids u cant talk to me that way.

Tell rm LeBron!