Stockton/Malone played 18 seasons together and were eliminated in the 1st round 9 times

[Tony D'Amato]

Karl Malone was overrated.

John Stockton was legit. He was the best player on that squad. He was the engine of the team.

They were both overrated. Stockton dominated the ball, but lacked the scoring mindset that Prime zeke and Magic had when their teams needed them to score.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

Jason Kidd had over a decade to play in the NBA before he became a decent shooter. Only a Hall of Fame player is going to have a decade worth of shooting bricks to finally become a good shooter.

 

[NYC Rebel]

And whatever you say. Youre the dunderhead getting it from left to right in here. The average NBA player will not have the capital Jason Kidd had for a team to throwing up long range bricks for 10 years.

You being an idiot, saying, because Jason Kidd developed, others could is you not examining Jason Kidd career. People in this thread have spelled out how Jason’s career panned out to the point he was a 3rd or 4th scoring option to take open shots.

Why is it that you can’t deconstruct that part?

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

And whatever you say.

I've dropped other names too. I could do it all day. Vince Carter was a 37% three point shooter at a time when nobody emphasized the 3 ball. He'd improve on that percentage if that was what was asked of him. He was more athletic than anyone in the league currently. Prime Vince would destroy the league in the 2023.

 

[NYC Rebel]

I've dropped other names too. I could do it all day. Vince Carter was a 37% three point shooter at a time when nobody emphasized the 3 ball. He'd improve on that percentage if that was what was asked of him. He was more athletic than anyone in the league currently. Prime Vince would destroy the league in the 2023.

And now you’ve gone from “Jason Kidd is proof because his numbers went up “without showing why to now speculating Vince Carter “may” have done with more opportunities.

You arent stable

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

to now speculating

The only thing you've done in here is speculate. Your whole gimmick is transparent too because you do the same thing in the NFL threads on here. You have an issue with your fellow old heads saying "back in my day..." so you go hard on previous eras and attempt to paint narratives to discredit players who sonned your teams when you were 10-years old.

It's pretty hilarious actually.

 

[NYC Rebel]

The only thing you've done in here is speculate. Your whole gimmick is transparent too because you do the same thing in the NFL threads on here. You have an issue with your fellow old heads saying "back in my day..." so you go hard on previous eras and attempt to paint narratives to discredit players who sonned your teams when you were 10-years old.

It's pretty hilarious actually.

Discredit players for shooting what they shot?

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

Discredit players for shooting what they shot?

You saying the world's greatest athletes couldn't improve a shot if it was emphasized is one of the dumbest things I've read on this board. Others mentioned it early on in the thread and I stayed out of it but it appears this really was just a disguise for an anti-Jordan narrative.

 

[NYC Rebel]

You saying the world's greatest athletes couldn't improve a shot

And a list of greats in here showed that their shots didnt improve over time.

And the likelihood of them being in Jason Kidd’s position (which you cant refute) to take uncontested three point shots as the fourth option is highly unlikely. You’re just not sharp.

 

[Devil Plisken…CMS]

The only thing you've done in here is speculate. Your whole gimmick is transparent too because you do the same thing in the NFL threads on here. You have an issue with your fellow old heads saying "back in my day..." so you go hard on previous eras and attempt to paint narratives to discredit players who sonned your teams when you were 10-years old.

It's pretty hilarious actually.

Stay bytchin about “NBA talk” but be in all the basketball threads two seats reserved

nikka must have a twin he don’t know about

 

[NYC Rebel]

Stay bytchin about “NBA talk” but be in all the basketball threads two seats reserved

nikka must have a twin he don’t know about

I bytch about NBA rumormongering. I like talking about the game. This is why you’re an idiot because you don’t know the difference between a really deep NBA conversation and he said he said shyt that I distain about NBA talk.
you register with the bytchmade latter. Saying the Jazz were chokers based on their play is outside the norm of NBA fan talk. Niqqas like dont care or are unable to talk about who the Jazz played outside of the Bulls or if some shytty he said/he said rumor tied to players.

I actually saw Thurl Bailey and Jeff Malone play for the jazz. Im not here just to rumor monger, bytchmade NBA talk like you do

 

[stepbackj34spud]

I've dropped other names too. I could do it all day. Vince Carter was a 37% three point shooter at a time when nobody emphasized the 3 ball. He'd improve on that percentage if that was what was asked of him. He was more athletic than anyone in the league currently. Prime Vince would destroy the league in the 2023.

Yes he would. Vince avg 27 back in the early 00s is like 32-35 now with all the 3s. Plus he was a better 3 point shooter than most of the all star 2 guards today.

Put it like this. Vince was way better 3 point shooter than Harden, Beal, Booker, etc. He’d absolutely dominate today.

 

[The Amerikkkan Idol]

Jason Kidd had over a decade to play in the NBA before he became a decent shooter. Only a Hall of Fame player is going to have a decade worth of shooting bricks to finally become a good shooter.

Very few guards were as bad of shooters as Jason Kidd, too.

Like I said, he was a notoriously bad shooter.

Just an average shooter would've had a much better chance of becoming a decent shooter in much shorter time.

He went from like 10 worst shooting star guards in history to one of the all-time leaders in 3pts.

Most average shooting guards could turn that around easier than he did.

LOL at big-upping the '89 Warriors. The very next season they added Tim Hardaway and STILL went just 37-45 and missed the playoffs. They were a bunch of no-defense shooters who never did jack shyt in the playoffs. Mullin and Richmond were borderline HOFers at best, mostly just due to ppg totals, and Richmond was a fukking rookie.

Breh, this is legit a useless discussion. Just flattening out every HOF player as the same, every year of their career as the same, and ignoring the entire rest of their supporting cast is beyond silly. That's not a useful discussion, it's just forum game playing.


* Warriors were a damn 7-seed. Is 2-seed Utah supposed to be better than them or not?

* Malone was supposed to be the GOAT power forward and 3rd in MVP voting. Is he better than Chris Mullin making his first all-star appearance or not?

* Stockton was supposed to be one of the GOAT point guards, 2nd-team All-NBA, 2nd-team All-Defensive. Is he better than rookie Mitch Richmond who wasn't even going to make an All-Star Team for another 4 years or not?

* The Jazz stars were supported by DPOY and All-Star Mark Eaton, 20ppg scorer Thurl Bailey, former 20ppg scorer Darrell Griffith, and shooter Bob Hansen. The Warriors stars were supported by Manute Bol, Terry Teagle, Rod Higgins, Winston Garland, and Larry Smith. Did the Jazz have an advantage there, or not?

* Bragging about Don Nelson being in the HOF is a laugh. Nelson only won one other playoff series in his 7 years with the Warriors. Both times he won in the first round, he immediately lost 4-1 in the second round. He has never been respected anything like Jerry Sloan and his HOF vote was due to longevity and innovations, not playoff winning.

* Not only was Golden State an underdog in every respect, they beat the Jazz in UTAH twice and then finished the sweep at home.



You're trying to big-up a 7-seed that missed the playoffs the next year and only won 1 playoff series in 7 years. And this wasn't even their good year, this was when Mullin/Richmond were raw and Hardaway wasn't even on the team yet. They had no business even being competitive in the playoffs, much less sweeping a 2-seed.

Stop star counting and look at the actual team.

The NBA is a STARS LEAGUE.

This isn't football or MLB, stars matter in sports.

If you have 2 Hall of Famers & a Hall of Fame coach on a team, you should be a decent team.

Golden State underachieved for years. Even Run-TMC underachieved, even though we all remember them fondly today.

You talking about flattening careers, when again, Mullin was in his prime as HOF player & Richmond was ROY & averaging 22pts again is nonsense.

I'm not acting like Scottie Pippen averaging 7ppg is the reason Jordan won a playoff series (like Bron stans do)

Golden State legitimately had GREAT players and a GREAT coach.

Utah should've won the series, fine, but it's not embarrassing to lose a series to a team that has 2 future HOFs & a HOF coach.

It'd be embarrassing to lose a series to The Clippers in that era or something or Denver Nuggets in that era or an expansion team.

NBA fans think name dropping NBA stars automatically means the teams they played on were formidable great teams.

Its a shytty habit.

The NBA is a stars league more than any other league, if you have stars, you're in any game or any series. That's why LeBron keeps hopping from team to team to play with them.

 

[#1 pick]

That boy dumb you wasting your time.

Offenses weren't designed around 3s for multiple reasons:

1.) Guys couldn't shoot it as well. You hear this a lot in interviews with older players. 3s were not emphasized.

2.) With the illegal defense rules you could just abuse 1vs1 matchups in the post and kick out to the obvious double. There were no pre-rotations allowed back then. Very easy to score in iso.

3.) Rule changes from the 03-04 season that had made defenses into juggernauts going into the 04-05 season started opening up the game for the offense. D'Antoni also started tinkering with things and you start seeing the Phoenix Suns murdering established defenses. This laid the groundwork for the GS and Houston offenses that would show up later.

Simply put the older era not only couldn't shoot 3s as well as modern guards, but they also weren't incentivized to do so. You put them guys vs a modern NBA team and they are simply getting cooked. The 90s NBA is some of the worst basketball to watch because most of talent was just lackluster compared to what you see today. The "modern" NBA really started to take off after the 01 season when the league was tinkering with rules to make the game more watchable and emphasize skills over terrible talent masquerading as "hard defense".

Honestly, watching old games with young Shaq, Hakeem, D. Rob, etc. Post play wasn't all that efficient even then. Thing is, so many wasted possessions. Teams did double the hell out of the post back then. It wasn't easy to score in the paint and bigs could sit for awhile too and a lot of coaches didn't value spacing much if at all. Utah was one of the lone exceptions and it was cheesy

I felt teams were creative when I started watching a lot of 90s games outside of the Bulls. Knicks for example loved to play 3 big forwards, mainly PFs or modern 5 with less range together and they wanted to make it hard to make jumpers and win the rebounding battle. They also wanted to muck shyt up and play with a high motor. They didn't value spacing but didn't need to. Because of their length, it wasn't easy to score on them unless you had terrific slashers. Few did. While the era was less skilled, they adjusted and found ways to make it hard to win. Possessions were a lot less valuable and rebounding and defense was far more valuable.

 

[BaggerofTea]

neither of them are top 5 in their respective positions any how.