Oliver P

As you probably all know the 90's Bulls were one of the most dominant teams ever (I'd rather say two of the most dominant teams ever as, at the exception of Jordan, Pip and Jax, the first Three Peat team and the second Three Peat one were completely different). They won six rings during that decade and could even have won 8 or 9 rings if Jordan didn't retire in 93 and if there was no lockout in 98 (as a matter of fact even if it was more likely that Jordan would retire in 98, it wasn't for sure at the same time, Jordan wasn't 100% sure of his decision and the lockout just didn't let him any choice). A team so good that no one was able to beat them since they won their first ring in 1991 and only two teams forced them to play a game 7 : the 92 Ewing's Knicks (thanks to a Willis Reed like performance by Ewing in game 6) and the 98 Pacers. And the 80's are considered by many people as the Golden Era of basketball, the best NBA decade ever (I am one of them even if I personnally prefer the 90's). So many great teams and legends played in that era, like the Bird/McHale/Parish/DJ's Celtics, the Jabbar/Magic/Worthy Lakers of course but not only, also the Malone/Erving/Cheeks Sixers, Twin Towers' Rockets, Harper/Aguirre/Blackman's Mavs, Thomas/Laimbeer/Dumars/Rodman's Pistons, etc... So my question is what do you think those 90's Bulls teams would have done if they had played in this outstanding era, the 80's ? Do you think they would have dominated the same way that they dominated the 90's ? Do you think they wouldn't have dominated but would still have been up there with the very best 80's teams and manage to win at least a couple of rings ? Do you think they wouldn't have had a chance to beat any of the greatest 80's teams and would have ended up ringless ? I have my idea about this topic but I won't give it as I don't want to influence anybody. I want to know other people's opinions about this. Explain your choices.

Definitely American. Easy choice for me as it is actually my goal to become one day a US citizen and to live in New York City. Not sure it will happen, it's gonna be hard.. But I hope that someday I'm gonna make it.

Hey illwill wha's up ? Long time no see haha. Nice to see you man.

I think that the five best Knicks of All Time are Ewing, Frazier, Reed, DeBuschere and Bernard King. So the only change I would make with the All Time Starting Lineup would be Dave instead of Monroe. Patrick Ewing is the best Knicks ever. There is no doubt about it. Ewing is underrated by many people because he never won a ring which is unfair cause he is clearly one of the very best centers of the history of the game. In my opinion there are only 6 centers who can be consider as "better" than Ewing : Russell, Jabbar, Chamberlain, Shaq, Olajuwon and Moses Malone. I know that many people consider Robinson as a better player than Ewing too but I personally highly disagree with that. If we were talking only about pure talent and the regular season then I would agree that a case could be made for David. But the most important factor in my opinion to determine which player is the best are clutchness and leadership and in those areas Robinson was far behind Ewing. As Rodman said it many times (and he's certainly not the only one), Robinson just tended to disappear in the money time. The fact is that despite his huge talent Robinson was no leader material and it's as a second option to Tim Duncan that Robinson was the most comfortable. No surprise that Duncan became immediately the Spurs leader, in his rookie season. Robinson is, like Pippen, a second option, a lieutenant. One of the best lieutenant ever but still nothing more than a lieutenant. And that is why he cannot compare to Ewing who was a true leader. I heard many times people criticizing Ewing in that area though, saying that he was a terrible leader, stuff like that... And that couldn't be more wrong. Now it is true that Ewing did play at the level he was supposed to play during the 94 Finals, I've critiziced him many times because of that, and there is no doubt in my mind that had he been himself offensively, we Knicks would have had won a third ring. Ewing was a shooting center, his jump shot was his main weapon and unfortunately for him, and as it happens to many other players who depend on their shot, he struggled with his shot in those Finals. Riley told him all the time to play more inside the paint but Ewing did not listen and kept shooting from mid range. Not only that but he even shot from further away each time.. and so kept struggling with his FG%. So it is true that Pat did not act like a leader is supposed to in the 94 Finals. But it is definitely not enough to make him a bad leader.. Cause let's not forget about all the times when Ewing literally carried us on his shoulders. In 1992 for example. It's during the series against the Bulls that year that Ewing had the best performance of his career IMO. Especially in games 1 and 6. In game 1 he was literally unstoppable. He could score from anywhere on the court that day, he was outstanding and was the first reason why the Knicks schocked the NBA world and won this first game in Chicago Stadium. And in game 6 Ewing had a Willis Reed like performance. As a matter of fact Ewing sprained his ankle during that game but he came back to play anyway and led the team to an amazing win to force the Bulls to a game 7. It was just a true heroic performance like only a few players can accomplish.. We can also talk about that 1994 year, Ewing was not himself in the Finals but he was amazing in all the other series hitting amazing clutch shots against both the Pacers and Bulls.. And when I say that Pat wasn't himself in those Finals, I want to precise (as I already said) that he struggled "offensively" cause he was definitely there defensively and in rebounds. He could even arguably be considered as the best defensive player of the Finals, he blocked everyeone all the time during the Finals and set a record for both most blocks in a Finals series and in a Finals single game. Ewing was a proven leader, this cannot be denied. And the reason why he did not win a ring was rather, first because the Knicks had to face the Jordan's Bulls during the whole 90's, that Bulls team that, once they started to win, no one - I emphsize NO ONE - was ever able to beat, and second because Pat never had enough help during his prime. He played briefly with King at the beginning of his career but first they barely played together cause King was always injured at the time and second Ewing wasn't at his prime yet. And when Houston and Sprewell arrived in the team Ewing started to decrease and get injured every year.. Besides Houston never became the player he was supposed to become. But had Ewing been at his prime when Spree played the best basketball of his career in the 99 playoffs I'm sure that he would have won a ring. The best teammate that Ewing had at his prime was Starks. And as much as I love Starks (he's my fav player ever, with Ewing of course) he was not a superstar. A star yes but no superstar. And he was not regular enough to be a true second option, he would have rather made a fantastic third option. Anyway after Ewing the best players that we ever had were definitely Walt Frazier and Willis Reed. It is very hard to say who was the best of the two.. They both had a fantastic career, they both were terrific leaders, both were clutch and great defenders. It's very hard to say. Sure Reed was MVP once and twice NBA Finals MVP contrary to Frazier so we could conclude that Reed was the better player.. But it is not that easy. First it is important to know that centers are more likely to be give an award, especially the MVP award. How many centers have been MVP ? How many PGs ? Big difference.. Let's look at the two championships for example : during the first championship we all remember about Reed's miraculous come back which motivated the Knicks to get the win. It is indeed one of the greatest moments ever. But it's also important to remember that Reed only scored two baskets during that game and that he quickly had to return on the bench.. While Frazier scored 36 points and gave 18 assists. So who was truly the hero of that game ? Not so easy to answer. In the second championship Reed had started to decrease and was not as dominant as he used to be. He still won the Finals MVP but Frazier was now clearly the leader of the team and carried the Knicks on his shoulders during the whole playoffs. When we add to all of this that, before the arrival of Ewing, Clyde hold the Knicks records for most games, minutes played, field goals attempted, field goals made, free throws attempted, free throws made and points, and that he still holds the one for most assists well it is hard to go against Walt for second best Knicks ever. The fourth best Knicks of All Time is IMO Dave DeBuschere. Dave DeBuschere is often forgotten by people when we talk about the best Knicks ever and I think that it's first because Dave was the third option during the two Knicks championship, he focused more on the dirty work and was first of all a defensive player. He was a Rodman like player in a sense. Except that he was also an efficient scorer. Dave is one of the players that had the highest basketball IQ in the history of the game. He was already considered as a great player in his Detroit years but he New York he literally exploded. He changed the Knicks by his presence alone as he allowed Reed to finally play at his true position, the center position and the Knicks finally had at the same time a true PF (Dave could also play SF very efficiently though, but it's as a PF that he could give his best). In New York Dave became one of the most talented and feared players in the league and also one of the greatest PFs we ever seen. At the exception of Rodman he is probably the greatest defensive PF of All Time. Dave was All Star every year in his Knicks days and there is no doubt that, while most people focus on Frazier, Reed or Monroe during that time, the Knicks could not have won without him. The fifth best Knicks of All Time is IMO Bernard King. In terms of pure talent Bernard could be considered as second.. But unfortunately injuries deeply hurt his career. But in New York, when he was on court, that player was just unbelievable. He had some amazing performances : he became the first player since 1964 to score at least 50 points two games in a row (two victories against San Antonio and Dallas) ; he became the tenth player in the history of the NBA to score at least 60 points in one game ; he was the 85 scoring leader with 32.9 PPG. Bernard King is one of the purest scorers we ever seen in the game, it is just too bad that he and Ewing did not play together at their prime, they could have become one of the greatest duos we ever seen. A case could be made for Monroe instead of King for the fifth best Knicks though. The Pearl is one of the most exciting SG we ever seen and the Frazier-Monroe duo is one of the greatest guard combinations of All Time (arguably the greatest). He and Pete Maravich revolutionized the game and the shooting guard position. However his Knicks years are not as impressive as his Bullets years. Although that's mainly because he was better surrounded in New York. He still had some amazing years as a Knick but I think that overall King deserves a bit more to be the fifth best Knicks of All Time. But it's definitely arguable.

Yo Aifan wha's up man ? Long no see haha. Glad to see you here man. Do you still like cheese ?

Well I explained myself about this when I said this : I usually do not like to mention players who played for less than five years with a same team in an All Time roster but it's impossible to generalize and make it a rule at the same time. I mean, as I said, if a player achieved great things with a team during a short period, it can be enough to put him in an All Time roster. Which is exactly the case with Rodman in Chicago or Sam Cassell in Minnesota for example. But in some other cases, like Kiki in Portland it's less evident in my opinion. I would indeed lol, and I did not talk about Kareem in my last post anyway. I understand your criteria and I'm fine with it, even if I personally would do otherwise. I talked about mentioning AI as the PG in my last post because in that case it seems to me that it's a bit different. Kareem never played PF, but Iverson played PG for two years. That's why that I thought that you might eventually want to start him at PG. Especially that you agreed to mention Tracy at SF in Houston despite the fact that he only played SF for two years as well. But anyway I'm fine with Mo as the starting PG though, it's true that he is the best pure PG that they ever had, so I understand your choice. Yeah Rodman is one of my favorite players and I sometimes tend to let myself getting carried away when I talk about him lol.. I meant that Rodman had the biggest achievement of his career with the Bulls, when he could (should ?) have been Finals MVP in 1996. But overall his best years were in Detroit. My bad. Yes the Finals MVP is not always the best player of the team, that's definitely true. Duncan was better than Parker just like Bird was better than Maxwell. But in DJ's case it's different, cause he was truly the best player of the team. Gus was very good as well, I certainly do not deny that, but being the leading scorer and the best player are sometimes two different things. Billups was never the leading scorer in Detroit for example, but he was clearly the best player of the team. In fact not only DJ was the Finals MVP but he was also All Star that year, contrary to Gus. Actually the three years they played in Seattle together Gus was not All Star once. While DJ was All Star twice. And the two players are both guards.. The fact is that Gus was only better than DJ at scoring, and Johnson was just the better overall player. And by far the team's best defender. This said I'm fine with the pick of Ray Allen though. I think that I would personally rather have DJ, but I admit that it's arguable and it's impossible to say that Ray does not deserve to be in that lineup at the same time. Yes that's a good point. And I agree with you these kinds of achievements are not everything. I'm not obsessed with it either. I actually said many times myself that Rodman should have been All Star every year during the 90's, or that Nash should not really have been MVP (despite the fact that he's one of my fav players, was even my fav PG when he was a Maverick). But I can't totally bypass those achievements at the same time though. Well anyhow it's true that a case can be made for Kiki. I did not say that I strongly disagreed with it anyhow. Just said that I was not sure.. And that I would personally put Clifford over him, but it's arguable. And I didn't only mention the fact that some Blazers teams were better with Cliff. Also that Clifford was more versatile (could play SF, PF and C) and a better defender than Kiki. Besides Kiki was surrounded by good players too, he played with Drexler, Thompson, Paxson, Kersey, Porter or Steve Johnson. But anyway I think that a case can be made for Clifford but I can't say that Kiki is a bad choice at the same time, so I guess that I'm fine with it. Horrible ?? Fulks was the first true star of the league, the first great scorer ever. He set new game scoring records, breaking his own record every time, over and over again until he scored 63 points, record that lasted for ten years until Elgin Baylor scored 64 in 1959. He was the pioneer of today's jump shot. And yes he shot at 30 % in career, but at this time everybody shot at 30 %. The FG% leaders shot at between 30 and 40 % in the first years of the league. I know that you said that you don't care about the era, but it just has to be taken in consideration. And on top of all that he led his Warriors to the first ring ever. Saying that he was horrible is just wrong. EDIT : By the way I think that Jamison would be a good choice indeed but according to your critera I do not think that you can put Jamison at PF cause he started at SF for most of his Warriors days if I am not mistaken. Well I think that he started at PF for some games, but I don't think that he did for an entire season. Not totally sure about it though.

Haha good to know. Well Kiki was a very good player indeed but I'm not really sure about this choice though... Cause Kiki only played in Portland four years. You definitely can be mentioned in an All Time roster if you played with a team for a short amount of time like 3 or four years though, but then you have to have accomplished some amazing things with that team. And it's not really the case for Kiki... He had some very good years in Portland but he did not achieve many things, I mean the team didn't go very far and he was not even All Star or All NBA once as a Blazer. That's why I'm not sure that it's enough to be honest. At the same time it is true that the Blazers never had great SFs. So if you don't want to put a SG as SF there are not many choices.. But I would put Uncle Cliffy over him. The Blazers were not more succesful when Clifford was the best player of the team than they were in the Kiki years, but Robinson played much longer in Portland and was part of the two Blazers teams that made the Finals in the 90's. He was also All Star once and a better defender than Kiki. Jermaine definitely had the best years of his career in his Pacers days but I honestly would put George McGinnis over him. McGinnis was part of the first last two Pacers teams to win a ring in the franchise's ABA days, he was one of the very best players of the league at the time and even was ABA MVP in 1975. He definitely has to be in that lineup IMO. I would also put Roger Brown instead of Person. Chuck was a very good player but Brown just achieved more both individually and collectively. He was a part of the three Pacers teams that win a ring and was four time All Stars contrary to Chuck who never was All Star or in an All NBA team. I would put Rodman over DeBusschere here. Dave had the best years of his career as a Knick. In Detroit he made the playoffs only three times and was All Star three times. In New York he won two rings and was All Star every year. It's also in New York that he was All NBA for the only time of his career. While Rodman had the best years of his career in Detroit. He won two rings with the Bad Boys, made his only two All Star appearances as a Pistons (though he should definitely have been All Star in his Spurs and Bulls years as well) and was twice the DPOY there. He also had the best scoring year of his career in Detroit (the year the Bad Boys won their second ring) and his two best rebounding years, he grabbed more than 18 RPG twice (!). No problem there I 100% agree with this roster. I would rather put Iverson as the PG to allow Greer to be in the lineup here. Cause as good as Cheeks was, Hal Greer was definitely a better player overall. And Iverson played PG several times and even started at PG for the first two years of his career, before Brown and Snow's arrivals so it's definitely possible to mention him at this position. I 100% agree with this roster. A case could eventually be made for Ginobili but I would pick Alvin over him too. Connie Hawkins has to start over Marion. It is true that The Hawk never played at 100% in his NBA days because he was unfairly suspended by the NBA for several years and had multiple injuries but he still amazingly managed to play at a very high level in his NBA days. For example, in the last game of his rookie season, he had 44 pts, 20 rbds, 8 asts, 5 stls and 5 blks (!)). He is in my opinion the most versatile player ever. He also invented many basketball moves and dunks. He was more than just a basketball player, he was a true artist. And it is clearly in Phoenix that he had the best years of his NBA career. He just has to start here. I would also put Westphal over Davis. Paul was a combo guard but he started at SG for most of his career. Now he didn't play in Phoenix for as long as Walter but he was clearly a better player. Paul even led the Suns to their first Finals ever. And he was All Star and All NBA during four of his five years as a Sun. While if Davis was a multiple All Star too, he was All NBA only twice in his 11 years as a Sun. And I would personally put Chambers as the C. Chambers was overall a better player. Yes Stoudemire is more athletic and more dominant in the paint, but Chambers was a better shooter, passer, defender, leader and better in the clutch than Amaré. And he mastered more the fundamentals. Which is why I would pick him over Stat. However it's true that if Chambers played C many times during his career, and his Suns days, he never started at C. Contrary to Stat, who, like Chambers, is yet more a PF than a C. So as I know that you want to mention players only at the position they started at I guess that I'm fine with Stat. I would rather have DJ at SG. Dennis was a combo guard and in his Seattle days he started at SG. Ray had some very nice years in Seattle but I think that Johnson just achieved more than him. He even led the team to their only ring ever. And was named Finals MVP that year. He's also a much better defender than Ray, one of the very best defenders ever. DJ was a fantastic player, one of my personal favorites. I've always found him to be quite underrated. For example when people think about the 80's Celtics they immediately think about Bird, McHale and Parish. Yet DJ was just as important as Parish and McHale for that team. Also it might be a bit early to put Durant at SF, maybe I would put the X Man instead... I dunno. Sam Cassell has to be the PG. I know he's only played two years in Minnesota but as I already said in this post a player that didn't stay long with a team can nonetheless be mentioned in an All Time roster if he accomplished great things with that team. That's exactly the case for Sam I Am. Whose arrival in that team, along with the arrival of Spree, gave a new dimension to that team and allowed them to pass the first round for the first and only time of their history. Sam even had the best year of his career as a Wolve, he was the clutch player, the go to guy of the team, the real leader and was All Star and All NBA for the first and only time of his career. Many even think that if Cassell wasn't injured against the Lakers in 2004, the Wolves would have made it to the Finals and would have had a great chance to win the ring. So even if he only played two years he definitely achieved enough to be mentioned here. Especially that Pooh only played three years as a Wolve... And all of the best PGs the Wolves had (Starbury, Brandon, etc..) didn't stay long as well. Besides the Wolves are a very young franchise and the number of years that a player played with the franchise is less important IMO. And I'm not sure about the SG. I mean sure West was a Wolve for quite some time, nine years, but Sprewell and Rider were definitely better players than him. And when we look at it West was truly in the rotation for six years. Still is twice as much as Rider, but still... I dunno. I think I would still put Rider as the starting SG. But it's arguable. There is honestly no way that Webber can be mentioned in that roster. He only played one year with the team... And the way he left, I doubt that Warriors fans want to consider him as a Warrior anyway... I would put Thurmond as the PF. He was rather a C but could play PF. However it's true that he played C for most of his career.. But he played PF his two first seasons as a Warrior, Chamberlain was the C. I don't know if it's gonna be enough for you.. But after all T Mac only played at SF for two years in Houston and you picked him anyway. But anyhow, if you still don't wanna pick him I guess I'd go with Joe Fulks. The first star of the league. Fulks would rather be a SF (actually even a SG today) but he started at PF for most of his career. I agree with this roster. Although a case could be made for King over Dandridge. It's arguable, but I'm fine with Bob. By the way I checked the Knicks roster and there is honestly no way that you can put Guerin over Monroe. Guerin is one of our best players ever, that's for sure, but Earl The Pearl is clearly the best SG that we ever had. He has to be in that lineup. Oh and I don't understand why you still have Grant Hill in the Magic's lineup. Honestly the dude was injured almost all the time in Orlando... And was not even close to the level at which he played with Detroit. I understand that you don't want to put McGrady at SF but then you should mention Dennis Scott as the SF instead of Hill. He was not a superstar but he was quite a good player nonetheless, a true starter, and he brought more to the franchise than Grant, no doubt about that. Also I see that you still have Cliff Hagan as the starting SG in Atlanta and, as great as Hagan was, I honestly still think that Pistol Pete should be mentioned instead of him. Besides Cliff was rather a SF, and I even think that he started at SF all of his career (if I'm not mystaken). And I don't understand why you still have Tarpley as the starting C as Roy only had two complete seasons... He wasted his career and just can't be mentioned in the All Time roster IMO. I understand that you don't wanna put Perkins at C but then you should mention James Donaldson as the Mavs C, he was not a superstar but he was a true center, clearly the best pure center that the Mavs ever had so far and was even All Star once as a Mav. Well anyway that's just my two cents, just trying to contribute haha. EDIT : I understand that you don't want to put Lucas at C, for the Kings roster, but then you should put Embry instead of Lacey. He was a better player IMO. Besides the team was more succesful when Embry was a King, and Lacey was only All Star once, while Embry was five time All Star.

Well my All Time Rockets lineup would be : C. Hakeem Olajuwon P.F. Moses Malone S.F. Tracy McGrady S.G. Calvin Murphy P.G. Steve Francis But I know that you want to mention players only at the position they started at. So I guess that in that case I would go with Rudy T for the starting PF. Yes PF cause Rudy was a swingman and in fact always started at PF (if I'm not mystaken). And I liked OT a lot but Rudy was just a better player overall. T Mac can definitely be mentioned as the SF, he actually started at SF most of the time before the arrivals of Battier and later Artest. But if you still don't want to put him as the SF, well I guess that it doesn't leave much choices... Either Horry, Robert Reid or McMcray maybe. Murphy was a pure combo guard and if he most of the time started at PG, he also started many times at SG. All the years the Rockets backcourt was Murphy - Lucas for example. That's not many years though and it's true that Calvin started at PG for most of his career so I suppose that you'd prefer to mention him as a PG. In that case I guess I would go with Drexler as the starting SG. Unless you prefer to consider T Mac as a SG. Drexler was a very important part of the 95 team that won its second ring, and he had some nice years in Houston despite the fact that he was past his prime, even was All Star twice, but he was not the same player that he was in Portland. So if you don't want to mention T Mac at SF I'd go with T Mac over him. In case you choose to put Murphy as the starting SG I definitely would go with Francis as the PG. It is true that Steve didn't really deserve his "Franchise" nickname as he never led the Rockets anywhere.. but he still was a phenomenal player in his Rockets days and is clearly the best PG that the team ever had. Well that is the best PG not named Murphy of course. So again I know that you won't go with my first choice haha, so I guess that you should go with either : C. Hakeem Olajuwon P.F. Rudy Tomjanovich S.F. Tracy McGrady S.G. Calvin Murphy P.G. Steve Francis Or (if you don't want to use Murphy as a SG) : C. Hakeem Olajuwon P.F. Rudy Tomjanovich S.F. Tracy McGrady S.G. Clyde Drexler P.G. Calvin Murphy Or (if you don't want to use McGrady as a SF) : C. Hakeem Olajuwon P.F. Rudy Tomjanovich S.F. Rodney McCray S.G. Tracy McGrady P.G. Calvin Murphy

The first thing I wanna say here is that rings are totally irrelevant to determine who the best player here is. Most people think that Duncan is clearly the best of the two because he won rings which is something that I always found to be totally ludicrous. The Duncan's Spurs never had to play against the Jordan's Bulls and if they had I am 100% sure that the Bulls would have beaten them. Besides I watched both the Duncan's Spurs and Malone's Jazz play and there is no doubt in my mind that the Jazz, especialy in the late 90's, were a better team than all the 2000's Spurs teams. Not by far, don't get me wrong, but they were better overall teams. So if the Spurs had played in the 90's I am sure that Duncan would be ringless and if the Jazz had played in the 2000's I am sure that Malone would have at least a couple of rings. So the rings argument is just totally irrelevant. Then I have to say that I agree with Real Deal about the 2003 Lakers. I heard quite some times people saying that the Spurs could have definitely beaten the Jordan's Bulls as they beat the O'Neal-Bryant's Lakers but the fact is just that the 2003 Lakers had nothing to do with the 2000-01-02 Lakers. First of all the early 2000's Lakers strength was that every year they managed to sign some quality veterans to surround the two stars and the three superfriends. Yet they did not manage to do that in the summer of 2001. They only signed Walker and Hunter. Walker turned out to be a big disappointment (not that big cause I never expected him to become a great player and I'm certainly sure that I wasn't the only one..) and Hunter was just not the same player that he was in his Pistons days. He used to be one of the greatest shooters in the league but at some point he just totally lost his shot and never got it back. And so did not in his Lakers days. Lindsey was still usefull for his defense but that's it. So the 2002 Lakers managed to get a ring with ONLY Shaq-Kobe and the superfriends that were Horry-Fish-Fox. Horry even had to start because of that that year, Phil wanted to use him on the bench but he just couldn't. Oh and George as the sixth man. But that's it. The still managed to get a ring but it was clear that they HAD to get some quality players the following summer. Yet they just did not... So the following year we were back with the same team, with only six quality players and a clear lack of depth. It was already very hard to win a ring with so little depth but two... Not only that but this year was the year that Shaq and Kobe just couldn't stand each other for good. As a matter of fact before that Phil always found a way to get those two back together but this time even he could not... They both played for themselves. The result ? The chemistry of the team was forever broken. Well until one of the two would eventually leave (I wasn't surprised when Shaq was traded in 04, either him of Kobe HAD to leave). But that's not all... On top of that, this year Robert Horry, definitely a key player of the team at the time, the Lakers wouldn't have won three in a row without his clutch D and shots, TOTALLY lost his game. Many people thought that he was just done. I was one of them. And was wrong as we all know that Bob got back to his true self the following year with the Spurs... So when you combine all of this it was not surprising to see the Lakers struggle this year. Many might not remember this but there were even doubts that the Lakers would make the playoffs that year. They were not a playoffs team at mid season. They still managed to get better in the second part of the season and eventually make the playoffs. But because of all of this they were never themselves during the playoffs and it was just not surprising to see them lose in the playoffs. Especially that Rick Fox got injured and missed most of the playoffs games in the playoffs... So the Spurs beat a Lakers team that basically had only four good players : O'Neal, Bryant, Fish and George. And two of them, the two superstars, dispised each other more than ever. So the team that the Spurs beat, in six games, just had nothing to do with the three peats teams. And I am personally sure that the Spurs would have never beaten the 2000-02-03 Lakers. So anyway the ring argument is just plainly flawed. Now let's compare the two players individually. I first want to say something, I have seen too many times the words "easily" or "significantly better" in this thread. The fact is that both players were very good on both ends of the floor and it's just impossible to say that one of them was "by far" better than the other in any area. First of all let's compare the two players offensively. It is true that Malone has overall averaged better numbers there. But when we look more closely at it we can see that both had a very effective mid range jump shot. I'd give the advantage to Malone there. But Duncan had better post moves than Karl. Tim is probably even the PF that has the best post moves ever, with McHale. So Tim has a better offensive repertoire overall. I think I would still give the edge to Malone there but it is arguable nonetheless. Now both players were terrific passers. But I think I would give the edge to Duncan there though, he was a bit better than Karl IMO. Defensively we have two of the best defensive PFs of All Time. Malone was a fantastic defender. But I can't put him over Duncan in that area. Because, honestly, in terms of defense and rebounds, and at the exception of Dennis Rodman of course, Tim is definitely the best that we ever seen at the PF position in my opinion. The most important area for me, when talking about the All Time great, is clutchness, leadership and dominance. I said in another thread that in my opinion a case could be made for Dirk as the best PF ever because of his leadership and dominance on the offensive end during the last playoffs run. Honestly I have very rarely seen a player take over in the fourth like he did. It was very impressive. And that is why I think that a case can definitely be made for him over every other PF. Except... yeah Tim Duncan. Why ? Because Tim happens to have had the same kind of dominant performance, not only offensively but also defensively. As a matter of fact Duncan not only destroyed his opponents offensively but he also annihilated them on the defensive end. In 2003 Tim just had one of the greatest performances ever. And he even had two of the most impressive games ever that year, in game 1 of the Finals with 32 PTS, 20 REB, 6 AST, 3 STL, 7 BLK and in game 6 of the same Finals with 21 PTS, 20 REB, 10 AST, 8 BLK. Duncan averaged 24.2 points, 17 rebounds, 5.3 assists and 5.3 blocks during those Finals. His BPG happens to be the most for any player since the NBA-ABA merger. Also back to the game 6, it's important to remember that the Nets were leading by 8 at the beginning of the 4th and it's totally thanks to Duncan that they got back into the game and eventually won it, Tim not only took over on the offensive end but destroyed Martin on the defensive end, he forced him to a pathetic 3/23 in this game. So honestly, as much as I would love to say that Malone is the best PF of All Time, I just can't, it's in my opinion just impossible to make a case against Tim for best PF ever.

Well I know that Love could play PF, he's in fact a swing man, but I forgot that he actually started as a PF at the time... Yeah it's true Walker was the SF. Although I watched some videos of Love and for me he rather had the game of a SF, even if he could play PF indeed. Anyway no matter what I still would put Rodman as the starting PF. Well I agree with this to some extent. I mean it's true that Sheed didn't play to his potential but this is especially true for his Detroit years. As a Blazer Sheed always accepted to be the true leader of the team, contrary to when he was a Piston. And the least we can say is that he did a fine job as the leader of this team. Sure his Blazers were very deep indeed, no one can win all by himself in a collective game anyhow, but as the leader he has to get more credit. I would add that the reason why he didn't have better stats than he had was because he played in such a deep team. When you're surrounded by so many scorers you just don't need to score more. Same for rebounds actually when you're surrounded by such great rebounders as Pippen, Sabonis, Grant or Davis you just don't have to get more rebounds than that. Besides Sheed was still at least the second best rebounder of this team every year. So I certainly don't think that he can be blamed for not having more PPG and RPG. Besides, even if I would have preferred him to assert himself more as a leader (especially during his Pistons years) I cannot blame a player for wanting to share more the ball at the same time. There are so many egos in this sport that it's quite refreshing to see a player who wants to share the ball with his teammates. Also Wicks have averaged better numbers but first it was at another time, a time in which the defense were not as good, not only that but a time where there was just less good PFs. Sheed had to play against Duncan, Garnett, Nowitzki, Webber, Malone, etc.. every night. And Sidney had those numbers in a team that did not even make the playoffs once. Not only that but the year Wicks and Petrie left the Blazers not only made the playoffs but even got a ring. This with Maurice Lucas instead of Wicks as the PF... While Sheed led his team to the playoffs every year. And the year he left the Blazers didn't make the playoffs with basically the same team, the main difference was that Randolph was the starting PF. I agree that a case can be made for Wicks and I consider him as the second best PF the team ever had, but I personally would definitely put Sheed in the starting lineup. I understand what you mean. But I just personally disagree though.. I mean sure it could be shocking to consider a true C as the best PF ever but honestly it would be even more shocking, at least to me, to have Haslem in the starting lineup instead of someone like Shaq... I would rather have Shaq and Mourning inside, same for Kareem and Shaq in LA, no matter if they're not listed at their true position. Besides this position thing is not that important to me. I mean for example when we think about Jordan we all think about SG, just like we all think about SF when we think about Bird, etc.. Yet those players didn't play at the same position through their career, even if they started most of the time at a particular one. Jordan played many times at SF, even PG, just like Bird played PF many times, etc... during games. All those great stars played at different position during the games through their long career, it is very rare that a player ALWAYS played at the same position. What I mean to say here is that the name is more important than the position. At least to me. Also I know that Lucas wasn't the starting C indeed, but he could and actually did play C many times during his career. Which is why I mentioned him as the starting C. Besides you mentioned Drexler as the starting SF and Willis as the starting C. Yet Willis always started at PF, the starting C was either Tree Rollins, Jon Koncak or Moses Malone. And Drexler always starter at SG, the starting SF was either Vandeweghe, Kersey or Clifford Robinson. So if Drexler or Willis can be mentioned at SG and C nonetheless I honestly think that Lucas can definitely be mentioned as the Kings starting C.

I agree with this roster, although a case could be made for Pierce over Havlicek... Especially that if they're both SF who can play 2, Pierce spent more times at the SG position, as a matter of fact he played SG for the first part of his career (he only definitely became a SF when Ray Allen arrived in the team). It's arguable though. I think too that Havlicek derserves a bit more to be in the lineup though, especially because he had a bit more success than Pierce (both individually and collectively) and he was a better defender than PP. I 100% agree with you there, it's the easiest one to do though as the Bobcats have no history. Here I think that it's too early to put Rose at PG to be honest... I know he's already MVP but he still just haven't done enough to be in a starting lineup of an All Time roster. Especially the way he played in last playoffs... I would put Norm Van Lier instead, certainly the best Bulls PG ever right now and one of the very best defenders of All Time. Though I have no doubt that Rose will be here one day. Also Bob Love was rather a SF. And even if he didn't play in Chicago as long as Grant, I have no doubt that Rodman is the best PF that ever wear a Bulls jersey. Besides it's in Chicago that Rodman had his best years, especially the 96 Finals that even are his career highlights. Besides we know all that he brought to Chicago, it's simple in 95 all the key players of the 96 season were already there and the Bulls lost against Orlando in the second... You just add Rodman to that team and not only they win a ring but they also break the record for most win in a season ever and win two more rings the two following years, becoming the fourth team to ever make a three peat (only the Minneapolis Lakers, Celtics (who won eight in a row) and 91-93 Bulls won three titles in a row before them). Rodman has to be the starting PF. Here I agree with everything except maybe for Johnson. I think I would rather put Bob Dandridge instead. It's arguable though. Both players were terrific and had a great career but Dandridge was a very important player of the only Bucks team to ever win a ring and he was also a better defender. So I'd give the edge to Bob. Honestly Wicks was a very good player but Sheed is the most talented player to ever wear a Blazers jersey (IMO). Not only that but Wicks never even led them to the playoffs while Sheed led them to the playoffs every year he was there, twice in the WCF. And without the miracle at the end of the 2000 game 7 he certainly would have even led them to a ring... There is no doubt in my mind that Sheed has to start at PF. And Petrie was very talented but he didn't achieve enough to be in the starting lineup IMO. Especially that the Blazers didn't do anything with him. Sad for him that he was traded to Atlanta the year the Blazers won their first ring... He never played in Atlanta anyhow as he had to retire because of a bad knee injury. So I would rather put Jim Paxson instead in the lineup. Mmh you got the wrong link there lol. So I don't know what you picked but mine would be : C. Brad Daugherty P.F. Larry Nance S.F. LeBron James S.G. Austin Carr P.G. Mark Price Danny Manning definitely has to be the SF here. Maggette had some nice year but he never was the player that Manning before his knee injury. Manning was a fantastic player. And he even led the Clippers to the playoffs twice in a row, the only time it happened since the Clippers arrived in LA. As for the SG, well I guess that a case could be made for Ron Harper. But I think that Randy Smith was overall a better player. So I guess I agree with that pick but it's definitely arguable. Even if Randolph hasn't played a lot in Memphis I would definitely put him over Abdur-Rahim. Shareef is one of the biggest disappointments ever, he was an alright player but he was no leader material and never did anything with that franchise. While Z Bo changed the Grizzlies. It's first thanks to him that the Grizzlies have been so good these last two couple of years. And his performance in the last playoffs was beyong belief. Definitely the best Grizzlies season ever and by far. So I think that it's plenty enough for him to start at PF. And I think that a case could be made for Mike Miller at SG. But it's arguable. And I'm fine with Battier. Oh and I would pick Jason Williams over Bibby at PG. Bibby was not the player that he became later in Sac Town in his Grizzlies days and Williams stayed longer and had some more succesful years in Memphis. Not to mention that he had the best years of his career as a Grizzlies. Honestly Mutombo has to start here. As good as Willis was, he never had the impact that Mutombo had, especially defensively of course, and Dikembe even had his best years as a Hawk. Just impossible not to pick Deke here. And Maravich should start at SG, Hagan was a fantastic player but he was rather a SF and Pistol Pete was just overall a better player who even revolutionized the game of basketball. It honestly doesn't matter if neither Shaq or Zo were PF, they are CLEARLY the best inside players to ever play in Miami and both have to start in that roster. So I would put Shaq at center (he started to decrease in Miami but still had his last great years as a Heat and has to be in that roster) and Zo at PF instead of Haslem. Zo had the size of a PF and could play PF anyhow. Other than that I agree. No problem there, I 100% with that roster. I agree with you there too. Well if Chambers played more than just two seasons and at least was still at his prime I guess he could have been mentioned over Eaton... But that wasn't the case so Eaton has to be mentioned here indeed. The starting C has to be Jerry Lucas. Lacey was a good player but he wasn't even close to the the great Jerry who even had his best years as a King (or rather a Royals). I personally think that it just doesn't matter if Baylor didn't play enough PF or if Kareem weren't a PF, if they can play PF then they can be mentioned as one. The only thing that matters when you do an All Time roster is that you make sure that you mention the very best players in it. Not at any price of course, there's no way you would mention West as a PF... But Kareem could definitely play PF. So I definitely think that Kareem should be the starting PF here. It's just impossible to skip Kareem of that lineup anyhow, he was clearly by far better than Gasol and just has to start. The lineup could also be Shaq, Kareem or Wilt at center, then Baylor at PF, Kobe at SF (not only can he play SF but he played SF many times during his career, he was even the starting SF in 99, the first time that he became a starter and when Eddie Jones was still in the team), West at SG and Magic at PG but first of all IMO it's just impossible not to mention both Shaq and Kareem in that roster and I think that West would be better of the bench anyhow. West was a pure combo guard he could back up at the same time Magic and Kobe. So the starting lineup definitely has to be : C. Shaquille O'Neal P.F. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar S.F. Elgin Baylor S.G. Kobe Bryant P.G. Earvin "Magic" Johnson Again it doesn't matter if Perkins played more at PF, he could play center, played center many times and so definitely can be mentioned as the starting C. And Tarpley has nothing to do in that roster, neither on the starting lineup or on the bench, he just didn't play enough because of his cocaine problems. Although I agree that in terms of pure talent he's certainly the second best inside player that the Mavs ever had. But he didn't have the career that he was supposed to be and I would even put James Donaldson ahead of him. Anyway Perkins has to start. And I agree with ABL, I think that Harper has to start over Kidd. In terms of pure talent Kidd is the best PG that the Mavs ever had but when he played with that team he was either not his prime yet or past his prime... That's just not enough to be the starting PG. It has to be Derek Harper. Who was a fantastic player, a great defender (and I have to say my favorite PG ever) and as ABL mentioned led the Mavs to a fantastic WCF against the Lakers in 88, they almost beat the Lakers that year. As I already stated all of this doesn't matter IMO, Shaq and Dwight are by far the best inside players that the franchise ever had and both have to start. Besides, even if he never played PF in his NBA days yet, Howard still is first of all a PF (even if he became a true C now). So he definitely can be mentioned at PF. And Shaq has to start at C. Also there's no way that Grant Hill can be mentioned in that roster. Grant almost never played in Orlando because of his injuries. No I would put McGrady at SF. He played and started at SF many time in his Orlando days and in all his career for that matter. And I would put Penny at SG, after Shaq departure Penny played more SG and less PG. He even didn't play PG at all in the last years of his career. And I would put Scott Skyles at PG. He was the first "star" of the franchise and had the best years of his career there. It's also as a Magic, in 1990, that Scott broke the NBA record for most assist in a game ever, with 30 assists. Honestly Billy Paultz had the best years of his career as a Nets but Coleman was just a better player overall. In terms of pure talent he's certainly the best player that the Nets ever had. But sadly never reached his potential... And the Nets were not as successful in the Coleman years as they were during the Erving and Paultz era. So it's arguable. I also thin that a case could be made for Petrovic over Carter. But Drazen didn't play enough in New Jersey though, because of that terrible car accident in 93... Too bad cause I am sure that he would be in that roster for sure. But anyway yeah I think that right now Carter deserves to be in it.

Um what ? I am deeply sorry but there was not 33 straignt lines of text in my post... I do a lot of paragraphs indeed. You don't have to skip a line to have a new paragraph... You just have to go to line. Which is what I did (I actually even did both, I only skipped lines when I talk about something else which is what you're supposed to do). I know how to write (I studied English literature, I have an English licence even if my French still is better than my English though... but I keep working on it everyday) thank you very much. You'd rather be honest and say that you just did not want to read my post... Which is pretty clear by now. You're entitled not to anyhow. Yes he was not a great one, again that's exactly what I said, but he certainly was not "awful" at the same time. An awful shooter would be someone who shoot under 20%. Yet, at the exception of one year, Kidd has ALWAYS shot over 30% from behind the ark. And as I said above he got on fire and had some great shooting games before, even during his rookie season... So Kidd was not a great shooter before but he was NEVER an AWFUL one at the same time.

Put your glasses on dude... I always suspected that no one read my posts now I guess that I know for sure... Oh and by the way it's ridiculous to say that Kidd used to be an awful shooter, he wasn't a great one before but he certainly wasn't awful at the same time because as I said in my post : "he was not that bad of a shooter to begin with though, he was not a great one but he could get on fire, I even remember him having some great shooting games in his rookie season)".

Very easy, definitely that one : http://lagrosseballeorange.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/starks2.jpg We had other painful losses but they were not even close to this one. At least for me... Cause honestly other than that one we mostly lost against the Bulls in the 90's. Yet it wasn't surprising that the mighty Bulls beat us (it would have been great if Charles Smith made one of his four shots though...). Well in 95 it was very heartbreaking to see Ewing miss his finger roll against the Pacers (I don't blame him for that though, shit happens and Ewing showed many times how great a leader he was, it's first thanks to his unbelievable performance that we surprisingly (no one expected that at the time, before the series everyone was sure that the Bulls would sweep us) forced the Bulls to a game 7 in 92, he was fantastic in this series, especially in the money time of game 2 (or game 1 I don't exactly remember) when he had a heroic performance while playing injured, he couldn't miss anything that day, besides he already hit a clutch shot the preceeding year against the same Pacers, it just can't happen every time..) but it was a loss in the semis so it's not that bad... And in the 99 Finals well it was already very surprising to see us going that far, the only time that a 8 seed makes it to the Finals so this season was nothing but positive to us. Besides we played against San Antonio, whose main strength was inside, without Ewing who was injured so it was honestly expected.. And my second favorite player, John Starks, wasn't with us any longer... So I can't consider this loss as a painful loss, even if I would have definitely prefered to see us win. As for the 2000's we sucked the whole decade so none of our losses were truly painful, all of this was expected. No the 1994 Finals, and especially this terrible game 6 is by far the most painful loss I ever had to experience. This time we had a truly great chance to win it all. We were clearly among the very best team and it was clearly our best chance to win a ring that year. I mean since I'm a Knicks fan obviously... Besides we played eye to eye with the Rockets (no game was won by more than ten points) this with Ewing struggling offensively THE WHOLE FINALS. And this time I definitely blame him for that loss. Ewing is first of all a shooting center. That's his game. But this time he struggled with his shot (it can happen to every shooter). Which is why everybody, especially Pat Riley, asked him to play more in the paint. But Ewing refused to listen. He claimed that it wasn't his game. It's true but still a leader has to adapt his game to the circomstances, that was particularly outrageous of him not to listen to his coach. Not only that but he even shot from further away every game ! I remember that someone even said that he wondered if he wouldn't start shooting from behind the ark... That wasn't clever of him, that's the least we can say. At least he was there defensively, arguably even the best defender of the series (he even set a record for most blocked shot in a Finals series and in one single game in those Finals). But still the fact that he wasn't himself offensively definitely hurt us. And this game 6 was particularly painful. The Rockets led by 2 at the end of the game, we had one last possession. John Starks shot for three at the buzzer but Hakeem blocked his shot (the pic I posted) and the Rockets won. It is painful because it was the turning point of the Finals. Starks was literally HAUNTED by this missed shot and he totally lost his basketball after that, not only for game 7 but for several months... he eventually got back to his true self during the 95 season, in a game against... the Rockets in which he even posterized Hakeem Olajuwon. I watched this game and I can say that it was a great revenge... It didn't make up for the lost Finals but it sure was great to see. So anyway Starks wasn't himself in this game 7 and the Rockets eventually beat us. But honestly we lost those Finals with our superstar who struggled the whole series and our second best player who was terrible in game 1 and 7 (yeah Starks already struggled in game 1 but he was fantastic in the following five games)... And despite that fact we didn't lose any game by more than ten points ! So honestly one can help but wonder what would have happened if Ewing was at his best offensively and Starks didn't struggle in two games... Don't want to take anything from the Rockets, they won and deserved it, but there is no doubt in my mind that things would have been way different. Not only that but I have to say that all the players in that fantastic 94 Knicks squad are among my fav players ever. Ewing and Starks are my fav players ever and Oak, Mase, Harper, Smith, Anthony, etc... are all among my very fav players as well. So I like Melo and Stat a lot, and I'm excited by our new team and hope that we will win a ring but I have to say that I still do not like our current players as much I liked the 94 ones and that, even if a Knicks win now would make me very happy it still would not make up for the loss of the 94 Finals... I know that I'll never like a team as much I loved that one. So for all these reasons there is no doubt this 94 loss is definitely my most painful loss.

Definitely Jason Kidd. It is not arguable. First of all I would like to say that Nash is probably one of the most overrated players. Yes many people definitely overrate him because of his Suns days. Personally I remember very clearly who he was when he was a Mavs. As I already said the Mavs have been my second fav team since Dirk's arrival and Nash was actually my favorite PG at the time. And at the time there is no way that someone would have made a case for Nash as the best PG in the league. He was arguably a top 5 PG but no more than that. He was All Star twice but was always picked at the bottom of the list and he wasn't even picked as an All Star in his last year in Dallas. He arrives in Phoenix and all of a sudden he's the best in the league ? Doesn't make any sense... Nash didn't get better as a Sun, he was exactly the same player. The difference was that he played in THE right system for him, the D'Antoni's system. Which allowed him to have the best stats he ever had. Which is why he got two MVPs. And I would not say that he did not deserve his MVPs, judging on how they give this trophy he definitely did but still he was definitely not the best player in the league those two years he had it, and not the best PG as well. In his Dallas days Nash never averaged more than 7.7 APG. And his best FG% was 48.3 %. In Phoenix his worst APG was 9.7 and his worst FG% was 49.2 (last year, the only time he shot below 50% as a Sun). That shows the difference. Nash just found a system that was 100% made for him in Phoenix. Which is why he played that well. Don't get me wrong though, Nash still is a fantastic player and there is no doubt at the same time that he was the right PG for this system, I do not believe that another PG would have been better for D'Antoni's system. But I certainly do not think that Nash could have been this efficient in any other system at the same time. It's simple, as I said Nash was certainly not as efficient in Dallas, yet it's important to know that the Mavs' system, the Nelson system is purely offensive as well. So personally I cannot imagine what Nash would have done in a defensive minded system. Besides after D'Antoni's departure Nash and the Suns had a different system for a while, Porter tried to use a more defensive minded system. The result ? Nash's stats were his lowest as a Sun, the Suns seemed lost (they were 28-23 with Porter and didn't make the playoffs that year) and people started to wonder if Nash wasn't just starting to decrease... Then the next year Gentry decides to use D'Antoni's system again, Nash gets immediately back to his best and is once again an All Star and the Suns get back to the playoffs and even to the WCF. That says it all... So Nash is a fantastic player, I certainly do not deny that, but the fact is that he's been ONLY THAT efficient in one system only. On the other hand we have Jason Kidd. Kidd played in four different teams (the 95 Mavs had nothing to do with the current ones...). And every time Jason arrived in a new team he immediately made them better, no matter the system or his teammates. This as soon as his first season. Before Kidd's arrival the Mavs were the laughing stock of the league. By far the worst team in the league. You add Kidd to that team and they immediately get more than 20 more wins the first year. Not enough to make the playoffs of course, he just didn't have good enough teammates but that was still an amazing improvement. After Kidd's departure the Mavs just got back to their worst self. Barkley even said that the Mavs made the biggest mistake they could make after Kidd's trade. But well fortunately for them they traded Tractor Traylor for Nowitzki in the draft a few years after that... Anyway Jason Kidd arrived in Phoenix. The first year he arrived in the middle of the season, he only played 33 games and that was just not enough to do anything.. But the following year the Suns got immediately better and won 16 games more. And with Kidd in the team the Suns made the playoffs every year. After his trade for Marbury, in 2001, the Suns got immediately worse. With Marbury instead of Kidd the Suns didn't even make it to the playoffs. While it was the exact opposite for New Jersey, with Kidd instead of Marbury the Nets got immediately better, they won 26 games more, got back to the playoffs and even went to the Finals for the first time of their NBA history (so far they only made the Finals in their ABA days, they even won two rings in the ABA). After Kidd's departure the Nets got back to mediocrity, they didn't make the playoffs since. In his Mavs days Kidd wasn't the same player, he wasn't in his prime any longer. But still he was a very important part of the only team in the Mavs history to ever win a ring. Do you think the Mavs would have won this year without Jason Kidd ? Even if the first reason why they did was because of Nowitzki's phenomal performances in the playoffs, I certainly do not think they would have won it all without Kidd's great assists, defense, and clutch shots. We can also talk about Kidd's impact on Team USA. As we all know Team USA struggled a lot this past decade. As a matter of fact they failed to win in the 2002 and 2006 World Cups as well as in the 2004 Olympics. But Team USA did win in 2000 and 2008. What did those two teams had in common ? Jason Kidd was in the roster both times. It's also important to add that he was a part of the 1999 and 2007 qualifying tournaments, which happen to be the FIBA Americas championship. And there again Team USA won both times. He was also a part of the 2003 FIBA Americas championship, the qualifying tournament for the 2004 Olympics and of course Team USA won once again. But unfortunately Kidd had to withdraw from the 2004 Olympics due to a team injury. And Team USA lost its first game in the Olympics, against Puerto Rico, a team that they beat in that qualifying tournament one year ago, with Jason Kidd... And again Team USA didn't win the gold medal that year. Would have they won it with Jason Kidd ? Would have they won with Kidd in 2002 and 2006 as well ? Impossible to tell of course but I certainly believe that they would have had a much better chance to... Cause it is a fact : Kidd is undefeated with Team USA. Yes, with Team USA, Kidd won all his games. He has a record of 56-0, this including exhibition games. It just cannot be better than that. There's also another important fact to consider, it's that Nash has always played with better teammates than Kidd. As a matter of fact Kidd never played with a player who had the caliber or Nowitzki or Stoudemire... Until now. The only time that Kidd had a true superstar at his sides (let's be serious, neither Jimmy Jackson, Mashburn, Dice, Jefferson or Carter can be considered as superstars... Stars yes, but not superstars), I'm talking about Nowitzi of course, well his team won a ring. While despite playing with much better teams Nash not only never won a ring but he didn't manage to lead any of his teams to the Finals. Now let's compare the two players individually : first about defense. And the two players (as it's already been stated) just cannot be compared in that area. Jason Kidd is one of the VERY best defensive PGs ever. And one of the best rebounders among PGs (he wasn't called Mr Triple Double for nothing). Just as simple as that. The only other PG I've seen that can be compared to him is Gary Payton. While Nash is just one of the worst ever. Now about offense. It's harder to tell. Both players are fantastic playmakers. But I would still give the edge to Kidd though. Because Kidd's vision of the court is just beyond belief, he sees everything (besides he didn't need D'Antoni's system to average more than 7.7 AGP... By the way 7.7 APG happens to be his worst APG ever, it was in his rookie season). I never saw a PG who had a better vision to be honest, except Magic or Stock. As for the scoring well many people think that Nash is the better one here but I'm not so sure about that... Nash is the better shooter, there is no doubt about that. But better scoring is not only about shooting... And other than shooting ? Nash cannot do many things... He can do lay ups yes. But that's it. he has not post moves whatsoever. Contrary to Kidd. Who can score from anywhere on a court. It's simple Jason Kidd has only one weakness (which happens to be Nash's main strenght : long range shooting. Yet since his Mavs days Kidd not only drastically improved in that area (he was not that bad of a shooter to begin with though, he was not a great one but he could get on fire, I even remember him having some great shooting games in his rookie season) but he became one of the best in the league. This while he's definitely past his prime... It's simple, there is just nothing that Kidd cannot do. One of the most talented players I ever seen for sure. So for all these reasons I am sorry but, as much as I love Steve Nash, I certainly do not see how a case can even be made for him over someone like Jason Kidd.

There is something in this thread that has not been said yet. And it is the main reason why, IMO, and even if as I said many times myself a case can be made for many players as the greatest of All Time, it is impossible to say that one player in particular is the best of All Time for sure, but for the reason what I'm about to talk about in this thread I definitely think that Jordan is the one that has the best case. And this reason is that one : no player in the history made his team win all by himself, every superstar needed help to win a ring, which is pretty logical as basketball is a collective game ; BUT the fact is that Michael Jordan definitely didn't rely as heavily on his teammates as any other All Time greatest (besides as all the people who watched Michael play know, in the money time there was no triangle nor nothing, it was just "give the ball to Jordan and let him win the game for us"). Yeah I often hear that Jordan had great teammates, like Pippen, another Hall of Famer, or Rodman, arguably the greatest defender ever, etc... Yes of course, he had great teammates indeed, again it's impossible to win it all by yourself in a collective game. But still the fact is that Jordan's individual performances the year he won rings are clearly the best that a player ever had WHILE making his teams win. As a matter of fact, when we look at it, the best players of All Time all had their best individual performances the years they didn't win rings. Let's take Chamberlain for example, as we all know the dude had crazy seasons, he even scored once 50 PPG in a season, another time he scored more than 44 PPG... In his first eight seasons in the NBA Wilt's lowest scoring per game was 33.5 PGG. The year he won his first ring ? 24.1 PPG ; 21.7 in the playoffs. The year he won his second ring ? 14.8 PPG ; 14.7 in the playoffs.That's a major difference... The main reason for this change in his game was that Wilt understood that he just couldn't win it all by himself. And he started to play less for himself and more for his teammates. A la Bill Russell. Bill said it himself when Wilt arrived in Phila, Bill said "right now Wilt is playing like me". Playing like Bill Russell meaning : focus more on defense and rebounds, and more on getting your teammates involved. Wilt used his passing skills more than ever before from his Phila days on (it is often said that Bill was terrible offensively but it's definitely wrong, Bill is certailny not the best scorer ever but he had a HUGE impact on his team offensively nonetheless, this thanks to his great assist, he was the Magic Johnson of centers). And became more of a TRUE basketball player. The change was totally completed in his Lakers days, when Bill Sharman, who was a Bill Russell teammate, asked Wilt to be even more like Russell and only score as a last resort. According to many people at the time and Wilt himself actually, Wilt became a much better player when he started to play as Bill Russell. Wilt even said once that scoring 100 points was the worst thing he ever did... That says it all. So the most dominant player ever (arguably) had to change his game and to become WAY less dominant to start to make his team win, which is after all the goal of basketball... The same happened to all the greatest players. Alright Jordan did adapt to better teammates to, but to a lesser extent... His numbers were still very high, higher than every other greatest of All Time. It's very simple in fact, how many players scored over 30 PPG and won a ring the same season ? The answer is three : Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Rick Barry and... Michael Jordan. That says it all. Besides it's important to know that Barry and Jabbar only did it once each. While Michael did it four times. Also it was in the 70's for Jabbar and Barry, it was another era.. while Jordan did that in our era. And Jabbar and Barry did not score 30 PPG in the playoffs that same year (71 for Kareem, 75 for Barry). Jordan did. Not only that but he scored EVEN MORE POINTS in the playoffs three of those four years (92, 93, 96), he scored around the same the other year (91). And about Jabbar, everyone agreed at the time that Jabbar was definitely a better player when he started to defend more and focus more on rebounds, à la Bill Russell once again than he was in his early Milwaukee days. Speaking about the playoffs, how many players scored more than 30 PPG in the playoffs while making their teams win ? Two players : Hakeem Olajuwon and Michael Jordan. Olajuwon did it once, in 95, Jordan did it six times.... Now I already talked about Jordan's most impressive records (at least to me), his best scoring records in the Finals, and I'm gonna mention them here once again : First of all the Finals records : Jordan averaged 41 PPG against Phoenix in 93 which is the best scoring average ever in a Finals series. He scored 55 points in one game of the same 93 Finals, it's the second best ever performance in a finals game. He scored at least 20 points in 35 consecutive Finals games, another record (second is West with 25). He also scored at least 30 points in 9 Finals games, second best ever (Baylor was number one). He scored at least 40 points in 4 Finals games in a row, NBA record. He scored 35 points in one half of a finals game, NBA record once again. There are several important things to know about those records, things I never precised before : First of all about the 41 PPG against Phoenix, it's important to know that the two players that were the closest to Jordan for most PPG in a Finals series were Barry (40.8) and Baylor (40.6). Well contrary to Jordan both players did not make their team win the ring that year. Second about the 35 consecutive Finals games with at least 20 points. As I said the second best is West with "only" 25 consecutive games, well West did that record between 66 and 70, the Lakers made it to the Finals four times during that time and they did not win even once Finals series. The third was Erving, 19 consecutive games between 77 and 83, the Sixers made it to the Finals four times, Erving made his team win only once, despite that record, in 83. Third about the 9 consecutive Finals games with at least 30 pts, only Baylor did better with 13 consecutive games. It was between 59 and 63. Three Finals series. And yes the Lakers lost them all again... Then about the 4 consecutive Finals games with at least 40 pts, the closest to Jordan were West and Barry. Both had two consecutive games with at least 40, twice for West in the 65 and 69 Finals, once for Barry in the 67 Finals. Well once again West and Barry's teams all lost those Finals. So what can we conclude from all of this ? First of all the closest to Jordan were not only from another era (which makes Jordan's records look even more impressive) but they all failed to make their teams win ! Contrary to Jordan. Besides Jordan is the only player to average more than 30 PPG in career in the playoffs. That's right no one else has ever done that. His scoring average in the playoffs is : 33.45 PPG. Huge... So Jordan is definitely the most dominant scorer ever, there is no doubt about that, and also the only player in the history of the game who was able to dominate that much individually and make his team win at the same time.

They definitely need a superstar to become a legit ring contender. They are certainly not at that level yet. As it's already been said this team cannot be compared with the 04 Pistons in any way, the Pistons had four true All Stars and one of the best defense of the whole decade (arguably the best one), and their starting lineup is one of the best, the most flawless (in the sense that they had a great player at each position) that I ever seen (the only other one that I can think about who was that good was the 02 Kings one). Usually there is always a flaw in every starting lineup, it wasn't the case for either the Pistons and Kings. Besides as it's been said once again, no team has ever won a ring without a superstar. And I wouldn't even say that the Pistons were an exception. They had that superstar in fact. When Sheed joined the team I was sure that he would become that player, as he was the superstar of the Blazers and in term of pure talent certainly one of the very best forwards ever. And one of my favorite players as well... Which is why I was so disoppointed when I realized that Sheed didn't want to become the leader in Detroit... I think it would have been better for both the team and himself in fact. But Sheed was just a totally not selfish player, he just didn't want to be the number one option. Sad. But anyway yes the Pistons had that superstar nonetheless : Chauncey Billups. Alright I am perfectly aware that Billups was not really a superstar and rather a star, right, BUT in the last minutes of the game, in the CLUTCH time, he was definitely playing like one. Like the true leader that teams need at those particular moments. And this is the main reason why the Pistons managed to get one ring. Because of Billups who played at that level when his team needed it. No matter their huge D of great chemistry (it definitely played a huge part though, I'm definitely not denying that at all), the Pistons would NEVER have won without Billups. So there's no exception in fact, every team needs a superstar to win it all. Which is why I do not believe in the Spurs any longer by the way. And why I've said all season that I was sure they wouldn't win it all. Because they simply didn't have this superstar any longer. Duncan is now clearly past his prime. He's been owned by Dirk last year (even if the Spurs won the series) and by Randolph this year. He cannot carry his team to a ring, it's just impossible to say the opposite. And Ginobili and Parker cannot be the leaders. As good as Ginobili is he is just not a leader, because, contrary to someone like Billups, he lacks constancy, he's not enough under control, and tends to let himself getting carrying away by his "crazynes". Even if this "crazyness" saved the Spurs many times, that's true, it's still not what you expect from a leader as this "crazyness" also made the team lose many times... Besides he's too many injured. And he was eventually injured last year, as I expected... You won't have your first injury free season at the age of 34. As for Parker he's just not a leader, he's a second option and will never be better than that. So until the Spurs get that leader they will not be a legit contender any longer, they can still be a top 4 team in the West, I can expect them to make it to the second round but I certainlly do not believe whatsoever that they can win a ring with their current roster any longer. Well anyhow I should get back to the Nuggets as this is clearly not the Spurs forum lol (just used the Spurs as an example here), and to answer the question the Nuggets definitely needs a true superstar, a true leader, to become a legit contender. Right now I can't see them going any further than the second round AT THE VERY BEST.

Very good decision from Rudy. As I said many times, it's true that he didn't play at the expected level in Portland but first he wasn't in the right conditions to succeed (sometimes being in the right place at the right time helps a lot...) and second he's still very young and it would be way too soon to get back to Europe. He HAS to give the NBA another shot, especially that he's gonna be in a better condition in Dallas. Now if he keeps struggling then and only then it will be better for him to get back to Europe. It wouldn't be wise to do like Moïso did and stay on an NBA bench at the age of 30 that's for sure, Moïso wasted his career that way but that's just too bad for him... I was never too high on him anyhow. But again it's different for Rudy as he's still very young right now. Other European teams will be willing to pay him that much anyhow. He is definitely right to give it another shot and I hope for him that he's gonna succeed.

Definitely 2005. First of all from 1999 to 2003 there was just no team in the East that was good enough to win a ring. As a matter of fact after the Bulls lost all their best players in 98 the best Eastern teams lost their basketball got also too old to be a true legit ring contender. The Pacers still had two good seasons after that but they were nothing like the 98 amazing squad at the same time. They started to look REALLY old in 99. In fact they even lost against a Knicks team who ended the season as the 8th team in the East and lost their leader Ewing in the second game of the series against Indiana. New York, Indiana and Miami were major disappointment after 98 (again even if the Pacers made the Finals in 00, besides the Lakers were clearly better than them in those Finals). The Heat managed to get some young blood in the summer of 2000 but unfortunately for them Mourning's illness definitely ended all their hope to win a ring. There were still some talented young teams that appeared in the East during that period, but those teams, who were the Sixers, Raptors, Bucks and later Celtics and Nets still were way too young and definitely lacked of something to be a legit contender. As much as I liked those teams (I was a huge fan of the 2001 Sixers) they would have never made the Finals (Raptors, Bucks and C's didn't made them anyhow) for sure today or in the 90's. So the Spurs definitely lacked of competition in the East. As for the West, well the Spurs didn't have a great competition either... The Jazz were not even close to the 97/98 squad. The Blazers were a young talented squad, but they still lacked of something to be a true ring contender. Besides you know that something's wrong when your best scorer is Isiah Rider... As for the Lakers Bryant was still very young and the Lakers had a major trade (Jones for Rice), trade which was a big disappointment for them as Rice didn't bring what the Lakers needed at all, the Lakers were CLEARLY better with Jones that year. Besides they also tried to sign Rodman and Rodman was clearly out of his prime that year and it was just a huge failure... The rest were just not good enough to contend. Phil Jackson said that there will always be an asterisk aside of the name of the champ that year and I have to say that I agree with that. The NBA just wasn't the same without the Bulls and with this lockout, there were no real great team that year. Even the Spurs in fact, they were fantastic defensively but offensively they were not even close to what they became later with Parker and Ginobili and still had some major flaws... I certainly don't think that this team would have won anything one year later or earlier. In 2003 the East was still weak. And if the West was better, it was nonetheless not as good as it was between 2000 and 2002... The first reason why was because of the Lakers obviously. The Lakers, clearly the best team in 2000, 2001 and 2002 were not even close to the level at which they played during those years in 2003. Why ? Multiple reasons. First of all during the three peat the Lakers managed to get good veteran players to surround the two superstars and the three superfriends (Horry, Fisher, Fox) every year. Yet in the summer of 2001 they just did not... They only got Walker and Hunter and both players were big disappointment (especially Walker who turned out to be terrible, Hunter was better, especially defensively but he was still a downgrade to Tyronne Lue). So in 2002 the team was basically only Shaq, Bryant, the three superfriends and George. They managed to get a ring that way.. But it was clear that they better get some other players in the summer of 2002. Yet they didn't. Not only the team was as weak on paper but it was even weaker as first Shaq and Bryant now just couldn't get along with each other (this time Phil Jackson couldn't do nothing about it), Shaq got injured during the season and Horry TOTALLY lost his basketball, he was nowhere close to the player he was before and couldn't hit a clutch shot any longer. Many thought he was done, I was definitely one of them (I sure was wrong..). So it's just a poor Lakers team that the Spurs defeated that year. The other dangerous teams in the West were Dallas and Sac Town. But first Dallas, as talented as they were, were still very young, Dirk was not the leader that he is now, and they played NO DEFENSE at all. Then about the Kings Webber was injured during the entire season and the Kings had to change their game. Now the offense was built around Peja, who had and by far his best season, an MVP season (definitely could have been MVP that year). But the only problem for the Kings was... Webber's return. As Divac said it at the time (and I 100% agree with him), with Webber the Kings totally lost their basketball. First because Chris wasn't playing at 100%, second because they weren't used to play with him any longer. They were just better without him that year. Webber should have waited till the following year to get back.. So once again the Spurs didn't have a great competition that year. Besides Robinson was clearly past his prime that year, no where close the player he used to be, and Parker and Ginobili were nowhere to the players that they became. Gino was a rookie. And Parker was still way too young, we saw that in the last three games of the Finals. So both the 99 and 2003 teams were the less good of the fours championship Spurs teams, there is no doubt in my mind about that. And I put the 2005 team ahead of the 2007 because first of all there was more competition in 2005. In 2005 the East had awoken, not only the Pistons were the NBA champions but Shaq was now in the East, and was still in his prime (the 2005 season is probably is the last season he played at his peak, the last he had a true chance to be MVP) and Wade was getting up there. The Heat and Pistons were two TRUE legit ring contenders in the East, no question about that. In the West the Mavs learned to play defense thanks to Johnson that year and were more dangerous than they ever was.. Even if they still lacked of something... And the Suns had their best season that year. They were never that dangerous though cause of their lack of defense but still... The Spurs had their toughest match up of their four championship seasons that year anyhow, I'm of course talking about the Finals against Detroit. The Pistons who were at their best, who just won a ring one year earlier and just beat a very good Heat team in the ECF. The Spurs were just fantastic that year, no doubt about it. Not only Duncan, Parker and Ginobili were at their very best at the same time (the only time it happened as Duncan had already started to decrease a bit in 2007), and Bowen was also at his best, but their bench was the best too, they had Horry back at his finest, then Barry, Udrih (probably Parker's best back up), and shooters like Devin Brown or Glen Robinson... While in 2007 they didn't have a great competion once again, the Mavs lost it in the first round and there were no team who was really good enough to win a ring... The Suns maybe but once again they played no defense. And honestly the Jazz should have never made if to the WCF... In the East it was even worst, the Cavs had nothing to do in the Finals. But the fact was the Heat and Pistons had now nothing to do with the teams they used to be and had no chance whatsoever to win a ring any longer. Besides Ben was not in Detroit any more and Shaq was now clearly past his prime... As for the Spurs themselves well as I said Duncan started slowly to decrease (he was still great don't get me wrong, but let's just say that the big three was more impressive in 2005 as stated above), Horry was now washed up for good, as good as it was Oberto was not the defender that Mohammed was and Barry was quite disappointing... Only Finley was really good from the bench (well he was the starter in fact as Pop preferred to used Ginobili as a sixth man, but we all know that Gino was the true starter). So for all these reasons there is no doubt for me that the 2005 team is the best one.

Here's a little tribute (well not really...) to Shawn Bradley, one of the tallest players of the history of the league and probably the one who got the most dunked on lol : I love this video haha, brings back so many memories... Honestly I think that every NBA player who played against him has dunked on Shawn at least once... Well except Muggsy maybe. My personal favorite of this list is the number 5, the Packman dunk. I was a big fan of Robert Pack at the time. One of my very favorite dunkers, the dude had hops for sure. And Shaq at first is not surprising, I think no one enjoyed more playing against Bradley than Shaq lol. Also nice to see Ed O'Bannon in that video... This dude was an NCAA star, he was supposed to become an NBA one as well but he was a major flop... Don't even know what happened to him since those days.

For me the real question is rather what teams are in Dallas' way for a championship next season... The Mavs are the champs while Miami is one of the 29 teams that did not win last year. The Dallas Mavericks are the team to beat next year.

It was Kelvin Cato, Sabonis' back up at the time. Anyway yeah I remember that dunk, and that game, amazing dunk indeed and amazing game too... I still got it on tape. It was one of the 98 playoffs first rounds game if I ain't mistaken (I got so many games on tape that I ain't even sure lol..). I loved the Blazers rivalry at the time, even if the Lakers won every time in fact. The Lakers were expected to make the Finals that year but they unfortunately did not... Unfortunately cause I wanted more than everyone to watch a Bulls Lakers in the Finals in 1998. Although the Bulls Jazz series was unbelievable and possible the best Finals I ever watched (both 97 and 98). It definitely couldn't have been better than that.