Spurs better than the Dynasties of the 70's, 80's?

[sectionCwannabe]

CLEVELAND – The seventh championship ring will go with the rest of them inside Robert Horry's house, unceremoniously dropped into a bathroom drawer.

"That way, they can all stay together," he said Wednesday.

Horry is an authority on all things NBA championships, and Big Shot Bob had a message about his San Antonio Spurs for the great Los Angeles Lakers and Boston Celtics teams of the 1980s.

"We would beat them," he boasted.

Horry punctuated his proclamation with a laugh, understanding there was no harm stirring it up with San Antonio on the brink of sweeping the Cleveland Cavaliers in the NBA finals. Horry has had his moments in this series, including five blocked shots in Game 2. He isn't sure if he'll be back for a 16th season, but if he does, he'll return to a Spurs team that'll be the favorite to be the first to repeat champion since Horry's Shaq-Kobe Lakers won three straight titles.

"No disrespect to the guys back in the 80's and the 70's, but the guys now are so much better than those guys," Horry said. "I don't care what they say. If you look at old films, guys only went right. They turned and kept it in their right hand. Look at the things LeBron (James) can do, Tim (Duncan) can do, Tony (Parker) can do, Manu (Ginobili) can do. Little (Daniel) Gibson over there. There's no way you can compare those guys. We watched what they did and expanded on that."

Horry is right about watching the games in the 60's and early 70's, when the players favored one hand and dribbled with heads down. But the 80's? When Magic played the point? Dennis Johnson? Come on, Rob. And Daniel Gibson is doing something that no one else did in the 80's? What, make a few jumpers over two weeks of his life?

Sorry, but the 80's had far more complete players. They're bigger, faster and more athletic now, but not always better. Before expansion and salary caps, the talent wasn't so spread out. You could have three and four great players on a team for years, and that's hard to do now.

Horry's old teammate with the Lakers, Derek Fisher, was in Cleveland to talk about an NBA Players Association initiative to feed one million people in Africa this summer. Yet, he had to sigh and make a concession about who truly had dominated the decade. San Antonio's four titles in nine years, the staying power of three in the past five, has sold Fisher on the Spurs.

"I hate to say it, but they're surpassing us," said Fisher, whose Jazz lost to San Antonio in the Western Conference finals. "They have become the class of the league."

Most agree that these Spurs are the best of San Antonio's four championship teams, and yet Horry doesn't believe they measure with the Lakers' 2001 title winner. "If I had to pick one team, it would be (2001) when we swept everyone except for Philly," Horry said. "That team was pretty awesome. It was like a locomotive coming through with no brakes."

Eventually, L.A. crashed. San Antonio has a selfless star in Tim Duncan who, at 31, has a chance to be the cornerstone of more championships. Parker and Ginobili understand they are complementary parts and embrace Duncan's greatness. And Horry said he never sees his Spurs teammates wearing rings. They never talk about titles, about where they fit into history. And most of all, there's never even a suggestion jealousy over the salary or stature of the superstar.

"Money hurt that (Lakers) team," Horry said. "It came down to this guy wanted this much money, that guy wanted this much money. Those two guys (Shaq and Kobe) wanted to be the top dog and forgot about the other guys. It all boiled down to money. Money is the root of all evil sometimes.

"Sometimes you can't see the forest through the trees. They didn't win that championship against Detroit (in 2004), and they said, 'OK, (Karl) Malone you're injured, bye. (Gary) Payton, you're too old, bye. Shaq, you want too much money, bye.' "


Adrian Wojnarowski is the national NBA columnist for Yahoo! Sports. Send Adrian a question or comment for potential use in a future column or webcast.


found this interesting

[GreenMachine]

Hard to say how they would do against teams from the past. However, they can get it done in sooo many ways. Defense, inside, outside, three pointers, grind it out games, run and gun games. They can do it all!

[Bull Butter]

Better than the 80's Lakers & Celtics or the 90's Bulls? Probably not. Could they hold their own with those teams? Definitely.

I'm just happy to have these last 10 years to celebrate the SPURS greatness:)

[charlesrixey]

no

[big daddy russ]

Let me be the first to say it: these Spurs are as good as most of those teams. Well, almost as good as the Lakers and Bulls, but better than the Celts.

This Spurs team was the best-passing team I've seen since the Showtime Lakers... and yes, that includes the Kings of the early-00's... and they were quite possibly the best defensive team of all-time. Easily (very easily) top five along with the '62 Celtics, late-90's Bulls (Jordan, Pippen, Rodman), and the '04 Pistons. Even better than the bad boy Pistons and the 80's Celts, far and away the two best defensive squads during that decade.

And if Bird's Celtics were a dynasty, then this Spurs team is definitely one. Boston won three titles over a six-year period and went to five finals during a seven-year stretch, but never won back-to-back titles.

San Antone has been to (and won) four titles in nine years, three of which came during a five-year stretch.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Let me be the first to say it: these Spurs are as good as most of those teams. Well, almost as good as the Lakers and Bulls, but better than the Celts.

This Spurs team was the best-passing team I've seen since the Showtime Lakers... and yes, that includes the Kings of the early-00's... and they were quite possibly the best defensive team of all-time. Easily (very easily) top five along with the '62 Celtics, late-90's Bulls (Jordan, Pippen, Rodman), and the '04 Pistons. Even better than the bad boy Pistons and the 80's Celts, far and away the two best defensive squads during that decade.

And if Bird's Celtics were a dynasty, then this Spurs team is definitely one. Boston won three titles over a six-year period and went to five finals during a seven-year stretch, but never won back-to-back titles.

San Antone has been to (and won) four titles in nine years, three of which came during a five-year stretch.

While SA is a good passing team..they were not even in the top 10 in assists this year so I cant say they are one of the best in the last 20 years

As far as being better on defense that the teams u named..I think it is hard to guage..back in the 80's it was a faster game, more team play involved. Just look how Jordan fared early in his career in the play-offs when he was a one man show for the Bulls. NOW a team can have one guy like Lebron and not anything else and still get to the finals because the game today is more about isolation and one on one play. In the 80's it was about the fast break and working the ball thru true team play

A team could give up 99 points a game back in the 80's and still play good defense because teams tok more shots, ran the break more and did not dribble out the 24 clock then isolate.

BUT in the 80's a defender could be more physical than now..BUT also there was no zone in the 80's

My whole point is hard to compare the two. BUT IMO the teams like Showtime and the 80's Celtics, and the 80's Sixers were MORE talented 1-5 and even 1-9 than they Spurs now. but that is in NO WAY taking away from the Dynasty the Spurs have created

[Macarthur]

I don't know if they are better than those teams, but I will tell you this. They are the best defensive team of any of those "dynasties". It would be great to see them play Jordan's Bulls or Magic. Bowen would give Magic some problems and he could probably play Jordan better than anyone that Jordan played against.

I know these games have been ugly, but I think eveyrone is selling the Spurs short on their defense. Why do we celebrate defense in football and talk about how great the Steel Curtain was and the 86 Bears, etc. But we call great defense in basketball "ugly".

Here's how I would classify it:

80's Celtics - Spurs would win. I think the Spurs, specifically Bowen, would give Bird fits and Duncan would matchup very favorably aginst McHale.

80's Lakers - I give a slight edge to the Lakers here. I think Bowen would give Magic a better test than anyone of that era gave him. But I think the combination of Kareem & Worthy would be too much for the Spurs. Duncan could take out one of them, but not both.

90's Bulls - Man, this would be fun to watch. I think Bowen, again, would be able to hang with Jordan better than anyone of that era. It's hard to go against Jordan because he just willed his teams to victory. I think the Spurs supporting cast is better than the Bulls. I would have to call this one a draw or a slight edge to the Bulls.

I think there is something to the athletes being better today. I don't think Bill Russel, as great as he was, could hang with Duncan. I think Bowen would be in Jerry West's jock strap and shut him down. The athleticism of the guys in the modern game is incredible. Now, I will admit the guys now probably are not as good of shooters, as a whole, but I think some of that can be attributed to the fact that the athletisim today allows guys to challenge almost every shot. You just don't get many uncontested shots inside of 20 feet these days.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
While SA is a good passing team..they were not even in the top 10 in assists this year so I cant say they are one of the best in the last 20 years

As far as being better on defense that the teams u named..I think it is hard to guage..back in the 80's it was a faster game, more team play involved. Just look how Jordan fared early in his career in the play-offs when he was a one man show for the Bulls. NOW a team can have one guy like Lebron and not anything else and still get to the finals because the game today is more about isolation and one on one play. In the 80's it was about the fast break and working the ball thru true team play

A team could give up 99 points a game back in the 80's and still play good defense because teams tok more shots, ran the break more and did not dribble out the 24 clock then isolate.

BUT in the 80's a defender could be more physical than now..BUT also there was no zone in the 80's

My whole point is hard to compare the two. BUT IMO the teams like Showtime and the 80's Celtics, and the 80's Sixers were MORE talented 1-5 and even 1-9 than they Spurs now. but that is in NO WAY taking away from the Dynasty the Spurs have created
How good a team is at passing is hard to guage from just assists. A great example are the Pacers of the mid- and late-90's. The Mark Jackson/Reggie Miller/Rik Smits show. Smits had good hands, good vision, and, at 7-4, could find cutters who could open up the offense somewhere on the perimeter or in the lane, but the cutter/open man may have to take two dribbles, change direction, or just pump fake a charging defender to get the open look.

If any of the above happened, they wouldn't get the assist, but the passing (spearheaded by those three) led to great spacing and great opportunities for guys like Miller, Dale Davis, and Dereck McKey. However, if you look at every year from '94-'96, they never finished above 10th in assists.

Part of the Spurs' problem is that they play at a much slower pace than most teams. They're typically one of the five slowest teams in the league by design (the last three years they've finished with the eighth-slowest, third-slowest, and, last I checked, fifth-slowest team pace factors in the NBA). A byproduct of that is that they don't collect numbers the way teams like Phoenix, Golden State, New Jersey, and the teams of the 80's do.

That's also why it's hard to compare Duncan scoring 21 or 22 a game to Baron Davis scoring 26 or 27 a game... or even Karl Malone at 29 or 30 a game.

You look at the SA/Phx series, a semi-high-paced affair, and Duncan averaged almost 27 points and 14 rebounds a game. Now switch gears to a semi-slow-paced first round, and Duncan averaged about 20 points and 10 rebounds.

Flipping that around, the same theory applies to team defense back in the 80's. The Celtics, Lakers, even the Pistons all played much faster than teams do today, so their defensive numbers look inflated even though they played pretty good defense.

But even looking at it with that in mind, the Lake Show wasn't a defensive-oriented team under Riley. Sure, they were lock and key when they had Kareem, AC Green, and Michael Cooper on the floor at the same time, but you take any one of those guys off the floor and they're suddenly an average defensive team (BTW, Cooper didn't start... Worthy and Scott played ahead of him). They played defense when they needed to, but focused on offense.

Now look at the Spurs. Take their two best defenders off the floor (Bowen and Duncan) and replace them with their backups (Horry and Finley). The Spurs' D is still an extremely tough D and they still have the same basic principles: give them space deep but get in their face as they near the three-point line, stay on your rotations, take away half the court, and if they decide to drive, funnel them into your help (in this case, Horry's the shotblocker), forcing them into a tough jumper, an off-balance shot, or a bad decision.

Now the Celtics, with guys like Dennis Scott on the perimeter and that incredible frontcourt of theirs, were probably the premier defensive team of the 80's, so I can see exactly where you're coming from with that argument. The Sixers of the early-80's, with Mo Cheeks and Moses Malone, were also tough on the other side of the ball.

And you're absolutely right about those teams being more talented than the Spurs, but two of the teams that the Spurs played this postseason were more talented teams. SA reminds me a lot of the Celtics from the late-60's... the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

With the Spurs, they've always been an incredible defensive team, but the thing that makes this team so special is that they've been together so long that they're finally (just through playing together, not necessarily through practice) clicking on offense. Four of the key starters (we'll call Ginobili a starter for this one) have been together since 2002, and you can tell from the way they play together.

Unfortunately, I doubt we'll get to see Phoenix ever become that type of team because one of the big three will probably be traded this offseason (cap issues) and it's doubtful that this nucleus will be able to stay together long enough to gel the way the Spurs have (Nash is getting up there in years).

But they're a very heady team when they have the ball and are quick learners. If Shawn Marion's the odd man out, expect to see more Boris Diaw and, as a result, better ball movement. Phoenix is already a pretty team to watch. Even though Kurt Thomas (if he stays) and Amare Stoudemire will never be confused with Vlade Divac and Chris Webber, if they can all get in sync the way the Spurs have, they may be right there in the discussion with the Spurs and Kings before their run is over.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Macarthur
80's Celtics - Spurs would win. I think the Spurs, specifically Bowen, would give Bird fits and Duncan would matchup very favorably aginst McHale.

80's Lakers - I give a slight edge to the Lakers here. I think Bowen would give Magic a better test than anyone of that era gave him. But I think the combination of Kareem & Worthy would be too much for the Spurs. Duncan could take out one of them, but not both.

90's Bulls - Man, this would be fun to watch. I think Bowen, again, would be able to hang with Jordan better than anyone of that era. It's hard to go against Jordan because he just willed his teams to victory. I think the Spurs supporting cast is better than the Bulls. I would have to call this one a draw or a slight edge to the Bulls.
Fun little comparison. I agree with the Duncan/McHale comparison. I think Duncan would absolutely dominate McHale, but with Parish and Bird in the frontcourt, would that be too much for Duncan, Oberto, and Bowen???

As big, long, and skilled as Bird was, I think Bowen could've made things tough on Legend, but Larry still would've got his 30.

On the flip side, perimeter lockdown man Dennis Johnson isn't quick enough to handle Parker, Duncan keeps Parish and McHale from sliding over to help too much, and Bird is stuck on Ginobili. Parker's trips into the lane and his ability to break down that insane frontcourt would be key here, along with Duncan's absolute dominance of two very good (and one HOF) big men. Slight edge to SA.

As far as LA, I'd give this matchup to the Lakers. It's all about that huge size disadvantage. The Lakers could bring in Michael Cooper (bringing Byron Scott off the bench) to handle Parker, and Green and Kareem would be too much for Duncan on the inside. Bowen would be stuck on Magic, a 6'8" PG, and they'd have to put Ginobili on Worthy, a huge mismatch. Worthy would abuse Manu on O, Duncan would be stuck worrying about four legit scoring threats, and Oberto isn't quick or explosive enough to guard Kareem (gotta make him work for that sky hook).

To the Bulls-- now this would be interesting. The 'other' best perimeter defender in the league at the time never played against MJ... he was on his team. Nobody else had the length to guard Jordan at the time, which is why you see two-guards of the late-80's and early-90's on MJ posters all over the world (the average height back then was about 6'3" or 6'4"). Bowen, on the other hand, has the height and that Bill Russell mentality to make Jordan work the way that not even Gary Payton could do.

But Jordan was Jordan, and Pippen is the X factor. As much as I'd love to give this matchup to the Spurs, I think the Bulls hold a slight edge. Rodman could occupy Duncan the way only KG and Rasheed Wallace have EVER (nope, Karl Malone and all those other guys couldn't do it) occupied him and nobody outside of Bowen could handle Pippen-- possibly the best small forward in the game at the time.

Now Duncan would carve up the Bulls on defense, but he couldn't stop Jordan and Pippen. If Hakeem couldn't manage it, I doubt Duncan could do much more.

[vet93]

I think that we have to be careful gauging athleticism and skill between eras. If some of the players from the past had been exposed to the modern game, conditioning, nutrition, strength training etc...etc...they may have been completely different players and just might compare more favorably than you might think.

[g$$]

Originally posted by Macarthur
I don't know if they are better than those teams, but I will tell you this. They are the best defensive team of any of those "dynasties". It would be great to see them play Jordan's Bulls or Magic. Bowen would give Magic some problems and he could probably play Jordan better than anyone that Jordan played against.

I know these games have been ugly, but I think eveyrone is selling the Spurs short on their defense. Why do we celebrate defense in football and talk about how great the Steel Curtain was and the 86 Bears, etc. But we call great defense in basketball "ugly".

Here's how I would classify it:

80's Celtics - Spurs would win. I think the Spurs, specifically Bowen, would give Bird fits and Duncan would matchup very favorably aginst McHale.

80's Lakers - I give a slight edge to the Lakers here. I think Bowen would give Magic a better test than anyone of that era gave him. But I think the combination of Kareem & Worthy would be too much for the Spurs. Duncan could take out one of them, but not both.

90's Bulls - Man, this would be fun to watch. I think Bowen, again, would be able to hang with Jordan better than anyone of that era. It's hard to go against Jordan because he just willed his teams to victory. I think the Spurs supporting cast is better than the Bulls. I would have to call this one a draw or a slight edge to the Bulls.

I think there is something to the athletes being better today. I don't think Bill Russel, as great as he was, could hang with Duncan. I think Bowen would be in Jerry West's jock strap and shut him down. The athleticism of the guys in the modern game is incredible. Now, I will admit the guys now probably are not as good of shooters, as a whole, but I think some of that can be attributed to the fact that the athletisim today allows guys to challenge almost every shot. You just don't get many uncontested shots inside of 20 feet these days.

Agreed with most of this, but if you think Bowen could handle Bird, then please back away from the computer. Bird's size & overall abilities would give Bowen (Mr. Dirty) fits. Bird is arguably the greatest small forward in history & the only man according to Magic he ever feared on the court.

SA is a great team & great story. They play the game right.

Less teams in the '80s before expansion, much more competitive league. Lakers Showtime teams, Celtics mid '80s teams, & Jordan's Bulls teams are all better IMO. Would be fun to watch though.

Better athletes today, but less skilled players too. Look at FG % & basic fundamentals. The cream always rises to the top & those "old" guys would still be elite players due to training & all the things available to players of today.

[g$$]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Fun little comparison. I agree with the Duncan/McHale comparison. I think Duncan would absolutely dominate McHale, but with Parish and Bird in the frontcourt, would that be too much for Duncan, Oberto, and Bowen???

As big, long, and skilled as Bird was, I think Bowen could've made things tough on Legend, but Larry still would've got his 30.

On the flip side, perimeter lockdown man Dennis Johnson isn't quick enough to handle Parker, Duncan keeps Parish and McHale from sliding over to help too much, and Bird is stuck on Ginobili. Parker's trips into the lane and his ability to break down that insane frontcourt would be key here, along with Duncan's absolute dominance of two very good (and one HOF) big men. Slight edge to SA.

As far as LA, I'd give this matchup to the Lakers. It's all about that huge size disadvantage. The Lakers could bring in Michael Cooper (bringing Byron Scott off the bench) to handle Parker, and Green and Kareem would be too much for Duncan on the inside. Bowen would be stuck on Magic, a 6'8" PG, and they'd have to put Ginobili on Worthy, a huge mismatch. Worthy would abuse Manu on O, Duncan would be stuck worrying about four legit scoring threats, and Oberto isn't quick or explosive enough to guard Kareem (gotta make him work for that sky hook).

To the Bulls-- now this would be interesting. The 'other' best perimeter defender in the league at the time never played against MJ... he was on his team. Nobody else had the length to guard Jordan at the time, which is why you see two-guards of the late-80's and early-90's on MJ posters all over the world (the average height back then was about 6'3" or 6'4"). Bowen, on the other hand, has the height and that Bill Russell mentality to make Jordan work the way that not even Gary Payton could do.

But Jordan was Jordan, and Pippen is the X factor. As much as I'd love to give this matchup to the Spurs, I think the Bulls hold a slight edge. Rodman could occupy Duncan the way only KG and Rasheed Wallace have EVER (nope, Karl Malone and all those other guys couldn't do it) occupied him and nobody outside of Bowen could handle Pippen-- possibly the best small forward in the game at the time.

Now Duncan would carve up the Bulls on defense, but he couldn't stop Jordan and Pippen. If Hakeem couldn't manage it, I doubt Duncan could do much more.

Great post, but look at the Rockets' records vs. the Bulls in the early '90s. I wish Jordan had never retired the 1st time because it would have been fun. The Bulls had no answer for Dream, & while MJ is the best ever, Vernon Maxwell was crazy enough & long enough to make him work for every shot. We will never know, but Houston matched up very well with the Bulls. And, '94 & '95 were championship years for Houston (yes I know MJ was retired...). Would have been fun to watch. Ask David Robinson about Dream during that time when he got dominated & admitted it after the Conference Finals. Dream was a beast & the best player in the NBA during that time.

[JR2004]

The only thing I'll say about the 80's Lakers is any of their title teams from the decade would've had to go no longer than 5 games to beat any of the Spurs title teams. The 87 team not only would've swept any Spurs title team, but they wouldn't have been seriously threatened at any point in the series. It would've looked something like games 3 and 4 of the Western Finals in 2001.

I hate the C's and anyone or anything that has to do with their franchise, but there's no way on the Good Lord's green earth that any of their 80's title teams would've lost to any of these Spurs teams. To say otherwise is laughable at best and shows any real lack of knowledge of how great that frontline was that they put together. Heck the 86 Celtics would've had about the same amount of trouble that the 87 Lakers would've had.

I hated the Pistons too and the garbage that they brought to the NBA, but neither of their title teams would lose. This would though be the best match-up for the Spurs.

The 83 Sixers...If anyone seriously debates their chances against Dr. J and company, their head needs to be examined. Go watch some film on them and then come back and say with a straight face that "fo, fo, fo" would've broken a sweat.

MJ's Bulls...Really don't even need to go there. The man defined greatness and took it to a whole other level. The only team that I don't think any of MJ's title teams could've beaten in my lifetime was the 87 Lakers. Jordan is in an echelon that only he is a part of. I'll never witness anything like MJ if I live to be a 100.

[zebrablue2]

Originally posted by vet93
I think that we have to be careful gauging athleticism and skill between eras. If some of the players from the past had been exposed to the modern game, conditioning, nutrition, strength training etc...etc...they may have been completely different players and just might compare more favorably than you might think.

Amen. And Bird would still get his thirty.

[turbostud]

Big Shot Bob better get those rings to a safe deposit box in the bank. Some one is probably casing his house right now and knows exactly where to find them.

[Txbroadcaster]

Either we have people who did not watch the teams from the 80's or they are caught up in the warm and fuzzy of the Spurs winning the title because while the Spurs are a dynasty in this era..they would NOT match up well in the era of the 80's basketball

How many SUPERSTARS are on the Spurs today? Tim Duncan is the only surefire one..Tony Parker is a MAYBE and honestly I would not say he is a superstar..and then it is a bunch of players..and yes I know the comeback will be they play such good TEAM ball and are a bunch of role players that know what to do to win..Well guess what

The 80's Lakers had THREE superstars AND they played well as a team...The 80's Celtics had three superstars and they played well as a team..The 83 Sixers lost ONE game in the play-offs.

The Spurs stand out as a TEAM because in today's NBA only a handful of teams truly play TEAM basketball..But in the 80's the great teams ALL played that way. Offenses that did not isolate and dribble the clock down, teams that did not rely on one guy to lead them..THAT is why Jordan did not win until Pippen and his cast were in place, because before that Jordan would get beat by teams who knew they could just let him do his thing and shut down the rest of the team and still win the series.

Some are saying Bowen could have handled Bird, and I am sorry but that is CRAZY talk. Bowen will NOT be remembered as one of the greatest players of this generation. Bird would have dominated him...Magic or Worthy would have dominated him...Dr J would have turned Bowen back to what he was as a celtic, a bench player with a decent 3 point shot.

What dominating team did the Spurs beat in the Finals?

The 80's Lakers beat the Celtics...The Celtics beat the Lakers..The Sixers beat the LAkers ..They are defined not only by their win..but by WHO they beat.

All that does not take away from what the Spurs are..a great team and a dynasty of this era, but IMO they are just that

[g$$]

Originally posted by zebrablue2
Amen. And Bird would still get his thirty.

Exactly, much agreed. Larry Legend was one of the all-time best before the back injuries/surgeries. That is undeniable by anyone who knows the game. Spurs are a good story, but watered down league now & my $$ is on the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, Bulls, or even Pistons. Those teams were just that good.

[g$$]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Either we have people who did not watch the teams from the 80's or they are caught up in the warm and fuzzy of the Spurs winning the title because while the Spurs are a dynasty in this era..they would NOT match up well in the era of the 80's basketball

How many SUPERSTARS are on the Spurs today? Tim Duncan is the only surefire one..Tony Parker is a MAYBE and honestly I would not say he is a superstar..and then it is a bunch of players..and yes I know the comeback will be they play such good TEAM ball and are a bunch of role players that know what to do to win..Well guess what

The 80's Lakers had THREE superstars AND they played well as a team...The 80's Celtics had three superstars and they played well as a team..The 83 Sixers lost ONE game in the play-offs.

The Spurs stand out as a TEAM because in today's NBA only a handful of teams truly play TEAM basketball..But in the 80's the great teams ALL played that way. Offenses that did not isolate and dribble the clock down, teams that did not rely on one guy to lead them..THAT is why Jordan did not win until Pippen and his cast were in place, because before that Jordan would get beat by teams who knew they could just let him do his thing and shut down the rest of the team and still win the series.

Some are saying Bowen could have handled Bird, and I am sorry but that is CRAZY talk. Bowen will NOT be remembered as one of the greatest players of this generation. Bird would have dominated him...Magic or Worthy would have dominated him...Dr J would have turned Bowen back to what he was as a celtic, a bench player with a decent 3 point shot.

What dominating team did the Spurs beat in the Finals?

The 80's Lakers beat the Celtics...The Celtics beat the Lakers..The Sixers beat the LAkers ..They are defined not only by their win..but by WHO they beat.

All that does not take away from what the Spurs are..a great team and a dynasty of this era, but IMO they are just that


Great post & agreed on all points. Anyone arguing these points is not familiar with teams of the '80s who played team basketball. Spurs deserve their kudos, but it ends there. Don't get caught in the moment...

Remember MJ getting 63 on the Celtics? Yes, & they still lost. One man was not going to beat those teams. They had too much depth & too much game. Look at the HOF on those squads. It was a different time & the golden era of the NBA. Bird, Magic, & then Jordan saved the NBA. TV ratings shot thru the roof, arenas were sold out nightly. Now, ratings are down & lots of people really don't care about it. Why? Too many prima donnas, less team ball, & crazy prices. It is what it is guys.

See, when it does not involve Team Cancer, we can agree!! Great job TXB.

[DDBooger]

in the end ALL purely speculative. i think the spurs would hold their own just fine. when we speak of our childhood hero's and older dynasties sometimes there are delusions of grandeur. while they were great, it is an unfair comparison from different generations. hell you'd hardly recognize basketball today from back then. yet, the spurs play basketball the way it was intendend to be played. perhaps the injection of international players has done this, maybe a correlation with the fact that the world is teaching us how to play a game we invented. its funny, no matter what the spurs do, they'll be people to water it down :rolleyes: to each their own, an opinion is only worth something to the one giving it. take mine with a grain of salt;)

[g$$]

Originally posted by DDBooger
in the end ALL purely speculative. i think the spurs would hold their own just fine. when we speak of our childhood hero's and older dynasties sometimes there are delusions of grandeur. while they were great, it is an unfair comparison from different generations. hell you'd hardly recognize basketball today from back then. yet, the spurs play basketball the way it was intendend to be played. perhaps the injection of international players has done this, maybe a correlation with the fact that the world is teaching us how to play a game we invented. its funny, no matter what the spurs do, they'll be people to water it down :rolleyes: to each their own, an opinion is only worth something to the one giving it. take mine with a grain of salt;)

Good points, but I know I liked the NBA of the '80s much more than today. The athletes are bigger, stronger, & faster today. But, they are also less skilled in the finer points of the game too (shooting, passing, moving without the ball, team defense, etc.). We live in the And 1 era of street ball & individuality. The Spurs play the game right, but I still would take the dominant teams of years gone by over them by a slim margin. Elite players from previous generations would still be that good now, as they would have access to all of the advanced training of today as well. I am not knocking the Spurs at all, just not ready to annoint them one of the all-time greats.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by JR2004
The 83 Sixers...If anyone seriously debates their chances against Dr. J and company, their head needs to be examined. Go watch some film on them and then come back and say with a straight face that "fo, fo, fo" would've broken a sweat.
Fo, fo, fo would've broken a sweat. Not much of one, but it would've happened.

That was the best title team of the 80's, IMO, and it's not even close. They beat three good teams, two of which were great, without much of a challenge. That's possibly the best championship team of all-time... even better than the '87 or '72 Lake Show, '96 Bulls, or the '86 or '62 Celts.

Sorry, but IMO if any of those Laker or Celtics teams from the 80's would've met up with Malone (who went absolutely nuts during the playoffs), Dr. J, and Mo Cheeks, they would've gone down.

At this point in his career, Dr. J was still unstoppable, WTAMU product Cheeks was one of the best PG's in the game (and definitely the best defensive small guard during the early- to mid-80's) , since-forgotten Andrew Toney was having another All-Star year, and League MVP Malone was a man posessed, especially during the playoffs (think Hakeem during the '94 and '95 seasons).


Originally posted by JR2004
The only thing I'll say about the 80's Lakers is any of their title teams from the decade would've had to go no longer than 5 games to beat any of the Spurs title teams. The 87 team not only would've swept any Spurs title team, but they wouldn't have been seriously threatened at any point in the series. It would've looked something like games 3 and 4 of the Western Finals in 2001.

I hate the C's and anyone or anything that has to do with their franchise, but there's no way on the Good Lord's green earth that any of their 80's title teams would've lost to any of these Spurs teams. To say otherwise is laughable at best and shows any real lack of knowledge of how great that frontline was that they put together. Heck the 86 Celtics would've had about the same amount of trouble that the 87 Lakers would've had.

I hated the Pistons too and the garbage that they brought to the NBA, but neither of their title teams would lose. This would though be the best match-up for the Spurs.
I can see where you're coming from with the Celts, Pistons, and Lakers, but if you think that these games would've been that lopsided, you're blind.

The Spurs revolve around their best player--the BEST PF of all time (yes, better than Malone, better than Barkley, better than Pettit). If you take Duncan out of his game, you win. If not, no matter how good your team is, you won't dominate the Spurs the way you think.

It's all about matchups, and that '87 LA squad didn't have anyone (and no, Kareem couldn't have done it) that could've taken Duncan out of his game. Timmy would've dominated on both ends of the floor, shredding the LA frontcourt on offense and would've been free to roam on defense.

AC Green was in there for his rebounding and defense, not his ability to score. Same with Kurt Rambis, and neither would've been considered a top-notch defensive PF in today's game.

Look at the Spurs' recent history for their matchup problems. It includes teams with Kevin Garnett, Rasheed Wallace, Shaq in his heyday, and Dirk Nowitzki. Notice how I didn't include Chris Webber (in his prime), Elton Brand, Amare Stoudemire, Kenyon Martin, Pau Gasol (IMO the third-best PF in the NBA) or Defensive POY Marcus Camby.

Each one of those guys brought something different to the table to make Timmy work a little harder than usual or take him out of his game. The ultimate Timmy stopper is 'Sheed. He is the perfectly-built Duncan nightmare-- long and athletic and strong on defense, and can pull Timmy away from the lane and mess up the Spurs' entire defensive strategy.

Shaq was also a nightmare even though they never guarded each other. And it wasn't just because of Shaq's dominance, it was also because of his ability to occupy the lane and take away the help. But Shaq, not Duncan, is the greatest player since MJ.

KG has the same defensive qualities as 'Sheed (though not as good a defensive matchup as 'Sheed), but can't pull Duncan as far away from the rim when Duncan's playing D.

Nowitzki has Sheed's outside game, and if/when Duncan's forced to guard him (which, since Bowen is still playing, isn't often), it always leads to problems with the Spurs' help defense.

AC Green was none of the above. At this point in his career (1987), neither was Sweet Lew. Although he was still an effective shotblocker, was a crafty player, and still had the sky hook, Lew wasn't nearly as explosive or spry as he was during his younger days. Duncan would've destroyed that Lakers' interior.

Now the Lakers were better. I'm not saying they weren't nor will I ever say that the '07 Spurs are better, but a sweep??? They're not THAT much better than SA, especially considering that SA would've been considered the greatest defensive juggernaut of all time if they would've played in the 80's. Bowen with the ability to hand-check? It's on.

Basically, I'd give it to the Lakers in six.

McHale circa '86 (I'm going with that team as the Celts' best team of the 80's) was probably the best PF in the game. The Barkley/Malone era wouldn't really start until a year or two down the road, so we'll give it to McHale right here.

Phenomenal HOF player, was possibly the greatest sixth man of all time, and was absolutely huge (6'11") by 80's standards. Same height as Duncan, the best PF of his era, the best defensive PF of his era, and he would've been absolutely dominated by Timmy.

Same with Tony Parker vs. anyone on that team, even Dennis Johnson.

Bird would've got his, he just would've had to work harder than he ever did until he met up with Pipp. McHale probably would've scored 20, but he would've had to work harder to score those 20 than he ever did scoring those 25-27 ppg through the years.

For the Celts, Parish is the x-factor. He was skinny (neither him nor McHale could've banged against Duncan) but could get in people's faces and had a well-developed low post game.

On the other hand, the Spurs defense and their ability to control the pace of the game from the inside-out would've been their x-factor. The Celtics averged 118 points a game, but if the Spurs just controlled Boston's offensive production by getting back on D and funneling the offense through Duncan, their offense would've been taken away.


Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
How many SUPERSTARS are on the Spurs today? Tim Duncan is the only surefire one..Tony Parker is a MAYBE and honestly I would not say he is a superstar..and then it is a bunch of players..and yes I know the comeback will be they play such good TEAM ball and are a bunch of role players that know what to do to win..Well guess what
That's a dangerous argument to get into. How many superstars did the Celtics of the late-60's have? One fading star (Bill Russell) and one up-and-comer (John Havlicek). Sure, Sam Jones and Bailey Howell were still there too, but both of those guys were well into their 30's and already on the (extreme) downside of their careers. Those two started and gave quality minutes, but were only superstars by their legacy, not their ability at the time.

They still managed to run through quite possibly the best team ever assembled (the Lakers of the late-60's with Gail Goodrich, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and Wilt Chamberlain... the most skilled/most-talented C of all-time, second-best two guard of all time, one of the top four or five SF's of all time, and a HOF PG all still in their prime) not once, but three times.



Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Some are saying Bowen could have handled Bird, and I am sorry but that is CRAZY talk. Bowen will NOT be remembered as one of the greatest players of this generation. Bird would have dominated him...Magic or Worthy would have dominated him...Dr J would have turned Bowen back to what he was as a celtic, a bench player with a decent 3 point shot.
I was one of the first ones to discount Bowen eliminating any stars. I was the one that said that Bird would still get his 30. But if you really think that ANY defender of the mid-80's was as good as Bowen you've absolutely lost your mind. The light didn't turn on for MJ until the late-80's. That's when the game really started slowing down for him and he stopped relying so much on athleticism, piss, and vinegar.

Michael Cooper's as close as the 80's had to Bowen. Sure, guys like Paul Pressey, Dennis Johnson, Sidney Moncrief and Derek Harper were good, but guys like Bowen, Ron Artest, and Kobe are a cut above every single one of those guys. Trenton Hassell, a VERY underrated second-tier defender in today's NBA, is probably on most of those guys' level.



Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
What dominating team did the Spurs beat in the Finals?
Nobody. The dominant teams they beat were all in the Western Conference.

I take that back, in 2005 they beat the previous years' champs in the Finals. And while that Pistons team has only disentegrated since, the Spurs are playing better--far better--than any team they've had since 1999. And if this Spurs team is really that much better than the 2003 Spurs team that beat Kobe and Shaq, why couldn't they compete with those teams back then?



CONT'D BELOW

[big daddy russ]

Look, I know that everyone wants to say that those teams were great defensively and all, and they were, but they were not... I repeat WERE NOT anywhere even remotely close to the Spurs' level on defense. Offensively, however, they were superior.

I've been saying all year that the Spurs would win it, and I've been saying it with complete certainty. I was surprised when the Suns managed to stretch it out to six. I thought they'd be gone in five, and that it wouldn't be pretty.

I know Dirk got the MVP, but this was Duncan's year. No, he didn't score 25 a game to go with 13 rebounds and four blocks, but this was the best year of his career. When the Spurs start rolling like they did this year, they win titles. Plain and simple.

The thing that convinced me, the point in time I knew it was the Spurs' year was that last loss to the Mavs like a week before the playoffs started. SA didn't look like it bothered them at all. They didn't care about the game as much, and the emotion of winning/losing was very subdued.

I turned to my brother and sister (who I was watching the game with) and said, "There's your champions." I believed SA was the team to beat before that game, but didn't realize how 'down to business' they really were. Their goal wasn't to beat the Mavericks or to get over any humps, it was just to win.

And guess what, they did exactly that. They'd roll through the first two games of a series, then get bored and lazy for games three and four (happened every single series), then get down to business in games five and six (when needed).

No, I didn't believe the Suns ever had a chance. No, it wouldn't have mattered if Amare, Boris, and/or Dallas would've been standing in their way. This was a team on a mission, and I have no doubt whatsoever that they would've won the first two games of any series with any championship team of any period in time. They may not have won the next four, but they would've won the first two.

I wish this team would've been around in the early 00's, back when Kobe and Shaq were running the league. That would've been some fun basketball to watch. By the time SA caught up to LA (back in 2003), Shaq was just about to leave. If this team would've played those three-peat teams, it would've been a hell of a series.

[Txbroadcaster]

Good points..But you keep saying The Spurs were so much better on defense than the 80's teams..HOW DO WE KNOW?

The 80's offenses of the great teams were about movement of the ball thru more than one player, getting out on the break and creating 2 and 3 on 1 advantages.

The Lakers played a very tough trapping style of defense..ALOT of their offense was generated by the turnovers their D created..Again they gave up points because they themselves did not dribble down the 24 clock before shooting, so it gave the other team more chances..Both Magic and Byron Scott had over 100 steals..Worthy had 72

The 1987 Lakers gave up 102 points a game..BUT only 47% shooting percentage and 29% 3pt percenatge..BUT because the game was faster back then the opposing team took 7476 shots making about 3500 of them

The Spurs this year gave up just 6400 shots with opposing teams making 2800 of them....Because again offenses today are slower more willing to wait to 15 on the shot clock to even get set in the offense then usually have enough time for one shot


To say the Spurs are better on defense IMO is just assuming because scoring is lower now that means they are better, but the great 80's teams played Defense, just in an era that was more uptempo which created more shots but that does not mean the defense were bad

[g$$]

Great points Russ, & you know I respect your opinions, but you are way caught up in Spurs euphoria right now. The Spurs are a fine team, play the game as it should be played, share the ball, & play great team defense. That being said, I will take the '80s Lakers/ mid '80s Celtics/ '83 Sixers / MJ's Bulls/ & even the Bad Boy Pistons over them in a tight series. Bowen would be eaten alive by the big boys in this group too. He is getting way too much credit by some. He is not close to their HOF level.

Lakers = big 3 of Magic, Worthy, & Kareem = too much; throw in Cooper, Scott, Nixon, McAdoo, etc. too; Showtime at its finest.

Celtics = Bird, McHale, Parrish = too much; Dennis Johnson (great defensive big guard), Ainge, Maxwell, Walton, etc. too. One of the all-time best in 1986.

Sixers = just wow - Dr. J, Moses Malone, Cheeks, Toney, Bobby Jones, Dawkins, etc.; depth too much, esp. in frontcourt. Juggernaut team, period.

Bulls = MJ, Pippen; complementary parts of Grant, Paxson, Kerr, Cartwright, etc. too; not betting against MJ & Pippen here.

Pistons (& I hated these teams) = Isiah Thomas, Rodman, Dumars; throw in Vinnie Johnson, Salley, & others too; knew how to win & played great defense.

**The Rockets of 1994 & 1995 would be a good test too; no one had an answer for Dream (including Spurs) & Clyde took them to a new level too; team had heart & knew how to win in the playoffs (Horry, Smith, Maxwell, Thorpe, Cassell, etc.). The inside-outside combo would give the Spurs trouble.

Just my 2 cents, but I am still taking the teams from a league that was not watered down by expansion. The Spurs belong in this group, but I am not picking them to win. Same as the Lakers with Kobe & Shaq too. Good discussion.