Michael Jordan's Bulls and the watered down 90's (Bird, Dj J ,Magic give thoughts)

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

90's had the greatest era of centers that would have dominated if it had not been for one man.

Take that with you.

Chicago played the spurs and rockets a combined 0 times in the finals so that's entirely irrelevant and the Knicks second best player was John Starks . You really expect them to have won a few times when that guy was the second best player on the team? Matter of fact the 2-4 guys on those Knicks made a combined 2 all star games and 0 all NBA teams.

 

[Perfectson]

You're not making an apples to apples comparison.

You compared drafted down the road players to my example of expansion teams making old decaying players the face of their newly minted franchise.

I really despise the intellectual failures that plague this site at times.

When these teams were created, it created space for grocery baggers like John starks to get a chance and old guys like Doc Rivers to get minutes.

Why aren't you deconstructing my point about expansion creating open roster spots for players on their last legs or d-leaguers? How did that increase quality?

6 Expansion teams in the span of 8 years....NO SPORT EVER did that.

I SAW the actual drop off in quality from the 80s to the 90s, and here dudes are datamining their arguments with me.

the 97 grizzlies had the same poor record as the 1983 houston rockets

the 2010 nets had the same record as teh 1987 clippers

2016 76ers and a similars record ot the 73 76ers


you saying the league was watered down is opinion not fact - just leave it at that. John STarks was a 1 time allstar on a new york team that went to the finals but he shouldn't have gotten a chance in the league.

i mean what you're saying is asinine - if you have two teams and you pick the best 10 players to play on those teams and you add another team and pick the next 5 players then of course that 3rd team wouldn't be as good as team 1 and 2, the drop off shouldn't be massive. But that's not how the NBA works...every NBA guy was the man in highschool and/or college. There's only 1 ball though. it's the Joe Montana / Steve Young delimna - who should have started? None of these guys in the NBA suck , even the 13th guy if given the right opportunity could become a 20 ppg - the fact that you just think that adding people meant they went to freaking walmart and pulled guys with no pedigree is amazing.

 

[NYC Rebel]

You pointing out expansion teams as if that is some sort of evidence.

I think everyone who understand what an expansion team is will tell you the makeup of them for the first several years. A bunch of middling NBA players, a couple of high draft picks, and 1 or 2 borderline fringe allstar types (usually aging or injured).

Tripuka was a 2 time allstar and help lead the pistons to their first playoff berth in a decade with I.T. - you said 2 posts ago how good the 80s were , but then turned around a crap on Tripukea who you inadvertantly put up as the face of the 90's expansion era without actually knowing any of the history of the player.

I didn't know the history about Tripuka now because he was fading player in 88?

Now you're trying to walk it back by having some sort of battle with me over it, as if you haven't lost already. Take your L breh - Tripuka wasn't on his way out of the league and you pointing out expansion teams as the reason the NBA in the 90s were as good as the 80s is asinine.

You never watched Kelly Tripuka as an active player a day in your YouTube watching life. I didn't walk shyt back!

I'm pretty sure you mentioned the Mavs a few posts ago but didn't mention othey were an expansion team in 1980. The addition of 4 expansion teams doesn't all of a sudden change the talent in the NBA ,

Yes....it did. Long in the tooth Players who would be out of the league found work. 72 extra roster spots in a span of 8 years hurts quality. How on EARTH do you deny this? It hurt quality play as a result.

most of those team ended up with middling guys and by that time the late 70s and 80s' golden eras paved the way for younger and better players as the game proliferated throughout the states.

Again you just don't know basketball and you argue in circles and troll just to get a rise. This is what happens when you're an old ass nigerian c00n

You posted trash

 

[Perfectson]

Chicago played he spurs and rockets a combined 0 times in the finals so that's entirely irrelevant and the Knicks second best player was John Starks . You really expect them to have won a few times when that guy was the second best player on the team? Matter of fact the 2-4 guys on those Knicks made a combined 2 all star games and 0 all NBA teams.

they had played with each other for years, there's something called chemistry. its the same reason these Euro teams can beat a team full of NBA allstars in the world games and olympics....guess you forgot about Puerto Rico and Carlos Arroyo

 

[NYC Rebel]

the 97 grizzlies had the same poor record as the 1983 houston rockets

the 2010 nets had the same record as teh 1987 clippers

2016 76ers and a similars record ot the 73 76ers


you saying the league was watered down is opinion not fact - just leave it at that. John STarks was a 1 time allstar on a new york team that went to the finals but he shouldn't have gotten a chance in the league.

i mean what you're saying is asinine - if you have two teams and you pick the best 10 players to play on those teams and you add another team and pick the next 5 players then of course that 3rd team wouldn't be as good as team 1 and 2, the drop off shouldn't be massive. But that's not how the NBA works...every NBA guy was the man in highschool and/or college. There's only 1 ball though. it's the Joe Montana / Steve Young delimna - who should have started? None of these guys in the NBA suck , even the 13th guy if given the right opportunity could become a 20 ppg - the fact that you just think that adding people meant they went to freaking walmart and pulled guys with no pedigree is amazing.

Teams with poor records exist every year. Where did I say that unique? What was unique was the ramrodding of multiple inexperienced teams in a span of a few years . You water down the leagues quality.

 

[Perfectson]

I didn't know the history about Tripuka now because he was fading player in 88?



You never watched Kelly Tripuka as an active player a day in your YouTube watching life. I didn't walk shyt back!



Yes....it did. Long in the tooth Players who would be out of the league found work. 72 extra roster spots in a span of 8 years hurts quality. How on EARTH do you deny this? It hurt quality play as a result. that's exactly what the NBA should look like






You posted trash

Teams with poor records exist every year. Where did I say that unique? What was unique was the ramrodding of multiple inexperienced teams in a span of a few years . You water down the leagues quality.

vs 4 really good teams, a bunch of middling teams, and the rest of the teams were just being ass f88ed every other night because they had to play boston or lakers every 8 games. yeah that's really competitive.

 

[NYC Rebel]

vs 4 really good teams, a bunch of middling teams, and the rest of the teams were just being ass f88ed every other night because they had to play boston or lakers every 8 games. yeah that's really competitive.

You forgot to include hyper free agency that took place in the 90s. Players had more options.

 

[Perfectson]

You forgot to include hyper free agency that took place in the 90s. Players had more options.

you low keyed changed your entire premise

you're the king of walking back

 

[NYC Rebel]

you low keyed changed your entire premise

you're the king of walking back

I didn't change shyt. I said expansion and free agency from jump. You're just mentally deficient and have to resort to name calling as a result.

You never watched Kelly Tripuka as an active player in your online breathing life and have the nerve to debate with me who did.

 

[75 Others]

Chicago played the spurs and rockets a combined 0 times in the finals so that's entirely irrelevant and the Knicks second best player was John Starks . You really expect them to have won a few times when that guy was the second best player on the team? Matter of fact the 2-4 guys on those Knicks made a combined 2 all star games and 0 all NBA teams.

Chemistry when flowing right can do damage no matter the elite level talent said team may have, refer to the '04 Pistons for an example

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

Chemistry when flowing right can do damage no matter the elite level talent said team may have, refer to the '04 Pistons for an example

They also benefitted heavy from the lakers self destructing and the east being ask cheeks. 4 of their 5 starters would make the all star game 2 years later too with prince, billups, and Ben all making the all defensive team. They were a better team than the Knicks anyway.

 

[75 Others]

They also benefitted heavy from the lakers self destructing and the east being ask cheeks. 4 of their 5 starters would make the all star game 2 years later too with prince, billups, and Ben all making the all defensive team. They were a better team than the Knicks anyway.

I personally don't give a shyt about the all star game since that AI fiasco

 

[nieman]

The argument is all about perspective. Of course the league will water down once you increase the number of teams. It's the same argument College vs HS, NBA vs College. The problem now is the "watered down" now is much worst than it was in the 90's because players aren't as good. I will say that it is now better than it was in the early 2000's.

 

[75 Others]

it created space for grocery baggers like John starks to get a chance and old guys like Doc Rivers to get minutes.

breh this is blasphemy right here

 

[NYC Rebel]

breh this is blasphemy right here

Any team with John Starks being your second best scoring option is at a deficit. Yet they were considered contenders good enough that we still talk about that team 20 years later.

Said a lot about the state of the league. Standing in the glimmer of MJ's spotlight overhyped a lot of things about that era.