# Chicago Bulls 96, 97, 98 vs Houston Rockets 94, 95



## Khm3r (Feb 10, 2005)

Chicago Bulls 96, 97, 98 vs Houston Rockets 94, 95 

We know that Jordan retired at the end of 93 season. Then Hakeem and the Rockets won 2 championship in a row. SOoooOoo.......

Who would you guys pick if these two teams faced off in the finals.
I just want to hear your opnions.


----------



## Raxel (Nov 10, 2004)

Khm3r said:


> Chicago Bulls 96, 97, 98 vs Houston Rockets 94, 95
> 
> We know that Jordan retired at the end of 93 season. Then Hakeem and the Rockets won 2 championship in a row. SOoooOoo.......
> 
> ...


96 Bulls would sweep Rockets 94,95.

72-10 in regular season, only 3 loss in play off, please 96 bulls is one of the best teams in NBA history. don't think Rockets 94, 95 stand any chance.


----------



## DuMa (Dec 25, 2004)

Barkley vs Rodman
Drexler vs Jordan II

would have been a fun series to watch.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

The bulls in 6, and that is being generous. Too big on the wings and able to throw too many defensive big bodies at Hakeem. He'd still get his points, but Rodman would swallow up the glass, and Cassell would have a hard time creating against chicago's taller guards. Who was the SG during those years? MJ would have eaten him up as usual......pip who was in his prime would have made Horry disappear.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

DuMa said:


> Barkley vs Rodman
> Drexler vs Jordan II
> 
> would have been a fun series to watch.



Barkely wasn't on those championship teams. I think it was otis thorp/robert Horry.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

I think the Chicago 97 team was one of most talented teams I have ever seen:
Rodman, Pippen, Jordan, Kukoc, Harper and a key guy no one talks about a motivated Brian Williams i.e. Bison Dele who was a hell of a player before he went crazy. Add that role players like Longley and Kerr.

Both the 96 and 97 Bulls would destroy Houston, although hakeem would have a monster series ala Kemp in 96. To big and athletic for Rodman to take but after that the Bulls have the edge at every position.

The 98 Bulls were a lot weaker then the first two teams. An older Jordan, no Bison Dele, Rodman going a bit more crazy and not being as effective. Houston would have had a shot against this team.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

'96 and '97 Bulls would win in 7; '98 Bulls would lose in 6.

People often forget that like MJ, Hakeem took his game to another level in the playoffs. And the Rockets are the only team to have had a winning record against the Bulls in the 90's. 

Also, I think a lot of people overrate Kemp's performance in the '96 Finals. He was very good, but I wouldn't say it was "monster". Of course, they had to double him after Game 2, which is a big complement since he was being guarded by Rodman.



DuMa said:


> Barkley vs Rodman
> Drexler vs Jordan II
> 
> would have been a fun series to watch.


They split their two games in '97. One was a Bulls blowout, the other a Rockets blowout.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

The rest of the Houston roster for the first run was Otis Thorpe, Mario Elie, Horry, Kenny Smith, Cassell, and I think Maxwell was still around

The second title was the same roster except they switched thorpe for Drexler


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I think it would have been a fabulous series if Houston had Drexler in his prime. A prime Olajuwon and Jordan were on the same level and a prime Pippen and Drexler were on the same level. But that was a declining (though still very good) Drexler.

I think the '96 and '97 Bulls would have won in 6. The 1998 Bulls would have gone 7 games with the Rockets and it could have gone either way.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> The rest of the Houston roster for the first run was Otis Thorpe, Mario Elie, Horry, Kenny Smith, Cassell, and I think Maxwell was still around
> 
> The second title was the same roster except they switched thorpe for Drexler



Yup. Like I said, they would have gotten run out of the building.

or damn near...


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

The Rockets did quite well against Jordan's Bulls. People always attribute Houston winning titles to Jordan being out, but the 94' Rockets were certainly capable of beating the Bulls in a 7 game series. They swept the Bulls (reg season) in 92-93. If I was a betting man, I would put my money on Jordan, but I think it would be alot closer than some might believe.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

HeinzGuderian said:


> The Rockets did quite well against Jordan's Bulls. People always attribute Houston winning titles to Jordan being out, but the 94' Rockets were certainly capable of beating the Bulls in a 7 game series. They swept the Bulls (reg season) in 92-93. If I was a betting man, I would put my money on Jordan, but I think it would be alot closer than some might believe.



As good as those bulls were, they were a much different team thand the Dominant 1996-98 team that featured 6'6 Ron Harper at PG (what a job he usually did on the other teams PG), Dennis Rodman at PF and Luc Lognly (who had to be guarded as far out as 12-15 feet since he could hit the J). Sure they weren't as good from long range as the 1991-93 teams, but they didn't need to be. They were MUCH better defensively. And though nobody would have been able to stop Olajowon, Houston would have had matchup problems at EVERY other POSITION on the floor. Jordan made drexler look over the hill in 1992, while clyde was still in his prime, I cannot imagine how badly he would have beat up on old clyde the glide in 1995. He simply would have overpowered Elie. 

The rockets in their championship years were built to beat the kinds of teams they faced in the finals. Teams that were built similarly but lacked the same level of talent/experience to compete in 7 games. The 96-98 bulls were a different animal entirely, compared to the 94 knicks and 95 magic.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Houston would be better off playing the 91, 92, 93 teams. We were unstopable the last three.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Hustle said:


> Houston would be better off playing the 91, 92, 93 teams. We were unstopable the last three.


I agree. They matched up better with those bulls than the latter 3 peat team.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

Pippen, Scottie.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Dean Oliver is a scout for the Seattle Supersonics, and he developed a RoboScout that you feed numbers and information, and it will give you back ways to expose that team. This guy was saying that the Pistons would handle the Lakers quite easily before the series even happened. 

Anyways, you can read about the RoboScout here, he breaks down the weakness of the 1998 bulls team, and how the Jazz could have exposed them. He also makes reference to how the 1996 Bulls was virtually impossible to stop, saying the only way to stop them was to "spike their Gatorade and hope they get bored". 

Anyways, I think the 1996 and 1997 Bulls would have won, and the 1998 Bulls may have come up short. They were getting gradually worse, which is why it may not have been so bad for Krause to break up the team, since if they lost, the legacy would have taken a hit. Teams that goes out on top tend to get more respect than teams that end their run by getting beat.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Dean Oliver is a scout for the Seattle Supersonics, and he developed a RoboScout that you feed numbers and information, and it will give you back ways to expose that team. This guy was saying that the Pistons would handle the Lakers quite easily before the series even happened.
> 
> Anyways, you can read about the RoboScout here, he breaks down the weakness of the 1998 bulls team, and how the Jazz could have exposed them. He also makes reference to how the 1996 Bulls was virtually impossible to stop, saying the only way to stop them was to "spike their Gatorade and hope they get bored".
> 
> Anyways, I think the 1996 and 1997 Bulls would have won, and the 1998 Bulls may have come up short. They were getting gradually worse, which is why it may not have been so bad for Krause to break up the team, since if they lost, the legacy would have taken a hit. Teams that goes out on top tend to get more respect than teams that end their run by getting beat.


I don't disagree with anything here.....


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

I think all 3 bulls teams beat those rockets squads. Many reasons but to keep it short, Jordan's will to win was insane. Even in 1998 the Bulls still had 3 of the top defenders in the league. Rodman dropped off a bit and Jordan did as well but Pippen was still right there.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

the rockets ('94 & '95) were 30-15 in the playoffs, compared to the bulls 30-7 ('96 & '97). the rockets had 4 series in the 2 years that went to a deciding game. the bulls were just superior.

i think the flaw in thinking if jordan hadn't retired that they would have continued to win is that we don't who would have been on the bulls. personnel moves would have been different.


----------



## TRACIELOVESCOMETS (May 14, 2003)

Im going with the Bulls although I'm a Rox fan.


----------



## snowmt (Jan 28, 2003)

kflo said:


> the rockets ('94 & '95) were 30-15 in the playoffs, compared to the bulls 30-7 ('96 & '97). the rockets had 4 series in the 2 years that went to a deciding game. the bulls were just superior.
> 
> i think the flaw in thinking if jordan hadn't retired that they would have continued to win is that we don't who would have been on the bulls. personnel moves would have been different.


Playoff is all about matchup. For example, Ewing's Knicks and Hakeem's 
Rockets all seemed to give Bulls fit. 

95 Rockets was a tough team, the lowest seed ever to win the champion.
They had inside (Hakeem) and outside (Drexler, Cassell, Elie, Horry).
With no homecourt in each series, they managed to beat 3 60-wins teams 
to reach the final and swept the Magic. Hakeem averaged 33/10/3 in that
run, and dominated the Robinson (MVP)/Rodman frontcourt in the WCF.

I think 95 Rockets would give 96 Bulls a good run for their money (Sonics
won 2 games in the final), and definitely have a chance against 98 Bulls.

By the way, Drexler averaged 21.4/7.0/4.4 in the regular season and 
20.5/7.0/5.5 in the playoff. Cassell and Horry also played fantastic in the 
playoff, and both were clutch, so was Elie. 95 Rockets had all essential 
elements of a great champion team.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

snowmt said:


> Playoff is all about matchup. For example, Ewing's Knicks and Hakeem's
> Rockets all seemed to give Bulls fit.
> 
> 95 Rockets was a tough team, the lowest seed ever to win the champion.
> ...


Just not great enough to beat the 96-97 bulls.

And saying that Hakeems Rockets and Ewings Knicks gave the bulls fits is a bit of a stretch. They weren't even a blip on the bulls radar in 96-97. Using their success agains the 1991-93 bulls as a barometer as to how they would fare agains the 96-97 bulls is a stretch too. And of course, last but not least, we all know what happened to clyde drexler the first time he met MJ in the finals. Talk about "branded for life" LOL!!! He would have gotten beaten even worse the second time around.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

ask yourself honestly, when the rockets won the championship, did you really give them enough credits in ur mind? no, we didnt, because we knew they werent the real championship materials. sorta like the sonics this year, yes, they keep winning, but we all know in our heart that they are not as good as their record indicates. that kind of feelings can apply to the 94,95 rockets. but when the bulls won the championships at 96-98, we knew they deservedly so. we knew they were a championship caliber team with tons of talents.


----------



## PHXSPORTS4LIFE (May 8, 2003)

DuMa said:


> Barkley vs Rodman
> Drexler vs Jordan II
> 
> would have been a fun series to watch.



barkley was not on those rockets teams. he's never won a championship. he was still on the suns.


----------



## snowmt (Jan 28, 2003)

Sith said:


> ask yourself honestly, when the rockets won the championship, did you really give them enough credits in ur mind? no, we didnt, because we knew they werent the real championship materials. sorta like the sonics this year, yes, they keep winning, but we all know in our heart that they are not as good as their record indicates. that kind of feelings can apply to the 94,95 rockets. but when the bulls won the championships at 96-98, we knew they deservedly so. we knew they were a championship caliber team with tons of talents.



That's because people have selective memory. 96, 97 Bulls were dominant,
but 98 Bulls was not. Pacers took them to 7 games, and they edged out 
Jazz because of Malone's choke job. If anything, 95 Rockets was more 
dominant after the 2nd round. They whooped the no.1 seed (Spurs) and
swept the Magic. 

How many champion teams absolutely deserve the trophy? After the Bulls
dynasty, only 2001 Lakers was that dominant.


----------



## snowmt (Jan 28, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> Just not great enough to beat the 96-97 bulls.
> 
> And saying that Hakeems Rockets and Ewings Knicks gave the bulls fits is a bit of a stretch. They weren't even a blip on the bulls radar in 96-97. Using their success agains the 1991-93 bulls as a barometer as to how they would fare agains the 96-97 bulls is a stretch too. And of course, last but not least, we all know what happened to clyde drexler the first time he met MJ in the finals. Talk about "branded for life" LOL!!! He would have gotten beaten even worse the second time around.



You sound Drexler was a scrub against Jordan. 92 Blazers took the Bulls 
to six games and almost forced the series to 7. 

Rockets would destroy the Bulls frontline. Hakeem averaged 35/12 against 
Robinson (MVP, DPOY)/Rodman, and 32/11 against Shaq/Grant. Horry 
also owned Rodman in WCF and killed the Spurs.


----------



## Crossword (Jun 7, 2002)

You do know that you're asking this question to a predominantly Bulls-fan board... my guess is you won't be getting much of an objective response.


----------



## shobe42 (Jun 21, 2002)

Bulls were too damn good... 

i actually think that the Jazz teams that lost to the Bulls were better than those Rocket teams


----------



## shobe42 (Jun 21, 2002)

snowmt said:


> You sound Drexler was a scrub against Jordan. 92 Blazers took the Bulls
> to six games and almost forced the series to 7.
> 
> Rockets would destroy the Bulls frontline. Hakeem averaged 35/12 against
> ...


that wasn't the same Rodman that made Shaq look like a fool in 1996


----------



## snowmt (Jan 28, 2003)

shobe42 said:


> that wasn't the same Rodman that made Shaq look like a fool in 1996


funny 1 year made such bigger difference, although both years he was on
the 1st team defense. 

As Elliot said, Rodman was owned because he didn't bother coming out 
to guard Horry. He was too busy snatching those precious rebounds.


----------



## shobe42 (Jun 21, 2002)

snowmt said:


> funny 1 year made such bigger difference, although both years he was on
> the 1st team defense.
> 
> As Elliot said, Rodman was owned because he didn't bother coming out
> to guard Horry. He was too busy snatching those precious rebounds.


lets be real.... by the end of the road with baby Robinson and the Spurs Rodman was a lost cause who had no interest in playing his best... remember when he sat out and took off his shoes...

he completely picked up the slack when he joined the Bulls


----------



## snowmt (Jan 28, 2003)

shobe42 said:


> lets be real.... by the end of the road with baby Robinson and the Spurs Rodman was a lost cause who had no interest in playing his best... remember when he sat out and took off his shoes...
> 
> he completely picked up the slack when he joined the Bulls


I would lose interest too if I was owned by the no-name Horry, and even
with the current MVP and DPOY, couldn't defend Hakeem. Rodman averaged
less rbs later in Bulls both in the regular and playoff. How could you slack 
off and get 16.8 rbs this year, then pick up the slab and get 14.9 rbs the next year?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Houston wouldn't win a series...

Jordan would get his, so would Hakeeem. That's not the point. 

The point is that Rodman an Pippen would absolutely KILL the Houston role-players...

a moot question, if you ask me...


----------



## snowmt (Jan 28, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> Houston wouldn't win a series...
> 
> Jordan would get his, so would Hakeeem. That's not the point.
> 
> ...



:uhoh: you guys don't read. one post above I mentioned Rodman
was owned by Horry in 95 WCF.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

snowmt said:


> :uhoh: you guys don't read. one post above I mentioned Rodman
> was owned by Horry in 95 WCF.


Yeah, i've read it. But just chose to not pay any attention to it. It's OT, for it doesn't matter what Rodman did in the Spurs when talking about the Bulls and Houston... Get it?


----------



## snowmt (Jan 28, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> Yeah, i've read it. But just chose to not pay any attention to it. It's OT, for it doesn't matter what Rodman did in the Spurs when talking about the Bulls and Houston... Get it?



Yeah but Horry had certain matchup advantage over Rodman. 
He wouldn't outrecournd him but would score a bunch on him.
Playoff is about matchup, right?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

snowmt said:


> Yeah but Horry had certain matchup advantage over Rodman.
> He wouldn't outrecournd him but would score a bunch on him.
> Playoff is about matchup, right?


I fail to see how a guy who couldn't crack up 11ppg and 6rpg could have an advantage to Dennis Rodman, arguably one of the greatest rebounders and defenders of all-time in a Final series...


----------



## snowmt (Jan 28, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> I fail to see how a guy who couldn't crack up 11ppg and 6rpg could have an advantage to Dennis Rodman, arguably one of the greatest rebounders and defenders of all-time in a Final series...



dang, I thought you were one of the knowledgable fans. 

We are talking about matchup man.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

snowmt said:


> dang, I thought you were one of the knowledgable fans.
> 
> We are talking about matchup man.


I WAS talking about matchups. Horry and Dennis. In the Finals. And i say Rob has NO CHANCE. But maybe Dennis would be appointed to Otis (eventhough he was no offensive threatt). Poor Otis, of that happened... :angel:


----------



## snowmt (Jan 28, 2003)

PauloCatarino said:


> I WAS talking about matchups. Horry and Dennis. In the Finals. And i say Rob has NO CHANCE.


 I give up.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

snowmt said:


> I give up.


Sorry, dude, maybe i didn't understand your reasoning...

What ARE you talking about? please explain...


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Horry played mostly played SF for the Rockets. It was only in his second season with the Lakers did he become a full time "power" forward.

The first Rockets team had Thorpe who Rodman would have been matched up with when he wasn't helping out with Hakeem. It would have been Pippen versus Horry

The second Rocket team had a huge hole at PF. I don't think this team would have won titles during stronger NBA seasons considering the slop they had at this position. The Rockets ran guys like chucky brown and pete chilcutt, carl herrera at this position. Again I don't think the Bulls would have much of a problem considering they would have put Pippen on Horry.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

snowmt said:


> dang, I thought you were one of the knowledgable fans.
> 
> We are talking about matchup man.



[email protected] Robert Horry played SF those championship years. And he would have been absolutely OWNED by Scottie Pippen. Otis thorpe would have been even more of a non-factor against Rodman. Yes Hakeem would have overpowered our center, just like MJ overpowered Drexler. Name your PG. They would have had a nightmare of a series against the long, lanky, athletic Ron Harper.

This is too easy.

Edit: Wanna compare benches? Kukoc, Brian Williams, Steve Kerr, Wennington.......

GTFOOH!!! :laugh:


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Reguarding Rodman (spurs) vs Rodman (bulls). The bulls version was better because he didn't have to help on defense. That bulls team was the best man on man defensive team that I've seen in my lifetime. All he had to do was guard his, and get rebounds. That made a huge difference. THe spurs teams that he played on were great in the frontcourt, but horrendous in the backcourt, and the frontcourt guys were always having to play help D (Rodman is good at it, taking charges and all...but he's no shotblocker).


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

snowmt said:


> I would lose interest too if I was owned by the no-name Horry, and even
> with the current MVP and DPOY, couldn't defend Hakeem. Rodman averaged
> less rbs later in Bulls both in the regular and playoff. How could you slack
> off and get 16.8 rbs this year, then pick up the slab and get 14.9 rbs the next year?


What were the team FG percentages of the 95 spurs and the 96 bulls?


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Sith said:


> ask yourself honestly, when the rockets won the championship, did you really give them enough credits in ur mind? no, we didnt, because we knew they werent the real championship materials. sorta like the sonics this year, yes, they keep winning, but we all know in our heart that they are not as good as their record indicates. that kind of feelings can apply to the 94,95 rockets. but when the bulls won the championships at 96-98, we knew they deservedly so. we knew they were a championship caliber team with tons of talents.


When the sonics beat three 60-win teams and sweep Miami in the Finals, I'll give them credit. Wait -- there aren't going to be three 60-win teams in the West this year.



Pioneer10 said:


> The second Rocket team had a huge hole at PF. I don't think this team would have won titles during stronger NBA seasons considering the slop they had at this position. The Rockets ran guys like chucky brown and pete chilcutt, carl herrera at this position. Again I don't think the Bulls would have much of a problem considering they would have put Pippen on Horry.


Why were those not strong seasons? Because Jordan wasn't playing? You had prime or close to prime Robinson (and Rodman), Barkley (and KJ), Shaq (and Penny), Malone (and Stockton), Kemp (and Payton), and Ewing all leading their teams to 55+ win seasons. Again, I think '96 and '97 Chicago would win, but it'd be a lot closer than some of you people are saying. It has always annoyed me that those Rockets' teams never got the respect they deserved. I blame Michael Jordan. And OJ Simpson. And all the rest of you, too.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Hakeem said:


> When the sonics beat three 60-win teams and sweep Miami in the Finals, I'll give them credit. Wait -- there aren't going to be three 60-win teams in the West this year.
> 
> 
> Why were those not strong seasons? Because Jordan wasn't playing? You had prime or close to prime Robinson (and Rodman), Barkley (and KJ), Shaq (and Penny), Malone (and Stockton), Kemp (and Payton), and Ewing all leading their teams to 55+ win seasons. Again, I think '96 and '97 Chicago would win, but it'd be a lot closer than some of you people are saying. It has always annoyed me that those Rockets' teams never got the respect they deserved. I blame Michael Jordan. And OJ Simpson. And all the rest of you, too.


 I'm not denigrating the Rockets: they deserved to win and I don't think the league was much stronger with the Bulls were winning (except to say that the f96 and 97 bulls teams were IMO much more talented then the Rockets twopeat teams). My point is the league was weaker because TEAMS were not as strong. So while the Rockets still had the best team during those years, there not as strong as teams from other era;s

So while there was no doubt great players, 4 expanion teams in the early 90's really started hurting the league. They're not a lot of good basketball players to go around and the expansion teams took 48 players away from the other teams: big difference. Look at the other teams that Houston had to go through. San Antonio had the terrific starting backcourt combo of Avery Johnson and Vinny Del *****. Utah was starting guys like david benoit and blue edwards. Again Chicago also had the same benefit but was more talented overall then Hakeem, particulary the 97 team (Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Harper, Kukoc, Brian Williams: as top 6 that could go up against anybody)

This dilution actually benefit teams like Houston with a true superstar because adding a few good players made them more then a match for weaker competition - that was why there were so many teams with 60 wins. Not because they were loaded compared to other eras but there were more bottom feeders for the teams with superstars to feed off

It was only in the past few year with the foreign influx that team are getting truly stacked rosters and NBA isn't as dilute as it once was. Again compare Houston to the 80's teams: Lakers (Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper, Thompson, Green), Detroit (Isiah, Dumars, Rodman, Salley, Aguirre, Johnson, Laimbeer), Celtics( Bird, Parrish, McHale, Ainge, Johnson, Walton). Much tougher teams.


----------



## Khm3r (Feb 10, 2005)

So what do you say about the Pistons. I believe they are exactly like the rockets 94, 95. IMO


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Pioneer -- good point about the dilution thing. When you said that you don't think the Rockets would have won in stronger seasons, I thought you were referring to the years in which the Bulls won. But still, do you really think all the elite teams of those years wouldn't be successful now? The 48 players taken from other teams mostly weren't very good players. Obviously it's a different story with regard to the 80's teams because of the salary cap. Perhaps a better comparison would have been between the '86 Rockets and the '96 Bulls.

Regarding the original question: of course, it looks to be hugely in the Bulls favour talent-wise. But if the Sonics took them to 6, surely the Rockets could make it at least that far?


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Any team with a prime Hakeem would be a contender. I'm not sure that Rockets team would win the title however. There are some teams now who seem to be stacked at nearly every position (Dallas, Phoenix) or very close to it (Memphis, Denver). There are other teams who have two superstars in their nearly their primes (Miami, Houston). Tougher league

Of course most of the 48 players would be scrubs. But imagine what happens when you take guys from the 4 worst teams in the league by record (Al Harrington, JR smith, Magloire, Redd, Mason, Kukoc, Joe Smith, Okafur, Wallace, Knight, Dickauetc) on to other teams. Half those players would likely end up by one way or another on good teams. If for example the Cavs had Redd or Knight they would be considerably better. Once you have the superstar or two, guys of this calibre can make a huge difference. Another example, put a guy like Magloire or even Joe Smith and the second Houston incarnation with Drexler would have been significantly better. That Houston team after all played Chucky "I've played on every team in the NBA" Brown as starter at times at the PF spot

Obviously Houston wouldn't have been swept and it would have been competitive. But the Seattle team was not only Kemp/Payton. They had Shrempf, Hawkins, McMillan, Perkins. Very comparable to the talent Houston had. So they probably would have lost in 6 against the 96 Bulls team. IMO the 97 Bulls was even better although they didn't win 70 games because Brian Williams was a true post player and they might have swept the Rockets. Now the Rockets would have a legitimate chance at beating the 98 Bulls (older Jordan, no more Williams, older and crazier Rodman). I can't make up mind on that matchup


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

I think that if the '94 or '95 Rockets were playing today, they'd win the title. They mightn't have the best regular season record, but it'd be too hard to stop them playoffs. Hakeem always went nuts in the postseason. You really think T-Mac and Yao would even win a game against those Rockets teams? And you're telling me that the Robinson-Rodman frontcourt duo wouldn't dominate the league? The '94 Rockets beat the Knicks in the Finals. The Knicks played awesome defense (coincidentally, Oakley in fact beat both Horace Grant and Dennis Rodman out for a spot on the All-Defense First Team), and they had more than just a couple of good players (Ewing, Oakley, Starks, Hubert Davis, Charles Smith, Greg Anthony; Derek Harper was still pretty effective then, too). I think that team, too, would win the title today.

I'm afraid I don't understand your "imagine what happens when you take guys from the 4 worst teams in the league by record on to other teams" bit. Maybe it's my fault, and I apologise if it is, but I just don't see how that is relevant. The four worst teams today aren't all expansion teams, are they?

Btw, the Rockets with an old and much less effective Olajuwon and Drexler actually beat the Bulls by something like 18 points one game in 1997. Earlier in the season the Bulls blew them out, and I know it's just one game, but it just shows that what seems obvious on paper doesn't always translate into reality. We had more than a fair amount of success against the Bulls in the 90's despite almost always having worse teams. That's just the way the game is.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

the bulls would win and you know why? because Jordan+Pippen simply can't lose. :biggrin:


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> Regarding the original question: of course, it looks to be hugely in the Bulls favour talent-wise. But if the Sonics took them to 6, surely the Rockets could make it at least that far?



The Bulls dominated that series, going up 3 games to zero before they got bored and started playing down to the Sonics level. After the Sonics won 2 games in a row, the Bulls decided it was time to put them away and they did.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

c_dog said:


> the bulls would win and you know why? because Jordan+Pippen simply can't lose. :biggrin:


Forgive me if you were just kidding, but did you simply forget that they lost to the Magic in '95? And don't give me that "Jordan was rusty" bull (pun unintended). He played great in the playoffs. He was practising for quite a while before his comeback and had numerous regular season games. When they lost to a young, hungry and super-confident Magic team led by a lean, mean Shaq who played very good defense, everyone just came up with the excuse that Jordan wasn't himself. The basis? That one turnover. It sickens me.



bballlife said:


> The Bulls dominated that series, going up 3 games to zero before they got bored and started playing down to the Sonics level. After the Sonics won 2 games in a row, the Bulls decided it was time to put them away and they did.


Oh, gimme a break. So the Bulls lost on purpose because they were bored? What next? Jordan didn't take the Wizards anywhere because he felt that his teammates didn't deserve rings?


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> Forgive me if you were just kidding, but did you simply forget that they lost to the Magic in '95? And don't give me that "Jordan was rusty" bull (pun unintended). He played great in the playoffs. He was practising for quite a while before his comeback and had numerous regular season games. When they lost to a young, hungry and super-confident Magic led by a lean, mean Shaq who played very good defense, everyone just came up with the excuse that Jordan wasn't himself. The basis? That one turnover. It sickens me.
> 
> 
> Oh, gimme a break. So the Bulls lost on purpose because they were bored? What next? Jordan didn't take the Wizards anywhere because he felt that his teammates didn't deserve a title?


What was hakeem doing at 40 years of age in the NBA ?


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

If you're referring to my last sentence, read the last post I quoted, then carefully read what I wrote below it again.
If you're referring to something else I said, your post is completely irrelevant.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

The Bulls would have won.


Period. :laugh:


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

Hakeem the poster is generally a decent poster around this board and when I am mocking him, he always ignored me so I hate him.

So if I can see at least 3 people say "Go head, to destroy Hakeem the poster!" posts then I can guranatee you guys that he will just shut that hell up.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

I'm sorry Hakeem, while I agree with you the Rockets perimeter players is probably underrated (Smith, young Cassell, Drexler, Elie, a young smaller Horry) and they would match up well with anybody today. I just don't see a Houston team whose major frontcourt players outside Hakeem were Pete Chilcutt, Chucky Brown would win a title this year. San Antonio's starting backcourt was Viny del *****, Avery Johnson, and a always hurt Willie Anderson. No way that team would do any thing in the playoffs.

New York with the new rules would foul out 5 players in the first half and I see one star and a bunch of role players on that team. I think you're overestimating the talent on the team. Those role players aren't nearly as good as Detroits this year (Hamilton > Starks, Billups> old harper, Wallace >> Oakley, Prince >> Davis,). That NY would get beat by both Detroit and Miami (Wade is way better then anybody on that NY team but Ewing and Shaq would own Ewing: he's about 2 inches taller and 100 pounds heavier then Ewing)


----------



## snowmt (Jan 28, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> I'm sorry Hakeem, while I agree with you the Rockets perimeter players is probably underrated (Smith, young Cassell, Drexler, Elie, a young smaller Horry) and they would match up well with anybody today. I just don't see a Houston team whose major frontcourt players outside Hakeem were Pete Chilcutt, Chucky Brown would win a title this year. San Antonio's starting backcourt was Viny del *****, Avery Johnson, and a always hurt Willie Anderson. No way that team would do any thing in the playoffs.


Sorry but you forgot most champion teams won more because of their 
insane chemistry than talent. 95 Rockets beated 3 60+ win teams to get 
back to the finals and then swept a 58-win teams. If you ever watched 
them, you could see we always had role players (Sam, Horry, Smith, Elie) 
stepping up at various occasions. They complemented the work-horses 
Hakeem + Drexler very well.

Just as your analysis of the current Cavs, you can't expect all-stars at 
every position. Two or three stars plus complementary role players makes 
a contender. Rudy T once said its best. With a player dominant like Hakeem,
you can find complementary players from the CBA and NBDL to play with
him (both Elie and Brown came from CBA). As long as they play their
role well, the team will be ok. This year's Spurs and Heats are both good 
examples.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

^ Before you jump into a topic where I've posted multiple long posts you might want to read those posts before accusing me of forgetting something. I used the phrase "sorry" not to be derogatory but to politely say that I wasn't convinced of another posters arguments. In one of my prior posts I already explained why beating 3 60+ teams wasn't something I would consider using to place the Rockets into all time great team. 

I'm NOT saying they were a bad team 
I'm NOT saying they were lucky to win those two titles. They were best team in the league those two years
I'm NOT saying they would'nt be a title contender today

These are summary of my points:
I don't believe they would have beat the Bulls (particulary the 96 and 97 teams, they would have had a shot against the 98 team)
I don't think the overall quality of teams were as strong in the 90's as they were in the 80's and currently (this is secondary to dilution from 6 expansion teams not being fully corrected till recently with the influx of foreign players).
I don't think the Rockets would be my favorite to win the title THIS year because of deficiences in their roster
I don't think I would rank them among the best ever teams. While I would definitely put the 97 Bulls as one of the best ever


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> Forgive me if you were just kidding, but did you simply forget that they lost to the Magic in '95? And don't give me that "Jordan was rusty" bull (pun unintended). He played great in the playoffs. He was practising for quite a while before his comeback and had numerous regular season games. When they lost to a young, hungry and super-confident Magic team led by a lean, mean Shaq who played very good defense, everyone just came up with the excuse that Jordan wasn't himself. The basis? That one turnover. It sickens me.
> 
> 
> Oh, gimme a break. So the Bulls lost on purpose because they were bored? What next? Jordan didn't take the Wizards anywhere because he felt that his teammates didn't deserve rings?


If you watched the series I think it was pretty clear. The Bulls played down to the competition before putting them to bed in game 6. 

And the 94/95 Bulls and 95/96 Bulls were very much different. Besides an improved Jordan, they had Dennis Rodman. Who was a giant upgrade over Simpkins and Blount from the year before.


----------



## darrinlane (Jan 23, 2003)

shobe42 said:


> Bulls were too damn good...
> 
> i actually think that the Jazz teams that lost to the Bulls were better than those Rocket teams


Then why did we beat the crap out of those Jazz teams every time it mattered to us? How many rings does Utah have?


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> I'm sorry Hakeem, while I agree with you the Rockets perimeter players is probably underrated (Smith, young Cassell, Drexler, Elie, a young smaller Horry) and they would match up well with anybody today. I just don't see a Houston team whose major frontcourt players outside Hakeem were Pete Chilcutt, Chucky Brown would win a title this year. San Antonio's starting backcourt was Viny del *****, Avery Johnson, and a always hurt Willie Anderson. No way that team would do any thing in the playoffs.
> 
> New York with the new rules would foul out 5 players in the first half and I see one star and a bunch of role players on that team. I think you're overestimating the talent on the team. Those role players aren't nearly as good as Detroits this year (Hamilton > Starks, Billups> old harper, Wallace >> Oakley, Prince >> Davis,). That NY would get beat by both Detroit and Miami (Wade is way better then anybody on that NY team but Ewing and Shaq would own Ewing: he's about 2 inches taller and 100 pounds heavier then Ewing)


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I honestly think that all-time greats like Hakeem and Robinson and Rodman and Ewing in their primes would have a greater impact than you think. You're right about the rule changes affecting the Knicks though. However, I don't think I'm overestimating the talent on that team. My point is that they played such good team defense. And I definitely wouldn't say "Wallace >> Oakley". Also, I don't think Shaq's height and weight compared to Ewing's are relevant (btw, it's closer to 1 inch and 65 pounds). I think '94 Ewing would beat the current Shaq.



bballlife said:


> If you watched the series I think it was pretty clear. The Bulls played down to the competition before putting them to bed in game 6.
> 
> And the 94/95 Bulls and 95/96 Bulls were very much different. Besides an improved Jordan, they had Dennis Rodman. Who was a giant upgrade over Simpkins and Blount from the year before.


I did watch the series. The only thing that's clear to me is that some fans are so blindly in love with their teams that they can't accept that when their team loses it's because they were simply beaten. Those Bulls maintained the intensity for an entire season, winning 72 games. You're telling me they just suddenly got bored and let up in the Finals?
Regarding the '95 Bulls -- I was addressing the poster who said "Jordan+Pippen can't lose".



John said:


> Hakeem the poster is generally a decent poster around this board and when I am mocking him, he always ignored me so I hate him.
> 
> So if I can see at least 3 people say "Go head, to destroy Hakeem the poster!" posts then I can guranatee you guys that he will just shut that hell up.


Actually, I hadn't realised that you'd ever mocked me. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by ignoring you.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> I did watch the series. The only thing that's clear to me is that some fans are so blindly in love with their teams that they can't accept that when their team loses it's because they were simply beaten. Those Bulls maintained the intensity for an entire season, winning 72 games. You're telling me they just suddenly got bored and let up in the Finals?(


And I am telling you that they did not play with that same intensity in the NBA Finals. They could have played much better imo. 

btw,I would take that 95/96 Bulls team against any other team in NBA history in a 7 game series.


----------

