Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, since no one else is going to do it
If they lost in the Finals, obviously the Magic win it
If they lost in the Conference Finals, I'd give it to Spurs over Magic
If they lost in the Conference Semi-Finals, this would be tough and close between the Spurs and Suns coming out of the West, but I'd have to give the edge to the Spurs because of size
If they lost in the First Round, Utah would probably take it all the way to the Finals in a lot of tough close series and win a close one over Magic.
my personal opinion. thx.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NARFALICIOUS
Where do the Rockets drop out? 1st round, 2nd round, 3rd round?
Pretty much this. I mean what's the criteria here? The Rockets play someone other than Orlando in the Finals? The Rockets lose before the finals? The biggest 'what-if' that year was Jordan's comeback, and whether or not a full season from him would have been the difference between making the finals and losing to the Magic. I still don't think it would have made a difference( and I say this as an admitted Jordan/90's Bulls homer), because their frontline was paper thin. Toni Kukoc at power forward? Ummm....yeah.
Pretty much this. I mean what's the criteria here? The Rockets play someone other than Orlando in the Finals? The Rockets lose before the finals? The biggest 'what-if' that year was Jordan's comeback, and whether or not a full season from him would have been the difference between making the finals and losing to the Magic. I still don't think it would have made a difference( and I say this as an admitted Jordan/90's Bulls homer), because their frontline was paper thin. Toni Kukoc at power forward? Ummm....yeah.
You mean Dickey Simpsons and Cory Blount at PF wasn't good enough?
I just watched some You Tube videos of that season when he came back. You could tell Jordan was struggling not just in basketball skills but also in conditioning that first game back. He looked pretty gassed and only shot 7 for 28. But we all know what happened his first game back in MSG.
I think Olajuwon took it personal when David Robinson got all that attention. What Olajuwon did to Robinson could be considered criminal in most jurisdictions.
I think Olajuwon took it personal when David Robinson got all that attention. What Olajuwon did to Robinson could be considered criminal in most jurisdictions.
Indeed. I'm wondering if it may have been a better strategy to put Rodman on Hakeem and use Robinson as a help defender.
You mean Dickey Simpsons and Cory Blount at PF wasn't good enough?
I just watched some You Tube videos of that season when he came back. You could tell Jordan was struggling not just in basketball skills but also in conditioning that first game back. He looked pretty gassed and only shot 7 for 28. But we all know what happened his first game back in MSG.
If MJ was back a whole season, plus the preseason, I think they would've gotten a better record and would've been a good match for the Magic, but the Bulls would have lost in the Finals to the Rockets if they made it that far.
But then that puts them at #2 or #3 facing the Pacers or Knicks in the second round (thus removing a classic knicks-pacers series) and the Bulls have a harder time passing either of those 2 teams than they do the Magic. Variables, man.
Or another variable, if the Bulls are still in the 4/5 spot and MJ was there the whole season and they are a better match for the Magic in the second round and beat them, they go on to the Conference Finals and lose to Indiana, that would've been a great Finals, Indiana vs. Houston. Both Davises (Davii) and Smits, Miller going off in the 4th quarter...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg1977
Indeed. I'm wondering if it may have been a better strategy to put Rodman on Hakeem and use Robinson as a help defender.
I think Hakeem would still dominate Rodman (maybe) and that means Robinson is helping a lot and Horry is open!
Sadly, I never watched a lot of West Coast series in the 90s (or any non-Bulls for that matter, being a Chicagoan), or never remember watching them. Would have been nice to see those great matchups. I mostly have to live in the past to see them. Didn't really get a good dose of the whole league until the early 2000s when I was more aware, and a bit older than a 10 year old lol.
I think Hakeem would still dominate Rodman (maybe) and that means Robinson is helping a lot and Horry is open!
He probably would have, but the main thing is not having Robinson get into foul trouble guarding him. I think the question is, are you better off having Hakeem dominate inside or making his teammates( like Horry, Cassell, etc) beat you? Alot of people put an * to those Rockets teams because of Jordan's absence/rust or whatever, I think they were legit especially in 95...
Indeed. I'm wondering if it may have been a better strategy to put Rodman on Hakeem and use Robinson as a help defender.
its funny, now clearly a spurs homer BUT go back and watch the games, the spurs strategy was the same as it had been all season, 1 on 1 defense all day every day. david faced hakeem 1 on 1 BUT the rockets defensive strategy was not to play 1 on 1, they knew david was the only REAL scoring threat so hakeem NEVER played 1 on 1 defense vs david. hakeem was still a beast, dont get me wrong but that whole hakeem destroyed david is a bit blown out of proportion.
its funny, now clearly a spurs homer BUT go back and watch the games, the spurs strategy was the same as it had been all season, 1 on 1 defense all day every day. david faced hakeem 1 on 1 BUT the rockets defensive strategy was not to play 1 on 1, they knew david was the only REAL scoring threat so hakeem NEVER played 1 on 1 defense vs david. hakeem was still a beast, dont get me wrong but that whole hakeem destroyed david is a bit blown out of proportion.
Wouldn't that suggest that maybe a switch in strategy was due, or was it a live by the sword, die by the sword defensive philosophy? Who was coaching the Spurs then, my memory's a bit foggy.....
Wouldn't that suggest that maybe a switch in strategy was due, or was it a live by the sword, die by the sword defensive philosophy? Who was coaching the Spurs then, my memory's a bit foggy.....
bob hill was the coach, and their thinking im guessing is we were the best team in the league, a solid but not great defensive team, but our offense was good enough to get us by. now bob was never a great coach so he figured the spurs and david would be able to play thru it. in reality the spurs had the 4th best defensive team in the playoffs, and houston was 12th best and houston was the 2nd best offensive team to the spurs 7th so the regular season didnt carry over like ol bob thought it would. his game plan wasnt working but he was not good enough to know how to change it. and he got out coached by rudy t.
that was actualy his best playoffs performance, of his 5 trips to the playoffs. dude just rode david and was fired less than like 25 games into the 1996-97 season when pop took over as coach. was also the year david went down.
^ Yes I recall now, he coached the Pacers at one point too, can't recall if it was before or after Spurs and too lazy to google it at the moment....
before. he was never really very POP-ular in SA. ha see what i did there? HA!
ok back to your regularly scheduled chit chat
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
