72-10 watch

[clonetrooper264]

well, that's what this whole post is about is comparing the 96 team to todays warriors :shrug: they will have a combination of 2 of those 3 teams probably, sure. but do you think OKC or the Clippers are as good as the 96 Knicks or 96 Magic? I don't really. ill give you SA as a legit comparison, and probably slightly better than the 96 Knicks and maybe even the 96 Magic. but outside of SA, I just don't see much competition for the warriors to go against

Imo OKC is as legit a comparison as any. They have two legit studs in WB and KD, guys that will almost certainly be 1st ballot HOFers when it's all said and done. LAC you can argue isn't as good, but they still have CP3, another 1st ballot HOF type of player, Blake and DJ, very good 2nd tier types, and some good role players. You can compare that to the Ewing Knicks teams imo.

Idk, maybe I have the opposite bias as you, but I don't see how there's no comparison for competition.

 

[knoxville7]

The 96 Knicks are basically Ewing and they won 47 games. . So yes okc and lac are better imo.

The Magic probably are better than both.

Sent from the mod station in Nome, Alaska.

yet, that Knicks team was the only East team to get a W against the bulls in the playoffs that year :shrug:

and to say just Ewing is not fair nor correct. Starks, Oakley, Mason, Harper, and Ward could all play

 

[knoxville7]

Imo OKC is as legit a comparison as any. They have two legit studs in WB and KD, guys that will almost certainly be 1st ballot HOFers when it's all said and done. LAC you can argue isn't as good, but they still have CP3, another 1st ballot HOF type of player, Blake and DJ, very good 2nd tier types, and some good role players. You can compare that to the Ewing Knicks teams imo.

Idk, maybe I have the opposite bias as you, but I don't see how there's no comparison for competition.

IMO Clippers are one of the more overrated teams in the league, but again that's just me

 

[Novak]

Lol @ anyone who thinks OKC is just gonna roll over and let GS run right through them. They have the best chance of any team to knock them out imo.

 

[Scoot26]

yet, that Knicks team was the only East team to get a W against the bulls in the playoffs that year :shrug:

and to say just Ewing is not fair nor correct. Starks, Oakley, Mason, Harper, and Ward could all play

They're all role players. Starks made one all star team in 94 then kinda fell off. Mason made an all star team in 2000.

Solid players but okc and lac have way more star power.

Sent from the mod station in Nome, Alaska.

 

[knoxville7]

They're all role players. Starks made one all star team in 94 then kinda fell off. Mason made an all star team in 2000.

Solid players but okc and lac have way more star power.

Sent from the mod station in Nome, Alaska.

"star" power sure. that doesn't make them a better team than that Knicks team. sometimes its better to have a role player that knows his limits and knows his role than it is to have a guy that thinks he can do everything. again, just my opinion

 

[clonetrooper264]

IMO Clippers are one of the more overrated teams in the league, but again that's just me

They certainly are, but let's just look at those teams for a sec

Ewing, Mason, Starks, Ward, Oakley, Harper. That's basically Ewing and a bunch of solid role players.

CP3, Blake, DJ, Redick, Crawford, and your boy Jeff Green.

CP3 is a dominant offensive force like Ewing was. Blake is flat out better than the rest of that Knicks roster. DJ is probably better than at least half of those Knicks guys. Let's say everyone else is a push. CP3 and Blake by themselves project as a more formidable team to go against, don't they? Idk, I think they could potentially beat that Knicks team, as overrated as they might be.

 

[Scoot26]

"star" power sure. that doesn't make them a better team than that Knicks team. sometimes its better to have a role player that knows his limits and knows his role than it is to have a guy that thinks he can do everything. again, just my opinion

Well, I don't agree with that. That Knicks team won 47 games in a weaker conference while the thunder and clippers will win 50+ in a tougher conference.

And I don't think the clippers will ever win anything, but I think they're better than the 1996 Knicks.

Sent from the mod station in Nome, Alaska.

 

[knoxville7]

They certainly are, but let's just look at those teams for a sec

Ewing, Mason, Starks, Ward, Oakley, Harper. That's basically Ewing and a bunch of solid role players.

CP3, Blake, DJ, Redick, Crawford, and your boy Jeff Green.

CP3 is a dominant offensive force like Ewing was. Blake is flat out better than the rest of that Knicks roster. DJ is probably better than at least half of those Knicks guys. Let's say everyone else is a push. CP3 and Blake by themselves project as a more formidable team to go against, don't they? Idk, I think they could potentially beat that Knicks team, as overrated as they might be.

I think you should go back and watch some of that old Knicks team. im guessing you were pretty young in 96? blake griffin would get eaten alive by Anthony mason and Charles Oakley IMO. DJ would do what he could against Ewing, but Ewing would still get his. the only advantage the clips would have would be CP3, and I don't think he is going to will them to a series victory by any means

 

[knoxville7]

Well, I don't agree with that. That Knicks team won 47 games in a weaker conference while the thunder and clippers will win 50+ in a tougher conference.

And I don't think the clippers will ever win anything, but I think they're better than the 1996 Knicks.

Sent from the mod station in Nome, Alaska.

agree to disagree then. maybe it depends what rules they are playing, but I see the knicks team from 96 >>> clippers of today

 

[Scoot26]

agree to disagree then. maybe it depends what rules they are playing, but I see the knicks team from 96 >>> clippers of today

You could pick a Knicks team from any of the surrounding years and I may agree with you. The 97 Knicks rebuilt and won 57 games. I'd say they're better than lac at that point. Not in 96 though. They lost Riley, fired Don Nelson mid-season and JVG came in. The talent was weak. Grind and grit wins you nothing in the NBA.

Sent from the mod station in Nome, Alaska.

 

[clonetrooper264]

I think you should go back and watch some of that old Knicks team. im guessing you were pretty young in 96? blake griffin would get eaten alive by Anthony mason and Charles Oakley IMO. DJ would do what he could against Ewing, but Ewing would still get his. the only advantage the clips would have would be CP3, and I don't think he is going to will them to a series victory by any means

You are right, I was but a wee lad in 96, but I've watched those Knicks teams (as well as all the teams the 90s Bulls played against). Blake would not get eaten alive by those guys. He's just as physical as they were. Mason and Oakley were dang good role players, but Blake is on another level from them. He is a clear advantage over anyone on the Knicks roster. And that's not a knock on Mason or whoever.

 

[Enasic]

I don't know about that. To me, its interesting how many franchises had their "best" team in history during the decade of the 90's, and the Bulls beat them all. The 92 Blazer team was probably Portland's best ever (due to Walton's injury in 77), the 93 Suns was probably the best Phoenix team ever, the 96 Sonics was Seattle's best team ever, those were the two best Jazz teams ever. Bulls beat them all in 6 games.

Ok...but how is that relevant to anything? Sure, they were all good teams, but I don't see how them being their "best" team in their respective histories makes it a bigger accomplishment for the Bulls.

 

[Enasic]

For a variety of reasons, people always tend to overrate the teams and players of the past while underrating the teams and players of the present. Happens in every sport. It's silly, but it's the way it is.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

I don't know about that. To me, its interesting how many franchises had their "best" team in history during the decade of the 90's, and the Bulls beat them all. The 92 Blazer team was probably Portland's best ever (due to Walton's injury in 77), the 93 Suns was probably the best Phoenix team ever, the 96 Sonics was Seattle's best team ever, those were the two best Jazz teams ever. Bulls beat them all in 6 games.

Not only this, but really who else from the East could have possibly beaten these teams?

 

[knoxville7]

You are right, I was but a wee lad in 96, but I've watched those Knicks teams (as well as all the teams the 90s Bulls played against). Blake would not get eaten alive by those guys. He's just as physical as they were. Mason and Oakley were dang good role players, but Blake is on another level from them. He is a clear advantage over anyone on the Knicks roster. And that's not a knock on Mason or whoever.

blake is a better overall player than them yes, but what makes him better is his ability to score the ball. mason and Oakley's strengths were keeping guys from scoring on them. again, some of it would come down to which set of rules they are playing...90's rules knicks crush IMO. todays rules blake would have a chance since nobody could touch him without being called for a foul

 

[Enasic]

Not only this, but really who else from the East could have possibly beaten these teams?

Are you saying the East was relatively weak other than the Bulls? That the West was the much tougher conference even back then?

Guys are starting to confuse the argument. The Bulls were obviously trained killers. They won 6 championships for a reason. However, they still got pushed to 6 and even 7 games series during their run. I see no reason whatsoever that the Warriors wouldn't do the same.

 

[clonetrooper264]

blake is a better overall player than them yes, but what makes him better is his ability to score the ball. mason and Oakley's strengths were keeping guys from scoring on them. again, some of it would come down to which set of rules they are playing...90's rules knicks crush IMO. todays rules blake would have a chance since nobody could touch him without being called for a foul

Well in a battle of good offense vs good defense, usually offense wins. Even under 90s rules, Blake's a physical enough player to survive those kinds of fouls. Imo if the Knicks have to rely on the 90s rule of being able to maul people on fouls to win, they're not better.

 

[The Hawk]

You are right, I was but a wee lad in 96, but I've watched those Knicks teams (as well as all the teams the 90s Bulls played against). Blake would not get eaten alive by those guys. He's just as physical as they were. Mason and Oakley were dang good role players, but Blake is on another level from them. He is a clear advantage over anyone on the Knicks roster. And that's not a knock on Mason or whoever.

Blake would have been hammered physically by those Knicks teams. The interesting match-up would be Jordan against Ewing. That would have been fun to watch.

 

[clonetrooper264]

Blake would have been hammered physically by those Knicks teams. The interesting match-up would be Jordan against Ewing. That would have been fun to watch.

So what if he gets fouled hard? He can foul them right back just as hard. Not every modern player is a marshmallow.