Thread: Nba 2017-18

Originally Posted by dogfish

sure they would have constructed their team differently. . . they would have needed real bigs, which means no death lineup/hamptons five, and their floor spacing and ball movement wouldn't be nearly what it is in 2018. . .

I don’t know why that lineup couldn’t be used. I see no reason why Green or Durant couldn’t guard Will Perdue.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

And hand-check, blah, blah, blah. Get up in Durant's and Curry's grill at 40 feet out, hand-checking or no and you're going to get torched.

Yeah no. Curry would get tossed around like a rag doll in the Jordan era. He’d be a non factor as a starter, but a great role player ala Steve Kerr. Durant’s game would be limited in a tougher league, but he would still be effective because of his length and pure shooting ability. He would be hammered inside though, going up against stronger, meaner men.

Originally Posted by dogfish

MO, king is killing you in here-- let that sink in for a moment. . . he's 100% correct, the era they played in would make ALL the difference. . . the warriors as presently constructed would have never even been built in the 90s. . . with the hand-checking on the perimeter, all those glorious jump shooters would have never had the open air space to work in that they do today. . . the 3-pointer as a primary weapon simply wasn't feasible then. . . why do think no one built a team that way, because no one could shoot 20 years ago? guys didn't practice the 3 like they do now because it wasn't practical. . .

the bulls would run the warriors playing by 90s rules. . . for starters, if we're talking a playoff series, GS wouldn't have curry-- he would have never made it through a season back then, with the number of times stars got put on the floor. . . also, klay thompson, who isn't capable of regularly getting his own shot, would have been reduced to a role player. . . durant could certainly score in any era, and would have been their only effective weapon. . . and you have to remember that his go-to move, the rip move, would have been called an offensive foul. . . yes, he could have still scored, but pippen would have been up in is chest every play-- he wouldn't have been raining 3s at 40+%. . . and the idea of draymond green as a feasible center in the era of hakeem and ewing is silly. . . rodman would bully every one of the warriors toy bigs, and grab every rebound from all their missed shots. . .

and the bulls would be constructed differently if they were a 2018 team. . . more shooters, and more switchable defenders around their core guys. . . the "who would guard this guy" argument is pointless, because either team would have a different roster if they'd played in a different era. . . but no one is stopping jordan in any era, and no one on the warriors has the same killer instinct and unstoppable will as MJ. . . they're a lazy squad that gives just enough effort to win, and is okay with losing when their jumpers aren't falling. . . the bulls would run these guys. . .

All this. ^

Originally Posted by King87

No one guards Durant. He's going to get his. Just like no one on the Warriors is guarding Jordan - they don't have anyone who can block his shot, and he embarrassed much more physically imposing defenses. The Warriors aren't a good rebounding team either, and they have to go up against Rodman. The era in which the game is played decides the winner, IMO.

I agree, King is killing it in here.

Klay Thompson and Draymond Green would flourish in the 80’s 90’s game though. Green would fit right in as a Pistons style heel.

Originally Posted by atwater27

Klay Thompson and Draymond Green would flourish in the 80’s 90’s game though. Green would fit right in as a Pistons style heel.

I have to agree with this. Green would fit perfect.

It’s revisionist to remember the Jordan era like the Pistons. The NBA changed rules for Jordan, largely because of the way the Pistons played.

Suggesting Curry couldn’t have success against a team like the Bulls is absurd when guys like Kevin Johnson and Tim Hardaway routinely torched them.

Originally Posted by King87

The reason why this NBA revolution of three's is occurring now is because it CAN occur now. You could not take the GS team built as it is right now and win a title in the 90's. Jordan had to redo his training regime and gain muscle and strength to withstand the Pistons and their Jordan rules style of play. The Bulls would get shelacked today because they simply don't have enough scoring, let alone three point shooting.

The Warriors would finish the season looking like they got hit by a bus.

It wouldn't just be the Bulls that the Warriors would have to worry about. It would be the road even getting there because there were so many physical teams back then.

But, I still believe they would be competitive.

I remember when AI came into the league that teams HAD to adapt. Sad part is they never really gave him any help. Same with Curry, teams had to adapt to him and when you put the team that he has around him it's kinda scary, in a good way. The league is kinda puzzled and to beat them you have to A) pray that they having an off night and B) out shoot them. Right now the only team that looks like that they can challenge them is the Rockets.

Originally Posted by Al Wilson 4 Mayor

It’s revisionist to remember the Jordan era like the Pistons. .

Disagree.

The Knicks were a very physical team throughout the 90's. Even the Bulls themselves were a physical team with the addition of Rodman and having Grant on there. People think the Pistons were the only physical team back then but that simply is not accurate.

Originally Posted by DenBronx

It wouldn't just be the Bulls that the Warriors would have to worry about. It would be the road even getting there because there were so many physical teams back then.

Yep.

The thought of John Starks trying to guard Klay Thompson and Derek Harper trying to guard Curry makes me laugh.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

The thought of John Starks trying to guard Klay Thompson and Derek Harper trying to guard Curry makes me laugh.

Thats ok, the thought that GS would be able to beat a team like the 90's Knicks makes me laugh too.

Originally Posted by Northman

Thats ok, the thought that GS would be able to beat a team like the 90's Knicks makes me laugh too.

Who isn’t guarding Durant? Anthony Mason?

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

Who isn’t guarding Durant? Anthony Mason?

I think you are missing the bigger picture here. Its not about whether or not Curry or Durant can score. As already pointed out, they will get theirs. However, the physicality of the Knicks would wear and tire both of them out. The Knicks were notorious (like most teams in the 90's) of wearing you down because of their physical play. If you dont think that Mason banging against Durant wouldnt have an effect i dont know what else to tell you here. Its not like Mason never played against top tier talent man. Lol

Originally Posted by Northman

I think you are missing the bigger picture here. Its not about whether or not Curry or Durant can score. As already pointed out, they will get theirs. However, the physicality of the Knicks would wear and tire both of them out. The Knicks were notorious (like most teams in the 90's) of wearing you down because of their physical play. If you dont think that Mason banging against Durant wouldnt have an effect i dont know what else to tell you here. Its not like Mason never played against top tier talent man. Lol

I'm not missing any point. You're telling me Anthony Mason, who was extremely slow, is going to be just as physical with Kevin Durant while guarding him 2/3 of the floor vs. guarding Will Perdue inside 15 feet the whole game? And if Mason is at 35 feet guarding Durant, and Oakley is at 25 feet on Draymond Green, it opens up cutting lanes. There's no way the Knicks could be as physical with the Warriors as they were with a team that packed the paint and had no legitimate 3-point threats, except for the 15 minutes Craig Hodges was on the floor. The Warriors have 4. You're going to sag off all four for 35 minutes, be my guest.