RealGM

Would SAC have won the title in either 2003 or 2004 with an uninjured Webber?

I'd say they win in 03, but not 04. Though the 04 squad had the bonus of having a third all-star caliber big, and an absolute peak Peja, that was really their only advantage. Most of that team was on the back half of their primes, and you started to see it in 04. This combined with their weaker over all depth makes me believe in that team less.

I guess I could see either side though, but if we assume they therefore get past Minnesota, I think they'd have a very solid shot against the Lakers, and I don't think Detroit's defense would necessarily match up as well with a team like them. I'd still guess they don't make it past one of those teams.

The 03 team was just stupid deep, and B-Jax, DC, Vlade and Webber were all a year younger. I think it would have been a case of the team with the best player getting overwhelmed with the talent and chemistry of their opponent--not that unlike this year's finals.

rand wrote:Would SAC have won the title in either 2003 or 2004 with an uninjured Webber?

In a nutshell, I think there best chance would have come had Webber retired and the Kings fully committed to a Peja-Divac-Miller front court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doctor MJ wrote:

rand wrote:Would SAC have won the title in either 2003 or 2004 with an uninjured Webber?

In a nutshell, I think there best chance would have come had Webber retired and the Kings fully committed to a Peja-Divac-Miller front court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That makes sense to me.

pillwenney wrote:I'd say they win in 03, but not 04. Though the 04 squad had the bonus of having a third all-star caliber big, and an absolute peak Peja, that was really their only advantage. Most of that team was on the back half of their primes, and you started to see it in 04. This combined with their weaker over all depth makes me believe in that team less.

I guess I could see either side though, but if we assume they therefore get past Minnesota, I think they'd have a very solid shot against the Lakers, and I don't think Detroit's defense would necessarily match up as well with a team like them. I'd still guess they don't make it past one of those teams.

The 03 team was just stupid deep, and B-Jax, DC, Vlade and Webber were all a year younger. I think it would have been a case of the team with the best player getting overwhelmed with the talent and chemistry of their opponent--not that unlike this year's finals.

You'd have to favor the Kings over the 03 Lakers, we were out of gas.

It's always weird to me when two teams make the playoffs a pretty much every year for a stretch but never match up. Lakers/Mavs was like that until 2011. I hate they've never seen Bucks/Sixers despite them both making the playoffs every year since 2018. Instead we keep getting the Celtics or Heat against either of them. I wish we'd gotten to see Spurs/Kings in the early 2000s once, would have been a really interesting style contrast. The 03 Kings were more talented than the 03 Spurs but Duncan was just impossible to deal with.

I think ultimately neither. 2002 should have been their year.

With a healthy Webber in 2003, they likely win it all. Can't see a Spurs team with Stephen Jackson as the No. 2 beating the Kings at full strength. New Jersey would be just a formality for anyone who came out of the west except perhaps No. 8 Phoenix.