Rate these four teams in order from best to worst and why:
Team 1
C- Hakeem Olajuwon/Willis Reed
PF - Moses Malone/Jerry Lucas
SF - Elgin Baylor/Scottie Pippen
SG - Michael Jordan/Earl Monroe
PG - Jerry West/Nate Archibald
Bob McAdoo
Chris Mullin
Team 2
C - Wilt Chamberlain/David Robinson
PF - Bob Pettit/Kevin McHale
SF - Larry Bird/Billy Cunningham
SG - John Havlicek/Sam Jones
PG - Walt Frazier/Isiah Thomas
Dave DeBusschere
Walter Davis
Team 3
C - Bill Russell/Robert Parish
PF - Dave Cowens/Charles Barkley
SF - Julius Erving/James Worthy
SG - George Gervin/Pete Maravich
PG - Magic Johnson/Bob Cousy
Connie Hawkins
Dominique Wilkins
Team 4
C - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar/Wes Unseld
PF - Karl Malone/Elvin Hayes
SF - Rick Barry/Alex English
SG - Clyde Drexler/Dave Bing
PG - Oscar Robertson/John Stockton
Nate Thurmond
Bernard King
Rate these teams in order from best to worst
Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal
Rate these teams in order from best to worst
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,448
- And1: 3,037
- Joined: Jan 12, 2006
-
Rate these teams in order from best to worst
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters
Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
- Teddy KGB
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,306
- And1: 1
- Joined: Nov 03, 2006
- Location: London, United Kingdom
- Contact:
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 60,467
- And1: 5,348
- Joined: Jul 12, 2006
- Location: HCA (Homecourt Advantage)
Re: Rate these teams in order from best to worst
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,122
- And1: 77
- Joined: Jun 26, 2006
- Location: Otwock, Poland
-
Re: Rate these teams in order from best to worst
ThaRegul8r wrote:Rate these four teams in order from best to worst and why:
Team 1
C- Hakeem Olajuwon/Willis Reed
PF - Moses Malone/Jerry Lucas
SF - Elgin Baylor/Scottie Pippen
SG - Michael Jordan/Earl Monroe
PG - Jerry West/Nate Archibald
Bob McAdoo
Chris Mullin
Team 2
C - Wilt Chamberlain/David Robinson
PF - Bob Pettit/Kevin McHale
SF - Larry Bird/Billy Cunningham
SG - John Havlicek/Sam Jones
PG - Walt Frazier/Isiah Thomas
Dave DeBusschere
Walter Davis
Team 3
C - Bill Russell/Robert Parish
PF - Dave Cowens/Charles Barkley
SF - Julius Erving/James Worthy
SG - George Gervin/Pete Maravich
PG - Magic Johnson/Bob Cousy
Connie Hawkins
Dominique Wilkins
Team 4
C - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar/Wes Unseld
PF - Karl Malone/Elvin Hayes
SF - Rick Barry/Alex English
SG - Clyde Drexler/Dave Bing
PG - Oscar Robertson/John Stockton
Nate Thurmond
Bernard King
Wow @ people voting for Team 1: regardless of its impressive talent and famous names (and I hope your reasoning was a bit deeper than automatic voting for everything connected with MJ, what is sadly quite often here), is selecting starting lineup featuring basically 5 30-ppg scorers really the most fortunate idea in the world? Granted, West proved he can play more of a facilitator's role (though never was pure PG and IMO never would become the one), also Hakeem could concentrate more on defense and rebounding (though again: he wasn't a Russell to became garbage scorer), but still: 3 such dominant (and jealous of their touches) natural-born 1st options as Moses, Baylor and Jordan in one team may be a recipe for disaster, while it certainly doesn't make this squad as great as these names could suggest.
Team 2 has players with better defined roles, is more balanced in terms of offense/defense proportions (both among big men and on the perimeter) and has more suffocating defense - so it's my number one. Team 4 is similarly balanced, but in turn severely lacks perimeter defense, so will be 3rd, after Team 1 (which still is ridiculously talented, even though these talents would interfere with each other). Team 3 compared to others has not enough post offense (only Barkley really counts) compared to perimeter offense (even too much of the latter). But as to perimeter offense: there's too many high-flyers and not even one outstanding long-range shooter (please don't suggest Maravich here - BTW, his intangibles are disadvantage by themselves). Plus not even nearly enough perimeter defense - like No 4 - so Team 3 finishes last for me.
http://wiltfan.tripod.com
Read: Edward Lucas "The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West".
"So what, son, did your Poles help you?" YES, WE DID!
***** *** Kukiza i Konfederację!
Read: Edward Lucas "The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West".
"So what, son, did your Poles help you?" YES, WE DID!
***** *** Kukiza i Konfederację!
-
- Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
- Posts: 30,347
- And1: 9,899
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
- Location: South Florida
-
With this many superstar scorers, I think you have to look a bit deeper and seek out the most efficient groupings, best defensive mix, and chemistry issues.
Like Myth, I was shocked that everyone was picking team one because it had the most obvious problems . . . too many primary scorers all of whom (except West and some of the bench guys) post up players who need the ball in their hands.
Teams 3 has some issues with it's poor defensive play at guard which before the 3 point line wouldn't be as big a problem but with modern rules, will hurt them.
So the winner would probably be the one that fits together best of team 2 or team 4 and I would rather have the defensive stoppers on team 2 against this level of competition.
So, 4 -- 2 -- 3 -- 1 (might have taken 1 ahead of 3 but am possibly overreacting to the overrating of this talent heavy/poor fit squad).
Like Myth, I was shocked that everyone was picking team one because it had the most obvious problems . . . too many primary scorers all of whom (except West and some of the bench guys) post up players who need the ball in their hands.
Teams 3 has some issues with it's poor defensive play at guard which before the 3 point line wouldn't be as big a problem but with modern rules, will hurt them.
So the winner would probably be the one that fits together best of team 2 or team 4 and I would rather have the defensive stoppers on team 2 against this level of competition.
So, 4 -- 2 -- 3 -- 1 (might have taken 1 ahead of 3 but am possibly overreacting to the overrating of this talent heavy/poor fit squad).
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
-
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 865
- And1: 152
- Joined: May 05, 2005
- Location: In front of the computer.
penbeast0 wrote:With this many superstar scorers, I think you have to look a bit deeper and seek out the most efficient groupings, best defensive mix, and chemistry issues.
Like Myth, I was shocked that everyone was picking team one because it had the most obvious problems . . . too many primary scorers all of whom (except West and some of the bench guys) post up players who need the ball in their hands.
Teams 3 has some issues with it's poor defensive play at guard which before the 3 point line wouldn't be as big a problem but with modern rules, will hurt them.
So the winner would probably be the one that fits together best of team 2 or team 4 and I would rather have the defensive stoppers on team 2 against this level of competition.
So, 4 -- 2 -- 3 -- 1 (might have taken 1 ahead of 3 but am possibly overreacting to the overrating of this talent heavy/poor fit squad).
I agree that many seem to be reacting to Team 1 having Jordan on it and forgetting how the talent meshs (or fails to mesh), but I would still have to put it second behind Team 3. Too much fire power for any of the other teams to deal with in the long run, except Team 3.
3-1-2-4. The difference between these 4 teams is not that great, IMO.
Though Dr. J, Darnell Hillman, and Artis Gilmore's fros got most of the attention, George C. Trapp's fro should be noted for its bouncy qualities.
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,122
- And1: 77
- Joined: Jun 26, 2006
- Location: Otwock, Poland
-
penbeast0 wrote:So the winner would probably be the one that fits together best of team 2 or team 4 and I would rather have the defensive stoppers on team 2 against this level of competition.
So, 4 -- 2 -- 3 -- 1
Didn't you mean 2-4-3-1?

http://wiltfan.tripod.com
Read: Edward Lucas "The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West".
"So what, son, did your Poles help you?" YES, WE DID!
***** *** Kukiza i Konfederację!
Read: Edward Lucas "The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West".
"So what, son, did your Poles help you?" YES, WE DID!
***** *** Kukiza i Konfederację!