Championship teams with the worst benches or depth

Dr Positivity · Post #1 » by **Dr Positivity** » Mon May 16, 2022 12:41 am

I think 83 Sixers are one of the best picks. What are some other ones?

Post #2 » by **Fadeaway_J** » Mon May 16, 2022 12:51 am

Seem to recall the 2016 Cavs basically running a six-man rotation in the Finals

Colbinii · Post #3 » by **Colbinii** » Mon May 16, 2022 12:54 am

2021 Bucks

Dr Positivity · Post #4 » by **Dr Positivity** » Mon May 16, 2022 12:58 am

Fadeaway_J wrote:Seem to recall the 2016 Cavs basically running a six-man rotation in the Finals

I think Frye still counts as helping them even if he didn't play in Finals, but overall I would still put them in lower half for depth

Dr Positivity · Post #5 » by **Dr Positivity** » Mon May 16, 2022 1:01 am

Colbinii wrote:2021 Bucks

I would liked their depth if DDV was healthy giving them a 6th-8th man of Connaughton, Portis and Tucker, but without him they were a little short but still reasonable, I think

Colbinii · Post #6 » by **Colbinii** » Mon May 16, 2022 1:03 am

Dr Positivity wrote:
Colbinii wrote:2021 Bucks

I would liked their depth if DDV was healthy giving them a 6th-8th man of Connaughton, Portis and Tucker, but without him they were a little short but still reasonable, I think

Tucker started over half the playoff games. The bench was Connaughton and Portis will horrible stretches of Forbes and washed Teague.

wojoaderge · Post #7 » by **wojoaderge** » Mon May 16, 2022 1:10 am

Dr Positivity wrote:I think 83 Sixers are one of the best picks. What are some other ones?

Not even close to the 1975-76 Celtics

Dr Positivity · Post #8 » by **Dr Positivity** » Mon May 16, 2022 1:16 am

2002 Lakers could be a good choice, 2001 Lakers is probably on the list somewhere as well.

wojoaderge wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:I think 83 Sixers are one of the best picks. What are some other ones?

Not even close to the 1975-76 Celtics

I guess it depends what you define by depth, the Celtics seem to have had 6 rock solid guys and then not much else after that, the Sixers have obvious drop off after their top 5.

wojoaderge · Post #9 » by **wojoaderge** » Mon May 16, 2022 2:14 am

Dr Positivity wrote:2002 Lakers could be a good choice, 2001 Lakers is probably on the list somewhere as well.

wojoaderge wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:I think 83 Sixers are one of the best picks. What are some other ones?

Not even close to the 1975-76 Celtics

I guess it depends what you define by depth, the Celtics seem to have had 6 rock solid guys and then not much else after that, the Sixers have obvious drop off after their top 5.

I think the 76ers' bench players were solid backups although not close to being starter material. The Celtics were pretty much scrubs after those 6

GSP · Post #10 » by **GSP** » Mon May 16, 2022 2:25 am

Our 74 title team was extremely bad

Hondo, Cowens and Jojo were all playing 43 minutes a game in playoffs with only Silas, Chaney, Don and a rookie Westphal giving minutes. 44+ minutes in the finals for the big 3 with Hondo averaging 47 a game for the series

Actually we might have the top 2 with that and the 76 team

prolific passer · Post #11 » by **prolific passer** » Mon May 16, 2022 3:13 am

The first 3 peat bulls had a pretty bad bench. 93 team had their 6th man put up a whopping 5.9ppg.

sp6r=underrated · Post #12 » by **sp6r=underrated** » Mon May 16, 2022 3:26 am

1984 Celtics ran their top 6 into the ground and in 85 they were even worse. I was re-watching Game 6 of 85 and Heinson, who is hilariously a neutral commentator for the NBA Finals, harped on before that game that Boston's strategy of not playing the bench made the highly vulnerable to LA. By 87 Boston's refusal to use their bench or inability to develop one was crippling as their starters just had to expend way too much energy.

RCM88x · Post #13 » by **RCM88x** » Mon May 16, 2022 3:30 am

2016 Cavs we're pretty horrendous for recent teams, after the top 5 guys the 6th best was either 35 yo Richard Jefferson or 32 yo Channing Frye who couldn't even get on the court in the Finals.

Lotta mid 70s and early 90s team we're bad but expansion can be blamed for that I think.

2008 Celtics might be another one actually, after the big 3 you had Kendrick Perkins, Rondo, and guys like Posey, Powe, House or Brown who all we're kinda bums.

migya · Post #14 » by **migya** » Mon May 16, 2022 3:30 am

prolific passer wrote:The first 3 peat bulls had a pretty bad bench. 93 team had their 6th man put up a whopping 5.9ppg.

Yea those Bulls were very low talent for a championship team. Second threepeat too. It's hideous how some people think Jordan had alot of talent on his teams. He carried those teams every year, though Pippen was a great second best player on s team.

prolific passer · Post #15 » by **prolific passer** » Mon May 16, 2022 3:44 am

migya wrote:
prolific passer wrote:The first 3 peat bulls had a pretty bad bench. 93 team had their 6th man put up a whopping 5.9ppg.

Yea those Bulls were very low talent for a championship team. Second threepeat too. It's hideous how some people think Jordan had alot of talent on his teams. He carried those teams every year, though Pippen was a great second best player on s team.

The 2nd 3peat bulls had Kukoc and Kerr putting up good numbers off the bench. The first 3 peat squad didnt have a double figure person off the bench. Krause's bad drafting strikes again.

migya · Post #16 » by **migya** » Mon May 16, 2022 3:48 am

prolific passer wrote:
migya wrote:
prolific passer wrote:The first 3 peat bulls had a pretty bad bench. 93 team had their 6th man put up a whopping 5.9ppg.

Yea those Bulls were very low talent for a championship team. Second threepeat too. It's hideous how some people think Jordan had alot of talent on his teams. He carried those teams every year, though Pippen was a great second best player on s team.

The 2nd 3peat bulls had Kukoc and Kerr putting up good numbers off the bench. The first 3 peat squad didnt have a double figure person off the bench. Krause's bad drafting strikes again.

Kukoc was a pretty good scorer and passer but awful defender. He made up for Rodman's total lack of offense and Horace was basically both in one in a way. Kerr could shoot and nothing else, not a positive. Both rosters were similar and relied heavily oon Jordan and to a lesser extent Pippen for offense.

sp6r=underrated · Post #17 » by **sp6r=underrated** » Mon May 16, 2022 5:12 am

RCM88x wrote:2016 Cavs we're pretty horrendous for recent teams, after the top 5 guys the 6th best was either 35 yo Richard Jefferson or 32 yo Channing Frye who couldn't even get on the court in the Finals.

Lotta mid 70s and early 90s team we're bad but expansion can be blamed for that I think.

2008 Celtics might be another one actually, after the big 3 you had Kendrick Perkins, Rondo, and guys like Posey, Powe, House or Brown who all we're kinda bums.

The next year that club, even w/o KG was able to force the eventual conference winner to G7. And post all-star still had a +3.8 MOV. That seems really hard to do if the roster was as limited as you think.

Rondo wasn't as good as people thought but he was still a solid player in 2008. Tony Allen played 14 years in the NBA and was an excellent defender. House relative to era was a very good shooter. Not saying Posey was great anything but he was better than a bum. He was a credible 7-8th man off the bench.

Not trying to say the guys were similar to Iggy/Livingston or SAS's foreign Legion but they were respectable.

sp6r=underrated · Post #18 » by **sp6r=underrated** » Mon May 16, 2022 5:15 am

migya wrote:
prolific passer wrote:The first 3 peat bulls had a pretty bad bench. 93 team had their 6th man put up a whopping 5.9ppg.

Yea those Bulls were very low talent for a championship team. Second threepeat too. It's hideous how some people think Jordan had alot of talent on his teams. He carried those teams every year, though Pippen was a great second best player on s team.

They were so low on talent who can forget them winning 28 games in 1994 and securing a top 5 pick

migya · Post #19 » by **migya** » Mon May 16, 2022 6:04 am

sp6r=underrated wrote:
migya wrote:
prolific passer wrote:The first 3 peat bulls had a pretty bad bench. 93 team had their 6th man put up a whopping 5.9ppg.

Yea those Bulls were very low talent for a championship team. Second threepeat too. It's hideous how some people think Jordan had alot of talent on his teams. He carried those teams every year, though Pippen was a great second best player on s team.

They were so low on talent who can forget them winning 28 games in 1994 and securing a top 5 pick

Phil Jackson and Pippen worked near miracle that season. They didn't win as much the following season, even with Jordan coming back.

sp6r=underrated · Post #20 » by **sp6r=underrated** » Mon May 16, 2022 6:12 am

migya wrote:
sp6r=underrated wrote:
migya wrote:
Yea those Bulls were very low talent for a championship team. Second threepeat too. It's hideous how some people think Jordan had alot of talent on his teams. He carried those teams every year, though Pippen was a great second best player on s team.

They were so low on talent who can forget them winning 28 games in 1994 and securing a top 5 pick

Phil Jackson and Pippen worked near miracle that season. They didn't win as much the following season, even with Jordan coming back.

In 1995 without Horace Grant who left to Orlando and before MJ arrived they were 34-31 and had a +4.29 MOV. That is extremely good. Better than all but 4 teams that year. It is basically impossible to square the Bulls record + MOV with the idea they were "very low talent for a championship team."