Top to Bottom is this the most talented team we have ever had?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

3 hours ago, bleachkit said:

This is our most talented back court. We have had better wings and bigs though.

 

Nah. 

When we have 2 Hall of Famers that played in the backcourt back in the 1970s, in the form of Lou Hudson and Pistol Pete Maravich, it's hard to crown Trae and Dejounte the best backcourt ever for the Hawks after 10 games.

[Hawkmoor]

1 hour ago, LongTimeFan said:

I remember when this Hawks team came to Chicago to play the Bulls that year.  The Bulls were a pretty new franchise at the time (three or four seasons old).  A sports psychologist suggested that the crowd not make any noise at all whenever the Hawks shot free throws, instead of screaming like usual.  He thought it would mess with the Hawks players and provide a much needed advantage over the much better Hawks.  The strategy didn't work, as the Hawks made 32 of 39 free throws, and they won in overtime. 

But it turned out to be an amazing game, for entirely different reasons.   This link will explain the craziness that ensued.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_Buzzer_Game

I was a teenager living in Chicago back then and I listened to the game on the radio, or watched it on local TV (can't remember now).  The Hawks and the Bulls met in the playoffs later that year, with the Hawks winning handily. 

I eventually moved to Atlanta in 1977 for 30 years and have kept the Hawks as my main team since then, even though I moved back to Chicago about 15 years ago.  

Very good story.  Apparently the NBA has always been on some other stuff. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by Hawkmoor

[cam1218]

If you want to talk about the potential based on the bottom of the roster, maybe, but still a no. I feel like we get these types of posts over the years when we assume we are deep. Our young guys and even top players have a lot to prove. Very talented team, but we are young (even our top guys) and have a lot to work on. It’s definitely an exciting roster though! 

[Hawkmoor]

1 hour ago, cam1218 said:

If you want to talk about the potential based on the bottom of the roster, maybe, but still a no. I feel like we get these types of posts over the years when we assume we are deep. Our young guys and even top players have a lot to prove. Very talented team, but we are young (even our top guys) and have a lot to work on. It’s definitely an exciting roster though! 

There were a lot of posts about the POTENTIAL of the current roster.  This roster is past potential in my opinon.  Its a legitimate 10 deep roster.

Edited November 9, 2022 by Hawkmoor

[bleachkit]

4 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

Nah. 

When we have 2 Hall of Famers that played in the backcourt back in the 1970s, in the form of Lou Hudson and Pistol Pete Maravich, it's hard to crown Trae and Dejounte the best backcourt ever for the Hawks after 10 games.

That's true but I'm only including guys from three point shot era.

[AHF]

6 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

Nah. 

When we have 2 Hall of Famers that played in the backcourt back in the 1970s, in the form of Lou Hudson and Pistol Pete Maravich, it's hard to crown Trae and Dejounte the best backcourt ever for the Hawks after 10 games.

Pistol was grossly overrated.  Very inefficient as a scorer and more of a highlight passer than a playmaker.  He never won anything as a key player on a team.  Not in the NBA.  Not even in college.  All sizzle, no steak.  He joined a team that already had won playoff series the two consecutive years before they added him and they never won one with him.  He never won a playoff series in his entire career on any team where he was a starter.
 

I’d take Trae or DM over him every time.  Hudson was the truth, though.  

[NBASupes]

Easily but other than nostalgia, most teams deepest squads are in this era. This era got a lot more talent because of the player pool.

[macdaddy]

I'm as excited as anyone but we might be going a little overboard here based on small sample sizes for some of these guys. 

[Diesel]

1 hour ago, NBASupes said:

Easily but other than nostalgia, most teams deepest squads are in this era. This era got a lot more talent because of the player pool.

Depends on what you call an era.    Curry ushered in 3 pt shooting as a means to win championships.   However, that doesn't dismiss other means like Stiffling defense.   The best warriors team (with KD) vs. the best Bulls team (72 win with Rodman) would probably go to the Bulls.   In fact, none of the modern day champions are that imposing?

• Toronto Raptors?
• Warriors?
• Lakers 
• Cavs
• Bucks

I won't use the 72 bulls.  But if you pit any of them vs. the Bad Boys of Detroit?? Can they win?

This is not nostalgia.. it's more like a recognition of a falling off of talent. 

I mentioned a failing Hawks team...

Consisted of Joe Johnson, Crawford, Teague, Horf, Marvin, Smoove, Bibby etc..  That team was failing but talent wise, they had gangs of talent. 

So did Shareef, Theo, Terry, etc

Sometimes the strength of the league is bigger than what you have on hand. 

 

[NBASupes]

20 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Depends on what you call an era.    Curry ushered in 3 pt shooting as a means to win championships.   However, that doesn't dismiss other means like Stiffling defense.   The best warriors team (with KD) vs. the best Bulls team (72 win with Rodman) would probably go to the Bulls.   In fact, none of the modern day champions are that imposing?

• Toronto Raptors?
• Warriors?
• Lakers 
• Cavs
• Bucks

I won't use the 72 bulls.  But if you pit any of them vs. the Bad Boys of Detroit?? Can they win?

This is not nostalgia.. it's more like a recognition of a falling off of talent. 

I mentioned a failing Hawks team...

Consisted of Joe Johnson, Crawford, Teague, Horf, Marvin, Smoove, Bibby etc..  That team was failing but talent wise, they had gangs of talent. 

So did Shareef, Theo, Terry, etc

Sometimes the strength of the league is bigger than what you have on hand. 

 

Most of those teams were top heavy. Not where I would be impressed with the 8th man much less a 11th man as good as A.J. Griffin

[AHF]

12 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

Most of those teams were top heavy. Not where I would be impressed with the 8th man much less a 11th man as good as A.J. Griffin

Frankly, top heavy isn't a bad thing in the NBA.  Superstars drive championships. I do agree that the Bulls aren't as deep as we are but they would still run us off the court because of how good their top 7 players were.

The eras definitely impact how valuable the 8th man, etc. would be.  Someone like Jud Buechler is probably more valuable today - 44% 3pt shooter would be more impactful in the current game.  Conversely, Bill Wennington would be a dinosaur in today's game but was a useful big body off the bench along with John Salley.  So you would have to pick a perspective to value those players - valuable for today's game or valuable for the mid-90s?  Given the large differences in both rules and scheme, that starting point is pretty significant to that kind of evaluation.  

[Diesel]

14 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

Most of those teams were top heavy. Not where I would be impressed with the 8th man much less a 11th man as good as A.J. Griffin

Top heavy is not a bad thing unless the top is lacking.   That's the issue.. a lot of top heavy teams are not lacking at the top. 

For instance...

The Portland Trailblazers... 2000-2001

No.	Player	Pos	Ht	Wt	Birth Date		Exp	College
50	Greg Anthony	PG	6-0	176	November 15, 1967	us	9	University of Portland, UNLV
2	Stacey Augmon	SG	6-8	205	August 1, 1968	us	9	UNLV
21	Erick Barkley	PG	6-1	177	February 21, 1978	us	R	St. John's
34	Dale Davis	C	6-11	230	March 25, 1969	us	9	Clemson
23	Gary Grant	PG	6-3	185	April 21, 1965	us	12	Michigan
4	Antonio Harvey	PF	6-11	225	July 6, 1970	us	5	Southern Illinois, Georgia, Pfeiffer University
40	Shawn Kemp	PF	6-10	230	November 26, 1969	us	11	Trinity Valley CC
55	Will Perdue	C	7-0	240	August 29, 1965	us	12	Vanderbilt
33	Scottie Pippen	SF	6-8	210	September 25, 1965	us	13	University of Central Arkansas
11	Arvydas Sabonis	C	7-3	279	December 19, 1964	lt	5
12	Detlef Schrempf	SF	6-10	235	January 21, 1963	de	15	Washington
8	Steve Smith	SG	6-7	200	March 31, 1969	us	9	Michigan State
3	Damon Stoudamire	PG	5-10	171	September 3, 1973	us	5	Arizona
1	Rod Strickland	PG	6-3	175	July 11, 1966	us	12	DePaul
30	Rasheed Wallace	PF	6-10	225	September 17, 1974	us	5	UNC
6	Bonzi Wells	SF	6-5	210	September 28, 1976	us	2	Ball State University

 

This is one of the deepest teams that ever was...  And Portland has had a few deep teams.

This team didn't make it out of the first round.   They lost to a top Heavy Laker team in a sweep...

 

[Spud2nique]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

Frankly, top heavy isn't a bad thing in the NBA.  Superstars drive championships. I do agree that the Bulls aren't as deep as we are but they would still run us off the court because of how good their top 7 players were.

The eras definitely impact how valuable the 8th man, etc. would be.  Someone like Jud Buechler is probably more valuable today - 44% 3pt shooter would be more impactful in the current game.  Conversely, Bill Wennington would be a dinosaur in today's game but was a useful big body off the bench along with John Salley.  So you would have to pick a perspective to value those players - valuable for today's game or valuable for the mid-90s?  Given the large differences in both rules and scheme, that starting point is pretty significant to that kind of evaluation.  

Agreed, in today’s game,  if I needed 3’s for fantasy basketball I’d run to the waivers for a guy like George “get off” McCloud. He would prolly gimme like 5 3’s made a night.

[Spud2nique]

3 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Top heavy is not a bad thing unless the top is lacking.

 

[Spud2nique]

4 minutes ago, Diesel said:

The Portland Trailblazers... 2000-2001

Hall of fame group. Vydas, Pipp, Smitty, Grant, Sheed, Mighty Mouse, Detlef. They were only given like a 2 year window but they were all past their primes by a long shot. 
 

What a team though. 

[Diesel]

4 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Hall of fame group. Vydas, Pipp, Smitty, Grant, Sheed, Mighty Mouse, Detlef. They were only given like a 2 year window but they were all past their primes by a long shot. 
 

What a team though. 

Not all of them...

Sheed went on to win a chip with the Pistons. 

Pipp went on to challenge with Barkley, Hakeem in Houston.

Detlef... Vydas... Ok, you got me there. 

Damon... Who knows.

Wells was in his prime...

Kemp and Strickland doesn't get a mention. 

Portland had other deep teams... I remember. 

 

[Spud2nique]

2 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Kemp and Strickland doesn't get a mention. 

Strickland wasn’t on that team late. Unless I’m not remembering.

[Spud2nique]

2 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Portland had other deep teams... I remember. 

Ya even back in the day they had Petro coming off the pine to Drexler of course but still, a young Drazen was still nice. Ainge, Uncle Cliff… ya they had some deep teams no doubt.

4 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Wells was in his prime...

Powdered his nose too much in the ladies room.

[AHF]

1 minute ago, Spud2nique said:

Strickland wasn’t on that team late. Unless I’m not remembering.

He played in their playoff series versus the Lakers.

Wish we could have seen Sabonis in his prime in the NBA.  (In a Hawks uniform!)

[JeffS17]

17 hours ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 

Nah. 

When we have 2 Hall of Famers that played in the backcourt back in the 1970s, in the form of Lou Hudson and Pistol Pete Maravich, it's hard to crown Trae and Dejounte the best backcourt ever for the Hawks after 10 games.

Sorry man, neither of those dudes made 3s