Golden State Warriors: Overrated or No?

If someone were to say that having a healthy Meyers Leonard might have been enough for Portland to beat them would EVERYONE laugh them off of the forum?

I don't think so, I think some would crack up for sure.

In light of that, yes they are overrated. They are a great shooting team that killed the regular season, granted. The Blazers with a healthy Oden might not have won a game against the Bulls. Whatever era.

 

Nostalgic. However, I don't believe that is accurate.

 

I added Durant to the Warriors and played a series vs the 96 Bulls on 2K. I won in 7 games on a Durant 3 at the buzzer.

 

So wait are we talking historical Over Rating or Overrating as it pertains to this year and the playoffs? Were the Blazers overrated in 1990/1991?

 

He also doesn't have to play against players nearly as good as Jordan, Pippen, Magic, Bird, Hakeem, Ewing, Clyde, Stockton, Malone, Payton, Barkley, Robinson, Shaq, Zeke, etc. The closest he's come to facing that sort of competition, in the past two years, is Old Man Duncan as a role player, and LeBron "Not Quite As Good As He Should Be" James. Those are the only two players in the league that can be included in the first list of former stars (aside from Wade and now-retired Kobe, who have never been an impediment to a GSW championship).

Curry may be the best player in the league today - but even that isn't a statement of fact. However, if he were playing alongside the aforementioned list of HOFers he'd be on Reggie's level - not even in the conversation for best player in the league.

And then, if the league actually enforced today's rules on GSW they'd drop 10+ point from their scoring average due to moving screens, and that would primarily affect Curry's scoring average.

Curry is a great player and GSW is a damned good team, but neither of them should be in the discussion for "best ever".

 

Who are today's stars? The fact that James Harden and DeMar DeRozan will probably show up on that list should be proof that today's top talent doesn't hold a candle to the top talent of past decades.

 

With a healthy Meyers, and without the strategically executed referee favoritism displayed in the series, I believe the lowly Blazers had at least an even chance of winning that series. So...you may be right.

 

Just two players that should be dominating in the paint barring injuries have changed this league's present. Oden and Bynum (fuck, just thought of Roy too) playing in the paint would change everything.

 

Exactly. And lets not forget, these 73 wins came on a historical low win percentage for the west as a whole. So they were able to beat up on some teams who had a down year this year.

I agree. I still think the 96' Bulls was the greatest team ever and would beat Magics Lakers and Birds Celtics.
THis GS team would probably get swept by the 96' Bulls ( Did I just go bullhomer there?)

 

Orion- the other West teams had worse records because the Warriors were beating all of them. There are only a finite amount of wins to go around, lol.

 

B2B 20ish point losses? In the WCF? Five times that approx 120 point have been allowed by the opponent? PUH-LEEZE. These fools woulda been choked out in the second round during the 90s.

After the way we played them I turned to my friends and said that the Spurs were gonna stomp them out of existence in the next round. Only thing I was wrong about was the team.

[now I pray this post doesn't come back to haunt me]

 

Not entirely true. The East was better this year than in years past.
Case in point, the 8th seed in the west was 41-41
The 8th seed in the east was 44-38. When was the last time we saw the 8th seed with a better record in the east? The west had a down year and it wasn't just because of GS.

 

The Warriors are a very deep team, and one reason why they are so good during the regular season. But unless there are injuries their depth is less of a factor in the playoffs as the rotations get smaller.

 

Your downplaying how great some of todays players are and your also using a player who has played for 18 years against a player who has played for 6. Of course Reggie when compared to all the great players he played against is going to look almost average. Reggie though was nowhere near the level of passer or shooter that Curry is at.
Also I gotta ask about the Lebron thing because if he is not quite as good as he should be and he already is one of the greatest to play the game then where exactly should be if he isn't as good as he should be.

 

I'm not comparing Curry to Reggie other than saying that they'd be on the same tier if Curry played in the 90s - a notch below the greats. If you - or anyone - thinks that Curry belongs in the upper echelon on HOFers let's discuss that. But don't try to turn my words into a statistical comparison between Curry and Reggie - Reggie was just a name I threw out there to illustrate where Curry would rank if he played in the 90s. It was a way to show that today's supposed best player pales in comparison to players from the 80s/90s.

Regarding LBJ, for all of the talk about him since he entered the league - being anointed "The King", compared to Jordan, etc - he seems to struggle to deliver. He's definitely one of the greats - no question. He was immensely impressive dragging CLE to the Finals in his first go-around. But aside from those few years he hasn't quite lived up to his own hype, and it seems his best days are in the past. That said, I still think he's probably the best player in the league...but we're in this weird point in time where I'm not sure there IS a best player in the league. Across the board I think there are a bunch of really good players, but no great players. And also a bunch of good players masquerading as great players.

 

I used the Curry and Reggie thing because I think Curry is a notch ahead of Reggie which is why I said Curry is a better passer/shooter then Reggie. Its also very hard to judge a player of where they would be while they are still playing and nowhere near the end of their career.
As for the players in the 90's being much better then the players now i'd agree but if you asked me that 5 years ago or in 5 years i'd probably disagree. We are in that weird time of the league where a lot of the great players we have grown up with are long in the tooth or have just retired and the new "crop" of players is on the rise and hasn't peaked yet.
The thing that has always amazed me about LBJ is in Cleveland he had some god awful teams, that GM really screwed him over. His best days are behind him but personally i'v never felt he hasnt' lived up to his potential and it was more he has been dragged down by horrible teams his first go around in cleveland.

 

Whether or not Curry is slightly better than Reggie or vice versa doesn't really matter, IMO - these sorts of comparisons are imprecise and subjective. Within any given tier there will be a significant difference in ability. But neither Reggie nor Curry belong with Jordan, Pippen, Magic, Bird, etc. And who knows if Curry's shooting/passing would be as good as it is if he had to play against better competition - he's doing this during what I believe to be an all-time low in the modern-day NBA talent pool. Now sure, he still has years in which to improve upon his ranking, but as of now he's a mid-tier 90s star.

 

We definitely differ in how we think of the talent in the league. I think the league now is more talented then it has ever been if you look at young up and coming talent. We are in a league where yes this year a few times shined but there is a wealth of talent spread around the league where in years past, especially the 90's, the league was more top heavy then in any time before. Yes there were tons of stars but after you get passed those stars it dried up rather quickly.
Also I think we as a basketball culture tend to remember the 90s and remember it being more physical and equate that to it being harder to play in. The 90's were more physical but the defense was in general atrocious, nowhere near the level of D that is being played in todays league. The one place i'll give the D of the 90's more credit is that one on one D was better but a lot of that has to do with the rules from then and now, but team defense was almost nonexistent.