Chris Paul: Doc Rivers Told Me I'm Nothing (P. 2)

Clippers TopBuzz Forum/Message Board » Clippers News & General Discussions
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Search This Topic:
 
Clippersfan86
CTB MVP Champion
 Avatar
Age: 28
Posts: 15295
votes: 89

This is the,main reason Vinny had to be replaced. He lacked the balls to call out big ego vets like CP3. Doc has already made every player on this team his bitch pretty much. Most of coaching is about player management.

clipper*joe
CTB MVP Champion
Posts: 15877
Location: los angeles
calif.gif
votes: 125

So that was the main reason based on your knowledge of what went on behind the scenes? Doc isn't making anyone his bitch, he was just humbling CP3. Wonder why that didn't work with Rondo then...not being able to make him his bitch. Doc could never control him and couldn't get rid of him either so lets put all the praise aside til we play a few games and crown our new savior.

pageC4
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4518

us.gif
votes: 24

I compare it to being in the military. A Drill Sergeant has typically done what new soldiers (privates) have done. They have gone through it, so they understand the soldiers. They know that new soldiers come from different walks of life, and in order to function as a unit all individuality must be contained an redirected to function as one part of a whole.

If you have an ego centric soldier he kills morale and alters the direction of the team in a negative way.

Doc is brilliant, he is already asserting himself and making sure any egos know that they are just a part of the whole. He is letting them know they are not special, and that they can no longer continue on that road of individuality

clipper*joe
CTB MVP Champion
Posts: 15877
Location: los angeles
calif.gif
votes: 125

Doc didn't call him out per se, he talked to him behind behind the scenes. Cp3 called himself out by divulging that part of the conversation to the media.

clipper*joe
CTB MVP Champion
Posts: 15877
Location: los angeles
calif.gif
votes: 125

Rondo says hello. Very Happy

pageC4
CTB MVP X1
 Avatar
Posts: 4518

us.gif
votes: 24

Sometimes lingo can mask things. I can't speak for 86, but perhaps this was just a hyperbole for humbling the players.

As for Rondo, there are certain players whose ego's are just beyond control..MJ, Kobe, Lebron, Melo..etc. You can't control them..just contain them.

To give you a good example Kobe was contained under Phil, but completely out of control with coaches like Brown, D'Antoni, and Tomjanovic. Rondo was contained by Rivers. I have no doubt that this new Boston coach will be run over by Rondo.

That being said. We have never had a coach of this caliber, and his candor and honesty are refreshing. Whether Doc is the new savior remains to be seen, but what we do know is that Doc has accountability, which is a new concept in this organization. And that is what we all are encouraged by with Doc

pageC4
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4518

us.gif
votes: 24

Perhaps, but this is something no one has done to Chris. Its almost as if he respects Doc for that rather than someone pacifying him and givinng in to every desire.

pageC4
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4518

us.gif
votes: 24

Rondo is a tragedy in a way. A player with talent, but with the attitude that kills. Guys like him and Kobe are tragic in that you are in awe of their god given abilities, but can't help but hate that they squander their reputation by the hate they build by their attitudes and egos. Above all the guy that tops the list of guys like that is MJ. I will savor the moment that some new player kills all his accolades and sets a better example

Voyeur
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 5129
votes: 29

Respectfully disagree. Remember, Olajuwon's squad was the same that ended up winning a bunch of games a couple of years before without him (due to an eye socket injury). Ewing's team without him? Would have done nothing. This is because their second best player was John Starks. A streaky shooter who didn't even average 20 points. No way in Hell even Hakeem would have won with Starks as the number 2 guy. It's true Hakeem was more fluid, quicker and more athletic. In truth, Ewing's knees were getting worse and worse. I'd still take Ewing from 1989-90 over Hakeem any year. I saw enough of the Knicks to know they were a great defensive team...but a terrible offensive one.

And by the way, it's easy to stop Ewing when their opponent's defensive strategy is to double anyone with the ball, especially Ewing. It's easy for Hakeem to get his points when Pat Riley's defensive style was to go man to man most of the way. A truly great player tries to win in other ways when the team is shutting him down. If the Knicks had won...in fact I'll go so far as to say if Game 7 had been at MSG...Everybody would be talking about how Ewing's outrebounding Hakeem and breaking the Finals shot blocking record led his team to victory.

Agent0
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4118
votes: 38

Starks was the second best offensive player on New York, but who was it on Houston? Aren't you comparing a team over like 4 seasons? The team that won without him happened like 3-4 years before the championship.

If you look at the post-season, Houston's second highest (not best) scorer was Maxwell with 13.8 PPG / .471 TS%. Per 36 minutes, only Sam Cassell at 15.5 pts/36 was above 13 pts/36 which was what Maxwell did per minute.

New York had Starks as their second highest scorer in the post-season with 14.6 PPG / .528 TS% and 15.6 pts/36. They also only had one player above 13.0 pts/36 and it was Starks. Neither team was boasting any plethora of options, and the game plan against both was to contain the C.

The difference I can agree with is that though Houston wasn't better at shooting the three, percentage wise, they took more there's, most in the league, guys got hot at the right time and you can argue that opened things up better for Olajuwon, but New York had Starks and Harper hitting three'a too. Houston had Maxwell, Horry, Kenny and Cassell


It's interesting how even accolades are right place / right team at the right time. In the place of an Iverson or a Derrick Rose, a guy like Arenas also wins an MVP trophy. People will balk at the idea at first, but results wise he's the same player, actually better offensively than both at times. He did it for a 3 year span, so it wasn't one fluke year.

You stick Arenas on a team like this: Gilbert Arenas Keith Bogans Luol Deng Carlos Boozer Joahkim Noah Bench: same Coach: Tom Thibodeau

That's an elite defense, Arenas led top 5 offenses, that's a top 7 offense, that team is winning 60 games, and Arenas is now an MVP winner as he's averaging 25-27 PPG, 5-7 assists, 5 rebounds and leading this team offensively.

You place Derrick Rose on 04-05 to 06-07 Washington with Eddie Jordan as coach and Jamison and Butler and facing Miami or a Lebron led team in the first or second round and he has no notable playoff success in that span.

Voyeur
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 5129
votes: 29

Oh lord, Starks. smh...

Yes Starks could hit the 3, but as Game 7 showed, he was one of the streakiest shooters of all time. Hakeem definitely had more consistent 3 point threats than Ewing, which benefits a center. And whether it was 2, 3, or 4 years before, it was still Kenny Smith, Otis Thorpe, Vernon Maxwell and I believe even Robert Horry. THE EXACT SAME TEAM that won even without Hakeem. I remember because when Hakeem came back from injury they didn't look as good at first and Hakeem felt badly that he was messing up their chemistry. It took a while but they finally gelled perfectly. Yet while Houston was nurturing it's team for years, NY was constantly shuffling players in and out of the lineup. There's something to be said for continuity.

Agent0
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4118
votes: 38

Horry wasn't there, Horry was a 2nd year player during the championship season. Maxwell was a much more productive player than his 93-94 version though, but consistency and him also don't go hand in hand, more so than Starks. He scored 17 on poor efficiency, but in the championship season were talking about a guy putting up 13-14 pts on even worse efficiency, and he shot 29.8% 3PT and under 40% FG.

Sure, Maxwell had a great game 7, Starks was awful, but Maxwell was 7/34 from 3PT in games 1-6. His best two games he was 2/6. He was 1/6, 0/6, 1/4, 1/6 in the other games. Game 7 he went 2/6 again. He shot under 39% in 5 out of the first 6 games, under 33% in 4/6. Maxwell shot 22.5% on 5.7 3PA/G in the series.

Starks shot 32% on 7.1 attempts. He had 4 games with >33% 3PT. He was shooting 41% on 6.5 attempts in games 1-6. Before the finals he was shooting 37.8% 3PT on 4.6 3PA. He was part of why that team was where they were. Game 7 was an outlier and stands out and clouds the reality of his overall performance in comparison to peers, but he was far more effective and consistent than Maxwell. I guess you could argue that Maxwell was consistently bad.

So you see my whole point? You're arguing inconsistency and bad teammates, but that implies that Olajuwon had teammates who were more consistent shooters. I believe the Knicks outshot the Rockets from 3PT range in the series and I'm going to tally the numbers. Perception might not be reality though.

Game 1: Knicks 4/15 (26.7) Rockets 4/16 (25.0) W

Game 2: Knicks 7/11 (63.6) W Rockets 6/22 (27.3)

Game 3: Knicks 6/19 (31.6) Rockets 6/17 (35.3) W

Game 4: Knicks 7/17 (41.2) W Rockets 6/20 (30.0)

Game 5: Knicks 2/9 (22.2) W Rockets 6/18 (33.3)

Game 6: Knicks 6/14 (42.9) Rockets 5/17 (29.4) W

Game 7: Knicks 4/20 (20.0) Rockets 4/11 (36.4) W

Total: Knicks: 36/105 (34.2) Rockets: 37/121 (30.6)

Did Starks 0/11 3PT and poor shooting hurt them in a game 7 that they lost by 6 points? Of course. We're the Knicks the inferior 3PT shooting team in the series? You tell me. The Rockets needed 16 more attempts to make one more three.

3 games - same 3PTM 3 games - Knicks more 3PTM 1 game - Rockets more 3PTM

These numbers are actually interesting to me because I didn't know the discrepancy was this large.


What I do agree about is the value of continuity, at least with the core players. Shuffling role players is fine, and core players is fine if you are improving. That team went 16-10 (61.5%, 50 win pace) without Hakeem, 36-20 (64.3%, 53 win pace) with him. Certainly not much of a dropoff.

Still, continuity doesn't mean the Rockets supporting cast performed better in spreading the floor and shooting the three than New Yorks.

CP3Heliflopter
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 5997
votes: 10

Ewing is one of my favorite players ever as a Knicks fan but no he was not on Hakeem's level. He was one level, arguably even two levels lower.

They were both great defensive players. I give Hakeem the slight edge but Hakeem was the better offensive player by a HUGE margin. Its not even up for debate. Hakeem's offensive game was super fluid, versatile and effective. Not only was he a force as a scorer but he was a capable passer as well. In the playoffs Hakeem was a 26 ppg on 57TS% type of scorer. Those are Kobe esque offensive numbers with near GOAT level defensive impact.

In comparison Ewing had a very mechanical offensive game and was not nearly as good of a passer. Hakeem easily shut him down. Take into account that Hakeem elevated his game in the playoffs while Ewing got noticeably worse.... Yea not close and this is coming from a Knicks homer.

Lets not act like the 94 Rockets had a capable 2nd option either.

CP3Heliflopter
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 5997
votes: 10

Except for the fact that it was the norm for Ewing to do noticeably worse in the playoffs offensively even without being double teamed while Hakeem generally did even better in PS compared to RS even leaving the likes of D Rob completely bamboozled as to how to guard him. As for that short stretch where the Rockets had a good record without Hakeem. Can you tell me what year it was?

That doesn't necessarily mean much without some context and the sample size is small.

The Bulls in the lockout season had a better winning % than they did the year Rose won MVP even though Rose missed nearly half that lockout season.

Btw you say that Ewing had a poor 2nd option. What strong 2nd option did Hakeem have in 94 exactly? He didn't have any. I take 93-95 Hakeem over 90 Ewing. Hakeem's career averages in the postseason are arguably better than 90 Ewing's averages in the playoffs. That is how great the gap is in terms of playoff performances and 90 Ewing was Ewing's best PS by far.

Voyeur
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 5129
votes: 29

Y'all don't get it. The Houston Rockets showed they could win without Hakeem and win convincingly. At NO point in time could the Knicks without Ewing. Okay, granted I can't think of a number 2 until Drexler maybe. Except they played better as a team than the Knicks. They had more of a flow overall on offense and didn't just run stuff through Hakeem. The Knicks on the other hand were very predictable. NY was able to keep it close because they were the best defensive team in the league, led by Ewing. And Ewing actually excelled defensively in that series. I know. I saw the damn series. Did you guys? Or are you just looking at the stats?

And yes, Hakeem was better through most of the 90's than Ewing on offense. Not as good a jump shooter as Pat but not many big men were. I'd still take Ewing 1989-1992. Heck, I'd take Ewing Georgetown over Hakeem's college team. But that's just me.

But I'll give it to you about Hakeem's offense. I give the edge to Ewing on D and setting screens and leadership.

Agent0
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4118
votes: 38

Well that's also because Ewing didn't miss games. You're basing their ability to win without Hakeem off a 26 game stretch, which is decent, but not complete. The 02-03 Raptors won and got to the playoffs for a small stretch without Vince Carter, but we know if you toss that team by itself over a whole season they won't win as much. It's just how it happens because game plans change, etc.

There was no good 2nd option until Drexler. Actually Otis wasn't "bad", but during the championship year, the "second option" was a super inconsistent and ineffective Vernon Maxwell. Both less consistent and less effective than Starks.

You keep missing that everything you are saying about New York was the same for Houston. Houston 93-94: 2nd in Drtg, 15th in Ortg (105.9), 58 wins

New York 93-94: 1st in Drtg, 16th in Ortg (105.7), 57 wins

Neither of these teams had a good offensive supporting cast. They were basically the same caliber offensive team (105.7 Ortg vs 105.9 Ortg) during the season and had very simile production from their main scorer. Hakeem (27.3 pts, 52.8% FG, .565 TS%, 109 Ortg), Ewing (24.5 pts, 49.6% FG, .551 TS%, 108 Ortg). This does not support the idea that Houston was the one boasting the more effective supporting cast outside of their main scorer.

New York shot better from 3PT range during the season and in the finals. In the finals Starks VASTLY outproduced Maxwell as a shooter and scorer in Games 1-6, and actually shot quite well from outside in the whole playoffs until game 7 of the finals. Those both again do not support the idea that Houston was boasting the better supporting cast and/or floor spacing around their main post scorer.

Yes, in the playoffs, Houston's offense was not better, and New York's inferior, but that's mainly because of this: Hakeem 93-94 playoffs: 28.9 pts, 51.9% FG, .568 TS%, 109 Ortg

Ewing 94-94 playoffs: 21.9 pts, 43.7% FG, .495 TS%, 101 Ortg

Hakeem Finals: 26.9 pts (22.5 pts/36), 50% FG, .556 TS%, 105 Ortg

Ewing Finals: 18.9 pts (15.5 pts/36), 36.3% FG, .390 TS%, 85 Ortg

Stats can't tell us everything, we need to analyze, put context into it, but there are just some situations where stats are extremely convincing and we would have to be in denial to try and push them aside. Ewing scored at a rate similar to Caron Butler last season, and took 22 FGA to score 18.9 PPG. Game 2: It's just hard to argue that 41% 3PT shooting from my PG in games 1-6. 7-11 3PT shooting from the team in game 2 where 5 other players were in double digits, all shooting over 50% FG, actually EVERYONE on the team except me shoots over 50% FG and I shoot 7/19 FG, scoring 16 pts and then say it's because there wasn't enough spacing or enough offensive help. New York won the game btw, because everyone else shot great. Harper had 18 pts, Starks had 19 pts. Game 3: The next game, Starks and Harper score 20 and 21 pts respectively on 16 and 15 FGA, the team shoots 6/17 3PT (35%) if you take away my two 3PA and then I shoot 9/29 FG and score 18 pts. How am I going to say it is because of lack of help of lack or spacing? Seriously?

Game 4: Next game, Hakeem scores 32 pts on 70% FG, but his team overall ends up with 43.1% FG, which means they did not shoot well. I shoot 8/28 FG and score 16 pts (28.6% FG), but but my team goes 7/17 (41.2%) from three. Starks and Harper score 20 pts and 21 pts respectively on 11 and 15 FGA, Oakley matches my 16 on 8 FGA, all the starters are in double figures. I'm terrible again and we win with two guys outscoring me again with less FGA and I didn't have enough help?

Game 5: After game 1, 10/26 FG, 23 pts, it was not until game 5 that Ewing actually lead the team in scoring and had a good game, and there were 4 other guys in double figures, Oakley (10, 3/8), Harper (14, 6/13), Starks (19, 7/14), Mason (17, 6/11) for that win.

Game 6: Now we're up 3-2, we need one win in two games. Starks gives us 27 pts (9/18 FG), Oak 12 pts (5/11), Smith 11 pts (5/10), Harper 10 pts (2/10), and what do we get from Ewing in a two pt loss? 17 pts on 6/20 FG. On the opposite side, Hakeem drops 30 pts on 11/21 FG.

Harper and Starks carried that offense for a good amount of games that series and Ewing was just along to chuck for the ride. Was he important? Extremely, he was a great defensive anchor, but these guys were producing and they were getting little back from him for most of that series. He IS more of reason why they lost, not the difference in complimentary players. If you switched complimentary player production, Hakeem on the Knicks wins in 5 or 6 games.

Maybe those guys never won without him, but they certainly showed that they could win in spite of him basically hurting the offense. Taking pressure off guys is always a factor, but you counter all that if your own individual production, especially with a lot of possessions used is ATROCIOUS. 39% TS, 85 Ortg, that's abysmal, historically bad. Hakeem produced 20 more pts/100 possessions than Ewing, that's the difference between a scrub and a superstar. That doesn't happen because of a teammates or spacing difference. That's more like oh, he shot .560 TS% and had a 105 Ortg and the other guy with worse support had .510 TS% and a 101 Ortg. This is just being dominated offensively.

John Starks from game 2-6: 21.0 pts (14.0 FGA), 7.2 assists, 48.6% FG, 45.2% 3PT (6.2 3PA), .631 TS%, 125 Ortg

Derek Harper from game 2-6: 16.8 pts (12.8 FGA), 6.4 assists, 48.4% FG, 43.3% 3PT (6.0 3PA), .610 TS%, 124 Ortg

Ewing from game 2-6: 18.4 pts (23.4 FGA), 1.8 assists, 35.0% FG, 33.3% 3PT (0.6 3PA), .378 TS%, 85 Ortg

Starks and Harper carried the offense in that series. They were taking 12 3PA and shooting about 44% 3PT, how in the world is that not enough to ope the floor for you? Ewing carried the defense, but those guys offense is why they won the games they won. If Ewing was more than terrible, they should have won 4/5 games between game 2 and 6.

Ewing because he was a jumpshooter and poor post passer / playmaker was known to have his offensive effectiveness decline in the playoffs. That is the defining difference between the teams offensive production. Hakeem shut Ewing down. Hakeem had less production from his teammates, but he outproduced Ewing. Ewing was great defensively, that never faded, but his offense was not impressive when the playoffs rolled around.

I think you have a closer idea of what kind of team New York was, but didn't have an accurate perception of what kind of team 93-94 Houston was. This was a team winning on defense and mainly on the offensive capabilities of one player.


Ewing was great on defense, very great, but all he needed to do to get a championship was not suck for 6/7 games in a series. He had 89 Ortg or lower in 6/7 games that series. The games were so close that just one more game with even just something barely decent, like 101 Ortg would have meant a win. That's how close it actually was. His teammates played their part, he's the one that let them down on offense.

This is in contrast to a guy like Paul who dominates individually on offense and the rest of the team just sucks. And Paul unlike these elite bigs can't go an anchor an elite defense to make it up on the other end.

Voyeur
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 5129
votes: 29

Correction. Hakeem and a friend shut Ewing down. But I applaud all the hard work you've put into this Agent0.

Like I said, great players do other things well when they get shut down and Ewing's no exception.

CP3Heliflopter
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 5997
votes: 10

I watched the entire series.... Don't make assumptions about people. There is absolutely no way Ewing was significantly better than Hakeem defensively if at all. In fact, most people considered Hakeem the better defender handily. There is a reason why he was a 2x DPOY. How many centers can lead the league in rebounding, blocks and have seasons where they get over 2 spg? Not that blocks and steals per game are necessarily a good indicator of defense but they certainly aren't a bad indicator.

Hakeem was WAY better offensively. I don't think you even understand how much better Hakeem was in comparison to Ewing offensively in the playoffs. Like I said it wasn't even a matter of Ewing being double teamed since Hakeem being better offensively was the norm in the playoffs. Unless you are suggesting that Hakeem always got single coverage while Ewing was always double teamed in the playoffs....

You are really underestimating Hakeem and overrating Ewing. Hakeem is top 10 all time for a reason. Ewing is generally underrated (by non Knicks fans) especially on the defense but you are going too far.

Also leadership? What proof is there that Ewing was a much better leader than Hakeem?

I don't consider Hakeem's teams doing fairly well a black mark against him. Jordan's Bulls won 55 games without him.

Anyway enough of this. I guess we will have to disagree. This is off topic anyway.

Agent0
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4118
votes: 38

Yes, you are right, can't neglect that Hakeem didn't do it alone. Ewing really should have won that year though, it was really about him just having that extra edge to his offensive game. Sadly for him he didn't, but he was consistently great on defense. For example if Blake could be consistently great on defense the Clippers playoff success could look a bit different.

CapsNClips
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4010

us.gif
votes: 44

Hakeem is in the highest tier of NBA Centers along with Wilt, Kareem, Russell and Shaq

Ewing is the next tier along with Robinson, Willis Reed and Moses

Voyeur
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 5129
votes: 29

I make assumptions when a person's post looks more like they reviewed a box score than saw the actual series. If you did, indeed, watch the series you cannot honestly say Hakeem was a better defender than Ewing. Sorry.

But I will agree to the whole disagree thing.

CP3Heliflopter
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 5997
votes: 10

Ewing definitely had very little help. He did a great job considering the rosters he had but I just think Hakeem would have done better due to his being much harder to stop offensively. This is not a knock on Ewing at all. In general I consider him underrated but he is just not at the same level as Hakeem.

Russell

Hakeem

Shaq

Wilt

Kareem

Duncan

are in my opinion the best Cs ever. These guys are all top 10-12 players all time.

After that I have D Rob and then Ewing.

CP3Heliflopter
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 5997
votes: 10

In general people consider Hakeem the better defender or at least equivalent. You don't base things on one series. In that series Ewing did a better job defensively but that was partially because he didn't have as big of a role offensively compared to Hakeem. Not to mention the Knicks had better individual defenders in general. The only strong defender on the Rockets was Hakeem, the rest were mediocre.... The Knicks had Oakley, Starks, etc.

The Knicks that season were the best defensive team by far(it was impressive) but it was not all Ewing. He had a lot of help too and its not like Hakeem was a slouch. His team was the distant 2nd best defensive team but you have to remember that he didn't have defenders that were nearly as good.

Voyeur
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 5129
votes: 29

There's no doubt Hakeem was great. And SIGH...yes better than Ewing (except 1989-90, LOOK IT UP). Ewing did so much with less. Hakeem was quicker. Faster. More agile. Yet Pat was able to make use of what limitations he had...bad knees and all. And he could set one hell of a pick. Hakeem was always more interested in slipping the picks. Of course Hakeem was "greater". But Ewing was great too!

Agent0
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4118
votes: 38

Ewing did have the height and length advantage. Hakeem was a fake 7 footer, wasn't he actually 6'9 or 6'10?

Technically he did, he just didn't make nearly as many shots or convert on as many of his possessions as Hakeem did.

Voyeur
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 5129
votes: 29

Yeah Ewing worked his ass off on D despite being a focus on O.

I'm just gonna say a lot of guys who averaged more blocks than Ewing also took little breaks from defending the basket. Often giving othe other team a false sense of security. Thus allowing the Hakeems and Robinsons of the league to swoop in and block shots. Bill Russell was known for saving his blocks until important moments of the game. Ewing was almost always defending the basket, which meant a lot of players wouldn't even bother attacking the basket. Unfortunately it also meant he got famously dunked on by a lot of players.

Anyway, sorry if I turned this into a totally unrelated topic!

CP3Heliflopter
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 5997
votes: 10

Hakeem is like Dwight's height so 6'10ish. The thing is he was very skinny sort of like KG but clearly being skinny wasn't a big deal considering how good they were defensively.

Anyway I don't blame Ewing for anything because he never had what I consider a true championship caliber team. He did great with what he had. It is no shame for someone to think a top 5 playoff performer(Hakeem) could have done a bit better(the Knicks were super close to winning that chip).

Its not like Hakeem had super stacked teams. His 94 team was only decent and his 95 team was the only team I considered stacked. The later teams were I guess but Hakeem was washed up by then.

If you want to look at stacked teams look at the teams Magic, Bird, and MJ had. This is my last post about this for real lol.

Go To the Top of the ThreadGo Home

or Comment Using FB

Post new topic   Reply to topic


← Scoop Jackson: Can Doc Rivers Lead LAC to a Ring?

→ Who Do You Think Will Be the Clippers 3rd Star?

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

register
You are an anonymous user- Register now!


Follow our Los Angeles Clippers RSS Feed, plus the Clippers Rumors RSS Feed, the LA Clippers News RSS feed, and the Clippers Forum RSS feed to get the newest updated Clippers News and Trade Rumors plus Clippers Game update in your RSS/XML reader!