"They're not Carmelo," Ewing said, laughing. "They're not Carmelo."

[DMAVS41]

I just think too much is made of who the 2nd best player on the team is because people are too lazy to look at the team as a whole 15 years later. I keep seeing how everyone thinks Hakeem won by himself because he didn't have a strong #2...but that's not true. His team was pretty damn good. They don't get to the Finals without Thorpe, Horry, Elie and Kenny Smith. They don't WIN the Finals without Sam Cassell.

Same thing with the early 00's Lakers. They don't win without Fox and Harper shutting down the perimeter or Horry and Fisher hitting clutch shots. Now they're considered "scrubs" that Shaq and Kobe carried to the title.

Ewing's Knicks were good. They were title contenders from 92 - 95 and again in 97. Was within one shot of winning it all in 94. Ewing had his chances...they just lost to better teams. If they had brought in an offensive guy like Melo, they would have lost some of the defense and effort that made them so good in the first place.

Were they imbalanced? Yes. But I think that was because they were built specifically to beat Chicago. They loaded up on bruising power forwards and defensive specialists to win the battle of the boards, push Chicago to the breaking point and maybe win that way. They knew they weren't going to outscore Chicago so why try? I always wondered what would have happened if they made it to the Finals in 93. They would have beaten the Bulls to get there but were all wrong for a team like the Suns. I think they would have lost to Phoenix because they didn't match up too well with them. That defense would have been spread out too thin.

Well said. I totally agree. Everything matters....not just the top 2 or 3 guys.

But if you made me choose between having a for sure elite top 2 or 3 and only an elite 1 with better filler. I'd choose the elite 2 or 3 pretty much every time.

[millwad]

I just think too much is made of who the 2nd best player on the team is because people are too lazy to look at the team as a whole 15 years later. I keep seeing how everyone thinks Hakeem won by himself because he didn't have a strong #2...but that's not true. His team was pretty damn good. They don't get to the Finals without Thorpe, Horry, Elie and Kenny Smith. They don't WIN the Finals without Sam Cassell.

Not really, the '94 Rocket team was a product of Hakeem. They were normal role players, in fact if you look at every series the Rockets played during their back-to-backs they were often weaker at almost every position minus the center one.

Otis is one of my favorite player of all-time but he was not the typical 2nd best player on a title winning team and he had a couple of match-ups against easily better players during the '94 runs like against Malone and Barkley.

Elie was a bench player, the guy could shoot the open 3 and play hard nosed defense but I can't recall a worse starter than him at his position on a title winning team.

Kenny got abused through the whole '94-'95 playoffs, he got outplayed in every single match-up.

And the Rockets without Hakeem from '92-'96 won 7 games and lost 27 games which makes them a .25 % team without Hakeem. Lets not overrate them.

But other than that particular Rocket team I agree with the points you made.

[Da_Realist]

Not really, the '94 Rocket team was a product of Hakeem. They were normal role players, in fact if you look at every series the Rockets played during their back-to-backs they were often weaker at almost every position minus the center one.

Otis is one of my favorite player of all-time but he was not the typical 2nd best player on a title winning team and he had a couple of match-ups against easily better players during the '94 runs like against Malone and Barkley.

Elie was a bench player, the guy could shoot the open 3 and play hard nosed defense but I can't recall a worse starter than him at his position on a title winning team.

Kenny got abused through the whole '94-'95 playoffs, he got outplayed in every single match-up.

And the Rockets without Hakeem from '92-'96 won 7 games and lost 27 games which makes them a .25 % team without Hakeem. Lets not overrate them.

But other than that particular Rocket team I agree with the points you made.

Not taking anything away from Hakeem but I'm not sure the 95 Rockets with Drexler is any better than the 94 Rockets without him. It's certainly not a no-brainer. Drexler as a number 2 >>>>>>> whoever was #2 in 94 but I'm not sure the 95 team is better overall. And if they were better, it's not as huge a gap as a comparison of their #2 guys. That's why I say having a good #2 does not always equate to a better team.

[NugzHeat3]

I just think too much is made of who the 2nd best player on the team is because people are too lazy to look at the team as a whole 15 years later. I keep seeing how everyone thinks Hakeem won by himself because he didn't have a strong #2...but that's not true. His team was pretty damn good. They don't get to the Finals without Horry, Elie and Kenny Smith. They don't WIN the Finals without Sam Cassell.

Same thing with the early 00's Lakers. They don't win without Fox and Harper shutting down the perimeter or Horry and Fisher hitting clutch shots. Now they're considered "scrubs" that Shaq and Kobe carried to the title.

I think this applies to just about every championship team though. But in the literal sense, how casual fans view it; those guys are considered scrubs. Wade and co don't win the finals w/o Payton but you start a thread regarding that team and people will trash the supporting cast. Even Shaq's value gets trashed because his finals numbers were weak but people ignore the Mavs were focused on stopping Shaq in the first 4 games or so.

Most people remember greatness; the key components of those teams. The role players are often forgotten unless you go back and watch some of those games again and realize their true value. You'll hear the same thing about the Mavs that just won. Its going to be Dirk and scrubs; in reality that is not true but that's just how people will view it in time because the names don't really stand out and neither do the #s.

Ewing's Knicks were good. They were title contenders from 92 - 95 and again in 97. Was within one shot of winning it all in 94. Ewing had his chances...they just lost to better teams. If they had brought in an offensive guy like Melo, they would have lost some of the defense and effort that made them so good in the first place.

Were they imbalanced? Yes. But I think that was because they were built specifically to beat Chicago. They loaded up on bruising power forwards and defensive specialists to win the battle of the boards, push Chicago to the breaking point and maybe win that way. They knew they weren't going to outscore Chicago so why try? I always wondered what would have happened if they made it to the Finals in 93. They would have beaten the Bulls to get there but were all wrong for a team like the Suns. I think they would have lost to Phoenix because they didn't match up too well with them. That defense would have been spread out too thin.

True. I think a guy like Melo changes the identity of the team for better or worse so they'd have to revamp the roster to some extent.

I also think Ewing deserves some blame too especially in 1994 and 1995. Ewing could and really should've been the difference maker. But he didn't quite have that athleticism left and he was dealing with injuries in 1995.

I disagree regarding the Suns though. I'm interested in your take. I think they would do as good of a job as you could possibly hope on Barkley. Ewing could be the roamer because they aren't really concerned with Mark West or Oliver Miller. KJ wasn't that great in 1993 and he'll have a good initial defender in Doc Rivers. With Barkley and KJ being relatively contained, a key thing the Suns lose is their shooting because those guys were responsible for creating for the rest and shooting is something which they thrived on and often built momentum with since it got the crowd hyped. Majerle and Ainge specifically.

Ewing could have a big series offensively as well due to their weak frontline. But Barkley is the biggest big game performer in the series so that's an edge PHX would have.

I think a lot also depends on how well the Knicks cope with PHX's running game because Eastern squads didn't really play uptempo. The Knicks wanted you to grind it out, limit transition opportunities as much as possible while PHX was the polar opposite in that regard. Would be a cool series nonethless.

[NugzHeat3]

Not really, the '94 Rocket team was a product of Hakeem. They were normal role players, in fact if you look at every series the Rockets played during their back-to-backs they were often weaker at almost every position minus the center one.

Otis is one of my favorite player of all-time but he was not the typical 2nd best player on a title winning team and he had a couple of match-ups against easily better players during the '94 runs like against Malone and Barkley.

Elie was a bench player, the guy could shoot the open 3 and play hard nosed defense but I can't recall a worse starter than him at his position on a title winning team.

Kenny got abused through the whole '94-'95 playoffs, he got outplayed in every single match-up.

And the Rockets without Hakeem from '92-'96 won 7 games and lost 27 games which makes them a .25 % team without Hakeem. Lets not overrate them.

But other than that particular Rocket team I agree with the points you made.

The bolded is convenient because it ignores 1991 where they went 16-10 without him.

[millwad]

Not taking anything away from Hakeem but I'm not sure the 95 Rockets with Drexler is any better than the 94 Rockets without him. It's certainly not a no-brainer. Drexler as a number 2 >>>>>>> whoever was #2 in 94 but I'm not sure the 95 team is better overall. And if they were better, it's not as huge a gap as a comparison of their #2 guys. That's why I say having a good #2 does not always equate to a better team.

You are completely right about the #2 point, I couldn't agree more.
But the thing with the '95 team was that they dropped Maxwell, the guy freaked out and they couldn't handle him so right there they lost one of their key players. When they traded for Drexler they obviously lost Thorpe and Herrera who was supposed to be the new starting PF got injured so their back-up solution was to put Horry there. So it had alot to do with the circumstances, Herrera getting injured, Maxwell being a dick, Olajuwon missing regular season games.

Personally I still would choose the '95 team as the better team, they faced better competition and still came on top with Hakeem and Drexler leading the team.

So I don't know if the Rockets were a spot on comparison but you are completely right about what you wrote.

[millwad]

The bolded is convenient because it ignores 1991 where they went 16-10 without him.

Yeah, I know but I wouldn't really compare his '93-'96 run with the Hakeem of '91. He had a big off year in the '91 season and he didn't even make the all-star team that year, the only time he didn't get voted in as an all-star from the '86 season to the '97 season.

[eliteballer]

Lose identity? Does anyone else remember that game winning block Nique' had on MJ in the 93 reg season?

[Jasper]

Fact was the franchise was making tons of money during this time frame... no empty seats watching riles and van gundy teams play awesome defense and seeing ewing basically carry the team on his shoulders.

Fans of the Knicks knew and bagged for additional help ...

So they dropped money to late on a SG that only did jump shots and then blew out his knee.

Remember the first year Ewing came into the league a , defensive , rebounding college playing machine , turns into a awesome wing jump shooter as well.

NY's owner 2 years into Ewings career had many opportunities to bring a player or two into the fold and make legit runs....

AND HE DID NOT.

[Da_Realist]

I disagree regarding the Suns though. I'm interested in your take. I think they would do as good of a job as you could possibly hope on Barkley. Ewing could be the roamer because they aren't really concerned with Mark West or Oliver Miller. KJ wasn't that great in 1993 and he'll have a good initial defender in Doc Rivers. With Barkley and KJ being relatively contained, a key thing the Suns lose is their shooting because those guys were responsible for creating for the rest and shooting is something which they thrived on and often built momentum with since it got the crowd hyped. Majerle and Ainge specifically.

Ewing could have a big series offensively as well due to their weak frontline. But Barkley is the biggest big game performer in the series so that's an edge PHX would have.

I think a lot also depends on how well the Knicks cope with PHX's running game because Eastern squads didn't really play uptempo. The Knicks wanted you to grind it out, limit transition opportunities as much as possible while PHX was the polar opposite in that regard. Would be a cool series nonethless.

I've gone back and forth on this mythical match up for years. I give Phoenix the edge more often than not because they would have kept the tempo up and moved the basketball. Barkley was a beast that year and nobody on the Knicks would have contained KJ. (We would have seen more of the real KJ that series than he was against the Bulls because the Knicks weren't nearly as good defensively full court as they were in a half court set.) Knicks defenders were good but...Oakley and Mason aren't as good defensively as far out on the perimeter as Phoenix would have had them. I see Oakley being forced to help inside and then having to close out on Wesley Person to prevent the 3. New York loved predictability...and Chicago was predictable in their own way. I mean, it's hard to figure out the triangle and of course Jordan/Pippen but there was some predictability to the others. Horace Grant wasn't going to be shooting 3 point shots. Bill Cartwright wasn't going to leave the low block and they didn't have to worry about Paxson penetrating in the lane. Phoenix was just...schizophrenic. Barkley shooting threes, Majerle shooting from damn near half court , Oliver Miller was a passing threat on the perimeter, KJ could get anywhere he wanted and they had a wildcard in Richard Dumas. I don't know what NY would have done with all those parts that don't fit the usual NBA team.

:EDIT Wesley Person wasn't on the 93 team. Just replace him with Ainge or Majerle

[NugzHeat3]

Lose identity? Does anyone else remember that game winning block Nique' had on MJ in the 93 reg season?

He had a few nice defensive plays in crunch time like that one but for the most part he was an absolute sieve defensively.

I mean lets get real here. We're talking about a that guy was voted one of the 10 worst defenders of all time in 1996 by league members.

So they definitely change a bit in that regard. Nique would probably give more effort under Riley though. Hardaway was similar; he didn't care for defense in GSW but bought into the concept with Miami.

[NugzHeat3]

I've gone back and forth on this mythical match up for years. I give Phoenix the edge more often than not because they would have kept the tempo up and moved the basketball. Barkley was a beast that year and nobody on the Knicks would have contained KJ. (We would have seen more of the real KJ that series than he was against the Bulls because the Knicks were nearly as good full court as they were in a half court set.) Knicks defenders were good but...Oakley and Mason aren't as good defensively as far out on the perimeter as Phoenix would have had them. I see Oakley being forced to help inside and then having to close out on Wesley Person to prevent the 3. New York loved predictability...and Chicago was predictable in their own way. I mean, it's hard to figure out the triangle and of course Jordan/Pippen but there was some predictability to the others. Horace Grant wasn't going to be shooting 3 point shots. Bill Cartwright wasn't going to leave the low block and they didn't have to worry about Paxson penetrating in the lane. Phoenix was just...schizophrenic. Barkley shooting threes, Majerle shooting from damn near half court , Oliver Miller was a passing threat on the perimeter, KJ could get anywhere he wanted and they had a wildcard in Richard Dumas. I don't know what NY would have done with all those parts that don't fit the usual NBA team.

I don't remember KJ being unstoppable that year. He had his moments but for the most part, he just wasn't the same player. I think Greg Anthony may have done a better job on him than Rivers because Anthony's foot speed was faster than Doc's.

I think Mason could do a better job on Barkley than Oakley. Mason moved his feet well and was a really strong, bulky guy. Didn't really give up position easily (remember his defense on Hakeem in the finals).

I think you meant to say Dumas instead of Person because Person wasn't there till 1995.

But your point is the reason I was sort of skepticial in the first place. PHX is more of a frenetic team and NYK wasn't quite used to that playing in the East so it would've been interesting to see how they adjust. BTW, Majerle was funny launching 30 footers in the finals.

One thing I'll say, I'll always question the Suns because in the back of my mind, I'll remember that call they got to barely sneak by the 39 W Lakers and the fact they didn't face Houston.

[Sarcastic]

Dirk had....... Jason Terry

He's better than John Starks.

Tyson Chandler is the real reason Dirk won anyway.

[Da_Realist]

I don't remember KJ being unstoppable that year. He had his moments but for the most part, he just wasn't the same player. I think Greg Anthony may have done a better job on him than Rivers because Anthony's foot speed was faster than Doc's.

I think Mason could do a better job on Barkley than Oakley. Mason moved his feet well and was a really strong, bulky guy. Didn't really give up position easily (remember his defense on Hakeem in the finals).

I think you meant to say Dumas instead of Person because Person wasn't there till 1995.

But your point is the reason I was sort of skepticial in the first place. PHX is more of a frenetic team and NYK wasn't quite used to that playing in the East so it would've been interesting to see how they adjust. BTW, Majerle was funny launching 30 footers in the finals.

One thing I'll say, I'll always question the Suns because in the back of my mind, I'll remember that call they got to barely sneak by the 39 W Lakers and the fact they didn't face Houston.

It definitely would have been interesting...but I'm glad I didn't see it

By the way, you think the 97 Knicks were the best of Ewing's teams? I can't make up my mind on that.

[Sarcastic]

Spree was awesome in that lockout Finals run. Unfortunately Ewing was on the decline by then.

Ewing was hurt and didn't play for the Finals.