haha, it's all good. I was just throwing my own thoughts in there.
knicksboy, you say hakeem would have given up his left nut to play with elden campbell down low? DO you know who otis thorpe even was? He played in at least one allstar game and was one of the best banger defensive minded bigs in the game for a number of years. Otis>elden and thats not even a debate.
cedric ceballos played about 15 games with shaq so you cant possibly count him as one of shaqs teammates. The lakers were talented, but 1997 was not shaq in his prime. Shaq first few years under phil jackson was defenitely his best ball. He moved around and played light on his feet and motiveated and put up numbers in the finals that were unbelieveable un der phil from about 99-2001.
That houston squad was not hands down the best in 1994, but they sure wernt some scrubs. Kenny smith, vernon maxwell and robert horry were good for double digits a game and i already brought otis thorpe. Add in solid role players like carl herrera, matt bullard, and sam cassell who was very solid that year as a rookie and to say hakkem had a scrub team would be silly.
there is more to winning then just individual talent. The lakers had great individual talent in 1997 but they were not on the same page and were not good defensively.
And im not a shaq fan, never have been. I honestly dont like the guy at all. I was always on team kobe whne they were together.
But you said Shaq would have won a title with that 94 Houston roster. There is no way because he never won anything without a star close to his level near him. To be honest, you could make the case Shaq never got better game wise, only smarter and knew how to take advantage of his size in the post. He relied on pure talent.
Hakeem won not only the West with that roster but a Title. I understand Shaq was dominant but it hurts him ( in my eyes) that he needed Penny, Wade and Kobe ( All Great Guards at the time) to win a Championship.
I'm keeping Hakeem over Shaq because of the simple fact is he dragged that 1994 and 1995 team to the title. I cannot say the same for Shaq in any years he won a Championship.
you can put hakeem over shaq if you want. I wasnt calling you out for that becasue i do think it is close. BUt to say a prime shaq would not win with that 1994 houston team is just not necessarily true. They were a great TEAM. Im not trying to pull the age card on you, but I watched that team. They were more then just the sum of their parts. They had no real weakness becasue they had guys who could each play their role and played defesne and hit 3's about as well as any team during the 90's and all they needed was a great center to put it all together. You dont think prime shaq could have got them over barkley and the suns or ewing and the knicks?
You are correct, I have not seen the 94 Rockets truly play. I seen the finals games and will agree they played more like a team.
I question if Shaq would have won a title with a team built like the 94-95 Rockets because of what I seen with the 2000-2001 Lakers. Shaq was the center of the offense but Kobe was someone who had to step up when they couldn't throw it into Shaq in the post. I don't know who on Houston at that time who could pick up for Shaq when they couldn't throw it in. Also, count into the fact Shaq had some foul trouble? How could that team even contend without Shaq on the court?
I would say they wouldn't win a title over a team like Pheonix, Seattle or Utah at that time to be honest. Hakeem was a rare breed. He had the monster footwork to embarrass a defender. Shaq had the power but not the craft of scoring different ways.
Shaq may have played with great players, but he really had very few great teams. He never had a great PG or amazing perimeter shooting. Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott were good players on the 94-95 team, but honestly, those guys were pretty much the product of playing with Shaq and Penny. They did very little after they had no big fella. Plus, that Houston team was great defensively, and their guard play was stellar. Mad Max, Kenny Smith and Sam Cassell were all solid, and Horry/Otis were rad at the time. Shaq may have relied on pure talent and size, but honestly, what more should he have used. Hakeem had amazing post moves, and was a fantastic footwork for a player his size, but that is what he had, and Shaq had his brute strength and athleticism. I just think Shaq was a better player for a longer amount of time, and he was super dominant also for a longer amount of time. If you are talking about player skill, than Hakeem may indeed be better, but my list was not about that, I am guessing most of the lists aren't, because it leaves out career accomplishment to a large extent.