I recently was having an intense discussion with a buddy of mine over this post on Instagram: Spoiler He claims the Suns had wayyyyy more talent than this Rockets team and it's not even close. I had to argue that point. I'm no doubt a homer to the Rockets, but I really don't feel this Rockets team isn't that far off talent wise than that Suns team? Maybe I'm delusional? Thoughts?
Suns did contend. I contend they got screwed out of a championship by one play Why argue that, when the whole premise of the first photo is highly debatable. Plus, that SAS team who "beat" the Suns is FAR better than this SAS team. Rockets can take this Spurs team, but they couldn't take that '05-'07 Spurs team.
Absolutely, they did contend. The Spurs got the better of them in most situations but I do think they would've won that series and become legendary if not for the big body-check debacle. That series is one of the biggest blemishes on the NBA along with the Lakers-Kings series in the early 00's.
Those Phoenix teams never had issues scoring in the postseason so that meme is dumb. Mike's offense worked just fine. It was their issues with getting stops and securing defensive rebounds that really hurt them, that and not being able to beat the Spurs. Also, they had a very good chance of winning a championship in 2007 if it weren't for those suspensions.
And they repeated going to the WCF the next year...losing to a 60-win team of Nowitzki, Josh Howard and Terry in their primes. How is a Top 4 finish two years in a row not contending? The West was absolutely stacked.
First of all Harden>Nash... now that that is over with Raja Bell over Bev ok... Amare is better than Anderson no doubt. Diaw was a beast back then but Capela and Nene combo is better built at center for playoffs. Matrix is better than Ariza but it's pretty close. But having Lou and Gordon coming off the bench evens things up pretty quickly.
Suns had way more talent than this current Rockets team. That's ok though. We have this offseason to make tweaks to the roster. Joe Johnson shot 48% 3's in 2004-05. Marion was WAY better than Ariza. Marion could play PF in small ball. Ariza can't. Marion rebounded and defended the rim way better than Ariza ever has.
The ssol suns didn't have great 3-point shooters. I guess maybe joe johnson and barbosa. However I would say their overall talent was better: Marion, Amare, Johnson, nash, barbosa.
they had there fair amount of shooters at the time, jjohnson, Qrich, barbosa, raja, james jones, eddie house
Matrix and Ariza isn't pretty close, like at all Matrix was a legit all star level player who excelled on both ends.
Right?! Suns had a chance and were contenders. That horry play and stoudemire suspension were huge. Either way people get way too hung up on the term "contender." It is such a subjective term. How do you define if a team "contended" for a title? .won at least 55 games? .made it to at least the 2nd round? .made it at least to the finals? .had an MVP on the team? .had a no. 1 ranked offense .tried to win a championship? .made the playoffs? I mean could you argue that the milwaukee bucks are "contending" for a championship? The only non-debatable way to prove that a team was a "contender" is if that team ended up winning the chip
On the defensive end their close. On offensive Matrix is overall more talented but Ariza in the playoffs usually shows up in terms of hitting the three. Matrix no better than Ariza behind the three.
Doc Rivers won rings with the Boston big 3. Hasn't won with the Clippers big 3. Different teams can accomplish different things.
I really hope you're joking right now. Matrix was an all star and top 20 player in the NBA, Ariza is nowhere close. Ariza wishes he could have Marion's playoff averages. Marion was having games where he would drop 38 points and 16 rebounds in the playoffs... Matrix and Ariza are on 2 different planets.
