PDA

View Full Version : A question for those old enough to remember....



Peck
07-12-2005, 12:52 AM
This may seem like an odd question but for some reason I've been thinking about this lately.

Have the 90's Pacers become nothing more than the 80's Hawks, Cavs & Bucks?

I mean here in Indiana those 90's teams, to some of us, were a thrill to watch & some of us feel as though we were true title contenders.

But around the NBA are those teams now nothing more than just memory's of a team that never made it.

The reason I use the above three teams is because each of them had several 50 win seasons & were always at the top of the Central division during the 80's & even early 90's but never made it over the top.

Oh sure I could find some old Bucks fan who would still remenice about Sidney Moncrief & Terry Cummings or even a Cavs. fan who will go on & on about Brad Daugherty & Mark Price, but does the rest of the NBA even care? I don't think so.

So now I wonder if we aren't in the same boat. Since our team never made it to the top does that take away from their standings in the ranks of teams in history?

I mean yes, Reggie had some big playoff moments but Nique also went mano a mano with Bird on several occasions but does anybody even remember the Hawks?

I don't know why I wonder or even why I care but I just do.

clownskull
07-12-2005, 12:56 AM
well, most people don't really care about anything other than a championship. therefore, they don't look any further than that when thinking about great teams.
it's a bit unfortunate but, that's the way most fans are.

Kstat
07-12-2005, 01:03 AM
well, those teams never made the finals (unless you want to include the 2000 pacers), so I guess so.

If it makes you feel any better, the 80's bucks were worse off than the 90's pacers. They had so much talent it was sick. They simply had the misfortune of needing to play teams stacked with hall of famers (sixers, Celtics). And even when they beat one, the other would knock them off.

The Cavs I don't feel sorry for, because they HAD the superior talent. They were just weak-minded. The Bucks were just as talented, but they were never better than the 2nd best team in their own conference, despite making the central division their ***** for like 8 straight seasons.

I remember when the Bucks FINALLY got past the Celtics in 1983. Swept them in 4 straight. You got the feeling they were ready to throw a parade. Amazing accomplishment.

Then the SIxers swept the Bucks in the ECF.

Harmonica
07-12-2005, 01:23 AM
Have the 90's Pacers become nothing more than the 80's Hawks, Cavs & Bucks?
I think Rosen's comment on Stockton in the "Top PGs of all-time" thread best sums up the 90s Pacers as well: "Too bad the prime of Stockton's career coincided with the Bulls' Jordanian dynasty."

Lord Helmet
07-12-2005, 01:24 AM
I think those teams will be remembered, Reggie's performances against New York in the postseason were so big, and headliners. When people think of the Pacers they think now, the brawl :unimpress , then after that Reggie's playoff games in the early 90's.

Arcadian
07-12-2005, 01:34 AM
Yes, that is how those Pacer teams will be remembered by the NBA. That's what happens when you don't win a championship--unless you are Houston...they seem to be already forgotten.

foretaz
07-12-2005, 03:15 AM
from what i can remember, those teams rarely reached even the ECF....for the most part i seem to remember them being eliminated in the first or second round....now i havent looked it up, but i have a feeling that would be a point of difference.....the pacers had a fair amount of playoff success, while never winning a title....and while advancing to the ECF is not the ultimate goal, it does beat the hell out of one and done-not unlike our zeke years....

thats the way i remember those teams.....talented teams that did very little in the playoffs....like i said...i didnt look it up...and im sure there were exceptions, but i have a feeling the pacers made it to the ECF quite a few more times than the teams mentioned....

now, if winning a title is ur only barometer, then the teams are quite similar....but i seem to remember the pacers having more playoff success than the others...

Kstat
07-12-2005, 03:58 AM
from what i can remember, those teams rarely reached even the ECF....for the most part i seem to remember them being eliminated in the first or second round....now i havent looked it up, but i have a feeling that would be a point of difference.....the pacers had a fair amount of playoff success, while never winning a title....and while advancing to the ECF is not the ultimate goal, it does beat the hell out of one and done-not unlike our zeke years....

thats the way i remember those teams.....talented teams that did very little in the playoffs....like i said...i didnt look it up...and im sure there were exceptions, but i have a feeling the pacers made it to the ECF quite a few more times than the teams mentioned....

now, if winning a title is ur only barometer, then the teams are quite similar....but i seem to remember the pacers having more playoff success than the others...

You had better success because you only had ONE great team to go through, not two like Milwaukee. Milwaukee had it a lot worse, because even if they got past great team #1, great team #2 would eliminate them in the next round.

foretaz
07-12-2005, 04:08 AM
You had better success because you only had ONE great team to go through, not two like Milwaukee. Milwaukee had it a lot worse, because even if they got past great team #1, great team #2 would eliminate them in the next round.
..

yea...or we were just better....we were great team number 1 or 2....instead of having to face great team number 1 or 2...

so u basically make the point for me....those teams were always 3rd best....we were always 1 or 2...;)

Kstat
07-12-2005, 04:13 AM
sorry, but compare the Bucks of the 80's to the Pacers of the 90's, the Bucks had as much talent, arguably more. Lanier, Moncrief, Sikma, Johnson, Pressey, and depending which part of the decade, Pierce or Dandridge?

That team was LOADED. They just didnt have a megastar to lead them past Dr J and Larry.

And The Pacers of the 90's dont qualify as great team #2 because they are not a GREAT team. To be a GREAT team, you kinda have to win these things called championships.

foretaz
07-12-2005, 04:49 AM
but then again....that wasnt the question, now was it???

the question was how did we compare to those teams....and since those teams rarely got to the ECF because often the 2 best teams do....and since the pacers got to the ECF quite often....it would only stand to reason....oh wait...

im dealing with u...i forgot...forget i used that word reason..

Kstat
07-12-2005, 04:54 AM
Put the 90's pacers in the same conference as larry bird and Dr. J, and then tell me how many times the pacers reach the conference finals. The Bucks managed to make the conference finals THREE TIMES in that HOF minefield. Don't begin to tell me the 90's pacers could have done any better.

foretaz
07-12-2005, 05:06 AM
Put the 90's pacers in the same conference as larry bird and Dr. J, and then tell me how many times the pacers reach the conference finals. The Bucks managed to make the conference finals THREE TIMES in that HOF minefield. Don't begin to tell me the 90's pacers could have done any better.

and put those bucks teams in the same division as michael and the bulls and what happens????

results are results....

did the pacers win championships...nope...in that way they are similar....

did the pacers reach the ECF more often than the teams mentioned? yes

did the pacers reach the finals? yes

did the bucks?

did the hawks?

did the cavs?

im guessing...and i could be wrong...but i would guess the pacers made the ECF more than the other three combined....

Cactus Jax
07-12-2005, 05:41 AM
From my memory the Hawks never even made the ECF (the legendary game 7 vs Boston was as close as they got).

The Cavs made it once and got destroyed by the Bulls.

The Bucks were a remarkable team at that time; it's like playing in the AL against the Red Sox and Yankees. You might be able to beat one but the other is probably going to beat you.

From my memory though, the Sixers faded after they won the title in 83. They lost in the 1st round to the Nets in 84, and never were the same as Dr. J retired.

The Celitcs after that won the title in 84, lost in the finals in 85, won the title in 86, lost in the finals in 87, lost in the ECF in 88.

1987 had to be the biggest nightmare making year for the Bucks. They beat Philly in the 1st round 3-2, then lost to Boston in 7 games in the next round. I think they would have beaten Detroit that year as they were still a slight bit away from the elite level (I know I'll get *****ed about cause of the Isiah pass to Bird)

Cactus Jax
07-12-2005, 05:47 AM
http://www.nba.com/bucks/history/00400459.html#10

Man, reading this (from about 1980 on) gives you appreciation that the Pacers actually made the Finals.

Doug in CO
07-12-2005, 07:50 AM
Bottom line is there is a difference between how we remember the Pacers and how the NBA remembers them. From the NBA's perspective, the Pacers biggest accomplishment was probably that we were the only team to push the Jordan Bulls of the 90s to the brink of elimination. That's where things go wrong. 1999 would have been a culmination of the decade - but the lockout happened, the Pacers were not extremely tough, and thought they could cruise to the Finals. Along come the Knicks and the Spurs are celebrating. That was a tough year.

We will of course remember the Pacers as giving us a lot of special moments for 7-8 straight years, but the bottom line is, the Pacers failures in the ECF are legendary - they have been there - off the top of my head I think at least 5 times and only won once.

Unclebuck
07-12-2005, 08:41 AM
Pacers had more success then those other teams. I would compare the Pacers to the Jazz of the 90's or the Knicks of the 90's

fwpacerfan
07-12-2005, 03:09 PM
I don't care what the rest of the league thinks about the 90's Pacers teams. Why should they care? It really doesn't matter what a franchise has done in a particular decade. That is what is so great about sports - the only thing that really matters is this year. I'm a Reds fan but guess what? It doesn't help me at all this year the fact that they won the World Series in 75, 76 and 1990.

dipperdunk
07-12-2005, 03:37 PM
I think those Pacers teams will always be remembered as quality teams.

Diehard fans will remember the Bucks teams of the 80's(they were terrific) but one thing those Pacers teams have going for them as far as a legacy is the fact they played the Bulls and during the Jordan era they had the highest TV ratings in the history of the league so even the casual fan will remember those series. Also some of their epic duals came against the Knicks and it never hurts to be on center stage in the bright lights of New York.

Add in Reggie's memorable playoff moments and you have a team with a good legacy even without a Championship. I would bunch them together with Utah,Knicks and a couple of the Blazers teams during that era. Like the 80's Bucks all teams that were very good but that just couldn't get over that final obstacle.

ChicagoJ
07-12-2005, 09:56 PM
Man, those old Bucks teams were great. Well-coached, balanced rosters, explosive scorers, smart players, good defenders.

But just not talented enough to compete with two teams with multiple HOF'ers.

I'm not sure anybody has said this on here, but if anybody ever thinks the 1990s-era Pacers, Jazz, or Knicks were "the best team(s) to never win a championship", they're kidding themselves.

Kstat
07-12-2005, 10:20 PM
Man, those old Bucks teams were great. Well-coached, balanced rosters, explosive scorers, smart players, good defenders.

But just not talented enough to compete with two teams with multiple HOF'ers.

I'm not sure anybody has said this on here, but if anybody ever thinks the 1990s-era Pacers, Jazz, or Knicks were "the best team(s) to never win a championship", they're kidding themselves.

To put it in perspective, the Bucks DID have a hall-of-fame center in Lanier. Problem is, the Sixers and Celtics had BETTER hall-of-fame centers. That's ridiculous.

The 80's bucks to me were by far the best team to never make the finals. They just happened to play in the strongest conference in NBA history.

Cactus Jax
07-12-2005, 10:38 PM
*off topic*

That Pistons logo is pretty damn ugly in my opinion.

*on topic*

I was watching the game 7 1980 WCSF earlier today between the Bucks and the Supersonics, and the Bucks lost by 1 point on the road.

It would have been a hell of a series between them and the Lakers in the WCF if they won.

Harmonica
07-12-2005, 10:45 PM
*off topic*

That Pistons logo is pretty damn ugly in my opinion.

Is that Kstat's avatar? If so, I agree. It's pretty horsey. Looks like a first-year design student did it. Probably paid a boatload of money for it, too.

SoupIsGood
07-13-2005, 12:07 AM
Is that Kstat's avatar? If so, I agree. It's pretty horsey. Looks like a first-year design student did it. Probably paid a boatload of money for it, too.

It is only the P that goes on the side of their shorts.

The main logo is the

Detroit
Pistons

thing wrapped around a basketball.

Kstat
07-13-2005, 12:39 AM
Its the SECONDARY logo..... yeesh.

Hicks
07-13-2005, 01:03 AM
Its the SECONDARY logo..... yeesh.

People always have to **** on something. The logo is just fine.

SoupIsGood
07-13-2005, 01:04 AM
Did anyone notice the hidden D in the logo? Neat stuff, almost like the arrow in FedEx.

ChicagoJ
07-13-2005, 06:31 PM
To put it in perspective, the Bucks DID have a hall-of-fame center in Lanier. Problem is, the Sixers and Celtics had BETTER hall-of-fame centers. That's ridiculous.

The 80's bucks to me were by far the best team to never make the finals. They just happened to play in the strongest conference in NBA history.

Good point, I was even thinking of Sikma-era Bucks, after he replaced Lanier. That was still a damn good team.