I'm happy for the Bucks and Bucks fans. That team has been around a while, had a good tradition of winning back in the '70s with guys like Kareem and Marques Johnson, had some good teams in the '80s with Sikma, Robertson, Pressey, but it had been a long time since Milwaukee had even sniffed the Finals.
I'm unhappy, of course, that this year's title has gone to one of Boston's chief rivals, but hopefully that lights a fire under the Celtics players.
And in my opinion, this loss for the Suns cements Chris Paul's reputation as a guy who ultimately can't get it done in the postseason (even if he does have some good postseason games).
I loved those 80's Bucks. Sidney Moncrief was a guy who's game I loved and I always wished the Celtics could have gotten him somehow.
Ah, Moncrief! I knew I was forgetting a key player from those teams. Thanks, Nick.
Ricky Pierce was another guy I liked on those teams. Such a great shooter from inside the arc and tough too.
Also, Terry Cummings. Just a lot of players that played the game the way I liked and played it really well.
TP for the 80's Bucks talk.
the fact that those talented Bucks teams of the 80's never made a finals appearance is a testament to how tough the Eastern conference was back then in relation to the cakewalk the Lakers had in the West and how great those Celtic and Sixers teams were back then
The Bucks were a team of very good but not great players. They were a regular season team, not a playoff team for that reason. Very similar to the Spurs, Suns, and Nuggets out West.
The reality is the 1980's had 5 franchises make the NBA Finals in the entire decade. It wasn't exactly a beacon of balance, depth, and quality play from top to bottom. There were pretty much always 3 teams that could realistically win the Finals, sometimes 4, but it was a decade of dominance by teams that were quite simply just better than everyone else.
I think the point with the Bucks was that, depending upon the era, they could have been seen as a great team. Instead, they were essentially no better than the fourth best team in any given year.
They had multiple All-NBA and All-Defense players, though, and a couple of HOFers. Had that collection of talent played together throughout the 70s rather than the 80s, I think they realistically could have hunt multiple banners
I don't know that is true. They certainly could have won one like the Sonics did, but even the 70's, the teams winning the titles had top 5 guys on them (except for the Sonics).
82-83 or 85-86 were their 2 best teams accounting for both record and playoff finish (though 84-85 was their best record). The 84-85 and 85-86 teams had 1 HOFer, Moncrief. That is is it. The 2nd best player was probably Terry Cummings, who made 2 all star teams and a 2nd team and 3rd team all NBA over his entire career. The 3rd best player was probably Pressey, who didn't make a single all star game nor any All NBA Teams. He made 2 1st team defense and 1 2nd team defense. The 85 team won 59 games and got swept by the Sixers in the 2nd round and the 86 team won 57 games and got swept by the Celtics in the ECF.
The 82-83 team did have 3 HOFers. Moncrief and then 34 year old Lanier and 34 year old Cowens (and to be clear that was Cowens after sitting out 2 seasons in retirement and getting hurt midseason and not playing again ever). They also had Marques Johnson who had a 1st team and 2 2nd Team all NBA and 5 all star appearances. So that was the most decorated team they had. They won 51 games and lost in 5 to the Sixers in the ECF (though did sweep the C's in the semis - one of the bigger upsets of the 80's even with Larry getting hurt and missing a game).
I just don't think a team with Sidney Moncrief as its best player is winning a championship, even in the 70's, especially when the other starters were Cummings, Pressey, Craig Hodges, and Alton Lister.
The 80's had 4 truly great teams, the C's, Lakers, Sixers, and Pistons, the Rockets were very good borderline great team over a several year period as well. Other than that, the quality of play and depth of rosters just wasn't that good, which allowed a team like the Bucks to have a very good record and a very nice showing over several seasons, but it doesn't mean the Bucks were something more than just a good team. They weren't. They stayed mostly healthy and had depth. Pretty similar to the Horford Hawks or the DeRozan Raptors.
