Between '81 and '84, was it a bit disappointing?

[TitleMaster]

I remember that after the '81 ("Moses eats sh*t") title, three years prior to the '84 ("Hop on my back") one, Bird had expected to continuously win championships. It didn't happen.

Remember in '82, the Celts had the best regular season record in the league, 63-19. The Sixers made sure that they didn't choke away that game 7 that year.

And then in '83, it was a full sweep by Milwaukee. The C's never even have a chance to make Mose's Fo' Fi' Fo' into a Fo' Sev' Fo', which would have removed that insignia from Philly's rings.

[Emmette Bryant]

They didn't have anyone that could guard Andrew Toney.

[ThaPreacher]

The 76ers might have one a couple more titles if not for the Celtics-Lakers.
I mean Philly had a squad.  Can you imagine if Caldwell Jones wasn't sent as compensation to Houston? Or if the Philly team hadn't traded Daryl Dawkins.  ( One of these guys would have played with Moses Malone- ouch.

Philly went to the finals 80, 82 and 83.  Winning only in 83.

While Toney was indeed a key factor.
But Bill Fitch should have never ran Cowen's and Maravich (pre-season 81) out of town.
And Boston squandered the opportunity the year they lost to Milwaukee- as Bird has attested to.

Ah would have been nice to beat LA one more time!

Fitch-while having a great deal of success as a coach was never the right man for the job in Boston.

[Celtics4ever]

I loved every minute those Bird teams played up to 87.

[Redz]

The '83 sweep against the Bucks was the only time I remember questioning the team's heart in the Bird years.  It was like they knew they had no chance against the Sixers so they halfassed it against the Bucks (not the Bucks were any slouches).

[slamtheking]

The '83 sweep against the Bucks was the only time I remember questioning the team's heart in the Bird years.  It was like they knew they had no chance against the Sixers so they halfassed it against the Bucks (not the Bucks were any slouches).

to be fair, the team wasn't the same after Tiny went down with injury

[Redz]

The '83 sweep against the Bucks was the only time I remember questioning the team's heart in the Bird years.  It was like they knew they had no chance against the Sixers so they halfassed it against the Bucks (not the Bucks were any slouches).

to be fair, the team wasn't the same after Tiny went down with injury

True.  My memory might be a bit hazy at this point.  I just remember having granted them invincibility status in my head with Larry at the helm and hated seeing them go out so easily.

[Moranis]

83 was embarrassing.  Even without Tiny, Boston had the 3 best players in that series and still had a pretty deep team after that top 3.  No way Boston should have lost to Milwaukee.  None at all.  The teams were basically identical in 84 and Boston won 4-1.  That is what should have happened in 83.

[slamtheking]

The '83 sweep against the Bucks was the only time I remember questioning the team's heart in the Bird years.  It was like they knew they had no chance against the Sixers so they halfassed it against the Bucks (not the Bucks were any slouches).

to be fair, the team wasn't the same after Tiny went down with injury

True.  My memory might be a bit hazy at this point.  I just remember having granted them invincibility status in my head with Larry at the helm and hated seeing them go out so easily.

I agree that they shouldn't have gone out as easily as they did.  I still expected them to win it even without Tiny but the difference between how that team ran with him and ran without him was significantly noticeable.

[Donoghus]

If the failure of '83 doesn't happen, does '84-'87 play out the same way?  Fitch, DJ, etc...

Safe to say that the Bucks of the early to mid 80s were the best team of the decade not to win at least one title?

[slamtheking]

If the failure of '83 doesn't happen, does '84-'87 play out the same way?  Fitch, DJ, etc...

Safe to say that the Bucks of the early to mid 80s were the best team of the decade not to win at least one title?

The Robey for DJ trade may not have happened that offseason.  he didn't play much of the next season and that was all for him so the team may have been considering a trade anyway but who knows.

As for that Bucks team, that were loaded but had the misfortune of playing in the East with the Sixers and Celtics.  If they had been in the West with the Lakers, I suspect they'd have made the finals 2-3 times at least and given the Lakers at least some decent competition in the playoffs instead of the cakewalk they enjoyed from 80-88

[td450]

83 was embarrassing.  Even without Tiny, Boston had the 3 best players in that series and still had a pretty deep team after that top 3.  No way Boston should have lost to Milwaukee.  None at all.  The teams were basically identical in 84 and Boston won 4-1.  That is what should have happened in 83.

Milwaukee was really good that year, and just as deep as we were.  We actually didn't have the three best players. Sidney Moncrief was at his peak, and was an incredible two way player. He came in 4th in the MVP voting that year, and only Bird was ahead of him. Eventually, McHale became the better player, but he wasn't quite that good yet. Marques Johnson was also at the top of his game, and the C's didn't match up well against him either. They also had the size up front to compete with the C's big three.

In other decades, that Milwaukee team would have probably won a couple of titles.

[Celtics4ever]

Paul Pressey was tough that series.  I think they had an athletic edge against us and good outside shooting. Paul Mokeski excluded.

[BballTim]

83 was embarrassing.  Even without Tiny, Boston had the 3 best players in that series and still had a pretty deep team after that top 3.  No way Boston should have lost to Milwaukee.  None at all.  The teams were basically identical in 84 and Boston won 4-1.  That is what should have happened in 83.

   You could make a pretty good argument that Moncrief was one of the 3 best players in that series, at least for that year.

[Moranis]

83 was embarrassing.  Even without Tiny, Boston had the 3 best players in that series and still had a pretty deep team after that top 3.  No way Boston should have lost to Milwaukee.  None at all.  The teams were basically identical in 84 and Boston won 4-1.  That is what should have happened in 83.

   You could make a pretty good argument that Moncrief was one of the 3 best players in that series, at least for that year.

Possibly, but 22.5/6/4 isn't exactly world beater.  The Bucks from the 80's were like last years Hawks.  A bunch of good players, but no great ones (Lanier was at one time but was past his prime on those teams).  In fact, Lanier is the only HOFer on that team.  There is no way Boston should have lost to Milwaukee at any time during the 80's.  I stick by my embarrassing comment.