72-10 watch

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Lol Draymon Green is in the mold of Rodman. Both fought to be in the league and both are grinding players. Green is an old school player. Its funny.

 

[SilenceS]

v-:

 

[Enasic]

Except I hate the Bulls. So much for that theory.

I would guess you're one of those people that tend to think every star player and every great team back in the day would destroy the current era of great players and teams. But even if you're not, your theory about Rodman injuring Curry is still ridiculous. The 96 Sonics took the Bulls to 6 games, as did EVERY team the Bulls faced in the finals except an old and fading Lakers team. Yet this GS team who is on pace to break the wins record wouldn't stand a chance? That's just silly....

 

[brett05]

I would guess you're one of those people that tend to think every star player and every great team back in the day would destroy the current era of great players and teams. But even if you're not, your theory about Rodman injuring Curry is still ridiculous. The 96 Sonics took the Bulls to 6 games, as did EVERY team the Bulls faced in the finals except an old and fading Lakers team. Yet this GS team who is on pace to break the wins record wouldn't stand a chance? That's just silly....

That just tells you how much more unbalance the NBA is now. How you cannot see that is still a mystery.

 

[SilenceS]

That just tells you how much more unbalance the NBA is now. How you cannot see that is still a mystery.

The NBA has been top heavy for how long? There has been one 6th seed to win a championship since 1980. FOUR 3 seeds and the rest have been 1 or 2 seeds. That is 30 years of the NBA champions being the 1 or 2 seed. Tell me how its unbalanced again? Its the same as it always been. The only difference is instead of the top teams having 1 superstar. Teams are having multiple.

 

[brett05]

The NBA has been top heavy for how long? There has been one 6th seed to win a championship since 1980. FOUR 3 seeds and the rest have been 1 or 2 seeds. That is 30 years of the NBA champions being the 1 or 2 seed. Tell me how its unbalanced again? Its the same as it always been. The only difference is instead of the top teams having 1 superstar. Teams are having multiple.

You got hall of fame players, sometimes multiple on the playoff teams at all levels. I just don't see that in today's game.

 

[SilenceS]

This is completely wrong. Yes, the NBA has always been top heavy. But the top teams had a much higher concentration of "superstars" in the past. One, there were fewer teams total. Two, the league wasn't as competitive and there wasn't a salary cap, so the good organizations could more easily acquire and keep top players. Look at some of the trades the Celtics and Lakers made to form their 1980's teams. Not only would those trades be impossible to do in the current era due to salary cap restrictions, no other organization would be dumb enough to make those types of deals with the Celtics/Lakers in the first place. The Lakers had 4 #1 overall picks on their team (Thompson, Johnson, Jabbar, Worthy)...how is that even possible? The Celtics won titles with Kevin McHale and then Bill Walton coming off their bench.

This isn't to belittle what Golden State has accomplished, but just trying to clarify your awful comment that great teams of the past relied on only one superstar. I've already bowed out of the Cubs forum due to its incredible lack of historical perspective and logic...please don't make me bow out of the Bulls forum as well.

So, the top heavy teams don't have multiple superstars today?

So, did you just prove that the NBA was top heavy? The Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls dominated the 80's,90's, and 2000's. Is that not a top heavy league.

Oh and you "left" the Cubs board? lol you got spanked around and looked dumb. Good luck

 

[Enasic]

That just tells you how much more unbalance the NBA is now. How you cannot see that is still a mystery.

Lol...you act like every playoff team in the 90s were dangerous. That wasn't the case. There were a lot of bum teams back in the day. On most years, there's only about 3-5 legit contenders. It's as balanced as always.

 

[brett05]

Lol...you act like every playoff team in the 90s were dangerous. That wasn't the case. There were a lot of bum teams back in the day. On most years, there's only about 3-5 legit contenders. It's as balanced as always.

believe what you need to young one.

 

[The Hawk]

I would guess you're one of those people that tend to think every star player and every great team back in the day would destroy the current era of great players and teams. But even if you're not, your theory about Rodman injuring Curry is still ridiculous. The 96 Sonics took the Bulls to 6 games, as did EVERY team the Bulls faced in the finals except an old and fading Lakers team. Yet this GS team who is on pace to break the wins record wouldn't stand a chance? That's just silly....

I don't think that it'd be close. Curry would get his but some forget how dominant the Bulls were on defense. Chicago assembled four of the all time best lock-down defenders of all time in Jordan, Pippin, Rodman, and Harper. THe other thing is that the Bulls would own the rebounds and the inside scoring. That was as special a defensive team as has every existed. The other thing is that they were led by the GOAT who wouldn't allow them to lose

 

[The Hawk]

Lol Draymon Green is in the mold of Rodman. Both fought to be in the league and both are grinding players. Green is an old school player. Its funny.

That video also reminds me how Bob Costas disliked Rodman being the "purist" personified that he was

 

[Enasic]

I don't think that it'd be close. Curry would get his but some forget how dominant the Bulls were on defense. Chicago assembled four of the all time best lock-down defenders of all time in Jordan, Pippin, Rodman, and Harper. THe other thing is that the Bulls would own the rebounds and the inside scoring. That was as special a defensive team as has every existed. The other thing is that they were led by the GOAT who wouldn't allow them to lose

Harper was a "lock down" defender now? He was good, and his length at the PG spot was an asset, but let's not get carried away. But yes, the Bulls defense was dominant and yes, they had the GOAT....even still, they routinely got pushed to 6 game series in the later rounds. Indy took them to 7 one year and were up by a large amount of points in game 7. But GS wouldn't be able to make it a close series? That's your opinion.

believe what you need to young one.

I will believe it would be a close series. As most finals series the Bulls played in were. Think about that....every finals but ONE went to 6 games. The Portland series would have gone 7 if not for a miraculous come back in the 4th QTR. If you don't think GS would be a competitive series, you apparently think the gap between now and then is astronomical.

 

[knoxville7]

Harper was a "lock down" defender now? He was good, and his length at the PG spot was an asset, but let's not get carried away. But yes, the Bulls defense was dominant and yes, they had the GOAT....even still, they routinely got pushed to 6 game series in the later rounds. Indy took them to 7 one year and were up by a large amount of points in game 7. But GS wouldn't be able to make it a close series? That's your opinion.



I will believe it would be a close series. As most finals series the Bulls played in were. Think about that....every finals but ONE went to 6 games. The Portland series would have gone 7 if not for a miraculous come back in the 4th QTR. If you don't think GS would be a competitive series, you apparently think the gap between now and then is astronomical.

so then you think the bulls win in 6? lol. as far as some series potentially going 7, yeah things could of happened to change things, but they didn't. bulls could of ended some of those in 5 games had some shots bounced a little differently as well, but they didn't. I just don't like the what ifs and could of beens personally. to me some of those game 5's were situations where the bulls were up 3 games to 1 and on the road....that's a situation a lot of teams tend to drop a game no matter who they are playing or who they are, but again....no excuses, what happened is what happened.

as far as the quality of teams in the playoffs then vs. now, I tend to side with the 90's as the golden era of basketball, but hey im biased :shrug:

when I look at the bulls 72-10 playoff season, they faced the Miami Heat in the 1st round....a team that had a 25 year old Alonzo mourning and a 29 year old tim hardaway...two hall of famers in prime years. compare that to the Warriors current 1st round matchup as the standings sit today of the Houston Rockets and their losing record overall. they have two of the most overrated players in the NBA today...harden and howard. again, maybe I am biased, but to me Mourning/Hardaway >>> Howard/Harden all day everyday.

bulls then as we all know went on to play a very good Knicks team(4 games to 1) and an extremely good Orlando Magic(sweep) roster on their way to the 6 games against Seattle. To me, that's a tougher path to a title than what the warriors will face in the playoffs

 

[Enasic]

Tim Hardaway is not a hall of famer

And yes, I think the Bulls would have won in 6. WOuldn't be surprised if it went 7 though.

 

[Enasic]

so then you think the bulls win in 6? lol. as far as some series potentially going 7, yeah things could of happened to change things, but they didn't. bulls could of ended some of those in 5 games had some shots bounced a little differently as well, but they didn't. I just don't like the what ifs and could of beens personally. to me some of those game 5's were situations where the bulls were up 3 games to 1 and on the road....that's a situation a lot of teams tend to drop a game no matter who they are playing or who they are, but again....no excuses, what happened is what happened.

as far as the quality of teams in the playoffs then vs. now, I tend to side with the 90's as the golden era of basketball, but hey im biased :shrug:

when I look at the bulls 72-10 playoff season, they faced the Miami Heat in the 1st round....a team that had a 25 year old Alonzo mourning and a 29 year old tim hardaway...two hall of famers in prime years. compare that to the Warriors current 1st round matchup as the standings sit today of the Houston Rockets and their losing record overall. they have two of the most overrated players in the NBA today...harden and howard. again, maybe I am biased, but to me Mourning/Hardaway >>> Howard/Harden all day everyday.

bulls then as we all know went on to play a very good Knicks team(4 games to 1) and an extremely good Orlando Magic(sweep) roster on their way to the 6 games against Seattle. To me, that's a tougher path to a title than what the warriors will face in the playoffs

The Warriors will have to go through some combination of SA, OKC, and the Clippers. Not easy. Either way, the Bulls had some pretty modest teams to get through during their 6 championships. If you want to look at 96 by itself, what they did was obviously impressive.

 

[knoxville7]

Tim Hardaway is not a hall of famer

And yes, I think the Bulls would have won in 6. WOuldn't be surprised if it went 7 though.

he should be then! but yes, you are correct he is not in the hall of fame yet....point still holds that the first round the bulls were matched up against a hell of a potent duo in their prime

 

[knoxville7]

The Warriors will have to go through some combination of SA, OKC, and the Clippers. Not easy. Either way, the Bulls had some pretty modest teams to get through during their 6 championships. If you want to look at 96 by itself, what they did was obviously impressive.[/QUOTE]

well, that's what this whole post is about is comparing the 96 team to todays warriors :shrug: they will have a combination of 2 of those 3 teams probably, sure. but do you think OKC or the Clippers are as good as the 96 Knicks or 96 Magic? I don't really. ill give you SA as a legit comparison, and probably slightly better than the 96 Knicks and maybe even the 96 Magic. but outside of SA, I just don't see much competition for the warriors to go against

 

[Scoot26]

so then you think the bulls win in 6? lol. as far as some series potentially going 7, yeah things could of happened to change things, but they didn't. bulls could of ended some of those in 5 games had some shots bounced a little differently as well, but they didn't. I just don't like the what ifs and could of beens personally. to me some of those game 5's were situations where the bulls were up 3 games to 1 and on the road....that's a situation a lot of teams tend to drop a game no matter who they are playing or who they are, but again....no excuses, what happened is what happened.

as far as the quality of teams in the playoffs then vs. now, I tend to side with the 90's as the golden era of basketball, but hey im biased :shrug:

when I look at the bulls 72-10 playoff season, they faced the Miami Heat in the 1st round....a team that had a 25 year old Alonzo mourning and a 29 year old tim hardaway...two hall of famers in prime years. compare that to the Warriors current 1st round matchup as the standings sit today of the Houston Rockets and their losing record overall. they have two of the most overrated players in the NBA today...harden and howard. again, maybe I am biased, but to me Mourning/Hardaway >>> Howard/Harden all day everyday.

bulls then as we all know went on to play a very good Knicks team(4 games to 1) and an extremely good Orlando Magic(sweep) roster on their way to the 6 games against Seattle. To me, that's a tougher path to a title than what the warriors will face in the playoffs

The Heat team wasn't all that yet. It was Rileys first year. They won 42 games. Tim Hardaway was traded for at deadline. They didn't have the chemistry and flow yet. And it showed as the Bulls blew them out in every game in a three game sweep. I wouldn't put much stock into them in 95-96.

Sent from the mod station in Nome, Alaska.

 

[Scoot26]

well, that's what this whole post is about is comparing the 96 team to todays warriors :shrug: they will have a combination of 2 of those 3 teams probably, sure. but do you think OKC or the Clippers are as good as the 96 Knicks or 96 Magic? I don't really. ill give you SA as a legit comparison, and probably slightly better than the 96 Knicks and maybe even the 96 Magic. but outside of SA, I just don't see much competition for the warriors to go against

The 96 Knicks are basically Ewing and they won 47 games. . So yes okc and lac are better imo.

The Magic probably are better than both.

Sent from the mod station in Nome, Alaska.

 

[knoxville7]

The Heat team wasn't all that yet. It was Rileys first year. They won 42 games. Tim Hardaway was traded for at deadline. They didn't have the chemistry and flow yet. And it showed as the Bulls blew them out in every game in a three game sweep. I wouldn't put much stock into them in 95-96.

Sent from the mod station in Nome, Alaska.

fair enough....that's why they were an 8 seed despite two uber talented players in their prime. either way its a rare 1st round matchup to me. the fact the bulls blew them out and swept them...well they swept Orlando in 4 games later on and they were even more talented and DID have their chemistry together. I still say Miami was a tougher than normal 8 seed