DASMACKDOWN
New member
- Joined:
- Mar 29, 2009
- Posts:
- 43
- Liked Posts:
- 0
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chi...ulls-best-post-dynasty-year-2004-or-2008.html
Going off Dougs post, I actually think its 2004.
Reason being was it was the first time in 6 years that we broke out of utter suckiness.
Also at that time, we had like the highest peak potential being the youngest team in the league.
Gordon
Deng
Noce
Duhon
were all rookies
Kirk was only in his second season
and Eddy and Chandler were finally starting to get it.
I dont think we have ever seen a team recently to have 4 rookies who all play a major role and win so many games (47) top 3 in the East.
So while 2008 has probably the better team going forward, the 2004 season will probably be more memorably because of where we were previous.
And I honestly do believe that if the team would have stayed together, would have been a perennial 50 win team from that point on.
I think the reason why we were so good, is because we actually had alot of size.
Going off Dougs post, I actually think its 2004.
Reason being was it was the first time in 6 years that we broke out of utter suckiness.
Also at that time, we had like the highest peak potential being the youngest team in the league.
Gordon
Deng
Noce
Duhon
were all rookies
Kirk was only in his second season
and Eddy and Chandler were finally starting to get it.
I dont think we have ever seen a team recently to have 4 rookies who all play a major role and win so many games (47) top 3 in the East.
So while 2008 has probably the better team going forward, the 2004 season will probably be more memorably because of where we were previous.
And I honestly do believe that if the team would have stayed together, would have been a perennial 50 win team from that point on.
I think the reason why we were so good, is because we actually had alot of size.