Jordan's Shadow

[CODE_BLUE56]

can we go one thread where yall dont start a giant pissing match

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

LOL at this. What winning "tradition" is that? What did the Bulls ever win before Jordan and what have they won since? The Bulls under Jordan had essentially a 10 year run of very good basketball. You're going to throw the word "tradition" around for that? Especially when you use it in the same post as the Lakers and Celtics who have been great/had great teams in numerous decades?

Say what you want, but the Bulls won 6 titles in 8 years in the most competitive and evenly-matched decade (the 90's) in NBA History. The Boston Celtics won their 10 titles in that 11 year stretch in a league with 1/3 of the teams and no team salary limitations. The Bulls' 6 titles is 3rd most in the NBA. They also were a very above average team in the 60s-70s, and were the most successful expansion team in NBA history.

Obviously, the "winning tradition" isn't as big as the Yankees, Steelers, Lakers, or even the Celtics... probably not even as big as the Spurs because the the recent history (even though they have 4 championships to the Bulls' 6). But the Bulls surely have proven that they are capable of putting together a championship team or 2. And they have, in my unbiased opinion, the best and most loyal basketball fans in the country.

 

[FirstTimer]

Have you noticed something First Timer? Everyone disagrees with you about everything. :flipa:

Like that fucking matters....

You just had someone use "winning tradition" for the Bulls in the same post talking about the Lakers and the Celtics................

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

Like that fucking matters....

You just had someone use "winning tradition" for the Bulls in the same post talking about the Lakers and the Celtics................

bro, I said "add to" their winning tradition. Don't take my words out-of-context, please. If you need an additional explanation, read my post.

 

[FirstTimer]

Say what you want, but the Bulls won 6 titles in 8 years in the most competitive and evenly-matched decade (the 90's) in NBA History. The Boston Celtics won their 10 titles in that 11 year stretch in a league with 1/3 of the teams and no team salary limitations. The Bulls' 6 titles is 3rd most in the NBA. They also were a very above average team in the 60s-70s, and were the most successful expansion team in NBA history.

Blah blah blah. Excuses excuses. The Bulls also won their last three titles in an expansion era when the talent poll may have been watered down. (I don't agree with that but some have made the argument....) In any case you can find "qualifiers" and "buts" for every Championship team. The bottom line is the Bulls had one great stretch in franchise history that would amount to anything close to a tradition. Using the word tradition for the Bulls next to the Celtics and Lakers is laughable. Sorry, but to use the word "tradition" you have to be great at least a few times...not just once.

And they have, in my unbiased opinion, the best and most loyal basketball fans in the country.

Won't disagree there too much. The Bulls were still drawing well when Bryce Drew was there and the team was winning 20-30 games a season.

 

[FirstTimer]

bro, I said "add to" their winning tradition. Don't take my words out-of-context, please. If you need an additional explanation, read my post.

I know what you said....what I'm telling you is the Bulls don't have a "winning tradition" to begin with. They were a top team for about 10 years. You just compared them to the Lakers and Celtics who were good teams for 10 year stretches perhaps 3-4 times. One successful stretch isn't a "tradition"

 

[Lex L.]

I think Hollinger had that Bulls ranked either 3 or 4 behind the Lakers and Celtics. Whether its concentrated in 8 years or over 28 years, the Bulls have the 3rd most titles in the NBA. And actually, the fact that its concentrated in 8 years enhances its cache/tradition. The NBAs peak in terms of popularity coincided with the Bulls winning championships. The Bulls are a global brand, whether its becaues of Michael Jordan or not.

Who cares if it was nothing before Jordan. Michael Jordan was enough. If youre a Gen Xer or younger, the Bulls are the biggest and best dynasty of all professional sports.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

I think Hollinger had that Bulls ranked either 3 or 4 behind the Lakers and Celtics. Whether its concentrated in 8 years or over 28 years, the Bulls have the 3rd most titles in the NBA. And actually, the fact that its concentrated in 8 years enhances its cache/tradition. The NBAs peak in terms of popularity coincided with the Bulls winning championships. The Bulls are a global brand, whether its becaues of Michael Jordan or not.

Who cares if it was nothing before Jordan. Michael Jordan was enough. If youre a Gen Xer or younger, the Bulls are the biggest and best dynasty of all professional sports.

um what

 

[Lex L.]

I found it.

Intro to all-time NBA franchise rankings - ESPN

NBA Franchise Rankings: Chicago Bulls No. 4 - ESPN

4. CHICAGO BULLS: 59.77 POINTS PER SEASON (1966-2009)
Wins: 1,744
Playoff wins: 160
Series wins: 36
Titles: 6
All-Stars: 41
Best player: Michael Jordan
Best coach: Phil Jackson
Best team: 1995-96 (72-10, won NBA title)
Intangibles: +100. No fan experience can top seeing Jordan night after night.


The Chicago Bulls have won just one playoff series from 1998 to 2009, and from 1976 to 1988 they made it through the first round only one time. Overall, they have lost 50 or more games 11 times in 44 years, haven't had an All-Star in more than a decade and didn't win a conference title in their first 24 seasons.

Of course, I left out the decade from 1988 to 1998 for a reason. The Bulls were so good in that era that they rank fourth on the franchise list, despite doing almost nothing of consequence in their other 34 years of existence.

Led by the greatest player of all time, Michael Jordan, the Bulls won six NBA championships -- and might have had more if Jordan hadn't taken off nearly two full seasons to pursue a minor league baseball career. People forget, but the supporting cast around him wasn't too shabby either. Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, Toni Kukoc and company were good enough to win 55 games without Jordan in 1993-94, and were beaten by eventual conference champ New York because of a dubious foul call on Pippen late in Game 5.

FRANCHISE HISTORY
Chicago Bulls (1966-present)

And with Jordan? Forget it. Chicago steamrolled the league in 1995-96, when Jordan came back full-time and defensive pest Dennis Rodman joined the mix. Chicago set a record with a 72-10 season in which it led the league in both offensive and defensive efficiency. The Bulls started the season 41-3, didn't lose a home game until April 8 and had one double-digit loss the entire regular season. It goes without saying that they won the title, and this is generally considered the greatest team in league history.

That season marked Jordan's fourth championship. All of Jordan's first four championships came in an era when teams were allowed to partake in much more physical defense than today, making it easier to defend quick guards like Jordan. It didn't matter. Neither the Pistons nor Knicks -- two of the best defensive teams of all time -- had an answer for Jordan, who went through Detroit in four games en route to his first title and the Knicks each of his next three.

The Bulls get 100 extra intangible points for the fact that they had the greatest player ever, and the countless moments he delivered. Anyone who watched the Bulls for that decade walked away having seen more etched-in-stone, all-time moments than fans of most teams would see in a century.

It should be pointed out Jordan's was not the only Bulls team to be a contender. Early in the 1970s, Dick Motta led Chicago to four straight 50-win seasons and back-to-back trips to the conference finals. The Bulls had the misfortune of being in the same division as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, but got within a game of the promised land before falling to eventual champion Golden State in the 1975 Western Conference finals -- after the Bulls blew a Game 6 clincher on their home court, and dropped Game 7 by four points. That team had four key players in their 30s and faded to irrelevance once Chet Walker and Jerry Sloan hung up their sneakers a season later, eight years before the Bulls drafted Jordan.

 

[Lex L.]

um what

Whats to not understand?

 

[FirstTimer]

I think Hollinger had that Bulls ranked either 3 or 4 behind the Lakers and Celtics

Yeah for dynasties. Dynasties =/= to "tradition"
.

And actually, the fact that its concentrated in 8 years enhances its cache/tradition

No it doesn't. You keep throwing around the term "3rd most"...while ignoring teh Bulls have 9 fewer championships than the second place team. The Celtics and Lakers have won NBA titles in every single decade except the 60's and 90's for the Magic and the 90's for the Celtics. That's tradition. The Bulls winning 6 in 8 years is nice but that isn't a tradition..that's a hell of a one time run in one decade.


.

The NBAs peak in terms of popularity coincided with the Bulls winning championships. The Bulls are a global brand, whether its becaues of Michael Jordan or not.

Ummm..it is. Do you honestly think the Bulls would have been a global brand without him? Somehow I don't think "Air Cartwrights" would have sold well.

If youre a Gen Xer or younger, the Bulls are the biggest and best dynasty of all professional sports.

................Do you even know what year the Gen X started?

 

[FirstTimer]

I found it.

Intro to all-time NBA franchise rankings - ESPN

NBA Franchise Rankings: Chicago Bulls No. 4 - ESPN

So it's not a tradition ranking..the Bulls are ranked 4th..and 90% of the article revolves around Jordan....then talks about a few conference finals trips in the 70's...............sorry if I'm not impressed.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

First Timer, I don't think there is much disagreement here. All I'm saying is that, in my opinion, the upside for LeBron to come here is just as big (probably bigger) as the downside - based on the past of the CHI franchise and nothing else. Obviously, the fact that the Bulls & the city kick ass only helps...

The only NBA team with a legit modern-day winning tradition, is the Lakers.

Since 1984, the Celtics have 4 titles and plenty of horrible seasons/luck.

Since 1991, the Bulls have 6 titles and plenty of horrible seasons themselves...

I think LeBron could be to Jordan as what Kobe could is to Magic. Do you disagree with me?

 

[Lex L.]

Yeah for dynasties. Dynasties =/= to "tradition"

Yeah it does.
.

No it doesn't. You keep throwing around the term "3rd most"...while ignoring teh Bulls have 9 fewer championships than the second place team.

Wow, youve mastered the inane. Show me where Ive said they have more than the Lakers or Celtics. I dont understand why youre crying about this.

The Celtics and Lakers have won NBA titles in every single decade except the 60's and 90's for the Magic and the 90's for the Celtics. That's tradition.

The Celtics won titles in the 60s. But lets face it. The league really took off in the 80s with Magic and Bird. If you look at the most titles since the sport became relevant at that point in time, the Bulls have the second most, including the best team of all time. Sorry but a dynasty does equal tradition.

The Bulls winning 6 in 8 years is nice but that isn't a tradition..that's a hell of a one time run in one decade.

Its tradition. Especially when that time period was as transcendant as it was.


.

Ummm..it is. Do you honestly think the Bulls would have been a global brand without him? Somehow I don't think "Air Cartwrights" would have sold well.

Thats not even relevant. You cant ignore that the Bulls did have Jordan. He is a transcendant athlete in the history of american sports. Sorry, but he counts.

................Do you even know what year the Gen X started?

Yeah, it varies but it typically goes from 63ish-83ish. A generation is generally 20 years and the Boomers started when people started coming back from the war...so 43ish and obviously it would have lasted until 63 ish. A generation is generally 20 years also.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

These words... dynasty. winning traditions. they are all trivial.

All I am trying to say is that the Bulls have championships and positivity in their history and that, in itself, can't be a bad thing in terms of signing LeBron or anybody else. If so, **** them.

 

[FirstTimer]

Yeah it does.

No it doesn't.

The very word tradition means the passing on of something. The Bulls don't have any such tradition as their winning was never "passed on" to any one. It died out in 1998. Technically, if Lebron comes to Chicago and wins THEN Chicago has a winning tradition.....

.

Wow, youve mastered the inane. Show me where Ive said they have more than the Lakers or Celtics. I dont understand why youre crying about this.

I never said you did. Show me where I claimed that?!?1 Are you high? You keep saying the Bulls have the 3rd most titles...while leaving out the part where they have almost 10 less then the 2nd place team. You're skewing the data by not putting it in context.

The Celtics won titles in the 60s.

So now we are disregarding the Celtics for actually winning titles in order to start a tradition?

Sorry but a dynasty does equal tradition.

By the very definition of the word "tradition"...no it doesn't. Repeated dynasties over time equal a tradition.....






.

Thats not even relevant. You cant ignore that the Bulls did have Jordan. He is a transcendant athlete in the history of american sports. Sorry, but he counts.

WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

You said....

The Bulls are a global brand, whether its becaues of Michael Jordan or not.

I know you can't ignore they had Jordan...your above statement implies that it would have been possible for the Bulls to somehow become a global brand "whether they had Jordan" or not. I was pointing out your statement as being both ridiculously dumb(the are a global brand only because of Jordan) and obvious(see other note).

Yeah, it varies but it typically goes from 63ish-83ish.

The Celtics, Yankees, Lakers, and Steelers all have as many, if not more championships than the Bulls in that time period.

 

[FirstTimer]

I think LeBron could be to Jordan as what Kobe is to Magic. Do you disagree with me?

Sure..Why not?

 

[Lex L.]

So it's not a tradition ranking..the Bulls are ranked 4th..and 90% of the article revolves around Jordan....then talks about a few conference finals trips in the 70's...............sorry if I'm not impressed.

So? Im just telling you that its not just Bulls homers who elevate their standing as a franchise, whether its on the basis of 8 years or 28 years.

And there are benchmarks all over the place coming from those teams. Thats tradition. Tradition comes from Latin and it means "handing over"...this could be benchmarks of excellence, pregame intros, or simply stories told by the people who experienced that era.

Look it up, you myopic twit.

 

[Lex L.]

No it doesn't.

The very word tradition means the passing on of something. The Bulls don't have any such tradition as their winning was never "passed on" to any one. It died out in 1998. Technically, if Lebron comes to Chicago and wins THEN Chicago has a winning tradition.....

Ive answered this in my preceding post.
.

I never said you did. Show me where I claimed that?!?1 Are you high? You keep saying the Bulls have the 3rd most titles...while leaving out the part where they have almost 10 less then the 2nd place team. You're skewing the data by not putting it in context.

So? Thats your hang up. I dont care about this stuff youre crying about.

So now we are disregarding the Celtics for actually winning titles in order to start a tradition?

No. Again, Ive said they have the 3rd most.

By the very definition of the word "tradition"...no it doesn't. Repeated dynasties over time equal a tradition.....

Like I said, Ive already answered this.






.

WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

You said....

I know you can't ignore they had Jordan...your above statement implies that it would have been possible for the Bulls to somehow become a global brand "whether they had Jordan" or not. I was pointing out your statement as being both ridiculously dumb(the are a global brand only because of Jordan) and obvious(see other note).

I never implied that you can exclude Jordan. I said you cant ignore Jordan, which is what youre trying to do.

The Celtics, Yankees, Lakers, and Steelers all have as many, if not more championships than the Bulls in that time period.

What time period? From 1980? The Steelers dont have 6 titles since then. Neither do the Celtics. The Celtics have 4.

 

[FirstTimer]

So? Im just telling you that its not just Bulls homers who elevate their standing as a franchise, whether its on the basis of 8 years or 28 years.

But the Bulls are built on a only 10 years. I mean Jesus Christ. Read the intro to the article....

The Chicago Bulls have won just one playoff series from 1998 to 2009, and from 1976 to 1988 they made it through the first round only one time. Overall, they have lost 50 or more games 11 times in 44 years, haven't had an All-Star in more than a decade(Until Derrick Rose) and didn't win a conference title in their first 24 seasons.

You're going to sit there and honestly say the Bulls have a "winning tradition" based on 10 years of a 44 year history?....of which the other 34 years overall have been pretty damn subpar?

Thats tradition. Tradition comes from Latin and it means "handing over"

No shit...so who did the Bulls "hand over" this supposed tradition to? The 15 win team from 2000? This "winning tradition" has been "passed down" for 12 years in a franchise that has won one playoff series in the last decade?

this could be benchmarks of excellence, pregame intros, or simply stories told by the people who experienced that era.

I'm not arguing the Bulls don't have "traditions" of wearing black shoes in the playoffs, or of pre-game introductions..I'm arguing that they don't have a "tradition" of winning........especially when compared to the Celtics and Lakers...........Nice try trying to change the argument when you are getting your ass handed to you.