Jordan's Shadow

[RamiTheBullsFan]

You guys are nit-picking instead of observing each-others' individual points... what's the point of it all?

 

[FirstTimer]

.

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

No I'm not. Jesus tap dancing Christ. I openly acknowledge MJ.......because he is all there is to acknowledge when it comes to the franchise "winning"...One player, for one decade is not a "tradition of winning".

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

.........Really....REALLY?!?!?

Gen X: Born 61-81.
Since those people have been born the Celtics have 14 titles.

The Steelers have 6.

The Lakers have 10

Yankees have 9.

 

[FirstTimer]

You guys are nit-picking instead of observing each-others' individual points... what's the point of it all?

I'm sorry. Does Lex have any points to observe?

 

[Dismagic1]

I'm sorry. Does Lex have any points to observe?

Dude would you just give it a rest and go to bed already? You're exhausting!

Point.

Your head.

 

[Lex L.]

.
No I'm not. Jesus tap dancing Christ. I openly acknowledge MJ.......because he is all there is to acknowledge when it comes to the franchise "winning"...One player, for one decade is not a "tradition of winning".

Your hamsterwheeling is becoming comical. Jordan was on the team. Accept it.

.........Really....REALLY?!?!?

Gen X: Born 61-81.
Since those people have been born the Celtics have 14 titles.

The Steelers have 6.

The Lakers have 10

Yankees have 9.

I already told you I go by 63-83 because I also go by Boomers being 43-63. If youre born in 63, you were 7 years old by the time the 70s rolled around. Nine if you go by your definition. I dont really think most 9 year olds are taking it all in at that age.

Also, I mentioned dynasty relative to Gen Xers. The Bulls won 6 in 8 years but it could have just as easily been 8 in 8 years. And if the league hadnt looked the other way on the Pistons goonery, it could/should have been 10 in 10 years. The Steelers won 4 in 6 years. The Lakers won in 80, 82, 85, 87, and 88. Thats 5 in 9 years. The Celtics won in 81, 84, and 86. Thats 3 in 4 years. The Niners won in 81, 84, 88, & 89. Thats 4 in 9 years. The Yankees won in 96, 98, 99, and 00. Thats 3 in 4 years. None of them are as good as what we saw from the Bulls. Most Gen Xers dont remember the Celtics from the 60s. Nice try.

 

[Lex L.]

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


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?


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?


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.

And theyve handed over 6 rings in 8 years, which is a benchmark for excellence in the modern NBA. Theyve handed down the record for most wins in a season at 72, which is a benchmark of excellence.

You did say that I said benchmarks of excellence, or no? Youre just hamsterwheeling to be contrarian. Benchmarks of excellence = tradition. Wow, youre a sharp cookie.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

there is nothing more annoying than to have someone argue around your point... it's pointless and redundant. who cares about this petty bullshit anyway? it's a petty argument based on petty, trivial issues... get over it.

 

[FirstTimer]

Youre hamsterwheeling is becoming comical. Jordan was on the team. Accept it.

.....

Seriously? I'm not hamsterwheeling anything.

You were being a Special person and got called on it.

"The Bulls were/are a global brand because of Jordan".

No duh? Really?

I already told you I go by 63-83 because I also go by Boomers being 43-63. If youre born in 63, you were 7 years old by the time the 70s rolled around. Nine if you go by your definition. I dont really think most 9 year olds are taking it all in at that age.

I was 9 in 1993. Therefore I have only seen the Bulls win 3 Championships....even though I wasn't "taking it in" even though 1993 was one of my favorite sports years ever personally.....

Starting in 1970:
Celtics, Lakers, Yankees>>> Bulls...still..... Bulls=Steelers.

Also, I mentioned dynasty relative to Gen Xers. The Bulls won 6 in 8 years but it could have just as easily been 8 in 8 years.

Yeah and had Len Bias not died the Celtics could have easily tacked on a few more in the late 80's.............

The Steelers won 4 in 6 years. The Lakers won in 80, 82, 85, 87, and 88. Thats 5 in 9 years. The Celtics won in 81, 84, and 86. Thats 3 in 4 years. The Niners won in 81, 84, 88, & 89. Thats 4 in 9 years. The Yankees won in 96, 98, 99, and 00. Thats 3 in 4 years. None of them are as good as what we saw from the Bulls. Most Gen Xers dont remember the Celtics from the 60s.

I also like how you exclude years where those teams above actually lost to other teams listed. The Bulls get "credit for "perhaps winning 10 in 10 years" but The fact that the Lakers and Celtics cost each other championships is completely overlooked in your "analysis". "If it weren't for the Celtics the Lakers could have had 7 in 9 years. "If it weren't for the Lakers the Celtics could have had 4 in 5 years". If Len Bias doesn't snort enough cocaine to put down a small elephant the Celtics could have easily won more in the late 80's."

 

[FirstTimer]

And theyve handed over 6 rings in 8 years, which is a benchmark for excellence in the modern NBA. Theyve handed down the record for most wins in a season at 72, which is a benchmark of excellence.

All from the same time period...."a winning tradition" isn't handing something down and seeing it never happen again....because it hasn't. It's absurd and laughable that somehow you are saying the 1990's Bulls teams are handing down anything..much less a "winning tradition" to the 2010-2011 Bulls.

You did say that I said benchmarks of excellence

Actually I didn't.....................try reading..

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.

 

[Lex L.]

.....

Seriously? I'm not hamsterwheeling anything.

You were being a Special person and got called on it.

"The Bulls were/are a global brand because of Jordan".

No duh? Really?

Oh the irony.

Yeah, you are hamsterwheeling. Jordan is a huge part of the tradition. Deal with it.

I was 9 in 1993. Therefore I have only seen the Bulls win 3 Championships....even though I wasn't "taking it in" even though 1993 was one of my favorite sports years ever personally.....

Thats awesome dude. LOL

Starting in 1970:
Celtics, Lakers, Yankees>>> Bulls...still..... Bulls=Steelers.

I said it was the greatest DYNASTY in professional sports since to Gen Xers. Winning 6 championships over 30 years isnt exactly a dynasty (see the Steelers). I actually already did a run down of their success over blocks of years. Remember pointing out that the Lakers won 5 in 9 years. They won their next title 12 years later. Thats a long break when talking about dynasties. The Steelers won 4 in 6 years but then didnt win again until 26 years later. Thats an even bigger gap. Again, I said dynasty.

Yeah and had Len Bias not died the Celtics could have easily tacked on a few more in the late 80's.............

OK.

I also like how you exclude years where those teams above actually lost to other teams listed. The Bulls get "credit for "perhaps winning 10 in 10 years" but The fact that the Lakers and Celtics cost each other championships is completely overlooked in your "analysis".

None of those teams were denied to the league suddenly tolerating goonery...nothing compared to what the Pistons did.

"If it weren't for the Celtics the Lakers could have had 7 in 9 years. "If it weren't for the Lakers the Celtics could have had 4 in 5 years". If Len Bias doesn't snort enough cocaine to put down a small elephant the Celtics could have easily won more in the late 80's."

Did they get to the finals every year? I remember the Celtics beating the Rockets twice. I remember the Lakers beating the Sixers twice and losing to them another time. They also beat the Pistons one year. The Celtics lost to the Lakers twice (85 and 87). So, what youre saying isnt even true but its also not because of a radical tolerance of a style of play that effectively changed the rules.

 

[Lex L.]

All from the same time period...."a winning tradition" isn't handing something down and seeing it never happen again....because it hasn't. It's absurd and laughable that somehow you are saying the 1990's Bulls teams are handing down anything..much less a "winning tradition" to the 2010-2011 Bulls.

It doesnt matter. A benchmark is something that gets passed down, idiot.

Actually I didn't.....................try reading..

That should have said, "you did see...". Its interesting that you chose to ignore the part thats kicking you in the scrotum. Why is that? And whats with all your hamsterwheeling?

 

[FirstTimer]

Jordan is a huge part of the tradition. Deal with it.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Jordan is the only thing even remotely important about this team in it's history I even point this out on the first page of this very thread.....

I'm starting to think you are seriously mentally handicapped.............

I said it was the greatest DYNASTY in professional sports since to Gen Xers. Winning 6 championships over 30 years isnt exactly a dynasty (see the Steelers). I actually already did a run down of their success over blocks of years. Remember pointing out that the Lakers won 5 in 9 years. They won their next title 12 years later. Thats a long break when talking about dynasties. The Steelers won 4 in 6 years but then didnt win again until 26 years later. Thats an even bigger gap. Again, I said dynasty.

Yeah..after excluding the entire decade of the 1960's because it didn't fit your argument....

None of those teams were denied to the league suddenly tolerating goonery....

Have you ever watched basketball from the 1980's? Put in old films of the Lakers Celtics series and tell me "goonery" wasn't going on everywhere. In any case....you still ignore the Lakers possibly winning more because of extenuating circumstances the same as the Bulls possibly winning more. I don't even know why you bring up the "what if's" for the Bulls? It doesn't do anything to strengthen your argument...

Did they get to the finals every year?

......No

1. If Len Bias doesn';t die maybe he helps the Celtics to get to more Finals.

2. I was making wild and crazy "what if's" up.......I thought maybe the "small elephant comment would have tipped you off. Next time I'll say "large elephant" so it's more obvious?

 

[FirstTimer]

It doesnt matter. A benchmark is something that gets passed down, idiot.

Yeah, that bench mark was "passed down" then the Bulls proceeded to go out and win: 13, 17, 15, 21, 30, 23 games in the next 6 seasons...

So you are saying that since 1985 that 15-1 benchmark has been "passed down" year after year...even when the Bears were winning 4 games a season?

LOL at anything being "passed down" to any of these Bulls players when some of them were barely taking training wheels off their bikes when the Bulls won 72 games..

Jesus Christ.

The Bulls don't have a winning tradition.

That should have said, "you did see...". Its interesting that you chose to ignore the part thats kicking you in the scrotum. Why is that? And whats with all your hamsterwheeling?

No.. Are you seriously this dumb? I've been arguing the fact that Bulls don't have a "winning tradition" for over 3 pages now. Yeah, I'm really "ignoring it."

The Bulls do not have a tradition of winning. The Bulls have been a really great team for one stretch of their entire history.That's not a tradition. It's an anomaly , thus far.

 

[Lex L.]

Listen, Novice. Id love to watch you continue to hamsterwheel but Ive gotta go.

 

[FirstTimer]

Listen, Novice. Id love to watch you continue to hamsterwheel but Ive gotta go.

I didn't know we could make posts talking to ourselves...

Nice feature!

I will try and not wake you up tonight when I Delonte your mom.

Also, I'll be borrowing your tooth brush tomorrow morning.

 

[Dismagic1]

I didn't know we could make posts talking to ourselves...

Nice feature!

I will try and not wake you up tonight when I Delonte your mom.

Also, I'll be borrowing your tooth brush tomorrow morning.

You already used that Delonte joke. Try something else. :buttrock:

 

[FirstTimer]

You already used that Delonte joke. Try something else. :buttrock:

And you already use my Delonte joke.............why should I try something else and give you more material?

 

[Dismagic1]

And you already use my Delonte joke.............why should I try something else and give you more material?

:talktohand:

 

[Lex L.]

I didn't know we could make posts talking to ourselves...

Nice feature!

I will try and not wake you up tonight when I Delonte your mom.

Also, I'll be borrowing your tooth brush tomorrow morning.

FirstTimer = novice

 

[FirstTimer]

FirstTimer = novice

I'm the Superman to your Lex L.