Jordan - "You think there is a better team than the 96 bulls ? Prove it."

[Theoo's Daddy]

He also says the debate about who the GOAT is,should never be there.. for obvious reasons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5Btwz77xHE


:oldlol: :oldlol:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgxOduiEh3E

[1987_Lakers]

'86 Celtics > '96 Bulls

Parish/McHale/Walton vs Longley/Rodman/Wennington? LOL!

Peak Bird is pretty much equal to '96 Jordan.

DJ & Ainge are better than Harper.

Celtics bench is more versatile & deeper.

Game Over.

[OldSchoolBBall]

'86 Celtics > '96 Bulls

Parish/McHale/Walton vs Longley/Rodman/Wennington? LOL!

Peak Bird is pretty much equal to '96 Jordan.

DJ & Ainge are better than Harper.

Celtics bench is more versatile & deeper.

Game Over.

I agree that the '86 Celts are at least equal and arguably superior to the '96 Bulls (their frontcourt gives them a big advantage), but way to completely leave Pippen out of your analysis.

[Teanett]

I agree that the '86 Celts are at least equal and arguably superior to the '96 Bulls (their frontcourt gives them a big advantage), but way to completely leave Pippen out of your analysis.

and kukoc...

[NumberSix]

'86 Celtics > '96 Bulls

Parish/McHale/Walton vs Longley/Rodman/Wennington? LOL!

Peak Bird is pretty much equal to '96 Jordan.

DJ & Ainge are better than Harper.

Celtics bench is more versatile & deeper.

Game Over.
No Pippen or PJ?

[1987_Lakers]

I agree that the '86 Celts are at least equal and arguably superior to the '96 Bulls (their frontcourt gives them a big advantage), but way to completely leave Pippen out of your analysis.

Even with Pippen, the Celtics are the more complete team, the Bulls have three guys in their starting line-up who can't create their own shot offensively, Longley, Rodman, & Harper by '96 lost his athleticism & was an average shooter at best. The only starter on the Celtics who couldn't create his own shot was Ainge, but he was an excellent shooter, but ultimately the Celtics size would wear out the Bulls in a 7 game series. Parish/McHale/Walton vs Longley/Rodman/Wennington is a huge mismatch on paper, & Dennis Johnson is better than any of the Bulls' guards not named Jordan.

[bdreason]

'86 Celtics and '87 Lakers are right there.



As far as GOAT, I believe you can only rank players against their own generation. Trying to rank players across different generations will always be a flawed argument... even though it's fun to try.

[iamgine]

Oh wait, this is just a marketing gimmick. Not even Jordan's own opinion.

[1987_Lakers]

Oh wait, this is just a marketing gimmick. Not even Jordan's own opinion.

I was thinking the exact same thing when I watched the vid.

[Teanett]

. Parish/McHale/Walton vs Longley/Rodman/Wennington is a huge mismatch on paper, & Dennis Johnson is better than any of the Bulls' guards not named Jordan.

what vs kukoc/rodman/pippen?

[Harison]

He also says the debate about who the GOAT is,should never be there.. for obvious reasons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5Btwz77xHE


:oldlol: :oldlol:
Jordan, same as usual :oldlol: Very few people can be arrogant narcissist, and still stay funny as hell :pimp: I even doubt its written by someone else, sounds like Jordan's words in his interviews.

While I think '86 Celtics is a GOAT team, but as with all rankings, its up to debate.

[swi7ch]

Easy---1992 US Men's Olympic Basketball Team (aka The Dream Team).

[kaiiu]

'86 Celtics > '96 Bulls

Parish/McHale/Walton vs Longley/Rodman/Wennington? LOL!

Peak Bird is pretty much equal to '96 Jordan.

DJ & Ainge are better than Harper.

Celtics bench is more versatile & deeper.

Game Over.
Lol at peak Bird only being equal to 96 MJ. Peak Bird is rite there with peak MJ

[stephanieg]

Prove it? Alright. brb getting time machine.

[jlauber]

In terms of scheduling and absolute domination, the '71-72 Lakers were probably the most dominant team of all-time. They played in a 17 team league and played EVERY team a minimum of four games, and as many as six. And they outscored them by a 121.0 to 108.7 ppg margin (+12.3 ppg), as well as outshooting their opponents by a .490 to .432 margin, and outrebounding them 56.4 rpg to 52.3 rpg. Including the post-season, they went 8-2 against the 48-34 Knicks (and their FIVE HOFers), 4-1 against the 56-26 Celtics, 7-1 against the 57-25 Bulls, 5-1 against the 51-31 Warriors, 5-1 against the 47-35 Sonics, 4-2 against the 49-33 Suns, and 8-3 against the defending champion 63-19 Bucks.

[guy]

In terms of scheduling and absolute domination, the '71-72 Lakers were probably the most dominant team of all-time. They played in a 17 team league and played EVERY team a minimum of four games, and as many as six. And they outscored them by a 121.0 to 108.7 ppg margin (+12.3 ppg), as well as outshooting their opponents by a .490 to .432 margin, and outrebounding them 56.4 rpg to 52.3 rpg. Including the post-season, they went 8-2 against the 48-34 Knicks (and their FIVE HOFers), 4-1 against the 56-26 Celtics, 7-1 against the 57-25 Bulls, 5-1 against the 51-31 Warriors, 5-1 against the 47-35 Sonics, 4-2 against the 49-33 Suns, and 8-3 against the defending champion 63-19 Bucks.

What does that really matter for?

[zay_24]

2001 Kobe led Lakers

[Theoo's Daddy]

2001 Kobe led Lakers


Not close.. the 96 bulls went 84-13 for the whole season including the playoffs.. The 2001 lakers were 72-27 for the whole season including the playoffs.

:no:

[guy]

Not close.. the 96 bulls went 84-15 for the whole season including the playoffs.. The 2001 lakers were 72-27 for the whole season including the playoffs.

:no:

84-13 actually.

[asdf1990]

In terms of scheduling and absolute domination, the '71-72 Lakers were probably the most dominant team of all-time. They played in a 17 team league and played EVERY team a minimum of four games, and as many as six. And they outscored them by a 121.0 to 108.7 ppg margin (+12.3 ppg), as well as outshooting their opponents by a .490 to .432 margin, and outrebounding them 56.4 rpg to 52.3 rpg. Including the post-season, they went 8-2 against the 48-34 Knicks (and their FIVE HOFers), 4-1 against the 56-26 Celtics, 7-1 against the 57-25 Bulls, 5-1 against the 51-31 Warriors, 5-1 against the 47-35 Sonics, 4-2 against the 49-33 Suns, and 8-3 against the defending champion 63-19 Bucks.

70s basketball

http://i676.photobucket.com/albums/vv123/Gardnerius/Animated%20gifs%20for%20boards/mj-laughing.gif

[Theoo's Daddy]

84-13 actually.

Opps my bad, just edited it.

[magnax1]

There are teams that are better then the 96 at some things, but I don't think there is a more complete team. If I remember correctly, they lead the league in offensive and defensive rating, and rebound differential.
The 86 Celtics, which seem to have become the popular choice for the greatest team ever, had a real athleticism disadvantage to most teams even at the time, and I think would be much greater against a team that played a decade later when weight training was much much more common. I'll say they're the most fun team to watch, and the smartest team ever, but I have a hard time even seeing a case for a team with such an athleticism disadvantage beating out many other all time great teams.

[Dizzle-2k7]

2011 mavericks, 2008 celtics, 2003 or 2005 spurs, 2001 lakers.. all on par with 96 Bulls.

[OldSchoolBBall]

2011 mavericks, 2008 celtics, 2003 or 2005 spurs, 2001 lakers.. all on par with 96 Bulls.

:facepalm at all of them, but especially the bold.

[eliteballer]

Uhhh let's see:

Diluted league

Short 3 point line that played to Jordan's strength

The fact that there were like 3 other 60 win teams proves the weakness of the overall league at that point.

[Carbine]

:facepalm at all of them, but especially the bold.

2001 Lakers would give the 96 Bulls a considerably tough match-up. I'm not sure Jordan would be the best player in that series due to match-ups, Shaq would have his way with anyone and everyone.

[97 bulls]

Even with Pippen, the Celtics are the more complete team, the Bulls have three guys in their starting line-up who can't create their own shot offensively, Longley, Rodman, & Harper by '96 lost his athleticism & was an average shooter at best. The only starter on the Celtics who couldn't create his own shot was Ainge, but he was an excellent shooter, but ultimately the Celtics size would wear out the Bulls in a 7 game series. Parish/McHale/Walton vs Longley/Rodman/Wennington is a huge mismatch on paper, & Dennis Johnson is better than any of the Bulls' guards not named Jordan.
The showtime lakers frontline is about equal to the 90s bulls and the lakers handed the celtics their ass on a hot plate 2 out of the trhee times they played each other. In fact, I think the 90s bulls frontline was better

Rodman was better than ac green
Pippen was better than worthy
Longley loses to jabaar though.

And I fail to see how the celtics size would hurt the bulls. The bulls had the better rebounders, hell rodman alone could just about out rebound the celtics frontline by himself.

[97 bulls]

Uhhh let's see:

Diluted league

Short 3 point line that played to Jordan's strength

The fact that there were like 3 other 60 win teams proves the weakness of the overall league at that point.
Using the diluted league theory is nonsense. The bulls without jordan won 55 games before expansion took place in 96. And that's not accounting that they upgraded pf when they picked up rodman. And kukoc improved from his rookie season too.

[purplch0de]

Arguably 2001 lakers > 96 bulls

[97 bulls]

2001 Lakers would give the 96 Bulls a considerably tough match-up. I'm not sure Jordan would be the best player in that series due to match-ups, Shaq would have his way with anyone and everyone.
Jordan would still be the best player on the floor. Mainly because shaq is all but worthless offensively in the mid to late 4th quarter. Then it turns into jordan and pippen vs kobe.

[rodman91]

I wish Bill Russell was there too next to jordan with 11 rings :lol

[purplch0de]

Jordan would still be the best player on the floor. Mainly because shaq is all but worthless offensively in the mid to late 4th quarter. Then it turns into jordan and pippen vs kobe.

Except that's not what this thread is about... and Shaq would easily take on any player from 96 bulls. Look at shaq's 4th quarter points in the playoffs... he shows up where it counts which is why he's arguably GOAT center.

[eliteballer]

Using the diluted league theory is nonsense. The bulls without jordan won 55 games before expansion took place in 96. And that's not accounting that they upgraded pf when they picked up rodman. And kukoc improved from his rookie season too.

Maybe if you were older than 12 you would understand that expansion with 4 teams in 88 and 89 is what diluted the league on top of the two added in 96.

[1987_Lakers]

The showtime lakers frontline is about equal to the 90s bulls and the lakers handed the celtics their ass on a hot plate 2 out of the trhee times they played each other. In fact, I think the 90s bulls frontline was better

Rodman was better than ac green
Pippen was better than worthy
Longley loses to jabaar though.

And I fail to see how the celtics size would hurt the bulls. The bulls had the better rebounders, hell rodman alone could just about out rebound the celtics frontline by himself.

By frontline I mean C & PF. Kareem, Green, McAdoo or Thompson is superior to Longley & Rodman. And it's not only the frontline size that would hurt the Bulls, the Celtics' bigs are just much more skilled. Parish AND Walton are better than Longley, McHale > Rodman, & Bird > Pippen. If Rodman couldn't contain Shawn Kemp what makes you think he can slow down a peak Kevin McHale? Pippen is a great defender, but we are talking about a peak Larry Bird here, and both of the Celtics centers (Parish & Walton) are better than Longley. And Rodman isn't going to outrebound Parish, Walton, & McHale by himself, that is ludicrous.

[97 bulls]

Maybe if you were older than 12 you would understand that expansion with 4 teams in 88 and 89 is what diluted the league on top of the two added in 96.
Well as you said, the leage expanded in 88. Why didn't the lakers get even close to 70? In 89, the lakers won 63 games and I remember magic saying that was the most talented laker team he had been on, why didn't they win 70?

And more athletes were playing basketball by 96 so while I agree that expansion netted the bulls some xtra wins, it by no means diluted the talent. If you knew math you would know this.

[eliteballer]

There is a huge difference between adding two teams and adding 6, and really...saying the talent pool increased by a number large enough to offset that in a 6 year period is the height of stupidity, only confirmed by the fact that your the one spewing it.

[NugzHeat3]

The league was extremely weak in 1996. The second three-peat Bulls team is ridiculously overrated.

This whole Jordan thing is a marketing scheme for 2K12. Jordan doesn't actually believe the 1996 team is the best ever. He's said he's partial to the first three-peat Bulls.

[D-Wade316]

67 Sixers
71 Lakers

[guy]

The fact that there were like 3 other 60 win teams proves the weakness of the overall league at that point.

This means nothing at all.

[eliteballer]

It means a lot, it means that there were tons of bottomfeeding to average teams for the few good ones to feast on.

[NugzHeat3]

The Bulls were so far and above their competition in 1996 that it's ridiculous.


The NBA is so weak once you get past the top half-dozen teams that even the Bulls can't really enjoy their incredible record through the first two months of the season.

"The record doesn't mean a thing," Dennis Rodman says. "The league is so watered down we can beat anyone. We can win 68, 69 games and it don't mean . . . if we don't get the job done in the playoffs."



"One thing I'm waiting to see is when they expand again," says Larry Bird, who is about as traditional as they come about the game. "Then if you have one great player and four mediocre players, you might be able to make it to the Finals.

"Just look at how things are now. (A team like) Utah has two All-Stars. Their other players are good, but they're not All-Stars. And they're going to win 55 or 60 games. They have a good team, but the league is a little watered down."

A little? A team like Cleveland, which overachieves and has a great coach, would be contending for a home-court advantage in the first round of the playoffs if this were April. And the Cavs are not a talented team by anybody's calculations.

Bird said the Celtics' second team of the mid-'80s, with Bill Walton, Scott Wedman and others, would "win 50 games now, if they could stay healthy."

The Portland Trail Blazers admitted in October they were in a rebuilding season. And yet they were tied for the final playoff spot in the West coming into the weekend.

After 27 games last season, Detroit was 9-18. This season, they were 13-14. Did they get that much better? No.

Is the league that much worse? Maybe.

Charlotte, Washington, Miami, Boston, Denver and the LA Lakers. All are marginally talented teams who can't get over the .500 hump.

"There is a lot of parity," says Kevin McHale, Minnesota's GM. "Right now, there are three to four teams, for whatever reason, who are at the bottom of that level in terms of the record. We fit in there.

"But right now, talent-wise, I feel we're right about in the middle of that group. In that group, there is no one team that is clearly more talented than the others. It's a group where everyone has got a few good players."

So what is causing the problems? Mainly, there are too many teams and not enough good players to fill them. But there are other factors.

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1995_1316238

[97 bulls]

By frontline I mean C & PF. Kareem, Green, McAdoo or Thompson is superior to Longley & Rodman. And it's not only the frontline size that would hurt the Bulls, the Celtics' bigs are just much more skilled. Parish AND Walton are better than Longley, McHale > Rodman, & Bird > Pippen. If Rodman couldn't contain Shawn Kemp what makes you think he can slow down a peak Kevin McHale? Pippen is a great defender, but we are talking about a peak Larry Bird here, and both of the Celtics centers (Parish & Walton) are better than Longley. And Rodman isn't going to outrebound Parish, Walton, & McHale by himself, that is ludicrous.
Actually, the rodman reference was a joke. But remember, this isn't one on one basketball. In a team concept, its a matter of who is able to stop who. Or who will do a better job ay doing what they do best. Would any of the lakers frontline be able to keep rodman off the boards?

would 175lb michael cooper be able to defend jordan in the post? And if not, who's gonna come over and double? If riley sends kareem, now you leave longley wide open for a 15 foot jumper. Scott and worthy are good enough and then your leaving pippen and kerr open. You could send magic, but remember how that faired for the lakers when they did that in 91. He made paxson look like larry bird. If he sends green/mcadoo, then rodman is gonna kill the lakers offensively with xtra possesions. Similar to what he did against the sonics. And while were on the sonics, statistically kemp had a great series. But most of his points came when the bulls had those games well in hand. Rodman had him visibly flustred. He was a TO machine and was always in foul trouble. Classic case of stats not telling the story

The same holds true with the celtics. The bulls obviously are gonna attack using jordan. And the celtics will more than likely put DJ on him. 6'4 johnson vs 6'6 jordan in the post is a mismatch in favor of the bulls. The celtics rover was bird. Which would leave pippen open. Haper would play ainge to a standstill. And the same scenario holds true vs the celts as what I said vs the lakers.

[guy]

Not really. Its a function of where talent is distributed, which doesn't have much to do with expansion. No matter what, the average record in the league is 41-41. It doesn't have much to do with expansion. Put it like this. Put the 1992 Dream Team in their prime in today's league in place of a team like the T-Wolves and they probably go 82-0, and every other team has 2-4 more losses. Does that make the league weaker now?

I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong. But thats horrible reasoning. You can't use the team records in the league as a way of saying a league is weak or not. Some teams are just better then others, no matter how good those other teams are.

And I find it funny that what people completely ignore when it comes to expansion is that EVERY TEAM is effected by it. While the Bulls' competition may have been better if there was never any expansion, the Bulls would ALSO be better. Here's an example:

In the 88 draft, the Bulls had the 11th pick right behind San Antonio, Miami, and Charlotte. Miami and Charlotte were expansion teams. Charlotte picked Rex Chapman, then Miami picked Rony Seikaly, and then San Antonio picked Willie Anderson. Lets say Miami and Charlotte aren't there anymore, and then San Antonio picks Rex Chapman. Chicago would've then been able to take Rony Seikay, a 15/10 player from 1989-1999 who would've clearly been the starting center on the Bulls, which was clearly there most glaring weakness despite being one the greatest teams ever.

In the 89 draft, the Bulls had the 6th pick behind Charlotte and Miami again. Miami picked Glen Rice, Charlotte picked JR Reid, and the Bulls settled for Stacy King. They could've had an all-star and 27 ppg scorer in his prime in Glen Rice if Miami and Charlotte didn't exist and they had the 4th pick instead.

So in the end, there superiority over there competition is probably the same. Like I said, some teams are just better then others.

[97 bulls]

It means a lot, it means that there were tons of bottomfeeding to average teams for the few good ones to feast on.
Did you see the records of the teams out west during the 80s. Come on. Talk about bad teams. And good teams feeding on bottom feeders.

[1987_Lakers]

Actually, the rodman reference was a joke. But remember, this isn't one on one basketball. In a team concept, its a matter of who is able to stop who. Or who will do a better job ay doing what they do best. Would any of the lakers frontline be able to keep rodman off the boards?

would 175lb michael cooper be able to defend jordan in the post? And if not, who's gonna come over and double? If riley sends kareem, now you leave longley wide open for a 15 foot jumper. Scott and worthy are good enough and then your leaving pippen and kerr open. You could send magic, but remember how that faired for the lakers when they did that in 91. He made paxson look like larry bird. If he sends green/mcadoo, then rodman is gonna kill the lakers offensively with xtra possesions. Similar to what he did against the sonics. And while were on the sonics, statistically kemp had a great series. But most of his points came when the bulls had those games well in hand. Rodman had him visibly flustred. He was a TO machine and was always in foul trouble. Classic case of stats not telling the story

The same holds true with the celtics. The bulls obviously are gonna attack using jordan. And the celtics will more than likely put DJ on him. 6'4 johnson vs 6'6 jordan in the post is a mismatch in favor of the bulls. The celtics rover was bird. Which would leave pippen open. Haper would play ainge to a standstill. And the same scenario holds true vs the celts as what I said vs the lakers.

I like how you tried to change it to a Lakers vs Bulls argument, but I agree the Bulls match up much better vs the showtime Lakers than the Celtics. If the Bulls control the boards vs the Lakers I can actually see them winning, Jordan is way too strong for Cooper & Scott, Pippen is better than Worthy, and they have a big defensive guard in Ron Harper on Magic. The Lakers don't have the frontline to contain Rodman on the boards, but the Bulls have nobody who can contain Kareem from scoring. I believe the Lakers are more talented, but the matchups slightly favor the Bulls.

But in case of the '86 Celtics, I don't see the Bulls having the advantage. Yes, Jordan would get his even with DJ guarding him, but DJ was way stronger than Cooper & Scott, DJ use to bully his opponents. Like I said in my previous post, the Celtics just have the superior frontcourt & the NBA is also about matchups & the Celtics matchup better.

[nycelt84]

Actually, the rodman reference was a joke. But remember, this isn't one on one basketball. In a team concept, its a matter of who is able to stop who. Or who will do a better job ay doing what they do best. Would any of the lakers frontline be able to keep rodman off the boards?

would 175lb michael cooper be able to defend jordan in the post? And if not, who's gonna come over and double? If riley sends kareem, now you leave longley wide open for a 15 foot jumper. Scott and worthy are good enough and then your leaving pippen and kerr open. You could send magic, but remember how that faired for the lakers when they did that in 91. He made paxson look like larry bird. If he sends green/mcadoo, then rodman is gonna kill the lakers offensively with xtra possesions. Similar to what he did against the sonics. And while were on the sonics, statistically kemp had a great series. But most of his points came when the bulls had those games well in hand. Rodman had him visibly flustred. He was a TO machine and was always in foul trouble. Classic case of stats not telling the story

The same holds true with the celtics. The bulls obviously are gonna attack using jordan. And the celtics will more than likely put DJ on him. 6'4 johnson vs 6'6 jordan in the post is a mismatch in favor of the bulls. The celtics rover was bird. Which would leave pippen open. Haper would play ainge to a standstill. And the same scenario holds true vs the celts as what I said vs the lakers.

Did you watch basketball at all in the 80's and secondly do you have any clues about the players you are talking about? Michael Jordan struggled against Michael Cooper as did just about every player who Cooper played against. And also if size was the only thing that mattered in basketball Manute Bol would be the greatest that ever played. DJ was one of the greatest defenders that ever played and would back down from no one. And lastly I think '96 Ainge would be as good as '96 Harper on the Bulls let alone Ainge from '86.

[Round Mound]

'86 Celtics > '96 Bulls

Parish/McHale/Walton vs Longley/Rodman/Wennington? LOL!

Peak Bird is pretty much equal to '96 Jordan.

DJ & Ainge are better than Harper.

Celtics bench is more versatile & deeper.

Game Over.

True 1986 Celtics is the GOAT Team

Also 1985 and 1987 Lakers > Any Bulls Team

1983 Sixers > Any Bulls Team

[97 bulls]

I like how you tried to change it to a Lakers vs Bulls argument, but I agree the Bulls match up much better vs the showtime Lakers than the Celtics. If the Bulls control the boards vs the Lakers I can actually see them winning, Jordan is way too strong for Cooper & Scott, Pippen is better than Worthy, and they have a big defensive guard in Ron Harper on Magic. The Lakers don't have the frontline to contain Rodman on the boards, but the Bulls have nobody who can contain Kareem from scoring. I believe the Lakers are more talented, but the matchups slightly favor the Bulls.

But in case of the '86 Celtics, I don't see the Bulls having the advantage. Yes, Jordan would get his even with DJ guarding him, but DJ was way stronger than Cooper & Scott, DJ use to bully his opponents. Like I said in my previous post, the Celtics just have the superior frontcourt & the NBA is also about matchups & the Celtics matchup better.
First of all, kareem was 57 years old when the lakers won their back to back titles. And the bulls had no problem dispersing teams with shaq and ewing. Who were better than kareem in 87-88.

And I agree that basketball is about matchups. Again, even between the celtics and bulls, its a matter of who's gonna be able to take the other out of their comfort zone. The bulls defense would be able to do it

[97 bulls]

Did you watch basketball at all in the 80's and secondly do you have any clues about the players you are talking about? Michael Jordan struggled against Michael Cooper as did just about every player who Cooper played against. And also if size was the only thing that mattered in basketball Manute Bol would be the greatest that ever played. DJ was one of the greatest defenders that ever played and would back down from no one. And lastly I think '96 Ainge would be as good as '96 Harper on the Bulls let alone Ainge from '86.
Were just gonna have to disagree as far as ainge and harper.

But I said nothing about coopers height. I said jordan would just post him up. I'm sure he wouldn't be likcing his chops if he saw cooper guarding him. And remember, when jordan added a post game to his arsenal, cooper was gone.

[NumberSix]

Kobe

[ThaRegul8r]

Didn't watch the linked video, but Jordan didn't even say they were the best team ever back then. I saw every single game they played that season, and was old enough to understand what I saw. So I'm supposed to believe something happened in the last 15 years to change that?

[PHILA]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFrhKI63e80



No team of the last 35 years can match the '67 Sixers in the paint.

Below we can read a fine post from Gotterdammerung (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=239956&postcount=20). :applause:



Solid takes, all around.

However, it is misleading to say that, due to the '96 Bulls' height on the perimeter, they would outrebound the '67 Sixers. Ron Harper did not handle the ball that much on offense, and by then he was mainly a defensive specialist, his knees were already shot.

We are all aware of the '96 Bulls, (i hope), and probably, biased towards them. I myself am, too, for i saw such dominance and destruction and awe-inspiring feats, and that is fresh in the memories.

'67 Sixers? just faint whispers from the players and coaches who saw them play, and in the near-40 years since then, these whispers has built up a legendary myth so it's really hard for us to sift fact from fiction, and adjust our speculations about two teams from two different eras. We're prone to discuss match-ups galore, but we should know better than basketball is not a matter of one-on-one. This logic seems to follow from the assumption that the sum (team performance) is equal to the parts (players' individual talents).

The bulls defeated a "would've been," but the sixers defeated the greatest dynasty in NBA history, and were a couple of good plays away from a couple of more championships.

Of course, Hal Greer was only 6' and 2", and even during the sixties, he was an undersized shooting guard. However, he was also very strong and powerful, wiry strong, sort of like Joe Dumars. Only Oscar Robertson was this strong. His dead-eye jumper and accurate passing coupled with surprising rebounding skills, as if he was a bigger man, and a zealous defender.

What sets him apart from most other guards is his efficiency and high-powered scoring ability, especially at clutch time. During the regular season, he averaged 22.1 points per game, but during the playoffs, he upped it to 27.7, six more than Wilt. While Wilt was the front page name, Hal was the money man on the greatest team ever.

Besides astounding hops, the Kangaroo Kid was a great rebounderer, probably the best rebounding small forward of all time. He couldn't shoot until late in his career, after '67, but his gliding to the hoop was practically unstoppable. He always ran his way into easy baskets. His dynamic play was a match-up nightmare for most teams, and the trump card in close games.

Chet Walker, 6' 7" and brawny, often backed down his man on offense, banging as well, and clever tricks like leaning inside the defender to clear space for his jumper. Relentless on the baseline like Ginobili. Luke Jackson was 6' 9" and 250 pounds, a powerful athlete, something you saw only on the football field. Always played hard and fouled even harder. With Jackson and Chamberlain, the sixers udually dominated the boards, exhausting and bruising the opposition thoroughly - at the end of the game they were too tired to run or jump or even play hard. Wali Jones was also a tough little guy whose jumper was unorthodox - a 1 and a half handed wrist snaper. Aggressive on defense, very consistent and methodogical with the ball. Gambee was a powerful big man off the bench. Costello was an intense and a physical guard. Melchionni a jet-footed speester.

These are the reasons i said the '67 sixers were more physical than the '96 Bulls. Not only that, they would've also beaten the '72 Lakers and the '92 Bulls too.

The Lakers werent as powerful. the '67 Wilt would've more energy and outperformed the '72 edition. Chet Walker would've dominated McMilian on the post, Jackson would've clobbered Happy. Hal Greer was just as good as Jerry West, good enough to neutralize his potent offensive abilities. None of the Lakers' bench was as good as the Kangroo Kid. WHen a team is more powerful than the other team, that translates to rebounds, and dominating the boards translates to more shots and easier shots. The Lakers wouldn't be able to trigger their fast break if they were being dominated on the boards. for the '92 Bulls Wali Jones was tougher than Armstrong/Paxson, Wilt would've erased Bill Cartwright out of existence, Jackson would've stomped on Horace Grant. THeir bench was superior to the '92 Bulls.

[PHILA]

Chicago centers Longley, Wennington, Edwards, & Salley would struggle big time to even run with Chamberlain up and down the floor. The only one who could probably keep up is Dennis, and he was too old, too weak, and too small to do anything with Wilt. Rodman's histrionics would have little to no effect as he would be tamed by Luke Jackson. Bulls were a great team, but some mismatches are too great to ignore. I think the early 90's Bulls would have a much better chance at making it a competitive series than the late 90's as they could full court press and dictate the tempo better. The Sixers players were constantly moving & cutting off Wilt and forcing mismatches. Double Wilt even for a second he will find the open man. The Sixers who could effectively play any style just had too many weapons and a much better sixth man on the bench in Billy C who was a great defender (unlike defensive liability Kukoc) and perhaps the top rebounder at his position in NBA history. Nobody could stop his jumper or his transition drives to the hoop. The key question is old man Harper going to be able to keep Wali in front of him? If not, it will force Jordan to switch from Greer. If Bulldog got hot, he would potentially have a 40 or 50 point game as he was very deceptively strong, lightning quick, and perhaps the top mid range shooter in NBA history with an equally deadly release. Pippen will make Chet the Jet work for his points but will not shut him down by any means as he has seldom guarded a player as crafty and skilled as Walker in his prime. Between Jackson & Chamberlain the middle would be shut down and there would be severe penalties for driving the paint as their hard fouls would make Jordan & Pippen wish they were playing against the Bad Boy Pistons instead.




"The best team I ever saw was the 1967 Sixers. Everything today is geared for the offensive player. Open the middle so he can drive. You can't put your hand on a guy's back. Can you imagine me in the paint with only one guy on me and he can't put his hands on me and nobody's beside me? Michael Jordan is a bit older and he walks all the time, but the referees allow it. He's not going to come through dunking the basketball on Luke Jackson. He's going to get slammed to the floor. I'd like to see Wali Jones playing defense on him, driving him into me. I'd be more than happy to see that."

-Chamberlain, 1996


"He's 6'6, 196 lbs. Coming into our domain, the pivot, would not have been very wise of Michael. I don't think, I know he would have been crushed back then. During my time, if you did a 360 dunk you would either be on knocked on you ass or benched. It was called hot-dogging back then."

-Chamberlain, 1997


"We had something they didn't have, Wilt Chamberlain. The Bulls had Michael Jordan, and while he's a great player, we had a team that could run, rebound and shoot. Anything that came down the lane was a no-no, and I'm sorry to say that Jordan would have many bruises. It would be a good contest, but I think the Sixers would win."

-Jackson, 1998


"We compare with any team that's ever been put together. When I say "we,' I mean the '66-67 team, and I mean that even to include the (1992) Dream Team."

-Hannum, 1998


"I concur with Alex. In order to really maximize any five players, they have to be a team. Because you have the five best players of a particular era out there on the floor, that didn't make them a team. So as a team, I would challenge any of the Dream Teams. It's hard to talk about how great Chicago is because they are just so far superior to anything they have faced. I would have loved to have had them in our era to see how they would have truly measured up."

-Chamberlain, 1998

[StarJordan]

Michael Jordan doesn't have to play basketball, we could listen to him talk about anything....

[BlackJoker23]

lmao @ some ******* team like the 67 sixers beating the 96 bulls. hal queer vs mj is lolworthy. some phaggets with the names hannum and jackson :facepalm. not sure if they beat the 09 nets.

[jlauber]

lmao @ some ******* team like the 67 sixers beating the 96 bulls. hal queer vs mj is lolworthy. some phaggets with the names hannum and jackson :facepalm. not sure if they beat the 09 nets.

Hannum was their COACH.

[magnax1]

Even with Pippen, the Celtics are the more complete team, the Bulls have three guys in their starting line-up who can't create their own shot offensively,
and despite that, they had one of the best offensive ratings ever. The team was extremely well designed on offense. They built it so that it was basically impossible to double Jordan and Pippen, who had to be doubled to be effectively contained. If you doubled either one of them, you ended up leaving open Kerr at 51% 3p, Jordan at 43%, Kukoc at 40%, or Pippen at 37%, or Longley who wasn't a three point shooter but made it impossible for the opposing center to get away with doubling Jordan or Pippen in the post. On top of that, Rodman and Harper were good at cutting off doubles and getting baskets inside. As for not having enough people to create their own shot, they had the best scorer in the league, Pippen a 20 ppg scorer, and Kukoc who was a 20 ppg level scorer off the bench.
Did the Celtics have more guys who could create on their own? Yeah, but they didn't actually end up any better for it because they just didn't create the same level of efficiency because of the mostly isolation style of ball they played (not that they weren't great passers, but they mostly fed off of the one on one play of the stars)



Harper by '96 lost his athleticism & was an average shooter at best.
While it's true he wasn't a great scorer, he wasn't a guy you could leave open either. He was great at getting baskets off of the other teams defensive mistakes and double teams.



The only starter on the Celtics who couldn't create his own shot was Ainge, but he was an excellent shooter
As I pointed out earlier, this is true, but it really doesn't end up being an advantage to the Celtics. The Bulls could double much easier then the Celtics with much fewer consequences, and they'd likely create a lot of turnovers off of double teams. Which also brings up the fact that the Bulls would likely kill the Celtics on the fast break with the very large athleticism advantage they have.


but ultimately the Celtics size would wear out the Bulls in a 7 game series.
With the bulls team defense, I just don't see that happening. Basketball just isn't a one on one game, and while I could see Parish having an above average series, I don't really see a way that McHale vs Rodman becomes a mismatch, no matter the amount of help Rodman gets. As for rebounding, the Celtics have advantages at center and SF (though Pippen was a very good rebounder) but the Bulls have just as big of an advantage at SG and PF.
There are some teams that I think have a case over the 96 Bulls as the best ever, but I don't think the 86 Celtics are one of them. They seem to be the new favorite team for greatest ever, but they have a really big disadvantage in terms of athleticism over just about every other all time great team. They're probably one of the most fun teams to watch because they are smarter then every team they play at pretty much every position, but the "They have a ton of one on one scorers" argument can be used for a lot of team to make them sound better then they really were, and the 86 Celtics are a good case of that. In reality, a team built off of having a couple one on one scorers and lots of really efficient shooters and finishers ends up usually being more efficient then the team with a lot of one on one scorers (2010 Hawks and Suns are a good modern example of the two)

[StarJordan]

'96 bulls vs '86 celtics:

- kukoc would drive on mchale and thus keep him busy on defense
- jordan and pippen would give '86 celtics all sorts of problems on both ends. especially they would harass celtic ballhandlers
- rodman would bother parish and walton
- '96 bulls also had some great specialists like steve kerr from long range who was better shooter than hastings or whoever '86 celtics had on the bench.
-finally phil jackson vs kc jones also goes in favor of bulls.

[EnoughSaid]

Are people really calling the Jordan era weak? Oh yeah, and an era where a team with one star and a bunch of 3 point shooters can get 66 wins isn't weak. :rolleyes:

[Bigsmoke]

whatever Lakers team that had both Magic and Kareem playing out of their minds at the same time have a chance to beat the Bulls. Kareem would give the Bulls problems with Magic controlling the offense.

so thats like the 82 or 85 Lakers right?

[PrimeJohnnyDepp]

Even with Pippen, the Celtics are the more complete team, the Bulls have three guys in their starting line-up who can't create their own shot offensively, Longley, Rodman, & Harper by '96 lost his athleticism & was an average shooter at best. The only starter on the Celtics who couldn't create his own shot was Ainge, but he was an excellent shooter, but ultimately the Celtics size would wear out the Bulls in a 7 game series. Parish/McHale/Walton vs Longley/Rodman/Wennington is a huge mismatch on paper, & Dennis Johnson is better than any of the Bulls' guards not named Jordan.

You're a joke. Even Orlando with young Shaq would kill those Celtics.

Get off the videogame mentality, you can't compare eras, it's impossible. By the equation of evolution, of getting-****ing-bored-let's-try-something-different, the 2011 Memphis Grizzlies are better then 1986 Celtics.

In 2011, Mchale wouldn't end up playing basketball, basketball was also consisted of a more tennis, Peter Sellers or James Bond-fan crowd back then, but he wouldn't participate in these days. You can't clone a team, but if you would, Mchale would end up a lawyer, and Bird would wank to Youtube videos somewhere in Indiana. Transport or transplant an entire 1986 team to 2011, and entire 1996 Bulls team to 2011 into some quarantined arena, and they would all get beaten by 2011 Memphis Grizzlies. But giving those past teams a week to adapt to pure evolution, 1996 Bulls would be the second best team to 2001 Lakers. Memphis 2011 would drop because modern basketball is pure shit, and 1986 Celtics 1986 would be 117th.

[nycelt84]

With the 90's rules in place anyone on the '67 Sixers who thought they could get away with delivering a hard foul on MJ to coming into he paint would be watching the rest of the game in the locker room and maybe even the game after that as well. As such MJ was never scared to go into the paint at any point in his career and him vein knocked down sure did never stop him. And Dennis Rodman is one of the best defenders in NBA history at the PF position not to even mention his rebounding. He wins the matchup with Luke Jackson.

[ThaRegul8r]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFrhKI63e80



No team of the last 35 years can match the '67 Sixers in the paint.

Below we can read a fine post from Gotterdammerung (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=239956&postcount=20). :applause:



Solid takes, all around.

However, it is misleading to say that, due to the '96 Bulls' height on the perimeter, they would outrebound the '67 Sixers. Ron Harper did not handle the ball that much on offense, and by then he was mainly a defensive specialist, his knees were already shot.

We are all aware of the '96 Bulls, (i hope), and probably, biased towards them. I myself am, too, for i saw such dominance and destruction and awe-inspiring feats, and that is fresh in the memories.

'67 Sixers? just faint whispers from the players and coaches who saw them play, and in the near-40 years since then, these whispers has built up a legendary myth so it's really hard for us to sift fact from fiction, and adjust our speculations about two teams from two different eras. We're prone to discuss match-ups galore, but we should know better than basketball is not a matter of one-on-one. This logic seems to follow from the assumption that the sum (team performance) is equal to the parts (players' individual talents).

The bulls defeated a "would've been," but the sixers defeated the greatest dynasty in NBA history, and were a couple of good plays away from a couple of more championships.

Of course, Hal Greer was only 6' and 2", and even during the sixties, he was an undersized shooting guard. However, he was also very strong and powerful, wiry strong, sort of like Joe Dumars. Only Oscar Robertson was this strong. His dead-eye jumper and accurate passing coupled with surprising rebounding skills, as if he was a bigger man, and a zealous defender.

What sets him apart from most other guards is his efficiency and high-powered scoring ability, especially at clutch time. During the regular season, he averaged 22.1 points per game, but during the playoffs, he upped it to 27.7, six more than Wilt. While Wilt was the front page name, Hal was the money man on the greatest team ever.

Besides astounding hops, the Kangaroo Kid was a great rebounderer, probably the best rebounding small forward of all time. He couldn't shoot until late in his career, after '67, but his gliding to the hoop was practically unstoppable. He always ran his way into easy baskets. His dynamic play was a match-up nightmare for most teams, and the trump card in close games.

Chet Walker, 6' 7" and brawny, often backed down his man on offense, banging as well, and clever tricks like leaning inside the defender to clear space for his jumper. Relentless on the baseline like Ginobili. Luke Jackson was 6' 9" and 250 pounds, a powerful athlete, something you saw only on the football field. Always played hard and fouled even harder. With Jackson and Chamberlain, the sixers udually dominated the boards, exhausting and bruising the opposition thoroughly - at the end of the game they were too tired to run or jump or even play hard. Wali Jones was also a tough little guy whose jumper was unorthodox - a 1 and a half handed wrist snaper. Aggressive on defense, very consistent and methodogical with the ball. Gambee was a powerful big man off the bench. Costello was an intense and a physical guard. Melchionni a jet-footed speester.

These are the reasons i said the '67 sixers were more physical than the '96 Bulls. Not only that, they would've also beaten the '72 Lakers and the '92 Bulls too.

The Lakers werent as powerful. the '67 Wilt would've more energy and outperformed the '72 edition. Chet Walker would've dominated McMilian on the post, Jackson would've clobbered Happy. Hal Greer was just as good as Jerry West, good enough to neutralize his potent offensive abilities. None of the Lakers' bench was as good as the Kangroo Kid. WHen a team is more powerful than the other team, that translates to rebounds, and dominating the boards translates to more shots and easier shots. The Lakers wouldn't be able to trigger their fast break if they were being dominated on the boards. for the '92 Bulls Wali Jones was tougher than Armstrong/Paxson, Wilt would've erased Bill Cartwright out of existence, Jackson would've stomped on Horace Grant. THeir bench was superior to the '92 Bulls.

Here's what was said in 1996 after the Bulls went up 3-0 on Seattle in the Finals. Not 15 years after the fact, but in the moment, as it was happening:


There should at least be some special feeling about watching the Bulls because they're the latest nominee for Greatest Team of All Time. They won a record 72 regular-season games and they're 14-1 in the playoffs. That's 86-11 overall. That's awesome, but it's still hard to buy into this team as the best ever.

First of all, the kind of basketball played today bears almost no resemblance to what was played 20 or 30 years ago. The virtual legalization of traveling is a big part of what makes today's players so spectacular. The one quirky thing about this series, though, is that traveling is being called quite a bit.

Liberal rules notwithstanding, Michael Jordan is master of all he surveys. He does what he wants, when he wants. He can take a quarter off, then score 27 points the next few minutes. He would have been great in any era.

It's a guy like Dennis Rodman that makes one wonder. He's a true force against Seattle, but a guy like Wilt Chamberlain or Bill Russell would have shaved Rodman's hair off, stuffed him into the nearest dumpster and rendered him a non-factor.

Of course, Chamberlain and Russell played in the days when centers mattered. Now, teams can win titles with Luc Longley and Bill Wennington in the post.

Chamberlain played on two other teams considered among the best, the 1966-67 Philadelphia 76ers and the 1971-72 Los Angeles Lakers. Philly had Luke Jackson and Chet Walker at forward and Hal Greer and Wali Jones in the backcourt. The Lakers had Happy Hairston and Jim McMillian up front and Jerry West and Gail Goodrich outside.

The Bulls start Jordan and Ron Harper at guard, Scottie Pippen and Rodman at forward, Longley in the middle. The Philly team had the muscle to deal with Rodman and the Lakers would have been something with Chamberlain kicking the ball out to West and Goodrich for 3-pointers (they didn't have them in those days).

Jordan and Pippen play with a versatility unknown in the old days, and they'd be a load for any opponent. But to say they're on the best team ever is a big, big stretch.

[PHILA]

Here's what was said in 1996 after the Bulls went up 3-0 on Seattle in the Finals. Not 15 years after the fact, but in the moment, as it was happening:


Of course, Chamberlain and Russell played in the days when centers mattered.

:applause:

[PHILA]

And Dennis Rodman is one of the best defenders in NBA history at the PF position not to even mention his rebounding. He wins the matchup with Luke Jackson.


As is Luke, who is badly underrated. Not only could he hit from outside, he could actually jump and block shots. His rebounding was just as strong and he was a younger & physically stronger forward. Finishing ability at the rim goes without saying. I think Dennis would have his hands full in this matchup. Like Wilt, Luke was also a tremendous offensive rebounder.

Below we can see a "triangle" setup where the Bullets defense dictates the Sixers passes, and Jackson comes from the weak side to clean up Greer's miss and clinch the Eastern Division Championship. :applause:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEdiptkyYsY#t=48s




There is no question Jackson sacrificed his individual numbers by shifting to the F position. As a rookie before Wilt's arrival he was at 14.8 rebounds in ?? minutes (34.1 for the entire season). While his minutes were reduced the following three seasons, I am interested in seeing his (and Wilt's) offensive rebounding average. Unfortunately he never had a full healthy season playing without Chamberlain. Below HOF'er Gail Goodrich states that Luke "without question" would be in the Hall if not for injuries.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R9GatatVAg#t=1m17s


The Telegraph - Jan 15, 1965

http://i.imgur.com/ERHPF.png



Christian Science Monitor - Apr 18, 1968

Even when 6 ft. 9 in. Luke Jackson of the Philadelphia 76ers has a big scoring game, which is basically not his job, the superlatives invariably go to someone else.

Chances are no one is ever going to how great Jackson is until Wilt Chamberlain quits and Luke becomes the 76ers' No. 1 center. Jackson, right now, could probably start in the pivot for any rival NBA team except Boston and San Francisco, which have their own super centers in Bill Russell and Nate Thurmond.

"I think that is a safe assumption," said Philadelphia Coach Alex Hannum. "Luke is going to realize great fame in this league some day and it will be as a center." Jackson will still be young enough Chamberlain retires to make a name for himself. "Luke is a very unselfish ballplayer," Hannum continued. "He is not a fellow you can rate by looking at the box score. He does a different job, like blocking out, rebounding, and playing tough defense. And he's more valuable than plenty of high scorers in this league." Through no fault of his own Jackson has been cast as a spear carrier for Chamberlain, blocking out under the boards while Wilt goes for the rebound. The fact that Luke has been a starting forward for three years on a team which has a Billy Cunningham and a Johnny Green (and for a while a Dave Gambee) tells a great deal about Jackson's agility.

While Luke is not a scorer in the sense that Chet Walker and Elgin Baylor are scorers, he has enough of an outside shot so he has to be guarded.

Hannum has Chamberlain in the middle to get him the ball, the high-scoring forward on one side in Walker, and the tough defensive cornerman on the other in Jackson. Wally Jones, who brings the ball up the floor for the 76ers, is a playmaker who can also score. Hal Greer, who plays beside Jones, is one of the game's great shooters.

Jackson is also a player who reacts well to pressure situations. In the fourth game of this years Eastern Division playoffs between Boston and Philadelphia Celtics' Coach Bill Russell brought in Wayne Embry to help him cool off Chamberlain. It was a gamble because it left Luke unguarded maybe 15 feet away from the basket, but still unguarded. If the 76ers decided to give Jackson the ball, he could shoot unhurried and unbothered.

Luke turned Russell's gamble into a disaster for Boston by hitting his next four shots. It was the kind of insurance you can't buy from Lloyd's of London. "What Jackson did won the game for us," Hannum said. "But because the man was not guarded, everyone acted like he should have done it - that this kind of thing would be routine for any player."

[G-train]

I think Parish might put the 86 Celtics over the top.

[SpecialQue]

Yet another reason why the implosion of the Bulls following their last championship was a fvcking travesty. Every basketball fan in the world would kill to see the legendary Jordan/Pippen Bulls take on the Spurs or the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, the two teams that broke more hearts than any others during the last decade. Damn shame we never got to see the torch being passed, like when the Bulls smoked my Showtime Lakers in 91.

[jlauber]

Here's what was said in 1996 after the Bulls went up 3-0 on Seattle in the Finals. Not 15 years after the fact, but in the moment, as it was happening:

I don't really get caught up in these "what if" scenarios, especially when they are across eras. When I have taken the time to actually rank teams in some kind of order, it is based on just how dominant those teams were against their peers.

Very few, if any, bring up the 64-65 Celtics. Yet, they went 62-18, and had the best record in the league by 13 games (the Lakers were next at 49-31.) And they beat LA in the Finals, 4-1 (albeit, Baylor was hurt.) And their scoring differential was not only +8.4 ppg, but it was significantly more than the next best team (the 47-35 Hawks at +3.0 ppg.)

I seldom see the 70-71 Bucks in these discussions, either, but they not only went 66-16, the next best team was the NY Knicks at 52-30...or a 14 game spread. Not only that, but they outshot their opponents by a staggering .509 to .424 margin (a record BTW.) And their +12.2 ppg differential is just behind the '72 Lakers and '96 Bulls margin of +12.3 ppg all-time. Then, in the playoffs, they not only went 12-2, but they had a record differential of +14.5 ppg.

[Theoo's Daddy]

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgxOduiEh3E

[the_wise_one]

The release of NBA2K12 will have many people prove him wrong.

[madmax17]

Pippen and Rodman would slow down Bird but nobody would be able to stop Jordan, Kukoc would be torchin from the bench, Bulls win.

[EricForman]

Just realized that this thread, with the quote, is taken from a COMMERCIAL.

What a blatant agenda thread to stir sh*t up. imagine if we started threads using quotes from commercials for Kobe, Lebron, Barkley, or Penny.

"OMGZ, nash is such a cocky mofo, he said he was the most interesting man in the world!!!"

[StarJordan]

On a related note, this game seems to have super graphics....after a long time i think i'll be picking up a nba game, only question is wii or xbox or ps3

[Round Mound]

'96 bulls vs '86 celtics:

- kukoc would drive on mchale and thus keep him busy on defense
- jordan and pippen would give '86 celtics all sorts of problems on both ends. especially they would harass celtic ballhandlers
- rodman would bother parish and walton
- '96 bulls also had some great specialists like steve kerr from long range who was better shooter than hastings or whoever '86 celtics had on the bench.
-finally phil jackson vs kc jones also goes in favor of bulls.

:no:

McHale would shoot around 60% FG on Rodman: that is if he is not fouled by the third quarter
Walton-McHale-Parish-Bird would eat Rodman Pippen and Longley in Rebounding
Pippen would get schooled by Larry Bird (Pippen said Bird was the hartest player he had to guard)
DJ would still be making great desicions despite Jordan scoring on him all day

Eventually the Bulls Team are Too Small to Compete against the Best Passing Team and Frontline Ever with Bird-McHale and Parish at their best.

No way could Rodman guard Parish well or Walton

[Soundwave]

:no:

McHale would shoot around 60% FG on Rodman: that is if he is not fouled by the third quarter
Walton-McHale-Parish-Bird would eat Rodman Pippen and Longley in Rebounding
Pippen would get schooled by Larry Bird (Pippen said Bird was the hartest player he had to guard)
DJ would still be making great desicions despite Jordan scoring on him all day

Eventually the Bulls Team are Too Small to Compete against the Best Passing Team and Frontline Ever with Bird-McHale and Parish at their best.

No way could Rodman guard Parish well or Walton

'88 Pistons beat the '88 Celtics.

Did McHale shoot 60 percent in that series?

[juju151111]

:no:

McHale would shoot around 60% FG on Rodman: that is if he is not fouled by the third quarter
Walton-McHale-Parish-Bird would eat Rodman Pippen and Longley in Rebounding
Pippen would get schooled by Larry Bird (Pippen said Bird was the hartest player he had to guard)
DJ would still be making great desicions despite Jordan scoring on him all day

Eventually the Bulls Team are Too Small to Compete against the Best Passing Team and Frontline Ever with Bird-McHale and Parish at their best.

No way could Rodman guard Parish well or Walton
What a load of ****ing horse shit. How would they eat the bulls rebounding alive? Pippen never guarded Bird when he was in his defensive prime. Pippen was stronger in 96. Gtfo Mchale isn't shooting 60% on Rodman. Why couldn't Rodman guard them. Rodman guarded Shaq. Rodman upperbody is like Ben Wallace. Lmfao at Rodman can't guard parish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg3BiOw4TWo :lol Longer was a good post defender too. The bulls were the better defensive team too. I normally agree with your posts, but almost everything in your reply was complete and other garbage.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

I think that some of you guys see the 80's as the 50's. Boston may have been at a slight athleticism disadvantage to the 1996 Bulls but not by much. Bird Mchale Parish DJ Walton, these guys all played against Jordan at his most athletic. It's not like guys 10 years later are in a different universe athletically. I'm mean Luc Longley for chrissakes. The altheticism issue is way overblown.

85 Lakers
86 Celtics
87 Lakers
96 Bulls
01 Lakers

These teams are just a few that have a shot at the best ever. Expansion and rule changes are a factor. I'd love to see if anyone including Kareem could even stay with a prime 2001 Shaq. Of all these teams who's gonna guard that guy? Then you have a young Kobe who was just coming into his own as a superstar and a bunch of very capable role players. The Bulls were a little weak in the front court because they weren't very deep there. I pick 2001 Lakers over 1996 Bulls. The other teams are a toss up and could go either way on any given day.

[idizzle]

What about the Boston Celtics of thr 1960's with Bill Russell? 11 rings? I'm just saying.