great Scottie Pippen interview about 1995-1996 Chicago Bulls

[Scott Pippen]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rplU1n8oseI

:applause:

[1987_Lakers]

'86 Celtics & '87 Lakers > '96 Bulls:applause:

[Scott Pippen]

'86 Celtics & '87 Lakers > '96 Bulls:applause:
:(

[sonicman]

very good, thanks for posting!


WHAT TIME IS IT??
GAME TIME, OOOOHHHH!

[TmacsRockets]

'86 Celtics & '87 Lakers > '96 Bulls:applause:


http://proxy.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2007/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Finalists1-10


1. 1996 Chicago Bulls Score: 327.9
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 72-10
Postseason record: 15-3
Avg. scoring margin: +12.2
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +10.6
Finals result: Beat Seattle, 4-2 LEADERS (regular-season stats)
Scoring: Michael Jordan, 30.4 ppg
Rebounds: Dennis Rodman, 14.9 rpg
Assists: Scottie Pippen, 5.9 apg
Coach: Phil Jackson
Finals MVP: Michael Jordan




Hands down, the greatest team of all time. How can you choose another when these guys won 72 regular-season games and 14 of their first 15 in the postseason? The Bulls were so good they were first in both offensive and defensive efficiency, and outscored their opponents by 12.2 points per game.

With names like Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, and Toni Kukoc, not to mention a coach like Phil Jackson, this team was pretty much unbeatable -- in fact, seven of its playoff wins were by 17 points or more. The only nit to pick was the Bulls' consecutive losses to the Sonics in the Finals, but they were up 3-0 by then and seemingly bored with how good they were.


2. 1987 Los Angeles Lakers Score: 301.5
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 65-17
Postseason record: 15-3
Avg. scoring margin: +9.3
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +11.4
Finals result: Beat Boston, 4-2 LEADERS
Scoring: Magic Johnson, 23.9 ppg
Rebounds: A.C. Green, 7.9 rpg
Assists: Magic Johnson, 12.4 apg
Coach: Pat Riley
Finals MVP: Magic Johnson




Fittingly, the great Lakers and Celtics teams are in a virtual dead heat for second place. (You'll note that I just call the Lakers "Los Angeles" in this list -- no risk of confusing them with the Clippers here.) This L.A. team nudged ahead of Boston by virtue of winning 65 games in the regular season and then trashing the West -- 11 wins in 12 games -- to make the Finals. The Lakers beat the Celtics in six, and for the playoffs as a whole outscored their opponents by 205 points -- the best of any team on this list. Seven different players averaged double figures, led by Magic with 23.9 points per game.



3. 1986 Boston Celtics Score: 301.1
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 67-15
Postseason record: 15-3
Avg. scoring margin: +9.4
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +10.3
Finals result: Beat Houston, 4-2 LEADERS
Scoring: Larry Bird, 25.8 ppg
Rebounds: Larry Bird, 9.8 rpg
Assists: Larry Bird, 6.8 apg
Coach: K.C. Jones
Finals MVP: Larry Bird




The Celtics won 67 games in '86 behind the best frontcourt ever assembled -- Bird, Kevin McHale, Robert Parish and Bill Walton -- and followed it up by stampeding through the playoffs in 15 games. They rank behind L.A. mostly because their victory margin wasn't as strong in the playoffs. On the other hand, this isn't a bad list to be No. 3 on. And few teams will ever have five players averaging at least 15 a game in the playoffs, as Boston's legendary quintet did in this postseason.

[1987_Lakers]

http://proxy.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2007/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Finalists1-10


1. 1996 Chicago Bulls Score: 327.9
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 72-10
Postseason record: 15-3
Avg. scoring margin: +12.2
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +10.6
Finals result: Beat Seattle, 4-2 LEADERS (regular-season stats)
Scoring: Michael Jordan, 30.4 ppg
Rebounds: Dennis Rodman, 14.9 rpg
Assists: Scottie Pippen, 5.9 apg
Coach: Phil Jackson
Finals MVP: Michael Jordan




Hands down, the greatest team of all time. How can you choose another when these guys won 72 regular-season games and 14 of their first 15 in the postseason? The Bulls were so good they were first in both offensive and defensive efficiency, and outscored their opponents by 12.2 points per game.

With names like Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, and Toni Kukoc, not to mention a coach like Phil Jackson, this team was pretty much unbeatable -- in fact, seven of its playoff wins were by 17 points or more. The only nit to pick was the Bulls' consecutive losses to the Sonics in the Finals, but they were up 3-0 by then and seemingly bored with how good they were.


2. 1987 Los Angeles Lakers Score: 301.5
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 65-17
Postseason record: 15-3
Avg. scoring margin: +9.3
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +11.4
Finals result: Beat Boston, 4-2 LEADERS
Scoring: Magic Johnson, 23.9 ppg
Rebounds: A.C. Green, 7.9 rpg
Assists: Magic Johnson, 12.4 apg
Coach: Pat Riley
Finals MVP: Magic Johnson




Fittingly, the great Lakers and Celtics teams are in a virtual dead heat for second place. (You'll note that I just call the Lakers "Los Angeles" in this list -- no risk of confusing them with the Clippers here.) This L.A. team nudged ahead of Boston by virtue of winning 65 games in the regular season and then trashing the West -- 11 wins in 12 games -- to make the Finals. The Lakers beat the Celtics in six, and for the playoffs as a whole outscored their opponents by 205 points -- the best of any team on this list. Seven different players averaged double figures, led by Magic with 23.9 points per game.



3. 1986 Boston Celtics Score: 301.1
KEY FACTS
Regular-season record: 67-15
Postseason record: 15-3
Avg. scoring margin: +9.4
Avg. scoring margin, playoffs: +10.3
Finals result: Beat Houston, 4-2 LEADERS
Scoring: Larry Bird, 25.8 ppg
Rebounds: Larry Bird, 9.8 rpg
Assists: Larry Bird, 6.8 apg
Coach: K.C. Jones
Finals MVP: Larry Bird




The Celtics won 67 games in '86 behind the best frontcourt ever assembled -- Bird, Kevin McHale, Robert Parish and Bill Walton -- and followed it up by stampeding through the playoffs in 15 games. They rank behind L.A. mostly because their victory margin wasn't as strong in the playoffs. On the other hand, this isn't a bad list to be No. 3 on. And few teams will ever have five players averaging at least 15 a game in the playoffs, as Boston's legendary quintet did in this postseason.

http://www.nba.com/playoffs2004/challenge_bracket.html :applause:

[Scott Pippen]

very good, thanks for posting!


WHAT TIME IS IT??
GAME TIME, OOOOHHHH!

:rockon:

[Scott Pippen]

http://www.nba.com/playoffs2004/challenge_bracket.html :applause:

:no:

[puppychili]

Lets see, when you break it down to numbers and formulas the Bulls come out on top. When you break it down to voting and emotion the Lakers come out on top.

Thats mainly cause everyone has this dogmatic view that the 80's were the greatest era of NBA basketball and thats where all of the greatest teams ever reside. Any challenge to this is seen as blasphemy. I have 2 challenges to this notion

1. Most of the writers out there and people overall who hold the 80's in such reverence are people who grew up or first started watching the NBA during this time. They came of age at the same time as the NBA did. So they romanticize it a little. Kind of like people do with music. People tend to think that the best music was the music that came out during their adolesence. Which is the reason why you see people on the sunset strip today still holding on to Motley Crue and Poison. The same reason why my dad still listens to the Beach Boys and my grandma would only listen to Sinatra and music from the rat pack era. Also during the 80's you were pretty much in one of two groups, Lakers or Celtics. It's where many people started off becoming a lifelong fan of either of those teams.

2. All those teams during the 80's are seen as great cause they beat each other. The Lakers beat the Celtics who beat the 76ers who beat the lakers who beat the Pistons who beat the Celtics, etc. Sure the lakers ended up with the most titles from that decade but all the above teams can say that they beat the Lakers in the Finals which makes them great as well.

The Bulls on the other hand were the sole dominant team of the 90's. The Rockets 2 titles are seen as tarnished since Jordan was retired for the majority of their run. If Jordan had continued playing during those 2 years and the rockets had still won those 2 titles likely beating the Bulls for at least one of them the Rockets would be considered a GREAT team. Likewise had the Knicks, Suns, or Jazz beat the Bulls in a playoff series during the 90's they too would be considered GREAT, cause they beat the awesome Bulls. But they didn't which in some ways makes the Bulls a victim of their own dominance. People act like there was no one to challenge them, forgetting that in 93 a 3-peat was something that had been unheard of since the 60's. The Bulls were not favored in every playoff series they played either. But the fact that during their championship years they were only pushed to 7 games twice, never in the Finals makes people look back and think that the playoffs were nothing but one big unchallenged cakewalk for the Bulls. Ironically enough, many people watching basketball during this era who now degrade it (Laker Fans) were giving a multitude of reasons why Jordan and the Bulls were gonna lose many of those given playoff series.

In the end, who the better team? The Lakers Celtics or Bulls? It's debatable. I tend to go by numbers and dominance. Averaging 70 wins over 2 seasons along with not one but two 3-peats in 8 years is unprecedented and will likely never happen again. The 80's were a golden era of basketball though not likely to be matched again either. It really all comes down to who your favorite team is. But to say that any of those match ups would be dominated by anyone or go less than 7 games is ignorant.

Thats just my 2 cents.:cheers:

[BrianScalabrine]

Pippen is one ugly delusional overrated clown and 95-96 bulls is the most overrated team in NBA history. It's easy to win that many games in a weak and diluted era, especially if the commish rigged the games for you.

[juju151111]

'86 Celtics & '87 Lakers > '96 Bulls:applause:
nope sorry

[JPR]

Pippen: The most underrated player of all time. great interview, thanks for the link.

[puppychili]

Also don't forget how the 2000 era Lakers copied the Bulls so much, with pretty much the entire Bulls coaching staff along with Ron Harper and Horace Grant starting.

I don't think any other NBA team including the 80's Lakers has been emulated to that extent.

[1987_Lakers]

Pippen is one ugly delusional overrated clown and 95-96 bulls is the most overrated team in NBA history. It's easy to win that many games in a weak and diluted era, especially if the commish rigged the games for you.

:lol

[puppychili]

Pippen is one ugly delusional overrated clown and 95-96 bulls is the most overrated team in NBA history. It's easy to win that many games in a weak and diluted era, especially if the commish rigged the games for you.


What an absurd statement. The commish rigged games? If the talent was so diluted as you say then why would he have to rig anything? I'm sure in game 6 of the 98 Finals he "totally rigged it" so Jordan would score, steal and then score again to win the title.

What a lame brain.:confusedshrug: :banghead:

[Sir Charles]

Pippen is one ugly delusional overrated clown and 95-96 bulls is the most overrated team in NBA history. It's easy to win that many games in a weak and diluted era, especially if the commish rigged the games for you.

Nah, Don`t hate on Pippen, He Is Underrated but there is no way the 1995-96 Bulls could beat a 1987 Lakers or even more a 1986 Celtics. The 1980s era was the most competitive ever!.

The Bulls have no Challange in the Frontline for Kareem at Center in the play-offs or the speed and scoring abilities of Worthy in his Prime. Not to mention Byron Scott`s scoring abilities, Cooper, Ac Green and Thomson and even Rambis comming in to do the hard paint job for some minutes etc..Not to mention: Magic in his Best Moment not only game wise but as a Clutch Leader and leading the way with Triple Double after another.:bowdown:

It would be laughable for the Bulls to try to Stop the 1986 Cetlics frontline with Parish, Walton and McHale from owning the Scoreboards and Rebounds. Not to mention Bird leading the way with Triple Doubles, DJ and Danny Ainge from Shooting. Celtics where Too Deep for any team and they could play any style that year. Fast Break, Half Court and could even Contain any Twin Tower Duo.:bowdown:

:confusedshrug:

Trianle Offense only works when you are facing Limited Offensive Teams dont have Both a Great Offensive Frontcourt and a Great Offensive Frontline, which is both the 1986 Celtics and 1987 Lakers :).

In the case of the Celtics a Great Defending Frontline too.

[Soundwave]

Depth is overrated.

On paper the 95-96 Orlando Magic were actually deeper than the Bulls.

Here's one for ya (in case this year's NBA Finals didn't drive the point home)

DEFENSE > Offense

Every time.

96 Bulls would take both the Lakers and Celtics out because they're the superior defensive team.

No one on Boston/L.A. would really stop Jordan from getting his 30-40 either. Or even stop Pippen from getting 20 IMO.

[Maestro33]

Pippen is one ugly delusional overrated clown and 95-96 bulls is the most overrated team in NBA history. It's easy to win that many games in a weak and diluted era, especially if the commish rigged the games for you.

So do you like being what 19 maybe 20 max? Why is he overrated and how in gods green earth was the league diluted then? Explain...please no kidding. U mean diluted like the weak ass Similac you woulda been slugging back outta one of them dual handle, no spilly cups around that time? And the league has to be rigged nowadays because it can't get to the level it was back then in popularity or quality...

[1987_Lakers]

Depth is overrated.

On paper the 95-96 Orlando Magic were actually deeper than the Bulls.

Here's one for ya (in case this year's NBA Finals didn't drive the point home)

DEFENSE > Offense

Every time.

96 Bulls would take both the Lakers and Celtics out because they're the superior defensive team.

No one on Boston/L.A. would really stop Jordan from getting his 30-40 either. Or even stop Pippen from getting 20 IMO.

The 1986 Celtics had the #1 DEFENSE IN THE NBA!!!!!!

[Sir Charles]

Depth is overrated.

On paper the 95-96 Orlando Magic were actually deeper than the Bulls.

Here's one for ya (in case this year's NBA Finals didn't drive the point home)

DEFENSE > Offense

Every time.

96 Bulls would take both the Lakers and Celtics out because they're the superior defensive team.

No one on Boston/L.A. would really stop Jordan from getting his 30-40 either. Or even stop Pippen from getting 20 IMO.

You can`t compare a young Shaq and young Penny to

a Prime Bird, a Prime Kevin McHale and a Prime Robert Parish. :hammerhead:

..not to mention DJ, Danny Ainge, Walton as CF in a 2 Center System, Weddman and Mr Greg Kite to pound with Rodman or Grant etc..

The Bulls where a superior Defensive Team in the PERIMTER but not even near the level of Defense the Celtics had in PAINT. Not To Mention the Celtics Offense in the Paint with the Big 3:confusedshrug: .

Still the Bulls could not stop Ainge or DJ from Shooting from the outside and surely could not Stop Bird in his Prime. They couln`t even stop a 30 to 35 year old Bird with no back between 1987 and 1992 from getting 34-40 points, 10-15 Rebounds and 10-14 Assits :hammerhead:

Pippen and Jordan were wasted tired trying to stop Magic in 1991 from getting 20 assits and triple doubles in the finals. Now add Kareem in 1987 to that team and a Primer Worthy, Byron Scott in his best Moment and better squad players overal than 1991

Stop Speaking Nonsense :banghead: :violin: :confusedshrug:

[puppychili]

Stop Speaking Nonsense :banghead: :violin: :confusedshrug: [/B]

You should take your own advice. Stop acting like the Bulls were some pushover team with absolutely no answer for any team in the 80's.

So sick of the fact that every Bulls hater brings out the same tired 80's argument. You only do it cause it's abstract and subjective and cant be proven either way. Cause when it comes to stats and figures and records, the Bulls have it over everybody. Theres nothing subjective or abstract about that.

You've got a definite hard-on for the 90's Bulls and I'm pretty sure it has something to do with your screen name. Look I'm sorry Sir Charles that Jordan denied Barkley (along with many other players) his best shot at getting a ring but that doesnt mean that you have to endlessly try to tear them down with bulls**t speculation and conjecture. You cant tear down 72-10. You cant tear down 6 titles in 8 years. You can't tear down 2 3-peats. You can't tear down the fact that Jordan is the GOAT.

But I know you'll try. :rolleyes:

[Sir Charles]

You should take your own advice. Stop acting like the Bulls were some pushover team with absolutely no answer for any team in the 80's.

So sick of the fact that every Bulls hater brings out the same tired 80's argument. You only do it cause it's abstract and subjective and cant be proven either way. Cause when it comes to stats and figures and records, the Bulls have it over everybody. Theres nothing subjective or abstract about that.

Its a fact league expanded and weakened in the 90s:) not to mention the BULLS NEVER FACED A GREAT SCORING FRONTLINE WITH FUNDAMENTALS (that could play both Great D and Score "Alot" at a High FG%).

Every time the Bulls faced the the Celtics in the 80s, even 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 they got Schooled 3-0 and 3-0. And it wasn`t a Celtics Big 3 in their agil and potent 20s but in their 30s :sleeping .

You've got a definite hard-on for the 90's Bulls and I'm pretty sure it has something to do with your screen name. Look I'm sorry Sir Charles that Jordan denied Barkley (along with many other players) his best shot at getting a ring but that doesnt mean that you have to endlessly try to tear them down with bulls**t speculation and conjecture. You cant tear down 72-10. You cant tear down 6 titles in 8 years. You can't tear down 2 3-peats. You can't tear down the fact that Jordan is the GOAT.

I am not an anti Bulls dude. I am just not a cocksucking hyped 90s Media Jordan-Pippen Bulls Fan like 99% of the kids whom keep avoiding the fact that the 90s competition sucked compared to the 80s and that fact the Bulls never faced a Great Scoring Frontline Duo or Trio in the Play-Offs. :confusedshrug:.

Not to mention the Bulls hardly faced Great Teams in the 90s.:confusedshrug:

The only Average Frontline the Bulls ever faced in the Play-Offs was the 1992Knicks, strangely enough = this untalented offensive team took them all the way game 7! :ohwell: just by their Great Defense. If the Knicks had another Frontline Scorer like Nique, Barkley examples they would have knocked the Bulls way = That is as obvious as recognizing Jordan as the Goat SG.

The Bulls could never beat a Magic to Worthy-Kareem Duo or the McHale-Parish-Bird Trio :no: :confusedshrug:

Stop the cocksucking and get real. :violin:

No Offensive Triangle Offense Backcourt-Oriented Team will Ever Beat a:

"PRIME" GREAT OFFENSIVE FRONTLINE that also HAS GREAT D.

And in the mid and early 1980s Lakers you not only had a Great Backcourt with prime Magic and Scott/Cooper but also to 2 Great Scoring Frontliners: Kareem and Worthy. Not to mention a Deeper Team than the Bulls.

Just go look at the 2008 Championship Series Lakers vs Celtics to understand what im saying.

1980s = Bulls Owned Every Possible Way :violin:

[Loki]

Sir Charles is easily -- easily -- the most obnoxious poster on this site. And that's including all the Kobe groupies. :oldlol:

[Sir Charles]

Sir Charles is easily -- easily -- the most obnoxious poster on this site. And that's including all the Kobe groupies. :oldlol:

Loki don`t hate on me because I am awakening many 90s media brainwashed Bulls fans.:)

"Kobe Groupies" hahaha :roll:

(Kobe is No Jordan. Its A Fact :confusedshrug: )

[puppychili]

All your arguments are coulda shoulda woulda. If so and so did this or if this guy was healthy or if this player was in his prime. You can't deal with the facts as they are so you deal with the subjective. And you gloss over the fact that there were 4 expansion teams in the 80's. The whole expansion argument is lame any ways cause is based on the notion that without expansion every team would of been better EXCEPT the Bulls.

When the Bulls won 72 games all of the haters harped on the fact that it was an expansion year while conveniently leaving out the fact that 1972 was an expansion year too.

Look I'm not saying that cause the Bulls won 72 games that it makes them far and away the better than the 80's Lakers or Celtics. Don't forget the Pistons either. I'm saying that it puts them up on the Mt. Rushmore of great teams. They have just as strong of an argument, if not better in some aspects for being considered the greatest of all time as any of those other teams do. Thats not **** sucking, thats being real.

And once again about this great team stuff. In order for any other team in the 90's to be considered great they would of had to beat the Bulls Would the Pistons of been considered great if they never got past the Celtics? Probably not. And using your logic that would bring the Celtics down a notch cause then they wouldn't of beaten a great Pistons team. It's so f**king convoluted. The Bulls took on all comers and ended up winning 6 out of eight years. They won series that they weren't supposed to win and kept many future hall of famers from winning rings. History would of judged the Knicks Suns and Jazz much differently if they had of beaten the great Micheal Jordan and the Chicago Bulls. Yet all you choose to do is pull some kind of negativity out of that.

Look say what you want. Bring up all your abstract arguments that will never get a chance to be proven. But if you're gonna say to me that Jordan and Pippen werent one of if not the greatest duo in NBA history, that Jordan Pippen and Rodman weren't one of the greatest trios of all time, that Phil Jackson isn't one of the greatest coaches ever and that players like Paxson and Kerr weren't clutch when it counted in the playoffs, then I'll just let you waste away in your own myopia.

[Sir Charles]

All your arguments are coulda shoulda woulda. If so and so did this or if this guy was healthy or if this player was in his prime. You can't deal with the facts as they are so you deal with the subjective. And you gloss over the fact that there were 4 expansion teams in the 80's. The whole expansion argument is lame any ways cause is based on the notion that without expansion every team would of been better EXCEPT the Bulls.

When the Bulls won 72 games all of the haters harped on the fact that it was an expansion year while conveniently leaving out the fact that 1972 was an expansion year too.

Look I'm not saying that cause the Bulls won 72 games that it makes them far and away the better than the 80's Lakers or Celtics. Don't forget the Pistons either. I'm saying that it puts them up on the Mt. Rushmore of great teams. They have just as strong of an argument, if not better in some aspects for being considered the greatest of all time as any of those other teams do. Thats not **** sucking, thats being real.

And once again about this great team stuff. In order for any other team in the 90's to be considered great they would of had to beat the Bulls Would the Pistons of been considered great if they never got past the Celtics? Probably not. And using your logic that would bring the Celtics down a notch cause then they wouldn't of beaten a great Pistons team. It's so f**king convoluted. The Bulls took on all comers and ended up winning 6 out of eight years. They won series that they weren't supposed to win and kept many future hall of famers from winning rings. History would of judged the Knicks Suns and Jazz much differently if they had of beaten the great Micheal Jordan and the Chicago Bulls. Yet all you choose to do is pull some kind of negativity out of that.

Look say what you want. Bring up all your abstract arguments that will never get a chance to be proven. But if you're gonna say to me that Jordan and Pippen werent one of if not the greatest duo in NBA history, that Jordan Pippen and Rodman weren't one of the greatest trios of all time, that Phil Jackson isn't one of the greatest coaches ever and that players like Paxson and Kerr weren't clutch when it counted in the playoffs, then I'll just let you waste away in your own myopia.

Why did the Pistons beat the Celtics?

Easy. They had the...

THE BEST PERIMETER DEFENSE (before the Bulls) and the BEST FRONTLINE DEFENSE of the 1980s....

THEY COULD DEAL WITH "BOTH" THREATS!

but....their Offensive Capabilities Relied to Much on their talented PG Isiah Thomas, whose Role as PG ofcourse was 1st: To Create and then Secondly 2nd: To Score.

It is unatural B-Ball wise to have your PG taking the Scoring Load for the Whole Team and that eventually will kill a team, especially if this iTeam has No Interior Frontline Great D and even More with No Exterior Frountcourt Great D (with the Guards taking the Whole Scoring Load) to contain or diminuish the Opponent who had either Great Back Court Offense or Great Fronlinte Offense

(Teams like the 80s Lakers and Celtics, had both!).

Adrian Dantley. Their only Real Offensive Socoring Threat the Pistons had Left Early and was not in his prime in the late 80s. He played til 1989. So he was part of the schooling that the Pistons have to Jordan`s Bulls from 1984 to 1987 and Jordan-Pippen`s (Grant included) Bulls from 1987 to 1989

And If you want to go by facts then...:confusedshrug:

1980s Bulls = Nothing Against Celtic Big 3 and Laker Showtime.

[momo]

Nice link. That season seemed to take on a life of its own. It took me about a month to realize they were playing out of this world basketball and after that the first thing I checked in the paper was the bulls box. Only one other time that has happened that something gets my attention off the lakers box score first thing in the morning, and that is one Yankees season that I am convinced was the best baseball team that will play in my lifetime.

[Loki]

The team with the most assits wins, period.

[puppychili]

I'm assuming you meant the 90's Bulls.

Nothing though? Nothing at all? That what makes your argument so stupid. To say that a championship team led by Michael Jordan would have nothing against any team, from the 80's or otherwise has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this board.

[Loki]

I'm assuming you meant the 90's Bulls.

Nothing though? Nothing at all? That what makes your argument so stupid. To say that a championship team led by Michael Jordan would have nothing against any team, from the 80's or otherwise has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this board.

He's an idiot. I don't even bother with him anymore. Mind you, I think the '86 Celts are definitely better than any version of the Bulls and the '87 Lakers most likely are as well. But this dude constantly spouts nonsense.

If Barkley had Pippen, he would have had 8 rings!!!! After all, Pippen played THE MOST MINUTES in the '91 playoffs, so clearly he was the KEY PLAYER for the Bulls when they won!

[Sir Charles]

The team with the most assits wins, period.

Some Basketball Laws:

LAW 1: A Great Offensive and Defensive Perimeter Oriented Back Court Team with a Good Defensive Frontline but A Bad to Average Offensive Frontline (The 90s Bulls) can Beat A Team that has: an "Average to Bad Offensive/Defensive Frontline" and an "Good, Average or Bad" Offensive/Defensisve Backcourt

= Most of the 1990s Teams the Bulls faced :confusedshrug:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LAW 2: A Great Offensive and Defensive Perimeter Oriented Back Court Team with a Good Defensive Frontline but A Bad to Average Offensive Frontline (The 90s Bulls) will have A Hard Time Beating A Team that has: a "Great Defensive Frontline" and a "Great Defensive Backcourt" but with a "Bad Offensive Frontline" and Good "Offensive Backcourt"

= 1980s Pistons (owned the Bulls from 1984 to 1990) :confusedshrug:


*With Adrian Dantley they would have had not a "Good Offensive Backcourt" but a "Great Offensive Backcourt". So that would have persented even more trouble for the Bulls...

...As it did from 1987 to 1989 :)

LAW 3: A Great Offensive and Defensive Perimeter Oriented Back Court Team with a Good Defensive Frontline but A Bad to Average Offensive Frontline (The 90s Bulls) will have even a harder time Beating A Team that has: a "Great Defensive Frontline" and a "Great Defensive Backcourt" with an "Average to Good Offensive Frontline" and an "Average to Bad Offensive Backcourt"

= Early 1990s Knicks (took them To Game 7 in 1992)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*The Knicks Just Needed an Offensive Weopon (apart from Ewing) in either one of their Frontline Forward Spots.:)

LAW 4: "A Great Offensive and Defensive Perimeter Oriented Back Court Team" with a "Good Defensive Frontline" but "A Bad to Average Offensive Frontline" (The 90s Bulls)Most Probably Not Win Over A Team that has: a "Good Defensive Frontline" and a "Great Offense Frontline" with an "Average to Good Defensive Backcourt" and "A Great Offensive Backcourt"

=1980s Showtime Lakers. Especially the 1985 to 1987 Lakers with Kareem-Magic and Worthy together plus their Supporting Casts of Scott, Thompson, Cooper, Green, Rambis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally....

LAW 5: "A Great Offensive and Defensive Perimeter Oriented Back Court Team" with a "Good Defensive Frontline" but "A Bad to Average Offensive Frontline" (The 90s Bulls) Has No No Chance :no: In Beating A Team that has: a "Great Defensive Frontline" and a "Great Offensive Frontline with "Good Offensive Backcourt" and an "Great Defensive Backcourt"

=1986 Celtics with McHale-Bird-Parish-Walton-Ainge-DJ-Kite-Wedman, Siesting.

The only way fro the Bulls to try to win some games is quite simple:

Locate Pippen as the PG for Most of the Game and Kukoc at the SF for Most of the game. This way with Kukoc and Pippen both in you would have more Scoring Possibilites but then again with No Pippen in the SF spot = you would have a WEAKER DEFENSE for the Likes of Bird-McHale-Parish and Walton (Yes the Celtics Strenght = Frontline Offense and Defense!).

If you put Harper in for Pippen as a PG and Pippen as the SF for Most of the Game you will

1st- Loose Creative Possibilities to make the Frontline Offense Score and

2nd- Consume Pippen. Whom cannot asoume the role of trying to:

1st: Try to Stop: Larry Bird!
2nd: Become the Second Scoring Threat after Jordan,
3rd: Rebound over Bird-McHale-Parish-Walton and
4th: Create as a Point-Forward.

= Simply To much Load for Pip.

Matchups

Backcourt:

Jordan vs Ainge/DJ: Jordan Would Own Danny Ainge Offensively but still would not prevent him from Scoring Outside Shots.

(JORDAN WINS!)

Harper vs Ainge: Both will go at it with Harper having the edge in his Drives but then again this is Prime Ainge and Old Harper

(Ballanced Match Up)

Frontline

McHale vs Rodman : Rodman Would get Owned by a 1986 McHale Offensively and Defensively. Rodman will only Outrebound McHale but would Not Stop Him from Scoring Nor Score on Him.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=mchalke01&p2=rodmade01

Mchale: 22.5 PPG (57.9% FG), 8.8 RPG; 1.5 BPG vs Rodman.

This is counting stats from 1990-91 to 1992-93 = A 33 to 35 year old Mchale not a Prime 1985-86 McHale at age: 28! :banghead:

(McHALE WINS!)

Bird vs Pippen-Kukoc. Bird would own both of them Offensively and Rebounding Wise. None will Prevent Bird from owning the Boards, Posting Up for his 12-15 Jumpers, Scoring in other ways and Making Great Passes for Parish-McHale-Walton or even spoting up DJ or Ainge for Open Shots after Pick & Rolls made by the Frontline.:confusedshrug:

Pippen will Challange Bird in the Perimeter but Bird always will do what he used to do against faster players. Just wait closer to his Frontline to assure rebounds waiting for Pippen to Shoot from the Outside, which = Pippen`s Not a Reliable Open Shooter.

Kukoc will Challange Bird in the Post but then then again Bird will have an easier time Offensively with Kukoc than with Pippen (because Pippen is obviously a better Defender).

Reminder***Bird owned Pippen from 1988 to 1992

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=pippesc01

But remember this time we are talking not about a 31 to 35 year old Bird but a Prime 23 to 29 year old Bird. And yes Before his injury in 1989 :confusedshrug:

(BIRD WINS!)

Parish vs Bulls Center: Any Bull`s Center would get Owned by a 1986 Parish both Offensively and Defensively.

(PARISH WINS!)

Then agin if Rodman needs a Pounding, The Celtics will just put in Walton for a Twin Tower System with Parish and McHale, putting Bird as a SG for some minutes and then later put in 6`11 ft and 250 lbs Greg Kite = A Dennis Rodman like type agressive Paint Player that was famous for brawls. Not to mention the guy was a 9.3 R.P/36 Minutes.


RESUME OF THE LAWS:

"A Great Frontline (Composed of 3 Players) Will Always Own a Good/Great Backcourt (Composed of 2 Players) " .:hammerhead:

Examples:

2008 Finals Lakers v.s Celtics Result = Same would happen to the 95-96 Bulls if they faced a 1985-86 Celtics

* In the Case of the Bulls. The Bulls can only assure one spot in the Game Matchups of Total Ownership by Jordan = that is Jordan vs Ainge/DJ.

Harper vs Ainge is a Ballanced Won.

The Rest of the Matchups:

Bird vs Pippen: Bird Wins
McHale vs Rodman: Mchale Wins
Parish vs Bulls Center= Parish Total Ownership!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 1995-96 Bulls Have "Very Little Chances" of Beating a 1984-85/1986-87 Lakers and

Pretty Much "No Chance" in Beating a 1985-86 Celtics (Greatest Team Ever) :confusedshrug:

[EricForman]

The 90s Bulls wouldn't have beaten the 80s Magic or Lakers.

But that doesn't prove Magic or Bird's superiority over Jordan in any way.

It just proves Bull's #2 through #12 was significantly weaker than the Celtics and Laker's #2 through #12.

Because make no mistake, the best player of all three teams is still Michael Jordan.

[Sir Charles]

The 90s Bulls wouldn't have beaten the 80s Magic or Lakers.

But that doesn't prove Magic or Bird's superiority over Jordan in any way.

It just proves Bull's #2 through #12 was significantly weaker than the Celtics and Laker's #2 through #12.

Because make no mistake, the best player of all three teams is still Michael Jordan.

Being a Better Player Has Nothing To do With Your Team Winning or Winning More than the Other Player...:confusedshrug:

Its a prooven fact (I have given enough evidence read at the top) that the 1995/96 Bulls have "Very Little Chance" of Beating the 1984-85/1986-87 Lakers, and Absoluetly "No Chance" in Beating the 1986-86 Celtics". :confusedshrug:

[EricForman]

Being a Better Player Has Nothing To do With Your Team Winning or Winning More than the Other Player...:confusedshrug:

Its a prooven fact (I have given enough evidence read at the top) that the 1995/96 Bulls have "Very Little Chance" of Beating the 1984-85/1986-87 Lakers, and Absoluetly "No Chance" in Beating the 1986-86 Celtics". :confusedshrug:


No wonder you're doing :confusedshrug: because your ass is confused.

Where did I say the Bull would win? I know the Bulls would probably lose to the Celtics or Lakers in a 7 game series. But I'm trying to say that's just cause Magic/Bird had such a stacked team.

I say that because most of the time this statement is bought up to somewhat downplay Jordan or hype up Magic.

[Soundwave]

Bulls in six over both the Celtics and Lakers.

The Bulls would put Pippen on Magic or Bird and that would completely disrupt their entire "run n' gun" offense and it would change the entire game. Jordan and Rodman would then be further create chaos on the defensive end.

The Celtics and Lakers both had problems versus Detroit and the Bulls were every bit as good defensively, probably even better because they were more athletic.

Dumars at 6'4 simply can't do the things Pippen at 6'7 could do defensively.

The Celtics interior defense was so good that it got shredded to 63 points by a 2nd year Michael Jordan on their own home floor. The Celtics wouldn't be able to do anything to stop Jordan. Or even Pippen IMO (he would get his 20+ too offsetting a lot of Bird's offense).

[EricForman]

Bulls in six over both the Celtics and Lakers.

The Bulls would put Pippen on Magic or Bird and that would completely disrupt their entire "run n' gun" offense and it would change the entire game. Jordan and Rodman would then be further create chaos on the defensive end.

The Celtics and Lakers both had problems versus Detroit and the Bulls were every bit as good defensively, probably even better because they were more athletic.

Dumars at 6'4 simply can't do the things Pippen at 6'7 could do defensively.

The Celtics interior defense was so good that it got shredded to 63 points by a 2nd year Michael Jordan on their own home floor. The Celtics wouldn't be able to do anything to stop Jordan. Or even Pippen IMO (he would get his 20+ too offsetting a lot of Bird's offense).


I think you're overrating Pip.

He's one of the greatest defenders, no doubt.

But at the end of the day, Magic and Bird are still MAgic and Bird. They wouldn't let Pip get in their way.

[Sir Charles]

Bulls in six over both the Celtics and Lakers.

The Bulls would put Pippen on Magic or Bird and that would completely disrupt their entire "run n' gun" offense and it would change the entire game. Jordan and Rodman would then be further create chaos on the defensive end.

The Celtics and Lakers both had problems versus Detroit and the Bulls were every bit as good defensively, probably even better because they were more athletic.

Dumars at 6'4 simply can't do the things Pippen at 6'7 could do defensively.

The Celtics interior defense was so good that it got shredded to 63 points by a 2nd year Michael Jordan on their own home floor. The Celtics wouldn't be able to do anything to stop Jordan. Or even Pippen IMO (he would get his 20+ too offsetting a lot of Bird's offense).

:no:

1984-85/1986-87 Lakers vs 1995-96 Bulls = Lakers in 7

1986-86 Celtics vs 1995-96 Bulls = Celtics in 6

Read this and Learn Why:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some Basketball Laws:

LAW 1: A Great Offensive and Defensive Perimeter Oriented Back Court Team with a Good Defensive Frontline but A Bad to Average Offensive Frontline (The 90s Bulls) can Beat A Team that has: an "Average to Bad Offensive/Defensive Frontline" and an "Good, Average or Bad" Offensive/Defensisve Backcourt

= Most of the 1990s Teams the Bulls faced

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

LAW 2: A Great Offensive and Defensive Perimeter Oriented Back Court Team with a Good Defensive Frontline but A Bad to Average Offensive Frontline (The 90s Bulls) will have A Hard Time Beating A Team that has: a "Great Defensive Frontline" and a "Great Defensive Backcourt" but with a "Bad Offensive Frontline" and Good "Offensive Backcourt"

= 1980s Pistons (owned the Bulls from 1984 to 1990) :confusedshrug:


*With Adrian Dantley they would have had not a "Good Offensive Backcourt" but a "Great Offensive Backcourt". So that would have persented even more trouble for the Bulls...

...As it did from 1987 to 1989 :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

LAW 3: A Great Offensive and Defensive Perimeter Oriented Back Court Team with a Good Defensive Frontline but A Bad to Average Offensive Frontline (The 90s Bulls) will have even a harder time Beating A Team that has: a "Great Defensive Frontline" and a "Great Defensive Backcourt" with an "Average to Good Offensive Frontline" and an "Average to Bad Offensive Backcourt"

= Early 1990s Knicks (took them To Game 7 in 1992)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

*The Knicks Just Needed an Offensive Weopon (apart from Ewing) in either one of their Frontline Forward Spots.:)

LAW 4: "A Great Offensive and Defensive Perimeter Oriented Back Court Team" with a "Good Defensive Frontline" but "A Bad to Average Offensive Frontline" (The 90s Bulls)Most Probably Not Win Over A Team that has: a "Good Defensive Frontline" and a "Great Offense Frontline" with an "Average to Good Defensive Backcourt" and "A Great Offensive Backcourt"

=1980s Showtime Lakers. Especially the 1985 to 1987 Lakers with Kareem-Magic and Worthy together plus their Supporting Casts of Scott, Thompson, Cooper, Green, Rambis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally....

LAW 5: "A Great Offensive and Defensive Perimeter Oriented Back Court Team" with a "Good Defensive Frontline" but "A Bad to Average Offensive Frontline" (The 90s Bulls) Has No No Chance :no: In Beating A Team that has: a "Great Defensive Frontline" and a "Great Offensive Frontline with "Good Offensive Backcourt" and an "Great Defensive Backcourt"

=1986 Celtics with McHale-Bird-Parish-Walton-Ainge-DJ-Kite-Wedman, Siesting.

The only way fro the Bulls to try to win some games is quite simple:

Locate Pippen as the PG for Most of the Game and Kukoc at the SF for Most of the game. This way with Kukoc and Pippen both in you would have more Scoring Possibilites but then again with No Pippen in the SF spot = you would have a WEAKER DEFENSE for the Likes of Bird-McHale-Parish and Walton (Yes the Celtics Strenght = Frontline Offense and Defense!).

If you put Harper in for Pippen as a PG and Pippen as the SF for Most of the Game you will

1st- Loose Creative Possibilities to make the Frontline Offense Score and

2nd- Consume Pippen. Whom cannot asoume the role of trying to:

1st: Try to Stop: Larry Bird!
2nd: Become the Second Scoring Threat after Jordan,
3rd: Rebound over Bird-McHale-Parish-Walton and
4th: Create as a Point-Forward.

= Simply To much Load for Pip.

Matchups

Backcourt:

Jordan vs Ainge/DJ: Jordan Would Own Danny Ainge Offensively but still would not prevent him from Scoring Outside Shots.

(JORDAN WINS!)

Harper vs Ainge: Both will go at it with Harper having the edge in his Drives but then again this is Prime Ainge and Old Harper

(Ballanced Match Up)

Frontline

McHale vs Rodman : Rodman Would get Owned by a 1986 McHale Offensively and Defensively. Rodman will only Outrebound McHale but would Not Stop Him from Scoring Nor Score on Him.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=mchalke01&p2=rodmade01

Mchale: 22.5 PPG (57.9% FG), 8.8 RPG; 1.5 BPG vs Rodman.

This is counting stats from 1990-91 to 1992-93 = A 33 to 35 year old Mchale not a Prime 1985-86 McHale at age: 28! :banghead:

(McHALE WINS!)

Bird vs Pippen-Kukoc. Bird would own both of them Offensively and Rebounding Wise. None will Prevent Bird from owning the Boards, Posting Up for his 12-15 Jumpers, Scoring in other ways and Making Great Passes for Parish-McHale-Walton or even spoting up DJ or Ainge for Open Shots after Pick & Rolls made by the Frontline.:confusedshrug:

Pippen will Challange Bird in the Perimeter but Bird always will do what he used to do against faster players. Just wait closer to his Frontline to assure rebounds waiting for Pippen to Shoot from the Outside, which = Pippen`s Not a Reliable Open Shooter.

Kukoc will Challange Bird in the Post but then then again Bird will have an easier time Offensively with Kukoc than with Pippen (because Pippen is obviously a better Defender).

Reminder***Bird owned Pippen from 1988 to 1992

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=pippesc01

But remember this time we are talking not about a 31 to 35 year old Bird but a Prime 23 to 29 year old Bird. And yes Before his injury in 1989 :confusedshrug:

(BIRD WINS!)

Parish vs Bulls Center: Any Bull`s Center would get Owned by a 1986 Parish both Offensively and Defensively.

(PARISH WINS!)

Then agin if Rodman needs a Pounding, The Celtics will just put in Walton for a Twin Tower System with Parish and McHale, putting Bird as a SG for some minutes and then later put in 6`11 ft and 250 lbs Greg Kite = A Dennis Rodman like type agressive Paint Player that was famous for brawls. Not to mention the guy was a 9.3 R.P/36 Minutes.


RESUME OF THE LAWS:

"A Great Frontline (Composed of 3 Players) Will Always Own a Good/Great Backcourt (Composed of 2 Players) " .:hammerhead:

Examples:

2008 Finals Lakers v.s Celtics Result = Same would happen to the 95-96 Bulls if they faced a 1985-86 Celtics

* In the Case of the Bulls. The Bulls can only assure one spot in the Game Matchups of Total Ownership by Jordan = that is Jordan vs Ainge/DJ.

Harper vs Ainge is a Ballanced Won.

The Rest of the Matchups:

Bird vs Pippen: Bird Wins
McHale vs Rodman: Mchale Wins
Parish vs Bulls Center= Parish Total Ownership!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 1995-96 Bulls Have "Very Little Chances" of Beating a 1984-85/1986-87 Lakers and

Pretty Much "No Chance" in Beating a 1985-86 Celtics (Greatest Team Ever) :confusedshrug:

[Soundwave]

:no:

1984-85/1986-87 Lakers vs 1995-96 Bulls = Lakers in 7

1986-86 Celtics vs 1995-96 Bulls = Celtics in 6

Read this and Learn Why:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some Basketball Laws:

LAW 1: A Great Offensive and Defensive Perimeter Oriented Back Court Team with a Good Defensive Frontline but A Bad to Average Offensive Frontline (The 90s Bulls) can Beat A Team that has: an "Average to Bad Offensive/Defensive Frontline" and an "Good, Average or Bad" Offensive/Defensisve Backcourt

= Most of the 1990s Teams the Bulls faced

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

LAW 2: A Great Offensive and Defensive Perimeter Oriented Back Court Team with a Good Defensive Frontline but A Bad to Average Offensive Frontline (The 90s Bulls) will have A Hard Time Beating A Team that has: a "Great Defensive Frontline" and a "Great Defensive Backcourt" but with a "Bad Offensive Frontline" and Good "Offensive Backcourt"

= 1980s Pistons (owned the Bulls from 1984 to 1990) :confusedshrug:


*With Adrian Dantley they would have had not a "Good Offensive Backcourt" but a "Great Offensive Backcourt". So that would have persented even more trouble for the Bulls...

...As it did from 1987 to 1989 :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

LAW 3: A Great Offensive and Defensive Perimeter Oriented Back Court Team with a Good Defensive Frontline but A Bad to Average Offensive Frontline (The 90s Bulls) will have even a harder time Beating A Team that has: a "Great Defensive Frontline" and a "Great Defensive Backcourt" with an "Average to Good Offensive Frontline" and an "Average to Bad Offensive Backcourt"

= Early 1990s Knicks (took them To Game 7 in 1992)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

*The Knicks Just Needed an Offensive Weopon (apart from Ewing) in either one of their Frontline Forward Spots.:)

LAW 4: "A Great Offensive and Defensive Perimeter Oriented Back Court Team" with a "Good Defensive Frontline" but "A Bad to Average Offensive Frontline" (The 90s Bulls)Most Probably Not Win Over A Team that has: a "Good Defensive Frontline" and a "Great Offense Frontline" with an "Average to Good Defensive Backcourt" and "A Great Offensive Backcourt"

=1980s Showtime Lakers. Especially the 1985 to 1987 Lakers with Kareem-Magic and Worthy together plus their Supporting Casts of Scott, Thompson, Cooper, Green, Rambis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally....

LAW 5: "A Great Offensive and Defensive Perimeter Oriented Back Court Team" with a "Good Defensive Frontline" but "A Bad to Average Offensive Frontline" (The 90s Bulls) Has No No Chance :no: In Beating A Team that has: a "Great Defensive Frontline" and a "Great Offensive Frontline with "Good Offensive Backcourt" and an "Great Defensive Backcourt"

=1986 Celtics with McHale-Bird-Parish-Walton-Ainge-DJ-Kite-Wedman, Siesting.

The only way fro the Bulls to try to win some games is quite simple:

Locate Pippen as the PG for Most of the Game and Kukoc at the SF for Most of the game. This way with Kukoc and Pippen both in you would have more Scoring Possibilites but then again with No Pippen in the SF spot = you would have a WEAKER DEFENSE for the Likes of Bird-McHale-Parish and Walton (Yes the Celtics Strenght = Frontline Offense and Defense!).

If you put Harper in for Pippen as a PG and Pippen as the SF for Most of the Game you will

1st- Loose Creative Possibilities to make the Frontline Offense Score and

2nd- Consume Pippen. Whom cannot asoume the role of trying to:

1st: Try to Stop: Larry Bird!
2nd: Become the Second Scoring Threat after Jordan,
3rd: Rebound over Bird-McHale-Parish-Walton and
4th: Create as a Point-Forward.

= Simply To much Load for Pip.

Matchups

Backcourt:

Jordan vs Ainge/DJ: Jordan Would Own Danny Ainge Offensively but still would not prevent him from Scoring Outside Shots.

(JORDAN WINS!)

Harper vs Ainge: Both will go at it with Harper having the edge in his Drives but then again this is Prime Ainge and Old Harper

(Ballanced Match Up)

Frontline

McHale vs Rodman : Rodman Would get Owned by a 1986 McHale Offensively and Defensively. Rodman will only Outrebound McHale but would Not Stop Him from Scoring Nor Score on Him.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=mchalke01&p2=rodmade01

Mchale: 22.5 PPG (57.9% FG), 8.8 RPG; 1.5 BPG vs Rodman.

This is counting stats from 1990-91 to 1992-93 = A 33 to 35 year old Mchale not a Prime 1985-86 McHale at age: 28! :banghead:

(McHALE WINS!)

Bird vs Pippen-Kukoc. Bird would own both of them Offensively and Rebounding Wise. None will Prevent Bird from owning the Boards, Posting Up for his 12-15 Jumpers, Scoring in other ways and Making Great Passes for Parish-McHale-Walton or even spoting up DJ or Ainge for Open Shots after Pick & Rolls made by the Frontline.:confusedshrug:

Pippen will Challange Bird in the Perimeter but Bird always will do what he used to do against faster players. Just wait closer to his Frontline to assure rebounds waiting for Pippen to Shoot from the Outside, which = Pippen`s Not a Reliable Open Shooter.

Kukoc will Challange Bird in the Post but then then again Bird will have an easier time Offensively with Kukoc than with Pippen (because Pippen is obviously a better Defender).

Reminder***Bird owned Pippen from 1988 to 1992

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=pippesc01

But remember this time we are talking not about a 31 to 35 year old Bird but a Prime 23 to 29 year old Bird. And yes Before his injury in 1989 :confusedshrug:

(BIRD WINS!)

Parish vs Bulls Center: Any Bull`s Center would get Owned by a 1986 Parish both Offensively and Defensively.

(PARISH WINS!)

Then agin if Rodman needs a Pounding, The Celtics will just put in Walton for a Twin Tower System with Parish and McHale, putting Bird as a SG for some minutes and then later put in 6`11 ft and 250 lbs Greg Kite = A Dennis Rodman like type agressive Paint Player that was famous for brawls. Not to mention the guy was a 9.3 R.P/36 Minutes.


RESUME OF THE LAWS:

"A Great Frontline (Composed of 3 Players) Will Always Own a Good/Great Backcourt (Composed of 2 Players) " .:hammerhead:

Examples:

2008 Finals Lakers v.s Celtics Result = Same would happen to the 95-96 Bulls if they faced a 1985-86 Celtics

* In the Case of the Bulls. The Bulls can only assure one spot in the Game Matchups of Total Ownership by Jordan = that is Jordan vs Ainge/DJ.

Harper vs Ainge is a Ballanced Won.

The Rest of the Matchups:

Bird vs Pippen: Bird Wins
McHale vs Rodman: Mchale Wins
Parish vs Bulls Center= Parish Total Ownership!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 1995-96 Bulls Have "Very Little Chances" of Beating a 1984-85/1986-87 Lakers and

Pretty Much "No Chance" in Beating a 1985-86 Celtics (Greatest Team Ever) :confusedshrug:

Well gee thanks professor.

Problem with all your formulas is real basketball doesn't work like that. Maybe in a video game, but not in real life.

The Lakers/Celtics would not be able to run their offense in the same way versus the Bulls defense. You're not going to run n' gun fast break versus that Bulls team.

They had problems versus the Bad Boy Pistons as is and the Bulls developed into an even better defensive and offensive team. If you think it would be some kind of rout you would woefully mistaken, just like all the people who picked the Lakers to beat the Celtics because their roster looked sexier on paper going in to that series (or again Lakers-Detroit in 2004).

[1987_Lakers]

Well gee thanks professor.

Problem with all your formulas is real basketball doesn't work like that. Maybe in a video game, but not in real life.

The Lakers/Celtics would not be able to run their offense in the same way versus the Bulls defense. You're not going to run n' gun fast break versus that Bulls team.

They had problems versus the Bad Boy Pistons as is and the Bulls developed into an even better defensive and offensive team. If you think it would be some kind of rout you would woefully mistaken, just like all the people who picked the Lakers to beat the Celtics because their roster looked sexier on paper going in to that series (or again Lakers-Detroit in 2004).

The Celtics Front Court would rape that weak bulls front court.

[Soundwave]

The Celtics Front Court would rape that weak bulls front court.

You mean the same way the Celtics Front Court "raped" the Bad Boys Pistons front court? See on paper that's what should happen ... in reality we know that it didn't.

It's not like the Pistons front court was an All-Star team either.

This maybe taboo to say, but **** it, even a 4th year Shaquille O' Neal was a tougher cover than anyone the Celtics had on their front court in '86.

[1987_Lakers]

You mean the same way the Celtics Front Court "raped" the Bad Boys Pistons front court? See on paper that's what should happen ... in reality we know that it didn't.

It's not like the Pistons front court was an All-Star team either.

This maybe taboo to say, but **** it, even a 4th year Shaquille O' Neal was a tougher cover than anyone the Celtics had on their front court in '86.
Bill Walton wasn't playing for Boston when they played the Pistons in '87 and '88.

And Kevin McHale was dominating the Bad Boys Pistons frontcourt from '87 - '88.

Kevin McHale vs Bad Boys Pistons
'87 Season
1. 37 Points...12 Rebounds...60 FG%
2. 38 Points....14 Rebounds... 71 FG%
3. 22 Points...10 Rebounds... 50 FG%
4. 25 Points...10 Rebounds... 50 FG%

'88 Season
1. 20 Points...9 Rebounds...67 FG%
2. 31 Points...7 Rebounds...69 FG%
3. 20 Points...3 Rebounds....53 FG%
4. 33 Points...11 Rebounds...62 FG%
5. 29 Points...11 Rebounds...63 FG%
6. 33 Points..7 Rebounds...87 FG%

Besides..The Pistons Frontcourt was better than the Bulls Front Court.

Laimbeer, Mahorn, Rodman >>>>>> Longley, Wennington, Rodman

[1987_Lakers]

Bulls in six over both the Celtics and Lakers.

The Bulls would put Pippen on Magic or Bird and that would completely disrupt their entire "run n' gun" offense and it would change the entire game. Jordan and Rodman would then be further create chaos on the defensive end.

The Celtics and Lakers both had problems versus Detroit and the Bulls were every bit as good defensively, probably even better because they were more athletic.

Dumars at 6'4 simply can't do the things Pippen at 6'7 could do defensively.

The Celtics interior defense was so good that it got shredded to 63 points by a 2nd year Michael Jordan on their own home floor. The Celtics wouldn't be able to do anything to stop Jordan. Or even Pippen IMO (he would get his 20+ too offsetting a lot of Bird's offense).

This tells me how little you know about the '86 Celtics. The 1986 Celtics had one of the greatest if not the greatest Half Court Offense in History. In no way did they depend on their fast break offense to win games.

[Soundwave]

This tells me how little you know about the '86 Celtics. The 1986 Celtics had one of the greatest if not the greatest Half Court Offense in History. In no way did they depend on their fast break offense to win games.

The way I look at it, the Bad Boy Pistons played the Lakers/Celtics pretty close to even and eventually became better than them.

I place the 95-96 Bulls above the Bad Boy Pistons.

Besides, when people say "oh Chicago wasn't as talented" .... well that Bulls team was built in the expansion era where one team really couldn't stockpile that much talent.

If that same Bulls core had access to better role players available in pre-expansion 80s, they would wipe the floor with the Celtics or Lakers.

[1987_Lakers]

The way I look at it, the Bad Boy Pistons played the Lakers/Celtics pretty close to even and eventually became better than them.

I place the 95-96 Bulls above the Bad Boy Pistons.
We are not talking about the '87 or '88 Celtics we are talking about the '86 Celtics. And during the '86 season the Pistons didn't cause much problems for the Celtics...the Celtics were 4-1 vs Detroit that year. Celtics were a different team by '88. Bill Walton and Scott Wedman were gone. And Dennis Johnson and Robert Parish aged.


If that same Bulls core had access to better role players available in pre-expansion 80s, they would wipe the floor with the Celtics or Lakers.
Key word: IF

[puppychili]

Lets play Sir Charles' game here and really break down the Celtics competition in the 86 playoffs.

In the first round they played the Bulls who they swept. The Bulls were pretty much Michael Jordan and a bunch of scrubs coached by Stan Albeck. Yet Jordan managed to get by this "great Boston front line" consistently and averaged 43 pts a game for the series with one of those games going to double OT. But you're gonna tell me that a prime Jordan along with Pippen and Rodman coached by Phil Jackson would have as you say NO CHANCE against this Boston team. You can't be serious.

This great Boston team couldn't stop Jordan at all that series. And what your match ups fail to account for is that Jordan is gonna be double sometimes even triple teamed. The Celtics did it to him and 86 and they couldn't stop him. Imagine him with a Kerr or Kukoc to kick it out to out of the double team. I think Kerr has proved that he can hit clutch shots in the playoffs Oh but thats right, according to you the Bulls would have "no chance". How ****ing ignorant.

But wait I'm not done. Who did the Celtics play in the 2nd round? The Atlanta Hawks. Theres an eastern conference power for you. They never got past the 2nd round of the playoffs and their peak was taking the Celtics to 7 games in 1988. You really gonna try and tell me that the 86 Hawks were better or even on par with the 91 Pistons, 93 Knicks, or 96 Magic just to name a few.

Now were at the Eastern Conference Finals. Who were the Celtics opponents for the east crown? The Immortal Milwaukee Bucks. Theres a perennial eastern power for you. Led in scoring that year by the great Sidney Moncrief. Of course the Celtics walked all over them. But not cause they were an inferior opponent. These are the 80's were talking about. You would of had to of been one kick ass team on the verge of greatness to make all the way to the east finals to challenge the 86' Celtics. Right?

By the way before we get to the Finals, lets review who the starting centers were for these 3 teams. Alton Lister, Jon Koncak and wait for it...... Dave Corzine. However did I think that Ewing and Shaq could hold a candle to these guys.:confusedshrug:

Now to the Finals where the Celtics beat the Houston Rockets in 6 games. Rockets were a good team mind you. No joke there. But their comptition was the Reggie Theus led Kings and legendary Denver Nuggets before punking the defending champion Lakers in 5 games. (Wonder what the Laker fans excuse is for that). But lets be real here even though the Rockets were a good team, they were satisfied just to get to the Finals much like the Lebron led Cavs were against the Spurs. No one gave these Rockets a chance at the time, but it took the Celtics 6 games to put them away for the title.

YOU GONNA TELL ME THAT THE 96 BULLS DON'T STAND A BETTER CHANCE OF BEATING THE CELTICS THAN THE 86 ROCKETS?!?!?!?!?!

A Rockets team mind you that followed up their Finals run by going out in the 2nd and first round respectively over the next 2 seasons. The 96 Bulls only followed their Finals win with 2 more titles including a 69 win season.

But thats right, all thats diluted cause the Bulls never had to get by the 86 Bucks.

:banghead:

[Sir Charles]

Bill Walton wasn't playing for Boston when they played the Pistons in '87 and '88.

And Kevin McHale was dominating the Bad Boys Pistons frontcourt from '87 - '88.

Kevin McHale vs Bad Boys Pistons
'87 Season
1. 37 Points...12 Rebounds...60 FG%
2. 38 Points....14 Rebounds... 71 FG%
3. 22 Points...10 Rebounds... 50 FG%
4. 25 Points...10 Rebounds... 50 FG%

'88 Season
1. 20 Points...9 Rebounds...67 FG%
2. 31 Points...7 Rebounds...69 FG%
3. 20 Points...3 Rebounds....53 FG%
4. 33 Points...11 Rebounds...62 FG%
5. 29 Points...11 Rebounds...63 FG%
6. 33 Points..7 Rebounds...87 FG%

Besides..The Pistons Frontcourt was better than the Bulls Front Court.

Laimbeer, Mahorn, Rodman >>>>>> Longley, Wennington, Rodman

Somebody that knows Basketball :applause:

[puppychili]

Somebody that knows Basketball :applause:

Except for the fact that the Bulls front court was Longley, Pippen and Rodman. Little bit of a difference there.

He also left out the fact that despite those numbers put up by McHale, the Celtics lost in 88.

[puppychili]

And lets break down those front lines a little bit more.

Pistons:

Lambier- no individual awards

Mahorn - no individual awards

Rodman - made his first NBA all defensive first team in 88.

We are just talking 87-88 here when it comes to the Pistons right?

Now the 96 Bulls:

Longley - No individual awards

Pippen - NBA All defensive first team (His 6th by 96), All NBA First team (His 5th by 96)

Rodman - NBA All defensive first team (his 8th by 96), Rebounding leader for the 5th straight year by 96.

Oh but you guys are right. The Pistons front line was better cause you say so.:rolleyes:

[1987_Lakers]

Except for the fact that the Bulls front court was Longley, Pippen and Rodman. Little bit of a difference there.

He also left out the fact that despite those numbers put up by McHale, the Celtics lost in 88.

Well, if you are going to add Pippen then I would add Dantley and Salley as well.:D

[1987_Lakers]

And lets break down those front lines a little bit more.

Pistons:

Lambier- no individual awards

Mahorn - no individual awards

Rodman - made his first NBA all defensive first team in 88.

We are just talking 87-88 here when it comes to the Pistons right?

Now the 96 Bulls:

Longley - No individual awards

Pippen - NBA All defensive first team (His 6th by 96), All NBA First team (His 5th by 96)

Rodman - NBA All defensive first team (his 8th by 96), Rebounding leader for the 5th straight year by 96.

Oh but you guys are right. The Pistons front line was better cause you say so.:rolleyes:

I'm sorry but the Bulls only had 2 quality players in Pippen and Rodman. Longley and Wennington were total scrubs.

'96 Pippen & Rodman > '88 Dantley and Rodman (small advantage)

'88 Laimbeer, Salley & Mahorn >>>>>> Longley and Wennington (HUGE advantage)

There is no doubt the Pistons had the better frontcourt.

[Sir Charles]

Except for the fact that the Bulls front court was Longley, Pippen and Rodman. Little bit of a difference there.

He also left out the fact that despite those numbers put up by McHale, the Celtics lost in 88.

You also left out the fact that a 1986 Mchale would not be 31 years old like in 1988 but a 28 years old Mchale = That is Right On His Prime and would school Rodman even more :) and the fact that Bird from 1987 to 1992 schooled Scottie Pippen (even at ages 31 to 35 with no back) but a 1986 Larry Bird would be 29 yeards old = That is Right On His Prime again and "before his back injury" of 1989, would School Even More :) . :confusedshrug:

Then again a 32 year old Parish would destroy Longley Offensively and Defensively :)

Only Jordan would Dominate Offensively but you must also remember this is no longer a Jordan in his 20s with No Longer The Same Athleticism and Leaping ability but Jordan who relied more on Post Up and Outside Jumper.

= This will favor the Celtics becase they loved the Post Up Slow Paced Game.:)

Jordan would not dominate like in 1986 driving to the basket but still would dominate the Score Board with high 30s and 40s and also prevent Ainge from Scoring Higher Numbers but one must remember that 1986 Ainge was also in his Prime at 26 years old and that same day in 1986 when MJ scored 63 points against the Celtics ainge also scored 24 points. Danny Ainge was no easy task : One of the Set Shooters (not to mention a Good Passer) and One of the Best Role Players Ever. He had the Fundamentals to create for others too.

Harper vs DJ would not be as easy task as many think because DJ had smarts and would make the game flow in Slow Pace/Half Court Game which he was good at while using his butt and body to push his opponent. Ofcourse Harper would have the advantage of driving to the basket but there is very little chance he would have a comfortable shot when facing Parish-McHale-Walton-Kite or Bird. Harper would have to rely on his Outside Jumper.

And finally....

If the Celtics just want to tire off Rodman and Pippen in the Pant they can just switch for some minutes and play with a Two Center Piece/Twin Tower System with Walton as CF, Parish as C and McHale as PF...leaving Bird as SG/PG and Ainge as Pure PG.

This would tire of Rodman and Pippen for Rebounds and inmedietly give out some Important Fouls for the Celtics Frontline in Parish, McHale, Walton and sometimes Bird (as he drives through pick and rolls on to the basket). Lets also rembmer that Parish-McHale and Walton are not bad FT% Shooters :)

So here is how ti Goes:

Parish (32 yr) vs Longley (27 yr)

Parish Owns both Defensively and Offensively > Longley

McHale (28 yr)/Walton (33 yr) vs Rodman (35 yr)

McHale Owns both Offensively and Defensively > Rodman

***Rodman, would have the Edge on Rebounds until the Celtics Use the BIGGER LINE UP with Walton as CF and put in Mr Greg Kite 6`11/250 lbs for some pownding :)

Bird (29 yr) vs Pippen (30 yr)/Kukoc (27 yr)

As I said before Bird would own him Scoring Wise in the Post, Away from the Post, Would Own the Rebounds and Ofcourse Assist his Whole HIGH FG% FRONTLINE (McHale-Parish-Walton) and Perimter Shooters (Ainge, Siesting and DJ)

Only way for Pippen to Score a Bit is to try to Drive but Bird was a Smart Team Defender: As i said he would Just Retreat Closer to his Frontline for Pippen to Shoot From the Outside = Pippen Not the Grreatest Of Outside Shooters.

Bird Owns Pippen Offensively, Creativily and Rebounding Wise > Pippen

Jordan (32 yr) vs Ainge (26 yr)/DJ and Siesting Sometimes..

Jordan Owns Offensively and Defensively > Ainge

But....You have DJ, Bird and Walton so Mr Ainge will definetly get to Shoot from the Oustide Through Pick and Rolls and Set Jumpers

Harper (32 yr) vs DJ (31 yr) /Sometimes Ainge

That is alreadly explained. Harper would have the drive advantage but would have to accomodate his shot from a 15 foot range because it would be hard for him to shoot a Comfortable Shot with Mchale-Parish-Walton and Kite in the Paint.

DJ would slown the game down to create fouls on Harper and also Spot up Ainge and Bird off Pick and Rolls or Assist for the Higher FG% Shot with McHale and Parish. Lets also mention that DJ could Shoot CLUTCH from the Outside and wasn`t a bad Driver. Not to mention Great Rebounder for his Height:)

Harper = DJ

Here is how it goes:

Celtics OWN 3 Positions
Bulls OWN 1 Position and
Have an EQUAL Match Up in 1 Position.

3 Celtics (Parish, McHale, Bird, Walton, *Kite) > 3 Bulls (Longely, Rodman, Pippen, *Kukoc)
1 Bull (Jordan) > 1 Celtics (Ainge)
1 Celtic (DJ) = 1 Bull (Harper)

Series will End Up Like the 2008 Finals Celtics vs Lakers 4-2

The Bulls have 3 Black Wholes in Their Line Up. The Celtics Own the Frontline (Offensively, Defensively and Rebounding Wise) and even Have an EQUAL Match Up in the Frountcourt to their advantage somewhat because "Bird > Jordan in Making Others Better". Remember what happend to Bryant in the finals? Similar would happen to Jordan (ofcourse not as Much because MJ is MJ). Mj would obviously Score his High 30s and 40s, get 6-7 Rebound and 8-9 Assits... but the Rest of His Team Will Be Owned because the Celtics have 3 Clearly Superior Spots and Bird to make others Better. The Rest of the Bulls Line Up Has No :no: Chance

1986 Celtics > 1996 Bulls

A Fact :confusedshrug:

[Soundwave]

Well you could also say Gasol + Odom > Garnett + Perkins

Kobe >> Pierce

Fisher > Rondo (based on experience)

How come the Finals turned into a rout for Boston?

Because L.A. could not run their offense versus Boston.

I don't think any team, not the 87 Lakers, not the 86 Celtics could just shrug off the Bulls defense that easily.

If they had trouble with the Bad Boy Pistons, they would have trouble with the Bulls.

And also while yes Longley, Wennington, etc. were "scrubs" they were effective within the Bulls system of clogging up the lane with their big bodies.

And no, the Bulls would not fold like Kobe's Lakers. The Bulls are far too smart and mentally tough to get punked out of any series like Kobe's Lakers did.

Pippen would get his 20+ too, I don't see who on the Celtics would match up with Pippen and prevent him from doing that. Pippen owned the Lakers offensively in 1991 also while dogging Magic Johnson for the series as well. It's not an either/or thing for Pippen, he could shut down or slow the other team's star and could still chip in with 18-22 a night.

[1987_Lakers]

Well you could also say Gasol + Odom > Garnett + Perkins

Kobe >> Pierce

Fisher > Rondo (based on experience)

How come the Finals turned into a rout for Boston?

Because L.A. could not run their offense versus Boston.

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE 2008 NBA FINALS.


If they had trouble with the Bad Boy Pistons, they would have trouble with the Bulls.
That's a dumb argument. We ARE TALKING ABOUT THE '86 CELTICS... NOT THE '88 CELTICS.


And also while yes Longley, Wennington, etc. were "scrubs" they were effective within the Bulls system of clogging up the lane with their big bodies.
Exactly, they were scrubs. They would have no chance vs the Celtics Frontcourt. Anyone who trys to argue this should get their basketball pass revoked.


And no, the Bulls would not fold like Kobe's Lakers. Pippen would get his 20+ too, I don't see who on the Celtics would match up with Pippen and prevent him from doing that. Pippen owned the Lakers offensively in 1991 also while dogging Magic Johnson for the series as well. It's not an either/or thing for Pippen, he could shut down or slow the other team's star and could still chip in with 18-22 a night.
And who on the Bulls would match up with Larry Bird? Sorry, even a prime Pippen can't stop him. And if you think so..you are overrating Pippen.

And I can't believe how many people beilieve Scottie shut down Magic in the '91 Finals. Magic still averaged 18.6 PPG. 8 RPG. and 12.4 APG. And it was actually Jordan NOT Pippen who guarded Magic for most of the series.

In the end the biggest weakness for the Bulls is their Centers and the lack of inside scoring from their big men. And the Celtics are the perfect team to exploit this weakness. After all the '86 Celtics did have THE GREATEST FRONT COURT IN NBA HISTORY.

[Sir Charles]

Well you could also say Gasol + Odom > Garnett + Perkins

Kobe >> Pierce

Fisher > Rondo (based on experience)

How come the Finals turned into a rout for Boston?

Because L.A. could not run their offense versus Boston.

I don't think any team, not the 87 Lakers, not the 86 Celtics could just shrug off the Bulls defense that easily.

If they had trouble with the Bad Boy Pistons, they would have trouble with the Bulls.

And also while yes Longley, Wennington, etc. were "scrubs" they were effective within the Bulls system of clogging up the lane with their big bodies.

And no, the Bulls would not fold like Kobe's Lakers. The Bulls are far too smart and mentally tough to get punked out of any series like Kobe's Lakers did.

Pippen would get his 20+ too, I don't see who on the Celtics would match up with Pippen and prevent him from doing that. Pippen owned the Lakers offensively in 1991 also while dogging Magic Johnson for the series as well. It's not an either/or thing for Pippen, he could shut down or slow the other team's star and could still chip in with 18-22 a night.

Stop Dreaming please :violin: its a fact the 1986 Celtics not only has a Superior Starting Line Up than the 1996 Bulls. Not only could they exploit their Half Court Game on a Bulls Weak Frontline but even Score Great in A Fastbreak Game. Enough Proof has been given through my writings /and many other people have to.

And by the way Lamar is one of the most unintelligent unfundamental forwards I ever saw. The level of game has gone so much compared to the 90s and 80s its frightening!. The Lakers have to get a more talented Forward if they want to compete with the actual Celtics Frontline again. Not to mention a Forward that has some Offensive Skill and Shoots at a Higher FG%:confusedshrug:

[puppychili]

Despite all those match ups you pointed out, the 86 Celtics still had to play six games to beat the 86 Rockets. You gonna tell me that the 96 Bulls aren't way better than the 86 Rockets. So by that token you'd have to say that it would at least go seven. And as soundwave pointed out you can't just go by matchups on paper, because alot of times, as shown in this years Finals, the games don't always go as the match ups predict.

And I like how you guys completely ignored my post on the Celtics playoff run. Everyone wants to hate on the 96 Bulls cause the talent was so "diluted". But are you really gonna tell me that the 86 Bulls, Hawks and Bucks are really that much better than the 96 Heat, Knicks and Magic. If I asked you who was better, the 86 Bucks or 96 Magic who would you pick?

Look I have no problem with someone saying that the 86 Celtics would beat the 96 Bulls. I just have a problem with how you come to that conclusion and act like it would be so easy. No team in NBA history would have an easy time with the 96 Bulls.

And I think my earlier post pretty much dispelled the romanticized notion that everyone has about the 80's being filled with all star teams as far as the eye can see.

[1987_Lakers]

Those Bucks teams of the 80's are one of the most underrated teams in history. You had guys like Sidney Moncrief, (one of the most underrated players in history) Terry Cummings, Ricky Pierce, Paul Pressey etc. The '86 Bucks actually won their games by an average of 9 PPG during the season.

[puppychili]

I'm not saying those Bucks teams were bad. I'm just saying that there were more than a couple teams besides the Bulls in the 90's that would match up with the Bucks quite well if not out right beat them.

[1987_Lakers]

I'm not saying those Bucks teams were bad. I'm just saying that there were more than a couple teams besides the Bulls in the 90's that would match up with the Bucks quite well if not out right beat them.

But the NBA was stronger in 1986 than it was in 1996. In '86 there were 23 teams in the NBA by '96 there were 29 teams in the NBA. And there is no doubt the eastern conference was stronger in 1986 than it was in 1996. The Bulls played strong teams during the playoffs but the Celtics played much better teams during the regular season than the Bulls did. You had a great Magic team but by 1996 the Knicks and the Cavs were no longer threats like they were in the early 90's.

[nycelt84]

Those Bucks teams of the 80's are one of the most underrated teams in history. You had guys like Sidney Moncrief, (one of the most underrated players in history) Terry Cummings, Ricky Pierce, Paul Pressey etc. The '86 Bucks actually won their games by an average of 9 PPG during the season.

There's a reason why those Bucks teams are underrated, they were a team who was never that good. They made the conference finals in '83, '84, and '86 and won a total of 1 game in 3 conference finals appearances. They also had a letdown year in '81 where they expected to challenge for the championship.

[puppychili]

But the NBA was stronger in 1986 than it was in 1996. In '86 there were 23 teams in the NBA by '96 there were 29 teams in the NBA. And there is no doubt the eastern conference was stronger in 1986 than it was in 1996. The Bulls played strong teams during the playoffs but the Celtics played much better teams during the regular season than the Bulls did. You had a great Magic team but by 1996 the Knicks and the Cavs were no longer threats like they were in the early 90's.

I wont deny that the NBA was stronger back then but it wasn't THAT much stronger. But athletes of the 90's were better conditioned that athletes of the 80's. I would argue that there was a bigger talent pool of players in the 90's than in the 80's.

But look, I don't have a problem with people saying that the 80's were stronger than the 90's. I just have a problem with the notion that people put out there that the 80's was filled with all star teams from top to bottom and that the 90's were some kind of wasteland which is the only reason why the Bulls were so good.

[97 bulls]

Except for the fact that the Bulls front court was Longley, Pippen and Rodman. Little bit of a difference there.

He also left out the fact that despite those numbers put up by McHale, the Celtics lost in 88.
they also left out that the pistons should have beat the celtics in 87

[west]

it's the first time that i kinda respect Sir Charles post,but really,what he post is kinda makes sense:applause:

i think pretty much 80% people in the world would agree MJ>Magic,Bird,but as a team 86 Celtics,87 Lakers>96 Bulls

[97 bulls]

it's the first time that i kinda respect Sir Charles post,but really,what he post is kinda makes sense:applause:

i think pretty much 80% people in the world would agree MJ>Magic,Bird,but as a team 86 Celtics,87 Lakers>96 Bulls
no , actually, it the other way around. most polls such as espn, and nba.com have the bulls as the best team ever.

[Sir Charles]

no , actually, it the other way around. most polls such as espn, and nba.com have the bulls as the best team ever.

Those people don`t know **** about Basketball.:hammerhead:

Il say it again

Prime 32 year Parish > Any Bulls Center
Prime 28 year McHale > 35 year old Rodman
Prime 29 year old Bird (even at ages 31 to 35 after his injury schooled) > Pippen
Prime 26 Ainge < 32 Year Old Jordan
*But Still Ainge was No Easy Task
DJ = Harper

Celtics Dominate 3 Positions, Bulls dominate 1. One Position is Equal. :confusedshrug:

"A Great Offensive and Defensive Frontline will Always Dominate a Team with a Weak Offensive Frontline and Just a Good Defensive Frontline. Especially if this team that has a Great Offensive and Defensive Frontline also has a Good Backcourt that can Score, Shoot and Pass". :)

Who has a Deeper Bench? The Celtics:confusedshrug:

Who has the Player With Superior Court Intelligence, Passing and That Can Make Others Better in Both Teams?

The Celtics = Larry Bird!!!

There is a reason way many basketball experts say the 1986 Boston Celtics is the Greatest Ever. That has been said even if the Lakers won more Championships in the 80s. :confusedshrug:

Back in the 80s there was less teams, more competition, players with more fundamentals, players that could pass and "see the game" ahead, more talent and less excessive hype for teams that had good players but NOT A GREAT TEAM.

In the 1980s People Wanted to SEE GREAT TEAMS not Just GREAT PLAYERS.

1990s = Excesive Marketing. Jordan etc...has blinded the NBA to the Point Where Everyone Wantso to Be Like Mike (even the Slogan is there) so they are inventing Stars (even Jordan says the same) In the Jordan-Way/In the Jordan-Style but they will never Reach his Level: Just like None Will Reach the Level of Bird, Magic, Charles, Hakeem because those are type of Players that Make Others Better.

This Over Hype is Even More Evident with the Real Intention of Handchecking Rule = A Rule that has the following as its REAL OBJECTIVE:

"CREATE AND FORCE THE COMMING OF MORE JORDAN-LIKE PERIMTER FAST-AGIL-SKILLED-LEAPING-SHOOTING PERMITER (GUARDS, ESPECIALLY) PENETRATORS.

This, along the 3 Second Rule =

"TO FACILITE THE DRIVING/PENETRATING of THESE MENTIONED...

Result:

OVERHYPE of the JORDAN STYLE OF GAME and the BLINDNESS of BASKETBAL FANS OF THE WEAKER "NON TEAM" ORIENTED NBA of the 90s" .

This is one of the reasons why Stern is killing the Game (especially after all the Great 1980s Drafted Playes have finally Retired).

His inmense Profits from Jordan and MJ retired has him desperate in trying to Force the Comming of a New-Jordan like Player because people have Forgent about the 1980s Competitiveness: where a GOOD TEAM will always beat the WEAKER TEAM no matter if Jordan-Wilt or WHO EVER was playing in the other WEAKER TEAM.

Simple:

This Happened After Aging of the Lakers-Celtics-Pistons Era and has resulted in DESTRUCTION of THE HAVING A "GREAT TEAM" MENTALITY do the Over Hype of the Jordan-Style of Game

Jordan Style of Game: Stern`s business of making more $$$ of Mr. Jordan even after this one has retired ..disgusting....

That is why we have so many Blind People (and Jordan fans as well) whom have a Hard Time Giving Credit to Other Players that Don`t Play Jordan-Like Or Players away from the SG Spot Even...PFs, SFs, Cs...All Whom Dominate the Same (in a Different Way and Have A Different Initial Role in the Game Ofcourse) and Also Make Others Better.

That is what happend to Barkley and Hakeem (in a lesser way ofcourse) and many of there Great Players from the 1980s era.

Todays Players "Just Want to Be Like Mike"....but THEY CAN`T!

End...:violin:

[Loki]

Sir Charles, would you go so far as to say that there are certain Laws in basketball? If so, could you school us on said laws? Thanks in advance.

[97 bulls]

Sir Charles, would you go so far as to say that there are certain Laws in basketball? If so, could you school us on said laws? Thanks in advance.
lol yeah charles please explain these "laws"

[97 bulls]

and i alsothink that the best lineup the bulls could play would be

pg pippen
sg jordan
sf kukoc
pf rodman
c williams

[Sir Charles]

and i alsothink that the best lineup the bulls could play would be

pg pippen
sg jordan
sf kukoc
pf rodman
c williams

If You DON`T`put Pippen and Rodman in the Frontline you will facilite the Greatest Frontline of All Time`s (1986 Boston celtics) Offensive Labour because Kukoc will have a Harder Time Guarding either Mchale or Bird Than ANY other Forward in the Bull`s Squad.

Bird already prooved he could School Pippen at ages 31 to 35 and even the No Backed Bird after 1989 (but Remember this is Bird in his Most Prime) :).

With Kukoc you will have better Passing and "Maybe A Slightly Better Offensive Frontline Scoring" but what is that you Must Worrty About the Celtics?

ITS STRENGHT = "FRONTLINE OFFENSIVE"

And by using this Line Up. You will have a WEAKER FRONTLINE DEFENSE and Not to mention, A WEAKER FRONTLINE REBOUNDING CAPACITY :confusedshrug:

If I was the 1996 Bulls and faced the 1986 Celtics i would go with that Frontline at home (Chicago) "MAYBE" but not in the Boston Garden.:no:

The Bulls have the Edge in the Backcourt Composed of 2 Players (Jordan, Harper and Ofcourse Improvsing Pippen at the PG spot) but the Celtics have the Edge in the Frontline Composed of 3 Players (Bird-McHale-Parish and Sometimes Walton whom can also be improvised as CF).

Bulls in Boston Should Go with This Line Up for Most of the Time:

PG: Pippen
SG: Jordan
PF: Rodman
PF: John Salley
C: Longley

You need 2 PFs to Try to Stop the Celtics Frontline Defensively. Any other way is Suicide fo the Bulls :confusedshrug:

But... By Using this Line Up = You re Loosing Offensive Possibilities because You have No Pippen and No Kukoc :confusedshrug:

See? The Bulls Have a Black Whole :).

The 1986 Celtics Have an Edge in 3 Positions Clearly and If the Bulls STRENGTHEN THEIR FRONTLINE DEFENSIVELY (to try To Stop the Big 3) =

THEY LOOSE OFFENSIVE CAPACITY in THEIR FRONTLINE (Not To Mention Creativity and Passing)

The 1986 Celtics would exchange Their Line Ups Constantly from

Team A: More Versetaile and Offensive Oriented. Objective: "To Attack the BackCourt- Make Jorddan-Pippen and Harper Run, Spread and Work Harder"

PG: DJ
SG: AINGE
SF: BIRD
PF: McHALE
C: PARISH

Team B: More Defensive Oriented. Objective: "Destroy the Bull`s Weak Frontline":)

PG: DJ/Ainge
F-G: BIRD (would Play like a Combo Guard From The Edges but Will Force the Post Up Game Through Pick and Rolls Set By Great Passing CF Bill Walton)
PF: McHALE
CF: WALTON/KITE (Objetive: Tire Down Rodman and Salley :pimp: )
C: PARISH

Bulls have no Chance :violin: Celtics 4-2 at most

[Soundwave]

"Excessive marketing" in the 80s is BS.

The Lakers/Celtics played in an era with several fewer teams, so the talent around the NBA was less spread out.

If you put a Jordan-Pippen-Rodman core in that era they'd have a better supporting cast because the league wasn't as watered down.

But that's not Jordan-Pippen-Rodman's fault.

Also Rodman at 35 was still as athletic, energetic as most players are at age 25. Guy was built like a rock. He was playing incredible basketball at that time.

For me to believe the Celtics/Lakers could rout the Bulls -- they'd have to have done the same to the 80s Pistons ... which they couldn't do. 90s Bulls > Pistons, the Celtics/Lakers would have an even harder time against the Bulls IMO.

Also then it's fair to ask -- how many titles would Jordan have won with the benefit of the supporting cast Magic or Bird had? 7? 8? 9? 10?

[Sir Charles]

Excessive marketing" in the 80s is BS.

Excesve Marketing in the 90s. 80s Was B-Ball Fan Oriented.

The Lakers/Celtics played in an era with several fewer teams, so the talent around the NBA was less spread out.

:no:

Less Spread Out = Chance of More than 1 Good/Great Player To End Up Playing in the Same Team of Another Good/Great Player :)

Fewer Teams = Better Player Selection. More Quantity Average Players Sent to the ABA of Weaker Leagues. Bye Bye to Bad Players :)...

If you put a Jordan-Pippen-Rodman core in that era they'd have a better supporting cast because the league wasn't as watered down.

We are talking about the 1995-96 Bulls and the 1985-86 Celtics. No the What Ifs :no:

I could also say What If Bird played with Kareem and Magic as a Core of a Team or if Barkley played with his Ideal Style of A Running Offense Team Lead by a Great Passing PG or with the Lakers. Imagine Worthy as SF, Charles as PF and Kareem in the Frontline?

But that's not Jordan-Pippen-Rodman's fault.

Also Rodman at 35 was still as athletic, energetic as most players are at age 25. Guy was built like a rock.[/QUOTE]

Indeed Agree but his Talent would be the same. He would not attack the Celtics Frontline Offensively he was not the talent. :confusedshrug:

And...here you have a 29 year old Bird (before his injury) and also a a Prime Kevin Mchale at 28 ...:confusedshrug:

Not to mention the Celtics had a bad motha fo in 6`11/250 lbs Greg Kite. A Man that could battle Rodman weather him down :) . Same with Walton :confusedshrug: . And Yes Rodman would have a very Hard Time Guarding Walton. Celtics would haven have More of an Edge Offensively and More of an Edge Court Vision/Passing Wise. Walton = was one of the Most Fundamental Centers Ever, Could Make Others Better than They Where Through Team Play, Passing , Setting Picks, Great Rebounder etc .:confusedshrug:

[97 bulls]

If You DON`T`put Pippen and Rodman in the Frontline you will facilite the Greatest Frontline of All Time`s (1986 Boston celtics) Offensive Labour because Kukoc will have a Harder Time Guarding either Mchale or Bird Than ANY other Forward in the Bull`s Squad.

Bird already prooved he could School Pippen at ages 31 to 35 and even the No Backed Bird after 1989 (but Remember this is Bird in his Most Prime) :).

With Kukoc you will have better Passing and "Maybe A Slightly Better Offensive Frontline Scoring" but what is that you Must Worrty About the Celtics?

ITS STRENGHT = "FRONTLINE OFFENSIVE"

And by using this Line Up. You will have a WEAKER FRONTLINE DEFENSE and Not to mention, A WEAKER FRONTLINE REBOUNDING CAPACITY :confusedshrug:

If I was the 1996 Bulls and faced the 1986 Celtics i would go with that Frontline at home (Chicago) "MAYBE" but not in the Boston Garden.:no:

The Bulls have the Edge in the Backcourt Composed of 2 Players (Jordan, Harper and Ofcourse Improvsing Pippen at the PG spot) but the Celtics have the Edge in the Frontline Composed of 3 Players (Bird-McHale-Parish and Sometimes Walton whom can also be improvised as CF).

Bulls in Boston Should Go with This Line Up for Most of the Time:

PG: Pippen
SG: Jordan
PF: Rodman
PF: John Salley
C: Longley

You need 2 PFs to Try to Stop the Celtics Frontline Defensively. Any other way is Suicide fo the Bulls :confusedshrug:

But by this you re Loosing Offensive Possibilities because You have No Pippen and No Kukoc :confusedshrug:

See? The Bulls Have a Black Whole :).

The 1986 Celtics Have an Edge in 3 Positions Clearly and If the Bulls STRENGTHEN THEIR FRONTLINE DEFENSIVELY (to try To Stop the Big 3) =

THEY LOOSE OFFENSIVE CAPACITY in THEIR FRONTLINE.

The 1986 Celtics would exchange Their Line Ups Constantly from

A: More Versetaile and Offensive Oriented. Objective: "To Attack the BackCourt to Make Jorddan-Pippen and Harper Run and Work Harder"

PG: DJ
SG: AINGE
SF: BIRD
PF: McHALE
C: PARISH

B: More Defensive Oriented. Objective: "Destroy the Bull`s Weak Frontline":)

PG: DJ/Ainge
F-G: BIRD (would Play like a Combo Guard From The Edges but Will Force the Post Up Game Through Pick and Rolls Set By Great Passing CF Bill Walton)
PF: McHALE
CF: WALTON/KITE (Objetive: Tire Down Rodman and Salley :pimp: )
C: PARISH

Bulls have no Chance :violin: ::
why do you continue to say that mid 30s bird "schooled" pip? i remember 87 lakers posting birds stats against a younger pip and i posted pips and birds averages for the respective seasons in question. and it was basically dead even and pip made bird average about 5-6 TOs a game. and that was with a young pip and older early 30s bird. neither in their respective primes.

as for all the other nonsense, everything you stated is all ridiculous. i would appreciate the opportinity the rebut facts on why the celtics would beat the bulls. but you wont state any. and this is because of two reasons.

1. you dont have any facts to support your claim

2. the few facts you do have are subject to interpretation. ie the league was watered down but basketball was at its most popular which would mean ther were plenty of talented players to choose from. unlike in the 60,70 when most great athletes were either in track and field, boxing, play baseball, or football. honestly, basketball in the 60s and 70s which affected talent in the 80s was probably the fifth most popular sport in that time period.

and the other fact you use is posting stats of players in the 80s which was by all accounts a more uptempo aggressive offensive era as opposed to the 90s. which was more physical and halfcourt and defense based. and when you equal pace there really is no difference which has been proven time after time after time after time and you and others refuse to admit it.

[Sir Charles]

why do you continue to say that mid 30s bird "schooled" pip? i remember 87 lakers posting birds stats against a younger pip and i posted pips and birds averages for the respective seasons in question. and it was basically dead even and pip made bird average about 5-6 TOs a game. and that was with a young pip and older early 30s bird. neither in their respective primes.

as for all the other nonsense, everything you stated is all ridiculous. i would appreciate the opportinity the rebut facts on why the celtics would beat the bulls. but you wont state any. and this is because of two reasons.

1. you dont have any facts to support your claim

2. the few facts you do have are subject to interpretation. ie the league was watered down but basketball was at its most popular which would mean ther were plenty of talented players to choose from. unlike in the 60,70 when most great athletes were either in track and field, boxing, play baseball, or football. honestly, basketball in the 60s and 70s which affected talent in the 80s was probably the fifth most popular sport in that time period.

and the other fact you use is posting stats of players in the 80s which was by all accounts a more uptempo aggressive offensive era as opposed to the 90s. which was more physical and halfcourt and defense based. and when you equal pace there really is no difference which has been proven time after time after time after time and you and others refuse to admit it.[/QUOTE]

31-32 or 33 year old Larry Bird Owning Pippen in the Post /Last Second Shot in Pippen`s and Jordan`s Face

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WoGmMx8Ejrw

*Pippen Guarding Him

:) :confusedshrug:

SF Larry Bird Facing SF Scottie Pippen All Time Stats Avgs.

Bird Ages 31 to 35 (Passed His Prime)
Pippen Ages 22 to 26 (In His Prime)

*Not To Forget that POWER FORWARD Horace Grant had to Guard Bird Most of the Time Because Pippen Could Not Guard Him Very Well.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=pippesc01

SF Larry Bird Facing PF Horace Grant All Time Stat Avgs

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=grantho01

*Man who Guarded Larry Bird Most of the Time:

Bird: Ages 31 to 35 (Passed His Prime)
Grant: Ages 22 to 26 (In His Prime)

34 Year Old Larry Bird Schooling Power Forward Horace Grant

1990-91 Bulls Championship Season. Celtics Win :)

*Grant Guarding Him

34 year old back crippled Larry Bird Beats the Bulls Once Again Hitting The Last Seconds Most Important Shot. A Jumper On A Prime Horace Grant`s Face and the Foul! :)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NTqDdZz2dHM

Check Out Horace Grant`s Face at 9.47 :)

Larry Bird: 34 Points, 15 Rebounds and 8 Assits.

:confusedshrug:

Larry Bird Schooling Scottie Pippen Again

1990. Bulls win

*Pippen Guarding Him

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAOx36A48wU

33 year old Larry Bird: 38 Points, 11 Rebounds and 9 Assits.

Celtics School the Bulls (In Chicago) Once Again 1990

:)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=y19q9478NUo

I Have Already Posted Enough Information and Facts. It is your Bull Fanship that has Blinded you from Admiting Them :)

:sleeping :violin:

[Sir Charles]

it's the first time that i kinda respect Sir Charles post,but really,what he post is kinda makes sense:applause:

i think pretty much 80% people in the world would agree MJ>Magic,Bird,but as a team 86 Celtics,87 Lakers>96 Bulls

MJ > Bird and Magic as a SG

Bird > Jordan and Magic as a SF

Magic > Bird and Jordan as PG

:confusedshrug:

[nycelt84]

Excessive marketing" in the 80s is BS.

Excesve Marketing in the 90s. 80s Was B-Ball Fan Oriented.

The Lakers/Celtics played in an era with several fewer teams, so the talent around the NBA was less spread out.

:no:

Less Spread Out = Chance of More than 1 Good/Great Player To End Up Playing in the Same Team of Another Good/Great Player :)

Fewer Teams = Better Player Selection. More Quantity Average Players Sent to the ABA of Weaker Leagues. Bye Bye to Bad Players :)...

If you put a Jordan-Pippen-Rodman core in that era they'd have a better supporting cast because the league wasn't as watered down.

We are talking about the 1995-96 Bulls and the 1985-86 Celtics. No the What Ifs :no:

I could also say What If Bird played with Kareem and Magic as a Core of a Team or if Barkley played with his Ideal Style of A Running Offense Team Lead by a Great Passing PG or with the Lakers. Imagine Worthy as SF, Charles as PF and Kareem in the Frontline?

But that's not Jordan-Pippen-Rodman's fault.

Also Rodman at 35 was still as athletic, energetic as most players are at age 25. Guy was built like a rock.

Indeed Agree but his Talent would be the same. He would not attack the Celtics Frontline Offensively he was not the talent. :confusedshrug:

And...here you have a 29 year old Bird (before his injury) and also a a Prime Kevin Mchale at 28 ...:confusedshrug:

Not to mention the Celtics had a bad motha fo in 6`11/250 lbs Greg Kite. A Man that could battle Rodman weather him down :) . Same with Walton :confusedshrug: . And Yes Rodman would have a very Hard Time Guarding Walton. Celtics would haven have More of an Edge Offensively and More of an Edge Court Vision/Passing Wise. Walton = was one of the Most Fundamental Centers Ever, Could Make Others Better than They Where Through Team Play, Passing , Setting Picks, Great Rebounder etc .:confusedshrug: [/QUOTE

This poster is fool for saying Greg Kite of all people who was never a factor in any series he ever played in his career would be a factor in something. If you're talking '96 Bulls vs '86 Celtics the only thing you can do is talk what ifs because it never happened and could never happen. The most stupid aspect of this board is when posters speculate about matchups and situations that never happened and could never happen and state their opinions on hypothetical situations as fact.

[97 bulls]

why do you continue to say that mid 30s bird "schooled" pip? i remember 87 lakers posting birds stats against a younger pip and i posted pips and birds averages for the respective seasons in question. and it was basically dead even and pip made bird average about 5-6 TOs a game. and that was with a young pip and older early 30s bird. neither in their respective primes.

as for all the other nonsense, everything you stated is all ridiculous. i would appreciate the opportinity the rebut facts on why the celtics would beat the bulls. but you wont state any. and this is because of two reasons.

1. you dont have any facts to support your claim

2. the few facts you do have are subject to interpretation. ie the league was watered down but basketball was at its most popular which would mean ther were plenty of talented players to choose from. unlike in the 60,70 when most great athletes were either in track and field, boxing, play baseball, or football. honestly, basketball in the 60s and 70s which affected talent in the 80s was probably the fifth most popular sport in that time period.

and the other fact you use is posting stats of players in the 80s which was by all accounts a more uptempo aggressive offensive era as opposed to the 90s. which was more physical and halfcourt and defense based. and when you equal pace there really is no difference which has been proven time after time after time after time and you and others refuse to admit it.

31-32 or 33 year old Larry Bird Owning Pippen in the Post /Last Second Shot in Pippen`s and Jordan`s Face

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WoGmMx8Ejrw

*Pippen Guarding Him

:) :confusedshrug:

SF Larry Bird Facing SF Scottie Pippen All Time Stats Avgs.

Bird Ages 31 to 35 (Passed His Prime)
Pippen Ages 22 to 26 (In His Prime)

*Not To Forget that POWER FORWARD Horace Grant had to Guard Bird Most of the Time Because Pippen Could Not Guard Him Very Well.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=pippesc01

SF Larry Bird Facing PF Horace Grant All Time Stat Avgs

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=grantho01

*Man who Guarded Larry Bird Most of the Time:

Bird: Ages 31 to 35 (Passed His Prime)
Grant: Ages 22 to 26 (In His Prime)

34 Year Old Larry Bird Schooling Power Forward Horace Grant

1990-91 Bulls Championship Season. Celtics Win :)

*Grant Guarding Him

34 year old back crippled Larry Bird Beats the Bulls Once Again Hitting The Last Seconds Most Important Shot. A Jumper On A Prime Horace Grant`s Face and the Foul! :)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NTqDdZz2dHM

Check Out Horace Grant`s Face at 9.47 :)

Larry Bird: 34 Points, 15 Rebounds and 8 Assits.

:confusedshrug:

Larry Bird Schooling Scottie Pippen Again

1990. Bulls win

*Pippen Guarding Him

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAOx36A48wU

33 year old Larry Bird: 38 Points, 11 Rebounds and 9 Assits.

Celtics School the Bulls (In Chicago) Once Again 1990

:)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=y19q9478NUo

I Have Already Posted Enough Information and Facts. It is your Bull Fanship that has Blinded you from Admiting Them :)

:sleeping :violin:[/QUOTE]
your videos really dont show much, yes that was a great shot by bird but that is one play. im sure that i can give you instances of players scoring on bird or even out playn him on a particular night and i dont think you would call it a determining factor? the video also shows pippen scoring on dennis johnson but i wouldnt say that a few video clips is the end all to be all.

and since when is 22-26 a players prime? i always believed a players prime years are from 26-32. some hold longer some shorter. not to mention, i showed you that pipi and bird played to a stand still offensively and pip out played him defensiverly when you count TOs.

not to mention that old injured back larry bird was healthy enough to hoist at least 20 shots in alot of those matchups. thats telling me that he was just fine.

[Knoe Itawl]

Lets play Sir Charles' game here and really break down the Celtics competition in the 86 playoffs.

In the first round they played the Bulls who they swept. The Bulls were pretty much Michael Jordan and a bunch of scrubs coached by Stan Albeck. Yet Jordan managed to get by this "great Boston front line" consistently and averaged 43 pts a game for the series with one of those games going to double OT. But you're gonna tell me that a prime Jordan along with Pippen and Rodman coached by Phil Jackson would have as you say NO CHANCE against this Boston team. You can't be serious.

This great Boston team couldn't stop Jordan at all that series. And what your match ups fail to account for is that Jordan is gonna be double sometimes even triple teamed. The Celtics did it to him and 86 and they couldn't stop him. Imagine him with a Kerr or Kukoc to kick it out to out of the double team. I think Kerr has proved that he can hit clutch shots in the playoffs Oh but thats right, according to you the Bulls would have "no chance". How ****ing ignorant.

But wait I'm not done. Who did the Celtics play in the 2nd round? The Atlanta Hawks. Theres an eastern conference power for you. They never got past the 2nd round of the playoffs and their peak was taking the Celtics to 7 games in 1988. You really gonna try and tell me that the 86 Hawks were better or even on par with the 91 Pistons, 93 Knicks, or 96 Magic just to name a few.

Now were at the Eastern Conference Finals. Who were the Celtics opponents for the east crown? The Immortal Milwaukee Bucks. Theres a perennial eastern power for you. Led in scoring that year by the great Sidney Moncrief. Of course the Celtics walked all over them. But not cause they were an inferior opponent. These are the 80's were talking about. You would of had to of been one kick ass team on the verge of greatness to make all the way to the east finals to challenge the 86' Celtics. Right?

By the way before we get to the Finals, lets review who the starting centers were for these 3 teams. Alton Lister, Jon Koncak and wait for it...... Dave Corzine. However did I think that Ewing and Shaq could hold a candle to these guys.:confusedshrug:

Now to the Finals where the Celtics beat the Houston Rockets in 6 games. Rockets were a good team mind you. No joke there. But their comptition was the Reggie Theus led Kings and legendary Denver Nuggets before punking the defending champion Lakers in 5 games. (Wonder what the Laker fans excuse is for that). But lets be real here even though the Rockets were a good team, they were satisfied just to get to the Finals much like the Lebron led Cavs were against the Spurs. No one gave these Rockets a chance at the time, but it took the Celtics 6 games to put them away for the title.

YOU GONNA TELL ME THAT THE 96 BULLS DON'T STAND A BETTER CHANCE OF BEATING THE CELTICS THAN THE 86 ROCKETS?!?!?!?!?!

A Rockets team mind you that followed up their Finals run by going out in the 2nd and first round respectively over the next 2 seasons. The 96 Bulls only followed their Finals win with 2 more titles including a 69 win season.

But thats right, all thats diluted cause the Bulls never had to get by the 86 Bucks.

:banghead:

I love how all these guys just glossed over this post. Tells you all you need to know.

Why'd you ignore this post guys? It was written two pages ago and you didn't even respond to it.

[1987_Lakers]

The Celtics beat the Hawks in 7 Games. The Celtics beat the Lakers in 6 Games.

Hawks > Lakers:confusedshrug:

[puppychili]

Prime 32 year Parish > Any Bulls Center
Prime 28 year McHale > 35 year old Rodman
Prime 29 year old Bird (even at ages 31 to 35 after his injury schooled) > Pippen
Prime 26 Ainge < 32 Year Old Jordan
*But Still Ainge was No Easy Task
DJ = Harper

You've said this a million times in this thread and it's a lame way to make a judgment. These aren't 5 guys playing one on one. These are two teams playing each other. You completely ignore the fact that Jordan is gonna be double teamed constantly. He didn't slash all the time like he did in the 80's but he still could when he wanted to. Make no mistake about that. He just developed a killer fadeaway so he could conserve energy. Those great front line celtics triple teamed him and couldn't stop him.

So not on paper but in reality the matchup is gonna be.

Bulls player>no one guarding him cause he's helping on Jordan
Jordan> Double team

or even sometimes

Bulls player>no one guarding him cause he's helping on Jordan
Bulls player>no one guarding him cause he's helping on Jordan
Jordan>/= Triple team

The 86 Celtics had no answer for a young inexperience Jordan. I argue that they would have an even tougher time with veteran championship experienced Jordan who made his teammates better with a HOF coach.

I would also argue that since it took this great Celtics team 6 games to beat a Rockets team that never got past the 2nd round again till the mid 90's, that the Celtics would have a much tougher time with the 96 72-10 champion Bulls.

I'll say this again, hopefully for the last time. I don't have a problem with people saying the the 86 Celtics would beat the 96 Bulls or that the 80's were stronger than the 90's. I do though have a problem with the way people exaggerate it and act like it's some sort of fundamental fact. I have a problem with how theres this sort of conventional wisdom that the 80's were stacked with all star teams from head to toe and that the 90's were a wasteland. I think that I and a few other posters on this board have debunked the notion that it was that overwhelming. And to say that a 90's Jordan led Bulls team would have NO CHANCE against any team in NBA history is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

You wanna say that a 90's Jordan led Bulls would lose to this or that team. I'm fine with that as long as you show me compelling evidence and take many things into account. Sir Charles just keeps spitting out the same match up drivel and acting like it's some sort of rule of nature which is stupid.

[puppychili]

The Celtics beat the Hawks in 7 Games. The Celtics beat the Lakers in 6 Games.

Hawks > Lakers:confusedshrug:


Celtics lost to the Pistons the year they went 7 games with the Hawks.

But I do see the point you're trying to make and I agree with it. You can't just compare teams by saying who beat who and who lost to who. It has to be a part of a bigger argument. In some cases though that theory holds more weight than at other times.

Just like you can't say that this team would beat that team solely cause they win more of the individual match ups.

This is why debating teams from different eras is very fun but also kinda pointless.:D

[Knoe Itawl]

The Celtics beat the Hawks in 7 Games. The Celtics beat the Lakers in 6 Games.

Hawks > Lakers:confusedshrug:

As chili mentioned, you can't automatically compare teams based on who lost to who. There are obviously variables involved. The point is that there's just no way you can say the Celtics would just automatically beat the Bulls when the Bulls were obviously superior to that Hawks team. I'm in the camp that thinks the Bulls are the best team ever, however I also realize that they would have a challenge against the Celtics and Lakers. You types just want to assume that it's no contest between them. With many Laker fans it's usually because of some inner desire to marginalize Jordan. I've seen it from Laker fans far more than fans of any other team, including the Celtics. When one group of fans is overwhelmingly a certain way, it's a pretty clear indication of certain biases.

[Da_Realist]

Lets play Sir Charles' game here and really break down the Celtics competition in the 86 playoffs.

In the first round they played the Bulls who they swept. The Bulls were pretty much Michael Jordan and a bunch of scrubs coached by Stan Albeck. Yet Jordan managed to get by this "great Boston front line" consistently and averaged 43 pts a game for the series with one of those games going to double OT. But you're gonna tell me that a prime Jordan along with Pippen and Rodman coached by Phil Jackson would have as you say NO CHANCE against this Boston team. You can't be serious.

This great Boston team couldn't stop Jordan at all that series. And what your match ups fail to account for is that Jordan is gonna be double sometimes even triple teamed. The Celtics did it to him and 86 and they couldn't stop him. Imagine him with a Kerr or Kukoc to kick it out to out of the double team. I think Kerr has proved that he can hit clutch shots in the playoffs Oh but thats right, according to you the Bulls would have "no chance". How ****ing ignorant.

But wait I'm not done. Who did the Celtics play in the 2nd round? The Atlanta Hawks. Theres an eastern conference power for you. They never got past the 2nd round of the playoffs and their peak was taking the Celtics to 7 games in 1988. You really gonna try and tell me that the 86 Hawks were better or even on par with the 91 Pistons, 93 Knicks, or 96 Magic just to name a few.

Now were at the Eastern Conference Finals. Who were the Celtics opponents for the east crown? The Immortal Milwaukee Bucks. Theres a perennial eastern power for you. Led in scoring that year by the great Sidney Moncrief. Of course the Celtics walked all over them. But not cause they were an inferior opponent. These are the 80's were talking about. You would of had to of been one kick ass team on the verge of greatness to make all the way to the east finals to challenge the 86' Celtics. Right?

By the way before we get to the Finals, lets review who the starting centers were for these 3 teams. Alton Lister, Jon Koncak and wait for it...... Dave Corzine. However did I think that Ewing and Shaq could hold a candle to these guys.:confusedshrug:

Now to the Finals where the Celtics beat the Houston Rockets in 6 games. Rockets were a good team mind you. No joke there. But their comptition was the Reggie Theus led Kings and legendary Denver Nuggets before punking the defending champion Lakers in 5 games. (Wonder what the Laker fans excuse is for that). But lets be real here even though the Rockets were a good team, they were satisfied just to get to the Finals much like the Lebron led Cavs were against the Spurs. No one gave these Rockets a chance at the time, but it took the Celtics 6 games to put them away for the title.

YOU GONNA TELL ME THAT THE 96 BULLS DON'T STAND A BETTER CHANCE OF BEATING THE CELTICS THAN THE 86 ROCKETS?!?!?!?!?!

A Rockets team mind you that followed up their Finals run by going out in the 2nd and first round respectively over the next 2 seasons. The 96 Bulls only followed their Finals win with 2 more titles including a 69 win season.

But thats right, all thats diluted cause the Bulls never had to get by the 86 Bucks.

:banghead:

Repped. :applause: :applause: :applause:

[puppychili]

With many Laker fans it's usually because of some inner desire to marginalize Jordan. I've seen it from Laker fans far more than fans of any other team, including the Celtics. When one group of fans is overwhelmingly a certain way, it's a pretty clear indication of certain biases.

You're exactly right on that Knoe. I grew up during the 80's and 90's and it funny how the criteria for who the greatest ever is has changed. I grew up and still live in L.A but have been a Bulls fan since the 80's.

And at first the argument was that Jordan<Magic cause Jordan had no titles. Then at the end of the 91 season it was Magic>Jordan cause Jordan only had one ring and Magic had 5 and Jordan would never go back to back.

By the end of the 93' 3 peat it was Magic>Jordan cause Magic had 5 titles and Jordan only had three. Mind you at this time there was no talk about better competition or subjective stuff like that. Laker fans were only interested in solid numbers.(cause they had the advantage there)

By the end of the 97 season, most Laker fans would admit (although begrudgingly) that Jordan> Magic. But the Lakers were better than the Bulls cause 5 titles in the 80's>>> 5 titles in the 90's.

It wasn't till 98 when the Bulls won their 6th title and pulled off a second 3 peat that this subjective notion came about that the 80's were the "greatest, most stupendous, brilliant, competitive, most magical era ever". And you know why this came about? Cause in 98 math wasn't on the Lakers fan side anymore. They loved math when 5>1. But in 98 when 6>5 and 72-10>69-13, well thats when everything went from concrete to subjective.

Lakers fans have hated the Bulls ever since. And even though they hated and therefore disrespected the Bulls, they were happy when most of the Bulls coaching staff and 2 of their championship starters came to their team. They wanted so desperately for Kobe to be better than Jordan. Kobe represented their revenge of Jordan passing their hero Magic. Thats why to this day even when it's clear to everyone on the planet that Jordan>Kobe, Laker fans still can't say that. They have to add something stupid at the end like Jordan>Kobe but Kobe is better at clipping his toenails.

[Soundwave]

You're exactly right on that Knoe. I grew up during the 80's and 90's and it funny how the criteria for who the greatest ever is has changed. I grew up and still live in L.A but have been a Bulls fan since the 80's.

And at first the argument was that Jordan<Magic cause Jordan had no titles. Then at the end of the 91 season it was Magic>Jordan cause Jordan only had one ring and Magic had 5 and Jordan would never go back to back.

By the end of the 93' 3 peat it was Magic>Jordan cause Magic had 5 titles and Jordan only had three. Mind you at this time there was no talk about better competition or subjective stuff like that. Laker fans were only interested in solid numbers.(cause they had the advantage there)

By the end of the 97 season, most Laker fans would admit (although begrudgingly) that Jordan> Magic. But the Lakers were better than the Bulls cause 5 titles in the 80's>>> 5 titles in the 90's.

It wasn't till 98 when the Bulls won their 6th title and pulled off a second 3 peat that this subjective notion came about that the 80's were the "greatest, most stupendous, brilliant, competitive, most magical era ever". And you know why this came about? Cause in 98 math wasn't on the Lakers fan side anymore. They loved math when 5>1. But in 98 when 6>5 and 72-10>69-13, well thats when everything went from concrete to subjective.

Lakers fans have hated the Bulls ever since. And even though they hated and therefore disrespected the Bulls, they were happy when most of the Bulls coaching staff and 2 of their championship starters came to their team. They wanted so desperately for Kobe to be better than Jordan. Kobe represented their revenge of Jordan passing their hero Magic. Thats why to this day even when it's clear to everyone on the planet that Jordan>Kobe, Laker fans still can't say that. They have to add something stupid at the end like Jordan>Kobe but Kobe is better at clipping his toenails.

Oh for sure, there definitely is that breed of Laker fan out there.

The funny thing is Laker fans are the worst bandwagon jumpers, I remember in '91 a lot of them started cheering for the Bulls while the series was still going.

I'll be honest ... Magic is a great player, but I think Jordan probably was always better. There was a Youtube clip here to a 1984 game between Team USA (which had Jordan + Ewing + Sam Perkins) and an NBA All-Star group featuring Magic and Isiah. Jordan just dominated that game and was the best player on the floor already at that point -- at this is before he even played a single NBA game.

Fact is Jordan had to shift his way through a lot of crappy teams and had to wait for Pippen to get out of his "migraine" phase.

[97 bulls]

You're exactly right on that Knoe. I grew up during the 80's and 90's and it funny how the criteria for who the greatest ever is has changed. I grew up and still live in L.A but have been a Bulls fan since the 80's.

And at first the argument was that Jordan<Magic cause Jordan had no titles. Then at the end of the 91 season it was Magic>Jordan cause Jordan only had one ring and Magic had 5 and Jordan would never go back to back.

By the end of the 93' 3 peat it was Magic>Jordan cause Magic had 5 titles and Jordan only had three. Mind you at this time there was no talk about better competition or subjective stuff like that. Laker fans were only interested in solid numbers.(cause they had the advantage there)

By the end of the 97 season, most Laker fans would admit (although begrudgingly) that Jordan> Magic. But the Lakers were better than the Bulls cause 5 titles in the 80's>>> 5 titles in the 90's.

It wasn't till 98 when the Bulls won their 6th title and pulled off a second 3 peat that this subjective notion came about that the 80's were the "greatest, most stupendous, brilliant, competitive, most magical era ever". And you know why this came about? Cause in 98 math wasn't on the Lakers fan side anymore. They loved math when 5>1. But in 98 when 6>5 and 72-10>69-13, well thats when everything went from concrete to subjective.

Lakers fans have hated the Bulls ever since. And even though they hated and therefore disrespected the Bulls, they were happy when most of the Bulls coaching staff and 2 of their championship starters came to their team. They wanted so desperately for Kobe to be better than Jordan. Kobe represented their revenge of Jordan passing their hero Magic. Thats why to this day even when it's clear to everyone on the planet that Jordan>Kobe, Laker fans still can't say that. They have to add something stupid at the end like Jordan>Kobe but Kobe is better at clipping his toenails.


wow chili, you just summarized abiut 20 years of arguing with laker fans.

[EricForman]

You're exactly right on that Knoe. I grew up during the 80's and 90's and it funny how the criteria for who the greatest ever is has changed. I grew up and still live in L.A but have been a Bulls fan since the 80's.

And at first the argument was that Jordan<Magic cause Jordan had no titles. Then at the end of the 91 season it was Magic>Jordan cause Jordan only had one ring and Magic had 5 and Jordan would never go back to back.

By the end of the 93' 3 peat it was Magic>Jordan cause Magic had 5 titles and Jordan only had three. Mind you at this time there was no talk about better competition or subjective stuff like that. Laker fans were only interested in solid numbers.(cause they had the advantage there)

By the end of the 97 season, most Laker fans would admit (although begrudgingly) that Jordan> Magic. But the Lakers were better than the Bulls cause 5 titles in the 80's>>> 5 titles in the 90's.

It wasn't till 98 when the Bulls won their 6th title and pulled off a second 3 peat that this subjective notion came about that the 80's were the "greatest, most stupendous, brilliant, competitive, most magical era ever". And you know why this came about? Cause in 98 math wasn't on the Lakers fan side anymore. They loved math when 5>1. But in 98 when 6>5 and 72-10>69-13, well thats when everything went from concrete to subjective.

Lakers fans have hated the Bulls ever since. And even though they hated and therefore disrespected the Bulls, they were happy when most of the Bulls coaching staff and 2 of their championship starters came to their team. They wanted so desperately for Kobe to be better than Jordan. Kobe represented their revenge of Jordan passing their hero Magic. Thats why to this day even when it's clear to everyone on the planet that Jordan>Kobe, Laker fans still can't say that. They have to add something stupid at the end like Jordan>Kobe but Kobe is better at clipping his toenails.



:applause:

[puppychili]

Oh for sure, there definitely is that breed of Laker fan out there.


It seems to me that about 90% of Laker fans are of that breed.

[72-10]

Yep, well the 95-96 Bulls were clearly a once in a lifetime experience, not just a team. Greatest team to take the hardwood.

[72-10]

You wanna say that a 90's Jordan led Bulls would lose to this or that team. I'm fine with that as long as you show me compelling evidence and take many things into account. Sir Charles just keeps spitting out the same match up drivel and acting like it's some sort of rule of nature which is stupid.

Yeah... he does that. With everything. You should try to ignore his posts.

[Sir Charles]

1986 Celtics are to good of a Team and not to Mention Depper Team than a Weak Frontlined 1996 Bulls...:hammerhead:

These kids don`t know **** about basketball they are all brainwashed by the 1990s weaker expansioned era with pathetic "Offensive" Frontline Contenders.

The 1986 Celtics don`t need to double Jordan at all :confusedshrug:. They would just let him get his high 30s and 40s and simply by using their superior fundamentals, superior ball movement, great teamwork passing, good outside shooting by a Good Backcourt, superior FG% in the Whole Frontline, Superior Offensive and Defensive Frontline (C-PF-SF) by far than the Bulls andu sing their Key Player *Bird getting everyone involved (which he was better than Jordan at doing :)) its quite very simple:

Celtics in 6 :)

No Triangle Offense will Ever Beat a GREAT OFFENSIVE and GREAT DEFENSIVE FRONTLINE:confusedshrug:.

Especially the Greatest Frontline Ever in its PRIME in 1986. One that had GREAT BALL MOVEMENT, PASSING, FUNDAMENTALS, BASKETBALL IQ, DEFENSE and a Team that has a Good Enough Backcourt to Shoot, Score and Make Great Passes. Not to mention they could play any style of game :confusedshrug:

1986 Celtics might have been boring and ugly to watch because nobody likes a Slow Paced Frontline Oriented Team. They like to watch Laker Showtime Fast Paced, Flashy Fast Break Passes and Dunks. Exciting Triangle Exterior Offense (agains obviously weak teams of the 90s) etc but when reality arrives like it did in 2008 with the Celtics beating the Lakers with Ease just by having a WAY SUPERIOR FRONTLINE OFFENSIVELY AND DEFENSIVLY (not to mention Rebounding Capacities)...you will see many grins start to appear.

People Get Real...:hammerhead:

1986 Celtics = Greatest Team Ever.

[puppychili]

The 1986 Celtics don`t need to double Jordan at all

Thats why they were triple teaming him in 86'.

Shreds the great front line in Game 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zu6JZXwBt8)

Utterly dominates it here in Game 2 with each Celtic taking a turn guarding him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69vkEcc-zfc&feature=related)

What an idiot this guy is!!:banghead:

By the way what great front lines did the Celtics play that year?

[1987_Lakers]

Thats why they were triple teaming him in 86'.

Shreds the great front line in Game 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zu6JZXwBt8)

Utterly dominates it here in Game 2 with each Celtic taking a turn guarding him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69vkEcc-zfc&feature=related)

What an idiot this guy is!!:banghead:

By the way what great front lines did the Celtics play that year?

Ralph Sampson and Hakeem Olajuwon

[97 bulls]

Ralph Sampson and Hakeem Olajuwon
its funny how you talk about ralph sampson like he was an all-time great and then treat guys like hardaway and webber like they were scrubs. when the truth is that both of those players had much better careers.

[puppychili]

Hey dude Sampson played in the 80's which means he must of been killer.:D

Seriously though Sampson was good. But if all you got is one great front line, according to the logic of alot of people around here, doesn't that bring down the Celtics front line since they didn't have a ton of competition.

I mean look at the 3 centers they played before Hakeem.

Hardly stellar, even though they played in the 80's.:D

[1987_Lakers]

its funny how you talk about ralph sampson like he was an all-time great and then treat guys like hardaway and webber like they were scrubs. when the truth is that both of those players had much better careers.

Ralph Sampson was a BEAST before his injury. No one can argue this. He was an All Star Player. And I never said Hardaway and Webber were scrubs. All I said was they were not in the same class as Magic and Barkley. Stop putting words into my mouth.

[puppychili]

He's right. It's sir charles that calls everyone who didn't play in the 80's scrubs.

[Sir Charles]

By the way the person who said Pippen and Bird went head to head "offensively"...geat fu-ckin real :banghead:.

Scottie is not even close to Larry Bird Offensively. :banghead:

Larry Bird is one of the Best Offensive Players Ever (and Schooled Pippen and Grant Offensively at ages 31 to 35 with hardly a Back left; Remember Bird was not the same after his back injury of 1989?).

Larry Bird was a player that Could Take Whole Games Over On His On, The Best Passing Forward Ever! (Better than Scottie as Passer and Scottie was A Great One) and One of the Top Rebounding SFs of All Time (Better Rebounder than Scottie). Bird was also a Great Team Defender, Anticipator for Steals and Witty Defender. No to mention Clutch as Hell.

Even comparing Scottie to Bird is an insult. Don`t get me wrong..:Scottie is a Great a Top 6-10 SF but Not In the Level of The Bird`s..:confusedshrug:

And Yes Ralph Sampson was a Beast Before his Injury. A SF/PF that could dribble and was as fast as a Guard trapped in a 7`4 ft frame

[Sir Charles]

He's right. It's sir charles that calls everyone who didn't play in the 80's scrubs.

That`s not true:no: . I like many players that where drafted in the 90s like Webber, Kidd, Payton, Coleman (would have been the Best PF of the Late 90s with Malone), Garnett and even puss***** Duncan but its not my fault 95% If Not A 100% THAT ALL OF THESE are NOT in the Level of the:

HAKEEM`S
JORDAN`S
BARKLEY`S
MALONE`S
STOCKTON`S
DREXLERS
EWING`S
ROBINSON`S
etc...

Thats not my fault :confusedshrug:

[97 bulls]

By the way the person who said Pippen and Bird went head to head "offensively"...geat fu-ckin real :banghead:.

Scottie is not even close to Larry Bird Offensively. :banghead:

Larry Bird is one of the Best Offensive Players Ever (and Schooled Pippen and Grant Offensively at ages 31 to 35 with hardly a Back left; Remember Bird was not the same after his back injury of 1989?).

Larry Bird was a player that Could Take Whole Games Over On His On, The Best Passing Forward Ever! (Better than Scottie as Passer and Scottie was A Great One) and One of the Top Rebounding SFs of All Time (Better Rebounder than Scottie). Bird was also a Great Team Defender, Anticipator for Steals and Witty Defender. No to mention Clutch as Hell.

Even comparing Scottie to Bird is an insult. Don`t get me wrong..:Scottie is a Great a Top 6-10 SF but Not In the Level of The Bird`s..:confusedshrug:

And Yes Ralph Sampson was a Beast Before his Injury. A SF/PF that could dribble and was as fast as a Guard trapped in a 7`4 ft frame
hey i was going by the years 87 lakers used, and the fact is that head to head it was just about a wash. with an edge to bird. but factor in the defense (about 5-6 TOs a game by bird) and i could make argument for pip.

[97 bulls]

Ralph Sampson was a BEAST before his injury. No one can argue this. He was an All Star Player. And I never said Hardaway and Webber were scrubs. All I said was they were not in the same class as Magic and Barkley. Stop putting words into my mouth.

i agree sampson was very good for about 2-3 seasons. but when we were talking about the 90s players and i included players like penny, hill, and webber. you made it seem like they were insignificant

[1987_Lakers]

i agree sampson was very good for about 2-3 seasons. but when we were talking about the 90s players and i included players like penny, hill, and webber. you made it seem like they were insignificant

You were comparing those players to Magic and Barkley thats why I made it look like they were insignificant.

[97 bulls]

You were comparing those players to Magic and Barkley thats why I made it look like they were insignificant.
i think theres a misunderstanding. those guys arent better than magic or charles but they were very good.

[1987_Lakers]

Yep, well the 95-96 Bulls were clearly a once in a lifetime experience, not just a team. Greatest team to take the hardwood.

The 1996 Bulls are more athletic, better defensively on the perimeter with Jordan, Harper, Pippen . Rodman could provide more than capable interior defense. The willowy Kukoc and Kerr both can knock down open Js. The 1986 Celtics with Bird at his peak then are the epitome of toughness. McHale, Parish with a healthy Bill Walton who won Sixth Man of The Year that season as a triumvirate is an overwhelming front line. Dennis Johnson was still an elite defender with the streaky Ainge as his running mate. Sichting and Wedman are as reliable as the Bulls' trio of ivory snipers though Wedman IMO is much better than Buechler any day. The series would probably be the classic OK Corral shootout between Jordan and Bird. Jordan could score on DJ though he will have to work for them to some degree. Same goes with Bird with Pippen covering him though Larry Legend's deep reserves of will and heart are well chronicled. I'd give Bird the edge in that matchup even though Pip was a stellar defender. Would Rodman and company have slowed down McHale and Parish in the post? No unless the Worm could get into McHale's head. Parish would outplay Longley and Wennington... Heck, the then resurrected Big Redhead would outplay Longley and Wennington if he was a starter. If the 1996 Bulls get out in transition, the slower Celtics would be at a disadvantage. Half court? The mighty Celtic frontcourt would feast where they will pound it inside. Bird can score on the post too along with ruggedly hitting the glass for rebounds. It is THE factor that would decide the series. Offensive and defensive rebounding edge to the Celtics EVEN with the electric Rodman on the floor. You can't run when you constantly have to pull the ball from the basket then have to inbound it. Home floor factor? Not even close. I'd go with Boston Garden with its cramped visitor locker rooms, rats in the showers, the inside heat on the floor, the rabid fans that could make Attila's Huns look like a Sunday church group are intimidating. Not too mention the false fire alarms, crank phone calls during off days between games in that lovely city. Winner of this fantasy series? I call the Celtics in six.

[puppychili]

I disagree with your outcome but I respect how you came to it.

Personally I think you're underrating Jordan in your analysis. I think he would go crazy when presented with such a challenge especially with so many people saying he couldn't win. I definitely think that Rodman could get in McHales head. Rambis got him to swing so you know Rodman would with his antics. Bulls would have home court too based on the better record. But theres no way that Bird would go quietly though. Most of your analysis I agree with. The series would go the distance for sure, but I see Chicago coming out on top in Game 7 at home.:cheers:

[eliteballer]

LMAO, who says Bulls get homecourt. They only got 5 more wins in a MUCH weaker league.

[puppychili]

I was wondering when you'd show up here elite. Why don't you go back a few pages and read my posts on the "great 80's" along with the one on Laker fans.

Besides 5 more wins is 5 more wins. The 2008 Celtics played in the east which everybody sees as weaker than the west but they still got home court in the Finals cause they had the better record.

You know now that I think about it the whole east/west argument correlates very well with the 80's/90's argument. For at least the past 6 years the east has been called the JV, leastern conference, etc. But while the east may have been weaker overall that doesn't mean that they didn't have great teams.

In fact over the past 6 years the east and west have 3 titles apiece. But on paper people like you and sir charles would say the east would have no chance simply cause the west was the stronger conference.

In fact many people did make that argument. They pointed out how the Celtics went 7 games with the hawks so somehow that meant that they couldn't beat the Lakers who played in the West and took out the defending champion Spurs in the playoffs rather easily.

So going by those strength of competition comparisons along with breaking down the individual match ups on paper, the Lakers were supposed to beat Boston handily.

But Boston crushed the Lakers in 6 in historical fashion. Funny huh?

[eliteballer]

Boston only won ONE game in LA, so they won partially by VIRTUE OF HAVING HOMECOURT IN THE FIRST PLACE. That alone torpedoes your argument. Second, the Lakers and Celtics played in the SAME LEAGUE. Far easier to correlate wins than two leagues 10 YEARS APART, one of which was clearly stronger. Also, NO the Lakers were not supposed to beat Boston badly. Boston had an edge in TALENT, DEFENSE. Lastly, Boston did not "crush" LA this year:violin:

[72-10]

LMAO, who says Bulls get homecourt. They only got 5 more wins in a MUCH weaker league.

This has to be one of the most ignorant posts I've read on a basketball forum. Who says the Bulls have homecourt advantage? The '96 Bulls have an SRS that crushes just about every team in history. SRS incorporates strength of schedule and other factors that show how dominant a team was. You're just a biased Lakerhead. The Bulls would hold home court against any team in history.

[puppychili]

Boston only won ONE game in LA, so they won partially by VIRTUE OF HAVING HOMECOURT IN THE FIRST PLACE. That alone torpedoes your argument. Second, the Lakers and Celtics played in the SAME LEAGUE. Far easier to correlate wins than two leagues 10 YEARS APART, one of which was clearly stronger. Also, NO the Lakers were not supposed to beat Boston badly. Boston had an edge in TALENT, DEFENSE. Lastly, Boston did not "crush" LA this year:violin:

Thats why it's called home court ADVANTAGE

The Bulls have the best record in NBA history 72-10. That means they have home court over any team they face. Home court has always been determined by record and nothing else. (See what I was saying about how Laker fans don't like numbers when they aren't in their favor:) )


And don't deny that the Lakers were favored in this years Finals. No one was talking about a sweep but the consensus was Lakers in 6 or even 5. The Celtics won in six with the biggest comeback in Finals history and the biggest blowout in a clinching Finals game. That is crushing. :applause: Lakers never had control of that series except for the first half of game 4. And we all know how that ended

Besides Elite I'm still curious of what you think of my 2 posts about the 80's and Laker fans. I can repost them if you want.

[97 bulls]

Thats why it's called home court ADVANTAGE

The Bulls have the best record in NBA history 72-10. That means they have home court over any team they face. Home court has always been determined by record and nothing else. (See what I was saying about how Laker fans don't like numbers when they aren't in their favor:) )


And don't deny that the Lakers were favored in this years Finals. No one was talking about a sweep but the consensus was Lakers in 6 or even 5. The Celtics won in six with the biggest comeback in Finals history and the biggest blowout in a clinching Finals game. That is crushing. :applause: Lakers never had control of that series except for the first half of game 4. And we all know how that ended

Besides Elite I'm still curious of what you think of my 2 posts about the 80's and Laker fans. I can repost them if you want.
hey pup, you and me both know they wont respond cuz they cant.

[puppychili]

You're probably right, but I wish they would especially Elite.

This is fun.:)

[puppychili]

Going once

Going twice

Going three times....



Pwned

:cheers: :pimp:

:D

[eliteballer]

:oldlol: Homecourt is decided by record because teams play in the SAME LEAGUE. The Bulls played in a proportionately WEAK LEAGUE in this comparison. Even RODMAN said that they wouldn't have won as many games in the 80's. Or are the Bulls groupies too blinded in their Jordan worship to remember that? So cork it. Crushing? No. a sweep or 5 games is crushing. Not 6 when only two of the games were won by double digits. Ya, a 66 win team with homecourt isn't favored:roll:

[puppychili]

So cause the numbers arent in your favor, you would want to come up with some convoluted formula for home court. Typical. If the Lakers still had the best record you'd be touting just that and nothing else.

And I think my earlier post (that I doubt you read) puts to rest the romantic notion that the 80's were SO MUCH BETTER. I dont see how the 86 Bulls, Hawks and Bucks were so much better than the 96 Heat, Knicks and Magic.

And the Lakers were favored in this years Finals. You thought they would win. Mainly cause you're a fan and theres nothing wrong with that. But now cause the the Lakers lost, you wanna act like they had an uphill battle from the start. Thats not what you and many others thought BEFORE the series. Just admit that.

All I'm looking from this board in general is a little intellectual honesty from everyone. Laker fans seem to lack that the most. Which is why they're mocked the most.