Printable View
[QUOTE=97 bulls]are we talking bout a season or that whole era? cuz im talking about the era[/QUOTE]
well, either way the lakers lost 4-1 and it should have been a sweep even magic said that they couldnt get mad because they were "getting a good but kicking"
[QUOTE=97 bulls]are we talking bout a season or that whole era? cuz im talking about the era[/QUOTE]
Oh ok. If you are talking about an era than the Celtics didn't dominate because there was actually QUALITY TEAMS in the 80's. Magic's lakers, Isiah's Pistons, and Julius Erving's Sixers. That just tells you how much better teams were in the 80's.
There were 4 All Time great Teams in the 80's. In the 90's on the other hand you only had the Bulls.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]well, either way the lakers lost 4-1 and it should have been a sweep even magic said that they couldnt get mad because they were "getting a good but kicking"[/QUOTE]
Yes, they lost 4-1. But keep in mind this wasn't the 80's lakers we are talking about. No Michael Cooper, No Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, No Pat Riley. You had Magic and Worthy but It just wasn't the same Lakers.
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]Oh ok. If you are talking about an era than the Celtics didn't dominate because there was actually QUALITY TEAMS in the 80's. Magic's lakers, Isiah's Pistons, and Julius Erving's Sixers. That just tells you how much better teams were in the 80's.
There were 4 All Time great Teams in the 80's. In the 90's on the other hand you only had the Bulls.[/QUOTE]
and are you going to answer my question? if the bulls lost to the knicks or jazz once would that make them more dominating?
[QUOTE=97 bulls]and are you going to answer my question? if the bulls lost to the knicks or jazz once would that make them more dominating?[/QUOTE]
The Bulls actually lost to the Knicks in '94.
I think the 96 Bulls would beat the 86 Celtics, but it would probably take 7 games. The Bulls would have homecourt advantage. I think those Bulls teams could beat any team you challenge against them, but they would struggle with certain teams more than others. The 86 Celtics are one of the teams they'd struggle the most to beat. Other than that I don't see what the hell the point is to what anyone says in this stupid thread.:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=72-10]I think the 96 Bulls would beat the 86 Celtics, but it would probably take 7 games. The Bulls would have homecourt advantage. I think those Bulls teams could beat any team you challenge against them, but they would struggle with certain teams more than others. The 86 Celtics are one of the teams they'd struggle the most to beat. Other than that I don't see what the hell the point is to what anyone says in this stupid thread.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
I disagree.
The Celtics were better than the Bulls in all positions except SG. You Bulls fans are just to blind to admit it.
Isiah's Pistons weren't a championship caliber team until '87 and they made the change from an offensive team to a defensive team. That was the year they drafted Rodman and Salley and traded Tripucka for Dantley.
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]I disagree.
The Celtics were better than the Bulls in all positions except SG. You Bulls fans are just to blind to admit it.[/QUOTE]
Who the hell cares about positions? The Bulls were the better TEAM.
[QUOTE=nycelt84]Isiah's Pistons weren't a championship caliber team until '87 and they made the change from an offensive team to a defensive team. That was the year they drafted Rodman and Salley and traded Tripucka for Dantley.[/QUOTE]
Yes, thats right. They lost to the Celtics in '87 and to the Lakers in '88.
[QUOTE=72-10]Who the hell cares about positions? The Bulls were the better TEAM.[/QUOTE]
The Celtics were the better TEAM
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]The Celtics were the better TEAM[/QUOTE]
No, they weren't, as indicated by the significant difference in the number of wins and losses, and the quality of these wins and losses.
[QUOTE=72-10]No, they weren't, as indicated by the significant difference in the number of wins and losses, and the quality of these wins and losses.[/QUOTE]
Its a significant difference in how better teams were in the NBA during the 80's and how watered down the NBA was in the mid 90's. You can't just say 1 team is better than the other because they had a better record.
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]Its a significant difference in how better teams were in the NBA during the 80's and how watered down the NBA was in the mid 90's. You can't just say 1 team is better than the other because they had a better record.[/QUOTE]
Nope, it's not as significant as the difference in record and how they performed on the court. There's never been a team that dominated on both offense and defense like the Bulls. It's interesting how all of the [B]facts[/B] are in my corner. What you have is some speculation.
[QUOTE=72-10]Nope, it's not as significant as the difference in record and how they performed on the court. There's never been a team that dominated on both offense and defense like the Bulls. It's interesting how all of the [B]facts[/B] are in my corner. What you have is some speculation.[/QUOTE]
Well they played in a watered down NBA. While the Celtics played in the greatest era in NBA History. Alot of people don't seem to know that the Celtics had the #1 Defense in the NBA in 1986. The Celtics have more fire power offensivley than the Bulls and they are much better in the paint.