great Scottie Pippen interview about 1995-1996 Chicago Bulls

[QUOTE=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.
[B]
YOU GONNA TELL ME THAT THE 96 BULLS DON'T STAND A BETTER CHANCE OF BEATING THE CELTICS THAN THE 86 ROCKETS?!?!?!?!?![/B]

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:[/QUOTE]

Repped. :applause: :applause: :applause:

[QUOTE=Knoe Itawl]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.[/QUOTE]

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 [B]wanted[/B] 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.

[QUOTE=puppychili]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 [B]wanted[/B] 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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=puppychili]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 [B]wanted[/B] 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.[/QUOTE]


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

[QUOTE=puppychili]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 [B]wanted[/B] 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.[/QUOTE]



:applause:

[QUOTE=Soundwave]Oh for sure, there definitely is that breed of Laker fan out there.
[/QUOTE]

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

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

[QUOTE=puppychili]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.[/QUOTE]

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

[B]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.[/B]

[QUOTE]The 1986 Celtics don`t need to double Jordan at all [/QUOTE]

Thats why they were triple teaming him in 86'.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zu6JZXwBt8"]Shreds the great front line in Game 1[/URL]

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

What an idiot this guy is!!:banghead:

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

[QUOTE=puppychili]Thats why they were triple teaming him in 86'.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zu6JZXwBt8"]Shreds the great front line in Game 1[/URL]

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

What an idiot this guy is!!:banghead:

[B]By the way what great front lines did the Celtics play that year?[/B][/QUOTE]

Ralph Sampson and Hakeem Olajuwon

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]Ralph Sampson and Hakeem Olajuwon[/QUOTE]
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.

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

[QUOTE=97 bulls]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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

[B]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[/B]

[QUOTE=puppychili]He's right. It's sir charles that calls everyone who didn't play in the 80's scrubs.[/QUOTE]

[B]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: [/B]

[QUOTE=Sir Charles][B]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[/B][/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]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.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=97 bulls]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[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]You were comparing those players to Magic and Barkley thats why I made it look like they were insignificant.[/QUOTE]
i think theres a misunderstanding. those guys arent better than magic or charles but they were very good.

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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? [B]I call the Celtics in six.[/B]

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:

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

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?

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:

[QUOTE=eliteballer]LMAO, who says Bulls get homecourt. They only got 5 more wins in a MUCH weaker league.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=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:[/QUOTE]

Thats why it's called home court [B][U][SIZE="7"]ADVANTAGE[/SIZE][/U][/B]

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 [B]always[/B] 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.

[QUOTE=puppychili]Thats why it's called home court [B][U][SIZE="7"]ADVANTAGE[/SIZE][/U][/B]

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 [B]always[/B] 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.[/QUOTE]
hey pup, you and me both know they wont respond cuz they cant.

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

This is fun.:)

Going once

Going twice

Going three times....



[B][U][SIZE="7"]Pwned[/SIZE][/U][/B]

:cheers: :pimp:

:D

: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:

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.