What would the 72-10 Bull's record look like playing this year?

That would make a lot more sense if that was the context of my prediction going in. I just gave a 10 game gap because I wanted to. :lol

It's that simple. I wanted to give a gap just so I wouldn't be argued against and it still happens.

See what I mean about face value instead of reaching to validate your slightly creepy thoughts on my ulterior motives?

[QUOTE=Just2McFly]:facepalm

Yes I do think that they would considerably worse in this era. That has nothing do with new greater than old, you are reaching once again just like you always do.

I gave one line of reasoning which I mentioned the expansion era. I think that there are more competitive teams in existence now that would beat the Bulls in the regular season.

How that translates to being an agenda I will never know.

Funny thing is, I shouldn't even need that reasoning, the fact that everyone here is SO SURE they would make history again with such confidence is telling.[/QUOTE]
But expansion is your only excuse. Several posters have given plenty of different reasons as to why the Bulls would still dominate today.

Saying that, allow me to present another point. In 94, the Bulls won 55 games without Michael Jordan. Mind you, this was pre expansion of 96. And with a lesser pf in Grant instead of Rodman. And Pippen missed 10 games that season causing the Bulls to go 3-7. If they were able to win 55 games under that situation, how many wins does that Bulls team get with Rodman and Jordan and Pippen playing all 82 games?

[QUOTE=Just2McFly]:facepalm

Yes I do think that they would considerably worse in this era. That has nothing do with new greater than old, you are reaching once again just like you always do.

I gave one line of reasoning which I mentioned the expansion era. I think that there are more competitive teams in existence now that would beat the Bulls in the regular season.

How that translates to being an agenda I will never know.

Funny thing is, I shouldn't even need that reasoning, the fact that everyone here is SO SURE they would make history again with such confidence is telling.[/QUOTE]

The expansion era argument has been discussed at length on this forum. The argument is that since the NBA drastically increased, the number of teams as well as the market of the NBA that the teams were somehow less talented or competitive as compared to the 00s.

This statement to me is ridiculous to me and i'm sure for anyone who's watched basketball in the 90s. This isn't like the 60s where steals and blocks weren't even counted stats. Every single regular season and playoff game that jordan played in past 85 or something whenever the NBA signed that huge TV deal has been documented. The level of play was noticeably more physical/violent. Flagrant fouls didn't exist.. players essentially got a flagrant thrown on them every time they drove to the paint. Remember the "no-layup" rule that Riley implemented? Or how about the Jordan rules with the pistons?

Like i stated before that bulls team was constructed perfectly. Not only was that team insanely talented but they were insanely talented at just the right skill/talent sets with no overlap of skills. Rodman was and still is the GOAT defensive and rebounding specialist.[B] Rodman out-rebounded Shaq by an average of 5 rebounds per game in the 96 ECF.[/B] Pippen was and still is the ultimate swingman and glue-guy who nearly led the bulls to a finals berth without MJ. They also had the goat scoring threat off the bench in Kukoc.. essentially the precursor to manu ginobli except not utilized as much as manu. Finally there was the perfect if not only coach that could fully utilize the incredibly diverse and ego-driven personalities that were on the team in Phil Jackson, in what arguably was his best coaching performance of all time that year.

It wasn't only that this team was talented it was because the talented meshed so well together. There have been arguably equally as talented teams that didn't get anywhere near as far as that bulls team. Just look at the 2011 heat vs the dallas mavs.

too good

[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HSn1zjRNtV0/T84IdNK12DI/AAAAAAAAJDM/K9ZYj0w1TZM/s640/031097jordanbullsgood_large.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=scandisk_]too good

[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HSn1zjRNtV0/T84IdNK12DI/AAAAAAAAJDM/K9ZYj0w1TZM/s640/031097jordanbullsgood_large.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

That's one of my favourite SI covers.

:applause:

Luc longley is not starting in todays NBA im sorry guys
Ron harper is not guarding Paul, Westbrook, Williams, Wall, Rose, Rondo etc... Its not realistic for him to be able to guard those guys. Pip nor Jordan either. To be honest idk how good they would be, but 70 wins is not possible how that was constructed in the 90's in todays game.

[QUOTE=Cladyclad]Luc longley is not starting in todays NBA im sorry guys
Ron harper is not guarding Paul, Westbrook, Williams, Wall, Rose, Rondo etc... Its not realistic for him to be able to guard those guys. Pip nor Jordan either. To be honest idk how good they would be, but 70 wins is not possible how that was constructed in the 90's in todays game.[/QUOTE]
Everything you posted is wrong.

Have you looked at the current list of starting centers? Are you actually saying that Longley wasn't more skilled than any of them? :oldlol:

Ron Harper is one of the best defenders at the guard position -- long, athletic, long arms, quick hands, and very, very smart. I'm not saying he would lock down every player on your list, but would definitely hold his own. Saying that he couldn't "guard" them is ridiculous.

Apparently, you never saw the 72-10 Bulls in action.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]But expansion is your only excuse. Several posters have given plenty of different reasons as to why the Bulls would still dominate today.

Saying that, allow me to present another point. In 94, the Bulls won 55 games without Michael Jordan. Mind you, this was pre expansion of 96. And with a lesser pf in Grant instead of Rodman. And Pippen missed 10 games that season causing the Bulls to go 3-7. If they were able to win 55 games under that situation, how many wins does that Bulls team get with Rodman and Jordan and Pippen playing all 82 games?[/QUOTE]
55-65 is still domination, I really don't know what world you guys live in to be honest.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]That was three years ago. James is better than Pippen.[/QUOTE]

It's actually about 2 years and ago; even though 3 years ago he was still better than Pippen.

Anyway, That Bulls team was a great team, without a doubt, but played in a watered down league. It would not post the same record. The league is better now - although not as competitive as the 80s. I'd say 65-69 is the right guessing range.

[QUOTE=Leviathon1121]As is easily seen by the increased amount of talented big men in the league today...oh wait...[/QUOTE]
This

These youngsters don't use logic very much...they love to say that today's athletes are bigger, stronger and faster, if that's true then where are the 7ft freaks of nature big men? Almost every team would have a Wilt or a Shaq or a KAJ if athletes have evolutionized as much as these young cats love to say.

The best big man today, D12, wouldn't even be a top 5 center in the 80s/90s:facepalm

[QUOTE=LeBird]It's actually about 2 years and ago; even though 3 years ago he was still better than Pippen.

Anyway, That Bulls team was a great team, without a doubt, but played in a watered down league. It would not post the same record. The league is better now - although not as competitive as the 80s. I'd say 65-69 is the right guessing range.[/QUOTE]
Why does the same nonsense continue to be regurgitated? Ill ask younthe samenquestion I asked Mcfly. If expansion had that much of an effect on the Bulls record, how do you rationalize them winning 55 in 94 without Jordan, a rookie Kukoc, and a downgrade in Grant instead of Rodman and Pippen missing 10 games in which they went 3-7. Pre expansion mind you.


And what makes the 80s so competive? You essentially had two teams go to the championship every year.

[QUOTE=Cladyclad]
Ron harper is not guarding Paul, Westbrook, Williams, Wall, Rose, Rondo etc... Its not realistic for him to be able to guard those guys. Pip nor Jordan either. [/QUOTE]

hahaha
if thabo sefolosha can guard tony parker, then ron harper or pippen will do just fine.
hahaha

[QUOTE=Cladyclad]Luc longley is not starting in todays NBA im sorry guys
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, because this era is certainly the golden age for centers. It's not like the 90's had Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Shaq, Mourning, Mutumbo, or anything.....

[QUOTE=BlueandGold]The expansion era argument has been discussed at length on this forum. The argument is that since the NBA drastically increased, the number of teams as well as the market of the NBA that the teams were somehow less talented or competitive as compared to the 00s.

This statement to me is ridiculous to me and i'm sure for anyone who's watched basketball in the 90s. This isn't like the 60s where steals and blocks weren't even counted stats. Every single regular season and playoff game that jordan played in past 85 or something whenever the NBA signed that huge TV deal has been documented. The level of play was noticeably more physical/violent. Flagrant fouls didn't exist.. players essentially got a flagrant thrown on them every time they drove to the paint. Remember the "no-layup" rule that Riley implemented? Or how about the Jordan rules with the pistons?

Like i stated before that bulls team was constructed perfectly. Not only was that team insanely talented but they were insanely talented at just the right skill/talent sets with no overlap of skills. Rodman was and still is the GOAT defensive and rebounding specialist.[B] Rodman out-rebounded Shaq by an average of 5 rebounds per game in the 96 ECF.[/B] Pippen was and still is the ultimate swingman and glue-guy who nearly led the bulls to a finals berth without MJ. They also had the goat scoring threat off the bench in Kukoc.. essentially the precursor to manu ginobli except not utilized as much as manu. Finally there was the perfect if not only coach that could fully utilize the incredibly diverse and ego-driven personalities that were on the team in Phil Jackson, in what arguably was his best coaching performance of all time that year.

It wasn't only that this team was talented it was because the talented meshed so well together. There have been arguably equally as talented teams that didn't get anywhere near as far as that bulls team. Just look at the 2011 heat vs the dallas mavs.[/QUOTE]

A lot of the talent argument boils down to what we're talking about. Guard play and ball handling have clearly improved since then; meanwhile, off ball play and passing skills have declined.

I would guess that the league is slightly more talented overall now, based mainly on the influx of international players. However, I don't think that would necessarily translate into a worse record for the 96' Bulls. Like I mentioned earlier, the Bulls were weak against teams like Orlando and the Knicks who featured great big men. The outside-in style of play today would play right in to the Bulls strengths.

[QUOTE=Just2McFly]That would make a lot more sense if that was the context of my prediction going in. I just gave a 10 game gap because I wanted to. :lol
[/QUOTE]

That's understandable. Given that information, would you say that it's more likely or less likely that the 96' Bulls win more games than the 12' Bulls? What about the 09' Cavs who won 66' games. Were they better or worse than the 96' Bulls?

[QUOTE=DatAsh]That's understandable. Given that information, would you say that it's more likely or less likely that the 96' Bulls win more games than the 12' Bulls? What about the 09' Cavs who won 66' games. Were they better or worse than the 96' Bulls?[/QUOTE]
Let's put it this way, the 08 Celtics were way, way better than the 09 Cavs and 07 Mavs even though their records are similar.

[QUOTE=Just2McFly]Let's put it this way, the 08 Celtics were way, way better than the 09 Cavs and 07 Mavs even though their records are similar.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, but the Cavs played harder in the regular season.

[QUOTE=DatAsh]Agreed, but the Cavs played harder in the regular season.[/QUOTE]
Way harder. They went all out for whatever reason, but I didn't fall for it. I chose the Magic in ECF.

[QUOTE=Just2McFly]Way harder. They went all out for whatever reason, but I didn't fall for it. I chose the Magic in ECF.[/QUOTE]

The Bulls were the same way though. They went all out every game. That regular season effort - that most teams just don't have - combined with their level of talent resulted in 72 wins.

I just find it unlikely that they'd win less than the 09' Cavs. They were a much better team - talent wise - and they played just as hard, if not harder in the regular season.

[QUOTE=DatAsh]The Bulls were the same way though. They wen't all out every game. That regular season effort - that most teams just don't have - combined with their level of talent resulted in 72 wins.

I just find it unlikely that they'd win less than the 09' Cavs. They were a much better team - talent wise - and they played just as hard, if not harder in the regular season.[/QUOTE]
Valid points there. I might have to change my prediction now.:oldlol:

Plus with the Knicks and the Heat playing so well, the Bulls will be busting their ass to get home court advantage.

[QUOTE=Teanett]hahaha
if thabo sefolosha can guard tony parker, then ron harper or pippen will do just fine.
hahaha[/QUOTE]


Ron harper was past his prime. Pippen never guarded Isisah, Hardaway or KJ so i doubt Phil would put him on these superfast athlethic pg's. the Bulls would have to tweak their starting lineup in todays g

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Why does the same nonsense continue to be regurgitated? Ill ask younthe samenquestion I asked Mcfly. If expansion had that much of an effect on the Bulls record, how do you rationalize them winning 55 in 94 without Jordan, a rookie Kukoc, and a downgrade in Grant instead of Rodman and Pippen missing 10 games in which they went 3-7. Pre expansion mind you.

[B]And what makes the 80s so competive? You essentially had two teams go to the championship every year.[/B][/QUOTE]

Ironically, it is your nonsense that keeps getting repeated. Better teams often get worse records and sometimes good teams have great records. It's not a mathematical formula. You may need a lot of things to go for you and lots to not go against you (luck, even). Why did Bulls without Jordan only go a couple games worse and then in another year go almost 20 games better?

If the bolded has to be asked then I should seriously stop engaging you because your Pippen fanboyism was ludicrous enough.

[QUOTE=DatAsh]
I just find it unlikely that they'd win less than the 09' Cavs. They were a much better team - talent wise - and they played just as hard, if not harder in the regular season.[/QUOTE]

But this part is absolutely irrelevant. The question is how would they do NOW. Not in 09.

[QUOTE=DatAsh]The Bulls were the same way though. They went all out every game. That regular season effort - that most teams just don't have - combined with their level of talent resulted in 72 wins.

I just find it unlikely that they'd win less than the 09' Cavs. They were a much better team - talent wise - and they played just as hard, if not harder in the regular season.[/QUOTE]

This. Competition and Talent isn't as much of a driving factor as just overall focus. I don't think there's ever been a more talented team that was ever that focused, which is the main reason I think they won 72 games. If teams that were clearly not that talented but were very determined and focused like the 2007 Mavs, 2009 Cavs, and 2011 Bulls were then a team thats clearly more talented and probably even more focused like the 96 Bulls has a great shot of still winning 72 games in this era.

[QUOTE=LeBird]Ironically, it is your nonsense that keeps getting repeated. Better teams often get worse records and sometimes good teams have great records. It's not a mathematical formula. You may need a lot of things to go for you and lots to not go against you (luck, even). Why did Bulls without Jordan only go a couple games worse and then in another year go almost 20 games better?
[B]It's well documented that Pippen and Grant kinda coasted through the 93 season. That's why they went from 67 wins in 92 to 57 in 93. That effort returned in 94. and thus the 55 wins. Along with Kukoc joining the team, and them getting new blood in Kerr for Paxson and Longley for Cartwright. When it's all factored in, their record is legit. And expansion didnt inflate their record. Especially when they lost to one of those teams. They just had a great team with onviously a lot of depth [/B]


If the bolded has to be asked then I should seriously stop engaging you because your Pippen fanboyism was ludicrous enough.
[B]You set this precedent. You're the one that continues to preach the dogma that all other generations of basketball is inferior to the golden 80s. I feel the talent level of the NBA is so high that its too hard to make that kind of assumption. And that goes for any era. They all haven their strengths and weaknesses. Its a classic cases of the more things change, the more they stay the same. [/B]
[/QUOTE]
Now I've answered your question. Now answer mine. How do you explain the Bulls winning 55 games pre expansion in 94. And how many games would they have won in 94 if intead if Pete Myers, they had Jordan, and Rodman over Grant?

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Now I've answered your question. Now answer mine. How do you explain the Bulls winning 55 games pre expansion in 94. And how many games would they have won in 94 if intead if Pete Myers, they had Jordan, and Rodman over Grant?[/QUOTE]

I am not sure if you're blind or ignoring my point. If you know what I posted; you would know I would have said: I don't know. You cannot predict why or why not. Why did the 91 Bulls not win 72?

Your reply in the quote is also nonsense. You can only stipulate as to why...you cannot legitimately hold that they are the exact reasons. Who knows how much more a Pippen/Grant tried or didn't try and how that is calculable to 10 games. It's conjecture at best. Are the 92 Bulls, who did 'try', only 1 game worse than the 09 Cavs, per your retarded cross-comparisons? It's a ludicrous argument.

I don't even think the 72 win Bulls would win 72 games if they had to play the same teams in the same condition 10 years in a row, where they remain ageless, etc (which is a heck of a hypothetical, but illustrates my point). A lot of things have to happen, and happen exactly right for a team to have such a season.

That is why I stick to my general and vague response because of the myriad of factors. The league is stronger now than what it was in the 72 win season. Rodman himself said that it'd never happen in the 80s - acknowledging the expansion and era difference in terms of competition. These days there are multiple stacked teams and the competition is higher in general. The Bulls don't win 72 in my opinion - and definitely don't win more than 72 as you seem to suggest.

I also didn't set the precedent of your cockamamie theories re Pippen or here now. That's all your doing. Own it.

[QUOTE=LeBird]I am not sure if you're blind or ignoring my point. If you know what I posted; you would know I would have said: I don't know. You cannot predict why or why not. Why did the 91 Bulls not win 72?
[B]Because they weren't good enough. [/B]


Your reply in the quote is also nonsense. You can only stipulate as to why...you cannot legitimately hold that they are the exact reasons. Who knows how much more a Pippen/Grant tried or didn't try and how that is calculable to 10 games. It's conjecture at best.

Are the 92 Bulls, who did 'try', only 1 game worse than the 09 Cavs, per your retarded cross-comparisons? It's a ludicrous argument.
[B]Thats not a fair comparion because the Bulls won the championship. The Cavs didnt even get out of the second round.[/B]

I don't even think the 72 win Bulls would win 72 games if they had to play the same teams in the same condition 10 years in a row, where they remain ageless, etc (which is a heck of a hypothetical, but illustrates my point). A lot of things have to happen, and happen exactly right for a team to have such a season.
[B]This may be true. But consider that they followed that up with 69 wins in spite of Rodman missing almost 30 games, then 62 with Pippen missing half the season. That 72 win season was legit. [/B]


That is why I stick to my general and vague response because of the myriad of factors. The league is stronger now than what it was in the 72 win season. Rodman himself said that it'd never happen in the 80s - acknowledging the expansion and era difference in terms of competition.
[B]You misquoted Rodman. That comment was made in the middle of the season. And he said that Bulls team couldnt be compared to the great Pistons, Lakers, and Celtics of the 80s because THEY HADN'T WON ANYTHING. And since you take what Rodman says as gospel, you must also agree with his statement that Larry Bird is overrated.[/B]


These days there are multiple stacked teams and the competition is higher in general. The Bulls don't win 72 in my opinion - and definitely don't win more than 72 as you seem to suggest.
[B]So this isnt conjecture? There were multiple stacked teams in the Bulls era. The Sonics? Magic? Jazz? Heat? Knicks? Rockets? Pacers? [/B]

I also didn't set the precedent of your cockamamie theories re Pippen or here now. That's all your doing. Own it.
[B]Im not talking about Pippen. Im talking about the Bulls. And youre notion that the only reason the Bulls won that many games was because of a lack of talent in the league.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
Again you gloss over my point and question. You my friend are the one claiming the only reason the Bulls won that many games in 96 is because of expansion. When I smack that point in the face, you dismiss it as conjecture. And that may be true. But this is all conjecture. You feel the 86 Celtics would beat the 96 Bulls in a series. Can you prove that without a shadow of doubt? No. But that doesn't keep you from voicing youre opinion. What makes youre opinion any more relevant than mine. Get off you high horse

55 - 60 wins maybe less... Jordan wouldn't be by far the best SG in the league... the league is more competitive right now.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Because they weren't good enough.
[/QUOTE]

Oh really, so if I said "the 72 win Bulls would win less games because they weren't good enough" that'd cut it for you? Hah.

[QUOTE]Thats not a fair comparion because the Bulls won the championship. The Cavs didnt even get out of the second round.
[/QUOTE]

Irrelevant; we are talking about a regular season record.

[QUOTE]This may be true. But consider that they followed that up with 69 wins in spite of Rodman missing almost 30 games, then 62 with Pippen missing half the season. That 72 win season was legit.
[/QUOTE]

No one is claiming it was cheated or not legit. My point was that I find it unlikely to repeat it if they were a team competing in this season. And as I said, I don't think they'd have repeated it if all the same conditions could be simulated again and again, in their own era.

[QUOTE]You misquoted Rodman. That comment was made in the middle of the season. And he said that Bulls team couldnt be compared to the great Pistons, Lakers, and Celtics of the 80s because THEY HADN'T WON ANYTHING. And since you take what Rodman says as gospel, you must also agree with his statement that Larry Bird is overrated.
[/QUOTE]

Who said what he says is always gospel? Everyone and their uncle knew that expansion had weakened the league. Get over it and stop making yourself look silly by arguing the opposite.

[QUOTE]So this isnt conjecture? There were multiple stacked teams in the Bulls era. The Sonics? Magic? Jazz? Heat? Knicks? Rockets? Pacers?
[/QUOTE]

Haha, ridiculous. You're comparing short-lived, and not-as-talented teams, to more competitive eras. You just keep stooping.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Again you gloss over my point and question. You my friend are the one claiming the only reason the Bulls won that many games in 96 is because of expansion. When I smack that point in the face, you dismiss it as conjecture. And that may be true. But this is all conjecture. You feel the 86 Celtics would beat the 96 Bulls in a series. Can you prove that without a shadow of doubt? No. But that doesn't keep you from voicing youre opinion. What makes youre opinion any more relevant than mine. Get off you high horse[/QUOTE]

You don't smack it in the face, no more than the question of whether the Cavs of 09 would equal their run in the 90s. And, of course, I know it is all conjecture. Which is why I find your direct comparisons of records in other seasons absolutely silly. Which is why I stick to a generic reason and give a tentative prediction. On the other hand, you are trying to prove that they'd win even more games. How utterly silly.

[QUOTE=LeBird]Oh really, so if I said "the 72 win Bulls would win less games because they weren't good enough" that'd cut it for you? Hah.
[B]That makes no sense. They showed they were capable by winning 72 games[/B]


Irrelevant; we are talking about a regular season record.



No one is claiming it was cheated or not legit. My point was that I find it unlikely to repeat it if they were a team competing in this season. And as I said, I don't think they'd have repeated it if all the same conditions could be simulated again and again, in their own era.



Who said what he says is always gospel? Everyone and their uncle knew that expansion had weakened the league.
[B]No, Laker and Celtic fans feel the NBA was watered down in the 90s in an effort to diminish the Bulls dominance. [/B]

Get over it and stop making yourself look silly by arguing the opposite.



Haha, ridiculous. You're comparing short-lived, and not-as-talented teams, to more competitive eras. You just keep stooping.
[B]And how can you prove this? Again, why is your conjecture better than anyone elses? [/B]


You don't smack it in the face, no more than the question of whether the Cavs of 09 would equal their run in the 90s. And, of course, I know it is all conjecture. Which is why I find your direct comparisons of records in other seasons absolutely silly. Which is why I stick to a generic reason and give a tentative prediction. On the other hand, you are trying to prove that they'd win even more games. How utterly silly.[/QUOTE]
Your lack of comprehension is incredible. This conversation began based solely on your assumption that the Bulls only won that many games because of playing in a watered down era. Thats were you're wrong. You can dismiss this as conjecture all you want. But if you follow sports, you'd have to know that talent translates to wins. If theyre capable of winning 55 games pre expansion without key player's is it unreasonable to draw the conclusion that drastic upgrades in talent is gonna improve their win total?

LeBird getting exposed once again. Decent writing skills won't cover up your lack of knowledge and bias.

[QUOTE=Cladyclad]Ron harper was past his prime. Pippen never guarded Isisah, Hardaway or KJ so i doubt Phil would put him on these superfast athlethic pg's. the Bulls would have to tweak their starting lineup in todays g

[QUOTE=Teanett]hahaha
they played the hardaways, kj, mugsy bogues, terell brandon, iverson...
ron harper, mj and pippen did just fine.
hahaha[/QUOTE]
If I remember, they almost lost to sixers lead by a rookie AI and that game MJ almost break his ankle guarding AI.. Imagine prime AI, DRose, Westbrook, CP3, Rondo, Irving, DWill, Wall etc. playing against them? They would send Harper and MJ into an early retirement becos of fk up ankle..

[QUOTE=KOBE143]If I remember, they almost lost to sixers lead by a rookie AI and that game MJ almost break his ankle guarding AI.. Imagine prime AI, DRose, Westbrook, CP3, Rondo, Irving, DWill, Wall etc. playing against them? They would send Harper and MJ into an early retirement becos of fk up ankle..[/QUOTE]

see, that's where you young guys err.

-yes, iverson crossed jordan once and hit a jumper and that's it.
-iverson had a great game but the bulls won.
-the bulls were 55-8 at that point, the sixers were 16-46

is there any indication that the sixers were the better team, or even in the same class than the bulls? the sixers and ai shouldnt be in the same league at that point and there is also no reason to believe that there has been any version of iverson and the sixers that would give the 96 bulls trouble.

john wall my ass...

[QUOTE=Poochymama]LeBird getting exposed once again. Decent writing skills won't cover up your lack of knowledge and bias.[/QUOTE]
This

Easily one of the worst posters here.