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

[QUOTE=lilgodfather1]Didn't say he wasn't did I? If I did can you point it out for me...

You want Jordan taking a jump shot vs. him getting into the paint.[/QUOTE]

If we're talking 96' Jordan, then yes. You're better off bodying him up and contesting his shots than you are zoning him and letting him shoot open jump shots.

[QUOTE=madmax]:applause:
Mid to late 90's were the most watered down era in NBA history with all new teams entering NBA and future dynasties (Lakers, Spurs) still being too young and not ready for the limelight. Perfect time for vultures like the Bulls were to pick up the scraps[/QUOTE]
First of all, Spurs are no dynasty.

Second of all :oldlol:

'95 - '99 was stronger than 2000 - 2005

68-72 and would win the title.

They easily win 68+ games, with 70+ a VERY real possibility. Anyone saying otherwise is kidding themselves. These young, inexperienced teams today aren't prepared for a disciplined, potent team like the '96 Bulls who just keep coming at you, never say die, and give 100% every game.

Do people realize that of their 10 losses in 1996, 8 were by 7 or less points, and 3 were by 1 point? That team came to play EVERY night and was in EVERY game save for ONE game all season. They only lost a SINGLE GAME by more than 10 points all year. They could have legitimately won 75+ games. But yeah...this league is ready for them. :oldlol:

65 games. The talent level today is much higher people REALLY need to disregard nostalgia, let go of their childhood heroes, and come into this thread with an unbiased mindset. ESPECIALLY 97 Bulls. Oh my god I've never seen a bigger homer in my life it's literally pathetic.

Anywhere between 67-72 seems feasible.

[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]They easily win 68+ games, with 70+ a VERY real possibility. Anyone saying otherwise is kidding themselves. These young, inexperienced teams today aren't prepared for a disciplined, potent team like the '96 Bulls who just keep coming at you, never say die, and give 100% every game.

Do people realize that of their 10 losses in 1996, 8 were by 7 or less points, and 3 were by 1 point? That team came to play EVERY night and was in EVERY game save for ONE game all season. They only lost a SINGLE GAME by more than 10 points all year. They could have legitimately won 75+ games. But yeah...this league is ready for them. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Good post - and ALL of that was w/ Dennis missing 18+ games. :eek:

96 Bulls would make sweet rape on the entire league today.

[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]They only lost a SINGLE GAME by more than 10 points all year. They could have legitimately won 75+ games.[/QUOTE]
That's what I'm saying. And the '97 Bulls could have easily won 3 - 4 more games.

[QUOTE=atljonesbro]65 games. The talent level today is much higher people REALLY need to disregard nostalgia, let go of their childhood heroes, and come into this thread with an unbiased mindset. ESPECIALLY 97 Bulls. Oh my god I've never seen a bigger homer in my life it's literally pathetic.[/QUOTE]

How can you be so sure you're not guilty of the very same thing you accuse others of?

I was 35 years old in 1990. My opinion of them has nothing to do with "childhood heroes".

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Good post - and ALL of that was w/ Dennis missing 18+ games. :eek:[/QUOTE]

You know what's a crazy stat ?

When the Jordan-Pippen-Rodman-Longely-Harper lineup started, their record was 76-10 (37-3 in 96; 27-4 in 97; 12-3 in 98). Imagine if Dennis didn't miss games so much in 96 and 97 and Pippen in 98 ?

[QUOTE=Money 23]That's what I'm saying. And the '97 Bulls could have easily won 3 - 4 more games.[/QUOTE]

I think because of the competition of the teams in 97, you could argue the 97 Bulls were better than the 96 Bulls.

I know we are talking about Jordan when people are gushing over facts so inane like they only lost by 10+ once for the whole year. The team with the highest amount of victories in NBA History wasn't blown out much? :eek: Say it aint so.

[quote]You want Jordan taking a jump shot vs. him getting into the paint.[/quote]

In '95-'96 he averaged more post ups per game than drives, and twice as many jumpers. But yes, obviously you don't want him in the paint. Remember there has been a defensive 3 second rule in the NBA since 2001.


[img]http://i.imgur.com/BBhxH.png[/img]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/gbJZ7.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=atljonesbro]65 games. The talent level today is much higher people REALLY need to disregard nostalgia, let go of their childhood heroes, and come into this thread with an unbiased mindset. ESPECIALLY 97 Bulls. Oh my god I've never seen a bigger homer in my life it's literally pathetic.[/QUOTE]

As is easily seen by the increased amount of talented big men in the league today...oh wait...

[QUOTE=KOBE143]You're comparing two teams in a different era.. :facepalm Im referring to the competition dumbass.. Today competition is far better and tougher than in the water down 90s.. That doesnt mean that the knicks are better than the 96 bulls..[/QUOTE]

This is one of the worst myths in NBA history. If anything, today's game is watered down compared to the 90's.

Bulls in 75 and it's not even close.

I love how these youngsters think. It seems athletes from 10-20 years ago or more are inferior to today's athlete. Bigger faster stronger right? :roll:

On topic, I'd say at least 67 and if totally motivated like they were back then they'd win 70+ no question. That team was on a mission to prove something after losing in 95 and it showed the next three years despite having injuries and all.