Re: 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?
Re: What would the 72-10 Bull's record look like playing this year?
[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?
Re: What would the 72-10 Bull's record look like playing this year?
[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.
Re: What would the 72-10 Bull's record look like playing this year?
too good
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HSn1zjRNtV0/T84IdNK12DI/AAAAAAAAJDM/K9ZYj0w1TZM/s640/031097jordanbullsgood_large.jpg[/IMG]
Re: What would the 72-10 Bull's record look like playing this year?
[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:
Re: What would the 72-10 Bull's record look like playing this year?
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.
Re: What would the 72-10 Bull's record look like playing this year?
[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.
Re: What would the 72-10 Bull's record look like playing this year?
[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.
Re: What would the 72-10 Bull's record look like playing this year?
[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.
Re: What would the 72-10 Bull's record look like playing this year?
[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
Re: What would the 72-10 Bull's record look like playing this year?
[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.
Re: What would the 72-10 Bull's record look like playing this 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
Re: What would the 72-10 Bull's record look like playing this year?
[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.....
Re: What would the 72-10 Bull's record look like playing this year?
[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.
Re: What would the 72-10 Bull's record look like playing this year?
[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?