Originally Posted by 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?
Because they weren't good enough.
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.
Thats not a fair comparion because the Bulls won the championship. The Cavs didnt even get out of the second round.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So this isnt conjecture? There were multiple stacked teams in the Bulls era. The Sonics? Magic? Jazz? Heat? Knicks? Rockets? Pacers?
I also didn't set the precedent of your cockamamie theories re Pippen or here now. That's all your doing. Own it.
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.
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