View Single Post
Old 12-06-2012, 10:18 PM   #149
LeBird
Good High School Starter
 
LeBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 875
LeBird has an OK reputation so far
Default Re: What would the 72-10 Bull's record look like playing this year?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 97 bulls
Because they weren't good enough.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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

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.
LeBird is offline   Reply With Quote