Originally Posted by La Frescobaldi
OK. Since you are fairly intelligent poster on this website (although dreadful as far as agenda) I'll try and get you to have SOME kind of understanding about a different point of view. Although as daRegul8er often comments, it seems that trying to do this is truly a broken reed.
It has nothing to do with the fact that Jordan got beat over and over in the 80s. His teams were poor.
I don't think that Jordan's 1991 (or 98 either) Bulls team could have beaten the Showtime Lakers of the early 80s.
Nor could they have beaten the 1983 Sixers.
Nor could they have beaten the 89 Pistons.
Nor could they have beaten the Celtics of at least a couple years in through there, '86 being only the most obvious.
In my opinion, Mike was 6-0 because he didn't play ANY TEAM OF THAT QUALITY IN THE FINALS. Is that plain enough?
Thats fair. I disagree obviously but its fair as its your opinion. My only reply to this has always been..... The 87 Lakers, the 86 Celtics, the 83 Sixers, and the 89 Pistons, NEVER PLAYED EACH OTHER. They played a variation of their best team. Just like the Bulls did vs the Lakers and Pistons. Talk to a Celtics fan about them losing to the Lakers in 87 and theyll say the Celtics were hurt (Walton and Mchale). The Sixers fans say the Lakers beat them in 80 cuz they didnt have Moses Malone. The Lakers team the Celtics beat werent all time greats. The Pistons beat the Lakers without Magic and Scott. The Lakers were well on their way to losing to the Pistons before Thomas went down with that sprained ankle. Why hold the Bulls to a different standard? They beat a variation of the Lakers and Pistons. And that 91 team was by no means their best team. Again for emphasis, why hold the Bulls to a standard you dont hold the other teams to?