Reply With Quote
Lakers would win in 6. IMO
Quit Hatin' just got regulated tbh.
Lakers would win in 6. IMO
Typical Lakerfan, just looking at total talent level, thinking talent wins everything.
Haha you're such a butthurt got.
Mavs suck, Dirk sucks, Celtics are going to lose. Go ahead and kill yourself now got.
LAKERS ARE THE BETTER TEAM AND WOULD HAVE WON IN '08 IF THEY HAD BYNUM AND ARIZA HEALTHY. FACT.
* on the '08 Celtics championship.
This thread is a joke right? The 1999 Spurs team would beat these Lakers....
Bulls in 7.
The 1996 Bulls were ing ridiculous.
Bulls in 6, max.
You'd be satisfied to steal that $100 Rivers and the Celtics hid up in the rafters at Staples.
Those Bulls were definitely not the best team ever.
They played in a watered down league.
The '91 and '92 Bulls were better,as were the Three-Peat Lakers (2001 especially, GOAT Team Candidate), and the '86 Celtics (GOAT Team Candidate), and the '80s Lakers.
Stop being a , you're making the rest of us Laker fans look bad. They were better in 2008, we've been better since.
Holy . This would put 1996 Phil Jackson against 2010 Phil Jackson and result in some Back to the Future .
On second thought it would probably result in some gay ass Jean Claude Van Damme vs. Jean Claude Van Damme Double Impact
Jordan would lock down Kobe while getting his on the other end. Lakers would win one game and consider themselves lucky.
and the Lakers wouldn't have won in '00 had Duncan not been injured for the playoffs.
* on the '00 Lakers championship.
obviously, i'm ing around. i'm fully aware of the fact that when you use the asterisk it is code for "i'm a butt-hurt little ."
I agree with that comment I bolded. People often look at the 72 regular season wins and assume they were some untouchable team.
Statistically, that was the worst playoffs Michael Jordan had as well in the 6 championship runs. In 9 of the 18 playoff games that season, he shot under 45% from the field. Four times, he shot under 40% from the field. He also didn't get double digit rebounds or assists even once in any of those 18 playoff games. And the teams those 96 Bulls played in the playoffs weren't all that great. The league was weak that year. The best they played was probably the New York Knicks in the second round.
I agree a couple of those first three-peat Bulls were better than the historical 72 win 1996 Bulls.
That's absolutely true. 1995-96 was an expansion year and the league was watered down. Not to mention the East was really bad that season outside Chicago and Orlando. The Cavaliers had a dog team that year and still won 47 games and had HCA in the first round of the Playoffs.
Yet despite those setbacks the Bulls still managed to win which further shows how great of a team they were even in the eve of all those negatives you pointed out. A typical team in today's era with those setbacks you mentioned would simply lose.
Or it's a reflection of the caliber of compe ion, which has been pointed out several times in the last few posts.
How do you know that those teams were not good or not as compe ive in today's standards. What are you basing this off of? Because the Bulls got 72 wins they automatically played in a watered down league?
It was an expansion year. It was a watered-down league almost by definition.
Doesn't necessarily mean the league was less compe ive than it is now.
The Seattle Sonics won 64 games that year. That team in today's league are a borderline 50 win team. They had two great players in GP and Shawn Kemp. Couple of good role players with Detlef and Hersey Hawkins and Sam Perkins. Good scoring team. Not a lot of depth. And other than Kemp, not a lot of athleticism. They'd be a good team in today's league. They wouldn't win 64 win games, imo.
The Orlando Magic won 60 games that year. Also a great duo with Shaq and Penny. Went to the Finals also in a relatively weak league. They'd probably be the fourth best Eastern Conference team this past season.
It's an opinion. You're free to disagree with it. 1996 was not a strong year in the NBA in terms of compe ion. 72 wins is 72 wins. But you can go deeper than just win-loss records to realize that the league was not nearly as strong as it was in the 80s and early 90s.
This thread (or the reasons behind its existence) makes me laugh. In reality, however, it's quite sad.
IMO you argument is irrelevant, The Orlando Magic this year won 61 games and all they had was Dwight Howard. If this year's magic can get 61 games, then 96 sonics can get 60+ games in today's league. Same can be said about the Cavaliers. All they have is Lebron James with a couple of good role players and still managed to win 60+ wins.
The 90's had Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, Clyde Drexler, Charles Barkley, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Hakeek Olajuwon, David Robinson, Shaquille O'neal etc. If you were to rank the top 10 players in each position in NBA history or perhaps top 5, you can bet all or most of these players listed would make the list showing how powerful the league was that year. The same cannot be said about today's league.
Like I said, it's an opinion. You disagree with it, fine. I disagree with yours.
We're stuck at an impasse with no concrete way to determine a resolution.
So be it.
The 1996 championship Bulls were a great team in a weak league.
Your opinion differs. Oh freaking well...
edit: and having great individual players in the league doesn't mean the league was strong. Having great teams in the league means the league is strong. Only a few of the stars you mentioned played on great teams in 1996. It would be like mentioning Dwyane Wade as an all time great so that means the Miami Heat made the NBA a stronger league. It's just not a congruent argument.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
