Reply With Quote
No way are the Celtics gonna lose only 5 games the rest of the season.
They can forget about going 72-10.
Celtics’ losses may ruin chance at mark
Mike Monroe - Express-News
All that talk about the Boston Celtics threatening the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls’ all-time best record of 72-10 stopped abruptly late Friday night after the defending champions blew a fourth-quarter lead and lost to the Golden State Warriors.
A team that headed to the West Coast with a 27-2 record suddenly has its first losing streak of the season, and 72 wins seems like an impossible dream.
I don’t care how drained the Celtics insist they were after that over-hyped Christmas Day showdown with the Los Angeles Lakers at the Staples Center. You don’t blow a 14-point fourth quarter lead against a team that had won only eight of 30 previous games.
Celtics coach Doc Rivers had done his best to downplay the significance of his team’s 19-game winning streak that preceded its Christmas Day loss.
“ , we’ve had some games we could’ve lost in this stretch,” he told reporters before that game. “I don’t even pay much attention to that (streak).”
Here is something for Celtics loyalists to consider if another win streak ensues that gets that 72-win talk re-started: The ’95-96 Bulls had only one two-game losing streak, falling to the Denver Nuggets and Phoenix Suns on a Western trip in February.
Chicago had win streaks of 18 and 13 games that season and didn’t lose its seventh game until March 10.
If the Celtics lose only three more before March 10, well, maybe the league should start engraving another Larry O’Brien Trophy for them.
The end of Chicago’s 18-game streak in 1996 was hastened by some late night carousing. The Bulls had gone to Denver having won 31 of their previous 32 games to play a Sunday game against a Denver team that wasn’t as horrid as the Warriors have been this season but had won only 18 of 44.
Having a Saturday night off in Denver was too tempting for several key players, who were spotted at a convenience store buying junk food around 3 a.m. Little wonder, then, they fell behind the Nuggets by 28 the next night, too big a deficit for even Michael Jordan to overcome.
No way are the Celtics gonna lose only 5 games the rest of the season.
They can forget about going 72-10.
MJ's Bulls wouldn't have lost to that scrub Laker team or the Warriors.
Yeah, 73-9 is out of reach now. They'd need a 46-5 mark the rest of the way. The Mavs went 51-5, but that was on a lot of BS calls in their favor.
68-71 wins is still doable.
The 95-96 Bulls team is one of a kind. I just can't imagine any other team winning 72 games ever.
They did lose to the Raptors
But even with that , 96 Bulls >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. Today's Celtics
It is 2 of 82 games. No team has had a 27-2 mark and we saw 72 wins. This is hyperbole from those looking to defend the Bulls (once again) and diminish what we have in the here and now. After all, Jordan is the 'best of all-time.' Are KG, Pierce, and Allen even the best trio to don Celtics uniforms?
It loses its symmetry if this team does it. And Mike Monroe is not trying to be insightful, but to provoke little opinions like mine to drive up his hits.
The Celtics would trade a 70 win regular season for another le and 60 wins Im pretty certain
I'd be interested to see it, but it's hard to maintain that level of play for an entire season, I think a lot of teams will threaten that mark, or appear to threaten it, but won't be able to play as consistently.
What I really liked about that Bulls team though is that if you look back at their season game by game, you'll see that they didn't loose to the same team twice (except for one team I think it was the Pacers but I could be wrong) and every team that beat them (ok almost every one) got blown out in the next meeting.
At least that's what I recall when I looked at their record game by game but that was some time ago...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
