West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Sports & Entertainment => Topic started by: TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96' on March 18, 2015, 01:37:18 PM
-
Watching that 97' Miami Heat series on youtube, and it is bring back some great memories that I had forgotten about.
Technically the Heat lost the series 4-1, but it was actually a dogfight for the Bulls. The Heat were able to drag the Bulls down to their level, and Jordan even struggled in the series. But you know Rodman loves a dogfight and him and Mourning were battling all series. Shit got real personal with Mourning not even shaking Jordan's hand before Game 4 and then Jordan not shaking any of the Heat hands before Game 5. A key moment in the series was when the Heat were dominating the Bulls in Game 4 and then Mourning elbowed Pippen so hard it left a huge knot on his forehead. Although they were down too much to come back in that game, they carried it over to Game 5 and put the Heat away.
...if you love Dennis Rodman it is a great series to watch him and Zo go at it, because shit was real. They seriously hated each other personally and neither player was backing down. In the one Bulls loss in Game 4 Rodman put up like 20 Rebounds and was even going hard on offense putting up 13 points. He makes some moves offensively in the series that he hadn't made since his days with the Pistons.
...and if you love Scottie Pippen it's also a great series to watch. Pip really looks sharp in the series, picking it up for Michael often times.
-
pippen is so damn underrated...it wasnt rare to see MJ take a backseat to him. not to mention, he always locked down the best player on the opposing teams.
great team...easily top 5 assembled of all-time
-
great team...easily top 5 assembled of all-time
::)
That's not a compliment. That's like saying Jordan is a top 5 player or calling Dre a top 5 producer.
The only team that can compete with the 96-98 Bulls is the 91-93 Bulls.
-
great team...easily top 5 assembled of all-time
::)
That's not a compliment. That's like saying Jordan is a top 5 player or calling Dre a top 5 producer.
The only team that can compete with the 96-98 Bulls is the 91-93 Bulls.
Hum... I'm trying to think... hum... Is the 95-96 Chicago Bulls the greatest team ever? Are the late 90's Bulls the greatest dynasty of all time? I'd say the team that rivals them for that top spot is the 1960's Boston Celtics and the 1980's Lakers. The problem with the 60's Celtics was they didn't face the level of competition as the 90's Bulls, and the 80's Lakers might have have tougher competition but they weren't as dominate and they didn't have no one that could have matched Mike, as MJ would have been guarded by B. Scott and Magic.
Here is why I think the 90's Bulls might be the greatest dynasty of all time, and it's highlighted by this man...
(http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2013/0313/mag_1998_jackson01jr_576.jpg)
In the 80's Pat Riley proved to be a great coach when he had Magic and Showtime. But one area he didn't do well was adjustments. Phil is one of the best defensive coaches in the NBA history, if not the best. Plus you can ask, could Showtime win with a different coach other than Riley, hell they won with Paul Westhead, who everyone HATED. The Showtime Lakers were the most full proof team to coach. Anyone can win with them. But the Bulls, it took a very special coach to win with Jordan because Jordan was very hard to coach. If we had as much assess to MJ as we do Kobe, people would truly HATE Jordan and the stories that come out of Chicago. But Phil was able to bring him in and channel him to be the team player that could win.
So, at the end of the day, I will agree with Infinite, and I'll give the Bulls their due, but it's because Phil Jackson might be the greatest coach ever and he really figured out a way to win with Jordan and Rodman on the same time.
-
great team...easily top 5 assembled of all-time
::)
That's not a compliment. That's like saying Jordan is a top 5 player or calling Dre a top 5 producer.
The only team that can compete with the 96-98 Bulls is the 91-93 Bulls.
lmao...showtime lakers woulda had their way with those bulls teams. jordan couldnt compete in the 80s, and the nba was way weaker by the time he started winning.
and jordan is a top 10 player... every1 within that top ten is the best at what they do + is interchangeable at number 1. there is no definitive GOAT, just a top tier of GOATs, and Jordan is in it.
-
great team...easily top 5 assembled of all-time
::)
That's not a compliment. That's like saying Jordan is a top 5 player or calling Dre a top 5 producer.
The only team that can compete with the 96-98 Bulls is the 91-93 Bulls.
Hum... I'm trying to think... hum... Is the 95-96 Chicago Bulls the greatest team ever? Are the late 90's Bulls the greatest dynasty of all time? I'd say the team that rivals them for that top spot is the 1960's Boston Celtics and the 1980's Lakers. The problem with the 60's Celtics was they didn't face the level of competition as the 90's Bulls, and the 80's Lakers might have have tougher competition but they weren't as dominate and they didn't have no one that could have matched Mike, as MJ would have been guarded by B. Scott and Magic.
Here is why I think the 90's Bulls might be the greatest dynasty of all time, and it's highlighted by this man...
(http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2013/0313/mag_1998_jackson01jr_576.jpg)
In the 80's Pat Riley proved to be a great coach when he had Magic and Showtime. But one area he didn't do well was adjustments. Phil is one of the best defensive coaches in the NBA history, if not the best. Plus you can ask, could Showtime win with a different coach other than Riley, hell they won with Paul Westhead, who everyone HATED. The Showtime Lakers were the most full proof team to coach. Anyone can win with them. But the Bulls, it took a very special coach to win with Jordan because Jordan was very hard to coach. If we had as much assess to MJ as we do Kobe, people would truly HATE Jordan and the stories that come out of Chicago. But Phil was able to bring him in and channel him to be the team player that could win.
So, at the end of the day, I will agree with Infinite, and I'll give the Bulls their due, but it's because Phil Jackson might be the greatest coach ever and he really figured out a way to win with Jordan and Rodman on the same time.
what are u talkin about, 90s bulls faced some of the weakest competition ever...sonics, jazz, cavs, knicks, heat, blazers...each and every one of these teams woulda been swept by the 80s teams like the pistons, celtics, lakers, rockets, sixers etc... thats why jordan always got fucked back in the 80s and only started winning once the nba got weaker.
-
great team...easily top 5 assembled of all-time
::)
That's not a compliment. That's like saying Jordan is a top 5 player or calling Dre a top 5 producer.
The only team that can compete with the 96-98 Bulls is the 91-93 Bulls.
the 85-86 Celtics are generally considered the best team of all time.
-
great team...easily top 5 assembled of all-time
::)
That's not a compliment. That's like saying Jordan is a top 5 player or calling Dre a top 5 producer.
The only team that can compete with the 96-98 Bulls is the 91-93 Bulls.
the 85-86 Celtics are generally considered the best team of all time.
pg magic johnson
sg byron scott...michael cooper
sf james worthy...jamaal wilkes
pf bob mcadoo...kurt rambis
c kareem abdul-jabbar
seriously, how can it get better?
-
My argument for the Bulls is not the players, but the coach. The Lakers have the better collection of talent and their bench was the deepest maybe in NBA history. But in a 7 game series I think Phil Jackson would out coach Part Riley no matter who's on the court.
-
My argument for the Bulls is not the players, but the coach. The Lakers have the better collection of talent and their bench was the deepest maybe in NBA history. But in a 7 game series I think Phil Jackson would out coach Part Riley no matter who's on the court.
phil jackson also coached the laker team that got swept by dallas.....so the collection of talent is too much for the bulls to overcome just because of a better coach. and pat riley is a legendary coach in his own regard, so it aint like phil jackson vs mike d'antoni we talkin bout....
but seriously, jordan was gettin manhandled by the 80s pistons.........no way in hell would any bulls team stand a chance against the showtime lakers. if he lost finals games to the sonics and jazz, then he woulda been SWEPT by magic, kareem, worthy, scott, wilkes, mcadoo, cooper, and em
-
My argument for the Bulls is not the players, but the coach. The Lakers have the better collection of talent and their bench was the deepest maybe in NBA history. But in a 7 game series I think Phil Jackson would out coach Part Riley no matter who's on the court.
phil jackson also coached the laker team that got swept by dallas.....so the collection of talent is too much for the bulls to overcome just because of a better coach. and pat riley is a legendary coach in his own regard, so it aint like phil jackson vs mike d'antoni we talkin bout....
but seriously, jordan was gettin manhandled by the 80s pistons.........no way in hell would any bulls team stand a chance against the showtime lakers. if he lost finals games to the sonics and jazz, then he woulda been SWEPT by magic, kareem, worthy, scott, wilkes, mcadoo, cooper, and em
But 1996 Michael Jordan was far superior to 1989 Michael Jordan. And his team was far superior. He'd have Rodman on his team and a prime Pippen.
-
My argument for the Bulls is not the players, but the coach. The Lakers have the better collection of talent and their bench was the deepest maybe in NBA history. But in a 7 game series I think Phil Jackson would out coach Part Riley no matter who's on the court.
phil jackson also coached the laker team that got swept by dallas.....so the collection of talent is too much for the bulls to overcome just because of a better coach. and pat riley is a legendary coach in his own regard, so it aint like phil jackson vs mike d'antoni we talkin bout....
but seriously, jordan was gettin manhandled by the 80s pistons.........no way in hell would any bulls team stand a chance against the showtime lakers. if he lost finals games to the sonics and jazz, then he woulda been SWEPT by magic, kareem, worthy, scott, wilkes, mcadoo, cooper, and em
But 1996 Michael Jordan was far superior to 1989 Michael Jordan. And his team was far superior. He'd have Rodman on his team and a prime Pippen.
he was actually better statistically and physically in 1989....but yea, phil got him to play within a team structure.
still, magic AND kareem....theyre both argued as GOAT. AND worthy, AND scott, AND cooper, AND mcadoo, AND wilkes. it's insurmountable
-
My argument for the Bulls is not the players, but the coach. The Lakers have the better collection of talent and their bench was the deepest maybe in NBA history. But in a 7 game series I think Phil Jackson would out coach Part Riley no matter who's on the court.
phil jackson also coached the laker team that got swept by dallas.....so the collection of talent is too much for the bulls to overcome just because of a better coach. and pat riley is a legendary coach in his own regard, so it aint like phil jackson vs mike d'antoni we talkin bout....
but seriously, jordan was gettin manhandled by the 80s pistons.........no way in hell would any bulls team stand a chance against the showtime lakers. if he lost finals games to the sonics and jazz, then he woulda been SWEPT by magic, kareem, worthy, scott, wilkes, mcadoo, cooper, and em
But 1996 Michael Jordan was far superior to 1989 Michael Jordan. And his team was far superior. He'd have Rodman on his team and a prime Pippen.
he was actually better statistically and physically in 1989....but yea, phil got him to play within a team structure.
still, magic AND kareem....theyre both argued as GOAT. AND worthy, AND scott, AND cooper, AND mcadoo, AND wilkes. it's insurmountable
Except the Bulls won 72 and 69 games back to back years, two of the three best seasons in a row. If you watch both at the time, you saw Phil at his best. When the Lakers got swept by the Mavs, Phil was sick and coaching half time. In 1996, Phil was on top of his game and making Riley look like a fool in the playoffs and in the regular season. He almost beat the Knicks without Mike. And that's were I think the Bulls were highly underrated. They won without MJ, they almost best the Knicks without MJ. They felt more like a team because Phil had them on the right path. Where as the Lakers HATED their coach. They hated Riley. So as a collection of talent, Showtime is better, but as a team, I have to agree with Infinite, the Bulls win because of Phil. I am convinced that without Phil, Jordan would be on the same level as Dr. J and LeBron. Second level superstar.
-
My argument for the Bulls is not the players, but the coach. The Lakers have the better collection of talent and their bench was the deepest maybe in NBA history. But in a 7 game series I think Phil Jackson would out coach Part Riley no matter who's on the court.
phil jackson also coached the laker team that got swept by dallas.....so the collection of talent is too much for the bulls to overcome just because of a better coach. and pat riley is a legendary coach in his own regard, so it aint like phil jackson vs mike d'antoni we talkin bout....
but seriously, jordan was gettin manhandled by the 80s pistons.........no way in hell would any bulls team stand a chance against the showtime lakers. if he lost finals games to the sonics and jazz, then he woulda been SWEPT by magic, kareem, worthy, scott, wilkes, mcadoo, cooper, and em
But 1996 Michael Jordan was far superior to 1989 Michael Jordan. And his team was far superior. He'd have Rodman on his team and a prime Pippen.
he was actually better statistically and physically in 1989....but yea, phil got him to play within a team structure.
still, magic AND kareem....theyre both argued as GOAT. AND worthy, AND scott, AND cooper, AND mcadoo, AND wilkes. it's insurmountable
Except the Bulls won 72 and 69 games back to back years, two of the three best seasons in a row. If you watch both at the time, you saw Phil at his best. When the Lakers got swept by the Mavs, Phil was sick and coaching half time. In 1996, Phil was on top of his game and making Riley look like a fool in the playoffs and in the regular season. He almost beat the Knicks without Mike. And that's were I think the Bulls were highly underrated. They won without MJ, they almost best the Knicks without MJ. They felt more like a team because Phil had them on the right path. Where as the Lakers HATED their coach. They hated Riley. So as a collection of talent, Showtime is better, but as a team, I have to agree with Infinite, the Bulls win because of Phil. I am convinced that without Phil, Jordan would be on the same level as Dr. J and LeBron. Second level superstar.
yea 72 wins in a watered down eastern conference...still not as impressive as 33 straight by the lakers. but either way, them bulls team lost to the jazz and sonic twice my bro....no way they win a game against the showtime lakers, let alone a series.
-
INice posts, MDogg. And yes, Jordan was hard to coach, he was playing out of his mind but the Bulls still couldn't get past the Pistons until Jackson and Winter really got the triangle going and coached up all the role players. And then later having to coach up the jordan-less Bulls to 55 wins and then later being able to allow dennis to be himself and having harmony with the three stars.
LOl@sccit saying there is no definitive GOAT and that Jordan is merely top 10.
Unlike Sccit, I'm not being biased because I got the one stat to back me up that you don't have. In 1996 the Bulls broke the record for most wins in a season, and then blew through the playoffs and championship to make for the most historic season of all time. Nough said.
The only claim you can make against the 72 win Bulls is the weaker competition argument but look how they dominated the Finals. The Western Confrence was stacked in the mid 90's, Spurs, Rockets, Suns, Sonics, Jazz....those are 5 teams that all could've gotten a championship.
-
LOl@sccit saying there is no definitive GOAT and that Jordan is merely top 10.
:laugh: preach
-
INice posts, MDogg. And yes, Jordan was hard to coach, he was playing out of his mind but the Bulls still couldn't get past the Pistons until Jackson and Winter really got the triangle going and coached up all the role players. And then later having to coach up the jordan-less Bulls to 55 wins and then later being able to allow dennis to be himself and having harmony with the three stars.
LOl@sccit saying there is no definitive GOAT and that Jordan is merely top 10.
Unlike Sccit, I'm not being biased because I got the one stat to back me up that you don't have. In 1996 the Bulls broke the record for most wins in a season, and then blew through the playoffs and championship to make for the most historic season of all time. Nough said.
The only claim you can make against the 72 win Bulls is the weaker competition argument but look how they dominated the Finals. The Western Confrence was stacked in the mid 90's, Spurs, Rockets, Suns, Sonics, Jazz....those are 5 teams that all could've gotten a championship.
there is no definitive goat...jordan was simply the most shoved down our throats. stern was a marketing genius and he got u good... plus, all that went down in the 90s, and we know how u feel about that nostalgia-wise....if any1 deserves to be a definitive goat based on stats/career, it's kareem. but like i said, every1 in that top 10 is the best at what they do and are interchangeable as GOAT....the stars aligned for jordan though. he was in the perfect situation on those 90s bulls teams. i mean, like u already mentioned, the bulls almost went to the finals without jordan....you take kobe off the back-to-back laker champion teams, and they dont even make playoffs. but thats a whole nother story....the point is that, yea, 72 wins is excellent. but like i said, the nba was watered down by that time. jordan was being guarded by the iikes of craig ehlo, jeff hornacek, hersey hawkins, john starks, kevin johnson LOL.....those teams you named were good, not great. spurs of the mid-90s? LOL. and also like i said, they didnt dominate the finals, they always won in 6 games, and all the games were highly competitive....72 wins is still impressive, but i'd say what golden state is doin this year in a historically competitive western conference is more impressive than the bulls team winning 72 in a weak eastern conference. and we all know steph curry aint the goat....mdogg is also known to say the opposite of whatever i say. so if i say up, he'll say down. even if his team is the lakers, there has been instances where he rather argue against his own team just to go against whatever i say.. something about me subconsciously makes him feel like he needs to defeat me. but yea, showtime lakers are untouchable, and it's not even close. they woulda won all 82 games if they played in the 90s.
-
LOl@sccit saying there is no definitive GOAT and that Jordan is merely top 10.
:laugh: preach
i thought u said bill russell was the goat?
-
INice posts, MDogg. And yes, Jordan was hard to coach, he was playing out of his mind but the Bulls still couldn't get past the Pistons until Jackson and Winter really got the triangle going and coached up all the role players. And then later having to coach up the jordan-less Bulls to 55 wins and then later being able to allow dennis to be himself and having harmony with the three stars.
LOl@sccit saying there is no definitive GOAT and that Jordan is merely top 10.
Unlike Sccit, I'm not being biased because I got the one stat to back me up that you don't have. In 1996 the Bulls broke the record for most wins in a season, and then blew through the playoffs and championship to make for the most historic season of all time. Nough said.
The only claim you can make against the 72 win Bulls is the weaker competition argument but look how they dominated the Finals. The Western Confrence was stacked in the mid 90's, Spurs, Rockets, Suns, Sonics, Jazz....those are 5 teams that all could've gotten a championship.
He forgets the east was stacked in the 90's. We have had a weak east for 15 years, and people forget the east was the dominate conference through the 80's and 90's. The 8th seed in the 1996 playoffs was the Heat, who had Mourning and Tim Hardaway. That was a damn good team and they won 42 games that year. The only reason they were the 8th seed is because of injury problems. The 7th seed was the Pistons and they won 46 games. Grant Hill at his absolute best. People were calling him the next great player in the game in 1996. I mean the east was so stacked in that era. In 1987, when the Lakers won the title, they beat the Denver Nuggets in the first round, the Nuggets were 37-45 and their leading scorer was Alex English, who is in the Hall of Fame, but their number 2 was Fat Lever. The path to the finals looked way different for both teams.
1987 Lakers
Denver Nuggets 37-45
Golden State Warriors 42-40
Seattle SuperSonics 39-43
then beat Boston 59-23, after Boston went through the 40-42 Michael Jordan Bulls, the 50-32 Milwaukee Bucks and the 52-30 Detroit Pistons.
1996 Bulls,
Miami Heat 42-40
New York Knicks 47-35 (coached by Pat Riley and lead by Patrick Ewing)
Orlando Magic 60-22
then beat Seattle who was 64-18
Let's face it, in the 80's, the west was a lot like the east is today. It just was. It was Houston, the Lakers and everyone else. Once Seattle upset Houston in 1987, it was all LA to take.
-
INice posts, MDogg. And yes, Jordan was hard to coach, he was playing out of his mind but the Bulls still couldn't get past the Pistons until Jackson and Winter really got the triangle going and coached up all the role players. And then later having to coach up the jordan-less Bulls to 55 wins and then later being able to allow dennis to be himself and having harmony with the three stars.
LOl@sccit saying there is no definitive GOAT and that Jordan is merely top 10.
Unlike Sccit, I'm not being biased because I got the one stat to back me up that you don't have. In 1996 the Bulls broke the record for most wins in a season, and then blew through the playoffs and championship to make for the most historic season of all time. Nough said.
The only claim you can make against the 72 win Bulls is the weaker competition argument but look how they dominated the Finals. The Western Confrence was stacked in the mid 90's, Spurs, Rockets, Suns, Sonics, Jazz....those are 5 teams that all could've gotten a championship.
He forgets the east was stacked in the 90's. We have had a weak east for 15 years, and people forget the east was the dominate conference through the 80's and 90's. The 8th seed in the 1996 playoffs was the Heat, who had Mourning and Tim Hardaway. That was a damn good team and they won 42 games that year. The only reason they were the 8th seed is because of injury problems. The 7th seed was the Pistons and they won 46 games. Grant Hill at his absolute best. People were calling him the next great player in the game in 1996. I mean the east was so stacked in that era. In 1987, when the Lakers won the title, they beat the Denver Nuggets in the first round, the Nuggets were 37-45 and their leading scorer was Alex English, who is in the Hall of Fame, but their number 2 was Fat Lever. The path to the finals looked way different for both teams.
1987 Lakers
Denver Nuggets 37-45
Golden State Warriors 42-40
Seattle SuperSonics 39-43
then beat Boston 59-23, after Boston went through the 40-42 Michael Jordan Bulls, the 50-32 Milwaukee Bucks and the 52-30 Detroit Pistons.
1996 Bulls,
Miami Heat 42-40
New York Knicks 47-35 (coached by Pat Riley and lead by Patrick Ewing)
Orlando Magic 60-22
then beat Seattle who was 64-18
Let's face it, in the 80's, the west was a lot like the east is today. It just was. It was Houston, the Lakers and everyone else. Once Seattle upset Houston in 1987, it was all LA to take.
lol more bullshit...the east was not "dominant" in the 90s. 42 win teams are great now? smh...west in the 80s had the rockets, mavs, nuggets, lakers, blazers. only reason the records were low was because the competition was so much stronger. but u put the sleepy floyd mavs in the 90s or the alex english nuggets in the 90s and theyre easily 50 win teams. then by 97, the eastern conference (and just the league in general) was so damn watered down, you had the bullets, magic (without shaq), hornets, pistons, hawks making the playoffs....all average teams at best. but furthermore, the competition at the top wasnt NEARLY as strong as it was in the 80s...bulls didnt have a top-notch rival like the lakers had the celtics. jazz, sonics, knicks, etc were good, not great .... if u really wanna sit here and act like u think the showtime lakers wouldnt beat any team ever, then ur simply more of a sccit hater than u are a laker fan. but thats nothing new with u...uv been a fairweather laker fan+a die hard sccit fan from the get. i see u.
-
if u really wanna sit here and act like u think the showtime lakers wouldnt beat any team ever, then ur simply more of a sccit hater than u are a laker fan. but thats nothing new with u...uv been a fairweather laker fan+a die hard sccit fan from the get. i see u.
This is how I know I got you shook. You go personal.
For reals, as I've said, talent wise, roster spot 1-12, the Showtime Lakers are better than the Bulls. I'm using the 1987 Lakers BTW because that was the team with the best record. Magic>Kerr, Scott<Jordan, Worthy>Pippen (I SAID IT!), Green>Rodman, Kareem>Longley, Cooper/Rambis/Thompson>Harper/Kukoc/Wennington.
But I think in a 7 game series, Phil puts the Bulls over the Lakers. Phil can out coach Riley in his sleep, hell, he has out coached Riley in his sleep. What I saw Phil do for the Lakers in the 2000's, I am convinced that he'd fine a way to keep the Bulls focused enough to beat Showtime.
Let me say this again, PHIL JACKSON IS THE REASON THE BULLS WIN. HE'S THE REASON THE BULLS WON 171 GAMES IN TWO YEARS! My dude, that's 171 games in the NBA. I don't give a fuck what you think of the talent level, the Bulls are wrecking the fucking league. Think of that for a second, 171 GAMES! 2 years. Against Barkley, Hakeem, Shaq, Zo, Ewing, Reggie, Payton, Malone, Mutombo, Webber, Sabonis, Robinson, Rice and on and on. The NBA was WAY more talented that it is now. And it takes a hell of a lot to not slip up and lose. That is amazing focus to win 171 games and only lose 27 games. That's an .863 winning percentage. That's unheard of.
Talent wise, I agree, but Phil had that team so laser focused man, I don't think you even realize what that team accomplished. You just don't. Maybe you were too young and you can't understand. But it was something else. It's not me being a fair-weather fan, it's me being the die hard Laker fan praying that team doesn't win close to 69 games, then seeing them do it twice, and then seeing them beat future hall of fame players weekly on NBA on NBC. You might have been a little kid, but I remember it well.
-
if u really wanna sit here and act like u think the showtime lakers wouldnt beat any team ever, then ur simply more of a sccit hater than u are a laker fan. but thats nothing new with u...uv been a fairweather laker fan+a die hard sccit fan from the get. i see u.
This is how I know I got you shook. You go personal.
For reals, as I've said, talent wise, roster spot 1-12, the Showtime Lakers are better than the Bulls. I'm using the 1987 Lakers BTW because that was the team with the best record. Magic>Kerr, Scott<Jordan, Worthy>Pippen (I SAID IT!), Green>Rodman, Kareem>Longley, Cooper/Rambis/Thompson>Harper/Kukoc/Wennington.
But I think in a 7 game series, Phil puts the Bulls over the Lakers. Phil can out coach Riley in his sleep, hell, he has out coached Riley in his sleep. What I saw Phil do for the Lakers in the 2000's, I am convinced that he'd fine a way to keep the Bulls focused enough to beat Showtime.
Let me say this again, PHIL JACKSON IS THE REASON THE BULLS WIN. HE'S THE REASON THE BULLS WON 171 GAMES IN TWO YEARS! My dude, that's 171 games in the NBA. I don't give a fuck what you think of the talent level, the Bulls are wrecking the fucking league. Think of that for a second, 171 GAMES! 2 years. Against Barkley, Hakeem, Shaq, Zo, Ewing, Reggie, Payton, Malone, Mutombo, Webber, Sabonis, Robinson, Rice and on and on. The NBA was WAY more talented that it is now. And it takes a hell of a lot to not slip up and lose. That is amazing focus to win 171 games and only lose 27 games. That's an .863 winning percentage. That's unheard of.
Talent wise, I agree, but Phil had that team so laser focused man, I don't think you even realize what that team accomplished. You just don't. Maybe you were too young and you can't understand. But it was something else. It's not me being a fair-weather fan, it's me being the die hard Laker fan praying that team doesn't win close to 69 games, then seeing them do it twice, and then seeing them beat future hall of fame players weekly on NBA on NBC. You might have been a little kid, but I remember it well.
i mean, the truth is the truth....ur not arguing because u think the 90s bulls were better, ur arguing for the sake of arguing. i'm arguing for the lakers because i'm a LAKER FAN and genuinely believe those 80s laker teams were the greatest assembly of talent on one squad. but your disdain for me goes way beyond your laker fandom, so you're guna sit here and argue til death, til you feel like you can take me out. even if it goes against ur team and even if it goes against conventional knowledge....if i said bulls were better, ud argue for the lakers. it's just who u are and it couldn't be any more obvious.
tell me this, who the fuck on the bulls would stop kareem on those laker squads? because u got michael cooper on mj, u got worthy vs pippen...who u got for magic? for scott? cmon, son. it's too fuckin easy, and your entire M.O is see through.
and if u acknowledge the laker roster is far superior, phil jackson is not Houdini, and pat riley is no slouch....phil jackson vs. pat riley was never fair, because those knicks teams were slightly above average and riley got them to overachieve. if riley was coaching the bulls and phil was coaching the knicks, riley would be the easy victor as well.
and like i said, what the warriors are doing right now in a historically difficult western conference is more impressive than what the bulls did in the regular season back in the 90s...and the nba was NOT more talented back then lmao. maybe players were more SKILLED, but as far as pure talent, athleticism, physical specimens, there was no lebrons or durants or kobes back then...it was mostly second rate stars. and the speed of the game was just much slower overall.
if u dont think the pat riley lakers were laser focused, then u just should end this here....and ur laker card has once again been revoked, btw...PeACe 8)
-
LOl@sccit saying there is no definitive GOAT and that Jordan is merely top 10.
:laugh: preach
i thought u said bill russell was the goat?
the way you tried to word it was that the back end of the top 10 is equal to MJ which is just laughable.
and Kobe at 11 isn't even close.
-
LOl@sccit saying there is no definitive GOAT and that Jordan is merely top 10.
:laugh: preach
i thought u said bill russell was the goat?
the way you tried to word it was that the back end of the top 10 is equal to MJ which is just laughable.
and Kobe at 11 isn't even close.
bill russell would be closer to kawhi leanord than to a top 10 player if he played in todays nba....do u know he was the 5th leading scorer on a championship team? daymn.
and kobe is most definitely interchangeable with mj....did the stars align for his career path to be as glorious as jordan's? no. but as a player, the biggest difference between kobe and jordan was range.
-
To put the Bulls 72 win season in perspective, it would be like an MLB team winning some 140 games!
...and Sccit, the most ridiculous thing you said in this thread was attributing Jordans greatness to Stern's marketing sense. Jordan was the gold standard. Bird called him God on the basketball court. Have you heard anybody of Birds stature and integrity call Kobe God?
So it was Jordan who was such an impeccable character on and off the court that enabled Stern and Sports writers and marketers and everyone else around the game to be better and have greater success in their jobs and careers. Jordan was a sports writers dream.
The best commercial ever was the "why we believe in heros" commercial that showed Montana (who also never failed in the championship like Lebron, Magic, Kobe) hitting Dwight Clark in the endzone and then Jordan who never ever failed to win on the biggest stage. The Bulls never failed but the Lakers did fail at times in the championship.
-
lol @ nik debating the greatness of Bill Russell :laugh:
-
To put the Bulls 72 win season in perspective, it would be like an MLB team winning some 140 games!
...and Sccit, the most ridiculous thing you said in this thread was attributing Jordans greatness to Stern's marketing sense. Jordan was the gold standard. Bird called him God on the basketball court. Have you heard anybody of Birds stature and integrity call Kobe God?
So it was Jordan who was such an impeccable character on and off the court that enabled Stern and Sports writers and marketers and everyone else around the game to be better and have greater success in their jobs and careers. Jordan was a sports writers dream.
The best commercial ever was the "why we believe in heros" commercial that showed Montana (who also never failed in the championship like Lebron, Magic, Kobe) hitting Dwight Clark in the endzone and then Jordan who never ever failed to win on the biggest stage. The Bulls never failed but the Lakers did fail at times in the championship.
jordan failed plenty of times to even make the finals....and kobe was a western conference champion 7 times, which is 1 more than jordan. so failing in the eastern conference finals is actually worse than failing in the finals. but if you dont know that jordan came into the NBA at the PERFECT time, right when marketing individual players took off, and that stern made jordan like his son, then u just aint knowin bruh....was jordan great? no doubt. but there have been many greats in this game, and if they were drafted in 84 and handed a key to a franchise like the bulls with a coach like phil jackson and a robin like scottie pippen for the duration of their prime, then they too would be held to Godly stature by those who grew up in that era....Dennis Rodman says Magic was the GOAT. Brandon Jennings said earlier this year that Kobe was the GOAT. Michael Cooper said Larry Bird was tougher to defend than Michael Jordan...so if we go based on what players say, we'll have a lot of different answers. but the fact of the matter is, Jordan's stature was elevated by Nike, Gatorade, Space Jam, Wheaties, Stern making him untouchable on the court etc....and that sticks in the sheeples minds. but he is not individually better than any other NBA top-tier great, because as I said, they're all the best at what they do.
-
i mean, the truth is the truth....ur not arguing because u think the 90s bulls were better, ur arguing for the sake of arguing. i'm arguing for the lakers because i'm a LAKER FAN and genuinely believe those 80s laker teams were the greatest assembly of talent on one squad. but your disdain for me goes way beyond your laker fandom, so you're guna sit here and argue til death, til you feel like you can take me out. even if it goes against ur team and even if it goes against conventional knowledge....if i said bulls were better, ud argue for the lakers. it's just who u are and it couldn't be any more obvious.
tell me this, who the fuck on the bulls would stop kareem on those laker squads? because u got michael cooper on mj, u got worthy vs pippen...who u got for magic? for scott? cmon, son. it's too fuckin easy, and your entire M.O is see through.
and if u acknowledge the laker roster is far superior, phil jackson is not Houdini, and pat riley is no slouch....phil jackson vs. pat riley was never fair, because those knicks teams were slightly above average and riley got them to overachieve. if riley was coaching the bulls and phil was coaching the knicks, riley would be the easy victor as well.
and like i said, what the warriors are doing right now in a historically difficult western conference is more impressive than what the bulls did in the regular season back in the 90s...and the nba was NOT more talented back then lmao. maybe players were more SKILLED, but as far as pure talent, athleticism, physical specimens, there was no lebrons or durants or kobes back then...it was mostly second rate stars. and the speed of the game was just much slower overall.
if u dont think the pat riley lakers were laser focused, then u just should end this here....and ur laker card has once again been revoked, btw...PeACe 8)
I want you to understand something. I've been rooting for the Lakers long before you knew what the sport of basketball is. I have spent years watching the Lakers, and the era we are talking about, I didn't miss a single Laker game. I watched Primeticket for home games and KCAL 9 every road game. I want you to know this, because you think you are such a great Laker fan for arguing the wrong side all for your love of the Purple and Gold. I started to think why you'd be so blind to fact, and then it dawned on me, you never saw the 1995-1996 Bulls. You didn't see them in action.
Fact, Showtime was the greatest collection of talent ever assembled. Also fact, the 1995-1996 Chicago Bulls was the best team I ever saw, including any other Lakers teams and including the Showtime Lakers I saw. When I watched the Showtime Lakers, it looked so easy for them, yet the competition they played also wasn't as good as it was in the 90's. I saw both decades, and the 90's had greater competition. The 1996 Chicago Bulls as a team, fuck Jordan, were as a team dominated the NBA in a way never done before or since. Dominated the best teams on the way to the NBA Finals against the best. They did it better than any other team ever did, and you can't take that away from them.
Let's put it like this. when Jordan bought into a system, it was over for the NBA, because that meant he was willing to be coached. Against the 1987 Lakers, the 1996 Bulls would have found a way to win. That might be the biggest difference I ever saw between the Bulls and any other team. I saw Kobe try to will the Lakers back only to lose, I saw Duncan look defeated as he walked off the court and he knew the Spurs couldn't beat the Lakers, I saw LeBron choke, but I never saw Jordan ever look defeated, I never saw Jordan fail once he was able to win. The Bulls as a team were defined by being the best, and the Bulls would have found a way to win. Jordan would have cover Magic, Kerr on Scott, Pippen on Worthy, Longley on Green and Rodman on Kareem. The Bulls might have been the most unconventional team in terms of covering their position. But at the end of the day, Phil would find match ups to win. That's what he did best. He altered the triangle to fit Jordan. He would have found a way.
And let's not act like the Bulls and Lakers were that far apart in terms of talent. The Lakers won most the match ups, but it's not like Pippen is a scrub, or Rodman is a scrub, or Kerr is a scrub. But if the Bulls are that bad, maybe Jordan is the GOAT over Kobe, since he won more games and more titles with lesser talent?
jordan failed plenty of times to even make the finals....and kobe was a western conference champion 7 times, which is 1 more than jordan. so failing in the eastern conference finals is actually worse than failing in the finals. but if you dont know that jordan came into the NBA at the PERFECT time, right when marketing individual players took off, and that stern made jordan like his son, then u just aint knowin bruh....was jordan great? no doubt. but there have been many greats in this game, and if they were drafted in 84 and handed a key to a franchise like the bulls with a coach like phil jackson and a robin like scottie pippen for the duration of their prime, then they too would be held to Godly stature by those who grew up in that era....Dennis Rodman says Magic was the GOAT. Brandon Jennings said earlier this year that Kobe was the GOAT. Michael Cooper said Larry Bird was tougher to defend than Michael Jordan...so if we go based on what players say, we'll have a lot of different answers. but the fact of the matter is, Jordan's stature was elevated by Nike, Gatorade, Space Jam, Wheaties, Stern making him untouchable on the court etc....and that sticks in the sheeples minds. but he is not individually better than any other NBA top-tier great, because as I said, they're all the best at what they do.
I wouldn't argue Jordan as the GOAT, but I will say that you are trying to hard for this one.
-
Showtime Lakers were so scared of the 85-86 Celtics they lost to Houston to avoid playing them :laugh:
-
Showtime Lakers were so scared of the 85-86 Celtics they lost to Houston to avoid playing them :laugh:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
(http://www.lakersuniverse.com/pictures/images/lakers_vs_celtics_1988_celebration.jpg)
-
i mean, the truth is the truth....ur not arguing because u think the 90s bulls were better, ur arguing for the sake of arguing. i'm arguing for the lakers because i'm a LAKER FAN and genuinely believe those 80s laker teams were the greatest assembly of talent on one squad. but your disdain for me goes way beyond your laker fandom, so you're guna sit here and argue til death, til you feel like you can take me out. even if it goes against ur team and even if it goes against conventional knowledge....if i said bulls were better, ud argue for the lakers. it's just who u are and it couldn't be any more obvious.
tell me this, who the fuck on the bulls would stop kareem on those laker squads? because u got michael cooper on mj, u got worthy vs pippen...who u got for magic? for scott? cmon, son. it's too fuckin easy, and your entire M.O is see through.
and if u acknowledge the laker roster is far superior, phil jackson is not Houdini, and pat riley is no slouch....phil jackson vs. pat riley was never fair, because those knicks teams were slightly above average and riley got them to overachieve. if riley was coaching the bulls and phil was coaching the knicks, riley would be the easy victor as well.
and like i said, what the warriors are doing right now in a historically difficult western conference is more impressive than what the bulls did in the regular season back in the 90s...and the nba was NOT more talented back then lmao. maybe players were more SKILLED, but as far as pure talent, athleticism, physical specimens, there was no lebrons or durants or kobes back then...it was mostly second rate stars. and the speed of the game was just much slower overall.
if u dont think the pat riley lakers were laser focused, then u just should end this here....and ur laker card has once again been revoked, btw...PeACe 8)
I want you to understand something. I've been rooting for the Lakers long before you knew what the sport of basketball is. I have spent years watching the Lakers, and the era we are talking about, I didn't miss a single Laker game. I watched Primeticket for home games and KCAL 9 every road game. I want you to know this, because you think you are such a great Laker fan for arguing the wrong side all for your love of the Purple and Gold. I started to think why you'd be so blind to fact, and then it dawned on me, you never saw the 1995-1996 Bulls. You didn't see them in action.
Fact, Showtime was the greatest collection of talent ever assembled. Also fact, the 1995-1996 Chicago Bulls was the best team I ever saw, including any other Lakers teams and including the Showtime Lakers I saw. When I watched the Showtime Lakers, it looked so easy for them, yet the competition they played also wasn't as good as it was in the 90's. I saw both decades, and the 90's had greater competition. The 1996 Chicago Bulls as a team, fuck Jordan, were as a team dominated the NBA in a way never done before or since. Dominated the best teams on the way to the NBA Finals against the best. They did it better than any other team ever did, and you can't take that away from them.
Let's put it like this. when Jordan bought into a system, it was over for the NBA, because that meant he was willing to be coached. Against the 1987 Lakers, the 1996 Bulls would have found a way to win. That might be the biggest difference I ever saw between the Bulls and any other team. I saw Kobe try to will the Lakers back only to lose, I saw Duncan look defeated as he walked off the court and he knew the Spurs couldn't beat the Lakers, I saw LeBron choke, but I never saw Jordan ever look defeated, I never saw Jordan fail once he was able to win. The Bulls as a team were defined by being the best, and the Bulls would have found a way to win. Jordan would have cover Magic, Kerr on Scott, Pippen on Worthy, Longley on Green and Rodman on Kareem. The Bulls might have been the most unconventional team in terms of covering their position. But at the end of the day, Phil would find match ups to win. That's what he did best. He altered the triangle to fit Jordan. He would have found a way.
And let's not act like the Bulls and Lakers were that far apart in terms of talent. The Lakers won most the match ups, but it's not like Pippen is a scrub, or Rodman is a scrub, or Kerr is a scrub. But if the Bulls are that bad, maybe Jordan is the GOAT over Kobe, since he won more games and more titles with lesser talent?
jordan failed plenty of times to even make the finals....and kobe was a western conference champion 7 times, which is 1 more than jordan. so failing in the eastern conference finals is actually worse than failing in the finals. but if you dont know that jordan came into the NBA at the PERFECT time, right when marketing individual players took off, and that stern made jordan like his son, then u just aint knowin bruh....was jordan great? no doubt. but there have been many greats in this game, and if they were drafted in 84 and handed a key to a franchise like the bulls with a coach like phil jackson and a robin like scottie pippen for the duration of their prime, then they too would be held to Godly stature by those who grew up in that era....Dennis Rodman says Magic was the GOAT. Brandon Jennings said earlier this year that Kobe was the GOAT. Michael Cooper said Larry Bird was tougher to defend than Michael Jordan...so if we go based on what players say, we'll have a lot of different answers. but the fact of the matter is, Jordan's stature was elevated by Nike, Gatorade, Space Jam, Wheaties, Stern making him untouchable on the court etc....and that sticks in the sheeples minds. but he is not individually better than any other NBA top-tier great, because as I said, they're all the best at what they do.
I wouldn't argue Jordan as the GOAT, but I will say that you are trying to hard for this one.
lol@basing your entire argument on a lie....i definitely watched the 96 bulls. in fact, i was a basketball FANATIC back in elementary, collecting cards and alla that. I remember that season VERY well, because that was the season that Magic returned, and I was hyped as fuck, watchin every last game, all 48 minutes....and lemme tell u, it always came down to a last minute shot with the bulls. it wasnt like they were sweepin teams in the finals and blowin them out. shit was highly competitive. and like i keep sayin, if they went to 6 games on a last second shot against the fuckin jazz, then the showtime lakers woulda SWEPT them. it wouldnt even be close, really. i mean, who the fuck would stop kareem and even magic?? because u have fair match-ups wit jordan and pippen, but no one can stop magic and especially not kareem....but keep arguin just for the sake of argument. i dont think ive ever heard a true laker fan say anything other than the showtime lakers being head-and-shoulders above any other team as the GOAT squad. for fucks sake, u had 2 top 5 players of ALL TIME on the same fuckin squad...and ur fairweather ass is willin to sit here and argue against that, not because u truly believe it, but rather because u wanna continue wit the "sccit killa" legacy....only you couldnt take me out in keystyle, so uve taken it to the sports section. come on, bro. i see u, and i got nothin but love for u, but stop wit the fuckery.
-
and lmfaosmmmfh@the bulls had greater competition...lets see, 80s celtics/pistons or 90s jazz/sonics, 80s celtics/pistons or 90s jazz/sonics? hmmmmmm???
ur way outa pocket brodie. it's not even funny anymore.
-
but I never saw Jordan ever look defeated, I never saw Jordan fail once he was able to win.
lol so explain the 95 playoffs, where jordan got shitted on by the orlando magic of all teams......yea, uve been brainwashed by marketing/media, just like most of the world LOL. smh@"jordan was never defeated once he figured how to win"....the Bulls were actually better in 94 minus Jordan than they were when he came back. he is the definition of a great player propelled by marketing, and cats like u who are easily swayed, and infinite, who is in love with that era, will never face the truth. it's just sad hearin this fuckery come from ur mouth, considering ur sposta be a laker fan, and it's the consensus amongst laker nation that showtime lakers are unfucwitable.
maybe Jordan is the GOAT over Kobe, since he won more games and more titles with lesser talent?
LOL...those teams where Gasol was the second fiddle wouldnt have made the playoffs witout kobe. it's just not even close. 96 bulls minus MJ >>>>>>>> 09 lakers minus kobe, and despite the fact that u like to argue for the sake of argument, i know even u wouldnt be fuckin dumb enough to agrue that one.
-
i mean, the truth is the truth....ur not arguing because u think the 90s bulls were better, ur arguing for the sake of arguing. i'm arguing for the lakers because i'm a LAKER FAN and genuinely believe those 80s laker teams were the greatest assembly of talent on one squad. but your disdain for me goes way beyond your laker fandom, so you're guna sit here and argue til death, til you feel like you can take me out. even if it goes against ur team and even if it goes against conventional knowledge....if i said bulls were better, ud argue for the lakers. it's just who u are and it couldn't be any more obvious.
tell me this, who the fuck on the bulls would stop kareem on those laker squads? because u got michael cooper on mj, u got worthy vs pippen...who u got for magic? for scott? cmon, son. it's too fuckin easy, and your entire M.O is see through.
and if u acknowledge the laker roster is far superior, phil jackson is not Houdini, and pat riley is no slouch....phil jackson vs. pat riley was never fair, because those knicks teams were slightly above average and riley got them to overachieve. if riley was coaching the bulls and phil was coaching the knicks, riley would be the easy victor as well.
and like i said, what the warriors are doing right now in a historically difficult western conference is more impressive than what the bulls did in the regular season back in the 90s...and the nba was NOT more talented back then lmao. maybe players were more SKILLED, but as far as pure talent, athleticism, physical specimens, there was no lebrons or durants or kobes back then...it was mostly second rate stars. and the speed of the game was just much slower overall.
if u dont think the pat riley lakers were laser focused, then u just should end this here....and ur laker card has once again been revoked, btw...PeACe 8)
I want you to understand something. I've been rooting for the Lakers long before you knew what the sport of basketball is. I have spent years watching the Lakers, and the era we are talking about, I didn't miss a single Laker game. I watched Primeticket for home games and KCAL 9 every road game. I want you to know this, because you think you are such a great Laker fan for arguing the wrong side all for your love of the Purple and Gold. I started to think why you'd be so blind to fact, and then it dawned on me, you never saw the 1995-1996 Bulls. You didn't see them in action.
Fact, Showtime was the greatest collection of talent ever assembled. Also fact, the 1995-1996 Chicago Bulls was the best team I ever saw, including any other Lakers teams and including the Showtime Lakers I saw. When I watched the Showtime Lakers, it looked so easy for them, yet the competition they played also wasn't as good as it was in the 90's. I saw both decades, and the 90's had greater competition. The 1996 Chicago Bulls as a team, fuck Jordan, were as a team dominated the NBA in a way never done before or since. Dominated the best teams on the way to the NBA Finals against the best. They did it better than any other team ever did, and you can't take that away from them.
Let's put it like this. when Jordan bought into a system, it was over for the NBA, because that meant he was willing to be coached. Against the 1987 Lakers, the 1996 Bulls would have found a way to win. That might be the biggest difference I ever saw between the Bulls and any other team. I saw Kobe try to will the Lakers back only to lose, I saw Duncan look defeated as he walked off the court and he knew the Spurs couldn't beat the Lakers, I saw LeBron choke, but I never saw Jordan ever look defeated, I never saw Jordan fail once he was able to win. The Bulls as a team were defined by being the best, and the Bulls would have found a way to win. Jordan would have cover Magic, Kerr on Scott, Pippen on Worthy, Longley on Green and Rodman on Kareem. The Bulls might have been the most unconventional team in terms of covering their position. But at the end of the day, Phil would find match ups to win. That's what he did best. He altered the triangle to fit Jordan. He would have found a way.
And let's not act like the Bulls and Lakers were that far apart in terms of talent. The Lakers won most the match ups, but it's not like Pippen is a scrub, or Rodman is a scrub, or Kerr is a scrub. But if the Bulls are that bad, maybe Jordan is the GOAT over Kobe, since he won more games and more titles with lesser talent?
jordan failed plenty of times to even make the finals....and kobe was a western conference champion 7 times, which is 1 more than jordan. so failing in the eastern conference finals is actually worse than failing in the finals. but if you dont know that jordan came into the NBA at the PERFECT time, right when marketing individual players took off, and that stern made jordan like his son, then u just aint knowin bruh....was jordan great? no doubt. but there have been many greats in this game, and if they were drafted in 84 and handed a key to a franchise like the bulls with a coach like phil jackson and a robin like scottie pippen for the duration of their prime, then they too would be held to Godly stature by those who grew up in that era....Dennis Rodman says Magic was the GOAT. Brandon Jennings said earlier this year that Kobe was the GOAT. Michael Cooper said Larry Bird was tougher to defend than Michael Jordan...so if we go based on what players say, we'll have a lot of different answers. but the fact of the matter is, Jordan's stature was elevated by Nike, Gatorade, Space Jam, Wheaties, Stern making him untouchable on the court etc....and that sticks in the sheeples minds. but he is not individually better than any other NBA top-tier great, because as I said, they're all the best at what they do.
I wouldn't argue Jordan as the GOAT, but I will say that you are trying to hard for this one.
lol@basing your entire argument on a lie....i definitely watched the 96 bulls. in fact, i was a basketball FANATIC back in elementary, collecting cards and alla that. I remember that season VERY well, because that was the season that Magic returned, and I was hyped as fuck, watchin every last game, all 48 minutes....and lemme tell u, it always came down to a last minute shot with the bulls. it wasnt like they were sweepin teams in the finals and blowin them out. shit was highly competitive. and like i keep sayin, if they went to 6 games on a last second shot against the fuckin jazz, then the showtime lakers woulda SWEPT them. it wouldnt even be close, really. i mean, who the fuck would stop kareem and even magic?? because u have fair match-ups wit jordan and pippen, but no one can stop magic and especially not kareem....but keep arguin just for the sake of argument. i dont think ive ever heard a true laker fan say anything other than the showtime lakers being head-and-shoulders above any other team as the GOAT squad. for fucks sake, u had 2 top 5 players of ALL TIME on the same fuckin squad...and ur fairweather ass is willin to sit here and argue against that, not because u truly believe it, but rather because u wanna continue wit the "sccit killa" legacy....only you couldnt take me out in keystyle, so uve taken it to the sports section. come on, bro. i see u, and i got nothin but love for u, but stop wit the fuckery.
Oh Sccit, Sccit, Sccit. Here is the thing. I have backed you up so much in your quest for Laker supremacy, when I felt it was needed. Right now I could care less about keystyles, especially because we had to change the rules on voting back then because you had all your friends vote when everyone agreed I won. But that's over 12 years ago, why bother with that, it's almost a fitting part of history because it WAS who you are, and not WHO you are NOW. So really, I could care less about that.
My thing is this. I think you've been out of line here. I think that you grew up with younger Laker fans who are use to being the best all the time. And it's part of the Laker's legacy to be the best. But there was a time when I watched basketball and this wasn't true. And it was in the best period of basketball I ever saw. It was the last time both conferences were good, actually the only time both conferences were good. But since I can list facts and you'll say I'm out of line and a fairweather Laker fan, I'll just argue like you.
90's NBA was better, if you don't know this then you're not a real basketball fan.
The Bulls in the 90's broke a record that will never be broken, are you blind?
Of course Showtime swept teams, the combined record for those teams were 118-128. The Bulls face a combined 149-97. ur way outa pocket brodie.
As I've said over and over again. As a Laker fan, I can give a fuck about having the GOAT player on the Laker roster, the greatest team ever. The Bulls can have the greatest team ever, it took me 15 years to accept that, trust me, it really, really hurt when the Bulls broke that record. It really did. I was praying Jordan would break a leg. My hatred for Jordan was WORST than your hatred for LeBron, and it was heighten because Jordan always won. But at the end of the day, I have learn to accept that maybe the Bulls had the best team, maybe Jordan was the GOAT player (Magic is still my favorite), but the Bulls ain't ever getting close to 16 rings in my lifetime and Jordan is long gone and it's on to the next generation. Fuck arguing for my team on all these stupid arguments when the only argument that matters is...
(http://i47.tinypic.com/afamps.jpg)
Since 1996, I ain't ever seen a team win like the Bulls did. It was fucking crazy, against the best. First round against the Heat, which any other year the Heat as the 8th seed would have been dangerous because they only were 8th seed because of injury. They were 1996's version of the Thunder (minus another Durant injury). Next round, the Knicks who were their long time playoff rivalry. Poor Pat Riley. Finally they played the Magic, who beat them the year prior and had Shaq, who no one can stop.
Oh, speaking of Shaq, you ask who can stop Kareem. Kareem in 1987 averaged 17.5ppg, 6.7rpg, with a 56.4% fg. Shaq averaged 26.6ppg, 11rpg, with a 57.3% fg. Not say Shaq was at his best, but 1996 Shaq>>>1987 Kareem. And the Bulls beat that Magic team with Penny at his best, Horace Grant in his prime. And the Bulls swept the Magic. Hell they swept the Heat and only lose one game to the Knicks.
This whole all the series and games were close is Bull....... They struggled the most against the Supersonics, and many said it was a conspiracy to have the Bulls win in Chicago. The Bulls were up 3-1 in Seattle, and basically gave that game 5 to Seattle. But before that, they only lost 1 game in the playoffs. Come on man, you should remember this.
And getting swept was talked about a lot when Shaq left, and some felt that Shaq leaving was good because he always got swept out the playoffs. But yeah.
Come on man, stop making up shit as you go.
-
but I never saw Jordan ever look defeated, I never saw Jordan fail once he was able to win.
lol so explain the 95 playoffs, where jordan got shitted on by the orlando magic of all teams......yea, uve been brainwashed by marketing/media, just like most of the world LOL. smh@"jordan was never defeated once he figured how to win"....the Bulls were actually better in 94 minus Jordan than they were when he came back. he is the definition of a great player propelled by marketing, and cats like u who are easily swayed, and infinite, who is in love with that era, will never face the truth. it's just sad hearin this fuckery come from ur mouth, considering ur sposta be a laker fan, and it's the consensus amongst laker nation that showtime lakers are unfucwitable.
maybe Jordan is the GOAT over Kobe, since he won more games and more titles with lesser talent?
LOL...those teams where Gasol was the second fiddle wouldnt have made the playoffs witout kobe. it's just not even close. 96 bulls minus MJ >>>>>>>> 09 lakers minus kobe, and despite the fact that u like to argue for the sake of argument, i know even u wouldnt be fuckin dumb enough to agrue that one.
Oh, the Gasol argument I threw in there because you're arguing out both sides your mouth.
The 1996 Bulls are all bums, so they can't possibility beat Showtime, yet the year before they are so good, better without Jordan in fact, and they could have won it all without him. But Kobe still had the worst teammates of all time, so therefore he is the GOAT. You are completely talking out your ass and it's really embarrassing. Come on man, you are better than this.
-
i mean, the truth is the truth....ur not arguing because u think the 90s bulls were better, ur arguing for the sake of arguing. i'm arguing for the lakers because i'm a LAKER FAN and genuinely believe those 80s laker teams were the greatest assembly of talent on one squad. but your disdain for me goes way beyond your laker fandom, so you're guna sit here and argue til death, til you feel like you can take me out. even if it goes against ur team and even if it goes against conventional knowledge....if i said bulls were better, ud argue for the lakers. it's just who u are and it couldn't be any more obvious.
tell me this, who the fuck on the bulls would stop kareem on those laker squads? because u got michael cooper on mj, u got worthy vs pippen...who u got for magic? for scott? cmon, son. it's too fuckin easy, and your entire M.O is see through.
and if u acknowledge the laker roster is far superior, phil jackson is not Houdini, and pat riley is no slouch....phil jackson vs. pat riley was never fair, because those knicks teams were slightly above average and riley got them to overachieve. if riley was coaching the bulls and phil was coaching the knicks, riley would be the easy victor as well.
and like i said, what the warriors are doing right now in a historically difficult western conference is more impressive than what the bulls did in the regular season back in the 90s...and the nba was NOT more talented back then lmao. maybe players were more SKILLED, but as far as pure talent, athleticism, physical specimens, there was no lebrons or durants or kobes back then...it was mostly second rate stars. and the speed of the game was just much slower overall.
if u dont think the pat riley lakers were laser focused, then u just should end this here....and ur laker card has once again been revoked, btw...PeACe 8)
I want you to understand something. I've been rooting for the Lakers long before you knew what the sport of basketball is. I have spent years watching the Lakers, and the era we are talking about, I didn't miss a single Laker game. I watched Primeticket for home games and KCAL 9 every road game. I want you to know this, because you think you are such a great Laker fan for arguing the wrong side all for your love of the Purple and Gold. I started to think why you'd be so blind to fact, and then it dawned on me, you never saw the 1995-1996 Bulls. You didn't see them in action.
Fact, Showtime was the greatest collection of talent ever assembled. Also fact, the 1995-1996 Chicago Bulls was the best team I ever saw, including any other Lakers teams and including the Showtime Lakers I saw. When I watched the Showtime Lakers, it looked so easy for them, yet the competition they played also wasn't as good as it was in the 90's. I saw both decades, and the 90's had greater competition. The 1996 Chicago Bulls as a team, fuck Jordan, were as a team dominated the NBA in a way never done before or since. Dominated the best teams on the way to the NBA Finals against the best. They did it better than any other team ever did, and you can't take that away from them.
Let's put it like this. when Jordan bought into a system, it was over for the NBA, because that meant he was willing to be coached. Against the 1987 Lakers, the 1996 Bulls would have found a way to win. That might be the biggest difference I ever saw between the Bulls and any other team. I saw Kobe try to will the Lakers back only to lose, I saw Duncan look defeated as he walked off the court and he knew the Spurs couldn't beat the Lakers, I saw LeBron choke, but I never saw Jordan ever look defeated, I never saw Jordan fail once he was able to win. The Bulls as a team were defined by being the best, and the Bulls would have found a way to win. Jordan would have cover Magic, Kerr on Scott, Pippen on Worthy, Longley on Green and Rodman on Kareem. The Bulls might have been the most unconventional team in terms of covering their position. But at the end of the day, Phil would find match ups to win. That's what he did best. He altered the triangle to fit Jordan. He would have found a way.
And let's not act like the Bulls and Lakers were that far apart in terms of talent. The Lakers won most the match ups, but it's not like Pippen is a scrub, or Rodman is a scrub, or Kerr is a scrub. But if the Bulls are that bad, maybe Jordan is the GOAT over Kobe, since he won more games and more titles with lesser talent?
jordan failed plenty of times to even make the finals....and kobe was a western conference champion 7 times, which is 1 more than jordan. so failing in the eastern conference finals is actually worse than failing in the finals. but if you dont know that jordan came into the NBA at the PERFECT time, right when marketing individual players took off, and that stern made jordan like his son, then u just aint knowin bruh....was jordan great? no doubt. but there have been many greats in this game, and if they were drafted in 84 and handed a key to a franchise like the bulls with a coach like phil jackson and a robin like scottie pippen for the duration of their prime, then they too would be held to Godly stature by those who grew up in that era....Dennis Rodman says Magic was the GOAT. Brandon Jennings said earlier this year that Kobe was the GOAT. Michael Cooper said Larry Bird was tougher to defend than Michael Jordan...so if we go based on what players say, we'll have a lot of different answers. but the fact of the matter is, Jordan's stature was elevated by Nike, Gatorade, Space Jam, Wheaties, Stern making him untouchable on the court etc....and that sticks in the sheeples minds. but he is not individually better than any other NBA top-tier great, because as I said, they're all the best at what they do.
I wouldn't argue Jordan as the GOAT, but I will say that you are trying to hard for this one.
lol@basing your entire argument on a lie....i definitely watched the 96 bulls. in fact, i was a basketball FANATIC back in elementary, collecting cards and alla that. I remember that season VERY well, because that was the season that Magic returned, and I was hyped as fuck, watchin every last game, all 48 minutes....and lemme tell u, it always came down to a last minute shot with the bulls. it wasnt like they were sweepin teams in the finals and blowin them out. shit was highly competitive. and like i keep sayin, if they went to 6 games on a last second shot against the fuckin jazz, then the showtime lakers woulda SWEPT them. it wouldnt even be close, really. i mean, who the fuck would stop kareem and even magic?? because u have fair match-ups wit jordan and pippen, but no one can stop magic and especially not kareem....but keep arguin just for the sake of argument. i dont think ive ever heard a true laker fan say anything other than the showtime lakers being head-and-shoulders above any other team as the GOAT squad. for fucks sake, u had 2 top 5 players of ALL TIME on the same fuckin squad...and ur fairweather ass is willin to sit here and argue against that, not because u truly believe it, but rather because u wanna continue wit the "sccit killa" legacy....only you couldnt take me out in keystyle, so uve taken it to the sports section. come on, bro. i see u, and i got nothin but love for u, but stop wit the fuckery.
Oh Sccit, Sccit, Sccit. Here is the thing. I have backed you up so much in your quest for Laker supremacy, when I felt it was needed. Right now I could care less about keystyles, especially because we had to change the rules on voting back then because you had all your friends vote when everyone agreed I won. But that's over 12 years ago, why bother with that, it's almost a fitting part of history because it WAS who you are, and not WHO you are NOW. So really, I could care less about that.
My thing is this. I think you've been out of line here. I think that you grew up with younger Laker fans who are use to being the best all the time. And it's part of the Laker's legacy to be the best. But there was a time when I watched basketball and this wasn't true. And it was in the best period of basketball I ever saw. It was the last time both conferences were good, actually the only time both conferences were good. But since I can list facts and you'll say I'm out of line and a fairweather Laker fan, I'll just argue like you.
90's NBA was better, if you don't know this then you're not a real basketball fan.
The Bulls in the 90's broke a record that will never be broken, are you blind?
Of course Showtime swept teams, the combined record for those teams were 118-128. The Bulls face a combined 149-97. ur way outa pocket brodie.
As I've said over and over again. As a Laker fan, I can give a fuck about having the GOAT player on the Laker roster, the greatest team ever. The Bulls can have the greatest team ever, it took me 15 years to accept that, trust me, it really, really hurt when the Bulls broke that record. It really did. I was praying Jordan would break a leg. My hatred for Jordan was WORST than your hatred for LeBron, and it was heighten because Jordan always won. But at the end of the day, I have learn to accept that maybe the Bulls had the best team, maybe Jordan was the GOAT player (Magic is still my favorite), but the Bulls ain't ever getting close to 16 rings in my lifetime and Jordan is long gone and it's on to the next generation. Fuck arguing for my team on all these stupid arguments when the only argument that matters is...
(http://i47.tinypic.com/afamps.jpg)
Since 1996, I ain't ever seen a team win like the Bulls did. It was fucking crazy, against the best. First round against the Heat, which any other year the Heat as the 8th seed would have been dangerous because they only were 8th seed because of injury. They were 1996's version of the Thunder (minus another Durant injury). Next round, the Knicks who were their long time playoff rivalry. Poor Pat Riley. Finally they played the Magic, who beat them the year prior and had Shaq, who no one can stop.
Oh, speaking of Shaq, you ask who can stop Kareem. Kareem in 1987 averaged 17.5ppg, 6.7rpg, with a 56.4% fg. Shaq averaged 26.6ppg, 11rpg, with a 57.3% fg. Not say Shaq was at his best, but 1996 Shaq>>>1987 Kareem. And the Bulls beat that Magic team with Penny at his best, Horace Grant in his prime. And the Bulls swept the Magic. Hell they swept the Heat and only lose one game to the Knicks.
This whole all the series and games were close is Bull....... They struggled the most against the Supersonics, and many said it was a conspiracy to have the Bulls win in Chicago. The Bulls were up 3-1 in Seattle, and basically gave that game 5 to Seattle. But before that, they only lost 1 game in the playoffs. Come on man, you should remember this.
And getting swept was talked about a lot when Shaq left, and some felt that Shaq leaving was good because he always got swept out the playoffs. But yeah.
Come on man, stop making up shit as you go.
lmao what are u talkin about in regards to the keystyles, i beat u in a time where i was clearly the most hated here...."friends" my ass, u know ive shitted on u under literally every circumstance.....and u holdin it in, i see u.
and ur strugglin to come up wit decent arguments....like i said, lakers of the 80s had TWO TOP FIVE PLAYERS....OF ALL TIME. No one could stop worthy, magic, kareem, AND scott. it's just too much. and u keep actin like bulls dominated when they were winnin in 6 games on last second shots....just stop it, g.
and again, like i said 72 games is impressive, but not as impressive as what the warriors are doin this year....and definitely not as impressive as the 33 straight lakers won. at the end of the day, that 72 was great, but if they were playin against teams like the lakers, pistons, and celtics, thats another 10 losses right there. 62-20...impressive, but not historically.
stop arguing against showtime.....it's just a bad look overall homie.
-
but I never saw Jordan ever look defeated, I never saw Jordan fail once he was able to win.
lol so explain the 95 playoffs, where jordan got shitted on by the orlando magic of all teams......yea, uve been brainwashed by marketing/media, just like most of the world LOL. smh@"jordan was never defeated once he figured how to win"....the Bulls were actually better in 94 minus Jordan than they were when he came back. he is the definition of a great player propelled by marketing, and cats like u who are easily swayed, and infinite, who is in love with that era, will never face the truth. it's just sad hearin this fuckery come from ur mouth, considering ur sposta be a laker fan, and it's the consensus amongst laker nation that showtime lakers are unfucwitable.
maybe Jordan is the GOAT over Kobe, since he won more games and more titles with lesser talent?
LOL...those teams where Gasol was the second fiddle wouldnt have made the playoffs witout kobe. it's just not even close. 96 bulls minus MJ >>>>>>>> 09 lakers minus kobe, and despite the fact that u like to argue for the sake of argument, i know even u wouldnt be fuckin dumb enough to agrue that one.
Oh, the Gasol argument I threw in there because you're arguing out both sides your mouth.
The 1996 Bulls are all bums, so they can't possibility beat Showtime, yet the year before they are so good, better without Jordan in fact, and they could have won it all without him. But Kobe still had the worst teammates of all time, so therefore he is the GOAT. You are completely talking out your ass and it's really embarrassing. Come on man, you are better than this.
where did i say the bulls are bums? they were a GREAT team.....but not nearly as great as the showtime lakers, and thats a fact. dont believe me? which team had more hall of famers?? it's not that the showtime lakers were better...it's that it's not even close. shit, the out of prime 91 lakers woulda beaten the bulls if it werent for a worthy injury. it's just not close bruh.
-
lmao what are u talkin about in regards to the keystyles, i beat u in a time where i was clearly the most hated here...."friends" my ass, u know ive shitted on u under literally every circumstance.....and u holdin it in, i see u.
and ur strugglin to come up wit decent arguments....like i said, lakers of the 80s had TWO TOP FIVE PLAYERS....OF ALL TIME. No one could stop worthy, magic, kareem, AND scott. it's just too much. and u keep actin like bulls dominated when they were winnin in 6 games on last second shots....just stop it, g.
and again, like i said 72 games is impressive, but not as impressive as what the warriors are doin this year....and definitely not as impressive as the 33 straight lakers won. at the end of the day, that 72 was great, but if they were playin against teams like the lakers, pistons, and celtics, thats another 10 losses right there. 62-20...impressive, but not historically.
stop arguing against showtime.....it's just a bad look overall homie.
Man, how many times do I have to repost those battles were I'm up 2-0, and then 3 or 4 of your old friends like Roccy all vote for you in like 10 minutes and then you win. We had to change the rules to no members of crews voting and everything because you use to pull that off, not just to me, but others as well... LOL... but I understand you were a 16 year old kid at the time. It's all good, it's very fitting for that era. But it was funny.
As for this whole argument, I think it comes down to a general disagreement on when was the NBA at it's best, the 80's or 90's. You see, I look at the NBA in the 90's and I think that's when it was at it's best because it seems like every team at the time had a superstar player, and not a single team was an easy win night after night. Each and every night you went into an arena, the team across from you was not tanking, they were playing to win every night and it seemed like every team at the time had a potential all star.
In the 80's, it was very top heavy. Were as in the 90's, the talent was spread, the 80's you had super teams full of all stars on the top, and a bunch of crappy teams on the bottom. So night after night, you could see the Lakers win 147-109 against the Denver Nuggets or they'd be in a 114-110 dogfight against the Dallas Mavericks. The Bulls on the other hand would barely beat the a young KG and the Timberwolves 103-100 and then two nights later struggle against Reggie Miller and the Pacers 110-102, and only have Jordan and Pippen score in double digits (44 for MJ and 40 for Pippen).
So to you, the Lakers was more impressive because the level of difficulty that they showed was not as hard. But I see things the opposite. Because the Bulls had a harder road, with more difficult teams night after night instead of just the Sunday games, then they won an insane amount of games. Many were no blow outs, but they did win many games by double digits. That season, the game I'll never forget is Magic's second game back against the Bulls. It was weird to see the Bulls there, and also how average MJ looked that night. He didn't have it at all. It was the perfect game for the Lakers to win. But Pippen took over and some how the Bulls beat the Lakers again. No matter how much MJ struggled in that game, Pippen and the Bulls pulled ahead and kept the lead through the game. But that was an example of the Bulls of that era.
So I think we have a complete miss understanding of what a harder NBA looks like. You think that today's NBA tougher than the 90's, which is HIGHLY laughable. I think of it as the 90's being the best because each night was a hard team across the hardwood floor and each game being a battle. Hell, the Lakers back then had Nick Van Exel and Eddie Jones as their stars, and they won over 50 games, but not a single Laker was on the all star team. The league was at it's more balanced. In the 80's the league was east heavy, in the early 90's the league was becoming balanced but still a bit east heavy. But the mid to late 90's the league was balanced and then in the early 2000's in was very west heavy and has stayed that way for about 15 years now.
So I guess that's were the difference is. I like balanced, you like to see the great top heavy teams. We'll never agree as long as we hold these two views. I see a more balanced league and then see a team that grind through that schedule and won 72 and 69 games, and won 171 total in two years, and I go, wow, that's really impressive. You see a Laker team and you try to twist an argument that says, fuck all that, I will find a way to make the Lakers look better no matter what.
-
lmao what are u talkin about in regards to the keystyles, i beat u in a time where i was clearly the most hated here...."friends" my ass, u know ive shitted on u under literally every circumstance.....and u holdin it in, i see u.
and ur strugglin to come up wit decent arguments....like i said, lakers of the 80s had TWO TOP FIVE PLAYERS....OF ALL TIME. No one could stop worthy, magic, kareem, AND scott. it's just too much. and u keep actin like bulls dominated when they were winnin in 6 games on last second shots....just stop it, g.
and again, like i said 72 games is impressive, but not as impressive as what the warriors are doin this year....and definitely not as impressive as the 33 straight lakers won. at the end of the day, that 72 was great, but if they were playin against teams like the lakers, pistons, and celtics, thats another 10 losses right there. 62-20...impressive, but not historically.
stop arguing against showtime.....it's just a bad look overall homie.
Man, how many times do I have to repost those battles were I'm up 2-0, and then 3 or 4 of your old friends like Roccy all vote for you in like 10 minutes and then you win. We had to change the rules to no members of crews voting and everything because you use to pull that off, not just to me, but others as well... LOL... but I understand you were a 16 year old kid at the time. It's all good, it's very fitting for that era. But it was funny.
As for this whole argument, I think it comes down to a general disagreement on when was the NBA at it's best, the 80's or 90's. You see, I look at the NBA in the 90's and I think that's when it was at it's best because it seems like every team at the time had a superstar player, and not a single team was an easy win night after night. Each and every night you went into an arena, the team across from you was not tanking, they were playing to win every night and it seemed like every team at the time had a potential all star.
In the 80's, it was very top heavy. Were as in the 90's, the talent was spread, the 80's you had super teams full of all stars on the top, and a bunch of crappy teams on the bottom. So night after night, you could see the Lakers win 147-109 against the Denver Nuggets or they'd be in a 114-110 dogfight against the Dallas Mavericks. The Bulls on the other hand would barely beat the a young KG and the Timberwolves 103-100 and then two nights later struggle against Reggie Miller and the Pacers 110-102, and only have Jordan and Pippen score in double digits (44 for MJ and 40 for Pippen).
So to you, the Lakers was more impressive because the level of difficulty that they showed was not as hard. But I see things the opposite. Because the Bulls had a harder road, with more difficult teams night after night instead of just the Sunday games, then they won an insane amount of games. Many were no blow outs, but they did win many games by double digits. That season, the game I'll never forget is Magic's second game back against the Bulls. It was weird to see the Bulls there, and also how average MJ looked that night. He didn't have it at all. It was the perfect game for the Lakers to win. But Pippen took over and some how the Bulls beat the Lakers again. No matter how much MJ struggled in that game, Pippen and the Bulls pulled ahead and kept the lead through the game. But that was an example of the Bulls of that era.
So I think we have a complete miss understanding of what a harder NBA looks like. You think that today's NBA tougher than the 90's, which is HIGHLY laughable. I think of it as the 90's being the best because each night was a hard team across the hardwood floor and each game being a battle. Hell, the Lakers back then had Nick Van Exel and Eddie Jones as their stars, and they won over 50 games, but not a single Laker was on the all star team. The league was at it's more balanced. In the 80's the league was east heavy, in the early 90's the league was becoming balanced but still a bit east heavy. But the mid to late 90's the league was balanced and then in the early 2000's in was very west heavy and has stayed that way for about 15 years now.
So I guess that's were the difference is. I like balanced, you like to see the great top heavy teams. We'll never agree as long as we hold these two views. I see a more balanced league and then see a team that grind through that schedule and won 72 and 69 games, and won 171 total in two years, and I go, wow, that's really impressive. You see a Laker team and you try to twist an argument that says, fuck all that, I will find a way to make the Lakers look better no matter what.
oh, u mean like this one: http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=174772.0 where literally every last person voted for me...lmao. ur such a sore loser bruh. no glory in that....but thats besides the point. i was merely pointin that out to show that ur holding it in and tryna battle me in different aspects, including debating against ur own team just to go against what i say, so maybe, just maybe, ull have one more chance at winnin.
and for lakers vs bulls, who gives a fuck about the bottom? regular season shouldnt even matter in this. what truly matters is the playoffs, and even more so, the finals. the regular season is shlock, there was clearly much heavier competition in the playoffs back in the 80s. like i said, the top teams in the 80s would slaughter any team from the 90s. answer this, who faced harder teams in the finals? bulls or lakers??..... it's not even close, and u know it. but naah, lets shit on the greatest assembly of talent in sports history, despite it being (supposedly) your team, just so we can slight sccit one more time.....am i wrong?
pg ron harper/steve kerr vs magic johnson/norm nixon LMAO
sg byron scott/michael cooper vs michael jordan/jud buechler fair
sf james worthy/jamaal wilkes vs scottie pippen/tony kukoc fair
pf bob macadoo/kurt rambis vs dennis rodman/jason caffey fair
c kareem abdul jabar/mitch kupchak vs luc longely/bill wennington LMAO
Pat Riley vs Phil Jackson fair
-
lmao what are u talkin about in regards to the keystyles, i beat u in a time where i was clearly the most hated here...."friends" my ass, u know ive shitted on u under literally every circumstance.....and u holdin it in, i see u.
and ur strugglin to come up wit decent arguments....like i said, lakers of the 80s had TWO TOP FIVE PLAYERS....OF ALL TIME. No one could stop worthy, magic, kareem, AND scott. it's just too much. and u keep actin like bulls dominated when they were winnin in 6 games on last second shots....just stop it, g.
and again, like i said 72 games is impressive, but not as impressive as what the warriors are doin this year....and definitely not as impressive as the 33 straight lakers won. at the end of the day, that 72 was great, but if they were playin against teams like the lakers, pistons, and celtics, thats another 10 losses right there. 62-20...impressive, but not historically.
stop arguing against showtime.....it's just a bad look overall homie.
Man, how many times do I have to repost those battles were I'm up 2-0, and then 3 or 4 of your old friends like Roccy all vote for you in like 10 minutes and then you win. We had to change the rules to no members of crews voting and everything because you use to pull that off, not just to me, but others as well... LOL... but I understand you were a 16 year old kid at the time. It's all good, it's very fitting for that era. But it was funny.
As for this whole argument, I think it comes down to a general disagreement on when was the NBA at it's best, the 80's or 90's. You see, I look at the NBA in the 90's and I think that's when it was at it's best because it seems like every team at the time had a superstar player, and not a single team was an easy win night after night. Each and every night you went into an arena, the team across from you was not tanking, they were playing to win every night and it seemed like every team at the time had a potential all star.
In the 80's, it was very top heavy. Were as in the 90's, the talent was spread, the 80's you had super teams full of all stars on the top, and a bunch of crappy teams on the bottom. So night after night, you could see the Lakers win 147-109 against the Denver Nuggets or they'd be in a 114-110 dogfight against the Dallas Mavericks. The Bulls on the other hand would barely beat the a young KG and the Timberwolves 103-100 and then two nights later struggle against Reggie Miller and the Pacers 110-102, and only have Jordan and Pippen score in double digits (44 for MJ and 40 for Pippen).
So to you, the Lakers was more impressive because the level of difficulty that they showed was not as hard. But I see things the opposite. Because the Bulls had a harder road, with more difficult teams night after night instead of just the Sunday games, then they won an insane amount of games. Many were no blow outs, but they did win many games by double digits. That season, the game I'll never forget is Magic's second game back against the Bulls. It was weird to see the Bulls there, and also how average MJ looked that night. He didn't have it at all. It was the perfect game for the Lakers to win. But Pippen took over and some how the Bulls beat the Lakers again. No matter how much MJ struggled in that game, Pippen and the Bulls pulled ahead and kept the lead through the game. But that was an example of the Bulls of that era.
So I think we have a complete miss understanding of what a harder NBA looks like. You think that today's NBA tougher than the 90's, which is HIGHLY laughable. I think of it as the 90's being the best because each night was a hard team across the hardwood floor and each game being a battle. Hell, the Lakers back then had Nick Van Exel and Eddie Jones as their stars, and they won over 50 games, but not a single Laker was on the all star team. The league was at it's more balanced. In the 80's the league was east heavy, in the early 90's the league was becoming balanced but still a bit east heavy. But the mid to late 90's the league was balanced and then in the early 2000's in was very west heavy and has stayed that way for about 15 years now.
So I guess that's were the difference is. I like balanced, you like to see the great top heavy teams. We'll never agree as long as we hold these two views. I see a more balanced league and then see a team that grind through that schedule and won 72 and 69 games, and won 171 total in two years, and I go, wow, that's really impressive. You see a Laker team and you try to twist an argument that says, fuck all that, I will find a way to make the Lakers look better no matter what.
oh, u mean like this one: http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=174772.0 where literally every last person voted for me...lmao. ur such a sore loser bruh. no glory in that....but thats besides the point. i was merely pointin that out to show that ur holding it in and tryna battle me in different aspects, including debating against ur own team just to go against what i say, so maybe, just maybe, ull have one more chance at winnin.
and for lakers vs bulls, who gives a fuck about the bottom? regular season shouldnt even matter in this. what truly matters is the playoffs, and even more so, the finals. the regular season is shlock, there was clearly much heavier competition in the playoffs back in the 80s. like i said, the top teams in the 80s would slaughter any team from the 90s. answer this, who faced harder teams in the finals? bulls or lakers??..... it's not even close, and u know it. but naah, lets shit on the greatest assembly of talent in sports history, despite it being (supposedly) your team, just so we can slight sccit one more time.....am i wrong?
pg ron harper/steve kerr vs magic johnson/norm nixon LMAO
sg byron scott/michael cooper vs michael jordan/jud buechler fair
sf james worthy/jamaal wilkes vs scottie pippen/tony kukoc fair
pf bob macadoo/kurt rambis vs dennis rodman/jason caffey fair
c kareem abdul jabar/mitch kupchak vs luc longely/bill wennington LMAO
Pat Riley vs Phil Jackson fair
HAHAHA. You pull out a battle from 2008, when I was already gone from rapping. You're still doing it now. You better beat some washed up old keystlyer in your prime. HAHA. It's all good homie.
And quite simply, the 80's teams wouldn't know what to do with the 1995-1997 Chicago Bulls, straight up. In the 80's, a young Jordan was still getting his in the NBA, and he had shitty talent for teammates. Once they got to 90's, Jordan had great teammates and it all worked.
And you mixing and matching the teams?? Why? That's why I went with the best teams of each decade, because it's easier and you have something solid to compare. You are mixing and matching to bend the argument your way. Instead, use the teams that actually played.
1987 Lakers vs. the 1996 Bulls, I already posted that...
PG Magic>>>>Harper (Magic in his prime, 'nuff said)
SG Scott<<<<<Jordan (MJ in his prime, 'nuff said)
SF Worthy>Pippen (both in their primes, and their stats are damn near even, both at 19 or 20ppg, 5 to 6rpg, Pippen had better apg, Worthy had better FG%, both about even in defense)
PF Green>Rodman (Only because Green scored and Rodman didn't, though you can argue that Rodman was a good enough defender that he'd shut down Green, but honestly Rodman would be defending old man Kareem as Rodman shut down Shaq when the Bulls played the Magic in those games)
C Kareem>>Longley (If they go head up, then Kareem wins, but Phil used Rodman to guard centers and an older Kareem would have problems with this version of Rodman)
Bench Cooper/Rambis/Thompson>Kerr/Kukoc/Wennington (Tempted to give the nod to the Bulls, but Wennington and an older Dickey Simpkins hold them down. If you look at the Bulls, their starters played massive amount of minutes, and they used a playoff style short bench all year. The Lakers bench in 1987 also was a very short bench, especially compared to the great benches they had in the early 80's full of future hall of famers looking for that last ring. Their starters played a large amount of minutes in the back to back years, which is why they completely fell apart trying for the three peat. But Thompson was better than Wennington, and Cooper and Rambis were good enough to be starters in this great team.)
Riley>>>Jackson (the greatest coach in the history of basketball, the one who could get any superstar to buy into his system. Riley was known to work his players to death. Wear them out to get them most out of them. Jackson's style was designed to win in the playoffs, Riley was designed to never lose a game. In a 7 game series, eventually a Jackson coached team would wear out a Riley coached team.)
Style:
This gets over looked, A LOT. People go by points per game, or by match ups. The overall style of each team is what makes the game. The Lakers ran a run and gun up tempo type offense. They looked to grab rebounds and push the action fast to score as many points as possible. Worthy and Magic ran the fast break to perfection, and Cooper would always be ready for the "Coop-a-loop." No one could stop it at the time. This also lead to many games being very high scoring affairs, as the Lakers would score so fast that it gave the other team more possessions with the ball overall. Which is why teams averaged 108ppg against Showtime. By the 90's, teams were taught to get back, to prevent the fast break. Defense was pushed and Pat Riley changed to one of the best defensive coaches in NBA history. Also, the physicality of the 80's was taken out and the NBA cracked down on the NFL style tackles that happened in the 80's. The Bulls held their opponents to 93ppg, good enough for 3rd in the league. The Lakers were 12th in defense. The Bulls only scored 105ppg, but that was 1st in the NBA that year. The Lakers scored 118ppg which was 2nd. So the Lakers had a very average defense.
When it comes to the Bulls, they ran the Triangle. Though the 1996 Bulls ran a modified triangle, instead of having the center be the focal point of the offense like the traditional triangle, Jordan was the focal point. So Pippen would bring the ball up and drop the ball off to Jordan who was always playing the center and posting up. It was up to Jordan to either kick out or drive the lane. It's also why Magic guarded Jordan, because Scott was too short to guard him. The triangle is designed to create movement and get the ball moving to different teammates. It's a slow offense that slows down games and paces it to how the team wants it to be. Also, Rodman was there to grab rebounds and make sure teams don't fast break on them. Rodman is the biggest X-Factor because Rodman would stop potential Laker fast breaks most of the time. Showtime will not score 118 points every game against the Bulls.
So in this series, it will come down to half court sets, as the Bulls were designed to not allow many fast breaks. In the half court game, the Lakers depended on Kareem, and at this time Kareem was on his last leg. He might have had a game or two of getting the best of Rodman, but overall he would not be dependable to carry the Lakers for a whole series. Worthy and Pippen almost cancel each other out. This would leave this whole series riding on the match up everyone wanted to see, Jordan vs. Magic.
Jordan vs. Magic would be were the Bulls win. The simple fact was, Magic was a pretty average defender. Jordan was a great defender. The problem is when faced with a mismatch, the Lakers use to put Magic on the SF and let Cooper guard the guard who'd give Magic problems. In this case the SF would be Pippen and in 1996 Pippen would go off for 40 point games. So Magic would more than likely cover Harper, but that leaves Scott on Jordan. Scott vs. Jordan is unfair by any measure of basketball. So the Lakers would have to sacrifice offense and put Cooper on Jordan, and Jordan would still get the best of him. At last resort, Worthy would be tasked to guard Jordan, which happened in the 80's btw, and this leaves open Pippen. On the other end, Jordan would still guard Magic and it would come down to Kareem in the paint. A young Kareem I'd say wins it. But an older Kareem could carry the team anymore.
So basically it comes down to style and what would happen in a real game.
-
lol you tryin too hard now brobro.....look, i see what u doin, and thats ok. just know that i'm hip to your bullshit, and we good. but yea, i'll say it one more time...aint no one fuckin wit that 80s laker team. and ill take it one step further, 80s pistons and celtics too would shit on the 90s bulls. and if u want me to take it even another step further, 90s bulls never even faced a team as tough as the 2008-2011 celtics in the finals....so yea, this shit is goin in circles now, but i guarantee that if u started a poll of 80s lakers vs 90s bulls on any laker forum, it'd be overwhelming in the showtime lakers favor......just sad that u on the other side, but i'll let u do u tho.
-
lol you tryin too hard now brobro.....look, i see what u doin, and thats ok. just know that i'm hip to your bullshit, and we good. but yea, i'll say it one more time...aint no one fuckin wit that 80s laker team. and ill take it one step further, 80s pistons and celtics too would shit on the 90s bulls. and if u want me to take it even another step further, 90s bulls never even faced a team as tough as the 2008-2011 celtics in the finals....so yea, this shit is goin in circles now, but i guarantee that if u started a poll of 80s lakers vs 90s bulls on any laker forum, it'd be overwhelming in the showtime lakers favor......just sad that u on the other side, but i'll let u do u tho.
Trying too hard. I basically outlined what would happen. I watched a lot of Lakers and Bulls back then. I took their stats, and put that into what would happen in the game.
-
lol you tryin too hard now brobro.....look, i see what u doin, and thats ok. just know that i'm hip to your bullshit, and we good. but yea, i'll say it one more time...aint no one fuckin wit that 80s laker team. and ill take it one step further, 80s pistons and celtics too would shit on the 90s bulls. and if u want me to take it even another step further, 90s bulls never even faced a team as tough as the 2008-2011 celtics in the finals....so yea, this shit is goin in circles now, but i guarantee that if u started a poll of 80s lakers vs 90s bulls on any laker forum, it'd be overwhelming in the showtime lakers favor......just sad that u on the other side, but i'll let u do u tho.
Trying too hard. I basically outlined what would happen. I watched a lot of Lakers and Bulls back then. I took their stats, and put that into what would happen in the game.
answer why the bulls had to win in 6 against the jazz and sonics, on a last second shot by jordan...........and these jazz and sonic teams would undeniably get swept by the 80s lakers. it's just sad that u call urself a laker fan and argue for the other side so vigorously... and this is not something new to u, it's something uv been known for........................all i can do is shake my head and say DAMN. because u know ANYONE within the laker organization or on that showtime team would say "we'd have our way with the 90s bulls"...but u aint part of that team, not even in spirit. ur on the other side, speakin against ur own. it just shows u dont ride or die with the p&g........now, if it was some obvious shit, like 90s bulls vs 90s lakers, then by all means, argue for the bulls....but this is a hypothetical that i would expect laker fans to see from a laker perspective.....but no, not fairweather mdogg.
showtime lakers woulda ran the bulls off the court......they never faced an offense that potent. not even close. and when they faced teams that werent half as good, like the jazz and sonics, they had trouble puttin em out. AGAIN, it's not even close, really.
-
NIK clearly forgot about how great Karl Malone, Shawn Kemp, Gary Payton and the great John Stockton all were.
-
NIK clearly forgot about how great Karl Malone, Shawn Kemp, Gary Payton and the great John Stockton all were.
what would happen in a series of the 80s celtics vs the 90s jazz??
-
lol you tryin too hard now brobro.....look, i see what u doin, and thats ok. just know that i'm hip to your bullshit, and we good. but yea, i'll say it one more time...aint no one fuckin wit that 80s laker team. and ill take it one step further, 80s pistons and celtics too would shit on the 90s bulls. and if u want me to take it even another step further, 90s bulls never even faced a team as tough as the 2008-2011 celtics in the finals....so yea, this shit is goin in circles now, but i guarantee that if u started a poll of 80s lakers vs 90s bulls on any laker forum, it'd be overwhelming in the showtime lakers favor......just sad that u on the other side, but i'll let u do u tho.
Trying too hard. I basically outlined what would happen. I watched a lot of Lakers and Bulls back then. I took their stats, and put that into what would happen in the game.
answer why the bulls had to win in 6 against the jazz and sonics, on a last second shot by jordan...........and these jazz and sonic teams would undeniably get swept by the 80s lakers. it's just sad that u call urself a laker fan and argue for the other side so vigorously... and this is not something new to u, it's something uv been known for........................all i can do is shake my head and say DAMN. because u know ANYONE within the laker organization or on that showtime team would say "we'd have our way with the 90s bulls"...but u aint part of that team, not even in spirit. ur on the other side, speakin against ur own. it just shows u dont ride or die with the p&g........now, if it was some obvious shit, like 90s bulls vs 90s lakers, then by all means, argue for the bulls....but this is a hypothetical that i would expect laker fans to see from a laker perspective.....but no, not fairweather mdogg.
showtime lakers woulda ran the bulls off the court......they never faced an offense that potent. not even close. and when they faced teams that werent half as good, like the jazz and sonics, they had trouble puttin em out. AGAIN, it's not even close, really.
You do remember the Bulls were up 3-0 on the Supersonics right? They lost the next two games just so they can win at home. Everyone at the time even said so. That was the talk of the sports world, were the Bulls losing on purpose to beat the Sonics at home. The Jazz were a little harder to beat, because they were a much better team. They won their first two at home, after falling behind 2-0. But it's hard winning 3 in a row at home, and the Bulls got them and then beat them at home. But I'm comparing just the 1996 Bulls, the ones that were up 3-0 on the Sonics.
As for my fandom. I use to think like that too. I use to think I had to have Magic #1 on all my list. Showtime was the greatest dynasty ever and the 1987 Lakers are the best team ever. But man, I'm older, I see things clearer now and I can be honest with myself. It's damn near impossible to win 72 games in a year, just like it's impossible to win 33 games in a row, especially traveling on a bus. The 33 games in a row could be broken now because teams travel by jets and players are rested by they time they get to an arena, there is talks of getting rid of back to back games. But in 1971-1972, winning 33 games in a row as next to impossible. It wasn't like the ABA was at it's heights yet, the best still played in the NBA, and to win 33 games in the NBA might be the greatest feat ever, even if I think the 1971-1972 Lakers couldn't even beat he 1968-1969 Lakers.
So I have allowed myself to be honest about the history of the game and see the NBA without my Forum Blue shades. And I see a 72 win team that I hated, and I can appreciate what they did and then I can see how they did it. I can see LeBron for what he was the last 5 years, and know that he had a great 5 year run. It's over now, thank God, but it was impressive. And you spent those last 5 years hating the man just because you wanted Kobe to be better. But just look up and see the most physically gifted star in NBA history, then look at his decline before our very eyes, because this is the test to see if he's an all time great. I don't think he is, but it's interesting to see.
So yeah, you may not like it, and all these Laker fans who only remember Kobe being a Laker may not like it. But I don't care. I've been following the Lakers literally since these kids were shitting diapers. I let myself enjoy the game of basketball, I root for my team and I only wish that in the next few years the Lakers will pass the Celtics all time NBA titles number. Jordan can have best player of all time, the 1996 can have best team, but it's unacceptable that the Celtics have most NBA titles. That's were I draw the line.
-
NIK clearly forgot about how great Karl Malone, Shawn Kemp, Gary Payton and the great John Stockton all were.
what would happen in a series of the 80s celtics vs the 90s jazz??
1984 Boston Celtics beat the 1998 Utah Jazz
-
lol you tryin too hard now brobro.....look, i see what u doin, and thats ok. just know that i'm hip to your bullshit, and we good. but yea, i'll say it one more time...aint no one fuckin wit that 80s laker team. and ill take it one step further, 80s pistons and celtics too would shit on the 90s bulls. and if u want me to take it even another step further, 90s bulls never even faced a team as tough as the 2008-2011 celtics in the finals....so yea, this shit is goin in circles now, but i guarantee that if u started a poll of 80s lakers vs 90s bulls on any laker forum, it'd be overwhelming in the showtime lakers favor......just sad that u on the other side, but i'll let u do u tho.
Trying too hard. I basically outlined what would happen. I watched a lot of Lakers and Bulls back then. I took their stats, and put that into what would happen in the game.
answer why the bulls had to win in 6 against the jazz and sonics, on a last second shot by jordan...........and these jazz and sonic teams would undeniably get swept by the 80s lakers. it's just sad that u call urself a laker fan and argue for the other side so vigorously... and this is not something new to u, it's something uv been known for........................all i can do is shake my head and say DAMN. because u know ANYONE within the laker organization or on that showtime team would say "we'd have our way with the 90s bulls"...but u aint part of that team, not even in spirit. ur on the other side, speakin against ur own. it just shows u dont ride or die with the p&g........now, if it was some obvious shit, like 90s bulls vs 90s lakers, then by all means, argue for the bulls....but this is a hypothetical that i would expect laker fans to see from a laker perspective.....but no, not fairweather mdogg.
showtime lakers woulda ran the bulls off the court......they never faced an offense that potent. not even close. and when they faced teams that werent half as good, like the jazz and sonics, they had trouble puttin em out. AGAIN, it's not even close, really.
You do remember the Bulls were up 3-0 on the Supersonics right? They lost the next two games just so they can win at home. Everyone at the time even said so. That was the talk of the sports world, were the Bulls losing on purpose to beat the Sonics at home. The Jazz were a little harder to beat, because they were a much better team. They won their first two at home, after falling behind 2-0. But it's hard winning 3 in a row at home, and the Bulls got them and then beat them at home. But I'm comparing just the 1996 Bulls, the ones that were up 3-0 on the Sonics.
As for my fandom. I use to think like that too. I use to think I had to have Magic #1 on all my list. Showtime was the greatest dynasty ever and the 1987 Lakers are the best team ever. But man, I'm older, I see things clearer now and I can be honest with myself. It's damn near impossible to win 72 games in a year, just like it's impossible to win 33 games in a row, especially traveling on a bus. The 33 games in a row could be broken now because teams travel by jets and players are rested by they time they get to an arena, there is talks of getting rid of back to back games. But in 1971-1972, winning 33 games in a row as next to impossible. It wasn't like the ABA was at it's heights yet, the best still played in the NBA, and to win 33 games in the NBA might be the greatest feat ever, even if I think the 1971-1972 Lakers couldn't even beat he 1968-1969 Lakers.
So I have allowed myself to be honest about the history of the game and see the NBA without my Forum Blue shades. And I see a 72 win team that I hated, and I can appreciate what they did and then I can see how they did it. I can see LeBron for what he was the last 5 years, and know that he had a great 5 year run. It's over now, thank God, but it was impressive. And you spent those last 5 years hating the man just because you wanted Kobe to be better. But just look up and see the most physically gifted star in NBA history, then look at his decline before our very eyes, because this is the test to see if he's an all time great. I don't think he is, but it's interesting to see.
So yeah, you may not like it, and all these Laker fans who only remember Kobe being a Laker may not like it. But I don't care. I've been following the Lakers literally since these kids were shitting diapers. I let myself enjoy the game of basketball, I root for my team and I only wish that in the next few years the Lakers will pass the Celtics all time NBA titles number. Jordan can have best player of all time, the 1996 can have best team, but it's unacceptable that the Celtics have most NBA titles. That's were I draw the line.
lol they lost on purpose so they can win at home......thats a good one, but not cuttin it. and when it comes to 80s lakers vs 90s bulls, it's not about bein honest....because well never truly know what the outcome woulda been. but to argue FOR the bulls when it goes against conventional wisdom is just a bad look. chick hearn is rollin in his grave right now, do u understand that? it would be one thing if claimin 80s lakers>90s bulls was illogical.....but it's far from, and when ur a fan of one team, thats the one you're supposed to BELIEVE in.......but i guess we simply have 2 different perspectives. like i said, i'll let u do u.....but man, dont let other laker fans hear u.
-
lol you tryin too hard now brobro.....look, i see what u doin, and thats ok. just know that i'm hip to your bullshit, and we good. but yea, i'll say it one more time...aint no one fuckin wit that 80s laker team. and ill take it one step further, 80s pistons and celtics too would shit on the 90s bulls. and if u want me to take it even another step further, 90s bulls never even faced a team as tough as the 2008-2011 celtics in the finals....so yea, this shit is goin in circles now, but i guarantee that if u started a poll of 80s lakers vs 90s bulls on any laker forum, it'd be overwhelming in the showtime lakers favor......just sad that u on the other side, but i'll let u do u tho.
Trying too hard. I basically outlined what would happen. I watched a lot of Lakers and Bulls back then. I took their stats, and put that into what would happen in the game.
answer why the bulls had to win in 6 against the jazz and sonics, on a last second shot by jordan...........and these jazz and sonic teams would undeniably get swept by the 80s lakers. it's just sad that u call urself a laker fan and argue for the other side so vigorously... and this is not something new to u, it's something uv been known for........................all i can do is shake my head and say DAMN. because u know ANYONE within the laker organization or on that showtime team would say "we'd have our way with the 90s bulls"...but u aint part of that team, not even in spirit. ur on the other side, speakin against ur own. it just shows u dont ride or die with the p&g........now, if it was some obvious shit, like 90s bulls vs 90s lakers, then by all means, argue for the bulls....but this is a hypothetical that i would expect laker fans to see from a laker perspective.....but no, not fairweather mdogg.
showtime lakers woulda ran the bulls off the court......they never faced an offense that potent. not even close. and when they faced teams that werent half as good, like the jazz and sonics, they had trouble puttin em out. AGAIN, it's not even close, really.
You do remember the Bulls were up 3-0 on the Supersonics right? They lost the next two games just so they can win at home. Everyone at the time even said so. That was the talk of the sports world, were the Bulls losing on purpose to beat the Sonics at home. The Jazz were a little harder to beat, because they were a much better team. They won their first two at home, after falling behind 2-0. But it's hard winning 3 in a row at home, and the Bulls got them and then beat them at home. But I'm comparing just the 1996 Bulls, the ones that were up 3-0 on the Sonics.
As for my fandom. I use to think like that too. I use to think I had to have Magic #1 on all my list. Showtime was the greatest dynasty ever and the 1987 Lakers are the best team ever. But man, I'm older, I see things clearer now and I can be honest with myself. It's damn near impossible to win 72 games in a year, just like it's impossible to win 33 games in a row, especially traveling on a bus. The 33 games in a row could be broken now because teams travel by jets and players are rested by they time they get to an arena, there is talks of getting rid of back to back games. But in 1971-1972, winning 33 games in a row as next to impossible. It wasn't like the ABA was at it's heights yet, the best still played in the NBA, and to win 33 games in the NBA might be the greatest feat ever, even if I think the 1971-1972 Lakers couldn't even beat he 1968-1969 Lakers.
So I have allowed myself to be honest about the history of the game and see the NBA without my Forum Blue shades. And I see a 72 win team that I hated, and I can appreciate what they did and then I can see how they did it. I can see LeBron for what he was the last 5 years, and know that he had a great 5 year run. It's over now, thank God, but it was impressive. And you spent those last 5 years hating the man just because you wanted Kobe to be better. But just look up and see the most physically gifted star in NBA history, then look at his decline before our very eyes, because this is the test to see if he's an all time great. I don't think he is, but it's interesting to see.
So yeah, you may not like it, and all these Laker fans who only remember Kobe being a Laker may not like it. But I don't care. I've been following the Lakers literally since these kids were shitting diapers. I let myself enjoy the game of basketball, I root for my team and I only wish that in the next few years the Lakers will pass the Celtics all time NBA titles number. Jordan can have best player of all time, the 1996 can have best team, but it's unacceptable that the Celtics have most NBA titles. That's were I draw the line.
lol they lost on purpose so they can win at home......thats a good one, but not cuttin it. and when it comes to 80s lakers vs 90s bulls, it's not about bein honest....because well never truly know what the outcome woulda been. but to argue FOR the bulls when it goes against conventional wisdom is just a bad look. chick hearn is rollin in his grave right now, do u understand that? it would be one thing if claimin 80s lakers>90s bulls was illogical.....but it's far from, and when ur a fan of one team, thats the one you're supposed to BELIEVE in.......but i guess we simply have 2 different perspectives. like i said, i'll let u do u.....but man, dont let other laker fans hear u.
After they lost game 4, that's what everyone said. They said, watch them lose game 5 so they can win at home. I'm sure they would have loved to sweep. But if you can't sweep, then get it at home. And if they had swept the Sonics and won game 4, they would have went 15-1 in the playoffs, tied with the 2001 Lakers for the best playoff record is history. So let's not act like they struggled against the Sonics. I watched the whole series at the time, and it looked like they just played with them.
-
that 15-1 is a whole nother story....80s lakers > 00s lakers > 90s bulls
but yea, no one risks a ring by losing on purpose in the finals LOL...even u know that
-
that 15-1 is a whole nother story....80s lakers > 00s lakers > 90s bulls
but yea, no one risks a ring by losing on purpose in the finals LOL...even u know that
If you saw, and I did and I was rooting for the Sonics. Those boys played with the Sonics. It wasn't even close dude. You make it sound like the Bulls were in trouble at all.
-
that 15-1 is a whole nother story....80s lakers > 00s lakers > 90s bulls
but yea, no one risks a ring by losing on purpose in the finals LOL...even u know that
If you saw, and I did and I was rooting for the Sonics. Those boys played with the Sonics. It wasn't even close dude. You make it sound like the Bulls were in trouble at all.
again, no team loses games on purpose, especially not in the finals ... what if MJ falls with an injury after losing 2 straight?? that's not a risk ANY team would be willing to take when it's all on the line LOL
-
that 15-1 is a whole nother story....80s lakers > 00s lakers > 90s bulls
but yea, no one risks a ring by losing on purpose in the finals LOL...even u know that
If you saw, and I did and I was rooting for the Sonics. Those boys played with the Sonics. It wasn't even close dude. You make it sound like the Bulls were in trouble at all.
again, no team loses games on purpose, especially not in the finals ... what if MJ falls with an injury after losing 2 straight?? that's not a risk ANY team would be willing to take when it's all on the line LOL
Well that was the conversation that was going on before game 5. I remember it clearly. No one thought the Bulls were in trouble at all, being up 3-0, then losing a game. Maybe the Bulls didn't try to lose on purpose, but that game 5, they looked lazy and uninspired. Many before the game said they'd lose, and then after the game it was questioned if they lost on purpose so they can win at home. They looked like they tried to win game 4, but they lost. They were up 3-0, so again, they were never in trouble. It's just how it was then. And for losing one game, you want to discredit the whole accomplishment. They ran the gauntlet. Were as Showtime beat a bunch of under .500 teams and were fresh to beat the Celtics in 6, the Celtics who ran the gauntlet. If the Showtime Lakers were led by LeBron and called the Heat, you'd discredit them. Maybe after winning 14 out of 15 games, the Bulls just were flat for a couple of games, they did win 86 out of 97 games. But I know then, people just wrote it off as the Bulls losing in Seattle so they can win in Chicago. But not a single person thought the Bulls were in trouble at all at the time. Except I guess for 9 year old Sccit.
-
Interesting point I saw on this. I did mention Shaq, but the Bulls went through many centers in the playoffs. Maybe the trick is a lack of center to beat the '96 Bulls, or at least go 6 or 7 games with them.:
Kareem would cause the Bulls problems, no doubt about it, but he wasn't the juggernaut he was a few years before. He was 39 years old and 'only' a 17/7 guy at that stage of his career.
Magic would be definitely shared between Michael, Harper and Pippen, with Pippen playing against him the most.
Bulls never played the rockets in the playoffs, so you can't really say how they would go against Hakeem.
Just for note in 1996 the Bulls beat teams on the way to the Championship with the following centers -
First round - Miami Heat - Alonzo Morning (a 22/10 guy during that regular season)
Second Round - New York Knicks - Patrick Ewing (a 22/11 guy during the regular season)
Third Round - Orlando - Shaq (a 27/11 guy during the regular season)
Finals - no real center
That's 3 very good centers. You could argue that all 3 were better than Kareem at that stage of their careers (only looking at the relevant season we are talking about, not over their whole career!). None of the centers dominated the series against the bulls and all scored around their season average during the playoff series against the Bulls (Alonzo - 18ppg, Pat - 23ppg and Shaq - 27ppg)
-
that 15-1 is a whole nother story....80s lakers > 00s lakers > 90s bulls
but yea, no one risks a ring by losing on purpose in the finals LOL...even u know that
If you saw, and I did and I was rooting for the Sonics. Those boys played with the Sonics. It wasn't even close dude. You make it sound like the Bulls were in trouble at all.
again, no team loses games on purpose, especially not in the finals ... what if MJ falls with an injury after losing 2 straight?? that's not a risk ANY team would be willing to take when it's all on the line LOL
Well that was the conversation that was going on before game 5. I remember it clearly. No one thought the Bulls were in trouble at all, being up 3-0, then losing a game. Maybe the Bulls didn't try to lose on purpose, but that game 5, they looked lazy and uninspired. Many before the game said they'd lose, and then after the game it was questioned if they lost on purpose so they can win at home. They looked like they tried to win game 4, but they lost. They were up 3-0, so again, they were never in trouble. It's just how it was then. And for losing one game, you want to discredit the whole accomplishment. They ran the gauntlet. Were as Showtime beat a bunch of under .500 teams and were fresh to beat the Celtics in 6, the Celtics who ran the gauntlet. If the Showtime Lakers were led by LeBron and called the Heat, you'd discredit them. Maybe after winning 14 out of 15 games, the Bulls just were flat for a couple of games, they did win 86 out of 97 games. But I know then, people just wrote it off as the Bulls losing in Seattle so they can win in Chicago. But not a single person thought the Bulls were in trouble at all at the time. Except I guess for 9 year old Sccit.
lol wtf ....if the showtime lakers were led by lebron THEN THEY WOULDNT BE THE SHOWTIME LAKERS. u say some weird shit bruh. and i dont give a fuck what people speculate....mufuckaz say a ganga shit. but only an idiot would believe that teams purposely lose games in the finals. and you're not an idiot, so i know u dont truly believe that....really tho, i never said anything about whether or not the bulls looked like they were guna lose the series, so now u just puttin extras on it. i said they had their battles in the finals...it's not like the lakers vs nets in 2002 where it was just pure coasting....and this goes especially for the bulls vs jazz series'. so taking into account that the bulls had to fight to beat the jazz, you can see why one would say showtime lakers are easily better. because it's hard to imagine the showtime lakers losing even one game to the 90s utah or 90s sonics.
-
Interesting point I saw on this. I did mention Shaq, but the Bulls went through many centers in the playoffs. Maybe the trick is a lack of center to beat the '96 Bulls, or at least go 6 or 7 games with them.:
Kareem would cause the Bulls problems, no doubt about it, but he wasn't the juggernaut he was a few years before. He was 39 years old and 'only' a 17/7 guy at that stage of his career.
Magic would be definitely shared between Michael, Harper and Pippen, with Pippen playing against him the most.
Bulls never played the rockets in the playoffs, so you can't really say how they would go against Hakeem.
Just for note in 1996 the Bulls beat teams on the way to the Championship with the following centers -
First round - Miami Heat - Alonzo Morning (a 22/10 guy during that regular season)
Second Round - New York Knicks - Patrick Ewing (a 22/11 guy during the regular season)
Third Round - Orlando - Shaq (a 27/11 guy during the regular season)
Finals - no real center
That's 3 very good centers. You could argue that all 3 were better than Kareem at that stage of their careers (only looking at the relevant season we are talking about, not over their whole career!). None of the centers dominated the series against the bulls and all scored around their season average during the playoff series against the Bulls (Alonzo - 18ppg, Pat - 23ppg and Shaq - 27ppg)
those are all second rate centers....alonzo, patrick, and shaq before he hit his prime. furthermore, those centers carried the bulk of their teams load on their shoulders. theyre not playing alongside magic johnson, james worthy, byron scott, bob mcadoo, jamaal wilkes, ac green, michael cooper, kurt rambis, etc....cmon, now.
-
is NIK arguing the Shaq-Kobe lakers over Jordan/s Bulls or the Kobe/Gasol Lakers????
i can understand someone arguing the Shaq/Kobe lakers over the Bulls because Shaq was the best center on the planet and Kobe was good enough to at least make Jordan compete lol
-
is NIK arguing the Shaq-Kobe lakers over Jordan/s Bulls or the Kobe/Gasol Lakers????
i can understand someone arguing the Shaq/Kobe lakers over the Bulls because Shaq was the best center on the planet and Kobe was good enough to at least make Jordan compete lol
no, the 09/10 lakers dont belong in the discussion. kobe took a solid team that wouldnt have even made the playoffs without him to consecutive titles. no one has won with less, besides maybe hakeem.
but yea, the 80s lakers > early 2000s lakers > 90s bulls >>>>>>>>>>>>> late 2000s lakers
-
is NIK arguing the Shaq-Kobe lakers over Jordan/s Bulls or the Kobe/Gasol Lakers????
i can understand someone arguing the Shaq/Kobe lakers over the Bulls because Shaq was the best center on the planet and Kobe was good enough to at least make Jordan compete lol
no, the 09/10 lakers dont belong in the discussion. kobe took a solid team that wouldnt have even made the playoffs without him to consecutive titles. no one has won with less, besides maybe hakeem.
but yea, the 80s lakers > early 2000s lakers > 90s bulls >>>>>>>>>>>>> late 2000s lakers
It's funny, I was talking to the older homie, the homie that watched all of Showtime and the 90's Chicago Bulls. He is a Laker fan, but he's way more of just an NBA fan than pure Laker fan. I asked him. He said that the 96 Bulls would win. Basically he said it comes down to outside game, and he said that Pippen would get Worthy because he was more athletic. Also Kukoc would spread the floor too much. And that's the big homie, and his opinion I respect a lot. If the big homie said the 96 Bulls beat the 87 Lakers, then you best believe that's the truth.
-
is NIK arguing the Shaq-Kobe lakers over Jordan/s Bulls or the Kobe/Gasol Lakers????
i can understand someone arguing the Shaq/Kobe lakers over the Bulls because Shaq was the best center on the planet and Kobe was good enough to at least make Jordan compete lol
no, the 09/10 lakers dont belong in the discussion. kobe took a solid team that wouldnt have even made the playoffs without him to consecutive titles. no one has won with less, besides maybe hakeem.
but yea, the 80s lakers > early 2000s lakers > 90s bulls >>>>>>>>>>>>> late 2000s lakers
It's funny, I was talking to the older homie, the homie that watched all of Showtime and the 90's Chicago Bulls. He is a Laker fan, but he's way more of just an NBA fan than pure Laker fan. I asked him. He said that the 96 Bulls would win. Basically he said it comes down to outside game, and he said that Pippen would get Worthy because he was more athletic. Also Kukoc would spread the floor too much. And that's the big homie, and his opinion I respect a lot. If the big homie said the 96 Bulls beat the 87 Lakers, then you best believe that's the truth.
It's funny. I was just watching the Laker channel the other day, and they showed a lil clip of Gary Vitti saying "the 87 Laker team was the greatest team in basketball history"
keep fightin for the other side to prove a point tho ;)
-
is NIK arguing the Shaq-Kobe lakers over Jordan/s Bulls or the Kobe/Gasol Lakers????
i can understand someone arguing the Shaq/Kobe lakers over the Bulls because Shaq was the best center on the planet and Kobe was good enough to at least make Jordan compete lol
no, the 09/10 lakers dont belong in the discussion. kobe took a solid team that wouldnt have even made the playoffs without him to consecutive titles. no one has won with less, besides maybe hakeem.
but yea, the 80s lakers > early 2000s lakers > 90s bulls >>>>>>>>>>>>> late 2000s lakers
It's funny, I was talking to the older homie, the homie that watched all of Showtime and the 90's Chicago Bulls. He is a Laker fan, but he's way more of just an NBA fan than pure Laker fan. I asked him. He said that the 96 Bulls would win. Basically he said it comes down to outside game, and he said that Pippen would get Worthy because he was more athletic. Also Kukoc would spread the floor too much. And that's the big homie, and his opinion I respect a lot. If the big homie said the 96 Bulls beat the 87 Lakers, then you best believe that's the truth.
It's funny. I was just watching the Laker channel the other day, and they showed a lil clip of Gary Vitti saying "the 87 Laker team was the greatest team in basketball history"
keep fightin for the other side to prove a point tho ;)
I'm just saying. The big homie bought up points I didn't even think of. And he saw a lot of basketball so I'll take him for his word.
-
is NIK arguing the Shaq-Kobe lakers over Jordan/s Bulls or the Kobe/Gasol Lakers????
i can understand someone arguing the Shaq/Kobe lakers over the Bulls because Shaq was the best center on the planet and Kobe was good enough to at least make Jordan compete lol
no, the 09/10 lakers dont belong in the discussion. kobe took a solid team that wouldnt have even made the playoffs without him to consecutive titles. no one has won with less, besides maybe hakeem.
but yea, the 80s lakers > early 2000s lakers > 90s bulls >>>>>>>>>>>>> late 2000s lakers
It's funny, I was talking to the older homie, the homie that watched all of Showtime and the 90's Chicago Bulls. He is a Laker fan, but he's way more of just an NBA fan than pure Laker fan. I asked him. He said that the 96 Bulls would win. Basically he said it comes down to outside game, and he said that Pippen would get Worthy because he was more athletic. Also Kukoc would spread the floor too much. And that's the big homie, and his opinion I respect a lot. If the big homie said the 96 Bulls beat the 87 Lakers, then you best believe that's the truth.
It's funny. I was just watching the Laker channel the other day, and they showed a lil clip of Gary Vitti saying "the 87 Laker team was the greatest team in basketball history"
keep fightin for the other side to prove a point tho ;)
I'm just saying. The big homie bought up points I didn't even think of. And he saw a lot of basketball so I'll take him for his word.
now thats gangsta
-
is NIK arguing the Shaq-Kobe lakers over Jordan/s Bulls or the Kobe/Gasol Lakers????
i can understand someone arguing the Shaq/Kobe lakers over the Bulls because Shaq was the best center on the planet and Kobe was good enough to at least make Jordan compete lol
no, the 09/10 lakers dont belong in the discussion. kobe took a solid team that wouldnt have even made the playoffs without him to consecutive titles. no one has won with less, besides maybe hakeem.
but yea, the 80s lakers > early 2000s lakers > 90s bulls >>>>>>>>>>>>> late 2000s lakers
It's funny, I was talking to the older homie, the homie that watched all of Showtime and the 90's Chicago Bulls. He is a Laker fan, but he's way more of just an NBA fan than pure Laker fan. I asked him. He said that the 96 Bulls would win. Basically he said it comes down to outside game, and he said that Pippen would get Worthy because he was more athletic. Also Kukoc would spread the floor too much. And that's the big homie, and his opinion I respect a lot. If the big homie said the 96 Bulls beat the 87 Lakers, then you best believe that's the truth.
It's funny. I was just watching the Laker channel the other day, and they showed a lil clip of Gary Vitti saying "the 87 Laker team was the greatest team in basketball history"
keep fightin for the other side to prove a point tho ;)
I'm just saying. The big homie bought up points I didn't even think of. And he saw a lot of basketball so I'll take him for his word.
now thats gangsta
(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/thug-life-meme-17-dollars.jpg)
-
lol