seminoles1 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, ET80 said: I'm very well aware of what he said. I get how you're interpreting it - I'm actually OK with your definition, and would concede to it. But - irrespective of roster - it was competitive, nearly from top to bottom. What he's saying is patently false. Nevermind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 2 minutes ago, seminoles1 said: Nevermind Agree to disagree, then. Good talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seminoles1 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, ET80 said: Agree to disagree, then. Good talk. Whatever you say, hoss. I would still like rebuttals from all my other points (like when you clearly didn't take into account Pippen's age and back issues before spouting off about him being average without MJ and ignoring he had his best season without MJ), but I guess agree to disagree about the 90s clearly being watered down compared to the 80s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 10 minutes ago, seminoles1 said: Whatever you say, hoss. I would still like rebuttals from all my other points (like when you clearly didn't take into account Pippen's age and back issues before spouting off about him being average without MJ and ignoring he had his best season without MJ), but I guess agree to disagree about the 90s clearly being watered down compared to the 80s. It was a fair point, I didn't account for that. It was a serious back injury, it did impact his athleticism. I guess "watered down" isn't the term I'd use to describe the 90s. Talent was more evenly distributed would be a better way to put it. When I think "watered down" I think of the NBA when LeBron put together the superteam in Miami, or when the Celtics had the trio of Garnett/Allen/Pierce. (Hell, GSW wuth Steph Curry/Kevin Durant/Klay Thompson/Draymond Green/Boogie Cousins comes to mind). "Watered down" tells me that the gap between #1 and #2 is so great, that teams are just jockeying to get to #2. That's not competitive, IMO - like Dan Gilbert said, you don't want the Harlem Globetrotters vs the Washington Generals out there. But that was what those eras were - you had defined contenders, then you had the rest of the the field as cannon fodder. That wasn't the 90s. Talent was all over the place, teams had that centerpieces they augmented with complementary role players that could challenge for the top spot. To borrow a football euphanism, the 90s was the closest you could have to an "Any Given Sunday" league, where anyone could win or lose in a playoff series. It's nonsensical to call it not competitive - it was VERY competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seminoles1 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 Then we disagree on watered down, that's what this comes down to in regards to the 90s. I'm more than okay with people preferring the 90s because there were a lot of solid teams, but they weren't true contenders. That's why the teams that did have multiple stars always came out from the bunch (outside of Houston in 1994) and the Bulls were able to dominate. It was just a less extreme than the Warriors today since more star players are teamed up now. The Warriors keep winning because they have more, just like the Bulls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 33 minutes ago, ET80 said: I'm very well aware of what he said. I get how you're interpreting it - I'm actually OK with your definition, and would concede to it. But - irrespective of roster - it was competitive, nearly from top to bottom. What he's saying is patently false. It's really not. You're just saying absurd things like Rodman was a glorified role play and that the Bulls weren't a Super team or that super teams weren't always prevalent in the NBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 9 minutes ago, lancerman said: It's really not. You're just saying absurd things like Rodman was a glorified role play and that the Bulls weren't a Super team or that super teams weren't always prevalent in the NBA. It really is, but whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess. 9 minutes ago, seminoles1 said: That's why the teams that did have multiple stars always came out from the bunch (outside of Houston in 1994) and the Bulls were able to dominate. It was just a less extreme than the Warriors today since more star players are teamed up now. The Warriors keep winning because they have more, just like the Bulls. If this was the case, why is it that teams like the Jazz (Stockton/Malone/Hornacek) or Supersonics (Payton/Kemp/Nate McMillan) not win? Like, at all? They had finals appearances but it's not like they were dominating the Western Conference during this time - they were the collection of stars you reference in th Western Conference, but they went a combined 0-3 in NBA Finals appearances over that 10 years. Why does the "they just have more" model not apply to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 1 minute ago, ET80 said: It really is, but whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess. If this was the case, why is it that teams like the Jazz (Stockton/Malone/Hornacek) or Supersonics (Payton/Kemp/Nate McMillan) not win? Like, at all? They had finals appearances but it's not like they were dominating the Western Conference during this time - they were the collection of stars you reference in th Western Conference, but they went a combined 0-3 in NBA Finals appearances over that 10 years. Why does the "they just have more" model not apply to them? Name any other decase Jordan's Bulls realistically win 6 championships. I'll wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 1 minute ago, lancerman said: Name any other decase Jordan's Bulls realistically win 6 championships. I'll wait. Any of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plat2 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 3 minutes ago, lancerman said: Name any other decase Jordan's Bulls realistically win 6 championships. I'll wait. 2000s ane 2010's...thats the all time great player and the all time great team, they are winning 6 in any decade you put them in. I mean if you wanna play this hypothetical game, MJs Bulls could have won 8 straight if he didn't retire for 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 1 minute ago, ET80 said: Any of them. Really so which of the 5 Showtime Lakers titles and 3 Bird Celtics Finals are they going to cut into? Which of GSW, Miami Heat or the Spurs titles. How many of the 5 Lakers titles in the 2000's is he going to stop and how often is he getting past the 3 Big Celtics (better than any team he played in the 90's). And lets not even get into the 60's and 70's where the rules would just mean he gets plastered for all his Air Jordan stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 1 minute ago, Plat2 said: I mean if you wanna play this hypothetical game, MJs Bulls could have won 8 straight if he didn't retire for 2 years. I personally think nobody was stopping Olaijuwon in 92-93... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 1 minute ago, Plat2 said: 2000s ane 2010's...thats the all time great player and the all time great team, they are winning 6 in any decade you put them in. I mean if you wanna play this hypothetical game, MJs Bulls could have won 8 straight if he didn't retire for 2 years. I'm sure they'll walk right over the Warriors and Heat in the 2010's. Hypotheticals..... Jordan came back in 94-95 and they still didn't win.... so that's not even true based off what actually happened. I know people like to forget that happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plat2 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 2 minutes ago, lancerman said: Really so which of the 5 Showtime Lakers titles and 3 Bird Celtics Finals are they going to cut into? Which of GSW, Miami Heat or the Spurs titles. How many of the 5 Lakers titles in the 2000's is he going to stop and how often is he getting past the 3 Big Celtics (better than any team he played in the 90's). And lets not even get into the 60's and 70's where the rules would just mean he gets plastered for all his Air Jordan stuff. The big 3 Celtics that won one title? You don't need the 70s to see how MJ would handle ultra physical play, he handled it fine with the Jordan Rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plat2 Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 1 minute ago, lancerman said: I'm sure they'll walk right over the Warriors and Heat in the 2010's. Hypotheticals..... Jordan came back in 94-95 and they still didn't win.... so that's not even true based off what actually happened. I know people like to forget that happened. Yeah where did I say they would "walk over" these teams? It would be a tough and grueling for sure but when the going gets tough I'm putting my money on the GOAT....just like you would put your money on Brady right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.