This is just another episode of unconscious romanticizing of one's past.

"The telephones back in my day were much better than these fucking smartphones i tell ya. For one thing, they were a lot simpler to use!"

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Halas cheap....Comiskey cheap ….Wirtz cheap

_________________
I'm going to bounce from the spot for awhile but I will be back at some point to argue with you about this hoops stuff again. Playoffs have been great this season. See ya up the road.

I'm out.

1995 Houston Rockets Won the NBA Championship after having a 47-35 record and being a 6th seed.

Sure was some "tough NBA" wasn't it?

In addition The Utah Jazz (same Utah Jazz that could never seem to make any hay when all those teams loaded with Hall of Famers were ruling the league) made it back to back years in the late 90's.

I'm sure Larry Bird missed quite a few games in that 8 seeded year you keep referencing.


And missng the ABA merger was just embarrassing. I guess google couldn't cover that for you

_________________

This is just an example of one being ignorant of history more than anything.

_________________

Best Players on all the teams Jordan's Bulls beat

Aging Magic/ No Kareem
Clyde Drexler/Uncle Fester
Charles Barkley/Kevin Johnson


Gary Payton/Shawn Kemp
Stockton/Malone
Stockton/Malone

Best players on Teams Pistons had to Beat

Magic/Kareem prime Magic
Bird/McHale

This is getting bad

Tough for the save guys to aid and assist on this one

_________________

Larry Bird only played in 6 games that year.

_________________

That 1989 Finals win against the Lakers? Byron Scott missed the whole series because of a hamstring injury before Game 1 and Magic hurt his hamstring in Game 2 and missed the rest of the series.

_________________
Sherman remarked, "Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?" Grant looked up. "Yes," he replied, followed by a puff. "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though."

Yeah but Isaiah's Injury Cost Detroit in 1988. Kareem was about done in 1989 and without him it was going to be tough to beat Detroit. Detroit was the favorite to win it all the entire season and became the prohibitive favorite once they acquired Aguirre.

The Stuff i'm mostly concerned about were the playoff series in which they lost. 88 to the Lakers. 87 To the Celtics. I was really interested in seeing (though i already knew) what Brick knew about those losses. He didn't know anything. They were winnable series. It wasn't that they "could have won". They really should have won.

That was why I say they could have easily won 4 straight.

Its hard to make the argument when the Bulls have to beat teams with Gary Payton and Karl Malone as the best player and Detroit has to go through Bird/McHale. Magic/Kareem. Thats a quite the step up in Weight class.

_________________

You cited beating the Celtics not me!

It is clear I know more about basketball than you since I can read basketball reference and you obviously have never heard of it.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

The Bulls were good enough to beat the Pistons. The Pistons could have won 4 straight titles beating other top 80s teams. Therefore the Bulls were good enough to beat the teams the Pistons won hypothetical titles against.

This settles the matter.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

You are the same guy that didn't know the positive effects of the ABA-NBA merger. Guess that quick google did quite work for you that time did it Brickster

You're also the guy that stated you didn't care about the Houston Rockets (Or apparently the Utah Jazz) after continuously arguing that there was not a drop off in 90's talent.

You are the same guy that seems to only be familiar with the 4-0 sweep of the Pistons by the 90's Bulls.

You're also the guy that is completely ignorant of the 91 Kareem-less Lakers. You implied that the Lakers were the "same team"

You are also the guy that really isn't that familiar with 90's Basketball either. You have yet to provide one reason as to why it was as competitive. Its sort of difficult when your only frame of reference are google searches.

As far as the whole Boston thing goes you customarily misrepresented the argument. I stated that in some years being the example they had to go through both. I never said that they did go through both. The two teams that they had to beat had a Combined 8 Championships between them. They had at least 9-10 Hall of Famers between them. If you add up all of the Hall of Famers on the opposing teams during the Bulls run they don't reach that number. And you are talking 5 different teams combined.


As I stated before you are cooked. Next time get your weight up.

_________________

The Bulls beat a team that never won another playoff series.

You may not know this Brick but some teams do get old. There is something called Father time. Your ignorance is glaring dude.

And you have to establish how the teams that the Bulls faced were anywhere near as good as the Celtics-Lakers. At what point are you going to make the case about "90's" NBA basketball being as competitive? You're ducking that worse than Mayweather ducked Pacquiao.

_________________

Which means you really don't know anything.

_________________

Yeah. I didn't know about the ABA merger.

At least you chose a topic that is subjective enough you don't have to admit you were wrong unlike the other times on here you have undoubtedly been wrong.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Typical Brick styled argument. States that the Bulls could have beaten any of those teams without ever establishing exactly how they could have "beaten any of those teams". Closest thing to establishing his point is the aging 90's Pistons team that never won another playoff series after that.

Weak. Ignorant.

_________________

The 89-90 Bulls could have beaten the Pistons since they took them to 7 games. They would sweep them the next year too which shows they were capable. If you can't acknowledge that yet you are willing to cite the Pistons beating the 8 seed Celtics the year before then it is clear you aren't going to accept anything I say.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

"Could have" and "Should have" are two different arguments. I can make the argument that the 87 and 88 Pistons "should have" won. Can you do that for the 89 Bulls?

Also at what point do you make the case for "90's" basketball being better?

I have given a myriad of reasons for the 80's..You have provided nothing and stating you don't care about the Rockets winning is weak.

_________________

Yes, an argument can be made as to how the Bulls could have won game 7 of the series against the Pistons.

Here you go again. I'm not arguing it is better or worse. I'm arguing that there wasn't some massive change that took place in the summer of 1990 that turned it to garbage.

I will answer this by quoting myself to show how disingenuous you are in saying that I "provided nothing".


Increase in international talent, the objective viewpoint of just how much talent was on The Dream Team which are the players that defined 90s basketball, the logical belief that nothing happened in the offseason of 1990 to suddenly drop the talent level in the NBA by such a massive level. The fact that Jordan played in both the 80s and 90s and he wasn't some outmatched loser even while playing on teams that weren't quite ready yet to be champions but were really close by the time they were facing the Pistons teams.

Oh, and by the way, 8 seed Celtics.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

The 8 seed Celtic argument is stupid since that "Seed 8" Celtics team also won three rings. They also competed for rings on 2-3 rings on separate occasions and lost. Which one of the Bulls Opponents from the 90's has a ring?




2. You are essentially making my argument for me when you continue to focus on Jordan and not the guys that he had to face in the playoffs.


3. The Dream Team argument is stupid since many of the guys that participated played at higher levels during the 80's than they happened to play in the 90's. Google it if you are unsure. A number of those guys were drafted in 85 or Prior to 85 and didn't really have all that many great years 90's.


4. If the 90's were so competitive then why did the Bulls never have to face a team in the 7th game during any of the series in which they won? Shouldn't at least one series have gone 7 given the number of juggernaut teams which existed?



5. The guys that tended to rule the 90's Hakeem, David Robinson, Drexler Barkley, Ewing, Malone Stockton etc were all guys that were drafted in 85 or prior to 85.



Which players drafted in the 90's other than Shaq and Gary Payton (And He really wasn't as it was really Shawn "Came on the Scene Green at 19 Kemp. Drafted in 89) was actually the best player on a team that participated in an NBA Finals series?

How can you explain that if 90's players were of equal ability? I will give you your answer. You can't



Again you're smoked. Next time you will need better ammo. Don't bring a musket to a fight requiring bazookas

_________________

Interesting that Magic was aging against the Bulls but Kareem wasnt aging against the Pistons.

Magic was 31 against the Bulls
Kareem was 39-40 against the Pistons

You can't be serious here. The Bulls beat the two time defending champion Pistons, and then beat a Lakers team that had 5 rings in the 80s. You keep on digging yourself deeper on the 8 seed Celtics. If the 8 seed Celtics are great because they won three rings then the Bulls wins over the Pistons and Lakers are more impressive because they were more recent champions. You absolutely cannot credit the Pistons beating the 8 seed Celtics and then not credit the Bulls for beating the Pistons and Lakers.

What? Your argument is that 90s basketball was far worse because many guys in it were even better in the 80s? You can't google things to get the strange logic of that.


Do you mean Finals only? The Bulls did play in at least a few game 7's. Given you didn't think I knew what the ABA was this seems like a much larger mistake.



That's kind of how it works. The dominant players of the 80s were mostly drafted in the 70s. Remember, your argument is that both the Lakers and Pistons were already "old" by the offseason of 1990.



As I said, this isn't really a valid viewpoint. Most players take a while to be the best player on a championship team. Players drafted in the 90s would be making their mark toward the end of the decade or the start of the next one.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

They played two Game 7's. Are you too old to remember that?

_________________

Not in the NBA Finals they didn't. No series ever went more than 6

_________________

You do realize that you are now making a case that the Chicago Bulls couldn't win a series against any team from the 80s because the Bulls never even played in a game 7 in the Finals while they did? So, the hypothetical Bulls who required more games to win would actually have been more likely to be able to beat a Champion from the 80s? This is absolutely the logic that you are using here.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

[quote]Excuses excuses.

_________________

Sometimes I feel like ltg gets the business unfairly ... and then there's threads like this that make me reconsider that, in fact, he's lucky to only get the amount of guff that he does.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

Yet the 8 seed Celtics were the same team?
You aren't thinking this through. Most players don't immediately come in and start winning titles. It takes a while. That's why it isn't shocking that players drafted in the 90s didn't really start doing it until the late 90s or 2000s.

Are you really sticking with this? ABA expansion was in the 70s, the NBA still expanded a lot in the 80s. So, let's assume I wasn't aware the ABA existed. It still doesn't change the fact that NBA expansion was in the 80s too.



So what? It's not remarkable at all that those players took 5-7 years to become the top players in the game and start competing for or winning titles.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Magic won a title in his first year in the league. Bird I believe won in his second year in the league. Where is this 5-7 years if the best players on the best teams were all winning within their first 2-3 years in the league?

_________________

I will catch you up with you in a minute Brick.

_________________