Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Incessant media comparisons between '16 GSW and '96 CHI

GladstoneGladstone Member Posts: 16,419
I hope the warriors get 73-9 and sweep the playoffs so ppl would shut the fuck up abt the bulls
«1

Comments

  • NEsnake12NEsnake12 Member Posts: 3,792
    It's football offseason and baseball won't be relevant for another 4 months. ESPN and the like have nothing else tangible to talk about besides this and Kobe.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,967 Founders Club
    NEsnake12 said:

    It's football offseason and baseball won't be relevant for another 4 months ever. ESPN and the like have nothing else tangible to talk about besides this and Kobe.

  • PurpleJPurpleJ Member Posts: 37,259 Founders Club
    It's a stupid debate until Golden State wins a few more titles. Go compare the Bulls to someone who's won like they have already. Like LA or the Celtics. Not saying I don't think Golden State can get there but it's a stupid comparison at this time.
  • DooglesDoogles Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,591 Founders Club
    edited April 2016
    I respect the mid 90's bulls, but revisionist history is at a peak. This idea the Warriors would get swept is ridiculous. The sonics took them to 6.

    If people think the Warriors are finesse and soft because they shoot a bunch of 3s, you're not paying attention.

    Green vs. Rodman would be a war. Bogut is much better than Luc Longley. Barnes + Iguadalajara are better than Toni Kucok.

    Speights and Ezeli are as good as front court depth as there is in the NBA.

    You have the Jordan and Pippen factor in the Bulls favor and that's it. And they are dealing with Curry and Klay. This idea Curry would be mauled ineffective isn't accurate when he is quicker than Pippen and Jordan and has legitimate 30 ft. range.

    Today's athletes are better, get over it '96. Ron Harper sucks.
  • RavennaDawgRavennaDawg Member Posts: 846

    I like Steve Kerr in this one

    image

    Too soon?
  • section_332section_332 Member Posts: 2,403
    GS and our Mariners have so much in common. Both will have 9 losses soon
  • TierbsHsotBoobsTierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680

    I like Steve Kerr in this one

    image

    Too soon?
    POTW.

    Related: People forget the Bulls had to beat Finland in the Gold Medal Match.
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,739
    PurpleJ said:

    It's a stupid debate until Golden State wins a few more titles. Go compare the Bulls to someone who's won like they have already. Like LA or the Celtics. Not saying I don't think Golden State can get there but it's a stupid comparison at this time.

    They're being compared to the 96 Bulls, not the entire Bulls dynasty. No question GS needs at least three more titles before you can even think of comparing dynasties. But comparing one season to one Bulls season is fine. And this team would beat the 96 Sonics, even with 96 rules. Which means they'd take the Bulks to 7 at the very least. I think they'd beat them.
  • greenbloodgreenblood Member Posts: 14,428
    dnc said:

    PurpleJ said:

    It's a stupid debate until Golden State wins a few more titles. Go compare the Bulls to someone who's won like they have already. Like LA or the Celtics. Not saying I don't think Golden State can get there but it's a stupid comparison at this time.

    They're being compared to the 96 Bulls, not the entire Bulls dynasty. No question GS needs at least three more titles before you can even think of comparing dynasties. But comparing one season to one Bulls season is fine. And this team would beat the 96 Sonics, even with 96 rules. Which means they'd take the Bulks to 7 at the very least. I think they'd beat them.
    Matchups matter. I think the physicality of the 1996 Bulls in their era would cause major problems for a smaller team like Golden State. Under today's rules, the Bulls couldn't get away with that kind of play.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,967 Founders Club
    dnc said:

    dnc said:

    PurpleJ said:

    It's a stupid debate until Golden State wins a few more titles. Go compare the Bulls to someone who's won like they have already. Like LA or the Celtics. Not saying I don't think Golden State can get there but it's a stupid comparison at this time.

    They're being compared to the 96 Bulls, not the entire Bulls dynasty. No question GS needs at least three more titles before you can even think of comparing dynasties. But comparing one season to one Bulls season is fine. And this team would beat the 96 Sonics, even with 96 rules. Which means they'd take the Bulks to 7 at the very least. I think they'd beat them.
    Matchups matter. I think the physicality of the 1996 Bulls in their era would cause major problems for a smaller team like Golden State. Under today's rules, the Bulls couldn't get away with that kind of play.
    The Bulls never had to guard anybody 25 feet from the rim. The Warriors would be a bigger shock to the Bulls' than the Bulls would be to the Warriors.
    image
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,739

    dnc said:

    dnc said:

    PurpleJ said:

    It's a stupid debate until Golden State wins a few more titles. Go compare the Bulls to someone who's won like they have already. Like LA or the Celtics. Not saying I don't think Golden State can get there but it's a stupid comparison at this time.

    They're being compared to the 96 Bulls, not the entire Bulls dynasty. No question GS needs at least three more titles before you can even think of comparing dynasties. But comparing one season to one Bulls season is fine. And this team would beat the 96 Sonics, even with 96 rules. Which means they'd take the Bulks to 7 at the very least. I think they'd beat them.
    Matchups matter. I think the physicality of the 1996 Bulls in their era would cause major problems for a smaller team like Golden State. Under today's rules, the Bulls couldn't get away with that kind of play.
    The Bulls never had to guard anybody 25 feet from the rim. The Warriors would be a bigger shock to the Bulls' than the Bulls would be to the Warriors.
    image
    Fine, Jordan and Pippen never had to guard anybody 25 feet from the rim. And if you think Big Smoove had Curry/Thompson range I can't help you.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,967 Founders Club
    dnc said:

    dnc said:

    dnc said:

    PurpleJ said:

    It's a stupid debate until Golden State wins a few more titles. Go compare the Bulls to someone who's won like they have already. Like LA or the Celtics. Not saying I don't think Golden State can get there but it's a stupid comparison at this time.

    They're being compared to the 96 Bulls, not the entire Bulls dynasty. No question GS needs at least three more titles before you can even think of comparing dynasties. But comparing one season to one Bulls season is fine. And this team would beat the 96 Sonics, even with 96 rules. Which means they'd take the Bulks to 7 at the very least. I think they'd beat them.
    Matchups matter. I think the physicality of the 1996 Bulls in their era would cause major problems for a smaller team like Golden State. Under today's rules, the Bulls couldn't get away with that kind of play.
    The Bulls never had to guard anybody 25 feet from the rim. The Warriors would be a bigger shock to the Bulls' than the Bulls would be to the Warriors.
    image
    Fine, Jordan and Pippen never had to guard anybody 25 feet from the rim. And if you think Big Smoove had Curry/Thompson range I can't help you.
    Sounds like you're back tracking. Which story do you want to stick with?
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,229 Standard Supporter
    dnc said:

    dnc said:

    PurpleJ said:

    It's a stupid debate until Golden State wins a few more titles. Go compare the Bulls to someone who's won like they have already. Like LA or the Celtics. Not saying I don't think Golden State can get there but it's a stupid comparison at this time.

    They're being compared to the 96 Bulls, not the entire Bulls dynasty. No question GS needs at least three more titles before you can even think of comparing dynasties. But comparing one season to one Bulls season is fine. And this team would beat the 96 Sonics, even with 96 rules. Which means they'd take the Bulks to 7 at the very least. I think they'd beat them.
    Matchups matter. I think the physicality of the 1996 Bulls in their era would cause major problems for a smaller team like Golden State. Under today's rules, the Bulls couldn't get away with that kind of play.
    The Bulls never had to guard anybody 25 feet from the rim. The Warriors would be a bigger shock to the Bulls' than the Bulls would be to the Warriors.
    The Bulls had three of the greatest defenders of all-time in Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman. Ron Harper was no slouch defensively either.

    They would be just fine beyond 25 feet.



  • godawgstgodawgst Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 2,507 Founders Club
    IMO the difference between the two teams is the same argument I would use on any NBA basketball game.

    Whoever #23 is on, that is the team I am taking.

    It would be fascinating to watch Jordan on Curry and Pippen on Thompson.

    Granted the bulls wouldn't be allowed to hand check and be physical on D versus the Warriors, but can you imagine what MJ could do into league offensively not being able to d up on him.

    What would he avg. under today's rules per game? Over under would be 37.
  • PurpleJPurpleJ Member Posts: 37,259 Founders Club
    dnc said:

    PurpleJ said:

    It's a stupid debate until Golden State wins a few more titles. Go compare the Bulls to someone who's won like they have already. Like LA or the Celtics. Not saying I don't think Golden State can get there but it's a stupid comparison at this time.

    They're being compared to the 96 Bulls, not the entire Bulls dynasty. No question GS needs at least three more titles before you can even think of comparing dynasties. But comparing one season to one Bulls season is fine. And this team would beat the 96 Sonics, even with 96 rules. Which means they'd take the Bulks to 7 at the very least. I think they'd beat them.
    The 96 Bulls won the title and the Warriors haven't won it this year. I'm right.
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,739

    dnc said:

    dnc said:

    dnc said:

    PurpleJ said:

    It's a stupid debate until Golden State wins a few more titles. Go compare the Bulls to someone who's won like they have already. Like LA or the Celtics. Not saying I don't think Golden State can get there but it's a stupid comparison at this time.

    They're being compared to the 96 Bulls, not the entire Bulls dynasty. No question GS needs at least three more titles before you can even think of comparing dynasties. But comparing one season to one Bulls season is fine. And this team would beat the 96 Sonics, even with 96 rules. Which means they'd take the Bulks to 7 at the very least. I think they'd beat them.
    Matchups matter. I think the physicality of the 1996 Bulls in their era would cause major problems for a smaller team like Golden State. Under today's rules, the Bulls couldn't get away with that kind of play.
    The Bulls never had to guard anybody 25 feet from the rim. The Warriors would be a bigger shock to the Bulls' than the Bulls would be to the Warriors.
    image
    Fine, Jordan and Pippen never had to guard anybody 25 feet from the rim. And if you think Big Smoove had Curry/Thompson range I can't help you.
    Sounds like you're back tracking. Which story do you want to stick with?
    Warriors would beat da Bulls

    Nuff said
Sign In or Register to comment.