Incessant media comparisons between '16 GSW and '96 CHI

Gladstone · April 2016

I hope the warriors get 73-9 and sweep the playoffs so ppl would shut the fuck up abt the bulls

NEsnake12 · April 2016

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.

RaceBannon · April 2016

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.

greenblood · April 2016

It's actually a stupid debate.

If playing by 1996 rules, the 1996 Bulls would plunger the 2016 Warriors into oblivion. No way the Warriors could match the physicality.

If playing by 2016 rules, the 2016 Warriors would dance circles around the 1996 Bulls. Outside of Jordan and Pippen, the Bulls defensively wouldn't be able to stay with the Warriors without putting hands on them, which would get called every time.

You really can't have a debate. These teams wouldn't be built like they were if they switched eras.

It's about as stupid as the Montana/Brady comparison. Montana and Brady would be much different quarterbacks in each other's eras.

PurpleJ · April 2016

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.

Doogles · 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.

TierbsHsotBoobs · April 2016

I like Steve Kerr in this one

RavennaDawg · April 2016

RavennaDawg · April 2016

TierbsHsotBoobs said:
I like Steve Kerr in this one

Too soon?

section_332 · April 2016

GS and our Mariners have so much in common. Both will have 9 losses soon

TierbsHsotBoobs · April 2016

RavennaDawg said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:
I like Steve Kerr in this one

Too soon?

POTW.

Related: People forget the Bulls had to beat Finland in the Gold Medal Match.

dnc · April 2016

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.

greenblood · April 2016

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.

dnc · April 2016

greenblood 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.

RaceBannon · April 2016

dnc said:

greenblood 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.

dnc · April 2016

RaceBannon said:

dnc said:

greenblood 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.

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.

RaceBannon · April 2016

dnc said:

RaceBannon said:

dnc said:

greenblood 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.

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?

PurpleThrobber · April 2016

dnc said:

greenblood 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.

godawgst · April 2016

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.

PurpleJ · April 2016

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.

dnc · April 2016

RaceBannon said:

dnc said:

RaceBannon said:

dnc said:

greenblood 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.

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

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Incessant media comparisons between '16 GSW and '96 CHI

Comments