Incessant media comparisons between '16 GSW and '96 CHI
Comments
-
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.
-
NEsnake12 said:
It's football offseason and baseball won't be relevant for
another 4 monthsever. ESPN and the like have nothing else tangible to talk about besides this and Kobe. -
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. -
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.
-
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. -
I like Steve Kerr in this one
-
-
-
GS and our Mariners have so much in common. Both will have 9 losses soon
-
POTW.RavennaDawg said:
Related: People forget the Bulls had to beat Finland in the Gold Medal Match. -
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.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.
-
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 said:
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.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.
-
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.greenblood said:
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 said:
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.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.
-
dnc said:
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.greenblood said:
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 said:
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.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.
-
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 said:dnc said:
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.greenblood said:
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 said:
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.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.
-
Sounds like you're back tracking. Which story do you want to stick with?dnc said:
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 said:dnc said:
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.greenblood said:
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 said:
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.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.
-
The Bulls had three of the greatest defenders of all-time in Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman. Ron Harper was no slouch defensively either.dnc said:
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.greenblood said:
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 said:
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.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 would be just fine beyond 25 feet.
-
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. -
The 96 Bulls won the title and the Warriors haven't won it this year. I'm right.dnc said:
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.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.
-
Warriors would beat da BullsRaceBannon said:
Sounds like you're back tracking. Which story do you want to stick with?dnc said:
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 said:dnc said:
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.greenblood said:
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 said:
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.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.
Nuff said -
I don't deal in hypotheticals. Winners win.dnc said:
Warriors would beat da BullsRaceBannon said:
Sounds like you're back tracking. Which story do you want to stick with?dnc said:
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 said:dnc said:
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.greenblood said:
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 said:
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.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.
Nuff said -
Are you seriously comparing flat footed stoned beyond reason slow release Sam Perkins to what Curry and Klay bring to the table?RaceBannon said:
Sounds like you're back tracking. Which story do you want to stick with?dnc said:
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 said:dnc said:
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.greenblood said:
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 said:
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.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.
Holy shit, paging Uncle Rico. -
The Warriors are the defending champs.PurpleJ said:
I don't deal in hypotheticals. Winners win.dnc said:
Warriors would beat da BullsRaceBannon said:
Sounds like you're back tracking. Which story do you want to stick with?dnc said:
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 said:dnc said:
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.greenblood said:
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 said:
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.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.
Nuff said
You're no Nostradamus by saying the champion will be the champion when they become the champion.
You can't fast forward time. The safe bet is always take the field, but in this case you'll be wrong.
Warriors in 6 over the field. Everybody love it. Everybody talk about it. -
Popping off in April is always special. They won't repeat. Simple fac.t
-
It's almost too easy to troll the kids here
-
I stand by my Warriors won't repeat and Blues win it all picks. Feel free to throw yours out there Race. Promise I will be gracious when I'm RIGHT.
-
Curry and Klay the Kewg...Doogles said: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.
Jordan and Pippen would murder those fools. -
Bulls beat them in any scenario. Warriors have a much better chance of winning with today's rules but some writer will inevitably compare compare Jordan and Curry and then you get mad MJ and its GG.
Bashing the Bulls for the Sonics series is FS. It's easy to forget just how great Shawn Kemp was and it was peak Glove.
The Bulls small ball lineup has a big advantage vs the Warriors and that's rebounding. Not just Rodman but Pippen and Jordan could dominate the glass when they wanted to.
And the idea that the greatest perimeter defender of all time and Michael fucking Jordan couldn't guard players because they're 25 feet from the basket is fucking stupid. -
Agree with most but the last paragraph. No teams that the Bulls played could spread you out with 3 or more shooters on the floor like the Dubs have. Nor did any of them have the Ball movement that the Dubs have. IN a tight game late in the 4th, you would always like a Jordan to get it done. However the Dubs are rarely in tight games in the 4th and are better conditioned than most. I like the Dubs 4-8 much better than I like the Bulls 4-8. I'd see the Dubs in 6 against the Bulls of that era.allpurpleallgold said:Bulls beat them in any scenario. Warriors have a much better chance of winning with today's rules but some writer will inevitably compare compare Jordan and Curry and then you get mad MJ and its GG.
Bashing the Bulls for the Sonics series is FS. It's easy to forget just how great Shawn Kemp was and it was peak Glove.
The Bulls small ball lineup has a big advantage vs the Warriors and that's rebounding. Not just Rodman but Pippen and Jordan could dominate the glass when they wanted to.
And the idea that the greatest perimeter defender of all time and Michael fucking Jordan couldn't guard players because they're 25 feet from the basket is fucking stupid.
-
I'd still probably take the Bull because of Jordan, but it's stupid to think that Curry wouldn't hurt them from the outside. And when the perimeter d steps up to take away the 28-footers he can drop it down to the forecourt guys or to Klay in the corner. I think it's a dumb, unanswerable question; but if you pressed I'd say Bulls in 7.
