I just kept thinking about this one, as i just won first 3 out of 15 Greatest Player games, and when i start Julius Erving one, 1st thing i realised that team that Phili is playing against, the Bucks of 84-85 are MUCH BETTER on paper than Phli, offensively and defensively. Yet commentators kept sayin that Phili of 84-85 season was such a dominant offensive team, while, looking at the roster, you see no great shooters, aging Moses Malone and only Julius Erving can somehow create his own shot. While Bucks had Hodges, Monchrief, Cummings (LOL), Pressey and Lister. They light you up every time, as their outside shooting combined with Terry Cummings' inside and rebounding prowess keep you guessing while they also have some great defensive players.
I kept thinking that something was missing on that 84-85 Phili team, that they couldn't be so bad on paper while being one of the best teams of all-time. Sure enough, i forgot
about Sir Charles

I just wonder, if they couldn't get Barkley, wouldn't it be easier for them to get the championship Philly team without Barkley square off against Blazers, for example? How am i supposed to win that damn game when Bucks outmatch me almost at every position? XD