era

[paul_pierce_the_truth]

These kids these days....

I just want to mention that in the good old days the best teams would kick the crap out of the San Antonio Spurs or Los Angeles Lakers.

1980s consisted of 23 teams.

This knocks around 80 players out of the league.

Teams ran the ball, passed the ball, none of this standing around bullshit.

The current Lakers team on paper looks so great to everyone, Karl Malone is half the man he used to be, Gary Payton is not the 1996 Glove, Kobe is out of shape and to some extent his mind (Eagle, Colorado), no matter what anyone says.

Maybe they could win a title today, but in 1985, 1986 or 1987?

The 1972 Lakers featuring Wilt Chamberlain and Jerry West were sick, but these players even in their younger years couldn't hold back Bill Russell and the Celtics team play. Not to mention Willis Reed, Earl Monroe and Clyde Frazier Knicks teams, among others.

But I want to focus on the two teams, the 1985 (or 87 whichever) Lakers and 1986 Celtics.


The 1986 Celtics had everything, no doubt, Dennis Johnson was a solid veteran, with great ballhandling ability and his defense was complete, Danny Ainge was a more athletic John Paxson or Steve Kerr with the all the shooting skills, Power Forward was Kevin McHale considered a master of low post moves, at Center was the Chief Robert Parish as solid as a big man you could have, blocking shots, scoring and running sweet pick and rolls with Bird, who by the way was the small forward on this team, he had just sealed his third straight MVP. I would like to see Deaven George guarding Bird, maybe Fox? [this team featured 7 players who had played in an All-Star Game, 4 players from the 50 Greatest Players List and three Playoff MVPs]

http://www.celticstats.com/season/8586.html

http://www.celticstats.com/player/larrybird.html

Look at 1985 through 1988 tell me about today's players, guys like Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan have nothing on these numbers.

1987 - 28.1 ppg 9.2 reb 7.6 ast 1.8 steals 1.0 blocks
(He was not the MVP either, tells you how good Magic was)




http://www.lakerstats.com/playerprofile ... ayerid=152

Checkout 1982 when Magic was 22, looks like a whole season of triple-doubles to me, Jason Kidd is like a ballboy next to Magic.

The 1985 Lakers had everything as well, starting at the point with Magic, what can you say about Magic Johnson? They also had Jabbar, Worthy, Byron Scott and Bob McAdoo, along with Michael Cooper and Jamaal Wilkes.

This team averaged 118 points and shot .545 FG% as a team.

http://www.lakerstats.com/indregstats.php?season=8485r
Check the FG percentages, yes they ran and got layups, but they didn't jack up threes and run constant clearouts like today. When I say today basketball in the NBA is ugly, this NBA was gorgeous.

Now I am not saying these are the greatest teams ever, I am saying that they were two teams that would have won 72 games in 1996 or 2003.

This is open for comments, but keep it real.

Compare the 96 Bulls to the 86 Celtics.

The 1996 Bulls featured the most dangerous player that ever laced up, no question, this guy pushed the 40-1 at home Celtics by himself in 1986 gushing for a mighty 63, so to say any team could beat this team perhaps might be biting off more than one could chew.

1996 Bulls vs. 1986 Celtics

There is one question here: Can Jordan go off for 55 points per game with Dennis Johnson in his shirt to counter the huge scoring edge the Celtics have in the paint? He has to if the Bulls are going to beat the Celtics. Pippen should be able to match Bird on the scoreboard & bother him on D but Pippen won't stop Bird overall. Bird can get his shot off as well as pass into the post where McHale & Parish can score over Rodman & Longley, plus McHale can hit the open 20 footers that Rodman will give him when he sits under the basket waiting for rebounds. The Bulls also have no match for the energy and fire that Bill Walton brings in off the Celtic bench, especially since Walton, McHale & Parish will have to extend themselves very little in one-on -one low post defense. When the Bulls guards are forced to double team the post Danny Ainge & Dennis Johnson will hit their share of the open shots. Ainge shot .386 from 3 point range in 1985-86. Scott Wedman & Jerry Sichting are a perfect outside shooting counter to the Bulls duo of Toni Kucoc and Steve Kerr off the bench. One final fact that is overlooked: In the 1986 playoff game after Jordan lit the Celtics up for 63 points the Celtics stuffed Dennis Johnson & some prudent double teams down MJ's shirt and held him to 28 points as they routed the Bulls in game 3, eliminating them from the playoffs. People also forget that Jordan poured in 50 in game 1 and the Celtics still won easily by 18 points. The 1996 Bulls are way better than their 1986 counterparts, but they have the same glaring weaknesses. The answer to the question above is NO, Jordan averages 40 to 45 points a game in this match up but the Bulls lose anyway because they get out gunned in the paint.

1996 Bulls vs. 1987 Lakers

This match up is plain and simple: If the Bulls "Big 4" shut down Johnson, Scott, Worthy and Green from the Lakers they can still go inside and get production from Kareem. The same cannot be said for the Bulls if the Laker's quartet hold their own against the Bulls "Big 4". Mychal Thompson is a big X factor for L.A.. Thompson was excited to be the final piece of the Laker's title puzzle as he brought in enthusiasm and intensity off the bench, similar to what Walton did for the Celtics in 1986. Toni Kucoc provides an extra offensive punch which the Bulls are going to need off their bench, but Steve Kerr's effectiveness will be limited when he has Cooper in his face. If Byron Scott feasts off the open 3 pointers he gets when the Bulls double team the low post then the Lakers could turn this into a blowout.

From this site:

http://pw1.netcom.com/~bjalas/basketbal ... eltics.htm

http://pweb.netcom.com/~bjalas/basketba ... lakers.htm

http://pw1.netcom.com/~bjalas/basketbal ... hbulls.htm

By the way these guys like Melo, Bron, Garnett, Kobe and McGrady are nothing new. Magic Johnson jumped center in the NBA Finals and eliminated the 76ers without their team Captain Kareem, Magic was 20.

Moses Malone jumped from High School.

Julius Erving was 22 when he averaged 27.3 ppg and 15.7 reb in his rookie year in the ABA.

http://www.basketballreference.com/play ... =ERVINJU01

People say give him time, well okay then, where and when is Tracy McGrady gonna win something? MVP? NBA Title?

He's almost 25 now, even Bird who was in College for 5 years had a title at age 24. His team may have been better than McGrady's, but that was because of Bird, not inspite of him.

I am not flaming anyone, only stating it like I see it. (I am not talking about Paul Pierce this time, and at least Pierce has won some playoff series')

[Stevan]

(I am not talking about Paul Pierce this time, and at least Pierce has won some playoff series')

LOL what? So you're not talking about Paul Pierce?

Interesting thread none the less, though it's another one of those "damn these punk kids" sort of things.

I agree that the Bulls of 96 would have had trouble with those 80's Lakers and Celtics, but the Michael Jordan of the 90's, who had played those teams before as well as the Pistons and others who tried to beat him up and at the same time let him do his thing while shutting down his team, would have been much smarter.

We can't underestimate the defence and rebounding of D-Rod. The Celtics forwards/centres would not be streched on defence, but the Bulls big guys would not be asked to do much on offence.

Could the Lakers run that much against a Bulls team? They shot a good clip (though I'm sure other teams did too against the Lakers), they had Rodman on the offensive glass and a combo of Jordan, Pippen, Harper getting back in transition. And as good as Magic was, there would generally not be a 6 foot PG trying to guard him in this situation.

The Bulls of 92 may have been better than 96. The doberman D with an athletic workhorse like Grant getting back on defence would have been good against the Lake show.

Good topic.

[EGarrett]

Why do people act like this is a purely hypothetical discussion? Michael's Bulls played Magic's Lakers (minus Kareem) in the '91 NBA Finals. The Bulls swept them fairly easy.

One aging Kareem isn't going to make that big of a difference...as in 1996 the Bulls were far more experienced and dangerous than when they swept Magic before. Bulls win in 5 or 6.

Use the Bulls dominance of the Lakers and Pistons as a measuring stick. In 1996 and 97 the team was far more dangerous than the first threepeat...because Michael and Scottie were so much more experienced. Those 80's teams couldn't beat him in 91 and they wouldn't have stood a chance against the 96 version.

Regardless...this thread has been done before and it's more of the same.

[Stevan]

Why do people act like this is a purely hypothetical discussion? Michael's Bulls played Magic's Lakers (minus Kareem) in the '91 NBA Finals. The Bulls swept them fairly easy.

One aging Kareem isn't going to make that big of a difference...as in 1996 the Bulls were far more experienced and dangerous than when they swept Magic before. Bulls win in 5 or 6.

Use the Bulls dominance of the Lakers and Pistons as a measuring stick. In 1996 and 97 the team was far more dangerous than the first threepeat...because Michael and Scottie were so much more experienced. Those 80's teams couldn't beat him in 91 and they wouldn't have stood a chance against the 96 version.

Regardless...this thread has been done before and it's more of the same.

Plus EG, those more experienced Bulls had a Celtic in Parish!!

[scubilete]

Michael's Bulls played Magic's Lakers (minus Kareem) in the '91 NBA Finals.

Yet, those were not the lakers of the 80s. Minus Kareem, minus Michael Cooper, Minus Orlando Wooldridge, Mychal Thompson was declining and Magic Johnson playing with bandages all over his injured body. I don't take anything from the Bulls because they played great but the fact they won is not like saying they won to the same team that dominated the 80s.

The Lakers did a lot taking the Blazers out of the way who really was the team to beat, and at that moment "i believe" Dunleavy became the first rookie coach to take a team to the finals. Also the Lakers were not swept, they series finished 4-1.

As a no-Bulls fan, I consider the best team they had was 92, noticed that you don't have to brake the most wins record to be the best yet. If the Lakers this year tie that record (something won't happen), it doesn't mean that it is the best Lakers team in their history.

I disagree with the fact that old teams would do better than today's team cause the game is different. We have swingmen all over while in the 80s we didn't, you would face Dominique/Dr. J/Drexler once in a while, while today teams face players with talent like theirs almost everyday.

It was easier in the 80s to say let's shut Jordan down so his team get busted, now every team is overloaded with players who can answer in the situation if the star doesn't respond like they should. Teams that dominated the 80s or other decades were composed by several superstars while those who were short didn't have more than one. You don't see that today, most of the teams have at least 2 when they can't have 3 superstars.

[paul_pierce_the_truth]

Why do people act like this is a purely hypothetical discussion? Michael's Bulls played Magic's Lakers (minus Kareem) in the '91 NBA Finals. The Bulls swept them fairly easy.

One aging Kareem isn't going to make that big of a difference...as in 1996 the Bulls were far more experienced and dangerous than when they swept Magic before. Bulls win in 5 or 6.

Use the Bulls dominance of the Lakers and Pistons as a measuring stick. In 1996 and 97 the team was far more dangerous than the first threepeat...because Michael and Scottie were so much more experienced. Those 80's teams couldn't beat him in 91 and they wouldn't have stood a chance against the 96 version.

Regardless...this thread has been done before and it's more of the same.

Noted.
You have are seriously in need of a history lession.

It's hard to understand how anyone could believe this is favorable match-up:

Bill Cartwright vs. Robert Parish
Horace Grant vs. Kevin McHale
Scottie Pippen vs. Larry Bird
Michael Jordan vs. Dennis Johnson
John Paxson vs. Danny Ainge

Benches:
Scott Williams, BJ Armstrong, Cliff Livingston, Bobby Hanson

Bill Walton, Jerry Sichting, Scott Wedman, Sam Vincent, Rick Carlisle

For the rest of the comments I see some young people who believe in Jordan and the modern watered down league.

It's all just without any research or knowledge by anyone who believes that today's teams are automatically better than dynasties like the Celtics and Lakers.

1981, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 Finals all featured the Celtics.
1980, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989 Featured the Lakers.

Every year either the Celtics or Lakers were there.
The Pistons knocked Michael Jordan and the Bulls out several times along with Bird and the Celtics.


1985 First Round
Milwaukee 3, Chicago 1
Apr. 19: Fri., Chicago 100 at Milwaukee 109
Apr. 21: Sun., Chicago 115 at Milwaukee 122
Apr. 24: Wed., Milwaukee 107 at Chicago 109
Apr. 26: Fri., Milwaukee 105 at Chicago 97

1986 First Round
Boston 3, Chicago 0
Apr. 17: Thu., Chicago 104 at Boston 123
Apr. 20: Sun., Chicago 131 at Boston **135
Apr. 22: Tue., Boston 122 at Chicago 104

1987 First Round
Boston 3, Chicago 0
Apr. 23: Thu., Chicago 104 at Boston 108
Apr. 26: Sun., Chicago 96 at Boston 105
Apr. 28: Tue., Boston 105 at Chicago 94

1988 Conference Semifinals
Detroit 4, Chicago 1
May 10: Tue., Chicago 82 at Detroit 93
May 12: Thu., Chicago 105 at Detroit 95
May 14: Sat., Detroit 101 at Chicago 79
May 15: Sun., Detroit 96 at Chicago 77
May 18: Wed., Chicago 95 at Detroit 102

1989 Conference Finals
Detroit 4, Chicago 2
May 21: Sun., Chicago 94 at Detroit 88
May 23: Tue., Chicago 91 at Detroit 100
May 27: Sat., Detroit 97 at Chicago 99
May 29: Mon., Detroit 86 at Chicago 80
May 31: Wed., Chicago 85 at Detroit 94
June 2: Fri., Detroit 103 at Chicago 94


1990 Conference Finals
Detroit 4, Chicago 3
May 20: Sun., Chicago 77 at Detroit 86
May 22: Tue., Chicago 93 at Detroit 102
May 26: Sat., Detroit 102 at Chicago 107
May 28: Mon., Detroit 101 at Chicago 108
May 30: Wed., Chicago 83 at Detroit 97
June 1: Fri., Detroit 91 at Chicago 109
June 3: Sun., Chicago 74 at Detroit 93

That's 7-21 in playoffs from 1985-1990.

Use the Bulls dominance of the Lakers and Pistons as a measuring stick.

Yeah the Pistons eliminated the Bulls three years in a row.

In 1991 they beat the Lakers 4-1.
In 1991 they beat the Pistons 4-0.

Their so-called primes were at different times I guess you could argue, but when Pistons were together and the Celtics were a dynasty with the Lakers, say from 1985-1991.

The Bulls were 22-22 in the playoffs, that's throwing in the 15-2 run in 1991.


1991 Lakers were not the 1985 Lakers.

1995 Conference Semifinals
Orlando 4, Chicago 2
May 7: Sun., Chicago 91 at Orlando 94
May 10: Wed., Chicago 104 at Orlando 94
May 12: Fri., Orlando 110 at Chicago 101
May 14: Sun., Orlando 95 at Chicago 106
May 16: Tue., Chicago 95 at Orlando 103
May 18: Thu., Orlando 108 at Chicago 102

You can't tell this Orlando Team could beat the 1986 Celtics or 1985 Lakers could they?

I disagree with the fact that old teams would do better than today's team cause the game is different. We have swingmen all over while in the 80s we didn't, you would face Dominique/Dr. J/Drexler once in a while, while today teams face players with talent like theirs almost everyday.

It was easier in the 80s to say let's shut Jordan down so his team get busted, now every team is overloaded with players who can answer in the situation if the star doesn't respond like they should. Teams that dominated the 80s or other decades were composed by several superstars while those who were short didn't have more than one. You don't see that today, most of the teams have at least 2 when they can't have 3 superstars.

So tell me how teams in a league with 29 teams are deeper and better than a league with 23 teams.

Oh well I got something started and got some results, although they appear to be biased more than fact based.

[paul_pierce_the_truth]

Regardless...this thread has been done before and it's more of the same.

So did you say the 1996 and 1992 Bulls would walk right over everyone else no matter who they are before?

[Amphatoast]

its kinda of hard to make these type of comparisons...if the bulls of '96 were with the lakers of '87 im sure the ulls would of tried to attract a big man to help there team if they needed help down low in the middle...these comparisons can easily change if they were true, because teams would do different trades to try and compete with the other team that might give them a challenge.

[EGarrett]

So tell me how teams in a league with 29 teams are deeper and better than a league with 23 teams.

It actually depends on the world population. I don't know the data in the 80's when the league was 23 teams but if the world population is double what it was in a certain era...then you can have twice the teams without diluting the talent pool. This doesn't even count the advances in size and physical fitness that come with time and a growing population. The world population now is larger than it was in the 80's..and player's are bigger and stronger...so the league isn't as diluted as people think.

Oh well I got something started and got some results, although they appear to be biased more than fact based.

Those stats and lists are nice...but Jordan didn't figure out how to play until '91. Once he did...Joe Dumars himself said that it became almost impossible to beat the Bulls. After Jordan figured out how to deal with the Pistons the Bulls beat them something like 15 or 20 games straight. When you pit a Lakers team that was somewhat worse than their prime against a Bulls team that was somewhat worse than their prime...and the Bulls dominate...it's logical to assume that a somewhat better Bulls team would beat a somewhat better Lakers team as well.

It's not really that hypothetical...when Jordan figured out how to play and Pippen matured...the Bulls became better than those 80's teams. I don't know exactly how much better...but decidedly better.

But anyway...this thread has been done before...

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~nbalive/ph ... php?t=5717

[paul_pierce_the_truth]

The world population...

but decidedly better.

1995-96 NBA: a watered down league
"We could not have won 70 games playing against 1980's teams."
-Dennis Rodman, starting power forward for the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls

1995-96 Was an expansion season in the NBA. The Toronto Raptors and Vancouver (now Memphis) Grizzlies were added before the season began. A slug of weak college drafts in the 1990's did nothing to counter the addition of four teams at the end of the 1980's and two more in 1995. There were great players scattered in the early 90's such as Shaquille O'Neal, Alonzo Mourning and Grant Hill, but overall there were seldom more than 3 or 4 players in each college draft who were able to provide immediate help to their teams. A great example of this was the Milwaukee Bucks who drafted future All Stars Vin Baker and #1 pick Glenn Robinson just a few years earlier, yet the Bucks only managed 25 wins in the 1995-96 season. The 1995-96 Season in the NBA was a tale of the haves and the have nots, Seattle (64-18) and Orlando (60-22) along with the Bulls set franchise records for wins during the 1995-96 season.

Nearly every March College Basketball proves that the best record does not equal the best team. In the NCAA tournament there is nearly always a team from an unknown school or a weak conference that enter the tournament with the highest winning percentage in the country. These teams have never been able to hold their own against the Dukes and Kentuckys. Why? because they won all those games playing in weaker conferences where the competition was not as good as the teams from the ACC or SEC. The NBA has weakened considerably throughout the 1990's. The number of superstars has remained constant. A lack of good young players to replace the aging veterans had produced some downright horrible teams in the 1995-96 Eastern Conference for the Bulls to beat up on. To this day the level of talent has slowly decreased. In spite of a 72-10 record the Bulls never even came close to challenging the pro sports record 33 game winning streak that was put together by the 1971-72 Los Angeles Lakers-who did not have an expansion season to help them.

Many of the other teams who posted 65+ wins had the benefit of an expansion year, but these other squads did not face a league with some teams who were downright awful because of too many teams and a lack of good young talent. In contrast, the 1986-87 Lakers (65-17) faced a league where there had been only one new team added during the previous 9 years (The Dallas Mavericks in 1980) and in 1984 & 1985 the NBA had what many people feel were the two best drafts in its history. Among the young talent that came from those drafts included Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, John Stockton, Sam Perkins, Chris Mullin & Joe Dumars.

Here is the breakdown:

Year & Great Team Years Since Last Expansion
1986-87 Lakers 6
1985-86 Celtics 5
1982-83 Sixers 2(1 Team in 1980)
1991-92 Bulls 2(2 Teams in 1989)
1971-72 Lakers 1
1966-67 Sixers 0 (1 Team)
1988-89 Pistons 0 (2 Teams)
1995-96 Bulls 0 (2 Teams)
1970-71 Bucks 0 (3 Teams)

Most modern NBA fans are from a younger generation and have been fed a myth that the average player of today is better than the average player of yesteryear. This is simply not true, while players of today are better raw physical athletes they lack the sound fundamentals, work ethic and stamina of players from the past: that's why current teams bring the ball up the court and stand around for as many as 12 seconds before running their offense. Simple mathematics will tell you that the average player among the 168 best in the world (the number of players at the end of the 1960's) will always be better than the average player among the 348 best in the world (the number of players today).

The modern NBA game has grinded to a halt. The fast break is dead and only a handful of current teams are capable of scoring 100 points on a nightly basis. Games from the days of Oscar Robertson and Wilt Chamberlain are like track meets when compared to the current NBA. Back then teams scored 115 points on a regular basis. Even more amazing is the fact that the players of yesteryear were able to play at such a fast pace even though they did not have the luxuries of chartered jets, first class hotels, never having to play on more than 2 consecutive nights, personal trainers and modern sports medicine that has benefited every NBA player over the last 12 years.

The most prominent example of why the "Players of today are better" is only a myth was the 1995-96 Milwaukee Bucks. The Bucks were coached by Mike Dunleavy, who was never more than a journeyman when he played in the 1970's & 80's. In one-on-one games Dunleavy was undefeated against every one of his Bucks players- including future All-Stars Vin Baker & Glenn Robinson*. There were 3 other teams that year who were even worse than the Bucks. If NBA players of today are so much better than those of the past, this simply could not happen.

The 1970-71 Milwaukee Bucks (66-16) were not chosen to be one of the top 10 teams in NBA history in spite of blowing out their competition more thoroughly than any other team in history. The Bucks dominated the league so well that they rested their star players for the last 6 regular season games yet they still finished with 66 wins and a record 14 game margin over the league's #2 team. Later the Bucks proceeded to drill their playoff opponents like no one else in history, winning by an average margin of 14.5 points per game while compiling a 12-2 playoff record. Like the 1995-96 Bulls, the 1970-71 Bucks played in an expansion season and if the Bucks don't belong among "The 10 Greatest Teams In NBA History" because they had an expansion year to enhance their win total then the 1995-96 Bulls are not the best team in NBA history for that same reason.

* Source: Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal

http://pw1.netcom.com/~bjalas/basketbal ... ansion.htm

The shortened 3 point line.
How a short 3 point line helped the Chicago Bulls win 72 games in 1995-96.

The 1995-96 Bulls are one of only three of the NBA's "All Time Great teams" who have a primarily perimeter oriented offense. The other teams were the 1989 the Detroit Pistons who won 63 regular season games & rolled through the '89 playoffs and the 1991-92 Bulls. Unlike the 96 Bulls the Pistons did not have a shortened 3 point line to help their outside shooting quartet of Joe Dumars, Vinnie Johnson, Mark Aguire and center Bill Laimbeer. The 1986 Celtics (Ainge, Bird & Wedman) would also have the potential to feast off a shortened 3 point line as would Byron Scott (1987 Lakers).

The truth in basketball is that if you give a team 2 or 3 extra points every night over the course of an 82 game season it will translate into at least 4 or 5 more wins. The Bulls used this boost to put them over the 70 win plateau in 1996. The shortened 3 point line also helped to inflate the Bulls win percentage in 1996-97. What proof do I have? well the fact is Jordan's 3 point percentage took a nose dive and the corresponding Bulls win total dropped by 7 games (62-20, see table above) in the first season immediately after the league moved the line back (1997-98). Now that is a pretty darn good one. Why don't we give Shaq 3 to make 2 every time he gets fouled and then drool at how many games the Lakers win this year. This is yet another reason why the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls are a great team, but not the best team in NBA History.

http://pw1.netcom.com/~bjalas/basketbal ... t_line.htm

The 1995-96 Chicago Bulls: A "Donut Team".

"I think our best teams could handle them, we had Kareem in the middle, he always made the difference for us."
Earvin "Magic" Johnson on whether or not his Lakers of the mid to late 1980's could defeat the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls.

"You need a dominant big man to get to the (NBA) Finals. Chicago did it. But they were an aberration"
-Phil Jackson: who coached the 72-10 Chicago Bulls in 1995-96


The Bulls do not have a center that dominates any facet of the game, Luc Longley, Bill Wennington, the way past his prime James Edwards and John Salley produce a four headed center that his high on quantity but void of any quality. Their starting center: Luc Longley is so bad that he has not been able to hold a starting spot on any other team since leaving Chicago in 1998.

In the middle 1980's the Milwaukee Bucks boasted a similar squad that was as good as anyone in the league, except during the playoffs: They relied on a strong defense that was regularly among the best in the league. Offensively the Bucks had a 3 pronged attack with Sidney Moncrief, Terry Cummings and point-forward Paul Pressey along with a fine supporting cast including three point specialist Craig Hodges & sixth man Ricky Pierce off the bench: except for the center position where Randy Breuer, Paul Mokeski and Alton Lister were adequate during the regular season but were repeatedly buzz-sawed by the first dominant center they faced (Moses Malone 4-0 in 1985 and Robert Parish/Bill Walton 4-0 in 1986) in the playoffs.

Those Bucks have a striking similarity with the 1996 Bulls, who employed Scottie Pippen as a point forward running the offense. The Bulls perimeter group of Jordan, Pippen, Harper, Kerr & Kucoc are a small upgrade in perimeter defensive strength from those 1986 Bucks. Throw in rebounding specialist Dennis Rodman and you have an upgraded, stronger version of those mid 1980's Bucks, but still no center (and in the Bull's case no power forward on offense) While those Bucks were a very good team the distance between them and -for example- the 1986 Celtics was just too great. In the 1986 Eastern Conference Finals the Celtics dominated the Bucks so thoroughly that the Bucks only led during 25 of the 192 game time minutes of the 4 game sweep.

During their careers neither Bill Russel nor Wilt Chamberlain's teams lost a playoff series to a team without an all star caliber center & the Bulls' Luc Longley has never even come close to making the All-Star Team. Why is this important? You are turning some of the all time greatest defensive centers into roaming defenders that can cause all kinds of defensive mayhem in the paint: In the 1986 Western Conference Finals Akeem Olajuwon dominated the Lakers as a roaming defender because he did not have to guard any of the offensively weak Laker power forwards? This would be a huge X factor that many of the other great teams can use against the 1996 Bulls. At least the 1992 Bulls had Bill Cartwright, Horace Grant and Stacie King who were all good enough offensively to at worst occupy their defenders when the Bulls had the ball. The top teams in NBA history boast the likes of Bill Russel, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Moses Malone, Robert Parish... and the list goes on.

Furthermore, the fastest way to make a dominant center put up big numbers against you is letting him rest on defense. The 1996 Bulls provide no one who can make the other team's big people have to play hard on the defensive end. This becomes important since many of the other all-time great teams have players good enough to hold their own against Pippen, Rodman, Harper & their backups.

In some cases what it comes down to is the Bulls are going to get outscored by 25 to 30 points (probably more vs. Wilt) at the center position alone. Will Jordan dominate Hall of Fame Guard __X__ better than Chaimberlain, Moses Malone or Abdul Jabbar will dominate Luc Longley? I don't think so.
A friend of mine once said "The 1996 Bulls didn't need a low post presence". To defeat the Orlando Magic and Seattle Supersonics he is right. However, both of these teams would be obliterated by a complete team like the 1985-86 Celtics or the 1966-67 76ers.

Bulls fans like to point out that the Bulls version of the Tex Winters triangle offense doesn't need a dominant center. The truth is that even the triangle can not hide the fact that Luc Longley is not a good center. Magnifying this weakness further is the fact that power forward Dennis Rodman is solely a defensive player and rebounder, thus the Bulls have no low post offense from their key big people. To paraphrase a quote once used by former Celtic great Tommy Heinsohn: The Bulls only have a limited number of quality big people, and unless Dennis Rodman can score close to 30 points a game the Bulls are not going to be with us. The lack of an upper echelon center makes the Bulls incredibly vulnerable in the post to a great team with the veteran savvy, and a center to take advantage of it.

[scubilete]

Nothing guarantees that the Celts/Lakers would score 115 every night like they did back in the 80s, while allowing 108 ppg makes you wonder if they were that great at defense. That's what I meant when I say those teams wouldn't do as good as they did in today's game. The game has changed & developed in some way no team avg over 105 ppg, even when they have 4-5 superstars like the Celts & Lakers had once. And this is not cause the quality of the players is down but the defense scheme & system has changed.

Regarding being better & deeper?, I didn't say today's teams are better, just that old teams wouldn't do as good as they did before with all the restrictions we have today.

We could not have won 70 games playing against 1980's teams

Rodman said that cause the East was loaded in the 80s, something that hasn't happened in approx. 15 years.

[MaD_hAND1e]

lol, Get over it man! the style of play back then compared to now is different, the type of players today that are dominating today compared with the past is different.

As EGarret said, the world population has grown and that players were bigger and stronger, well, maybe oppositely bench players now could have been the best player in the league 10 - 20 years ago.
Just because the scoring was higher back then doesn't mean they are better, that could just mean their defense was worse.
But all and all, we will never really know if the 96 Bulls could beat the 80's Lakers or what would happen if todays players played against the players of the past..... all we can do now is hypothesis what could happen.... maybe those 80s Lakers could own every single team in the NBA now... or maybe they would even lose to the AND1 mixtape team, the point is... the past is past... u can't compare how they played in their time with the NBA now.......

well... theres my 2 cents... but thn again... i'm probly wrong... cos all i've seen in my life is the NBA played with 29 teams...

[paul_pierce_the_truth]

lol, Get over it man! the style of play back then compared to now is different, the type of players today that are dominating today compared with the past is different.

As EGarret said, the world population has grown and that players were bigger and stronger, well, maybe oppositely bench players now could have been the best player in the league 10 - 20 years ago.
Just because the scoring was higher back then doesn't mean they are better, that could just mean their defense was worse.
But all and all, we will never really know if the 96 Bulls could beat the 80's Lakers or what would happen if todays players played against the players of the past..... all we can do now is hypothesis what could happen.... maybe those 80s Lakers could own every single team in the NBA now... or maybe they would even lose to the AND1 mixtape team, the point is... the past is past... u can't compare how they played in their time with the NBA now.......

well... theres my 2 cents... but thn again... i'm probly wrong... cos all i've seen in my life is the NBA played with 29 teams...

Keep it real.