- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Where would you rank this Warriors team in history?
Posted on 6/18/15 at 12:54 am to BigBrod81
Posted on 6/18/15 at 12:54 am to BigBrod81
quote:
You didn't honestly believe back then or now that the Cavs, an aged Pistons team, Hawks or Pacers were going to come out of the East. I know I didn't. Orlando had the talent but lacked the playoff experience to beat the Bulls. The Knicks were the only realistic shot because they had the veterans & because the Bulls & Knicks was such a big rivalry. Losing Pat Riley as coach after the 94-95 really hurt any chance the Knicks had against the Bulls that season & it caused New York to have an up & down 95-96 season.
Not expecting someone other than the Bulls had to do with the Bulls not with other teams not having a shot. Again a 60 & 52 game winner and the east was not shitty like it is now having no teams with losing records in the playoffs.
quote:
You take away those 5 easy wins & the Bulls don't set the NBA record for wins. The Bulls also had 8 wins against the other 4 teams that entered the league since 1988. I distinctly said that 95-96 Bulls team was really good but you can't honestly say that setting the record for most wins in a season wasn't benefited from expansion.
Take away those 5 easy wins? Come on. The Raptors won 21 games. Orlando, Miami, and Charlotte were all .500 or better so those "expansion" teams were just fine.
You're acting like the other teams who won a bunch of games like the Lakers played all hard teams. A record is a record and expansion has been part of those other record breaking teams too.
1
Posted on 6/18/15 at 1:17 am to Sho Nuff
quote:
You're acting like the other teams who won a bunch of games like the Lakers played all hard teams. A record is a record and expansion has been part of those other record breaking teams too.
The 71-72 Lakers set the previous record with 69 playing in a league that consisted of 17 teams then. They also won a record 33 straight games that year. By the time the league expanded 95-96, it was up to 27 teams with already established teams having to give up players to expansion drafts. Plus this was well before the NBA had even begun to look to Europe for players. My point is, to an extent, the league was watered down. It takes several years for the talent level to build back up when there is that much expansion in that short amount of time. You twisting what I'm saying into believing I'm that the Bulls were only great because of expansion. That's not the case because they were great but I don't think they set a record of 72 wins if it weren't for expansion.
Posted on 6/18/15 at 1:50 am to randomways
quote:
Just looked it up -- apparently the Bad Boy era, as defined by whoever edited the Pistons wiki page, ran from 1979-1994.
1979 is a bit generous as when the Bad Boy era actually started. Isiah Thomas wasn't drafted until '81. Bill Laimbeer was traded for in 1982. Rick Mahorn arrived via trade in '85 which was also the year Joe Dumars was drafted. Dennis Rodman was drafted the following year in '86. They finally defeated the Celtics in the ECF after battling them for 2 straight years only to lose to the Lakers in 87-88 NBA Finals. They won back to back titles in 88-89/89-90 before falling to the Bulls in the ECF in 90-91. By then the playoff battles of the previous years had begun to wear on them.
The 1994 is kinda generous too. They lost Rick Mahorn to the Timberwolves in the expansion draft of 1989. Chuck Daly resigned as head coach in '92. Laimbeer retired & Dennis Rodman was traded to the Spurs in '93. By '94, Thomas & Dumars were the last two standing. Thomas ended up tearing his Achilles that year & retiring.
Posted on 6/18/15 at 2:03 am to BigBrod81
quote:
You twisting what I'm saying into believing I'm that the Bulls were only great because of expansion.
No, that's not what I'm doing. I'm pointing out that expansion does NOT water down their 72 wins. Especially when you consider only 5 wins were from those 2 new teams. If the Bulls play veteran teams instead, you don't think they could have gone 5-1? Even if they go 3-3 they still win 70 games. Record.
quote:
I don't think they set a record of 72 wins if it weren't for expansion.
You're diminishing a great record over 6 games and are over looking the obvious as pointed out above, they were nearly unstoppabull
and even without 2 new expansion teams you can't seriously think they wouldn't have won 70 games at least. You should just discredit all records if we're saying 5 wins from 2 expansion teams definitively means they couldn't have won those same 5 against other veteran teams. I mean they only lost 10 games all year, but now we're saying they would've lost more for sure?
The 71-72 Lakers had 3 new expansion teams in 1970 - CLE, BUFF, PORT and they played Portland and Buffalo a bunch of times. Of course with 17 teams
So the 33 win streak is not that impressive because they played brand new teams? The league was "watered down" and the Lakers got to play an easy schedule?
Again, 6 games out of 82 and the Bulls went 5-1. They won 72 games. Expansion had nothing to do with the Bulls breaking records. We'll just agree to disagree though.
This post was edited on 6/18/15 at 2:09 am
Posted on 6/18/15 at 3:00 am to Sho Nuff
quote:
The league was "watered down"
From depth standpoint, it was very much watered down. The expansion not only brought about lesser talented teams but the expansion draft also hurt several teams depth when they had to expose certain players to those drafts. It's something that isn't hard to comprehend. It caused talent to more spread out across the league & teams ended up having to fill spots with players who really weren't NBA caliber.
This post was edited on 6/18/15 at 3:03 am
Posted on 6/18/15 at 9:41 am to SamuelClemens
quote:
Very low considering everyone saying they beat a worthless team with the GOAT handicapped basically 5 on 1
This has absolutely no bearing on their place in history.
Posted on 6/18/15 at 12:51 pm to RLDSC FAN
I see you didn't put any celtics teams in the list. Good move because GS is not better than any of the titles the boys in green won.
Posted on 6/18/15 at 1:04 pm to RLDSC FAN
It would be a lot higher if Lebron and the Island of Misfit Toys hadn't dragged them to six games and only been blown out in one.
Posted on 6/18/15 at 1:27 pm to BayouBengals03
quote:
2001 Lakers 2008 Celtics 2014 Spurs 2015 Warriors 2012 Heat Top 5 teams of the century.
Gotta put the 2004 Pistons inhere somewhere....They would have crushed GS....
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News