NBA Finals 2016

[Enhance]

Does this mean the 95-96 Bulls were better?

They were certainly fortunate to not have to go up against a Lebron James led hungry team, at least.

As a Bulls fans, I won't lie that I'm kind of glad the Warriors weren't able to win the title. In my opinion, the '16 Warriors should be considered one of the best teams of all time, but I wouldn't put them in the same echelon as the 96 Bulls now. I'm obviously not completely objective about this, but in my opinion, they didn't deserve to be in the "who was best" debate if they couldn't win it all.

That's because, in my opinion, whether you win 72 or 73 games doesn't really matter. Both numbers are remarkable and worthy of praise, but in context, it is one game out of 80. What matters is where you're able to finish because that's the way the NBA, NHL, NFL, etc. are constructed.

As for whether or not the Bulls would beat the Cavs, who knows. Love was virtually non-existent in this series and I don't personally think James/Irving match up well for 7 games against Jordan/Pippen/Rodman. I would take Bulls in 6, maybe even 5.

 

[Mavric]

Does this mean the 95-96 Bulls were better?

They were certainly fortunate to not have to go up against a Lebron James led hungry team, at least.

As a Bulls fans, I won't lie that I'm kind of glad the Warriors weren't able to win the title. In my opinion, the '16 Warriors should be considered one of the best teams of all time, but I wouldn't put them in the same echelon as the 96 Bulls now. I'm obviously not completely objective about this, but in my opinion, they didn't deserve to be in the "who was best" debate if they couldn't win it all.

That's because, in my opinion, whether you win 72 or 73 games doesn't really matter. Both numbers are remarkable and worthy of praise, but in context, it is one game out of 80. What matters is where you're able to finish because that's the way the NBA, NHL, NFL, etc. are constructed.

As for whether or not the Bulls would beat the Cavs, who knows. Love was virtually non-existent in this series and I don't personally think James/Irving match up well for 7 games against Jordan/Pippen/Rodman. I would take Bulls in 6, maybe even 5.

It would have been interesting to see Pippen guard James. If the Bulls went there with Jordan on Irving, I'm not sure what the Cavs do.

I suppose James would have tried to guard Jordan because I don't think the Cavs have anyone else who could. Possibly Thompson. If James had to guard Jordan, it might have taken away from what else he could do.

 

[Landlord]

Does this mean the 95-96 Bulls were better?

They were certainly fortunate to not have to go up against a Lebron James led hungry team, at least.

As a Bulls fans, I won't lie that I'm kind of glad the Warriors weren't able to win the title. In my opinion, the '16 Warriors should be considered one of the best teams of all time, but I wouldn't put them in the same echelon as the 96 Bulls now. I'm obviously not completely objective about this, but in my opinion, they didn't deserve to be in the "who was best" debate if they couldn't win it all.

That's because, in my opinion, whether you win 72 or 73 games doesn't really matter. Both numbers are remarkable and worthy of praise, but in context, it is one game out of 80. What matters is where you're able to finish because that's the way the NBA, NHL, NFL, etc. are constructed.

As for whether or not the Bulls would beat the Cavs, who knows. Love was virtually non-existent in this series and I don't personally think James/Irving match up well for 7 games against Jordan/Pippen/Rodman. I would take Bulls in 6, maybe even 5.

Everyone seems to be taking my comment with much more literalism than what was implied. All I'm saying is that the 96 Bulls, despite being the GOAT, didn't have to go up against a big three led by the greatest player of their generation.

 

[Enhance]

Does this mean the 95-96 Bulls were better?

They were certainly fortunate to not have to go up against a Lebron James led hungry team, at least.

As a Bulls fans, I won't lie that I'm kind of glad the Warriors weren't able to win the title. In my opinion, the '16 Warriors should be considered one of the best teams of all time, but I wouldn't put them in the same echelon as the 96 Bulls now. I'm obviously not completely objective about this, but in my opinion, they didn't deserve to be in the "who was best" debate if they couldn't win it all.

That's because, in my opinion, whether you win 72 or 73 games doesn't really matter. Both numbers are remarkable and worthy of praise, but in context, it is one game out of 80. What matters is where you're able to finish because that's the way the NBA, NHL, NFL, etc. are constructed.

As for whether or not the Bulls would beat the Cavs, who knows. Love was virtually non-existent in this series and I don't personally think James/Irving match up well for 7 games against Jordan/Pippen/Rodman. I would take Bulls in 6, maybe even 5.

Everyone seems to be taking my comment with much more literalism than what was implied. All I'm saying is that the 96 Bulls, despite being the GOAT, didn't have to go up against a big three led by the greatest player of their generation.

I used your argument as a jumping off point for something I had wanted to add to the discussion, so I didn't mean for all of that to be targeted towards you =).

But, more direct to your point, I'll just reaffirm what I said about Love that he was virtually non-existent in this series (mainly due to GS, their roster and schemes). He is also in the unfortunate spot of playing on a team with two players better than him.

Even such, GS was a better team this entire season than the Cavs - the Cavs just got it done when it mattered. Nobody is going to ever put this Cavs team in the conversation with greatest of all time. A very parallel situation to the 2007 Patriots/Giants. The Patriots were definitely a better team that year, but the Giants got it done when it mattered.

 

[BigRedBuster]

This is pretty cool.