1986 all over again?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: 1986 all over again?

    Opinions have been expressed by members of this board as to whether the  86 Celts or 96 Bulls were the better team. I'm always very interested in discussions concerning generational comparisons of teams. Perhaps those of you that have expressed an opinion on this  matter could tell me the reasoning that shaped your opinions.

    seems

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: 1986 all over again?

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SeemsToMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Opinions have been expressed by members of this board as to whether the  86 Celts or 96 Bulls were the better team. I'm always very interested in disscussions concerning generational comparisons of teams. Perhaps those of you that have expressed an opinion on this  matter could tell me the reasoning that shaped your opinions.

    seems

    [/QUOTE]

    The 1996 Bulls won 72 games in the regular season en route to a championship. 

    MJ is also considered the greatest NBA player of all-time.

    Come on, a team that only losses, on average, once a month for 6 months?

    And it's not like the core of that 1996 Bulls team didn't win 3-peat.

    [/QUOTE]


    Thanks Fiercest34. I hope others reply. Im always more interested in opinions when people offer some reasoning to back up their opinions

    seems 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from concord27. Show concord27's posts

    Re: 1986 all over again?

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to concord27's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    even though we are light in the rebounding department.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Don't quite get this comment. The Celtics led the league in rebounding and were fourth or fifth in fewest rebounds by the opponent.

    The Celtics typically dominated on the boards, especially the defensive boards. Bird cleaned up on the defensive boards, and Parish, Walton and McHale were all strong on the boards.

    [/QUOTE]

    At the top of the thread Kirk is talking about this year's team in comparison to the 86 team. I was comparing the Celtics now to the 86 team. Our rebounding this years is very much in question this year. Of course I hope I am wrong.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: 1986 all over again?

    I believe that Bird was every bit as good coming off of an MVP year as Jordan was in his prime....certainly not as great an athlete....but just as good of a basketball player....that being said, I think the Celtics had more talent...how effective would Bill Cartright or Luc Longley have been against the Chief..? ......who guards McHale?.....certainly not Rodman.. a healthy Bill Walton playing 10-15 minutes with his passing, rebounding, and shot blocking..?     wasn't DJ always considered to be a "big game player"...?

    I just think that the Cetics had superior talent man for man....again Seems, it's only my opinion...

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: 1986 all over again?

    In response to Duke4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I believe that Bird was every bit as good coming off of an MVP year as Jordan was in his prime....certainly not as great an athlete....but just as good of a basketball player....that being said, I think the Celtics had more talent...how effective would Bill Cartright or Luc Longley have been against the Chief..? ......who guards McHale?.....certainly not Rodman..? a healthy Bill Walton playing 10-15 minutes with his passing, rebounding, and shot blocking..?     wasn't DJ always considered to be a "big game player"...?

    I just think that the Cetics had superior talent man for man....again Seems, it's only my opinion...

    [/QUOTE]
    Thanks Duke for raising some interesting questions. I'll be getting back to you later with my thoughts on this subject.

    seems

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: 1986 all over again?

    OK Seems.....always enjoy reading your point of view.....

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: 1986 all over again?

    Bird and MJ may have been equally dominant MVP's at the top of their games those years... but Bird would have been guarded by Pippen and Rodman, while MJ got to go up against Ainge and DJ.

    That alone would make up for some of the disparity in the frontcourt.

    The series would have gone 7 and been a doozy thats for sure

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from bt33. Show bt33's posts

    Re: 1986 all over again?

    Don't think the comparison between this years team and the 1986 Celtics is at all apt. The Celtics team was loaded with four Hall of fame players (Bird/Johnson/McHale/Parrish) in their prime and one (Walton) past his. This Celtics team has two hall of fame players (Bird and Pierce) who are both past their primes and only one potential hall of famer (rondo) who is in it. The 85-86 Celtics team had one of the best 8 every assembled, but they were not a deep team. this current celtics team is very deep. in short, the 85-86 celtics are arguably the best team to ever play (and positively in the top 5) and this team in no way resembles that kind of quality. At best they look like the third best team in the league and a solid argument could be made that they are only the 4-6th best team on paper. 

    In terms of the 85-86 Celts vs. 95-96 Bulls.... While it's true a team (much like a boxer) cannot help the competition it faces, it is also tue that the Celtics faced FAR superior competition in 85-86. With hall of famers Bird, Parish, McHale, DJ, and Walton, Ainge entering his prime, and Sichting and Wedman basically shooting lights out for the entire season this team was a machine and aesthetically played the game as well as I imagine anyone ever has. They went 67-15 and could have easily won over seventy games had they put the petal to the metal. Keep this in mind - the Celtics went 1-5 in thir last six games because they rested their starters. They would have easily won 70 if they hadn't. They then went 15-3 in the playoffs. So their overall record was 82-18 but again could have easily been 85-15 or 86-14.

    The 95-96 Bulls went 72-10 and and 12-3 in the playoffs, for a record of 84-13. The Bulls were far more concerned with their regular season and breaking the wins record and by contrast went 5-1 in their last 6 games (The Celtics couldn't have cared less about the regaulr season record). Yes, the Bulls had the best player who ever played in Jordan, a hall of famer in Pippen, and another one in Rodman (one of the greatest rebounders to ever play), but the rest of the team was essentially a bunch of spare parts (though Kukoc, Harper, and Kerr were solid players).

    Huge contrast in styles with match-ups galore going on (McHale/Rodman; Bird/Pippen; Jordan/ DJ). All and all I'd say the Celtics had a better front eight, though the biggest advantage IMO is the Walton/ McHale/Parrish/Bird match-up against Wennington/Longley/edwards/Rodman (cartwright was not on this team) - Celtics KILL them down low. Give Bulls the advantage on the perimeter with Jordan/Pippen/Kerr/Harper/Kukoc/Rodman against Bird/DJ/ Ainge/ Sichting/ Wedman, but not enough to overcome the Celtics dominating the paint. It's tough because you have players that aren't really stoppable here - no one is stopping Jordan/McHale/Pippen/Bird/ Parrish so a few of the games might've come down to last minute shots with lots of big shot-makers on the court (including Jordan and Bird, two of the best ever). 

    I'd take Celts in 6 or 7. 

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: 1986 all over again?

    Duke,Concord27, fiercest,bt33,            You all seem to agree that the teams of the 80's were superior to the teams of the the 90's. What was the criterion that brought you to that conclusion? For a long time I've been searching for an accurate criterion to help me to determine the relative abilities of teams from different generations.Perhaps you guys have the answer.

    seems

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: 1986 all over again?

    Bloggety.....you and I have gone back and forth and I think there is a healthy respect here....but the 2000 Lakers aren't in anyone's top 10 all time as I read the media rankings......c'mon man....

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: 1986 all over again?

    also....just asking.....did you watch the games during the 1985/86 season...?  .....really...just a question and looking for an honest answer pal......

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: 1986 all over again?

    In response to bt33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Keep this in mind - the Celtics went 1-5 in thir last six games because they rested their starters. They would have easily won 70 if they hadn't. They then went 15-3 in the playoffs. So their overall record was 82-18 but again could have easily been 85-15 or 86-14.

    [/QUOTE]

    Celtics' last 6 games in 1985-86

    4/4/86 Knicks 119-98

    4/6/86 @76ers 94-95

    4/8/86 @Bucks 126-114

    4/9/86 @Nets 98-108

    4/11/86 Cavs 117-104

    4/13/86 Nets 135-107

    1-5? and would easily won 70?

     

    They were 63-13 after 76 games. How could they win 70 with 6 games left? they went 4-2 in their last 6 games and only got to 67-15...

    I remember it really well. In the Philadelphia game, it was a jump ball with 1 second left, Philly won the jump and Dr. J hit a buzzer-beating 3-pointer. I was ecstatic because that buzzer-beater prevented the Celtics from getting 69 wins to tie the 72 Lakers' record.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from hedleylamarr. Show hedleylamarr's posts

    Re: 1986 all over again?

    As much as I loved the 86 Celtics, I would have to give the slight edge to the Bulls team.......too athletic for us, I believe, in 7 games.  But, I agree with Rame - would go 7, and would have been fabulous to watch!

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from susan250. Show susan250's posts

    Re: 1986 all over again?

    In response to 003323344's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The 1986 Celtics are easily one of the top 3 teams of all time. It's been said Bird would play entire games shooting only with his left hand just for fun. The following year Walton was injured as was Bird and McHale though they played through the injuries in the playoffs. Had they been healthy they 2-peat. And lets not forget Len Bias who was drafted in 1986. What a team that would have been.  

    [/QUOTE]
    If only Bias hadn't died.    The Celtics could have been relevant for several more years. 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: 1986 all over again?

    The Celtics of that time were a lot tougher than the Bulls and played against much tougher competition

     

    I think they would beat them in 5

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: 1986 all over again?

    In response to concord27's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to concord27's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    even though we are light in the rebounding department.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Don't quite get this comment. The Celtics led the league in rebounding and were fourth or fifth in fewest rebounds by the opponent.

    The Celtics typically dominated on the boards, especially the defensive boards. Bird cleaned up on the defensive boards, and Parish, Walton and McHale were all strong on the boards.

    [/QUOTE]

    At the top of the thread Kirk is talking about this year's team in comparison to the 86 team. I was comparing the Celtics now to the 86 team. Our rebounding this years is very much in question this year. Of course I hope I am wrong.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ah. Misunderstood.

    Agree that the rebounding this year is in question. The team should have been better rebounders last  year than it was. It's about effort.

    I never mentioned it, but the comparison to the 1986 team is ridiculous. The 1985-1986 team was arguably the best team of all time.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: 1986 all over again?

    In response to dirty52's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Celtics of that time were a lot tougher than the Bulls and played against much tougher competition

     

    I think they would beat them in 5

    [/QUOTE]


    dirty's52

    You seem to agree with other opinions on this thread that the 1985-86 Celts faced better competition then the 1995-96 Bulls did. I asked them for  the reasoning that led them to this conclusion and so far I have not received any  response. Perhaps you can enlighten me on this matter.

    Seems 

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from OneOnOne. Show OneOnOne's posts

    Re: 1986 all over again?

    In response to Duke4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    but those Bulls didn't face the competition the Celtics did.....the '86 Celts would've beaton all of MJ's Bulls' teams....and it wouldn't have been close....the Bulls rose to the top once the Celtics, Lakers, and Pistons fell off...MJ's teams got schooled by Bird's teams....every year!

    [/QUOTE]

    there is no bigger Celtic fan than myself Duke.  But answer me this,  Bird and boys barely scrapped by the Bulls when the Bulls were barely squeeking in the playoffs.  Jordan made it a game by himself.  Without looking for the 3 game series he probably averaged about 40 a game and i believe they were all close.   Fast forward a few years to the Bulls best years,  I am not so sure we would have beaten them Bull teams.  Maybe we would who knows.  I just know Michael walked on water for a while.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: 1986 all over again?

    In response to OneOnOne's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Duke4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    but those Bulls didn't face the competition the Celtics did.....the '86 Celts would've beaton all of MJ's Bulls' teams....and it wouldn't have been close....the Bulls rose to the top once the Celtics, Lakers, and Pistons fell off...MJ's teams got schooled by Bird's teams....every year!

    [/QUOTE]

    there is no bigger Celtic fan than myself Duke.  But answer me this,  Bird and boys barely scrapped by the Bulls when the Bulls were barely squeeking in the playoffs.  Jordan made it a game by himself.  Without looking for the 3 game series he probably averaged about 40 a game and i believe they were all close.   Fast forward a few years to the Bulls best years,  I am not so sure we would have beaten them Bull teams.  Maybe we would who knows.  I just know Michael walked on water for a while.

    [/QUOTE]

    OneonOne

    Discussions like this generally have a strong home town tilt so I'm not surprised that the Celts would be favored by this boards members. I just wonder how many of the Celtic fans who probably never missed a Celtic game in  the 1980's, followed them with the same passion in those dismal years from 1993 to 1997 when the Celtics wallowed far below the 500% level. With the Celtics out contention is it possible that the local fans may not have been as focused on both the Celtics and the league in general in the 90's. In any event I doubt that I will ever be satisfied that I could ever pick, with any degree of confidence in my opinion, the winner of a playoff series between the 2 teams.

    Seems

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: 1986 all over again?

    Nah, that 86 team was much much better. Most of their star players were in their prime and they were just as deep. That was one of the best teams ever.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share