After losing game 2 in Chicago, the Bulls would win games 3 and 4 in Atlanta winning the series 4-1. The exact same thing happened the next year. The Bulls lost game 2 in Chicago to the Hornets but won games 3 and 4 in Charlotte winning that series 4-1.
So the same bulls that would supposedly sweep teams like the 67’ sixers, 71’ Bucks, 83’ Sixers, 86’ Celtics, and 17’ Warriors drop a game to the 97’ Hawks and expansion hornets????
@@nick9573 "Expansion Hornets"....who'd been in the league for a decade and had stars like glen rice, larry johnson and alonzo mourning under its belt. And I got news for you, the 67 sixers are the only team you listed that didn't benefit from major expansion to get fat on wins....instead they just played a league of 10 teams which meant they played like 15 games against the worst team in the league...bet they lost to them at least once. In other words it is completely dumb to say anything about them losing to the hawks or hornets once. The Hawks were a top 5 defensive team that year thanks to mutombo and blaylock and had won 56 games and the hornets who won 51 games benefited from BJ Armstrong going off for one game against the oldest team to ever win a title. Funny enough the 1997 bulls were the 4th oldest team and thus they are the only team to appear in the top 5 oldest twice and the only team to win the title twice with an average age over 30. Also no one says they'd sweep really any of those teams, they say they'd win a series over them. LOL
@@scottb3034 83’ sixers and 86’ Celtics didn’t really benefit from sudden and unexpected expansion like the 96’ bulls and even 71’ bucks due randomly added teams in 68’, 89’ and 95’. The expansion teams ‘added’ that could’ve benefited the 83’ sixers and 86’ Celtics were from the ABA like 6-9 years prior (which was only formed in 1967). So they weren’t just new teams made up of players on previously existing teams. 67’ 76ers were voted the best team ever in 1996 for a reason. By writers who had covered the nba for pretty much it’s entire existence. So I’m not sure where the disrespect for the 67’ sixers is coming from. They won 46 of their first 50 before coasting to the playoffs and then blowing out the team that had won 8 straight in 5 games. Chamberlain running the offense from the post with Greer and Cunningham moving of the ball. Jackson helping control the glass. They were legit.
@@scottb3034 maybe not sweep, but people definitely claim that teams like the 67’ 76ers, 71’ Bucks, and 86’ Celtics wouldnt give the 96’ bulls any trouble. Which is strange considering they’re rolling in there with….Luke Longley protecting the basket.
@@nick9573 Luc Longley isn't a great player but he is the kind that fits the Bulls defense if he remains out of foul trouble. He was a large body that at least for a little while gave Magic Shaq issues. That isn't to say Kareem, Moses and Wilt would suck or have much issue but they aren't just bullying their way to the rim either, they would have to go into their bag of tricks to score unless they could speed around Luc. The Bulls strength in this era was the interchangeability of their players and defense. No one in the starting lineup was under 6'6", they were all really good defenders except maybe Luc who was more of a big body and team defender, etc. They could play small without going small, they had several ballhandlers and decent scorers, etc. That said, i think the teams that give them more trouble are those older teams with a great big man like either 6ers team or the Bucks. The Celtics would also be tough because Parish wasn't a big scorer but he was good all around and the Celtics were as deep per position as those bulls. Funny enough I think the 2017 warriors would be the least competitive because the Bulls match up best against them (not saying sweep though btw) Sure these teams could beat the Bulls and in fact would probably do fairly well; the Bulls weren't trash because they lost one to a 50 win team in 97 and 98. Also, weirdly enough, even though the 1996 bulls had the best run, the 1997 Bulls had more actual talent on their team with Brian Williams and Parish instead of James Edwards, John Salley and Rodman's friend who never dressed.
Keep it coming this playoffs!
love your uploads - thank you!
After losing game 2 in Chicago, the Bulls would win games 3 and 4 in Atlanta winning the series 4-1. The exact same thing happened the next year. The Bulls lost game 2 in Chicago to the Hornets but won games 3 and 4 in Charlotte winning that series 4-1.
So the same bulls that would supposedly sweep teams like the 67’ sixers, 71’ Bucks, 83’ Sixers, 86’ Celtics, and 17’ Warriors drop a game to the 97’ Hawks and expansion hornets????
@@nick9573 "Expansion Hornets"....who'd been in the league for a decade and had stars like glen rice, larry johnson and alonzo mourning under its belt.
And I got news for you, the 67 sixers are the only team you listed that didn't benefit from major expansion to get fat on wins....instead they just played a league of 10 teams which meant they played like 15 games against the worst team in the league...bet they lost to them at least once.
In other words it is completely dumb to say anything about them losing to the hawks or hornets once.
The Hawks were a top 5 defensive team that year thanks to mutombo and blaylock and had won 56 games and the hornets who won 51 games benefited from BJ Armstrong going off for one game against the oldest team to ever win a title. Funny enough the 1997 bulls were the 4th oldest team and thus they are the only team to appear in the top 5 oldest twice and the only team to win the title twice with an average age over 30.
Also no one says they'd sweep really any of those teams, they say they'd win a series over them. LOL
@@scottb3034 83’ sixers and 86’ Celtics didn’t really benefit from sudden and unexpected expansion like the 96’ bulls and even 71’ bucks due randomly added teams in 68’, 89’ and 95’. The expansion teams ‘added’ that could’ve benefited the 83’ sixers and 86’ Celtics were from the ABA like 6-9 years prior (which was only formed in 1967). So they weren’t just new teams made up of players on previously existing teams.
67’ 76ers were voted the best team ever in 1996 for a reason. By writers who had covered the nba for pretty much it’s entire existence. So I’m not sure where the disrespect for the 67’ sixers is coming from. They won 46 of their first 50 before coasting to the playoffs and then blowing out the team that had won 8 straight in 5 games. Chamberlain running the offense from the post with Greer and Cunningham moving of the ball. Jackson helping control the glass. They were legit.
@@scottb3034 maybe not sweep, but people definitely claim that teams like the 67’ 76ers, 71’ Bucks, and 86’ Celtics wouldnt give the 96’ bulls any trouble. Which is strange considering they’re rolling in there with….Luke Longley protecting the basket.
@@nick9573 Luc Longley isn't a great player but he is the kind that fits the Bulls defense if he remains out of foul trouble. He was a large body that at least for a little while gave Magic Shaq issues. That isn't to say Kareem, Moses and Wilt would suck or have much issue but they aren't just bullying their way to the rim either, they would have to go into their bag of tricks to score unless they could speed around Luc.
The Bulls strength in this era was the interchangeability of their players and defense. No one in the starting lineup was under 6'6", they were all really good defenders except maybe Luc who was more of a big body and team defender, etc. They could play small without going small, they had several ballhandlers and decent scorers, etc.
That said, i think the teams that give them more trouble are those older teams with a great big man like either 6ers team or the Bucks. The Celtics would also be tough because Parish wasn't a big scorer but he was good all around and the Celtics were as deep per position as those bulls. Funny enough I think the 2017 warriors would be the least competitive because the Bulls match up best against them (not saying sweep though btw)
Sure these teams could beat the Bulls and in fact would probably do fairly well; the Bulls weren't trash because they lost one to a 50 win team in 97 and 98.
Also, weirdly enough, even though the 1996 bulls had the best run, the 1997 Bulls had more actual talent on their team with Brian Williams and Parish instead of James Edwards, John Salley and Rodman's friend who never dressed.
Jeff Hornacek was a flame thrower 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Good stuff
Hornasek went mad lol .
please tell me who you all played best in the 1997 playoffs between the hawks coached by lenny wilkens and lakers led by legend shaquille o'neal
Jeff Hornacek 17:15 17:58 18:50 21:51 23:55 25:05 31:05 35:22 47:03
Yet they say Michael Jordan played in a weak era. Can Lebron James play these guys? He'll be just an average power forward. hahaha!
Yes LeBron can. Yall need to stop saying that dumb sh*t. Great players can play in any era.
LeBron did plan with these people Broski's