-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
The Last Dance. Who ya got 1995-96 Bulls or 2017-18 Warriors?
- Thread starter UncleRico
- Start date
No surprise from me.
Warriors.
Don't forget Draymond. Or that bench: Iguadala, Sean Livingston.
The Bulls had greatness, Pippen and Jordan. Solid defenders, both.
But the Warriors had style. They epitomized team play.
And they changed the game with their three-point shooting.
How do you defend Klay, Steph and KD? Assassins all from downtown.
But one more thing: Defense.
When you watch games from twenty years ago, one thing jumps out at you: How much better teams defend today. Especially the switches, the traps. Defense has really evolved in basketball over the years. (Just look at the way our Griz play defense.)
And while the Warriors were known for their offense, it was really their defense that won games for them.
Anybody close to the franchise will tout the importance of Ron Adams: A defensive genius. He won a lot of games for the Warriors.
And would have against the Bulls as well.
Warriors.
Don't forget Draymond. Or that bench: Iguadala, Sean Livingston.
The Bulls had greatness, Pippen and Jordan. Solid defenders, both.
But the Warriors had style. They epitomized team play.
And they changed the game with their three-point shooting.
How do you defend Klay, Steph and KD? Assassins all from downtown.
But one more thing: Defense.
When you watch games from twenty years ago, one thing jumps out at you: How much better teams defend today. Especially the switches, the traps. Defense has really evolved in basketball over the years. (Just look at the way our Griz play defense.)
And while the Warriors were known for their offense, it was really their defense that won games for them.
Anybody close to the franchise will tout the importance of Ron Adams: A defensive genius. He won a lot of games for the Warriors.
And would have against the Bulls as well.
Zirg
Well-known member
citay said:
Citay is a die-hard Warriors fan (it seems) ,so he is too biased to pass an honest assessment. Yes Golden State makes more 3 pointers and have changed (and ruined) basketball because of this one aspect. Nobody can argue that. Is that the only requirement for basketball greatness in your mind?
Golden State was 12th and 15th in the NBA scoring defense in the 2016-17 and 17-18 years. They won because they chucked in more 3 pointers than the others teams every game, not because of some defensive genius.
Jordan was a poor 3-point shooter (32.7% career). He scored through his plethora of offensive skills, which impresses me way more than the onslaught on 3 point chucking that is the NBA today. If you believe and value constant 3-point chucking success over Jordan's Bulls multiple skill-set success than I can't argue with you people.
Usually respect you and your opinions on Griz basketball very highly. But as for this, the only dude the Bulls would have ANY trouble with is Durant. Harper on Curry and Jordan on Thompson along with Rodman or Pippen on Durant and the other on Draymond Green. Quite simply the Bulls would dominate physically and make them look silly. Warriors would get a game or 2 from pouring in 3s, but Bulls would win no doubt. Nobody on that team has a shot at stopping MJ.citay said:
Also, love how you mention the great supporting pieces the Warriors had, but fail to mention some of the guys the Bulls had, like Toni Kukoc, one of the better supporting cast players anybody could ask for, along with perhaps the best spot up guy of all time Steve Kerr.
1959-60 Celtics would smack them both. The game simply isn’t as good as it was in the past. Give Those Celtics a 3-point Line, and their incredible defense - it would be nice Celtic wins. Easily shutdown the Warriors, Jordan could cause some , but Russell would allow nothing inside.
ilovethecats
Well-known member
Are we playing in today’s game or in the 90’s? Jordan would get 40+ a game easy in today’s game. Maybe more. I just tend to think the physical teams of the past could adjust to today’s game.
As much as I love to watch the finesse and ball movement of the warriors, I just don’t think they’d get away with that style of play against the Bulls.
Fun to think about.
As much as I love to watch the finesse and ball movement of the warriors, I just don’t think they’d get away with that style of play against the Bulls.
Fun to think about.
mtgrizrule
Well-known member
It depends on what rules are used? Personally, I'd never bet against Michael Jordan and Pippen. Jordan would be an elite X factor any every era.
Zirg said:
Several rebuttals.
--Yearly defensive stats are deceiving. Why? Because for many games during their five-year dynasty, the Warriors blew teams out. By the fourth quarter, their best players were on the bench. And often when their offense was so good, they slacked on defense.
A better guide to defensive excellence? The playoffs! That's when the intensity ratchets up. And during the five years they went to the Finals, their field goal percentage defense among the 16 playoff teams ranked first for three of those years, second for one, and dropped only in the last year, when injuries hit Thompson and Durant, two of their best defenders.
In short, when the Warriors needed to play defense they could--and did.
--Point guard. Quick! Who was the point guard on that great Bulls team? Oh, Ron Harper. Steve Kerr. C'mon! At the most important position in basketball, the Warriors had one of the all-time greats, Steph Curry. Nobody's going to put Harper or Kerr among the all-time greats. And neither one of them could have stopped Curry.
--Depth. Okay, both teams had some stiffs on their 15-man roster. But I'd argue that when it came down to bona-fide NBA players, the Bulls had eight while the Warriors had ten. The Warriors motto was "Strength in Numbers," and they practised it. They had the players to do it. The Bulls? Where among Randy Brown, Jud Buechler, Jason Caffey, James Edwards, Jack Haley, Dickie Simpkins and Bill Wennington were they going to find quality depth?
--The LeBron factor. Every time anybody mentions the Bulls, it's always Jordan, the GOAT. But LeBron has to be in that conversation as one of the all-time greats, and the Warriors faced him four times, winning three. And would have won all four had not Draymond Green acted like a jerk and been disqualified from a crucial Game 5 when the Warriors were up 3-1 and returning to their home court.
So, yeah, I'm a Warriors fan. But how does that disqualify me from making arguments on their behalf, against such lame rebuttals?
citay said:
You're talking out of your ass here, Randy Brown was a great defensive guard that spent 11 years in the league, Wennington and Buechler each played 720 games in the league, all those guys were solid, longtime NBA players in the middle of their career, certainly bona-fide NBAers. The Warriors had Ian Clark (out of the league by 28 years old) and rookie Pat McCaw in their top 10.
citay said:
Ian Clark was not on the Warriors roster that year; he'd signed with the Pelicans. And I did not have McGaw among my top ten players.
I had Curry, Durant, Green, Iguodala, Livingston, Kevon Looney, Javale McGee, Zaza Pachulia, Thompson and David West. Four all-stars among that group.
Don't tell me how "tough" the Bulls were when the Warriors had David West and Draymond Green. West was one tough dude. Nobody messed with him. He could have been a professional fighter.
Hey, when it comes this kind of a discussion, we're all talking out our ass! Cause we'll never know.
Imagine calling Draymond Green “tough”. Dude is a big time crybaby. This is what the modern game has come to? The 95-96 Bulls resembled the bad boy Pistons in toughness, in fact they had 2 of em. Rodman would make Draymond Green look like the softest dude the game has ever seen. And imagine saying Harper had no chance of guarding Curry. You do realize he was a 6’6” PG known for his defensive abilities? He has a pretty solid shot in my book.citay said:
citay said:
Clark was on the '17 Warriors, he left the next year when the Dubs only won 58 games and clearly weren't in contention for best team of all time. Looney didn't even play in the '17 playoffs so I don't know how you can't count him as a solid depth guy, West and Javale were behind McCaw and Clark in the rotation, clearly they weren't that good at that point.
PeauxRouge
Well-known member
DPGriz said:
I love David West, but he was way past prime when he played for both the Spurs and the Warriors. Professional fighter? Maybe before his back went to shit.
PeauxRouge said:
Okay, I'm boring even myself with this. But a couple of things.
--Ian Clark was NOT on the 2017-18 Warriors roster. That is version of the Warriors that is the subject of this thread. I don't know why we're making such a big deal out of him, but let's at least keep the facts straight.
--Yes, David West was well past his prime, and did have back problems. But anybody who followed the Warriors during the era of "mandatory TV" knows he made significant contributions even in limited minutes. He was a superb passer from his high-post position, and fit perfectly into Kerr's offense. Not to mention he was a great locker-room presence as well.
Hey, nice diversion! But back to the Griz.
citay said:
The '18 Warriors won 58 games and were fortunate to beat the Rockets, they were far worse that year so assumed that OP meant to refer to the far superior '17 team. The Jordan Bulls had 4 teams ('91, 92, 96, and 97) that would've waxed the rundown '18 Warriors, there's no question between '18 Dubs and '96 Bulls.
