Could Russell's Celtics Hang With Jordan's Bulls?

[RoboticDreams]

Has there ever been a good NBA forum anywhere? It sucked at CBS, sucked at ESPN, and it looks like this one sucks too....lmao

Hear, hear!

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

Absolutely - they were good enough to win, but the league was really soft in Jordan's era

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

So youre saying the Bulls from 90's would get crushed and dominated by the Heat from this current generation??? Cuz you are talking basically the same amount of time between the 2.

I think there were more advances between the 60's and the 90's than the 90's and now...

 

[rmilia1]

I think there were more advances between the 60's and the 90's than the 90's and now...

I think its 100% generational man. Older dudes fully believe teams from the 60's could still compete now because they saw and loved those guys. I dont think any team could have competed with the Lakers/Celtics teams from the 80's when I grew up watching and loving basketball. Guys who grew up idolizing MJ think the 90's Bulls teams would destroy everyone and Im sure that kids growing up now watching Lebron and the Heat do their thing will tell people 20 years from now that no team could have ever beaten these teams and they will be making the same claims that the Heat from 2012 were light years better than the 87 Lakers because of advancements in the game. The realit is that basketball has ALWAYS and will always be just basketball. The 62 Celtics had 6 HOFer's, won 60 games in league where the talent was MUCH deeper because there was only 9 teams. I think its silly to say the 68 Celtics couldnt have competed with the 91 Bulls but that the 91 Bulls would beat the 2012 Heat. Game is still the game and those early Celtics teams scored a ton of point s before the advent of the 3 point line. While athleticism is definitely better now those older teams had way better spacing, way better fundamentals, way better team chemistry ( because those guys played together 10+ years).

 

[llemon]

Or is the advances between decades too hard to overcome?

Whose advantage would the advances between decades favor?

 

[BOTSLAYER]

I think its 100% generational man. Older dudes fully believe teams from the 60's could still compete now because they saw and loved those guys. I dont think any team could have competed with the Lakers/Celtics teams from the 80's when I grew up watching and loving basketball. Guys who grew up idolizing MJ think the 90's Bulls teams would destroy everyone and Im sure that kids growing up now watching Lebron and the Heat do their thing will tell people 20 years from now that no team could have ever beaten these teams and they will be making the same claims that the Heat from 2012 were light years better than the 87 Lakers because of advancements in the game. The realit is that basketball has ALWAYS and will always be just basketball. The 62 Celtics had 6 HOFer's, won 60 games in league where the talent was MUCH deeper because there was only 9 teams. I think its silly to say the 68 Celtics couldnt have competed with the 91 Bulls but that the 91 Bulls would beat the 2012 Heat. Game is still the game and those early Celtics teams scored a ton of point s before the advent of the 3 point line. While athleticism is definitely better now those older teams had way better spacing, way better fundamentals, way better team chemistry ( because those guys played together 10+ years).

This is all very good on point stuff. Team work would be their weapon and the advances in science would be the 80s and beyond. And especially the last 5 years.

I do think the progression of science has been fairly steady until about 5-10 years ago when we went from gatoraid to platlet treatments and who knows what else. I think Russell would have been great in any era, he was an athlete, there were some other players that would have been great in any era but there are fewer as the time continues and progress in science continues.

That being said how good could those any era players have been with todays technology? and how much worse off would have been todays stars with out it? Truth be told, stars of yesterday and stars of today would still have been the stars. Those players that are stars are stars for a reason, they worked their ass off.

But back to the point, I think we can compare the modern day spurs vs the heat or OKC as what it would have been like for the 60s Celtics to play against todays athletes. There is a reason why it has progressed past team work and fundamentals. It works. I am not saying the Heat do not have a team work philosophy or fundamentals, they have rebuilt the mold in how we look at athletes and how to use them in a teamwork atmosphere. Point is, it is an athlete driven league because that is what works. The Spurs have done great things with not the best athletes but some of the best fundamentals ever constructed.

 

[BOTSLAYER]

Whose advantage would the advances between decades favor?

I assume you mean the advances in science have made fundamentals and team work less relevant and old school players could use that as an advantage?

If fundamentals still worked kids would stay in college and the Spurs would be the only team to win rings since Pop got there. Also, Melo wouldn't occupy a roster.

Fundamentals can be very successful but ultimately you need athletes too. They may call Duncan the "big fundamental" and he may be the only player in 30 years to dribble the ball while staring at it but he is still an athlete.

 

[llemon]

I assume you mean the advances in science have made fundamentals and team work less relevant and old school players could use that as an advantage?

If fundamentals still worked kids would stay in college and the Spurs would be the only team to win rings since Pop got there. Also, Melo wouldn't occupy a roster.

Fundamentals can be very successful but ultimately you need athletes too. They may call Duncan the "big fundamental" and he may be the only player in 30 years to dribble the ball while staring at it but he is still an athlete.

No I mean what rules and conditions do you play under?

The rules and conditons that existed in the 60's, or the rules and conditions from Jordan's era.

I think the Celtics of the 60's would happily play under the rules of Jordan's era, and then the Bulls would win.

But if the Bulls had to play under the conditions of 60's NBA ball, they wouldn't adapt so easily, nor happily, and Celts might beat them.

 

[BOTSLAYER]

No I mean what rules and conditions do you play under?

The rules and conditons that existed in the 60's, or the rules and conditions from Jordan's era.

I think the Celtics of the 60's would happily play under the rules of Jordan's era, and then the Bulls would win.

But if the Bulls had to play under the conditions of 60's NBA ball, they wouldn't adapt so easily, nor happily, and Celts might beat them.

Not citable. Although it is true that differences in the times exist, those players were taught and trained to play in those different conditions and so would have been the players playing in different era's.

 

[llemon]

Not citable. Although it is true that differences in the times exist, those players were taught and trained to play in those different conditions and so would have been the players playing in different era's.

I believe that is what I said.

 

[HammerDown]

Russell's Celtics couldn't hang with the '94 Knicks or any other team past that era. easily the most over-rated team in the history of professional basketball.

If Russell's Celtics played the '87 Lakers 1000 times, the Lakers would win 999 of them.

 

[llemon]

Russell's Celtics couldn't hang with the '94 Knicks or any other team past that era. easily the most over-rated team in the history of professional basketball.

If Russell's Celtics played the '87 Lakers 1000 times, the Lakers would win 999 of them.

Oh damn. I would have LOVED to have seen Bill Russell guard Patrick Ewing.

Did you see Bill Russell play?

'94 Knicks had John Starks, right?

 

[BOTSLAYER]

I believe that is what I said.

If what you were saying is that it is not applicable because if they could have played together they both would have been trained for the same conditions then yes.

 

[LALakersboy24.7]

All those Jordan Bulls team's would destroy those Russell Smeltic's teams, especially the Bulls team that went 72-10. Are you kidding those Bulls team were lights out & would suficate you on defense. Phil jackson would use big guards no PG in his starting line up's.

You Had MJ,Harper & Pippen on the perimeter & Rodman causing havoc & getting in peoples head....Jesus unstoppable, they would also eat Lebron & the Heat for breakfast

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

Players are now now bigger, stronger, faster, and more skilled than the players in the 60s. Those 60s teams would get destroyed.

 

[llemon]

If what you were saying is that it is not applicable because if they could have played together they both would have been trained for the same conditions then yes.

Goes beyond training. You have to consider traveling conditions, more than ttwo games played in a row, different rules, and of course, the pure physicality of the game.

Chamberlain considered retiring after his rookie season because of the beating he had to take. Kareem said he considered it also.