86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

**airjoca** · 08-19-2014, 06:37 AM

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

Jordan dropped 63 on them. He made it really difficult for Boston, when he had an average team.

The 96 Bulls would win the series, 4-3 or 4-2.

**jjsmity** · 08-19-2014, 07:09 AM

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

Originally posted by airjoca

Jordan dropped 63 on them. He made it really difficult for Boston, when he had an average team.

The 96 Bulls would win the series, 4-3 or 4-2.

Great point yet i disagree, heres is why.

First keep in mind the DJ of 86 [31] had trouble with jordan of 86 [22] because of speed, jordan of 96 [age 32] was much slower, playing in johnsons advantages. Jordan lost the game, he was swept 2 seasons in a row by c's. That was his single greatest game and he lost it. He would not do well in game 3 or next year playoffs against lesser c's teams.

63 point game vs c's

Tex winters bulls assistant coach b-4 game 3 86 playoffs said the game after jordans 63 point outburst

“As far as jordan we need to try and win the basketball game jordan may be the best 1v1 offensive player this country has ever had. but the important *thing is its still a team game, its still 5v5. on his 63 point game he took alot of shots did not have a great shooting night shot just above 50% disrupted flow and did allot individually, he needs to make sure other players are involved.”

players who shot higher % from field than jordan in his 63 point game-

bulls
Dave Corzine
Charles Oakley
Kyle Macy

Celtics
Danny Ainge*
Jerry Sichting

Jordan shot 53% from field, the game it also went in double overtime. He got 19 of his points from the free throws [many bad calls as well].

Bird had 36/12/8 that game.

many just pay attention to his great game and points, they dont see his next game game 3 scoring less than 20 and bad shooting as he was swept out of playoffs, as he would be the next year against bird as well while shooting only 41%.

when c's chose to focus in on him as they did in game 3 of the 86 first round after his 63 point game, they limited him to under 20 points on 8/18 shooting and 5 turnovers and many bad passes. The next year playoffs he would shot just 41% over 3 games in another sweep.

In 86 fatigue played a big factor, jordan was fresh coming back late in year while c's had been through long season as bob cousy mentioned early game 3 the c's did not seem to have intensity the second game but came out game 3 with it. Also jordan was unknown as a legit superstar, star yes,not superstar as jordan said of his 63 point game

“Up to that point, there were so many media guys saying, ‘Yeah, he’s good, but he’s not in the same class as Magic Johnson and Larry Bird,’” Jordan said. “And here in that game, I earned Larry Bird’s respect. And to me, that said I was on the right track to becoming a better basketball player. … He gave me the type of confidence that I needed at that level from a player. That to me was the biggest compliment I had at that particular time.”

that was his coming out and I believe maybe his single greatest game of his career. After that he would not repeat that success against lesser Celtics teams. They also dont pay attention to johnson,ainge and sichting having great series vs bulls in large part because jordan kept leaving open the outside shooters to double the post. Johnson and ainge would both have great series again in 87 sweep of bulls. Also one would have to conclude that between the two playoof series between bird and jordan, bird was better overall than jordan and the more efficient scorer.
stats
http://www.basketball-reference.com/..._1987_EC1.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1.html#BOS-CHI

**ojandpizza** · 08-19-2014, 08:17 AM

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

If they were to play head to head it would be a great match up. Jordan would be a serious problem for that team, who's supposed to guard him? But in the end I might give the small edge to the Celtics in a 7 game series.. Though it's all about matchups, other teams could give that Bulls team a run for their money too, just as other teams could do the same vs the Celtics.

But, I think the Celtics were playing tougher competition than the Bulls were. So therefor I believe the Bulls were better than their competition by a larger margin that Boston was. Therefore making that Chicago team a more dominant team. So since the teams can't actually play against each other to find an outcome, I think it's safe to say that the Bulls were the "better" team when considering the years we are discussing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**jjsmity** · 08-19-2014, 08:26 AM

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

Originally posted by ojandpizza

If they were to play head to head it would be a great match up. Jordan would be a serious problem for that team, who's supposed to guard him? But in the end I might give the small edge to the Celtics in a 7 game series.. Though it's all about matchups, other teams could give that Bulls team a run for their money too, just as other teams could do the same vs the Celtics.

But, I think the Celtics were playing tougher competition than the Bulls were. So therefor I believe the Bulls were better than their competition by a larger margin that Boston was. Therefore making that Chicago team a more dominant team. So since the teams can't actually play against each other to find an outcome, I think it's safe to say that the Bulls were the "better" team when considering the years we are discussing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jordan would be a big problem for any team. But dennis johnson 11 time all defensive player would be as good as any. geroge grevin [bulls teammate former scoring champ] said ask any scorer who the best defender was its DJ. Plus who is going to guard that froncourt of the c's? that is bigger problem to me than jordan little past prime [32] guarded by all nba defender dj. This is not just about one great player, because in 90's and modern you can win with a great superstar, 80's you could not, you needed a stacked team. Just look how jordan did in 6 years in 80's, never in final swept out of first round often, because it was mostly just him against great teams.

I actually agree with you on the second part, the bulls were the better team given the time period. Its not there fault the league was the way it was in 90's. They after all won 72 and had same playoff reword as c's. But in a head to head i chose c's for sure given they played in better league and match ups.

**ehh** · 08-19-2014, 08:56 AM

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

Ah, the posts that the dog-days of summer bring in...

First of all, I don't think that many diehard NBA fans consider the '96 Bulls the best team ever and if they do, it's not by a big margin. Anyway, to play devil's advocate and poke holes...

McHale guarding Pippen?
Prime Pipppen D'ing prime Bird is one of the Internetz biggest wet dreams. It would be fun to watch, Bird would still get his but it wouldn't be easy.
You can make a case that Rodman would do a great job of neutralizing softee McHale.
Longley and Wennington had an odd knack for doing a decent job against centers that weren't quick (Shaq, Hakeem) and held their own against Ewing, Smits, etc. They'd do a serviceable job against Parish.
It would have been a lot of fun to see the Bulls' pressing D (though they did it less frequently by '96) against that Celtics team. The Celtics were versatile as you said but they did not face a defense like the Bulls' and their chief rival, the 80's Lakers, weren't exactly defensive stalwarts.

Debating the overall talent of the NBA in the 80's vs 90's is kinda pointless since it's only about this one match up of two teams. Knocking the 90's at this point is justified, the expansion was hurting the league but the Celtics didn't exactly have to run a gauntlet, they had a cake walk to the Finals in 1986.

The 1986 EC had five teams over .500.

The 57-win Bucks had scoring prowess but didn't have the defense or star power to be a real contender and got swept by the Celtics in the ECF.
One was a Hawks team who's second leading scorer was Randy Wittman.
The Pistons, building their championship foundation, lost in the first round.
The last was a Sixer team with young Barkley and aging Dr. J.

None of those teams were a threat to beat the Celtics. For all the supposed depth of the 80's NBA the Celtics peaked at the perfect time in the mid-80's, after the Sixers w/ Dr. J were fading a the Pistons weren't ready yet. There was no real, potential threat for three years in the East before the Pistons pushed the ECF to Game 7 in 1987.

The Bulls dynasty was never as good on paper as they were on the court. Their role players fit so perfectly and played above their name recognition. On paper and name-power the '86 Celtics are certainly better but I don't know who'd win a 7-game series. It'd be damn close and I have a difficult time betting against MJ.

And it's nice to have an era vs era debate that doesn't have to mention rules changes and how soft the game is in one of the eras.

**ojandpizza** · 08-19-2014, 10:13 AM

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

Originally posted by ehh

None of those teams were a threat to beat the Celtics. For all the supposed depth of the 80's NBA the Celtics peaked at the perfect time in the mid-80's, after the Sixers w/ Dr. J were fading a the Pistons weren't ready yet. There was no real, potential threat for three years in the East before the Pistons pushed the ECF to Game 7 in 1987.

The Bulls dynasty was never as good on paper as they were on the court. Their role players fit so perfectly and played above their name recognition. On paper and name-power the '86 Celtics are certainly better but I don't know who'd win a 7-game series. It'd be damn close and I have a difficult time betting against MJ.

Exactly, these two paragraphs are how I feel.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**AlexBrady** · 08-19-2014, 10:42 AM

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

First off, the 84 Celtics were a better team than the 86 edition. The 84 bench featured Cedric Maxwell, Scott Wedman, Quinn Buckner, and Danny Ainge versus the 86 bench of Bill Walton, Scott Wedman, and Jerry Sichting.

In 84, the Celtics beat the Lakers in the Finals. In 86, they beat an ordinary Rockets team.

I like Gerald Henderson at the starting two guard better than Ainge. Henderson gave the slow Celtics a nice jolt of quickness. Plus, his defense was a tad better than Ainge's.

Robert Parish wasn't a "down low defensive stopper". In fact, his defense was barely average. Kevin McHale was an outstanding defender. Bird's man to man defense was poor.

96 Bulls have a much better defense, better team speed and a deeper bench. The Triangle would take advantage of the Celtics average overall defense. Dennis Rodman would minimize the Celtics' rebounding edge.
96 Bulls win a seven game series in six games.

Where do I rank the 86 Celtics and 96 Bulls in history?
1. 1967 Sixers
2. 1996 Bulls
3. 1997 Bulls
4. 1972 Lakers
5. 1992 Bulls
6. 1965 Celtics
7. 1966 Celtics
8. 1964 Celtics
9. 1984 Celtics
10. 1986 Celtics

To address some other points. The 80s were not a "golden era". Numerous unsound ballplayers had infiltrated the league as a result of Spencer Haywood being declared a "hardship case" in 1969.

The reality is that the NBA's marketing machine really picked up in the 80s because of Bird and Magic. All of the hype of this marketing machine leads to that era being more fondly remembered than it should be.

The best basketball was played between 1963 and 1969. Every night featured physical, fundamental, and fierce competition.

**ThreeKing** · 08-19-2014, 10:57 AM

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

The 80's Celtics teams played excellent, total team basketball, but they aren't athletic enough to run with the Bulls for a 7-game set. Celtics would have an advantage up front, but MJ and Scottie would be too much athletically on the wings.

The only team that would legitimately give problems to the 90's Bulls, would be the early 2000's Lakers. Kobe would give MJ fits on both ends, and Shaq might be too dominant a force for Luc and company to handle.

**jjsmity** · 08-19-2014, 12:08 PM

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

Originally posted by ehh

Ah, the posts that the dog-days of summer bring in...

First of all, I don't think that many diehard NBA fans consider the '96 Bulls the best team ever and if they do, it's not by a big margin. Anyway, to play devil's advocate and poke holes...

McHale guarding Pippen?
Prime Pipppen D'ing prime Bird is one of the Internetz biggest wet dreams. It would be fun to watch, Bird would still get his but it wouldn't be easy.
You can make a case that Rodman would do a great job of neutralizing softee McHale.
Longley and Wennington had an odd knack for doing a decent job against centers that weren't quick (Shaq, Hakeem) and held their own against Ewing, Smits, etc. They'd do a serviceable job against Parish.
It would have been a lot of fun to see the Bulls' pressing D (though they did it less frequently by '96) against that Celtics team. The Celtics were versatile as you said but they did not face a defense like the Bulls' and their chief rival, the 80's Lakers, weren't exactly defensive stalwarts.

Debating the overall talent of the NBA in the 80's vs 90's is kinda pointless since it's only about this one match up of two teams. Knocking the 90's at this point is justified, the expansion was hurting the league but the Celtics didn't exactly have to run a gauntlet, they had a cake walk to the Finals in 1986.

The 1986 EC had five teams over .500.

The 57-win Bucks had scoring prowess but didn't have the defense or star power to be a real contender and got swept by the Celtics in the ECF.
One was a Hawks team who's second leading scorer was Randy Wittman.
The Pistons, building their championship foundation, lost in the first round.
The last was a Sixer team with young Barkley and aging Dr. J.

None of those teams were a threat to beat the Celtics. For all the supposed depth of the 80's NBA the Celtics peaked at the perfect time in the mid-80's, after the Sixers w/ Dr. J were fading a the Pistons weren't ready yet. There was no real, potential threat for three years in the East before the Pistons pushed the ECF to Game 7 in 1987.

The Bulls dynasty was never as good on paper as they were on the court. Their role players fit so perfectly and played above their name recognition. On paper and name-power the '86 Celtics are certainly better but I don't know who'd win a 7-game series. It'd be damn close and I have a difficult time betting against MJ.

And it's nice to have an era vs era debate that doesn't have to mention rules changes and how soft the game is in one of the eras.

Thanks for post, good one.

true, but many people do assume auto that bulls are best, after all they won 72 games.

mchale/pipen
you really made no argument,mchale first team all defense multiple years, had longest reach in nba history [model at hall of fame] in 85 still had speed pre foot injury and often guarded the high scoring small forwards such as wilkins [better at offence than pipen] and others bernard king worthy etc. Pipen averaged right around 96 average 19.5 against c's with mchale older and past prime/past injury.

bird/pipen
agreed,pipen maybe best sf ever at D would cause bird trouble yes. as would mchale on pipen and dj on jordan. But what makes 86 c's so good, they could beat you anywhere, they could easily attack bulls weak spot. Also bird in 80's did play against pipen and did fine, true pipen was younger.

larry over his career against pipen that was all past his prime [88-92]and motley in 90's averaged 25.9 on 503 shooting, not bad numbers for post prime against pippen. He dropped 44 on pipen, 38 in 90 and 34 in 91 well past prime, larry at his worse since entering league.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1&p2=pippesc01

rodman/mchale

i Know its unfair, but watch the years of pistons vs Celtics, mchale scored at ease, he is considered by some the best post offensive player ever. Again mostley past prime against rodman [came in in 86] mchale for carer averaged 22.5 on 579 shooting. Rodman would cause trouble,but no one ever stopped mchale, he would have height/reach advantage.

Longley and Wennington/parish
I simply disagree with you, they fouled alot. Besides parish was one of the fastest centers to play the game, especially in open court. Also you cannot deny that in part how bulls stooped centers was jordan/pipens double downs. Something they were burned on against c's.

just a quick look at numbers, in 96 shaq had slightly better numbers against bulls than averages
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1/splits/1996/

olajuwan about the same
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1/splits/1996/

bulls press d
I agree it would be awesome to see these teams play, but what beats press? passing, who was best passing team ever [at least arguable] the 86 c's. Also the bulls never faced a frontcourt like the c's or a team like the c's or superstar like bird in 96.

overall talent of the NBA in the 80's vs 90's

well i really just did that to show that just because the bulls won 72 does not mean they auto are best, I agree fully with what you say though.

86 eastern conference weak?

good point but I dont think it was to weak, yes only 5 winning records, but there were only 11 teams in the east. There was only 6 in west with winning record, in part because west played c's less. The c's had to beat jordan,than Dominique, than a good bucks team to make finals. But also consider detroit had a good young team, and could only win 46 in the east.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/1986.html

the bucks were likely lucky to Philadelphia [who also had that you did not mention moses malone ans cheeks] but were good on D, they were second in defensive rating and opponent fg%. Sidney moncreif was one of the best lock down defenders to ever play, he at times would even guard bird. They actully had 2 first team all defensive players pressley and moncreif
http://www.nba.com/history/awards/19851986.html

good on paper as they were on the court

to me [and ask the players of the 86 c's teams] the cehmistry on that team was better than any other team, or any other c's team during the larry bird are. To me if anything it was the 86 team that performed better as a team than individuals added up. Watch their games, listen to players/coaches they will all say that team had best chemistry.

**jjsmity** · 08-19-2014, 12:44 PM

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

Originally posted by AlexBrady

First off, the 84 Celtics were a better team than the 86 edition. The 84 bench featured Cedric Maxwell, Scott Wedman, Quinn Buckner, and Danny Ainge versus the 86 bench of Bill Walton, Scott Wedman, and Jerry Sichting.

In 84, the Celtics beat the Lakers in the Finals. In 86, they beat an ordinary Rockets team.

I like Gerald Henderson at the starting two guard better than Ainge. Henderson gave the slow Celtics a nice jolt of quickness. Plus, his defense was a tad better than Ainge's.

Robert Parish wasn't a "down low defensive stopper". In fact, his defense was barely average. Kevin McHale was an outstanding defender. Bird's man to man defense was poor.

96 Bulls have a much better defense, better team speed and a deeper bench. The Triangle would take advantage of the Celtics average overall defense. Dennis Rodman would minimize the Celtics' rebounding edge.
96 Bulls win a seven game series in six games.

Where do I rank the 86 Celtics and 96 Bulls in history?
1. 1967 Sixers
2. 1996 Bulls
3. 1997 Bulls
4. 1972 Lakers
5. 1992 Bulls
6. 1965 Celtics
7. 1966 Celtics
8. 1964 Celtics
9. 1984 Celtics
10. 1986 Celtics

To address some other points. The 80s were not a "golden era". Numerous unsound ballplayers had infiltrated the league as a result of Spencer Haywood being declared a "hardship case" in 1969.

The reality is that the NBA's marketing machine really picked up in the 80s because of Bird and Magic. All of the hype of this marketing machine leads to that era being more fondly remembered than it should be.

The best basketball was played between 1963 and 1969. Every night featured physical, fundamental, and fierce competition.

84 Celtics were a better team than the 86 edition

ask any player who played on either team, they will all say the same thing, the 86 team was the best c's team of era. Maxwell was a starter in 84. I quoted bird on the OP. I have heard multiple c's all say same thing as well as kc aurbach etc.

Larry Bird was on ESPN Radio Dallas this week and he says, flat out, his '86 team is the best he's ever seen.
“We were gooood. It was the best team I have ever seen. We were strong; we had a lot of big guys; we had guards; we felt we were a smart team. And it was all because of Scotty Wedman, Jerry Sichting and Bill Walton coming off our bench. We were deep. It was just a good team, it was easy to play for, and I knew when we started training camp if we stayed healthy we were probably going to win a championship. I never had that feeling before. We won a lot of games and we took care of business when the playoffs came around.”

its really not even close to me, ainge,mchale,wedman,bird were all better, walton sixth man of the year,sichting off bench was great.

In 86 they beat a houston team that beat the lakers 4-1. How do you call a team that beat the lakers with a 7'4 [36 inch verticel] power forward and olajuwon ordinary?. This is when they peaked and were playing great ball. Besides in 84 c's lost to lakers twice, in 86 they beat them twice forcing magic to say

"Right now, there's no doubt that Boston is a much better team,"
Magic Johnson said in February 1986 after the Celtics beat the Los Angeles Lakers in the Forum to extend their record to 41-9.

Content Unavailable

http://www.nba.com/history/finals/19851986.html

while in 84 magic will still tell you he thought they were the better team than the c's. Has they met in 86, i give the series either 4-1 or 4-2 Celtics, not a 7 game series like in 84.

defense big three

-agree mchale
-parish i think you need to watch him more, listen to those that played him. I never meant all nba defender, but a down low near rim defender.
-Bird was weak 1v1 defense, that is why I said in the matchup he would be able to roam and do what earned him 3 all nba defense awards, help defense, that he was best in league at time. the macthup helps his defense.

96 Bulls have a much better defense, better team speed and a deeper bench. The Triangle would take advantage of the Celtics average overall defense. Dennis Rodman would minimize the Celtics' rebounding edge.96 Bulls win a seven game series in six games.

? yes they have team speed, the question is not who would win a race but who would win a basketball game. Look at bulls lineup, only one under 30 was longley at 27, there is no way he can keep up with parishes speed. The speed at witch the c's moved the ball on offence, the bulls could not stop.

Depper bench? lets see.

c's
used mostly a 8 man rotation
Jerry Sichting great year shot 570 from field was started year b-4 in indian
walton, sixth man of the year best center to ever come off bench had great year.

Bill walton
According to Basketball-Reference.com, Walton's "Defensive Rating" made him the number one over-all NBA defender for the 1985-86 season, just as the statistic tells us he was during his 1977-78 MVP campaign.

Never a big presence on the traditional stat sheet (points), Walton's team play, rebounding, ability to block shots, and a sixth-sense as a defender dramatically improved his teams and, as such, his teammates

Statistically, he is also considered the number one defensive rebounder of the basketball in NBA history based on the same website’s "Defensive Rebounding Percentage."
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...an-old-athlete

Bill Walton, who averaged 14.1 points, 12.7 rebounds and 2.5 blocks per 36 minutes on 56.2 percent shooting.

than wedman
former all star former all defensive team had his best year since coming to boston.

bulls

Toni Kukoc- great offence off bench, terrible defense.
Kerr- really sichting better 3 point shot worse within 3 point line not as good defender.
wennigton- well at least he could use 6 fouls.

In fact a online comparison and matchup i posted on op, chose c's because of better bench than bulls.

what do you do to guard the frontcourt?
how do you stop walton off bench?
how do you score besides jordan? [with all nba defender on him as well]

how do you rebound, besides rodman [ played only 32 min a game and would be in foul trouble against mchale].

how do you stop the passing?

The 80s were not a "golden era"...The reality is that the NBA's marketing machine really picked up in the 80s because of Bird and Magic. All of the hype of this marketing machine leads to that era being more fondly remembered than it should be.

I will be doing a future thread on this somewhat with 80's vs 90's. No question the marketing was more advanced and generous to jordan and 90's.

also you did nothing to respond to why the 80's was the golden area.

The best basketball was played between 1963 and 1969. Every night featured physical, fundamental, and fierce competition.

lets say that is true, that has nothing to do with 96 bulls vs 86 c's.

**jjsmity** · 08-19-2014, 12:49 PM

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

Originally posted by ThreeKing

The 80's Celtics teams played excellent, total team basketball, but they aren't athletic enough to run with the Bulls for a 7-game set. Celtics would have an advantage up front, but MJ and Scottie would be too much athletically on the wings.

The only team that would legitimately give problems to the 90's Bulls, would be the early 2000's Lakers. Kobe would give MJ fits on both ends, and Shaq might be too dominant a force for Luc and company to handle.

I have to disagree, the 80's pipen,rodman and jordan were younger,faster and more atheltic, yet were dominated by the lesser [older less athletic than 86] c's. There were plenty of more athletic teams than the 86 c's in 86, there just were not any teams as good at basketball. By the way, all 3 stars from the 96 bulls were over 30 in 96.

Just how do you feel that the athletic ability of pipen and jordan [both over 30] would cause them to win? defense? isent there athletic ability part of what made them do what they did, that made them good? that is taken into account in how good they are.

**AlexBrady** · 08-19-2014, 01:24 PM

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

Maxwell was 6-8 and he could handle like a guard. That is serious versatility that the 86 team doesn't have.

Bird is entitled to his opinion but great players are not always the greatest judges of personnel.

Jerry Sichting? Granted, an excellent shooter but he couldn't defend or handle. I like Quinn Buckner better. A terrific physical defender. And I like Ainge coming off the bench more than I like him as a starter.
Bill Walton had an excellent year though, no argument from me.

Houston was a tough matchup for Los Angeles. Akeem made Kareem come out to guard him by the foul line and baseline. Ralph Sampson was too big for the Lakers to deal with. Some of their other guys played the series of their lives. It was more of a confluence of factors coming together than it was a great team.

Robert Parish had great length, but his lateral movement was slow. He wasn't particularly strong either. Bird couldn't roam against that Bulls triangle because of all the movement and unpredictability of that offense.

I agree again that Walton had an excellent year off the bench. Scott Wedman was a lockdown defender and a dead-eye shooter.

Tony Kukoc was 6-10 and could handle like a guard. Extremely versatile. True, an awful defender.
Steve Kerr was a tad better on defense than Sichting.
Don't be so quick to dismiss Wennington. He was a big guy who could nail jumpers.

Longley was 320 pounds and would make Parish shoot his jumpers under pressure. Plus, Parish choked in the clutch and wasn't trusted with the ball in the endgame. McHale versus Rodman would be a heck of a battle. Rodman wouldn't be in perpetual foul trouble because his technique was excellent. Bird would have to work hard against Pippen but would do what he had to do.

Walton didn't really have to be stopped per se since he wasn't a dreadnaught scorer. He was a great team player who looked for the pass and made excellent defensive rotations. He would get putbacks and drop off passes to score.

Jordan would be making off ball cuts in the triangle and would be getting the ball in unpredictable places. In 86, he was just getting the ball up top and going one on one. The Bulls would play excellent defense and score on the run. No Celtic would be able to deal with the offense of Kukoc. The execution of the triangle would produce open shots.

Rebounding? Jordan and Pippen were serious board men. The triangle provides naturally good offensive rebounding position too.

The Celtics were excellent passers but they would be doing so under heavy pressure. Guys have to shake loose to receive passes and I don't see it happening against that swarming defense.

**ProfessaPackMan** · 08-19-2014, 01:38 PM

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

This thread is a ***** to read on Tapatalk. Y'all better start spoiling these essays. Sheesh.

**wwharton** · 08-19-2014, 02:08 PM

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

I'm just envisioning the Celtics at that time had Len Bias gone out for ice cream to celebrate his draft selection.

86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

Recommended Videos

86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment