Do you consider Jordans Bulls a Super Team?

[SportsGuru08]

No. But it's easy to say that after the fact.

Rodman was a head case in 95 and no one wanted to touch him. He was given away for Will frickin Perdue.

Ron Harper was a shell of his former self after his ACL injuries. He was brought in to be a playmaker...not the explosive scorer he used to be with the Cavs and Clippers. Keep in mind, back in the day people didn't bounce back this well from ACL tears

He averaged 20ppg after his acl tear

Which is irrelevant since he didn't fit the triangle as a scorer.

[michaelm]

Most don’t remember how that team came to fruition. KG, Ray and Paul were all leading their respective teams to the lottery not playoffs.

The Celtics sucked traded their lotto Jeff Green to Seattle

Seattle also sucked they drafted KD

Timberwolves sucked they received 6 young prospects including Al Jefferson.

How does this mean it wasn't a super team?

I answered that in my original post above. But in particular to the Celtics I don’t count aging stars as a Superteam. Great team though and this ofcourse only my opinion.

I don’t have a problem with the Celtics big 3 team being called a superteam, they were fairly obviously the inspiration for LeBron forming the Heatles, and a team he had no hope of beating however well he played with the team he had at the Cavs at the time. Those guys were great that year, but also much closer to the end of their careers than the start, with little or no chance of not 3, not 4…. etc.

[ScrantonBulls]

No. But it's easy to say that after the fact.

Rodman was a head case in 95 and no one wanted to touch him. He was given away for Will frickin Perdue.

Ron Harper was a shell of his former self after his ACL injuries. He was brought in to be a playmaker...not the explosive scorer he used to be with the Cavs and Clippers. Keep in mind, back in the day people didn't bounce back this well from ACL tears

Ron Harper tore his ACL in 1990. The previous 3 seasons before joining the Bulls he played 75+ games each year and averaged between 18 and 20 ppg. You make it sound like he tore his ACL right before joining the Bulls.

He took a much reduced role on offense in order to create a superteam.

Wrong. He was brought in to score, he just didn't fit the triangle offense as a scorer. Which is why he was averaging single digits in '95 even before MJ returned.

If he can't score in high numbers in that system, then he objectively is not a player who forms a superteam.

Not that they were a superteam anyway regardless of how much revisionist history you guys like engaging in.

1996 Bulls
-MVP of the year
-Coach of the year
-Scoring champ
-Rebounding champ
-2 All-NBA 1st team
-3 All-defensive 1st team
-6th man of the year
-2nd best 3-point shooter
-DPOY runner-up
-2 players in Top 5 in MVP voting

NoT a SuPeRtEaM!1

[SportsGuru08]

Ron Harper tore his ACL in 1990. The previous 3 seasons before joining the Bulls he played 75+ games each year and averaged between 18 and 20 ppg. You make it sound like he tore his ACL right before joining the Bulls.

He took a much reduced role on offense in order to create a superteam.

Wrong. He was brought in to score, he just didn't fit the triangle offense as a scorer. Which is why he was averaging single digits in '95 even before MJ returned.

If he can't score in high numbers in that system, then he objectively is not a player who forms a superteam.

Not that they were a superteam anyway regardless of how much revisionist history you guys like engaging in.

1996 Bulls
-MVP of the year
-Coach of the year
-Scoring champ
-Rebounding champ
-2 All-NBA 1st team
-3 All-defensive 1st team
-6th man of the year
-2nd best 3-point shooter
-DPOY runner-up
-2 players in Top 5 in MVP voting

NoT a SuPeRtEaM!1

The rebound champ couldn't score 10 points in an empty gym. The sixth man was never an All-NBA player. Pippen played like trash after the All-Star break. Kerr was a spot up shooter who couldn't create his own shot or play defense. The coach only stayed relevant after Chicago because he had a Jordan clone available the whole time. Most overrated coach in history.

So yes, not a superteam.

[ScrantonBulls]

Wrong. He was brought in to score, he just didn't fit the triangle offense as a scorer. Which is why he was averaging single digits in '95 even before MJ returned.

If he can't score in high numbers in that system, then he objectively is not a player who forms a superteam.

Not that they were a superteam anyway regardless of how much revisionist history you guys like engaging in.

1996 Bulls
-MVP of the year
-Coach of the year
-Scoring champ
-Rebounding champ
-2 All-NBA 1st team
-3 All-defensive 1st team
-6th man of the year
-2nd best 3-point shooter
-DPOY runner-up
-2 players in Top 5 in MVP voting

NoT a SuPeRtEaM!1

The rebound champ couldn't score 10 points in an empty gym. The sixth man was never an All-NBA player. Pippen played like trash after the All-Star break. Kerr was a spot up shooter who couldn't create his own shot or play defense. The coach only stayed relevant after Chicago because he had a Jordan clone available the whole time. Most overrated coach in history.

So yes, not a superteam.

Some big time cope here.

[ScrantonBulls]

Has there ever been another team with 2 All-NBA 1st team selections and 3 All-defensive 1st team selections?

Seems like a pretty SUPER team to me.

[SportsGuru08]

Has there ever been another team with 2 All-NBA 1st team selections and 3 All-defensive 1st team selections?

Seems like a pretty SUPER team to me.

Nope. Just you broadening the definition so you can cope with the fact that your hero doesn't measure up to the guy he's most frequently compared to.

[SportsGuru08]

1996 Bulls
-MVP of the year
-Coach of the year
-Scoring champ
-Rebounding champ
-2 All-NBA 1st team
-3 All-defensive 1st team
-6th man of the year
-2nd best 3-point shooter
-DPOY runner-up
-2 players in Top 5 in MVP voting

NoT a SuPeRtEaM!1

The rebound champ couldn't score 10 points in an empty gym. The sixth man was never an All-NBA player. Pippen played like trash after the All-Star break. Kerr was a spot up shooter who couldn't create his own shot or play defense. The coach only stayed relevant after Chicago because he had a Jordan clone available the whole time. Most overrated coach in history.

So yes, not a superteam.

Some big time cope here.

Except everything I said was true.

[QMemphis]

Their big 3 did lead teams to the playoffs in previous years. Why do they have to lead their teams to the playoffs the year before they came together? Its such a nonsensical requirement for a super team.

It was a team that had aging stars that complimented one another. If all those guys stayed on their same teams they would all be leading teams again to the lottery.

Counting previous achievements is like saying the Payton/Malone Lakers were a super team when in actuality Payton and Malone at that stage were role players. Using guys previous achievements to justify them being elite when in actuality they are no longer is something I don’t subscribe to.

KG was one of the best players in the league in 07. Even with him missing the playoffs he finished 9th in MVP voting. In 08 he finished 3rd.

KG was the best player on that team and made it work. Paul and Ray were a tier lower in my opinion.

[QMemphis]

Their big 3 did lead teams to the playoffs in previous years. Why do they have to lead their teams to the playoffs the year before they came together? Its such a nonsensical requirement for a super team.

It was a team that had aging stars that complimented one another. If all those guys stayed on their same teams they would all be leading teams again to the lottery.

Counting previous achievements is like saying the Payton/Malone Lakers were a super team when in actuality Payton and Malone at that stage were role players. Using guys previous achievements to justify them being elite when in actuality they are no longer is something I don’t subscribe to.

The oldest of the 08 celts big 3 was 32 years old..they all made all star teams the year prior to 08 and they all made the all star team in 08. They all made the all star team in 09.

Gp and malone were 35 and 40 respectively and neither would make another all star team after joining the lakers, nor would they win a championship together.

Its a disingenious argument to compare 30-32 year olds to guys over 35 and one at 40 no less. Malone was not an all star the year before joining the lakers. Gp was not the #1 option the year prior to joining the lakers.

They were 3 all star #1 options in their prime who were on bad teams. They were all stars on the celtics..Which ones of garnett, pierce, or allen were role players in 08? Both KG and pierce made all nba teams in 08.

How does a team with all aging stars win 66 games, make the finals and win a chip, while all making the all star team?? Think about it logically for chrissake.

KG was the only guy I viewed as truly elite but I understand your point.

[michaelm]

So according to you, gravity didn't exist until the actual term was first coined for it in the 1620s.

Do you understand how silly that sounds?

See post #434.

Apples have always fallen to the ground.

Teams being constructed as the Heatles were not so much.


It is you who seeks to revise history, which is commonly regarded as fairly silly.

I've never once revised history on this site. There you go again using terms you don't know the meaning behind.

So now it's all about how they were formed. Nothing else.

It's really amazing that you guys don't see why this is a very stupid argument to make.

Yes it is about how the teams were formed because it was applied to the Heatles at the time they formed because of how they were formed, including the parties involved being dubbed the superfriends. This was not applicable to Pippen and Jordan because they grew up in the NBA together rather than becoming friends at the Olympics or whatever and deciding to band together, and definitely not to Rodman who had been a bitter enemy of Jordan and Pippen and by his own testament hardly exchanged a word with Jordan during the second threepeat.

And argumentum ad hominem now ?. The last refuge of the desperate and a sure sign of someone losing an argument. As it happens it is unlikely you have a greater understanding of the English language than I do, and trying to retrospectively apply a term 15 years after it was specifically coined to cover the circumstances of the formation of the Heatles to a different team from nearly 30 years ago, to whom the application of the term was never considered at the time, to suit your own particular agenda is fairly classic revisionism. And yes I am well aware that in your view only other people have agendas.


As I have said previously I don’t have a problem with the Heatles and nor do I see the formation of a team such as the Heatles as an intrinsically less virtuous path to take than a player staying at the one franchise and having a team built around him, it is imo likely a more difficult path, particularly if a player decides going forward to become a GM as well. The whole point is that better teams were built around Jordan than were ever built around LeBron, and whatever spin you guys attempt to put on this it is to Jordan’s credit rather than his discredit that his teams were so good, particularly given he realised (or was persuaded by Phil Jackson in regard to) the need to change the way he played to become successful and did so.

[bledredwine]

See post #434.

Apples have always fallen to the ground.

Teams being constructed as the Heatles were not so much.


It is you who seeks to revise history, which is commonly regarded as fairly silly.

I've never once revised history on this site. There you go again using terms you don't know the meaning behind.

So now it's all about how they were formed. Nothing else.

It's really amazing that you guys don't see why this is a very stupid argument to make.

Yes it is about how the teams were formed because it was applied to the Heatles at the time they formed because of how they were formed, including the parties involved being dubbed the superfriends. This was not applicable to Pippen and Jordan because they grew up in the NBA together rather than becoming friends at the Olympics or whatever and deciding to band together, and definitely not to Rodman who had been a bitter enemy of Jordan and Pippen and by his own testament hardly exchanged a word with Jordan during the second threepeat.

And argumentum ad hominem now ?. The last refuge of the desperate and a sure sign of someone losing an argument. As it happens it is unlikely you have a greater understanding of the English language than I do, and trying to retrospectively apply a term 15 years after it was specifically coined to cover the circumstances of the formation of the Heatles to a different team from nearly 30 years ago, to whom the application of the term was never considered at the time, to suit your own particular agenda is fairly classic revisionism. And yes I am well aware that in your view only other people have agendas.


As I have said previously I don’t have a problem with the Heatles and nor do I see the formation of a team such as the Heatles as an intrinsically less virtuous path to take than a player staying at the one franchise and having a team built around him, it is imo likely a more difficult path, particularly if a player decides going forward to become a GM as well. The whole point is that better teams were built around Jordan than were ever built around LeBron, and whatever spin you guys attempt to put on this it is to Jordan’s credit rather than his discredit that his teams were so good, particularly given he realised (or was persuaded by Phil Jackson in regard to) the need to change the way he played to become successful and did so.

That’s a mic drop.

[ScrantonBulls]

See post #434.

Apples have always fallen to the ground.

Teams being constructed as the Heatles were not so much.


It is you who seeks to revise history, which is commonly regarded as fairly silly.

I've never once revised history on this site. There you go again using terms you don't know the meaning behind.

So now it's all about how they were formed. Nothing else.

It's really amazing that you guys don't see why this is a very stupid argument to make.

Yes it is about how the teams were formed because it was applied to the Heatles at the time they formed because of how they were formed, including the parties involved being dubbed the superfriends. This was not applicable to Pippen and Jordan because they grew up in the NBA together rather than becoming friends at the Olympics or whatever and deciding to band together, and definitely not to Rodman who had been a bitter enemy of Jordan and Pippen and by his own testament hardly exchanged a word with Jordan during the second threepeat.

And argumentum ad hominem now ?. The last refuge of the desperate and a sure sign of someone losing an argument. As it happens it is unlikely you have a greater understanding of the English language than I do, and trying to retrospectively apply a term 15 years after it was specifically coined to cover the circumstances of the formation of the Heatles to a different team from nearly 30 years ago, to whom the application of the term was never considered at the time, to suit your own particular agenda is fairly classic revisionism. And yes I am well aware that in your view only other people have agendas.


As I have said previously I don’t have a problem with the Heatles and nor do I see the formation of a team such as the Heatles as an intrinsically less virtuous path to take than a player staying at the one franchise and having a team built around him, it is imo likely a more difficult path, particularly if a player decides going forward to become a GM as well. The whole point is that better teams were built around Jordan than were ever built around LeBron, and whatever spin you guys attempt to put on this it is to Jordan’s credit rather than his discredit that his teams were so good, particularly given he realised (or was persuaded by Phil Jackson in regard to) the need to change the way he played to become successful and did so.

The whole "MJ deserves credit for having the best teammates" has got to be my favorite argument of yours.

[michaelm]

I've never once revised history on this site. There you go again using terms you don't know the meaning behind.

So now it's all about how they were formed. Nothing else.

It's really amazing that you guys don't see why this is a very stupid argument to make.

Yes it is about how the teams were formed because it was applied to the Heatles at the time they formed because of how they were formed, including the parties involved being dubbed the superfriends. This was not applicable to Pippen and Jordan because they grew up in the NBA together rather than becoming friends at the Olympics or whatever and deciding to band together, and definitely not to Rodman who had been a bitter enemy of Jordan and Pippen and by his own testament hardly exchanged a word with Jordan during the second threepeat.

And argumentum ad hominem now ?. The last refuge of the desperate and a sure sign of someone losing an argument. As it happens it is unlikely you have a greater understanding of the English language than I do, and trying to retrospectively apply a term 15 years after it was specifically coined to cover the circumstances of the formation of the Heatles to a different team from nearly 30 years ago, to whom the application of the term was never considered at the time, to suit your own particular agenda is fairly classic revisionism. And yes I am well aware that in your view only other people have agendas.


As I have said previously I don’t have a problem with the Heatles and nor do I see the formation of a team such as the Heatles as an intrinsically less virtuous path to take than a player staying at the one franchise and having a team built around him, it is imo likely a more difficult path, particularly if a player decides going forward to become a GM as well. The whole point is that better teams were built around Jordan than were ever built around LeBron, and whatever spin you guys attempt to put on this it is to Jordan’s credit rather than his discredit that his teams were so good, particularly given he realised (or was persuaded by Phil Jackson in regard to) the need to change the way he played to become successful and did so.

The whole "MJ deserves credit for having the best teammates" has got to be my favorite argument of yours.

And your attempts to diminish Jordan by exalting his team mates and belittling his opponents while belittling LeBron’s team mates and exalting his opposition become ever more desperate. How ridiculous to suggest that constructing a team of complementary players and playing a team game which allows a whole team to thrive might work in the team game of basketball, particularly given it did work.

[MightyMouse10]

At the end of the day, the Chicago Bulls, in most years during the 1990s, had more high-end talent than a majority of teams in the NBA. The definition of a SuperTeam can be closely defined as "An accumulation of multiple highly accredited players".

We don't see teams like the 2019 Toronto Raptors as a super-team with Kawhi/Lowry at the helm, even though Siakam was All-NBA and an All-Star in the following year.

The Warriors didn't get labeled "superteam" by the media and NBA fan base in 2015 or 2016, even though Curry/Klay/Draymond were all All-Star to All-NBA caliber players.

I personally label teams "Superteam" as the overall collection of talent stands above the rest of the NBA teams. I consider the 2025 Oklahoma City Thunder a superteam. I could see arguments for the 2024 Boston Celtics being a superteam, and I see them similarly to the 2019 Toronto Raptors in terms of having 6-7 starting-caliber players with top-end talent to complement.

The 1996 Chicago Bulls had two players finish Top 5 in MVP voting, another who received at least a single vote (Dennis Rodman), the 6MOY, and another 6MOY candidate in Steve Kerr. Let's compare this to the other contenders in the NBA in 1996.

Orlando Magic: Top 5 MVP Candidate, Top 10 MVP Candidate, 3 respectable starters, and a weak bench
Indiana Pacers: Top 15 Player (Reggie Miller)
San Antonio Spurs: Top 3 MVP Candidate, All-Star, Middling 6MOY candidate
Utah Jazz: Top 7 and Top 15 MVP Candidates, 1 respectable starter, and a weak bench
Seattle Supersonics: 2 Top 10 MVP Candidates, 2 respectable starters, and a middling bench
Los Angeles Lakers: 1 Top 15 MVP Candidate

When you compare the 1996 Chicago Bulls to the other contenders in the NBA in 1996, they are head and shoulders above everyone else. To me, that is a superteam.

One mistake many people make is comparing teams of the past to the modern-day game. The modern-day game has more talent. Teams routinely have 5-7 players who I would define as respectable starters. There isn't a drop-off of high-volume scorers outside of the all-star level.

If we took the Chicago Bulls and Orlando Magic accolades to teams, here is a modern-day equivalent.

Chicago Bulls:
Nikola Jokic
Jaren Jackson Jr
Duncan Robinson
Keon Ellis
Donovan Mitchell
Payton Pritchard
Nickeil Alexander-Walker

Orlando Magic:
Rudy Gobert
Evan Mobley
Josh Hart
Norman Powell
Cade Cunningham
Tim Hardaway Jr
Georges Niang

I'd argue most championship teams of any era are super teams. There is more talent now from 1-15 on a team but the upper tier talent was different in 96' than today. I don't mean better but the difference between a team's best player and 4th best player had more of a spread than it is now.

Comparing teams from different eras isn't really a mistake more so a comparison of champions over time, which also talks about the eras these players competed in. Even though the Bulls won two-three peats i dont think they were the best ever assembled team. For me since the Bulls run;

GSW KD/Steph/Draymond/Klay/Iguodala
Heat with LeBron/Bosh/Wade
Lakers Kobe/Shaq
Cavs Lebon/Kyrie/Love

Best teams assembled without a Superstar of Superstars
Celtics Pierce/KG/Allen
Pistons Billups/Wallaces/Prince/Rip
Raptors Kawhi/Lowry/Siakam/Gasol- Vanvleet, OG, Norm Powell, Danny Green

These teams had a better collection of talent. Despite not having as much success as the Bulls. The issue I think ppl ignore is that Basketball is the single sport where one player can dominate a game on both ends offence/defence and basically take control of everything. Whatever era you play in if you were lucky enough to draft/sign/trade Jordan/Lebron/Duncan/Kobe/Shaq/Steph you had a good chance to win. This is why we see Jordan winning 6 championships or Kobe/shaq with 5 and 4 or Lebron with 10 final appearances.

To put it simply a team is as good as their best player. Players 2-4 matter but if you have the top 1-2 players in the league chances are you appear in the finals at the very least.

[JR Hawks]

No. They won in the expansion era. Highly overrated.

[Iwasawitness]

See post #434.

Apples have always fallen to the ground.

Teams being constructed as the Heatles were not so much.


It is you who seeks to revise history, which is commonly regarded as fairly silly.

I've never once revised history on this site. There you go again using terms you don't know the meaning behind.

So now it's all about how they were formed. Nothing else.

It's really amazing that you guys don't see why this is a very stupid argument to make.

Yes it is about how the teams were formed because it was applied to the Heatles at the time they formed because of how they were formed, including the parties involved being dubbed the superfriends. This was not applicable to Pippen and Jordan because they grew up in the NBA together rather than becoming friends at the Olympics or whatever and deciding to band together, and definitely not to Rodman who had been a bitter enemy of Jordan and Pippen and by his own testament hardly exchanged a word with Jordan during the second threepeat.

And argumentum ad hominem now ?. The last refuge of the desperate and a sure sign of someone losing an argument. As it happens it is unlikely you have a greater understanding of the English language than I do, and trying to retrospectively apply a term 15 years after it was specifically coined to cover the circumstances of the formation of the Heatles to a different team from nearly 30 years ago, to whom the application of the term was never considered at the time, to suit your own particular agenda is fairly classic revisionism. And yes I am well aware that in your view only other people have agendas.


As I have said previously I don’t have a problem with the Heatles and nor do I see the formation of a team such as the Heatles as an intrinsically less virtuous path to take than a player staying at the one franchise and having a team built around him, it is imo likely a more difficult path, particularly if a player decides going forward to become a GM as well. The whole point is that better teams were built around Jordan than were ever built around LeBron, and whatever spin you guys attempt to put on this it is to Jordan’s credit rather than his discredit that his teams were so good, particularly given he realised (or was persuaded by Phil Jackson in regard to) the need to change the way he played to become successful and did so.

It's really hilarious that you accuse me of revising history, and then you go on to do the same.

Became friends at the Olympics and decided to form there? That isn't what happened. They talked about it, sure, but it's been confirmed that LeBron was on the fence about it from the beginning and didn't reply commit to it until he realized he didn't have a choice. Going by your own logic, the 2011 Heat aren't a super team, since they didn't form the way you claimed. Again, another example of why this entire thing is contrived and stupid.

Also, what's this nonsense about me discrediting Jordans teams? I've never claimed them to be a super team nor do I care. Why is your go to method of debating to put words in my mouth? This, on top of others telling me you're a waste of time, is why I don't really bother with you anymore. If you can't ever argue in good faith then what's the point?

[DimesandKnicks]

No. But it's easy to say that after the fact.

Rodman was a head case in 95 and no one wanted to touch him. He was given away for Will frickin Perdue.

Ron Harper was a shell of his former self after his ACL injuries. He was brought in to be a playmaker...not the explosive scorer he used to be with the Cavs and Clippers. Keep in mind, back in the day people didn't bounce back this well from ACL tears

He averaged 20ppg after his acl tear

Which is irrelevant since he didn't fit the triangle as a scorer.

Relevant to the idea that he was a former shell of himself

[DimesandKnicks]

No. But it's easy to say that after the fact.

Rodman was a head case in 95 and no one wanted to touch him. He was given away for Will frickin Perdue.

Ron Harper was a shell of his former self after his ACL injuries. He was brought in to be a playmaker...not the explosive scorer he used to be with the Cavs and Clippers. Keep in mind, back in the day people didn't bounce back this well from ACL tears

He averaged 20ppg after his acl tear

Did you know he averaged those 20 points per game on 18 field goal attempts per game on 42/30/71 shooting splits lol? Do you find that impressive?

Yes

[michaelm]

I've never once revised history on this site. There you go again using terms you don't know the meaning behind.

So now it's all about how they were formed. Nothing else.

It's really amazing that you guys don't see why this is a very stupid argument to make.

Yes it is about how the teams were formed because it was applied to the Heatles at the time they formed because of how they were formed, including the parties involved being dubbed the superfriends. This was not applicable to Pippen and Jordan because they grew up in the NBA together rather than becoming friends at the Olympics or whatever and deciding to band together, and definitely not to Rodman who had been a bitter enemy of Jordan and Pippen and by his own testament hardly exchanged a word with Jordan during the second threepeat.

And argumentum ad hominem now ?. The last refuge of the desperate and a sure sign of someone losing an argument. As it happens it is unlikely you have a greater understanding of the English language than I do, and trying to retrospectively apply a term 15 years after it was specifically coined to cover the circumstances of the formation of the Heatles to a different team from nearly 30 years ago, to whom the application of the term was never considered at the time, to suit your own particular agenda is fairly classic revisionism. And yes I am well aware that in your view only other people have agendas.


As I have said previously I don’t have a problem with the Heatles and nor do I see the formation of a team such as the Heatles as an intrinsically less virtuous path to take than a player staying at the one franchise and having a team built around him, it is imo likely a more difficult path, particularly if a player decides going forward to become a GM as well. The whole point is that better teams were built around Jordan than were ever built around LeBron, and whatever spin you guys attempt to put on this it is to Jordan’s credit rather than his discredit that his teams were so good, particularly given he realised (or was persuaded by Phil Jackson in regard to) the need to change the way he played to become successful and did so.

It's really hilarious that you accuse me of revising history, and then you go on to do the same.

Became friends at the Olympics and decided to form there? That isn't what happened. They talked about it, sure, but it's been confirmed that LeBron was on the fence about it from the beginning and didn't reply commit to it until he realized he didn't have a choice. Going by your own logic, the 2011 Heat aren't a super team, since they didn't form the way you claimed. Again, another example of why this entire thing is contrived and stupid.

Also, what's this nonsense about me discrediting Jordans teams? I've never claimed them to be a super team nor do I care. Why is your go to method of debating to put words in my mouth? This, on top of others telling me you're a waste of time, is why I don't really bother with you anymore. If you can't ever argue in good faith then what's the point?

I didn’t call the Heatles a superteam nor name the 3 protagonists the superfriends, that was a media wide phenomenon at the time.

If it was as blindingly obvious as gravity why wasn’t the similarity of the Jordan Bulls to the Heatles remarked upon at the time, and why has it taken until 15 years later as LeBron’s career is winding down for LeBron partisans to run a thread about same on a sports forum ?.

For somebody who doesn’t care about the superteam thing it is perhaps odd that you chose to post several times in this thread, and have been rather insistent on your definition of what does and doesn’t constitute a superteam, and in particular to classify both the Heatles and the Jordan Bulls as being such teams. And as I have said I am always pleased to see argumentum ad hominem, it is hardly a sign I am losing a debate.

I don’t know how I will ever recover from having earntt the disregard of both you and Scranton Bulls either.