Moderators: Kilroy, Danny Darko, TyCobb
SuigintouEV wrote:by G.S. who staggered into the playoffs as the 8th seed & met Dallas in the 1st round and true to form,
G.S. didn't stagger into the playoffs, they were absolutely dominant after they made the trade for stephen jackson and al harrington midway into the season.
If they had played anyone else besides Dallas they would have been a 1st round casualty. You don't believe me? What happened when they got to the 2nd round? Bounced! Old World Order wrote:A) I saw a post from a guy named BGil saying 70 wins would be easy...that's funny.
B) The Lakers had some losses they really should've won, but so did those Bulls, and every other team that won 65+. If the Lakers were closer to 72 wins than it looked, those Bulls were closer to 76 or so wins than it looked, so it all evens out.
C) Chicago being in the middle of the country probably did help more than one thinks- it's not the middle of the country, but it is in the middle of NBA country- but 45 minutes a flight doesn't make that big of a difference.
This topic is not about how many games the Bulls could have won. The record is set @ 72 it's in the books, you can't change that. This topic was about how close we could have gotten to 72 Old World Order wrote:Okay, and if you're gonna play shoulda/coulda games, it's only fair to acknowledge that other teams in the history of the NBA can do that, too. In the end the Lakers weren't really that close.
Thank you kevin_405, for realizing what others here couldn't simplisticly understand. It's not too hard to understand that if you exacute properly in those situations you'd win the games period.kevin_405 wrote:There is a common factor in our close losses , bad defensive decisions on doubling or leaving jump shooters free.
SmartWentCrazy wrote:It's extremely unlikely that they end up in the top 3.They're probably better off trying to win and giving Philly the 8th pick than tanking and giving them the 4th.
DEEP3CL wrote:Thank you kevin_405, for realizing what others here couldn't simplisticly understand. It's not too hard to understand that if you exacute properly in those situations you'd win the games period.kevin_405 wrote:There is a common factor in our close losses , bad defensive decisions on doubling or leaving jump shooters free.
Because this is a laker board.Old World Order wrote:My point was all teams have winnable games they don't win. What's the point in re-hashing them for one team and not for another? Or re-hashing at all?
If this was the general board, i could understand what your saying.
Old World Order wrote:My point was all teams have winnable games they don't win. What's the point in re-hashing them for one team and not for another? Or re-hashing at all?
anklebreaker702 wrote:Those are the 7 that stood out in my mind which would have given us 72 wins. Also we lost Bynum for 32 games. I know injury's are part of the game so I really don't want to get too deep in to that but give me your opinions on if you agree or not & if we can make a run at it next year
