We are witnessing hustory, Warrior's are all time great.

[KG Living Legend]

 Right now they have 33 wins and 2 losses. A 90% winning percentage.

 They need to win 80% of they're games, four out of five to reach 73 wins, an all time record.

 I think they go 75 and 7. Think about that. If they get 75 wins and win it all in five games. They might be the best team ever in a single season.

[86MaxwellSmart]

Won't mean a thing when they lose to the Spurs in WCF-!

[CroCorvus]

Well they sure look great. They play great bball, they are cocky, have that championship swagger, great team chemistry and, but we can't talk about an all time greats. They won the championship last year but they beat half a team of Cleveland with Irving and Love out while they ware all healthy - great deal of luck. Secondly, this year they are playing in incredibly weak west conference, aldo they doing that with some injuries... They sure are a fun team to watch and for me maybe a most acceptable team to win it all except C's of course, but seeing Curry having those leg issues I don't belive they will go above 72 and make history...makes me wonder what if KG didn't went down in 09...

[chambers]

It is pretty amazing.
What's even more amazing is that right now the Spurs look like the best team in the NBA.
So the poor warriors will have to get through SAS and THEN the Cavs, who are very capable of beating them in 7 games.
It's going to be an intriguing conference finals in the West, and the Cavs are gonna have a pretty easy ride to the finals and should make it with Lebron, Love and Kyrie ready to fight.

[Tr1boy]

No. League is all time mediocre

[Sketch5]

No. League is all time mediocre

This! I was just thinking the same thing. You take a and 80's Celtics or Lakers, or a 90's Bulls team and have them play against these teams with these rules, we might be saying the same thing about them.

I mean Jordan averaged over 30(before the old timer come backs) in a league that was defender friendly.

[Celtics17]

I'm not sure how any Celtics fan could think the Warriors of today are a better 'single season' team then the 86 Celtics? Better record, maybe, but better team? Who do they have that could handle Bird, McHale, Walton and Parish?

The truth is, the league is watered down today with 29 or 30 teams in it. The baby boomers have come and gone and today's league must import players just to work. No way that Warriors team beats the best of the 80's teams, Celtics, Lackers, or 76'ers either.

[Moranis]

I'm not sure how any Celtics fan could think the Warriors of today are a better 'single season' team then the 86 Celtics? Better record, maybe, but better team? Who do they have that could handle Bird, McHale, Walton and Parish?

The truth is, the league is watered down today with 29 or 30 teams in it. The baby boomers have come and gone and today's league must import players just to work. No way that Warriors team beats the best of the 80's teams, Celtics, Lackers, or 76'ers either.

In today's games with today's rules, how are the Celtics going to guard the Warriors.  Do you think Parish can guard Green on the wing.  Or McHale and hang with Barnes on the perimeter.  You see it does work both ways.  Even if the Warriors had Bogut out there for some size, that still means McHale has to guard Green.  Good luck with that.

[ederson]

My thought exactly. In terms of talent i think the 86 Cs are much better but the warriors are better than the sum of their parts.

In any case no team managed a 33-2 so they should get some respect

[PhoSita]

No. League is all time mediocre

This! I was just thinking the same thing. You take a and 80's Celtics or Lakers, or a 90's Bulls team and have them play against these teams with these rules, we might be saying the same thing about them.

I mean Jordan averaged over 30(before the old timer come backs) in a league that was defender friendly.

This is all complete and utter nonsense.

For one thing, most of those older teams would struggle mightily to score in today's league because most of them were very lacking in three point shooters.


There's plenty of talent in the league today.  The game is different than it once was, but that's not a bad thing, nor does it mean the sport has been "watered down" or anything like that.

[wdleehi]

I'm not sure how any Celtics fan could think the Warriors of today are a better 'single season' team then the 86 Celtics? Better record, maybe, but better team? Who do they have that could handle Bird, McHale, Walton and Parish?

The truth is, the league is watered down today with 29 or 30 teams in it. The baby boomers have come and gone and today's league must import players just to work. No way that Warriors team beats the best of the 80's teams, Celtics, Lackers, or 76'ers either.

In today's games with today's rules, how are the Celtics going to guard the Warriors.  Do you think Parish can guard Green on the wing.  Or McHale and hang with Barnes on the perimeter.  You see it does work both ways.  Even if the Warriors had Bogut out there for some size, that still means McHale has to guard Green.  Good luck with that.

And if it was played under the older rules, good luck Curry surviving the hard fouls. 





Either way, the best player on the floor is Bird.  The Celtics will control the boards which in terms can be used to control the pace. 

[Moranis]

I'm not sure how any Celtics fan could think the Warriors of today are a better 'single season' team then the 86 Celtics? Better record, maybe, but better team? Who do they have that could handle Bird, McHale, Walton and Parish?

The truth is, the league is watered down today with 29 or 30 teams in it. The baby boomers have come and gone and today's league must import players just to work. No way that Warriors team beats the best of the 80's teams, Celtics, Lackers, or 76'ers either.

In today's games with today's rules, how are the Celtics going to guard the Warriors.  Do you think Parish can guard Green on the wing.  Or McHale and hang with Barnes on the perimeter.  You see it does work both ways.  Even if the Warriors had Bogut out there for some size, that still means McHale has to guard Green.  Good luck with that.

And if it was played under the older rules, good luck Curry surviving the hard fouls. 





Either way, the best player on the floor is Bird.  The Celtics will control the boards which in terms can be used to control the pace.

Curry wouldn't drive as much, but you would still have to guard him on the wing.  No team from the 80's could compete with the three point shooting of the Warriors.  They just can't guard the bigs that hang out on the wing and bomb threes all day. 

[wdleehi]

I'm not sure how any Celtics fan could think the Warriors of today are a better 'single season' team then the 86 Celtics? Better record, maybe, but better team? Who do they have that could handle Bird, McHale, Walton and Parish?

The truth is, the league is watered down today with 29 or 30 teams in it. The baby boomers have come and gone and today's league must import players just to work. No way that Warriors team beats the best of the 80's teams, Celtics, Lackers, or 76'ers either.

In today's games with today's rules, how are the Celtics going to guard the Warriors.  Do you think Parish can guard Green on the wing.  Or McHale and hang with Barnes on the perimeter.  You see it does work both ways.  Even if the Warriors had Bogut out there for some size, that still means McHale has to guard Green.  Good luck with that.

And if it was played under the older rules, good luck Curry surviving the hard fouls. 





Either way, the best player on the floor is Bird.  The Celtics will control the boards which in terms can be used to control the pace.

Curry wouldn't drive as much, but you would still have to guard him on the wing.  No team from the 80's could compete with the three point shooting of the Warriors.  They just can't guard the bigs that hang out on the wing and bomb threes all day.

And those bigs couldn't handle the physical down low play.  No zone defense.  `

[wdleehi]

I'm not sure how any Celtics fan could think the Warriors of today are a better 'single season' team then the 86 Celtics? Better record, maybe, but better team? Who do they have that could handle Bird, McHale, Walton and Parish?

The truth is, the league is watered down today with 29 or 30 teams in it. The baby boomers have come and gone and today's league must import players just to work. No way that Warriors team beats the best of the 80's teams, Celtics, Lackers, or 76'ers either.

In today's games with today's rules, how are the Celtics going to guard the Warriors.  Do you think Parish can guard Green on the wing.  Or McHale and hang with Barnes on the perimeter.  You see it does work both ways.  Even if the Warriors had Bogut out there for some size, that still means McHale has to guard Green.  Good luck with that.

And if it was played under the older rules, good luck Curry surviving the hard fouls. 





Either way, the best player on the floor is Bird.  The Celtics will control the boards which in terms can be used to control the pace.

Curry wouldn't drive as much, but you would still have to guard him on the wing.  No team from the 80's could compete with the three point shooting of the Warriors.  They just can't guard the bigs that hang out on the wing and bomb threes all day.

And those bigs couldn't handle the physical down low play.  No zone defense.  `

Hand checking allowed.

[Donoghus]

I don't care what era you play in. If you play an 82 game schedule and end up winning 91.5% of your games (75-7), you're one of the great sports teams in history.  All time great. Period.

If you win the title.

If you don't, you just go down in the annals as a great regular season team but didn't win the title.