Too bad for you :

Too bad for you again I like Russell Westbrook and I hope he will be the season MVP.

Are you mad ?

Meh don't buy it. 

They'd be the smallest, least athletic team without access to video footage, advanced game planning, etc. etc. etc. They'd get wrecked. 

Most sports are way better today than the 50s/60s ... that's just how it goes. Back then sports was kind of a half joke, most of the NBA guys had second jobs, basketball was a sport that had only been mainstream for like 20-30 years at that point, it wasn't like today where there a huge system you're put into from high school camps to high pressure college training then into the NBA. Bill Russell has said he hadn't even seen a basketball until he was like 14, lol. 

None of those guys are actually the top 10 best players. Someone like David Robinson would be better than all of them. They're rated as great because they played in the 60s, not just a weaker era, but an era where basketball was played by maybe like 1/20th of the global population it is today, so the talent pool was much smaller to begin with, not to mention coaching, player development, etc.

They would get their asses handed to them too if they shot like 43% from the field like Russell did as a big, that wouldn't fly today at all. Bob Cousy never shot even over 40% once in his career, lol, he's suddenly going to shoot better being covered by 6'7 Scottie Pippen or 6'6 Klay Thompson? I don't think so. 

Your second line reveals you don't have a clue what you are talking about.  The Celtics, Lakers, 76ers, the players back then where athletic as hell.  You had to be, the league was punishing and fast paced.  If you weren't athletic, you were fairly useless for anything but a bench warmer. 

And no, that's not "just how it goes."  Many analysts will agree with me that most of the stars of today don't stack up to the biggest stars of past decades, the 60s included. 

And your third paragraph exposes your ignorance and lack of respect.  Wilt Chamberlain is easily top 5 all time.  I would take him over Shaq.  I'd take him over anyone other than Jordan and Kareem.  And even then it would be a tough call.  And the talent pool was smaller but it was also very dense.  The 60s had fewer teams and therefore more talent per team.  There were very few teams that existed only to be stepped on.  There were numerous great players back then, you just don't see them because you are stuck in your ways and refuse to respect history.  Do you're research. 

And your comment on shooting percentages also showcases more lack of knowledge.  The game was played at an absurd tempo back then, resulting in far, far more posessions but therefore also far fewer clean looks.  Teams regularly took over 100 shots in a game.  Today's style of play drives up the shooting percentage.  And a lot of that can be credited to the 3 point line's impact on the floor and how the game had to be played. 

Let's look at all the Bulls finals machups the 1990-91 Lakers where a bit past their prime but the Bulls had to detrone the two time champion Pistons to get to the finals.  The 1991-92 Portland Trailblazers where a pretty good team they where the best team in the West and better then the Lakers team they beat for their first title.  The 1992-93 Phoenix Suns where the best team in the West and Barkley was the regular season MVP the series could have easily went seven games its the best team they beat during their first treepeat.  The 1995-96 Seatle Super Sonics where a pretty good team the series still went six games and it was a defensive struggle it was Jordan's worst finals perfomance since he barely averaged over 27 points in that series.  The 1996-97 Utah Jazz where the best team in the West that year and Malone was the regular season MVP.  The 1997-98 Utah Jazz team where the best team in the West.  Malone was much better in that finals then he was in the previous one the series could have went seven games its the best team they beat during their second treepeat.

Nope, your comments on the other hands come across as silly and anyone can see that you are a huge Warriors homer.  

Warriors are being overrated, Cavs just are playing with 2 and a half man and a bunch of bums.

Bulls would push their shit in, especially playing real 90s ball not the puss fest of today.

Also the Bleacher Report isn't exactly a very creditable source when it comes to sports information those are the same idiots that once employed a guy that wrote an article that stated that Cam Newton was the worst number one pick of all time.

Jordan is the best player ever, but I don't trust Scottie Pippen's erratic jumper and Toni Kukoc's inconsistent play to be able to counter the Warriors. You get basically zero offence from Rodman. 

There's nothing wrong with saying the Warriors might be better.

The Western Conference All-Stars are better than the Bulls ... obviously you can say well that's an unfair comparison, but the Warriors are basically like an All-Star team upfront. 

It's just probably a "once every 30 years" mix of talent due to the stars alligning a certain way. If "super teaming" was a thing in the 90s, maybe you'd have seen Barkley or Ewing jump ship to join Chicago, and that team would've been better than any of the 6 Bulls championship teams. There's no ineherint rule against a stacked team. 

What terrifies me is that the Warriors superstars are more than willing than to take substantial pay cuts in order to get a better bench in the offseason. Heck, they might just get a quality center if the money lines up right and then we can start talking about how truly terrifying this team would really be.

Wilt is basically a 90s player ... in the 60s. That's why he was abe to put up ridiculous numbers. But he is basically the exception. 

Taking a 100 shots a game indicates a ridiculous style of play, playing in the modern era would be a rude awakening for these guys. 

The 60s was not great basketball, I'm sorry if you think so, but come on. Things improve, and get better, sports in general have improved massively over the last 30 years due to things like TV (yes, being able to watch/study/break down game tape of every other athlete over and over again is a huge, and that footage being shown to millions of poeple worldwide encourages millions more to try and play the sport), training in the weight room, not to mention huge financial incentive (become a multi-millionaire, etc.), wildly more advanced coaching techniques, far superior development of players from a young age, etc. etc. etc. 

Most athletes from the 60s would get their ass handed to them today against modern athletes and basketball is probably more extreme not less because it's by its nature a sport more dependant on athletcism and size.  

You take the best tennis player from the 60s and put the against Nadal or Federer in their peak and they'd get wrecked. You take the best hockey team from the 60s and they would lose 10-1 to the Pittsburgh Penguins of today, I mean shit in the 60s/70s players in hockey would go have a cigarette in between periods, lol.