1987 Lakers vs 1997 Bulls

[Da_Realist]

Ha Ha! This is going to start a major pissing match between 1987_Lakers and 97Bulls. :oldlol:

Keep it entertaining, fellas. No holding and no rabbit punches. I work with a bunch of stiffs so let's put on a show! :cheers:

Seriously, though...This is a pretty good matchup (though, I'd prefer the 92 Bulls slightly). Obviously, it would be close but this is the first time I've read a basketball analyst say the Bulls would beat the 80's Lakers in a 7-game series.

1987 Lakers vs 1997 Bulls (http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/9175578/Answering-your-NBA-questions:-LeBron%27s-flaws?)



In a 7-game series, who would win? The '80s Lakers with Kareem, Magic, Worthy, Scott, Cooper, Wilkes, McAdoo, Nixon, et al? Or the '90s Bulls with Jordan, Pippen, Grant and Rodman? — Carlo Leal, Manila, Philippines

Since some of the guys you mentioned never played together — Horace Grant and Dennis Rodman, for example, as well as Byron Scott and Norm Nixon — I've decided to match the best of Riley's Lakers with the best of Jackson's Bulls.

That would be the 1986-87 championship Lakers who won 65 games and went 15-3 in the playoffs. Their starters were Magic Johnson, James Worthy, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Scott, with Mychal Thompson and A.C. Green splitting time at the power-forward spot, and Michael Cooper coming off the bench.

The 1996-97 championship Bulls were 69-13 in the regular season and 15-4 in the playoffs. Their starters included MJ, Scottie Pippen, Luc Longley, Rodman and Ron Harper, with Toni Kukoc and Steve Kerr being the primary subs.

The Lakers had the more potent offense, while the Bulls played better defense.

There would be several keys to the game:

# The Bulls would have to slow the game down by running their triangle offense for 20 seconds or so on each possession, by taking only good shots so as to shoot a high percentage, and by storming the offensive boards.

# The Lakers, meanwhile, would need to create turnovers, force pressurized shots, control their defensive glass, and then run-run-run.

The matchups, of course, would also be critical:

# Longley would have to bust downcourt in defensive transition to occupy Kareem's favorite spot on the left box before the big fellow got there. It was only by forcing Kareem to set up a step higher than he desired that his scoring potential could be somewhat limited. Even so, Kareem was a beast. The Bulls' strategy would be to fight Kareem on every possession, but concede him 30-plus points, and concentrate on keeping everybody else under control.

# Harper usually did a pretty good job on Magic, but Harper's lack of offense in his dotage would put no pressure on Magic's subpar defense.

# However, in selected sequences, Pippen had the ability to (and the history of) harassing Magic into being just a cut above ordinary — with quickness being Pip's overwhelming edge.

# Also, Jordan was likewise an effective defender against the Magic Man.

# Rodman would defend either Thompson or Green and out-rebound and outrun both of them.

# Pippen would have a tough time dealing with Worthy. But, depending on the substitution patterns, Rodman could seriously hinder Worthy's effectiveness.

# Jordan would out-play Scott at both ends of the court. But Scott would be able to exploit Harper's bad wheels.

# Off the bench, Cooper would get open treys against Kukoc, but would have trouble defensively when taken into the low post.

# Cooper could hold Kerr moveless, but only if he stayed home on defense.

So, from this angle it looks like the matchups would favor the Bulls — who would also have more options on defense than the Lakers.

The pick hereabouts is Chicago in a triple-overtime seventh game.

[guy]

Kareem scored 30 once that whole season. I doubt he's doing it against a great defensive team like the Bulls. Lets not forget he was 40 years old at the time.

[Odomize]

whoever make less mistakes would win.

[Psileas]

Good old Charley Rosen. The guy who, in this article, states that "since Robertson was a point guard and Jordan was a wing, no meaningful comparisons are possible", but a little before this, he compares Wilt and Jordan. The main reason that he does so seems to be the fact that he prefers Jordan to Wilt, but also prefers Oscar to Jordan and he knows that his second preference will piss off a lot of people, so he choses to back down on this one and leave as valid only the matchup which Jordan wins, although comparing a C to a SG is way more absurd than comparing a wing player to a SG. Maybe he didn't have the guts to do the opposite.

[Meticode]

Germany in the 1940s (WWII) vs. US in the 1990s (Gulf War). Who would win?

[Da_Realist]

Good old Charley Rosen. The guy who, in this article, states that "since Robertson was a point guard and Jordan was a wing, no meaningful comparisons are possible", but a little before this, he compares Wilt and Jordan. The main reason that he does so seems to be the fact that he prefers Jordan to Wilt, but also prefers Oscar to Jordan and he knows that his second preference will piss off a lot of people, so he choses to back down on this one and leave as valid only the matchup which Jordan wins, although comparing a C to a SG is way more absurd than comparing a wing player to a SG. Maybe he didn't have the guts to do the opposite.

I was thinking the exact same thing. I wondered why he said "the only thing Jordan did a lot better than Robertson was fly (paraphrase)" and then said a comparison shouldn't be made because the difference in position.

I never saw Robertson play but I find it interesting that as good as Jordan was on the block, he said Robertson was better. I don't doubt that could be possible, but Robertson would have had to have been *really, really* good down low to be better than someone with such great footwork and post skills. And Jordan was only a *slightly* better defender?

Can you give a more honest comparison between the two?

[Psileas]

I was thinking the exact same thing. I wondered why he said "the only thing Jordan did a lot better than Robertson was fly (paraphrase)" and then said a comparison shouldn't be made because the difference in position.

I never saw Robertson play but I find it interesting that as good as Jordan was on the block, he said Robertson was better. I don't doubt that could be possible, but Robertson would have had to have been *really, really* good down low to be better than someone with such great footwork and post skills. And Jordan was only a *slightly* better defender?

Can you give a more honest comparison between the two?

Between Jordan and Oscar, I'll take Jordan. I think that, although Oscar was a player with no weaknesses and although I didn't watch Oscar live, either, he exaggerates some of his values in comparison to Jordan's. For example, Oscar surely had the better rebounding numbers, but when you adjust their numbers, they are comparable, really. Defensively, Oscar was considered good, but not Jordan-good or Jerry West-good. There are a few sources which consider him even "great", but they are not as frequent as I'd like to see to qualify him there. Pure scoring also goes to Jordan pretty clearly. On the other hand, though Jordan has the more efficient scoring seasons, if you adjust their %'s (similarly to rebounding), Oscar was more dominant when shooting 50-51% FG than Jordan when he was shooting 53-54%. Obviously, Oscar is the better passer. But overall, I'll take Jordan. Their all-around game is close, but you can't ignore the very large team/playoff success margin between the two and their durability.

[Brunch@Five]

Germany in the 1940s (WWII) vs. US in the 1990s (Gulf War). Who would win?

Are we talking early 40's or mid 40's? Germany's power diminished quickly.

[Sanity]

Kobe Bryant>God

[Sir Charles]

1987 Lakers its no contest....:rolleyes: :confusedshrug:

[OldSchoolBBall]

Lakers would likely win more often than not, but the '96 and '97 Bulls are one of the few teams that are very well suited to playing them, and I think it would be a lot closer than one would think based on the respective talent levels of the teams.

Jordan or Harper on Magic, the other on Scott. Pippen on Worthy. You could actually play those three in any configuration and switch it up as needed. Rodman on Green, Longley on Kareem (who was just above average/good, not great, by that point). I think they'd give them a run. I also think the Bulls would be able to handle the '83 Sixers for the same reason (Harper on Cheeks, Jordan on Toney, Pip on Dr. J, Rodman on Moses). I think they'd have the most trouble with the '86 Celts due to Boston's superior frontcourt.

[Scott Pippen]

^ yes I agree about the mid 80s Celtics. '97 Bulls frontcourt was not very good. Honestly before the 1997 Finals I expected Malone to absolutely DEMOLISH the bigs (not Rodman as much as guys like Longley, Bison Dele, & Kukoc :roll:).

[97 bulls]

1987 Lakers its no contest....:rolleyes: :confusedshrug:
lol are you serious? the bulls have the best player, the better defense, better 3pt shooting, better rebounding, and more versatility. not to mention a better coach and to be honest have 4 players playing at a hof level in MJ, pip, rodman, and kukoc. i say kukoc cuz hell go to the hall based on his career as a player not only as an nba player. the lakers had at best two players playing in their hof prime in 87, magic and an overrated no defense playing, no range on his j, no dribbling. james worthy.

id even go so far as to say that the 97 bulls have just as much firepower as the lakers if not more. not to mention they led the league in offense in 97 i believe.

and they finally posessed a solid low post guy in brian williams who they signed late in the season. that something the other bulls teams never had.

in the 97 version of the bulls you had the ultimate in basketball. they covered all bases. if your team was weak in the post they could go down to 6'11 260 pound williams or jordan or kukoc. and even if you doubled jordan in the post, all of their centers longley, wennington, even williams were excellent jumpshooters which was their role. the bulls centers were just as great at what their job was as any other center.

they would shut you down on defense

if you had a quick small guard they could use randy brown or pip.
if you were strong on the perimeter they had two of the best peremiter defenders if all-time. and ron harper was a very good defender too.

ive heard people say that you could just double of rodman cuz he couldnt shoot. but think about it, do you really want to leave rodman alone to get offensive rebounds? when i played basketball if the other team got an offensive rebound that was considered a TO.

another argument that laker fans present is that they could just go to kareem. my respons is that while kareem would def. get his when the bulls needed a stop jordan and pip would help out. not to mention brian williams was extremly quick and would make kareem work on defense. remember williams held his own in his brief career playing against the best collection of center ever far and away.

weve seen what pip can do against magic in 91 who wasnt old and had a great series and was the reigning MVP. but pip gave magic fits.

who does a better job on defense pipen onworthy or worthy on pip. i say pip. and dont give me that team defense bs.

and when all else fails, THE BULLS HAVE JORDAN

[97 bulls]

Lakers would likely win more often than not, but the '96 and '97 Bulls are one of the few teams that are very well suited to playing them, and I think it would be a lot closer than one would think based on the respective talent levels of the teams.

Jordan or Harper on Magic, the other on Scott. Pippen on Worthy. You could actually play those three in any configuration and switch it up as needed. Rodman on Green, Longley on Kareem (who was just above average/good, not great, by that point). I think they'd give them a run. I also think the Bulls would be able to handle the '83 Sixers for the same reason (Harper on Cheeks, Jordan on Toney, Pip on Dr. J, Rodman on Moses). I think they'd have the most trouble with the '86 Celts due to Boston's superior frontcourt.
in still trying to figure out how and why people think that the lakers would win

[97 bulls]

^ yes I agree about the mid 80s Celtics. '97 Bulls frontcourt was not very good. Honestly before the 1997 Finals I expected Malone to absolutely DEMOLISH the bigs (not Rodman as much as guys like Longley, Bison Dele, & Kukoc :roll:).
dele or williams held his own against centers much better than an overrated parrish and mchale. as far kukoc i do believe that he could hold neither of the celtics bigs, the celtics bigs couldnt hold him either on the perimeter.

[97 bulls]

^ yes I agree about the mid 80s Celtics. '97 Bulls frontcourt was not very good. Honestly before the 1997 Finals I expected Malone to absolutely DEMOLISH the bigs (not Rodman as much as guys like Longley, Bison Dele, & Kukoc :roll:).
hey scottie, why dont you sit this one out let me handle this.:rolleyes:

[Scott Pippen]

hey scottie, why dont you sit this one out let me handle this.:rolleyes:
:confusedshrug:


I agree they would beat th '87 Lakers in 7 game series, but I'd be more worried about Boston.

[Psileas]

lol are you serious? the bulls have the best player, the better defense, better 3pt shooting, better rebounding, and more versatility. not to mention a better coach and to be honest have 4 players playing at a hof level in MJ, pip, rodman, and kukoc. i say kukoc cuz hell go to the hall based on his career as a player not only as an nba player. the lakers had at best two players playing in their hof prime in 87, magic and an overrated no defense playing, no range on his j, no dribbling. james worthy.

First of all, 34 year-old Jordan isn't better than '87 Magic, so, unlike other cases, the Bulls don't have by default the best player. Referring to 3-point shooting is kind of moot, since the Lakers played at an era when few players (and no individual teams) cared about shooting for 3. If the Lakers were given time to exercise on this, they'd be a lot more dangerous than they were (as would a lot of teams). Kukoc, like you said, will get into the HOF thanks to his overall, international career, so he can't get into the list of players who "played at a HOF level in the NBA".
As for Worthy, his defense was okay. Not his strongest point, but not a liability. His dribbling wasn't needed very much, since he had one of the greatest first steps ever and of course, he had certain values that his great opponent lacked (high clutch scoring, high FG%).


id even go so far as to say that the 97 bulls have just as much firepower as the lakers if not more. not to mention they led the league in offense in 97 i believe.

The forth scorer for the Bulls was Longley. For the Lakers was Kareem.
The sixth scorer for the Bulls was Caffey. For the Lakers was M.Thompson.


weve seen what pip can do against magic in 91 who wasnt old and had a great series and was the reigning MVP. but pip gave magic fits.

who does a better job on defense pipen onworthy or worthy on pip. i say pip. and dont give me that team defense bs.

Magic in '91, while still very great, wasn't at the condition he was in '87. And no, he wasn't the reigning MVP. Jordan had already won the 1991 MVP. He was, however, the '87 MVP, and it wasn't a close race.
You mentioned Pippen twice, btw: On Magic and on Worthy. In whomever you'd assign him, he'd have a lot of work. The Bulls had a great defensive starting-5, but, unlike other series, the Lakers would keep all of them at the same time busy.

BTW, the underrated '85 Lakers would have a good argument of beating both.

[JellyBean]

The '87 Lakers in 6 games. It is no contest. This Lakers squad would have ran the Bulls silly. Even if Kareem pushing 50, the Lakers still would have kicked the '97 Bulls butts.

[Da_Realist]

BTW, the underrated '85 Lakers would have a good argument of beating both.

Why? Because Kareem was a better players in 85?

[Psileas]

Firstly because of Kareem being clearly better, second because of the 7th-8th (or 8th-9th) players being McAdoo and Wilkes, with tons of experience, third because of Mike McGee, a very underrated bench scorer, who could play like 18-20 minutes and quickly score 10-12 points. Not saying they were definitely better, but I'm sure the 65 wins of the '87 Lakers and Magic's MVP overshadow the '85 squad, which might have been their most compete ever.

[1987_Lakers]

I got the Lakers in a tough 7 games. Bulls are better defensively, but the Lakers have more fire power and have a deeper bench. It would be a fantastic series.

97 bulls is sounding very bias as usual, saying the '97 Bulls have more fire power, he's calling Worthy, McHale, & Parish overrated, and is praising Brian Williams like he's the second coming of Jesus when in reality he only played 9 games during the regular season & averaged 6 PPG and 3 RPG during the postseason.

People may think I'm bias just by looking at my user name, but I actually think the '86 Celtics would cause bigger match-up problems for the Bulls than the '87 Lakers.

Top 3 Teams in NBA History
1. 1986 Celtics
2. 1987 Lakers
3. 1996 Bulls

'87 Lakers vs 97 Bulls: Lakers in 7
'86 Celtics vs '97 Bulls: Celtics in 6
'86 Celtics vs '87 Lakers: Celtics in 7

[1987_Lakers]

Firstly because of Kareem being clearly better, second because of the 7th-8th (or 8th-9th) players being McAdoo and Wilkes, with tons of experience, third because of Mike McGee, a very underrated bench scorer, who could play like 18-20 minutes and quickly score 10-12 points. Not saying they were definitely better, but I'm sure the 65 wins of the '87 Lakers and Magic's MVP overshadow the '85 squad, which might have been their most compete ever.

No doubt the '85 Lakers were deeper, but Magic, Cooper, Scott, & Worthy all improved as players in '87. A.C. Green was an upgrade over Kurt Rambis and I would take '87 Mychal Thompson over '85 Bob McAdoo any day (Mainly because of defense and Thompson was much better on the fast break)

1. '87 Lakers
2. '85 Lakers
3. '88 Lakers
4. '82 Lakers
5. '80 Lakers

[97 bulls]

First of all, 34 year-old Jordan isn't better than '87 Magic, so, unlike other cases, the Bulls don't have by default the best player. Referring to 3-point shooting is kind of moot, since the Lakers played at an era when few players (and no individual teams) cared about shooting for 3. If the Lakers were given time to exercise on this, they'd be a lot more dangerous than they were (as would a lot of teams). Kukoc, like you said, will get into the HOF thanks to his overall, international career, so he can't get into the list of players who "played at a HOF level in the NBA".
As for Worthy, his defense was okay. Not his strongest point, but not a liability. His dribbling wasn't needed very much, since he had one of the greatest first steps ever and of course, he had certain values that his great opponent lacked (high clutch scoring, high FG%).



The forth scorer for the Bulls was Longley. For the Lakers was Kareem.
The sixth scorer for the Bulls was Caffey. For the Lakers was M.Thompson.



Magic in '91, while still very great, wasn't at the condition he was in '87. And no, he wasn't the reigning MVP. Jordan had already won the 1991 MVP. He was, however, the '87 MVP, and it wasn't a close race.
You mentioned Pippen twice, btw: On Magic and on Worthy. In whomever you'd assign him, he'd have a lot of work. The Bulls had a great defensive starting-5, but, unlike other series, the Lakers would keep all of them at the same time busy.

BTW, the underrated '85 Lakers would have a good argument of beating both.
first, you mention eras. since magic played in an inflated stats era, how do you figure hes better than jordan. jordan was still playing at an mvp level even at 35 and he won in 98.

as for worthy, his defense wasnt needed cuz nobody played defense in this era. it was an era of who could out score each other. not like the bulls era of score and try to keep the other team from scoring.

and while longley was the bulls 4th best scorer statistically, he wasnt the 4th besr scorer. dele was 17 9 as a starter.

and as far as kukoc, we dont know what he wouldve done as a primary. i believe he was capable of 20 ppg 7 and 7. but like alot of the bulls he accepted a role.

[1987_Lakers]

first, you mention eras. since magic played in an inflated stats era, how do you figure hes better than jordan. jordan was still playing at an mvp level even at 35 and he won in 98.

as for worthy, his defense wasnt needed cuz nobody played defense in this era. it was an era of who could out score each other. not like the bulls era of score and try to keep the other team from scoring.

and while longley was the bulls 4th best scorer statistically, he wasnt the 4th besr scorer. dele was 17 9 as a starter.

and as far as kukoc, we dont know what he wouldve done as a primary. i believe he was capable of 20 ppg 7 and 7. but like alot of the bulls he accepted a role.

Not with Chicago. Dele averaged 6-7 PPG with the Bulls. Longley was the Bulls #4 scorer who averaged 9 PPG while the Lakers had 4 players who averaged 17 PPG or more. Lakers have more offensive weapons.

[Stacey King]

I got the Lakers in a tough 7 games. Bulls are better defensively, but the Lakers have more fire power and have a deeper bench. It would be a fantastic series.

97 bulls is sounding very bias as usual, saying the '97 Bulls have more fire power, he's calling Worthy, McHale, & Parish overrated, and is praising Brian Williams like he's the second coming of Jesus when in reality he only played 9 games during the regular season & averaged 6 PPG and 3 RPG during the postseason.

People may think I'm bias just by looking at my user name, but I actually think the '86 Celtics would cause bigger match-up problems for the Bulls than the '87 Lakers.

Top 3 Teams in NBA History
1. 1986 Celtics
2. 1987 Lakers
3. 1996 Bulls

'87 Lakers vs 97 Bulls: Lakers in 7
'86 Celtics vs '97 Bulls: Celtics in 6
'86 Celtics vs '87 Lakers: Celtics in 7

While I'm sure I'll come off as biased given my username and avatar, I disagree with your list of the order of the best teams ever. I feel like a lot people here at ISH look down upon the Bulls accomplishments because they feel as though the Bulls played in a "weaker era." While there is a valid argument for that, the team shouldn't be penalized for it. Even if the era was weaker, they still dominated it. Due to the Bulls greatness, very good teams such as the Jazz, Knicks, Sonics, Trailblazers, Suns, Magic, and Pacers AND players such as Malone, Stockton, Ewing, Payton, Barkley, K. Johnson, Penny, Shaq and Reggie Miller were unable win championships during the era (and we all know that anytime Michael Jordan played a full season in the 1990's, the aforementioned list includes the Rockets and Olajuwon and Drexler too). So whether or not people think the era was slightly better or slightly worse, the Bulls domination nullifies the argument, IMO. Therefore, taking nothing away from those incredible Celtics and Lakers teams, I'll take...

1996 Bulls
1986 Celtics
1987 Lakers

When it comes to the '87 Lakers vs. the '97 Bulls, I'll take the Bulls in a 7 game series. While Psileas makes a good point that '97 Jordan was not unquestionably better than '87 Magic, it's a toss up at the worst. As good as Magic was in the Playoffs and Finals throughout his career, no one was better than MJ. As high as Magic could elevate his game, Jordan was one of the very few, (arguably the only one) who could elevate his higher.

After Magic and Michael, I think that '97 Pippen is EASILY the next best player on the floor. He was still the most dominant perimeter defensive player the league had seen at that time, and while James Worthy was no slouch in that up-tempo style, I think Pippen wins that matchup. And as someone stated earlier, 40 year old Kareem does not have near the impact in this series that he could have potentially had 5 or so years earlier.

While the Lakers were the deeper team, the Bulls had valuable pieces on their roster as well. The averages of players on the Lakers were slightly inflated due to the offensive style of the 80's. So while the names and numbers may look substantially better for the Lakers, the contributions of Kukoc, Harper, Kerr, Longley, Caffey, and Brian Williams should not be understated. Those players covered all areas of the game, whether it be shooting (Kerr, Kukoc), play-making (Kukoc), defensive intensity (Harper), or just simply depth and reliability (everyone). And I've yet to mention Rodman, a solid defender and the best rebounder of all time.

It would certainly be a great series, and there's no guarantee the Bulls win it... But I'll take em in 7.

[kidachi]

this is a good one. tough tough question..

I don't know if the '97 Bulls have the legs for the '87 Lakers. then again.. never ever ever ever underestimate Phil Jackson's basketball mind.. and of course.. we all know what MJ could do for a W..

[Psileas]

first, you mention eras. since magic played in an inflated stats era, how do you figure hes better than jordan. jordan was still playing at an mvp level even at 35 and he won in 98.

Jordan obviously played at an MVP level and finished 2nd to Malone. Magic actually won the MVP. Though Magic's era surely was richer stat-wise, the 80's Lakers were never a team to need specifically awsome stats from a certain superstar to function well. There were seasons when there would be like 1-2 or even 0 40-point games from a Laker player and this still didn't matter.
Despite this, '87 Magic was:
-10th scorer in the league.
-20th in FT%
-16th in steals
-1st passer
-Not in the 20 first in mpg

These are Magic's numbers if we adjust the '87 league numbers into '97 ones

21.1/5.9/10.4/1.6 (49.5% FG) in 36.3 mpg

They would put him as:

-9th scorer
-3rd in assists
-Around 20th in FT%
-A little below #20 in steals
-Way below the top 20 in mpg

This, of course, assuming that his team lowers its pace as much as the average '87 pace fell compared to the '97 pace and that it remains equally deep and strong.



as for worthy, his defense wasnt needed cuz nobody played defense in this era. it was an era of who could out score each other. not like the bulls era of score and try to keep the other team from scoring.

Worthy's defense wasn't the most needed thing from him, but this doesn't make him a bad defender. As for defenses, you're talking mainly about peripheral defenses, which were loose, since no team based their game on long range shooting. If the 90's Bulls played in the 80's, they also wouldn't play as much peripheral defense. Inside defenses were fine.


and as far as kukoc, we dont know what he wouldve done as a primary. i believe he was capable of 20 ppg 7 and 7. but like alot of the bulls he accepted a role.

I also believe that Scott could be an all-star and Worthy all-NBA if they played in normal NBA teams.

[Stacey King]

The other issue with this and all other team comparison threads is that it's comparing eras, which is very difficult to do. The game changed dramatically from 1987 to 1997 due to a number of variables (stronger players, more athletic players, slower pace, different coaching strategies, expansion teams, etc.). But the discussion is still fun, hence the reason so many of these threads are made.

[Sir Charles]

lol are you serious? the bulls have the best player, the better defense, better 3pt shooting, better rebounding, and more versatility:no: . not to mention a better coach and to be honest have 4 players playing at a hof level in MJ, pip, rodman, and kukoc. i say kukoc cuz hell go to the hall based on his career as a player not only as an nba player. the lakers had at best two players playing in their hof prime in 87, magic and an overrated no defense playing, no range on his j, no dribbling. james worthy.

The 87 Lakers had BOTH: Inside and Outside = Great Scoring Capacity :rolleyes: :confusedshrug:

Outside: Magic in a fast paced game for.... Cooper, Scott, James and even AC. Green...All Could Run....as recievers. Magic creating in his TOTAL PRIME.

Inside: KAREEM. Sorry but No Bulls Center could contain Kareem even at age 39 he averaged: 19.2 PPG on 53% FG shooting!, 6.8 RPG!, 2.0 APG! (Great Passer and Game Creator from the Center PositioN) and 1.9 BPG! in ONLY 31 MPG. Insane....

JAMES WORTHY would be BOTH unstoppable on the Baseline-Post or Running as a Reciever. In the Post he would have to be guarded by Rodman...there is no way Pippen could guard Prime Worthy on the Post.

If you want to damage the Bulls for rebounds you can. Bulls only have 1 GREAT REBOUNDER the Lakers have:

KAREEM AND WORTHY and yes:

- AC. Green
- Kurt Rambis and
- Mychal Thompson.

ALL THREE WHERE GREAT REBOUNDERS. Thompson a 15-20 PPG and 7-11 RPG before coming to L.A.

ALL THREE GREAT DEFENDERS aswell

Green and Thompson would have no problems guarding Pippen or Kukoc...while Rambis probably would against him do to speed but NOT Green and Thompson :no: .

Them THREE would Detroy the rest of the Bulls Frontline Rebound Wise :rolleyes: . Not to mention James and Kareem...which i am not including :oldlol:

id even go so far as to say that the 97 bulls have just as much firepower as the lakers if not more. not to mention they led the league in offense in 97 i believe.

Wrong the Bulls have OFFENSIVE FIRE POWER in JORDAN (only one that shoots over 50%) Pippen and Kukoc thats it..

THE LAKERS have OFFENSIVE FIRE POWER in KAREEM, WORTHY AND MAGIC him both Scoring and Creating for (KAREEM & JAMES)SCOTT: can shoot from the outside, create his shot and run as a Reciever
THOMPSON: Got Post Game and can Run as a Reciever
COOP: same with Scott and even GREEN: Can Run as Reciever etc....

and they finally posessed a solid low post guy in brian williams who they signed late in the season. that something the other bulls teams never had.

Brian Williams has no Chance...against Kareem....get real :hammerhead:

in the 97 version of the bulls you had the ultimate in basketball. they covered all bases. if your team was weak in the post they could go down to 6'11 260 pound williams or jordan or kukoc. and even if you doubled jordan in the post, all of their centers longley, wennington, even williams were excellent jumpshooters which was their role. the bulls centers were just as great at what their job was as any other center.

they would shut you down on defense

if you had a quick small guard they could use randy brown or pip.
if you were strong on the perimeter they had two of the best peremiter defenders if all-time. and ron harper was a very good defender too.

ive heard people say that you could just double of rodman cuz he couldnt shoot. but think about it, do you really want to leave rodman alone to get offensive rebounds? when i played basketball if the other team got an offensive rebound that was considered a TO.

another argument that laker fans present is that they could just go to kareem. my respons is that while kareem would def. get his when the bulls needed a stop jordan and pip would help out. not to mention brian williams was extremly quick and would make kareem work on defense. remember williams held his own in his brief career playing against the best collection of center ever far and away.

weve seen what pip can do against magic in 91 who wasnt old and had a great series and was the reigning MVP. but pip gave magic fits.

who does a better job on defense pipen onworthy or worthy on pip. i say pip. and dont give me that team defense bs.

and when all else fails, THE BULLS HAVE JORDAN :hammerhead: :rolleyes:

This is 2008. The JORDAN HYPE HAS PASSED :hammerhead: .

LETS REMEMBER THE FACT THAT.....JORDAN WON in a WEAK ERA. YES! WEAK ERA!....Watered Down League and against TEAMS that did not have BOTH: GREAT OFFENSIVE FRONT LINES and GREAT BACKCOURTS

THE LAKERS GOT GOOD PERIMTER D
THE LAKERS GOT GOOD INTERIOR D
THE LAKERS GOT GOOD PERIMTER OFFENSE
THE LAKERS GOT INCREDIBLE INTERIOR OFFENSE
THE LAKERS GOT THE GREATEST RUNNING GAME in Both Sections: Backcourt and Frontline EVER. EVER!

THE BULLS GOT GREAT PERIMTER D
THE BULLS GOT GREAT PERIMTER OFFENSE
THE BULLS GOT AVERAGE INTERIOR D
THE BULLS GOT PATHETIC INTERIOR OFFENSE
THE BULLS GOT GOOD RUNNING GAME but NOT EVEN CLOSE to the Lakers...

Harper < Magic (edge for Magic)
Jordan > Scott/Cooper (edge for Jordan)
Pippen = < Worthy *Inside in the Post and Running Worthy would destroy Pippen* (edge for James)Rodman = <Thompson/Green *Rodman would edge them in Rebounds but they will score and will force Rodman to commit fouls. Too much Load for Rodman (equal...but its actually an edge for the Lakers...do to BENCH! DEEPNESS)
Williams < Kareem (edge for Kareem)

GET REAL DUDES...

[Stacey King]

lol are you serious? the bulls have the best player, the better defense, better 3pt shooting, better rebounding, and more versatility:no: . not to mention a better coach and to be honest have 4 players playing at a hof level in MJ, pip, rodman, and kukoc. i say kukoc cuz hell go to the hall based on his career as a player not only as an nba player. the lakers had at best two players playing in their hof prime in 87, magic and an overrated no defense playing, no range on his j, no dribbling. james worthy.

The 87 Lakers had BOTH: Inside and Outside = Great Scoring Capacity :rolleyes: :confusedshrug:

Outside: Magic in a fast paced game for.... Cooper, Scott, James and even AC. Green...All Could Run....as recievers. Magic creating in his TOTAL PRIME.

Inside: KAREEM. Sorry but No Bulls Center could contain Kareem even at age 39 he averaged: 19.2 PPG on 53% FG shooting!, 6.8 RPG!, 2.0 APG! (Great Passer and Game Creator from the Center PositioN) and 1.9 BPG! in ONLY 31 MPG. Insane....

JAMES WORTHY would be BOTH unstoppable on the Baseline-Post or Running as a Reciever. In the Post he would have to be guarded by Rodman...there is no way Pippen could guard Prime Worthy on the Post.

If you want to damage the Bulls for rebounds you can. Bulls only have 1 GREAT REBOUNDER the Lakers have:

KAREEM AND WORTHY and yes:

- AC. Green
- Kurt Rambis and
- Mychal Thompson.

ALL THREE WHERE GREAT REBOUNDERS. Thompson a 15-20 PPG and 7-11 RPG before coming to L.A.

ALL THREE GREAT DEFENDERS aswell

Green and Thompson would have no problems guarding Pippen or Kukoc...while Rambis probably would against him do to speed but NOT Green and Thompson :no: .

Them THREE would Detroy the rest of the Bulls Frontline Rebound Wise :rolleyes: . Not to mention James and Kareem...which i am not including :oldlol:

id even go so far as to say that the 97 bulls have just as much firepower as the lakers if not more. not to mention they led the league in offense in 97 i believe.

Wrong the Bulls have OFFENSIVE FIRE POWER in JORDAN (only one that shoots over 50%) Pippen and Kukoc thats it..

THE LAKERS have OFFENSIVE FIRE POWER in KAREEM, WORTHY AND MAGIC him both Scoring and Creating for (KAREEM & JAMES)SCOTT: can shoot from the outside, create his shot and run as a Reciever
THOMPSON: Got Post Game and can Run as a Reciever
COOP: same with Scott and even GREEN: Can Run as Reciever etc....

and they finally posessed a solid low post guy in brian williams who they signed late in the season. that something the other bulls teams never had.

Brian Williams has no Chance...against Kareem....get real :hammerhead:

in the 97 version of the bulls you had the ultimate in basketball. they covered all bases. if your team was weak in the post they could go down to 6'11 260 pound williams or jordan or kukoc. and even if you doubled jordan in the post, all of their centers longley, wennington, even williams were excellent jumpshooters which was their role. the bulls centers were just as great at what their job was as any other center.

they would shut you down on defense

if you had a quick small guard they could use randy brown or pip.
if you were strong on the perimeter they had two of the best peremiter defenders if all-time. and ron harper was a very good defender too.

ive heard people say that you could just double of rodman cuz he couldnt shoot. but think about it, do you really want to leave rodman alone to get offensive rebounds? when i played basketball if the other team got an offensive rebound that was considered a TO.

another argument that laker fans present is that they could just go to kareem. my respons is that while kareem would def. get his when the bulls needed a stop jordan and pip would help out. not to mention brian williams was extremly quick and would make kareem work on defense. remember williams held his own in his brief career playing against the best collection of center ever far and away.

weve seen what pip can do against magic in 91 who wasnt old and had a great series and was the reigning MVP. but pip gave magic fits.

who does a better job on defense pipen onworthy or worthy on pip. i say pip. and dont give me that team defense bs.

and when all else fails, THE BULLS HAVE JORDAN :hammerhead: :rolleyes:

This is 2008. The JORDAN HYPE HAS PASSED :hammerhead: .

LETS REMEMBER THE FACT THAT.....JORDAN WON in a WEAK ERA. YES! WEAK ERA!....Watered Down League and against TEAMS that did not have BOTH: GREAT OFFENSIVE FRONT LINES and GREAT BACKCOURTS

THE LAKERS GOT GOOD PERIMTER D
THE LAKERS GOT GOOD INTERIOR D
THE LAKERS GOT GOOD PERIMTER OFFENSE
THE LAKERS GOT INCREDIBLE INTERIOR OFFENSE
THE LAKERS GOT THE GREATEST RUNNING GAME in Both Sections: Backcourt and Frontline

THE BULLS GOT GREAT PERIMTER D
THE BULLS GOT GREAT PERIMTER OFFENSE
THE BULLS GOT AVERAGE INTERIOR D
THE BULLS GOT PATHETIC INTERIOR OFFENSE
THE BULLS GOT GOOD RUNNING GAME but NOT EVEN CLOSE to the Lakers...

Harper < Magic (edge for Magic)
Jordan > Scott/Cooper (edge for Jordan)
Pippen = < Worthy *Inside in the Post and Running Worthy would destroy Pippen* (edge for James)Rodman = <Thompson/Green *Rodman would edge them in Rebounds but they will score and will force Rodman to commit fouls. Too much Load for Rodman (equal...but its actually an edge for the Lakers...do to BENCH! DEEPNESS)
Williams < Kareem (edge for Kareem)

I could post about every stupid thing you wrote down here, but instead, I have a question for you: If the Bulls won in a weak era, and then what does that say for Charles Barkley (who I'm assuming is your favorite player), a guy who's team only made the Finals once in that "weak era" and lost to........... THE BULLS?

[Sir Charles]

I could post about every stupid thing you wrote down here, but instead, I have a question for you: If the Bulls won in a weak era, and then what does that say for Charles Barkley (who I'm assuming is your favorite player), a guy who's team only made the Finals once in that "weak era" and lost to........... THE BULLS?


It says nothing about Barkley....Jordan didn`t do **** in the 80s either..


80s = TEAMS

90s = 1 or 2 Great Playes per TEAM...


:banghead: :hammerhead: :rolleyes: :confusedshrug:

[Stacey King]

It says nothing about Barkley....Jordan didn`t do **** in the 80s either..


80s = TEAMS

90s = 1 or 2 Great Playes per TEAM...


:banghead: :hammerhead: :rolleyes: :confusedshrug:

Just seems to me that if the 90's was such a weak era, a great player like Barkley should have had a little more success. After all, if one or two great players was all it took, shouldn't he have had enough on the Suns with KJ? Or the Rockets with Olajuwon AND Drexler?

[Da_Realist]

...

When exactly did the "Weak Era" start, in your opinion? Was it the second Larry Bird retired? Or was it when the clock struck 1990?

[97 bulls]

there really is no debating a guy like sir charles. cuz no matter what you show him he doesnt care.

[97 bulls]

When exactly did the "Weak Era" start, in your opinion? Was it the second Larry Bird retired? Or was it when the clock struck 1990?
and theres no such thing as a weak era. they use this asinine reasoning cuz it cant in all honesty be disproven.

[97 bulls]

Not with Chicago. Dele averaged 6-7 PPG with the Bulls. Longley was the Bulls #4 scorer who averaged 9 PPG while the Lakers had 4 players who averaged 17 PPG or more. Lakers have more offensive weapons.
you see how this dude is. he only picks out excerpts. when dele came to the bulls he hadnt played all year and was rusty. dele at full strength is very good. and if the bulls played in the 80s, their averages go up. the lakers had that many players average 17 plus cuz of their system

[1987_Lakers]

you see how this dude is. he only picks out excerpts. when dele came to the bulls he hadnt played all year and was rusty. dele at full strength is very good. and if the bulls played in the 80s, their averages go up. the lakers had that many players average 17 plus cuz of their system

Stop hyping Dele. Dele with the Bulls wasn't anything special like you think. Mychal Thompson was a better / more valuable back up big man than Dele. And how can you possibly argue that the Bulls had more fire power? The Lakers #4 scorer was Byron Scott! Scott at times would get you 20 point a night. The Bulls #4 scorer was Longley.... Luc Longley for god sakes! And please don't give me that "80's inflated players stats" BS, Scott was a much better scorer than Longley! The Lakers had 7 players who averaged 10 PPG or more, I don't care what era they played in...that is a very impressive stat. The Lakers had more offensive weapons...plain and simple.

[andgar923]

and when all else fails, THE BULLS HAVE JORDAN

I really, really hate to come off as a Jordan stan.

But that's basically right.

I'm not to sure on everything you mentioned, since I can see things either way, but the MJ factor is the deciding factor.

He had a better supporting cast around him than he did in the 80's, and he did his thing against the Lakers often. So if he had a better team, and the games were close who was gonna stop him?

Do you double him and risk him getting 12 dimes?
Or do you play him solo and watch him explode for 40 and still get 9 dimes, just to show Magic he can also pass?

I think any situation or any team that's mentioned in a debate such as this, always comes down to the Jordan effect. And I'm willing to bet on MJ 9 times outta 10.

[Da_Realist]

Stop hyping Dele. Dele with the Bulls wasn't anything special like you think. Mychal Thompson was a better / more valuable back up big man than Dele. And how can you possibly argue that the Bulls had more fire power? The Lakers #4 scorer was Byron Scott! Scott at times would get you 20 point a night. The Bulls #4 scorer was Longley.... Luc Longley for god sakes! And please don't give me that "80's inflated players stats" BS, Scott was a much better scorer than Longley! The Lakers had 7 players who averaged 10 PPG or more, I don't care what era they played in...that is a very impressive stat. The Lakers had more offensive weapons...plain and simple.

This is the thing about defense... Byron Scott would not have averaged 20 ppg against the Bulls. In fact, he was intimidated anytime he played Jordan. Check the 91 Finals. Dude was shook the whole series.

And as tempting as it is... you can't use stats only to justify how much more potent the Lakers are than the Bulls. The Bulls defense would nullify some of that. I still think the Lakers have a ton of firepower, but too many people just think the Lakers would post their regular averages against one of the greatest defensive teams of all time. It ain't true.

[Da_Realist]

Not with Chicago. Dele averaged 6-7 PPG with the Bulls. Longley was the Bulls #4 scorer who averaged 9 PPG while the Lakers had 4 players who averaged 17 PPG or more. Lakers have more offensive weapons.

I agree with 97_Bulls on this one. He only played 9 games in the regular season that year. If he had all season to learn the intricacies of the triangle and allowed to play more minutes he would have been more productive.

It's no different than when people act like Bill Walton on the 86 Celtics was destroying the league off the bench when in reality, he only averaged 7.6 pts, 3.7 rebs, 1.3 asts, 0.3 stls and 0.6 blks. Good, but not a whole lot better than some no names on other teams. Like Bison Dele.

[Psileas]

I really, really hate to come off as a Jordan stan.

But that's basically right.

I'm not to sure on everything you mentioned, since I can see things either way, but the MJ factor is the deciding factor.

He had a better supporting cast around him than he did in the 80's, and he did his thing against the Lakers often. So if he had a better team, and the games were close who was gonna stop him?

Do you double him and risk him getting 12 dimes?
Or do you play him solo and watch him explode for 40 and still get 9 dimes, just to show Magic he can also pass?

I think any situation or any team that's mentioned in a debate such as this, always comes down to the Jordan effect. And I'm willing to bet on MJ 9 times outta 10.

We're not talking about '91 Jordan, though. We're talking about '97 Jordan, who, as dominant as he was, got these claimed 12 assists only once during the season and only once came close to the 40/9 figure. He was able to take over some close games against Utah, but the '87 Lakers are no Utah, so he'd need more help from his teammates, unless he could pull a Sleepy Floyd (51 points, 29 in a quarter) for a whole series.


This is the thing about defense... Byron Scott would not have averaged 20 ppg against the Bulls. In fact, he was intimidated anytime he played Jordan. Check the 91 Finals. Dude was shook the whole series.

Although he probably wouldn't get 20 ppg against the Bulls, he wouldn't have the numbers he got in '91, either. Apart from the fact that he was a level down compared to his prime years (not that he was old, but he got out of his prime pretty young, like Worthy), he wasn't healthy, either; didn't play a second in game 5 in that series (again, similarly to Worthy).

[Da_Realist]

Although he probably wouldn't get 20 ppg against the Bulls, he wouldn't have the numbers he got in '91, either. Apart from the fact that he was a level down compared to his prime years (not that he was old, but he got out of his prime pretty young, like Worthy), he wasn't healthy, either; didn't play a second in game 5 in that series (again, similarly to Worthy).

He didn't play a second of Game 5, but the first four games he was invisible.

Game 1 -- 37 mins, 1-4 fgs, 9 pts
Game 2 -- 26 mins, 2-2 fgs, 5 pts
Game 3 -- 43 mins, 0-8 fgs, 0 pts
Game 4 -- 34 mins, 2-4 fgs, 4 pts

I just don't see how Scott does much better -- even the 87 version. Scott got a lot of his points in transition and I'm sure the Bulls would at least run back on defense and force the Lakers to beat them in a halfcourt set.

[juju151111]

and theres no such thing as a weak era. they use this asinine reasoning cuz it cant in all honesty be disproven.
I will agree somewhat, but when u consider back in the 50s and early 60ss with people dribbling with one hand and obviously move slower then players from 80s,90s, and 00ss. some players get overrated alot.

[1987_Lakers]

This is the thing about defense... Byron Scott would not have averaged 20 ppg against the Bulls. In fact, he was intimidated anytime he played Jordan. Check the 91 Finals. Dude was shook the whole series.

And as tempting as it is... you can't use stats only to justify how much more potent the Lakers are than the Bulls. The Bulls defense would nullify some of that. I still think the Lakers have a ton of firepower, but too many people just think the Lakers would post their regular averages against one of the greatest defensive teams of all time. It ain't true.

In my original post I said the Bulls had better defense. The Lakers have more fire power, that's what I'm trying to point out. And I'm also surprised nobody has mentioned Michael Cooper, that is someone the Lakers didn't have in '91. He won DPOY in 1987, does he shut down '97 Jordan? Of course not, but he would make MJ work for his points.

[1987_Lakers]

I agree with 97_Bulls on this one. He only played 9 games in the regular season that year. If he had all season to learn the intricacies of the triangle and allowed to play more minutes he would have been more productive.

It's no different than when people act like Bill Walton on the 86 Celtics was destroying the league off the bench when in reality, he only averaged 7.6 pts, 3.7 rebs, 1.3 asts, 0.3 stls and 0.6 blks. Good, but not a whole lot better than some no names on other teams. Like Bison Dele.

The problem is he didn't have all season, so I can only go by what he produced as a player. I think there is no doubt '86 Walton and '87 Thompson were much more valuable to their teams than Dele was to the Bulls. You also can't judge Walton just by looking at stats, with Walton the Celtics chemistry was amazing., the Celtics passing was better, offense & defense was better, everything was better with him. Walton did win SMOY and led the NBA in Defensive Rating in 1986. By the way Walton averaged 6.8 RPG not 3.7.

More valuable to their teams...
1. '86 Walton
2. '87 Thompson
3. '97 Dele

[Da_Realist]

The problem is he didn't have all season, so I can only go by what he produced as a player. I think there is no doubt '86 Walton and '87 Thompson were much more valuable to their teams than Dele was to the Bulls. You also can't judge Walton just by looking at stats, with Walton the Celtics chemistry was amazing., the Celtics passing was better, offense & defense was better, everything was better with him. Walton did win SMOY and led the NBA in Defensive Rating in 1986. By the way Walton averaged 6.8 RPG not 3.7.

More valuable to their teams...
1. '86 Walton
2. '87 Thompson
3. '97 Dele

Typo. Thanks.

[Da_Realist]

In my original post I said the Bulls had better defense. The Lakers have more fire power, that's what I'm trying to point out. And I'm also surprised nobody has mentioned Michael Cooper, that is someone the Lakers didn't have in '91. He won DPOY in 1987, does he shut down '97 Jordan? Of course not, but he would make MJ work for his points.

I read an article a while back where Jordan questioned why Cooper received so much hype for his defense. Jordan said Cooper never really gave him problems and couldn't understand why everyone thought he was so great defensively.

I'm paraphrasing plus Jordan said it in the 80's, not 97, so he was a different player. I understand Cooper was a defensive ace but he was all wrong for MJ. MJ was too strong, too quick (even in 97) and was an all around tougher cover for Cooper than Larry Bird was, for instance.

(I will look for that article and will post it if I find it.)

[Da_Realist]

Just seems to me that if the 90's was such a weak era, a great player like Barkley should have had a little more success. After all, if one or two great players was all it took, shouldn't he have had enough on the Suns with KJ? Or the Rockets with Olajuwon AND Drexler?

I actually agree that the league was different in 1997 as opposed to 1987. However, I don't think that has anything to do with whether or not the 97 Bulls could compete with the 87 Lakers.

Even if it was a "weaker" league, as 97_Bulls pointed out, the Bulls dominated it. How much better could the 83 Sixer's do in the 90's? The Bulls won every year their best player suited up for a whole season except for one (1990). That means, if Larry Bird or Dr J or Magic was put in the same position, the most they could possibly win would be seven. Jordan got six. How many people think it's a lock that those players win as many as six? Possible, yes. Probable, maybe...maybe not. Definite? Hell no. Winning six titles in less than eight years is never definite.

Especially when those same superstars lost when matched up against teams they should have beaten. Magic's Lakers lost to Houston twice when they shouldn't have (81, 86) and lost to Phoenix in 90. Bird's Celtics was swept by Milwaukee in 83 and lost while having homecourt advantage 4 times in the 80's (82 vs Sixers, 83 vs Bucks, 85 vs Lakers and 88 vs Pistons). How do you know those teams would have defnitely won without getting tripped up by a lesser team?

And only the Lakers were able to repeat in the 80's. It's extremely difficult to repeat once let alone three-peat TWICE. It's not just the opponents at that point. The Bulls had to fight off internal demons as well. Contract negotiations, egos, fatigue, the "Bull's eye" effect, heightened expectations, etc all came into play.

Are you sure Larry's Celtics could pull that off during the 90's? The 83 Sixers, one of the greatest team's in history, lost in the FIRST ROUND the next year to the New Jersy Nets and was never heard from again.

The 90's may not have had the top-to-bottom talent that the top 80's teams had, but unless someone can prove to me that any one of the 80's teams would win 6 titles from 1990-1998 (while missing their best player for more than a year and a half) don't discredit the Bulls as overseers of a "weak" era.

** slightly off topic but I had to get that off my chest.

[Stacey King]

I actually agree that the league was different in 1997 as opposed to 1987. However, I don't think that has anything to do with whether or not the 97 Bulls could compete with the 87 Lakers.

Even if it was a "weaker" league, as 97_Bulls pointed out, the Bulls dominated it. How much better could the 83 Sixer's do in the 90's? The Bulls won every year their best player suited up for a whole season except for one (1990). That means, if Larry Bird or Dr J or Magic was put in the same position, the most they could possibly win would be seven. Jordan got six. How many people think it's a lock that those players win as many as six? Possible, yes. Probable, maybe...maybe not. Definite? Hell no. Winning six titles in less than eight years is never definite.

Especially when those same superstars lost when matched up against teams they should have beaten. Magic's Lakers lost to Houston twice when they shouldn't have (81, 86) and lost to Phoenix in 90. Bird's Celtics was swept by Milwaukee in 83 and lost while having homecourt advantage 4 times in the 80's (82 vs Sixers, 83 vs Bucks, 85 vs Lakers and 88 vs Pistons). How do you know those teams would have defnitely won without getting tripped up by a lesser team?

And only the Lakers were able to repeat in the 80's. It's extremely difficult to repeat once let alone three-peat TWICE. It's not just the opponents at that point. The Bulls had to fight off internal demons as well. Contract negotiations, egos, fatigue, the "Bull's eye" effect, heightened expectations, etc all came into play.

Are you sure Larry's Celtics could pull that off during the 90's? The 83 Sixers, one of the greatest team's in history, lost in the FIRST ROUND the next year to the New Jersy Nets and was never heard from again.

The 90's may not have had the top-to-bottom talent that the top 80's teams had, but unless someone can prove to me that any one of the 80's teams would win 6 titles from 1990-1998 (while missing their best player for more than a year and a half) don't discredit the Bulls as overseers of a "weak" era.

** slightly off topic but I had to get that off my chest.

I completely agree. I don't think the 90's was a weak era at all- I was simply making reference to one of Sir Charles stupid, insecure claims

[Da_Realist]

I completely agree. I don't think the 90's was a weak era at all- I was simply making reference to one of Sir Charles stupid, insecure claims

I wasn't specifically replying to your post. I wasn't even responding to the topic. I was referring to some people that discredit the Bulls by saying they won in a weaker era. A lot of closet Jordan haters like to slyly insinuate that he couldn't pull it off in the golden 80's and only won in the 90's.

I understand I should have posted it in another thread (specifically, "Jordan won in a weak era") but oh well.

What people don't seem to understand is that the physical defense that was played in the 90's -- ALL the 90's -- negated a lot of the fast breaks, passing and scoring opportunities that were enjoyed by the 80's teams. That type of physical defense allows lesser players to have a bigger impact because they are allowed to grab and hold. If Mario Elie or Greg Anthony played today they wouldn't have the defensive reputations that they enjoyed because they could hold and grab anymore.

Let's look at the 88 Pistons. They played dirty and they played physical. Because they were allowed to pretty much do anything short of using a weapon, they were VERY effective defensively. Did you know they held Larry Bird to 35% fg (http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1067416/index.htm) for the series? I don't think Larry ever had a worse series as the 1988 ECF vs Detroit. I don't want to take away too much from Detroit because they were a very talented defensive team but it was that type of defense that was carried into the 90's. Defense became much more of a priority.

That's the defensive intensity that Chicago adopted from Detroit. Teams that could run and gun against the league couldn't do it against the Pistons and later Chicago. So although teams in the 90's didn't have the star-power or the precision passing/offensive sets of the teams in the 80's doesn't mean they were easier to defeat.

So now I'll try to bring this back to the topic. Yes, LA had more firepower. And no, Chicago had never played anyone with that sort of offensive arsenal but LA had never played a defensive team as great as the 97 Bulls either.

[97 bulls]

The problem is he didn't have all season, so I can only go by what he produced as a player. I think there is no doubt '86 Walton and '87 Thompson were much more valuable to their teams than Dele was to the Bulls. You also can't judge Walton just by looking at stats, with Walton the Celtics chemistry was amazing., the Celtics passing was better, offense & defense was better, everything was better with him. Walton did win SMOY and led the NBA in Defensive Rating in 1986. By the way Walton averaged 6.8 RPG not 3.7.

More valuable to their teams...
1. '86 Walton
2. '87 Thompson
3. '97 Dele
i first think we need to get o the same page. when i do a team comparison i look at how they would be at full strength and how good each player was at that stage in their career. in all honesty stats are the worse indicator of how a player produces. also, when doing these type of comparisons, i dont count if a player played in a championship with an injury and say that said injury must be included in the discussion. i factor in age, role, era who said player played with and against etc. for example, shawn marion averaged about 20ppg in phoenix. why cuz he played in an uptempo offense and with a great pg. in miami hes averaging about 16. and this is cuz hes playing in a different system.

i like the 97 bulls cuz they won through adversity. and they dominated. and while dele didnt put up big numbers, teams had to respect him cuz of what he was capable of doing previously. i really dont see him averaging more than maybe 10-12 ppg cuz of the role he would have played, butyou cant tell me that dele wasnt an upgrade over longley as a post option. and that in this fantasy match up if jackson has a guy like dele he wouldnt use him. wouldnt you? i mean, he wasnt old (i think he was 28). so he was in his prime. the 97 bulls also had robert parrish who had a very decorated career. i never bring him up cuz he wasnt the same parrish. and remember, delehadnt played the whole season. and only played in 9 games. so he had to get back in to playing shape in the playoffs. and he didnt go up against chopped liver either. in the first round he went up against the bullets with webber, juwan howard, and gheorge muresan, who was 7'7, in the second round it wasthe hawks with 4 time dpoy dikimbe mutombo, and christian laetner. who at the time was pretty good. next, it was alonzo mourning, pj brown and the heat. then karl malone and the jazz. so while he didnt set the world on fire, i do think things need to be put into perspective. bidon dele was a very good center/ power forward. and to try to discount him cuz he average 6 ppg isnt fair.

[97 bulls]

I wasn't specifically replying to your post. I wasn't even responding to the topic. I was referring to some people that discredit the Bulls by saying they won in a weaker era. A lot of closet Jordan haters like to slyly insinuate that he couldn't pull it off in the golden 80's and only won in the 90's.

I understand I should have posted it in another thread (specifically, "Jordan won in a weak era") but oh well.

What people don't seem to understand is that the physical defense that was played in the 90's -- ALL the 90's -- negated a lot of the fast breaks, passing and scoring opportunities that were enjoyed by the 80's teams. That type of physical defense allows lesser players to have a bigger impact because they are allowed to grab and hold. If Mario Elie or Greg Anthony played today they wouldn't have the defensive reputations that they enjoyed because they could hold and grab anymore.

Let's look at the 88 Pistons. They played dirty and they played physical. Because they were allowed to pretty much do anything short of using a weapon, they were VERY effective defensively. Did you know they held Larry Bird to 35% fg (http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1067416/index.htm) for the series? I don't think Larry ever had a worse series as the 1988 ECF vs Detroit. I don't want to take away too much from Detroit because they were a very talented defensive team but it was that type of defense that was carried into the 90's. Defense became much more of a priority.

That's the defensive intensity that Chicago adopted from Detroit. Teams that could run and gun against the league couldn't do it against the Pistons and later Chicago. So although teams in the 90's didn't have the star-power or the precision passing/offensive sets of the teams in the 80's doesn't mean they were easier to defeat.

So now I'll try to bring this back to the topic. Yes, LA had more firepower. And no, Chicago had never played anyone with that sort of offensive arsenal but LA had never played a defensive team as great as the 97 Bulls either.
and to add to your point. the pistons didnt have as much offensive firepower as the bulls. and yet i believe that they wouldve beat the lakers in 88 had thomas not hurt his ankle.

[1987_Lakers]

I still stand by what I said. '86 Walton & '87 Thompson > '97 Dele. And I think it's clear the Lakers had more offensive weapons. You were just being bias.

[1987_Lakers]

and to add to your point. the pistons didnt have as much offensive firepower as the bulls. and yet i believe that they wouldve beat the lakers in 88 had thomas not hurt his ankle.

Could of. Would of. should of.

What if?

[Scott Pippen]

When people call the 90s weak era, I hope they are not talking about the top teams. Yes, expansion came in and yes the Bulls probably don't win 72 games in 1986, but the '96 or '97 team could take any of the 80s teams in 7 game series. As I said Celtics would give them the most trouble because of their frontline, but the '87 Lakers?

Mychal Thompson vs. Dennis Rodman? :roll:
Worthy vs Pip would be nice even though I believe 1997 Pippen would have the advantage in the slower half court game.


I almost believe the '67 76ers or '69 Lakers may have a better chance. Or even the early 80s Lakers with a younger Kareem.

[1987_Lakers]

When people call the 90s weak era, I hope they are not talking about the top teams. Yes, expansion came in and yes the Bulls probably don't win 72 games in 1986, but the '96 or '97 team could take any of the 80s teams in 7 game series. As I said Celtics would give them the most trouble because of their frontline, but the '87 Lakers?

Mychal Thompson vs. Dennis Rodman? :roll:
Worthy vs Pip would be nice even though I believe 1997 Pippen would have the advantage in the slower half court game.


I almost believe the '67 76ers or '69 Lakers may have a better chance. Or even the early 80s Lakers with a younger Kareem.

It would actually be A.C. Green & Rambis vs Rodman. Although Thompson did put some time in as the PF, but he was mostly a Center backing up Kareem.

Fast Break Offense: Lakers
Half Court Offense: Bulls
Defense: Bulls
Rebounding: Bulls
Offense: Lakers
Bench: Lakers
Front Court: Lakers
Back Court: Lakers ( some might disagree, but c'mon...a prime Magic Johnson, DPOY Michael Cooper, & Byron Scott vs MJ, Harper, & Kerr? I'll take the Lakers back court. '87 Magic > '97 Jordan..... '87 Scott > '97 Harper...... & '87 Cooper > '97 Kerr

The Lakers throughout the 80's proved that they can beat great defensive teams and great half court offensive teams. ('85 & '87 Celtics and '88 Pistons)

[Scott Pippen]

Of course I didn't mean to be disrespectful since the '87 Lakers are one of the all time best, I just would not believe that a team with a perimeter guy as the best player (even Magic) would beat the Bulls with the defensive trio. We never know though what adjustments either team might make.

Dominant bigs in my opinion would be the key to beating the '97 Bulls, because there was no real world class defender down low after Rodman. As good as Kareem was in '87, I believe the early 80s Kareem would give this team more trouble along with Magic.

[1987_Lakers]

No way the early 80's Lakers have a shot vs the '97 Bulls, even with a dominant Kareem. Bulls would be too much for the '80 or '82 Lakers in a seven game series, the Bulls would win. I think the '85 & '87 Lakers are good enough to defeat the Bulls, but not the early 80's Lakers. I will say I have more confidence in the '86 Celtics beating the '97 Bulls, they cause much bigger match up problems against the Bulls than the Lakers.

[97 bulls]

I still stand by what I said. '86 Walton & '87 Thompson > '97 Dele. And I think it's clear the Lakers had more offensive weapons. You were just being bias.
see, once again i believe that your looking at career accomplishments. theres no way on gods green earth that i think that waton at that stae in his career id better than 28 year old dele. thompson maybe. and like ive stated many times. you compare thw 87 lakers stats and the 97 bulls stats and say the lakers are better. i look at the big picture. you dont.

[1987_Lakers]

see, once again i believe that your looking at career accomplishments. theres no way on gods green earth that i think that waton at that stae in his career id better than 28 year old dele. thompson maybe. and like ive stated many times. you compare thw 87 lakers stats and the 97 bulls stats and say the lakers are better. i look at the big picture. you dont.

I'm not talking about career accomplishments. I'm simply going by what they did during that one season. Walton was the x-factor for the '86 Celtics, he won the SMOY award in '86 while Dele only played in 9 games during the regular season. Walton was a much bigger part on the Celtics than Dele was on the Bulls. How can you possibly argue this?

[Da_Realist]

I read an article a while back where Jordan questioned why Cooper received so much hype for his defense. Jordan said Cooper never really gave him problems and couldn't understand why everyone thought he was so great defensively.

I'm paraphrasing plus Jordan said it in the 80's, not 97, so he was a different player. I understand Cooper was a defensive ace but he was all wrong for MJ. MJ was too strong, too quick (even in 97) and was an all around tougher cover for Cooper than Larry Bird was, for instance.

(I will look for that article and will post it if I find it.)

I apologize. I was off when I said ^^. Here is the actual quote from Jordan and the article it came from.

From SI Vault (Page 5) (http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1066669/5/index.htm)

Jordan always knew about his defense. "Michael Cooper [the Laker who won defensive player honors for 1986-87] is great at ball-denial," says Jordan. "But check his other stats [78 steals, 43 blocks]. This league gives defensive awards on reputation. It just tees me off."

[1987_Lakers]

I apologize. I was off when I said ^^. Here is the actual quote from Jordan and the article it came from.

From SI Vault (Page 5) (http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1066669/5/index.htm)

Jordan always knew about his defense. "Michael Cooper [the Laker who won defensive player honors for 1986-87] is great at ball-denial," says Jordan. "But check his other stats [78 steals, 43 blocks]. This league gives defensive awards on reputation. It just tees me off."

Nice find.

[97 bulls]

It would actually be A.C. Green & Rambis vs Rodman. Although Thompson did put some time in as the PF, but he was mostly a Center backing up Kareem.

Fast Break Offense: Lakers
Half Court Offense: Bulls
Defense: Bulls
Rebounding: Bulls
Offense: Lakers
Bench: Lakers
Front Court: Lakers
Back Court: Lakers ( some might disagree, but c'mon...a prime Magic Johnson, DPOY Michael Cooper, & Byron Scott vs MJ, Harper, & Kerr? I'll take the Lakers back court. '87 Magic > '97 Jordan..... '87 Scott > '97 Harper...... & '87 Cooper > '97 Kerr

The Lakers throughout the 80's proved that they can beat great defensive teams and great half court offensive teams. ('85 & '87 Celtics and '88 Pistons)
dude, you debate like a little kid. i honestly question whether or not you know basketball. the fact is that the pl;ayers on the bulls did their job just as great as magic and jordan. steve kerrs job was to make teams pay if they doubled of jordan and to consitantly hit 3s. and he was great at it. they didnt need him to score 15 ppg. longleys job was to be a big defensive presence and hit the open jumper and he did it. and the comparisons you use dont tell the whole story. i believe ron harper was just as good defensively as byron scott was offensively. and harper was a better scorer than scott was defender. and the only thing jordan didnt really do as opposed to his younger days was dunk on people. he was still better than magic no defense johnson.

[97 bulls]

I'm not talking about career accomplishments. I'm simply going by what they did during that one season. Walton was the x-factor for the '86 Celtics, he won the SMOY award in '86 while Dele only played in 9 games during the regular season. Walton was a much bigger part on the Celtics than Dele was on the Bulls. How can you possibly argue this?
fine, but dele was better in 97 than walton in 86. i think he got that award cuz he stayed injury free in 86.

[97 bulls]

Could of. Would of. should of.

What if?
this whole debate is what ifs. why should the 88 championship be different

[1987_Lakers]

dude, you debate like a little kid. i honestly question whether or not you know basketball. the fact is that the pl;ayers on the bulls did their job just as great as magic and jordan. steve kerrs job was to make teams pay if they doubled of jordan and to consitantly hit 3s. and he was great at it. they didnt need him to score 15 ppg. longleys job was to be a big defensive presence and hit the open jumper and he did it. and the comparisons you use dont tell the whole story. i believe ron harper was just as good defensively as byron scott was offensively. and harper was a better scorer than scott was defender. and the only thing jordan didnt really do as opposed to his younger days was dunk on people. he was still better than magic no defense johnson.

You're questioning my basketball knowledge? You're the one that stated Rodman was a better player than McHale, said Marion was a better player than Worthy, and you also said Pippen was on Bird's level.:oldlol:

Yes, the Bulls players played their roles terrifically, but just because they did all they were asked to do doesn't mean they were better. I'm taking Michael Cooper over one-dimensional Steve Kerr, Byron Scott nearing his prime over a 33 year old Ron Harper, and a prime Magic Johnson over a 34 year old Jordan.

[1987_Lakers]

fine, but dele was better in 97 than walton in 86. i think he got that award cuz he stayed injury free in 86.

No he wasn't. If Dele was the better player... he didn't prove it on court. Walton contributed much more to his team than Dele did.

[1987_Lakers]

fine, but dele was better in 97 than walton in 86. i think he got that award cuz he stayed injury free in 86.

Oh yeah, staying injury free will get you the SMOY award.:roll:

[97 bulls]

You're questioning my basketball knowledge? You're the one that stated Rodman was a better player than McHale, said Marion was a better player than Worthy, and you also said Pippen was on Bird's level.:oldlol:

Yes, the Bulls players played their roles terrifically, but just because they did all they were asked to do doesn't mean they were better. I'm taking Michael Cooper over one-dimensional Steve Kerr, Byron Scott nearing his prime over a 33 year old Ron Harper, and a prime Magic Johnson over a 34 year old Jordan.
i never said rodman was better, but i do believe mchale is overated. and i stand by the other 2. and while cooper is better than kerr. i dont think hes better at what the bulls needed kerr to do and thats shoot. nor can kareem hit a jumpshot like longley or play as good position defense. and im not saying longley is better than kareem.

[JJ81]

Showtime

[97 bulls]

No he wasn't. If Dele was the better player... he didn't prove it on court. Walton contributed much more to his team than Dele did.
did you read anything i stated?

[97 bulls]

Oh yeah, staying injury free will get you the SMOY award.:roll:
it did in 86.

[Sonic R]

haha

[97 bulls]

No he wasn't. If Dele was the better player... he didn't prove it on court. Walton contributed much more to his team than Dele did.
do you think if dele had a whole season under his belt he doesnt improve the bulls?

[1987_Lakers]

i never said rodman was better, but i do believe mchale is overated. and i stand by the other 2. and while cooper is better than kerr. i dont think hes better at what the bulls needed kerr to do and thats shoot. nor can kareem hit a jumpshot like longley or play as good position defense. and im not saying longley is better than kareem.

I guarantee you the Bulls would have traded Kerr for Cooper and Longley for Kareem in an instant. Cooper had a nice outside shot himself and he gives you great defense, rebounding, and very good passing...The Bulls would have been much more versatile with Cooper. Same with Kareem.

[1987_Lakers]

do you think if dele had a whole season under his belt he doesnt improve the bulls?

I don't know that. I can only go by what he produced as a Bull. And because of that....I'm taking '86 Walton in a heart beat.

[1987_Lakers]

it did in 86.

Stop talking out of your ass.

[97 bulls]

I guarantee you the Bulls would have traded Kerr for Cooper and Longley for Kareem in an instant. Cooper had a nice outside shot himself and he gives you great defense, rebounding, and very good passing...The Bulls would have been much more versatile with Cooper. Same with Kareem.
i swear to god debating you is like talking to an emotional female. you dont listen. i already stated that cooper and kareem were better. hell the dream team that lost a few years ago were far superior to the teams they lost to. at all positions. the problem is the other teams were great at what their job was. if im looking to tow or haul something im gonna need a truck not a lamborghini.

[97 bulls]

I don't know that. I can only go by what he produced as a Bull. And because of that....I'm taking '86 Walton in a heart beat.
i think what he did the season before and after 97 are strong indicators of his capabilities.

[97 bulls]

Stop talking out of your ass.
in not talking im typing

[1987_Lakers]

i think what he did the season before and after 97 are strong indicators of his capabilities.

Well...with the Bulls he didn't produce nearly as much. That's my point.

[1987_Lakers]

in not talking im typing

I've never argued with someone so bias in my life.

"Walton won SMOY because he was healthy"
"I would take Rodman over McHale"
"McHale is overrated"
"Parish is overrated"
"Worthy is overrated"
"Pippen is on the same level as Larry Bird"
"Bulls have more fire power than the Lakers"

It's like you have a personal grudge with the 80's Celtics and Lakers.

[DC Zephyrs]

I'll take the Bulls. MJ had a better supporting cast than Magic IMO.

[97 bulls]

I've never argued with someone so bias in my life.

"Walton won SMOY because he was healthy"
"I would take Rodman over McHale"
"McHale is overrated"
"Parish is overrated"
"Worthy is overrated"
"Pippen is on the same level as Larry Bird"
"Bulls have more fire power than the Lakers"

It's like you have a personal grudge with the 80's Celtics and Lakers.
i have no grudge. im just sick of people like you feeling that if it didnt happen in the 80s, it didnt happen. and were not arguing i respect your opinions, we just disagree on this topic. im sure we agree on others.

[97 bulls]

I'll take the Bulls. MJ had a better supporting cast than Magic IMO.
thank you. thats another for the bulls:applause:

[1987_Lakers]

Showtime

thank you. thats another for the Lakers.:applause:

[DC Zephyrs]

thank you. thats another for the bulls:applause:
I like Rodman over McHale too, BTW.

[1987_Lakers]

i have no grudge. im just sick of people like you feeling that if it didnt happen in the 80s, it didnt happen. and were not arguing i respect your opinions, we just disagree on this topic. im sure we agree on others.

So just because people praise the 80's means you have to call guys like Parish, McHale, & Worthy all overrated? Seems like a personal grudge to me.

BTW...where in this thread have you heard me put down the 90's? Unbelievable.

[97 bulls]

by the way thanx da realist for posting that link. ive alway believed that the 97 version is the bulls best single team and it seems to be catching on. i really feel that i was one of the pioners in this belief.

[97 bulls]

So just because people praise the 80's means you have to call guys like Parish, McHale, & Worthy all overrated? Seems like a personal grudge to me.

BTW...where in this thread have you heard me put down the 90's? Unbelievable.
good lord dude. the celtics and lakers were both great. and i have no problem with you believing that those are the best teams ever. my problem is when people feel that because of the name, noone can be better. im a huge jordan fan. however, i do feel lebron can take jordans mantle as the best ever. and if that happens, im not gonna start doing things like finding fault with his competition. cuz the truth is that they all are pros.

[miles berg]

I will definitely take the '87 Lakers.

[97 bulls]

thank you. thats another for the Lakers.:applause:
lol why dont you look at the voting results that in the link da realist originaly posted.

[1987_Lakers]

lol why dont you look at the voting results that in the link da realist originaly posted.

Most of the casual NBA fans will pick the Bulls just because of Jordan. Look at the "Who was more dominant?" poll. Jordan got 60% of the vote while Wilt Chamberlain only won 40% of the vote, and I think most intelligent NBA fans will tell you Chamberlain was more dominant.

Look at this link...
http://www.nba.com/playoffs2004/challenge_bulls1996_celtics1986.html

Bulls won 80% of the fan vote, but the expert analysts picked the '86 Celtics over the '96 Bulls 9 votes to 6 votes.

[97 bulls]

Most of the casual NBA fans will pick the Bulls just because of Jordan. Look at the "Who was more dominant?" poll. Jordan got 60% of the vote while Wilt Chamberlain only won 40% of the vote, and I think most intelligent NBA fans will tell you Chamberlain was more dominant.

Look at this link...
http://www.nba.com/playoffs2004/challenge_bulls1996_celtics1986.html

Bulls won 80% of the fan vote, but the expert analysts picked the '86 Celtics over the '96 Bulls 9 votes to 6 votes.
looking at those experts, i see why they picked the celtics. imsurprised it was 9 to 7 considering most of them were pre 90s or were beaten by the bulls. ive seen many of these polls and most of them have the bulls winning.

[97 bulls]

Most of the casual NBA fans will pick the Bulls just because of Jordan. Look at the "Who was more dominant?" poll. Jordan got 60% of the vote while Wilt Chamberlain only won 40% of the vote, and I think most intelligent NBA fans will tell you Chamberlain was more dominant.

Look at this link...
http://www.nba.com/playoffs2004/challenge_bulls1996_celtics1986.html

Bulls won 80% of the fan vote, but the expert analysts picked the '86 Celtics over the '96 Bulls 9 votes to 6 votes.
in fact 3 of the experts are lakers and 1 is red auerbach who despises phil jacksson thats 4 votes against the bulls right there.

[1987_Lakers]

in fact 3 of the experts are lakers and 1 is red auerbach who despises phil jacksson thats 4 votes against the bulls right there.

What are you talking about? I only see two lakers, Gail Goodrich and Mark Heisler (LA Times) . And just because Goodrich and Heisler were lakers means they are going to vote for the Celtics instead the Bulls? You are getting desperate.:lol

It's funny how you didn't mention two experts were from Chicago. Steve Kerr and Sam Smith (NBA writer for the Chicago Tribune)

Even with two Bulls, the experts vote was 9 to 6 for the Celtics NOT 9 to 7 since one vote was decided by the fans.

[Da_Realist]

It's funny how you didn't mention two experts were from Chicago. Steve Kerr and Sam Smith (NBA writer for the Chicago Tribune)

It needs to be pointed out that Sam Smith does not like Michael Jordan and goes out of his to subtly criticize him or give him back-handed compliments. So I wouldn't think Sam would be a pro-Bulls guy despite the fact that he used to work in Chicago.

[1987_Lakers]

It needs to be pointed out that Sam Smith does not like Michael Jordan and goes out of his to subtly criticize him or give him back-handed compliments. So I wouldn't think Sam would be a pro-Bulls guy despite the fact that he used to work in Chicago.

I highly doubt that. I've seen Smith praise MJ the many times.

"The most gifted athlete ever to play the game, Michael Jordan rose to heights no basketball player had ever... " - Sam Smith

[1987_Lakers]

looking at those experts, i see why they picked the celtics. imsurprised it was 9 to 7 considering most of them were pre 90s or were beaten by the bulls. ive seen many of these polls and most of them have the bulls winning.

STOP TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS!!!

Just because Rick Barry, Gail Goodrich, & Jack Ramsay were pre 90's automatically means they are going to pick the Celtics??? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I can say the same stupid useless things you claim...OMG DOC RIVERS WAS FREQUENTLY BEATEN BY THE CELTICS IN THE 80's....HE FOR SURE IS GOING TO PICK THE 90's BULLS:banghead:

[97 bulls]

What are you talking about? I only see two lakers, Gail Goodrich and Mark Heisler (LA Times) . And just because Goodrich and Heisler were lakers means they are going to vote for the Celtics instead the Bulls? You are getting desperate.:lol

It's funny how you didn't mention two experts were from Chicago. Steve Kerr and Sam Smith (NBA writer for the Chicago Tribune)

Even with two Bulls, the experts vote was 9 to 6 for the Celtics NOT 9 to 7 since one vote was decided by the fans.
i stand corrected. however, i dont really consider this the end all to be all in this disagreement. you can find 15 more "experts" and the results will be different. but yes, i do believe that when it comes to the whos the best team ever debate, its aways lakers and celtics fans tagteaming and arguing for those two teams against the bulls. its like those two are in a special fraternity and no one will ever be able to get. a classic case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. however the fan voting is more indicative of how most people think unless the almost 8000 people that voted for the bulls are all bulls fans and somehow the lakers and celtics fans who in my opinion are more passionate decided not to vote. and while that not the end all to be all majority rules.

[97 bulls]

STOP TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS!!!

Just because Rick Barry, Gail Goodrich, & Jack Ramsay were pre 90's automatically means they are going to pick the Celtics??? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I can say the same stupid useless things you claim...OMG DOC RIVERS WAS FREQUENTLY BEATEN BY THE CELTICS IN THE 80's....HE FOR SURE IS GOING TO PICK THE 90's BULLS:banghead:
lol rivers was frequntly beaten by the bulls too.

[Da_Realist]

I highly doubt that. I've seen Smith praise MJ the many times.

"The most gifted athlete ever to play the game, Michael Jordan rose to heights no basketball player had ever... " - Sam Smith

Trust me. It's true.

Doesn't matter because we don't know how he voted...and even then it doesn't matter because we all have our opinions, but Sam Smith does not like MJ and it has showed in his writings for years. It's one of those between-the-lines things.

[97 bulls]

Most of the casual NBA fans will pick the Bulls just because of Jordan. Look at the "Who was more dominant?" poll. Jordan got 60% of the vote while Wilt Chamberlain only won 40% of the vote, and I think most intelligent NBA fans will tell you Chamberlain was more dominant.

Look at this link...
http://www.nba.com/playoffs2004/challenge_bulls1996_celtics1986.html

Bulls won 80% of the fan vote, but the expert analysts picked the '86 Celtics over the '96 Bulls 9 votes to 6 votes.
and wilt was not more dominant. unless you totally go by stats

[1987_Lakers]

and wilt was not more dominant. unless you totally go by stats

:roll:

97bulls showing his bias once again. Wow, just wow.