Are the 90's Bulls the most overrated team ever

[Niquesports]

I ask this question not as a knock on MJ because he is a top 3 player All Time. I also give proops to Phil Jackson and Pippen who could hold there own against any coach or SF. BUt is there anyone that believes that Jackson and Pippen would have made that big a difference that the Bulls would have beaten a healthy 80's Celtics, or a Isiah lead Piston. I dont think so. Often times when reading about the Greatest teams of all time I see the Bulls right up there and wonder why. Sure they won a lot of games in a era that had no other great team.has there ever been a championship era team that faced so little challenge ? The weakness at Center, PG, and lack of a bench scorer would kill them agaisnt other All Time teams. Now many of the kids will get on here that just started watching basketball in 90 and call me silly. BUt thats because they are to busy playing playstation to learn about the game.

[Showtime]

72-10 that's why.

[Bigsmoke]

o yea 6 championships in 10 year is so overrated.

[Kargo]

o yea 6 championships in 10 year is so overrated.

In 8.:cheers:

[ILLsmak]

o yea 6 championships in 10 year is so overrated.

lol, was thinking the same team. That was the only team I've ever seen that was a lock to win it every year they were together. Even in LA's 3 peat I wasn't sure they'd win it every year.

-Smak

[Niquesports]

lol, was thinking the same team. That was the only team I've ever seen that was a lock to win it every year they were together. Even in LA's 3 peat I wasn't sure they'd win it every year.

-Smak


Thats because there were always at least 3 other GREAT teams that would give them a fight. Unlike the Bulls who didnt have to beat or face another GREAT team in there prime in any of the 6 championships or getting there.

[Kurosawa0]

Why is that kids seem to want to think MJ wasn't as good as he really was? The guy dominated the league in those six years in a way that no other player has. He was the ultimate winner and the far and away the best player in basketball during those championship seasons. Michael's the best we've seen so far...

[Desperado]

72-10 that's why.

in the watered down 90's ....

[6thManOfTheYear]

i like how people consistently try to find excuses to why jordan is so great.

b-b-b-b-but the 90s was weak :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Bigsmoke]

i like how people consistently try to find excuses to why jordan is so great.

b-b-b-b-but the 90s was weak :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

yea people say bullshit like that.

people will say that the 90's was a weak era and then say Grant Hill and Kevin Johnson were better players than Lebron and Chris Paul.

[joyner82]

87 Lakers, 86 Celtics, and 72 Lakers were all better.

[Niquesports]

Why is that kids seem to want to think MJ wasn't as good as he really was? The guy dominated the league in those six years in a way that no other player has. He was the ultimate winner and the far and away the best player in basketball during those championship seasons. Michael's the best we've seen so far...
He's the best youyou've ever seen because you never saw Wilt. There is an something called books read about how Wilt dominated thaen tell me MJ dominated more than Wilt did. I would say the ultimate winner is a guy with 2 NCAA championships, a Olympic Gold, and 11 Rings. This isnt about how Great MJ was he was great early in his career and still was getting swept in the First round against Boston and Detroit.

[Showtime]

in the watered down 90's ....
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Ah yes, arguably the greatest era of big men with some of the most talented players ever. Tell me: how were the 90's watered down? And did you even watch a game in the 90's?

[ProfessorMurder]

He's the best youyou've ever seen because you never saw Wilt. There is an something called books read about how Wilt dominated thaen tell me MJ dominated more than Wilt did. I would say the ultimate winner is a guy with 2 NCAA championships, a Olympic Gold, and 11 Rings. This isnt about how Great MJ was he was great early in his career and still was getting swept in the First round against Boston and Detroit.

And the best players on his team were a coked up Woolridge, Oakley, and later a young not great Pippen.

[Desperado]

i like how people consistently try to find excuses to why jordan is so great.

b-b-b-b-but the 90s was weak :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


all the expansion teams and the influx of high school kids during the 90's watered down the league.

[guy]

I ask this question not as a knock on MJ because he is a top 3 player All Time. I also give proops to Phil Jackson and Pippen who could hold there own against any coach or SF. BUt is there anyone that believes that Jackson and Pippen would have made that big a difference that the Bulls would have beaten a healthy 80's Celtics, or a Isiah lead Piston. I dont think so. Often times when reading about the Greatest teams of all time I see the Bulls right up there and wonder why. Sure they won a lot of games in a era that had no other great team.has there ever been a championship era team that faced so little challenge ? The weakness at Center, PG, and lack of a bench scorer would kill them agaisnt other All Time teams. Now many of the kids will get on here that just started watching basketball in 90 and call me silly. BUt thats because they are to busy playing playstation to learn about the game.

Isiah's Pistons? They swept the 91 Pistons. Even if you want to argue that they were broken down by then, the Bulls in 89 and 90, when they were clearly worse then any of their championship teams, pushed those Pistons to the edge. So I don't think they really matter.

Healthy Celtics team? Only Celtics team you can argue the Bulls couldn't have beaten are the 86 Celtics. Whatever, thats one year, and its still arguable. Most of the Bulls championship teams probably beat the 81 Celtics, and they would definitely have a great chance against the 84 Celtics, who were pushed to 7 games by the 84 Knicks who were nothing special.

[6thManOfTheYear]

a coked up Woolridge:oldlol:

[Niquesports]

87 Lakers, 86 Celtics, and 72 Lakers were all better.
Wilts Sixers, Moses and Dr J Sixers, Isiah Pistons, Russell Celtics, 70 Knicks also

[guy]

all the expansion teams and the influx of high school kids during the 90's watered down the league.

What? The influx of high school kids came in the mid-late 90s and early 2000s, which means they really didn't become that noticeable until the 2000s.

[Kurosawa0]

He's the best youyou've ever seen because you never saw Wilt. There is an something called books read about how Wilt dominated thaen tell me MJ dominated more than Wilt did. I would say the ultimate winner is a guy with 2 NCAA championships, a Olympic Gold, and 11 Rings. This isnt about how Great MJ was he was great early in his career and still was getting swept in the First round against Boston and Detroit.

You can't be the best of all-time when you only win two rings. I'm sorry, but considering the talent Wilt had, his career was mostly a disappointment.

Russell was a great winner, but he isn't the great individual basketball player.

If you have to show the best the sport has ever seen to someone who's never seen basketball before, you're showing them MJ and there's not any competition.

[Manute for Ever!]

How can you say "The '90's Bulls" like it was the same team the entire decade?
Here is the squad for the first title in 1991:

http://thehoopdoctors.com/online2/wp-content/uploads/2009/feature_GreatestChampions_06_Bulls.jpg

...And here is the 1998 championship team:

http://www.olegdanilov.com/pix/img_38_3_1.jpg

The coaching staff is similar, but there was only two players that were on all six title teams, Jordan and Pippen. Did you even watch them play? If so, quit acting like they consistently fielded the same team :banghead:

[Niquesports]

And the best players on his team were a coked up Woolridge, Oakley, and later a young not great Pippen.
So your saying a prime Pippen would have made that big a difference that they would have beaten the 86 Celtics
:roll:

I guess the same way he helped make Portland a winner as well as the Rockets huh
:roll:

[Desperado]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Ah yes, arguably the greatest era of big men with some of the most talented players ever. Tell me: how were the 90's watered down? And did you even watch a game in the 90's?


I understand there were plenty of great players in the 90s but the TEAMS were watered down not the players! adding all those expansion teams (Miami, Charlotte, Minnesota, Orlando ,Toronto and Vancouver) made the league watered down.


There were a lot of great players in the 90's - they were just spread out among more teams! Between 1989 and 1996, the league added 6 teams. That's 72 players that otherwise wouldn't be good enough, now playing.

Ask yourself this: If you removed 1/2 of the teams and held a draft of their players, you'd only be keeping the good ones and getting rid of the bad ones. Each team would get stronger.

What happened in the 90's is the exact opposite. They ADDED teams, and spread out the best players among several teams. That's why it became watered-down


They wouldn't have come close to 70 wins in the 80's. Even Dennis Rodman has said that!

[Niquesports]

Isiah's Pistons? They swept the 91 Pistons. Even if you want to argue that they were broken down by then, the Bulls in 89 and 90, when they were clearly worse then any of their championship teams, pushed those Pistons to the edge. So I don't think they really matter.

Healthy Celtics team? Only Celtics team you can argue the Bulls couldn't have beaten are the 86 Celtics. Whatever, thats one year, and its still arguable. Most of the Bulls championship teams probably beat the 81 Celtics, and they would definitely have a great chance against the 84 Celtics, who were pushed to 7 games by the 84 Knicks who were nothing special.


Yes as an opinion that sounds good. But on paper it looks silly.
Team A has 4 primed HOfers
Team B has 2
now which teams seems more likely to be better.
When both teams has a top 5 player of All TIme.

[ProfessorMurder]

So your saying a prime Pippen would have made that big a difference that they would have beaten the 86 Celtics
:roll:

I guess the same way he helped make Portland a winner as well as the Rockets huh
:roll:

I did not say that anywhere, but you're a retard if you think it's 100% impossible.

[Niquesports]

You can't be the best of all-time when you only win two rings. I'm sorry, but considering the talent Wilt had, his career was mostly a disappointment.

Russell was a great winner, but he isn't the great individual basketball player.

If you have to show the best the sport has ever seen to someone who's never seen basketball before, you're showing them MJ and there's not any competition.


Just as Jordan was unable to beat a Great team so was Wilt. IF Jordan had faced another Great team in its prime you might be saying the same about him.

People say Russ was the Great "Individual basketball Player" that dont understasnd the game. just because he dindt dominate on the offensive end isnt a knock on him. The things he did didnt show up in the box scores under him but it showed his team won and won and won. Give me that over 30pts any day.

Sorry I would think a person that has never seen the game would wonder who is the guy that won 11 rings almost double what Jordan has. But unlike Jordan he had to defeat a top 5 All Time player and another team that had 2 top 10 All TIme players in the Lakers.

[Niquesports]

How can you say "The '90's Bulls" like it was the same team the entire decade?
Here is the squad for the first title in 1991:

http://thehoopdoctors.com/online2/wp-content/uploads/2009/feature_GreatestChampions_06_Bulls.jpg

...And here is the 1998 championship team:

http://www.olegdanilov.com/pix/img_38_3_1.jpg

The coaching staff is similar, but there was only two players that were on all six title teams, Jordan and Pippen. Did you even watch them play? If so, quit acting like they consistently fielded the same team :banghead:


I dont care which of the 6 you pick they would be able to stick with other All TIme Great Teams

[jlauber]

87 Lakers, 86 Celtics, and 72 Lakers were all better.

I would add the '67 76ers and maybe the 70-71 Bucks (66-16 with a +12.2 ppgv differential, then 12-2 post-season with a record +14.5 ppg differential.)

[L.Kizzle]

Yes slightly. Most would have them as the greatest ever cause they won the most games ever. They won 72 games for a "reason", but they also won 72 games for a "reason" ...

[Kurosawa0]

But unlike Jordan he had to defeat a top 5 All Time player

Magic Johnson says hi...

[Manute for Ever!]

I understand there were plenty of great players in the 90s but the TEAMS were watered down not the players! adding all those expansion teams (Miami, Charlotte, Minnesota, Orlando ,Toronto and Vancouver) made the league watered down.


There were a lot of great players in the 90's - they were just spread out among more teams! Between 1989 and 1996, the league added 6 teams. That's 72 players that otherwise wouldn't be good enough, now playing.

Ask yourself this: If you removed 1/2 of the teams and held a draft of their players, you'd only be keeping the good ones and getting rid of the bad ones. Each team would get stronger.

What happened in the 90's is the exact opposite. They ADDED teams, and spread out the best players among several teams. That's why it became watered-down

They wouldn't have come close to 70 wins in the 80's. Even Dennis Rodman has said that!

You'e just pissed because the Lakers didn't win one that decade. And as for your proposal, above, people discuss this when talking about the '60's and '70's and you get posters still try to interpret having more/less teams in different ways to fit their argument.

[Niquesports]

I did not say that anywhere, but you're a retard if you think it's 100% impossible.
Well anything is possible like it isnt 100 % that your not a "retard"

[Niquesports]

You'e just pissed because the Lakers didn't win one that decade. And as for your proposal, above, people discuss this when talking about the '60's and '70's and you get posters still try to interpret having more/less teams in different ways to fit their argument.


I dont think its take a 5th grade education to know that if you had a draftof 200 of the best players and made 10 different team the teams would be better than if you made 20

[ProfessorMurder]

Well anything is possible like it isnt 100 % that your not a "retard"

English please.

[Showtime]

I understand there were plenty of great players in the 90s but the TEAMS were watered down not the players! adding all those expansion teams (Miami, Charlotte, Minnesota, Orlando ,Toronto and Vancouver) made the league watered down.


There were a lot of great players in the 90's - they were just spread out among more teams! Between 1989 and 1996, the league added 6 teams. That's 72 players that otherwise wouldn't be good enough, now playing.

Those teams still exist, meaning the talent is still spread among more teams, meaning the modern league is watered down too. Great logic there.

[Manute for Ever!]

I dont think its take a 5th grade education to know that if you had a draftof 200 of the best players and made 10 different team the teams would be better than if you made 20

Never said it wouldn't. What I was referring to was the countless ammount of times people have made that argument and had people try to refute it.

[DarkSephiroth]

I understand there were plenty of great players in the 90s but the TEAMS were watered down not the players! adding all those expansion teams (Miami, Charlotte, Minnesota, Orlando ,Toronto and Vancouver) made the league watered down.


There were a lot of great players in the 90's - they were just spread out among more teams! Between 1989 and 1996, the league added 6 teams. That's 72 players that otherwise wouldn't be good enough, now playing.

Ask yourself this: If you removed 1/2 of the teams and held a draft of their players, you'd only be keeping the good ones and getting rid of the bad ones. Each team would get stronger.

What happened in the 90's is the exact opposite. They ADDED teams, and spread out the best players among several teams. That's why it became watered-down


They wouldn't have come close to 70 wins in the 80's. Even Dennis Rodman has said that!

By that logic, the NBA will get weaker and weaker because more teams will be added in the future. Thus, 50 years from now, we will see the weakest, most watered down basketball league in the history of the NBA?

-_-

I think a more valid argument would be the salary cap... but I don't agree that 90's teams were weak. I think the bulls are a top 3 team ever. They had arguably the greatest player of all time, and a great slew of role-players around him who played great team defense.

[Desperado]

Also I would not consider the 90s to be the best era for big men…you basically had four or five HOF quality centers in the league in Shaq, Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson and possibly Alonzo. Maybe Mutombo if you want to go that far. But that's it....

In the 70s, we had Kareem, Walton when he was healthy, Cowens, Reed, Hayes, Unseld, Thurmond, Jerry Lucas, Wilt, Walt Bellamy, Bob Lanier, Moses Malone, Bob McAdoo, plus Artis Gilmore, Dan Issel and Mel Daniels from the ABA. Not all of those guys played throughout the 70s, but they were all there during that generation.

All of the NBA guys I named are Hall of Famers, Issel is a HOF as well, but Gilmore certainly should be in there too, and even Daniels has a decent argument, although I don't see him ever making it, unfortunately.

[97 bulls]

I ask this question not as a knock on MJ because he is a top 3 player All Time. I also give proops to Phil Jackson and Pippen who could hold there own against any coach or SF. BUt is there anyone that believes that Jackson and Pippen would have made that big a difference that the Bulls would have beaten a healthy 80's Celtics, or a Isiah lead Piston. I dont think so. Often times when reading about the Greatest teams of all time I see the Bulls right up there and wonder why. Sure they won a lot of games in a era that had no other great team.has there ever been a championship era team that faced so little challenge ? The weakness at Center, PG, and lack of a bench scorer would kill them agaisnt other All Time teams. Now many of the kids will get on here that just started watching basketball in 90 and call me silly. BUt thats because they are to busy playing playstation to learn about the game.
this is something that i cant comprehend and maybe you can clear this up for me. why do people knock the teams the bulls beat in the 90s but give a pass to the 80s champs?

people always excuse the 87 celtics cuz of "injuries". i mean, if the celtics were really that badly injured, then doesnt that mean the lakers beat an inferior opponant?

were the 86 rockets an all-time great?

the 89 pistons beat a lakers team that had no magic or scott.

and these are the teams that people say is th best of the 80s.

i see no difference in the talent of the teams the bulls beat and an injury plagued celtics team, the 86 rockets, or a lakers team minus magic and scott.

[Fatal9]

Isiah's Pistons? They swept the 91 Pistons. Even if you want to argue that they were broken down by then, the Bulls in 89 and 90, when they were clearly worse then any of their championship teams, pushed those Pistons to the edge. So I don't think they really matter.

Healthy Celtics team? Only Celtics team you can argue the Bulls couldn't have beaten are the 86 Celtics. Whatever, thats one year, and its still arguable. Most of the Bulls championship teams probably beat the 81 Celtics, and they would definitely have a great chance against the 84 Celtics, who were pushed to 7 games by the 84 Knicks who were nothing special.
uh, Celtics dominated the Knicks in that series. I've watched every game of the series and Celtics had a 20+ point lead in all the home games, the series was never really in jeopardy. Knicks squeaked out a couple of victories at home with King having insane scoring nights (great duels with Bird in the series) but got smacked in every pivotal game. hell, the game 7 was probably over in the first 5 minutes. It's the same thing we saw in the Hawks/Celtics series couple of years ago. Celtics killed them every home game, lost a couple of close road games, probably didn't take them as seriously, and ended up beating the Lakers in 6 (that must mean Hawks > Lakers according to you).



were the 86 rockets an all-time great?
better and deeper than any team to win in 90s, that's for sure. watch that team play dumbass, they would outrebound the hell out of every team, had insane athleticism, talent and depth. were one of the few teams I've seen who could not only run with the Lakers, but withstand their huge runs on the road without ever faltering. the team fell apart the following year due to injuries and drug problems but that was a budding dynasty that could have gone in to the early 90s. Hakeem won two rings in the 90s with a MUCH worse supporting cast, that should tell you something.

I usually mark the decline of the NBA competition around '88 when expansion efforts really started and the elite 80s teams began declining due to aging cores, retirements, injuries to players on elite teams etc etc.

[97 bulls]

By that logic, the NBA will get weaker and weaker because more teams will be added in the future. Thus, 50 years from now, we will see the weakest, most watered down basketball league in the history of the NBA?

-_-

I think a more valid argument would be the salary cap... but I don't agree that 90's teams were weak. I think the bulls are a top 3 team ever. They had arguably the greatest player of all time, and a great slew of role-players around him who played great team defense.
dont even waste your time responding to that idiot. time and again people have shown him that this reasoning is assinine due to more and more great athletes playing basketball.

look at baseball now, very few black athletes play baseball now. not because they cant, but because they choose to play football and basketball.

[Niquesports]

By that logic, the NBA will get weaker and weaker because more teams will be added in the future. Thus, 50 years from now, we will see the weakest, most watered down basketball league in the history of the NBA?

-_-

I think a more valid argument would be the salary cap... but I don't agree that 90's teams were weak. I think the bulls are a top 3 team ever. They had arguably the greatest player of all time, and a great slew of role-players around him who played great team defense.

i agree with you about the salary cap, Free agencyas well as the lack of true Big men that can score and play Big has hurt the era. I also agree that Mj is 1 of any 5 players that you could call the GOAT. WIlt,Russ,Magic,Jabbar being the others. But I disagree with you about the slew of great role players. WIthout Pippen this is was a very weak team. One of the weakest cast of Centers to ever win a title , no true scorer to come off the bench, no real scoring inside player. Can you imagine what Hakeem would do to this group of Centers if he was able to destroy DRob,Ewing and a young but still very good Shaq.

[97 bulls]

uh, Celtics dominated the Knicks in that series. I've watched every game of the series and Celtics had a 20+ point lead in all the home games, the series was never really in jeopardy. Knicks squeaked out a couple of victories at home with King having insane scoring nights (great duels with Bird in the series) but got smacked in every pivotal game. hell, the game 7 was probably over in the first 5 minutes. It's the same thing we saw in the Hawks/Celtics series couple of years ago. Celtics killed them every home game, lost a couple of close road games, probably didn't take them as seriously, and ended up beating the Lakers in 6 (that must mean Hawks > Lakers according to you).


better and deeper than any team to win in 90s, that's for sure. watch that team play dumbass, they would outrebound the hell out of every team, had insane athleticism, talent and depth. were one of the few teams I've seen who could not only run with the Lakers, but withstand their huge runs on the road without ever faltering. the team fell apart the following year due to injuries and drug problems but that was a budding dynasty that could have gone in to the early 90s. Hakeem won two rings in the 90s with a MUCH worse supporting cast, that should tell you something.

I usually mark the decline of the NBA competition around '88 when expansion efforts really started and the elite 80s teams began declining due to aging cores, retirements, injuries to players on elite teams etc etc.
look punk i know what im talking about. the 86 rockets were not deeper than the 92 trailblazers or 93 suns. and the jazz were more top heavy. you dont know what your talking about.

[Niquesports]

this is something that i cant comprehend and maybe you can clear this up for me. why do people knock the teams the bulls beat in the 90s but give a pass to the 80s champs?

people always excuse the 87 celtics cuz of "injuries". i mean, if the celtics were really that badly injured, then doesnt that mean the lakers beat an inferior opponant?

were the 86 rockets an all-time great?

the 89 pistons beat a lakers team that had no magic or scott.

and these are the teams that people say is th best of the 80s.

i see no difference in the talent of the teams the bulls beat and an injury plagued celtics team, the 86 rockets, or a lakers team minus magic and scott.

YOu make a very good point but the 86 Celtics had 3 Hof and Dj should get in that would make 4 and that not even counting Walton.
The 89 Pistons had 2 HOF and if Rodman gets in as a Bull he's in as a Piston also. So thats 3 and 3 and the Piston had a better support cast to go along with their 3 HOF.You make a valid point but I still say man for man the Bulls just dont matcu up with the other great teams.

[97 bulls]

also, what makes the 80s teams deeper? them having more guys averaging in double figures in scoring? the league at the time was different than the 90s. you know that. almost ever team in the league ran. thats the reson for the stats. but your a stat whore so i understand why you feel the way you do

[Niquesports]

look punk i know what im talking about. the 86 rockets were not deeper than the 92 trailblazers or 93 suns. and the jazz were more top heavy. you dont know what your talking about.


I always thought the TrailBlazers were overrated but I would agree that the Suns were the best team the Bulls faced.But I also thing you underrate the 86 Rockets.

[97 bulls]

YOu make a very good point but the 86 Celtics had 3 Hof and Dj should get in that would make 4 and that not even counting Walton.
The 89 Pistons had 2 HOF and if Rodman gets in as a Bull he's in as a Piston also. So thats 3 and 3 and the Piston had a better support cast to go along with their 3 HOF.You make a valid point but I still say man for man the Bulls just dont matcu up with the other great teams.
look at it this way. the bulls had specialist. and they were the in their field. they dont need longley to match a scoring center point for point. they just need their centers to play solid D and hit open jumpers. and they were a+ at that. same with rodman and kukoc who might eventually get in the hall too. due to his overseas body of work.

[Niquesports]

also, what makes the 80s teams deeper? them having more guys averaging in double figures in scoring? the league at the time was different than the 90s. you know that. almost ever team in the league ran. thats the reson for the stats. but your a stat whore so i understand why you feel the way you do


YOu would say that the Celtics having 4 of the 50 Greats of All TIme in there prime
The Lakers having 3
not to mention the Celtics having a still effective Walton
The Lakers having a still effective Mcadoo
Doesnt at least give them an edge over the Bulls.
This is not even including a Danny Ainge and Byron Scott who both would have started with Jordan over any of the other guards Jordan had

[97 bulls]

I always thought the TrailBlazers were overrated but I would agree that the Suns were the best team the Bulls faced.But I also thing you underrate the 86 Rockets.
im not underrating the rockets. but you guys are knocking the bulls by using their competition. i dont think the teams i mentioned are better. i dont know if the"injured" 87 celtics beat the jazz, suns, or blazers. same with the 86 rockets.

[Fatal9]

im not underrating the rockets. but you guys are knocking the bulls by using their competition. i dont think the teams i mentioned are better. i dont know if the"injured" 87 celtics beat the jazz, suns, or blazers. same with the 86 rockets.
Hakeem sure didn't have trouble owning those teams with a lot less help in the 90s.

[Niquesports]

look at it this way. the bulls had specialist. and they were the in their field. they dont need longley to match a scoring center point for point. they just need their centers to play solid D and hit open jumpers. and they were a+ at that. same with rodman and kukoc who might eventually get in the hall too. due to his overseas body of work.


List of Centers on Great Teams that all would have destroyed Longley

Jabbar
Malone
Hakeem
Wilt
Parrish
Reed
I cant name 1 team that I would call great whose Center was "much' better than Longley.

Other teams had role players also.
Pistons with Vinnie Johnson and Rodman John Sally James Edwards coming off the bench
The Lakers had Michael Cooper who could have defended both Jordan and Pippen.

As I said man for man the Bulls would be 1 of the weaker teams of all time

[ReturnofJPR]

I ask this question not as a knock on MJ because he is a top 3 player All Time. I also give proops to Phil Jackson and Pippen who could hold there own against any coach or SF. BUt is there anyone that believes that Jackson and Pippen would have made that big a difference that the Bulls would have beaten a healthy 80's Celtics, or a Isiah lead Piston. I dont think so. Often times when reading about the Greatest teams of all time I see the Bulls right up there and wonder why. Sure they won a lot of games in a era that had no other great team.has there ever been a championship era team that faced so little challenge ? The weakness at Center, PG, and lack of a bench scorer would kill them agaisnt other All Time teams. Now many of the kids will get on here that just started watching basketball in 90 and call me silly. BUt thats because they are to busy playing playstation to learn about the game.

Are you the biggest retard to ever be on Earth? That is the real question here.

[ReturnofJPR]

I always thought the TrailBlazers were overrated but I would agree that the Suns were the best team the Bulls faced.But I also thing you underrate the 86 Rockets.

The Suns? You crackhead. Those early Laker teams not to mention the Stockton/Malone Jazz teams were off the hook. Also, Gary Payton's Sonics were elite. Quit hatin, ****.

[Niquesports]

im not underrating the rockets. but you guys are knocking the bulls by using their competition. i dont think the teams i mentioned are better. i dont know if the"injured" 87 celtics beat the jazz, suns, or blazers. same with the 86 rockets.

Well that same 87 team that was injured ,although I always felt it was an excuse Boston fans used to explain Bird losing to Magic,but they did best a Pistons team that I think were better than the jazz and Trailblazers

[97 bulls]

YOu would say that the Celtics having 4 of the 50 Greats of All TIme in there prime
The Lakers having 3
not to mention the Celtics having a still effective Walton
The Lakers having a still effective Mcadoo
Doesnt at least give them an edge over the Bulls.
This is not even including a Danny Ainge and Byron Scott who both would have started with Jordan over any of the other guards Jordan had
what 4 on the 86 celtics were top 50 greatest? also, i honestly dont resect a list that has parrish over bob mcadoo.

jabarr in 87 isnt an all-time great.

and the bulls have 3 all-time greats jordan pippen and jackson. 4 when rodman get in the hall

[97 bulls]

Well that same 87 team that was injured ,although I always felt it was an excuse Boston fans used to explain Bird losing to Magic,but they did best a Pistons team that I think were better than the jazz and Trailblazers
i agree with you that why i put injured in quotes. but they were 1 bad isaiah thomas pass away from getting ousted by those pistons

[Niquesports]

Are you the biggest retard to ever be on Earth? That is the real question here.
naw I think at best Im second ur momma is the biggest

[ReturnofJPR]

naw I think at best Im second ur momma is the biggest

You are an idiot if you doubt Jordan's bulls. Remove Kobe/Brons thang from your mouth, thanks!

[Niquesports]

The Suns? You crackhead. Those early Laker teams not to mention the Stockton/Malone Jazz teams were off the hook. Also, Gary Payton's Sonics were elite. Quit hatin, ****.
YOu drunk how many HOf were on the Soncis how many will even get looked at 1
Help you big dummy out side of Malone and Stock how many did the Jazz have the Soncis were elite when did you start looking at basketball last year. Your a joke.

[Niquesports]

You are an idiot if you doubt Jordan's bulls. Remove Kobe/Brons thang from your mouth, thanks!
That proves it your an idiot isn't it past your bed time lil boy

[Niquesports]

what 4 on the 86 celtics were top 50 greatest? also, i honestly dont resect a list that has parrish over bob mcadoo.

jabarr in 87 isnt an all-time great.

and the bulls have 3 all-time greats jordan pippen and jackson. 4 when rodman get in the hall


TIny, Mcahle,Parrish, and of course Bird 81 Celtics
True but in 87 Jabbar would have still killed and Center the Bulls had

You make a point about Mcadoo but he had too many years below avg. Due to injuries and bad teams it really hurt his legacy. Even with that being said he would be the first I would kick off to include mac

Well if thats the case the Lakers have 4 All time Greats and the Celtics have 5so there both still ahead of Boston

the Malone sixers also have 4 and a 5th when Cheeks gets in

[HisAirness3]

Let's see....They hold the record for the most regular season wins in a single season with 72. They won Six (6) NBA Championships in the era of the most dominant and competitive big men league to ever play and they didn't even have a dominant big man on their team.......Yeah that's sure overrated. :oldlol:

There's nothing overraed about the team, they had the greatest player of all-time and the greatest perimeter defender of all-time. I'm sure some could argue that there was a player greater than Jordan or a perimeter defender than Pippen, but they are in the discussion without question.

[kidachi]

Niquesports.


here's my little take on this.

The Bulls dominated the 90s. Nobody reached "all-time great team" level because of them. They stopped everybody that had a chance.. knicks, jazz, magic, sonics etc. One of those teams.. or all of those teams would've won a championship

Without that Bulls team, the 90s would completely be up for grabs. It'll be like the 70s. every year there's a diff. champion..

If the 80s was won like 6 times by Magic or Bird or Isiah or whoever.. you'll describe that team just like you describe the Bulls.. "they were champs because there was no competition".. again.. the Bulls looked like they had no competition because they beat everyone.. they ousted everyone.. the 80's really dominated by anyone because all of the greats won one.. Magic,Bird,Isiah,Dr. J...

[Niquesports]

Let's see....They hold the record for the most regular season wins in a single season with 72. They won Six (6) NBA Championships in the era of the most dominant and competitive big men league to ever play and they didn't even have a dominant big man on their team.......Yeah that's sure overrated. :oldlol:

There's nothing overraed about the team, they had the greatest player of all-time and the greatest perimeter defender of all-time. I'm sure some could argue that there was a player greater than Jordan or a perimeter defender than Pippen, but they are in the discussion without question.


So your saying that if you listed the players on the Bulls they would look better than that of the other great teams. Sure they have 2 that can hold there own against anyone. But the others fall too short

[Niquesports]

Niquesports.


here's my little take on this.

The Bulls dominated the 90s. Nobody reached "all-time great team" level because of them. They stopped everybody that had a chance.. knicks, jazz, magic, sonics etc. One of those teams.. or all of those teams would've won a championship

Without that Bulls team, the 90s would completely be up for grabs. It'll be like the 70s. every year there's a diff. champion..

If the 80s was won like 6 times by Magic or Bird or Isiah or whoever.. you'll describe that team just like you describe the Bulls.. "they were champs because there was no competition".. again.. the Bulls looked like they had no competition because they beat everyone.. they ousted everyone.. the 80's really dominated by anyone because all of the greats won one.. Magic,Bird,Isiah,Dr. J...


Name 1 team the Bulls beat that had more than 2 HOf 'ers. Magic,Bird,Isiah Dr J they had to beat teams that had 3 sometimes 4 . The Bulls only faced 1 team with more than 1 Hof'er

[kidachi]

Name 1 team the Bulls beat that had more than 2 HOf 'ers. Magic,Bird,Isiah Dr J they had to beat teams that had 3 sometimes 4 . The Bulls only faced 1 team with more than 1 Hof'er


in the finals only? what about their conf rivals? the other teams? no?

well LA had Magic and Worthy..

Portland had Clyde.. is he a HOF?

Suns had Charles..Kevin Johnson.. who is a great great player...


Sonics had GP.. GP will make the HOF anyway..

Utah had Stock and Karl..

anyway.. here's the thing with what you're saying.. Magic,Bird and ETC. had to battle teams with numerous HOFs...


BUT of course that means they're own team had HOFs too.. it just goes around..
LA had 3 HOFs.. vs. Boston.. with 4 HOFs..

just like the bulls did.. Bulls had 2 in MJ and Pip vs. the other with 1,2 or 3 HOFs..

I mean it just sounds weird why would you suddenly come out and question a team with that kind of resume.. what are you trying to be? This is just a friendly argument BTW. nothing personal. :D

[magnax1]

First of all, the 90's were the most competitive era, where talent was more evenly spread then basically any era. I don't know what you mean by competitive, but if its equal competition, then the Bulls faced plenty.
The 80's were basically the opposite of competitive. Only 5 teams made the finals in the whole decade. Only 4 ever had a chance to win it. The other teams were so far off talent wise that it basically was no contest. If you wan't to complain about lack of competition, then complain about Bird, Magic, and Isiah.
However, the 96 Bulls were just plain the best. No, not the most talented, but their Defense is what made them. I could see them having troubles with a team with a great big (as in Wilt, Shaq, Gilmore big) Center (they had some trouble whith Shaq in 96 and 95) but otherwise I think they'd take down any other team. The biggest difference between them and other great teams is their D. Other then the Pistons, can you name another team that was at a similar level on defense to the 96 Bulls? 80's Lakers weren't really that great on D, the Celtics were much better, but not as good as the Bulls, nor were the 83 Sixers, or 71 Bucks. The 72 Lakers might have actually been a bit better, but its fairly close.
Teams with Multiple HOF
93 Suns- KJ, Barkley (did KJ make it?)
97 Heat-Alonzo Hardaway
91 Lakers-Worthy, Magic
98 Jazz- Malone Stockton
98 Lakers- Kobe Shaq
97 Rockets- Barkley, Hakeem, Drexler
96 Lakers- Cedric Ceballos, Magic Johnson (JK, but that was an awesome team. Deserves recognition in some way)
95 Spurs- Rodman Robinson
97 Spurs-Robinson Duncan
As you can see, there are plenty, and Im sure I forgot some. Its not like the 90's was lacking HOF players.

[kidachi]

damn Niquesports logged out... he's asleep. shyt.

[Abraham Lincoln]

List of Centers on Great Teams that all would have destroyed Longley

Jabbar
Malone
Hakeem
Wilt
Parrish
Reed
I cant name 1 team that I would call great whose Center was "much' better than Longley.

Other teams had role players also.
Pistons with Vinnie Johnson and Rodman John Sally James Edwards coming off the bench
The Lakers had Michael Cooper who could have defended both Jordan and Pippen.

As I said man for man the Bulls would be 1 of the weaker teams of all time

Longley, Wennington, Edwards, & Salley would struggle big time to even run with Chamberlain up and down the floor. The only one who could keep up is Rodman. And he was too old, too weak, and too small to do anything with Wilt. Rodman's histrionics would have little to no effect as he would be tamed by Luke Jackson. Bulls were a great team, but some mis-matches are too great to ingore. I think the early 90's Bulls would have a much better chance at making it a competitive series than the late 90's as they could full court press and dictate the tempo better. The Sixer players were constantly moving & cutting off Wilt and forcing mismatches. Double Wilt even for a second he will find the open man. A faster game would be in advantage of the Sixers who had too many weapons and a much, much, much better sixth man on the bench as Billy C was a great defender (unlike defensive liability Kukoc) and perhaps the top rebounder at his position in NBA history. Nobody could stop his jumper or his transition drives to the hoop. The key question is old man Harper going to be able to keep Wally in front of him? If not, it will force Jordan to switch from Greer. If Bulldog got hot, he would potentially have a 40 or 50 point game as he was very deceptively strong, lightning quick, and perhaps the top mid range shooter in NBA history with an equally deadly release. Pippen will make Chet the Jet work for his points but will not shut him down by any means as he has never guarded a player as crafty and skilled as Walker in his prime. Guarding him man to man on the wing, Pip would almost certainly have to gamble for the steal, as there would be no benefit to playing him honest. Chet's shoulder "lean-in" shot & magnificent one handed slashing move off the dribble is not going to be stopped by any one player under any circumstances. Between Jackson & Chamberlain the paint would be shut down and there would be severe penalties for driving the paint as their hard fouls would make Jordan & Pippen wish they were playing against the Bad Boy Pistons instead.

Replace Longley with a peaked Kareem or Shaq and the Bulls would have a great chance to push the Sixers to 7 games.




http://i43.tinypic.com/25sre4z.jpg




"The best team I ever saw was the 1967 Sixers. Everything today is geared for the offensive player. Open the middle so he can drive. You can't put your hand on a guy's back. Can you imagine me in the paint with only one guy on me and he can't put his hands on me and nobody's beside me? Michael Jordan is a bit older and he walks all the time, but the referees allow it. He's not going to come through dunking the basketball on Luke Jackson. He's going to get slammed to the floor. I'd like to see Wali Jones playing defense on him, driving him into me. I'd be more than happy to see that."

-Chamberlain, 1996





"He's 6'6, 196 lbs. Coming into our domain, the pivot, would not have been very wise of Michael. I don't think, I know he would have been crushed back then. During my time, if you did a 360 dunk you would either be on knocked on you ass or benched. It was called hot-dogging back then."

-Chamberlain, 1997





"We had something they didn't have, Wilt Chamberlain. The Bulls had Michael Jordan, and while he's a great player, we had a team that could run, rebound and shoot. Anything that came down the lane was a no-no, and I'm sorry to say that Jordan would have many bruises. It would be a good contest, but I think the Sixers would win."


-Jackson, 1998





"We compare with any team that's ever been put together. When I say "we,' I mean the '66-67 team, and I mean that even to include the (1992) Dream Team."

-Hannum, 1998




"I concur with Alex. In order to really maximize any five players, they have to be a team. Because you have the five best players of a particular era out there on the floor, that didn't make them a team. So as a team, I would challenge any of the Dream Teams. It's hard to talk about how great Chicago is because they are just so far superior to anything they have faced. I would have loved to have had them in our era to see how they would have truly measured up."

-Chamberlain, 1998

[EricForman]

Replace Longley with a peaked Kareem or Shaq and the Bulls would have a great chance to push the Sixers to 7 games.




are u saying replace Luc Longley with prime Kareem or Shaq on the 96 BULLS and they may "have a chance" to push the Wilt-led Sixers to 7 games?

Are you serious? Even if you think Wilt is goat, you can't say the greatness gap between Wilt and Kareem (or Shaq) would be greater than Jordan over whoever the second best player on the Sixers have.

May have a chance to push to 7 games :oldlol: . Put Kareem or Shaq on the 96 Bulls and they dominate this Sixers squad in a 5, 6 game series.

And those Wilt quotes you posted, you think they make Wilt look cool but to everyone else it just makes him look bitter. He talks so much trash about what he'd do and what Jordan can't do. Yet he failed to take advantage against a hobbled Willis Reed when the title was on the line. The man is an underachiever when it mattered... talk about bitter.

[Abraham Lincoln]

^ We have not seen how cohesive a unit they would be as Jordan was the Bulls main man in the pivot. Admittedly that was a bit over the top as it would be a good match. It is not about how much greater I have apparently implied Chamberlain is than any other (which is false, nobody is inarguably the best) but rather chemistry, a very strong coaching personality, and superior ball & player movement. Bulls would be a fantasy team on paper indeed, but the 76ers team was so great. Even Chamberlain said the '68 team was better than '67 before all the injuries, likely due to the swagger and/or increased team chemistry following a championship season where they humiliated the 8 time defending champion Celtics.

[bdreason]

MJ and Pippen were just that good. It was magical. Wish you could have been there.

[OldSchoolBBall]

BUt is there anyone that believes that Jackson and Pippen would have made that big a difference that the Bulls would have beaten a healthy 80's Celtics, or a Isiah lead Piston. I dont think so.

The '92 or '96 and '97 Bulls would easily - EASILY - handle the '89 or '90 Pistons. Jordan took them to 8 games almost singlehandedly in 1990, now you're going to give him a prime Pippen/Grant or his '96 cast? Let's get real. Say the Showtime Lakers or Celts and you'll have more credibility. And even there, I think the '92 or '96 Bulls could take the '87 Lakers, but maybe not the '85 Lakers with Kareem in better form. The '86 Celts would pose the most problems due to their outstanding front line, and I don't see any version of the Bulls beating them more often than not.

[1987_Lakers]

I wouldn't call the 90's Bulls overrated, but I wouldn't call them the greatest either. I actually say the '96 Bulls would beat most of the great teams of the 80's, I think they can handle the '83 Sixers, maybe the '87 Lakers, & I'm very confident they would defeat the '89 Pistons. The one team I think would defeat them are the '86 Celtics. The Celtics for that one year just had too much talent and their chemistry was amazing. That team featured 3 of the 50 greatest players ever according to the NBA playing in their prime in Bird, McHale, Parish, as well as HOF guard & one of the greatest defensive players ever in Dennis Johnson also playing at his peak, a still very effective Bill Walton coming off the bench, & an excellent fifth option in Danny Ainge. The Celtics for that one year had the greatest mix of talent & chemistry the NBA has ever seen.

http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/B8428772-B40F-4C8B-9370-CE078C2A1791/U86120004.jpg

[Abraham Lincoln]

I wouldn't call the 90's Bulls overrated, but I wouldn't call them the greatest either. I actually say the '96 Bulls would beat most of the great teams of the 80's, I think they can handle the '83 Sixers, maybe the '87 Lakers, & I'm very confident they would defeat the '89 Pistons.
The '96 team could beat the '83 Sixers, but the '92 Bulls (better than '96) couldn't?

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=155535


IMO the '83 Sixers was the best team of the 80's. Would have been a marvelous 7 game series against the '86 team. As others have noted also, as great as the '86 front line was, the '67 Sixers team had a better front court. All things considered Jackson, Walker, Cunningham, & Chamberlain were equal offensively, much better defensively, and could control both backboards to a much greater degree.

Gail Goodrich & Peter Vescey (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48zv5_nba-vault-the-1967-sixers-rick-kaml_sport) will agree as they have seen both teams in action.

[1987_Lakers]

The '96 team could beat the '83 Sixers, but the '92 Bulls (better than '96) couldn't?

I actually think the '96 version was better than the '92 version & the '83 Sixers would defeat the '92 Bulls, but not the '96 team. The matchups IMO favor the '96 Bulls.

[OldSchoolBBall]

I wouldn't call the 90's Bulls overrated, but I wouldn't call them the greatest either. I actually say the '96 Bulls would beat most of the great teams of the 80's, I think they can handle the '83 Sixers, maybe the '87 Lakers, & I'm very confident they would defeat the '89 Pistons. The one team I think would defeat them are the '86 Celtics. The Celtics for that one year just had too much talent and their chemistry was amazing. That team featured 3 of the 50 greatest players ever according to the NBA playing in their prime in Bird, McHale, Parish, as well as HOF guard & one of the greatest defensive players ever in Dennis Johnson also playing at his peak, a still very effective Bill Walton coming off the bench, & an excellent fifth option in Danny Ainge. The Celtics for that one year had the greatest mix of talent & chemistry the NBA has ever seen.

http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/B8428772-B40F-4C8B-9370-CE078C2A1791/U86120004.jpg

I agree. I actually think the '96 Bulls are the PERFECT matchup against the '83 Sixers (Harper on Cheeks, MJ on Toney, Pip on Dr. J, Rodman on Moses -- perfect defenders at the Sixers' strongest positions), and I think they could take the '87 Lakers because of their defense and by controlling the tempo. The '86 Celts, like I mentioned above, are the team they'd have the most trouble with, and I don't see them winning that series more often than not.

[Abraham Lincoln]

I don't know, Bulls have nobody at all to deal with Moses in the paint as Rodman's effective would be severely negated between Mo & scrapper Marc Iavaroni. Doc even at his age was no less athletic than Pip at the forward and would keep him and busy as would Bobby Jones. Toney will make Harper or Jordan work on defense fatiguing them in the 4th quarter. I can't see an older slower team with worse bigs doing better against the '83 team.

[OldSchoolBBall]

I don't know, Bulls have nobody at all to deal with Moses in the paint as Rodman's effective would be severely negated between Mo & scrapper Marc Iavaroni. Doc even at his age was no less athletic than Pip at the forward and would keep him and busy as would Bobby Jones. Toney will make Harper or Jordan work on defense fatiguing them in the 4th quarter. I can't see an older slower team with worse bigs doing better against the '83 team.

Huh? Rodman is perhaps the IDEAL defender for Moses, both in the post and to keep him off the offensive glass. No team in history has better matchups defensively against the '83 Sixers than the '96 Bulls do. They'd take that series more often than not.

[Abraham Lincoln]

Controlling the tempo would not be as easy with Mo Cheeks transition speed at the point and Rodman would not be feasting on the offensive glass. Good matchup but the Bulls of the early 90's IMO with the full court D and hound like BJ pressing the point guard full court would be ideal. Pippen was a better open floor player and Jordan was much better before baseball. Grant was a fine defensive man in the Bulls trap and just as active as old Rodman. To me Dennis was very overrated with the Bulls.

[puppychili]

Originally Posted by Niquesports
Name 1 team the Bulls beat that had more than 2 HOf 'ers. Magic,Bird,Isiah Dr J they had to beat teams that had 3 sometimes 4 . The Bulls only faced 1 team with more than 1 Hof'er

Many of the players that Jordan and the Bulls played aren't eligible for the HOF so your point is irrelevant.




are u saying replace Luc Longley with prime Kareem or Shaq on the 96 BULLS and they may "have a chance" to push the Wilt-led Sixers to 7 games?

Are you serious? Even if you think Wilt is goat, you can't say the greatness gap between Wilt and Kareem (or Shaq) would be greater than Jordan over whoever the second best player on the Sixers have.

May have a chance to push to 7 games :oldlol: . Put Kareem or Shaq on the 96 Bulls and they dominate this Sixers squad in a 5, 6 game series.

And those Wilt quotes you posted, you think they make Wilt look cool but to everyone else it just makes him look bitter. He talks so much trash about what he'd do and what Jordan can't do. Yet he failed to take advantage against a hobbled Willis Reed when the title was on the line. The man is an underachiever when it mattered... talk about bitter.

Exactly. What everyone on the Wilt train seems to leave out is the fact that Wilt rarely stepped up to the table when it counted and put his personal stats above the team.

Jordan on the other hand was the most competitive player ever. He thrived when people doubted him or pissed him off. He blew up even the slightest criticisms to give him the extra drive to beat, even embarrass his opponents.

So lets really think about it if this mythical matchup ever happened. You think that Wilt would just totally change his personality overnight, that he would flip some kind of switch? He would act like he did vs the Celtics. He would think of himself first. He would be concentrating how the outcome would affect his personal legacy. He always put himself above the team back then. Why would he change now?

Jordan on the other hand would be hearing people like Abe talk about how he couldn't beat Wilt. How all he accomplished was watered down by the "weak 90's". How even though many regarded him as the greatest ever, they were wrong to think he could beat Wilt. How do you think Jordan would respond to that? The opportunity not only to beat the great Wilt Chamberlin but to also end all doubt that he is the greatest player on the greatest team ever while being able to taunt all of his critics. You don't think that he would put everything he had and more into winning that game while putting the fear of God into any teammate that didn't share that drive. Why would Jordan change now?

At stake in this game would be the title of Greatest Player and Team of All Time. You really wanna doubt Jordan with all that on the line? I'd be more afraid of Bird than Wilt in a matchup with that significance.

[EricForman]

niquesports pointing out that the bulls never beat any team as great as what bird and magic teams had to beat is a fallacy.

yes, the bulls didnt beat teams with 3-4 HOFers. but the bulls themselves didnt have 3-4 HOFers. yes, magic had to go through teams with 3-4 HOFers to win a title, but HIS OWN TEAM was had 3-4 HOFers.

Saying the 90s Bulls couldn't beat the 80s Laker or Celtics doesn't prove anything other than "the league got diluted after expansion and talent pool was spread out". It's no knock on Jordan, or the Bulls, or Pip, or Phil.

[zizozain]

no
but Michael money w-hore Jordan is overrated

[beermonsteroo]

I was a dieheart Bulls Fan in the 90es. But i agree, that they are somehow overated. Especially the 96-98 teams were great, but they are not a Top 5 team all time. In my opinion the 91-93 team was much better. But still this team got kicked out by the Pistons the years before. Still I would rank the Bulls 91-93 as the 3rd best Team all time. I would rank the 96-98 team ar 6th position.

[BarberSchool]

The weakness at Center, PG, and lack of a bench scorer would kill them agaisnt other All Time teams. Now many of the kids will get on here that just started watching basketball in 90 and call me silly.Well, many would think that weakness at center, pg, and bench would be insurmountable weaknesses, against other squads, but it's just not the case. Prime Jordan and Pippen with Cartwright or longley will still ice every other all-time team. Mainly because of fourth quarter offensive and defensive execution. No player in basketball has been better on both sides of the floor during the postseason than michael. And no player in basketball history has had his level of will power, desire, and genuine hunger. He was the greatest competitor we've seen in this sport.

i started watching in 1991, and I'm not a kid. I'm an intelligent grown man, who has watched all the historic footage of playoff ball in the past prior to 1991, and all since, and i can legitimately say that the 1993 Chicago Bulls, could beat the 1997 72-10 Bulls, and the 1993 Bulls could also defeat any legacy NBA team or contemporary NBA basketball team in a 7-game series.

[Niquesports]

in the finals only? what about their conf rivals? the other teams? no?

well LA had Magic and Worthy..

Portland had Clyde.. is he a HOF?

Suns had Charles..Kevin Johnson.. who is a great great player...


Sonics had GP.. GP will make the HOF anyway..

Utah had Stock and Karl..

anyway.. here's the thing with what you're saying.. Magic,Bird and ETC. had to battle teams with numerous HOFs...


BUT of course that means they're own team had HOFs too.. it just goes around..
LA had 3 HOFs.. vs. Boston.. with 4 HOFs..

just like the bulls did.. Bulls had 2 in MJ and Pip vs. the other with 1,2 or 3 HOFs..

I mean it just sounds weird why would you suddenly come out and question a team with that kind of resume.. what are you trying to be? This is just a friendly argument BTW. nothing personal. :D

Thats what makes it fun and I dont consider it an argument but a simple debate of opinions.
With read about all time great teams the Bulls are always at the top. True many would think MJ is the GOAT but how much better is MJ than Bird and Magic really. Is the gap that big that it can make up for such a large advantage that Bird and Magic had over the Bulls. I dont think so.Say if MJ and Pippin > Magic and Worthy. How can the other Bulls match the production that Scott,Jabbar,Cooper,Thompson A.C. Green would have ? Im not talking about the team with the most accomplishmens Im talking about the teams with the most talent.

[Niquesports]

damn Niquesports logged out... he's asleep. shyt.
LOL Im back Im on the east coast it was late.

[Kiddlovesnets]

lol seeing idiots commenting that 90's is a weak era is such a pain...

[Niquesports]

The '92 or '96 and '97 Bulls would easily - EASILY - handle the '89 or '90 Pistons. Jordan took them to 8 games almost singlehandedly in 1990, now you're going to give him a prime Pippen/Grant or his '96 cast? Let's get real. Say the Showtime Lakers or Celts and you'll have more credibility. And even there, I think the '92 or '96 Bulls could take the '87 Lakers, but maybe not the '85 Lakers with Kareem in better form. The '86 Celts would pose the most problems due to their outstanding front line, and I don't see any version of the Bulls beating them more often than not.


never heard of a 8 game series.

I think Jordan is the most complete athelet I have ever seen . Yet lets get real if he gets 40 who's gonna hold a prime Magic from getting 20/10/10 and a 85 Jabbar from getting 20/10 ect... ITs no way 2 great players beat 4 great players. and when the supporting cast of those players the gap is so large I dont see the Bulls beating any great team. Moses would have like 30/20 and Dr j would sure hold his own against Pippen and its not like Andrew Toney would just disappear.The other great teams just had too many weapons

[Niquesports]

Well, many would think that weakness at center, pg, and bench would be insurmountable weaknesses, against other squads, but it's just not the case. Prime Jordan and Pippen with Cartwright or longley will still ice every other all-time team. Mainly because of fourth quarter offensive and defensive execution. No player in basketball has been better on both sides of the floor during the postseason than michael. And no player in basketball history has had his level of will power, desire, and genuine hunger. He was the greatest competitor we've seen in this sport.

i started watching in 1991, and I'm not a kid. I'm an intelligent grown man, who has watched all the historic footage of playoff ball in the past prior to 1991, and all since, and i can legitimately say that the 1993 Chicago Bulls, could beat the 1997 72-10 Bulls, and the 1993 Bulls could also defeat any legacy NBA team or contemporary NBA basketball team in a 7-game series.


There is a guy name Bill Russell I would think most over 40 that have been watching basketball about twice as long as you would disagree with who the greatest competitor was. Bill refused to lose and unlike Jordn never did. To even think Bill Cartwright could do anything with a 1983 Moses but get destroyed I think you need to look at more footage.

[Niquesports]

Many of the players that Jordan and the Bulls played aren't eligible for the HOF so your point is irrelevant.





Exactly. What everyone on the Wilt train seems to leave out is the fact that Wilt rarely stepped up to the table when it counted and put his personal stats above the team.

Jordan on the other hand was the most competitive player ever. He thrived when people doubted him or pissed him off. He blew up even the slightest criticisms to give him the extra drive to beat, even embarrass his opponents.

So lets really think about it if this mythical matchup ever happened. You think that Wilt would just totally change his personality overnight, that he would flip some kind of switch? He would act like he did vs the Celtics. He would think of himself first. He would be concentrating how the outcome would affect his personal legacy. He always put himself above the team back then. Why would he change now?

Jordan on the other hand would be hearing people like Abe talk about how he couldn't beat Wilt. How all he accomplished was watered down by the "weak 90's". How even though many regarded him as the greatest ever, they were wrong to think he could beat Wilt. How do you think Jordan would respond to that? The opportunity not only to beat the great Wilt Chamberlin but to also end all doubt that he is the greatest player on the greatest team ever while being able to taunt all of his critics. You don't think that he would put everything he had and more into winning that game while putting the fear of God into any teammate that didn't share that drive. Why would Jordan change now?

At stake in this game would be the title of Greatest Player and Team of All Time. You really wanna doubt Jordan with all that on the line? I'd be more afraid of Bird than Wilt in a matchup with that significance.

The only problem is that Jordan would have better players defending him and that he would have to spend energy on defending than Wilt would have. Im not say Wilt was as great a competiter but Jordan would have Chet Walker,Hal Greer Billy Cunningham defending him all HOF but Walker who should be in. They may not stop Jordan but they could make him work. The Bulls center would have no chance against Wilt he might even have another 100pt night.

[Niquesports]

I agree. I actually think the '96 Bulls are the PERFECT matchup against the '83 Sixers (Harper on Cheeks, MJ on Toney, Pip on Dr. J, Rodman on Moses -- perfect defenders at the Sixers' strongest positions), and I think they could take the '87 Lakers because of their defense and by controlling the tempo. The '86 Celts, like I mentioned above, are the team they'd have the most trouble with, and I don't see them winning that series more often than not.
Rodman on Moses is a joke I really hope you were playing or if not are too young to have seen an 83 Moses play. Thats like saying put Rodman on a young Shaq and we saw how that turned out. Do the same player for player break down with the 87 Lakers that you did with the 83 Sixers then come back and let me know if you still feel they were better I doubt it.

[godofgods]

The 72-10 Bulls are the most overrated of all time. The early 90s Bulls were very good and deserved the hype.

[jlauber]

I'll take the 71-72 Lakers over the 95-96 Bulls team.

MJ was SLIGHTLY better than West (West averaged 26 ppg, 10 apg, and was 1st team all-defense.)

Pippen was probably a solid pick over McMillian, but still, McMillian averaged 19.2 ppg on .482 shooting and was very good in the playoffs (in a must win game two against Milwaukee, he put up a 42 point game.)

Rodman was a great rebounder and defender, but the Lakers had Happy Hairston, who was also a great rebounder (13.1 rpg...on a team that had Chamberlain), and was a MUCH better offensive player. He "only" averaged 13.1 ppg, but that was on a team with many scorers, and had seasons of over 17-18 ppg. At the very least, this is a draw.

Goodrich over ANYONE on the Bulls. 26 ppg on .487 shooting. Even at 6-1 he could drive the lane in an era of the best centers in NBA history. He is a HOFer. Here again, a whopping edge to the LA.

Longley-Wennington against Wilt. True, Wilt was nearing the end of his career. However, he averaged 15 ppg, and led the league in FG% at .649. Of course, he was the greatest rebounder ever, and even at the twilight of his career, he still won the rebounding title by a large margin. AND, he was voted 1st team all-defense (and had they had the award, would probably have won DPOY.) His offense is also under-rated that year, as he had four games over 30 points...and put up great games in the clinching game six win over Kareem's Bucks and in the title-clinching game five of the Finals. All in an era of the greatest centers in NBA history. He outplayed Kareem in the playoffs, and generally outplayed the likes of Thurmond, Lanier, Hayes, Unseld, Cowens, and others. One can only wonder how he would have abused the clods of the 90's...especially Chicago's centers. HUGE edge to LA.

The Bulls had a talented bench, but those who saw Flynn Robinson play will attest to his offensive skills. Charley Rosen, in his book on that 71-72 Laker team, made the comment that Robinson was the best shooter on that team...that included Goodrich and West. Trapp was a solid defender and rebounder. Riley was a decent defender. And 6-11 Leroy Ellis was a decent backup center and PF, and had 20 ft. range. Probably a slight edge to LA.

Coaching. Hard to argue with Phil Jackson and his 10 rings...but Sharman took over an over-the-hill team that had won 48 games in 70-71, and many considered them a pre-season middle-of-the-pack team. He got rid of Baylor, inserted McMillian intothe starting lineup; asked the team to run; asked Wilt to dominate the lane defensively, rebound, and ignite the break...and the rest was history.

Like the 95-96 Bulls, LA outscored their opponents by a +12.3 margin. However, LA outshot their opposition by a .490 to .432 margin. The Bulls were only at .478-.448. Both outrebounded their opponents (Chicago was +6.0, while LA was +4.0.) The Lakers dominated EVERY opponent, in a league that had 17 teams. They faced EVERY opponent a minimum of four games, and as many as six (Chicago faced their opponents two-to-four games.) All you need to know is that the Lakers beat the defending champion Bucks, who finished 63-19 (66-16 in 70-71) 4-1, and then 4-2 in the playoffs. Many felt that that 70-71 Milwaukee team would be a dynasty in the 70's.

Player-for-player...LA had an edge.

[Rake2204]

I do not believe the 90's Bulls are the most overrated team ever. From the 1990-91 season on through the 1997-98 year, as long as Michael Jordan was a member, the Bulls won the NBA championship. They won upwards of 70 games numerous times (once in the early 90's, another few times with an entirely different roster). They were dominant and they won a lot.

I do not believe tallying the number of Hall of Famers on the winning teams and losing teams thereby classifies a teams' greatness. I also am not a fan of withholding a teams' success based on thoughts and ideas that their competition may not have been at as high a level as the championship squads who came before. I find that variable out of the the teams' control. The only thing the Bulls were in control of was winning, and they did it a whole lot. I find it hard to overrate a team that won every year.

[jlauber]

Many of the players that Jordan and the Bulls played aren't eligible for the HOF so your point is irrelevant.





Exactly. What everyone on the Wilt train seems to leave out is the fact that Wilt rarely stepped up to the table when it counted and put his personal stats above the team.
Jordan on the other hand was the most competitive player ever. He thrived when people doubted him or pissed him off. He blew up even the slightest criticisms to give him the extra drive to beat, even embarrass his opponents.

So lets really think about it if this mythical matchup ever happened. You think that Wilt would just totally change his personality overnight, that he would flip some kind of switch? He would act like he did vs the Celtics. He would think of himself first. He would be concentrating how the outcome would affect his personal legacy. He always put himself above the team back then. Why would he change now?

Jordan on the other hand would be hearing people like Abe talk about how he couldn't beat Wilt. How all he accomplished was watered down by the "weak 90's". How even though many regarded him as the greatest ever, they were wrong to think he could beat Wilt. How do you think Jordan would respond to that? The opportunity not only to beat the great Wilt Chamberlin but to also end all doubt that he is the greatest player on the greatest team ever while being able to taunt all of his critics. You don't think that he would put everything he had and more into winning that game while putting the fear of God into any teammate that didn't share that drive. Why would Jordan change now?

At stake in this game would be the title of Greatest Player and Team of All Time. You really wanna doubt Jordan with all that on the line? I'd be more afraid of Bird than Wilt in a matchup with that significance.


Wilt RARELY stepped up when it counted??????

Let's see...in his rookie year, in game five of a playoff series, in which his team was down 3-1, he had a 50-35 game...against Russell!

in the 61-62 ECF's, Wilt led a team that basically had the same last place roster when he joined them in 59-60, to a game seven, two-point defeat to the 60-20 Celtics that had SIX HOFers on it. All Wilt did in that series was average 34 ppg and 29 rpg...and against Russell.

In the 63-64 Finals, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 29-11, and outrebounded him, per game, 27-25.
In the 64-65 ECF game seven, he led a 40-40 team to a ONE-PONT defeat against the 62-18 Celtics, with a 30-32 game (on 12-15 shooting.)

In the clinching game five loss in the 65-66 ECF's, and against Russell, he put up a 46-34 game.

In the clinching game five WIN against Boston in the 66-67 ECF's, he outscored Russell 29-4, outshot Russell, 10-16 to 2-5, outassisted Russell, 13-7, and outrebounded Russell, 36-21.

In the clinching game six win over the Bucks in the 71-72 WCF's, Wilt TOOK OVER the game in the 4th quarter, and almost single-handed won it. AND, in the clinching game five win over the Knicks, and for the title, and playing with two badly swollen wrists, he put up a 24-29 game with 10 blocks, and won the Finals MVP.

You could go thru EVERY post-season series in which Wilt played, and you will probably never find ONE in which the opposing center outplayed him (maybe Kareem in the 71-72 WCF's...but once again, when it COUNTED, Wilt outplayed him.)

Even in his "failures" he was probably the best player on the floor. In the 67-68 ECF game seven, when he did not attempt a shot in the second half, he outscored Russell, 14-12, and outrebounded him 34-26. In the 68-69 game seven final, in which his COACH left him on the bench in the last five minutes, Wilt outscored Russell, 18-6, outshot him, 7-8 to 2-7, and outrebounded him, 27-21...all while "only" playing 43 minutes.

And in the 69-70 Finals, against MVP winning Reed, in that game seven, he outscored Reed, 21-4, outrebounded him, 24-3, and outshot him, 10-16 to 2-5. In fact, in the last three games of that series, Wilt outscored Reed, 88-11, outshot him 39-55 to 4-10, and outrebounded him, 71-3. All on a knee that had been surgically repaired just four months prior.

And while MJ played on FIVE LOSING teams in his career, Wilt only played on ONE. And all Chamberlain did that year, was lead the league in scoring at 44.8 ppg, in rebounding at 24.3 rpg, set a then record .528 FG% mark, and led the NBA in win shares at 20.9! And ONCE AGAIN, Wilt joined a last place team, and immediately made them into a winner in his first season.

This "choker" label for Wilt was just another MYTH.

[schism206]

Well if all the teams were watered down, that means the bulls were too, so it's still an even playing field? :confusedshrug:

[ILLsmak]

Thats because there were always at least 3 other GREAT teams that would give them a fight. Unlike the Bulls who didnt have to beat or face another GREAT team in there prime in any of the 6 championships or getting there.

I dunno, man, there were great teams for the Bulls first threepeat. I could see you talking about the second, but the Magic were a really good team.

I don't think that teams like the Spurs (for the Lakers) were any better than other teams were... it's just that the Lakers had a lot of factors. Maybe the Lakers had more overall talent, but you knew what the Bulls would bring. The Lakers had some chemistry issues.

I would say the 72-10 Bulls has to be one of the greatest teams ever, even though they didn't have a center. Not only were MJ and Pippen two of the greatest players in the game at that time, but they meshed perfectly.

But if you look at individual talent, the Bulls look like crap on paper compared to other 'stacked' teams. I think that's kind of your point...

-Smak

[jlauber]

I rank that 95-96 Bulls team either #3 or #4 all-time, behind the 71-72 Lakers, and the 66-67 76ers...and maybe the 70-71 Bucks.

After the 95-96 Bulls, I have either the 85-86 Celtics or 86-87 Lakers.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yes as an opinion that sounds good. But on paper it looks silly.
Team A has 4 primed HOfers
Team B has 2
now which teams seems more likely to be better.
When both teams has a top 5 player of All TIme.

Expansion cuts both ways. If you transported the 96' Bulls to 86' they would be in a less diluted league and hence more stacked in absolute terms. You can't compare rosters across eras at face value. If that is the case then the 67' Sixers or 72' Lakers>everyone else.


But unlike Jordan he had to defeat a top 5 All Time player

Magic Johnson says hi...

And Shaq...


But I disagree with you about the slew of great role players. WIthout Pippen this is was a very weak team. One of the weakest cast of Centers to ever win a title , no true scorer to come off the bench, no real scoring inside player.

Without Pippen they were still a 55 win caliber team as they showed in 98' when he was out for half the season (if you know a bit about NBA history that 55 win number is quite ironic...).

The second three-peat team had the best 6th man in the league who provided instant offense in Kukoc. Yes, they lacked in the interior offensively but having the two best perimeter players in the game allows you to overcome having average centers and a non-entity scoring-wise in Rodman at PF (Grant was a solid 12-15 ppg scorer).


Can you imagine what Hakeem would do to this group of Centers if he was able to destroy DRob,Ewing and a young but still very good Shaq.

Can you imagine what Ewing, Shaq, and Daughtery would do to those centers? The answer: lose time and again (aside from Shaq in 95' and Ewing in 94' thanks to referee Hue Hollins).


The Bulls dominated the 90s. Nobody reached "all-time great team" level because of them. They stopped everybody that had a chance.. knicks, jazz, magic, sonics etc. One of those teams.. or all of those teams would've won a championship

Without that Bulls team, the 90s would completely be up for grabs. It'll be like the 70s. every year there's a diff. champion..

I disagree with this theory, although I concede a lot of people believe this. The reason there was only one great team is other superstars lacked the luck Jordan/Pippen had. Look at what the other superstars of that era had to work with:

Hakeem: scrubs until Drexler in 95'
Robinson: mostly scrubs, best teammate was Elliot and later a combustible Rodman
Ewing: Starks and Oakley, both 1x all-stars
Barkley: nothing in Philadelphia, had good teams in Phoenix but was past his peak due to injuries by 94'
Shaq: arrived in 93', arrived as a title contender in 95' and always had good teams
Drexler: Portland teams with plenty of good players but his best teammate was Terry Porter
Malone: Stockton and first Eaton/J. Malone and later Hornacek
Stockton: see above

Jordan: Pippen, Rodman, Grant, Kukoc and a team that won 55 games without him despite injury problems--which was as much or more than what the other superstar's teams did with them that year
Pippen: see above

Only Malone/Stockton and Shaq had teams comparable over an extended period to Jordan/Pippen and Shaq was not on a title contender until halfway through the decade. The Bulls would be great in any era but benefited tremendously from 1) being one of only two teams to have two superstar players on it (I don't count Orlando because that was for a brief 1 1/2 year period) 2) Being fortunate that other superstar's had relatively weak "supporting casts" around them. Look at what San Antonio did when Robinson got hurt in 97'. They didn't win 55 games. They won something like 25.


Name 1 team the Bulls beat that had more than 2 HOf 'ers. Magic,Bird,Isiah Dr J they had to beat teams that had 3 sometimes 4 . The Bulls only faced 1 team with more than 1 Hof'er

Two teams (LA and Utah). The problem with your argument is it ignores expansion. If you transported the Bulls to 1986 or 1966 they and their opponents would have more HOF'ers.


just like the bulls did.. Bulls had 2 in MJ and Pip vs. the other with 1,2 or 3 HOFs..

He has a legit point in this regard concerning the relative advantage the Bulls had in their era. Look at the HOFer battle in NBA finals:

2 vs. 2 against LA
2 vs. 1
2 vs. 1
3 vs. 1
3 vs. 2 (technically 4 vs. 2 but I did not count Parish)
3 vs. 2

How about in the ECF?

2 vs. 3
2 vs. 0
2 vs. 1
3 vs. 1
3 vs. 1? (Mourning?)
3 vs. 1

Returning to the OP, if you look at modern champions they look weak relative to past champions as well in absolute terms. Compare the rosters of the 09' Lakers or 07' Spurs with that of the 87' Lakers or 72' Bucks or 60's Celtics. This means nothing. The key is talent relative to their competition.


Well if all the teams were watered down, that means the bulls were too, so it's still an even playing field?

No. There were only two teams in the late 90's which had 3 HOF'ers and they were the Bulls and Rockets. The Bulls had Jordan and Pippen still playing at a superstar level but Houston's Hakeem, Drexler, and Barkley were not playing at similar levels at that point in their careers, especially Drexler and Barkley and even by 98' Hakeem. On top of this the Bulls had a fourth all-star caliber player in Kukoc.

[guy]

Yes as an opinion that sounds good. But on paper it looks silly.
Team A has 4 primed HOfers
Team B has 2
now which teams seems more likely to be better.
When both teams has a top 5 player of All TIme.

So? First of all, if he gets in or not, Rodman DEFINITELY deserves to be in the HOF, so the Bulls 2nd-three peat had 3. Second, the Lakers had 3 HOFers, Magic, Kareem, and Worthy, and they beat those Celtics twice. Its not clear cut, its definitely arguable who would've won between the 80s Celtics and 90s Bulls.

[guy]

uh, Celtics dominated the Knicks in that series. I've watched every game of the series and Celtics had a 20+ point lead in all the home games, the series was never really in jeopardy. Knicks squeaked out a couple of victories at home with King having insane scoring nights (great duels with Bird in the series) but got smacked in every pivotal game. hell, the game 7 was probably over in the first 5 minutes. It's the same thing we saw in the Hawks/Celtics series couple of years ago. Celtics killed them every home game, lost a couple of close road games, probably didn't take them as seriously, and ended up beating the Lakers in 6 (that must mean Hawks > Lakers according to you).


I'm not saying any of the Bulls team were better or worse then the 84 Celtics. My point is that those great 80s teams, the 84 Celtics in this case, weren't these invincible teams that just streamrolled through inferior competition. If the 84 Knicks could push them to the 7 games, its not far-fetched at all to think the 90s Bulls could've have beaten them. The 90s Bulls are not getting blown out in that many games by +20 points in any series.

[guy]

I dont think its take a 5th grade education to know that if you had a draftof 200 of the best players and made 10 different team the teams would be better than if you made 20

Okay, if you're comparing the 60s to the 80s/90s/00s, then you're completely ignoring the fact that the talent pool was much larger in the 80s/90/00s then it was in the 60s. No way were the same amount of people playing basketball back then as they have been over the past 30 years.

[jlauber]

So? First of all, if he gets in or not, Rodman DEFINITELY deserves to be in the HOF, so the Bulls 2nd-three peat had 3. Second, the Lakers had 3 HOFers, Magic, Kareem, and Worthy, and they beat those Celtics twice. Its not clear cut, its definitely arguable who would've won between the 80s Celtics and 90s Bulls.

That LAKER team of the 80's was CLEARLY the best team of the decade. They went to the playoffs all 10 seasons, went to EIGHT Finals, and won FIVE titles. AND, they lost to Boston in 83-84, even though they SHOULD have SWEPT them (take a look at games 1-4.) On top of that, they came into the 88-89 Finals, having gone 11-0 in the playoffs...BUT lost Scott before the series, and Magic in game two. Despite that, they lost three close games. And even in their post-season swept loss to Philly in 82-83, Worthy was out, and three of those games were close.

AND, the decade of the 80's not only had the Celtics and there 4-5 HOFers, but the awesome 82-83 76ers (and Philly was a very good team for the first half of the decade), and the "Bad Boys" in the last three years of the decade.

[guy]

That LAKER team of the 80's was CLEARLY the best team of the decade. They went to the playoffs all 10 seasons, went to EIGHT Finals, and won FIVE titles. AND, they lost to Boston in 83-84, even though they SHOULD have SWEPT them (take a look at games 1-4.) On top of that, they came into the 88-89 Finals, having gone 11-0 in the playoffs...BUT lost Scott before the series, and Magic in game two. Despite that, they lost three close games. And even in their post-season swept loss to Philly in 82-83, Worthy was out, and three of those games were close.

AND, the decade of the 80's not only had the Celtics and there 4-5 HOFers, but the awesome 82-83 76ers (and Philly was a very good team for the first half of the decade), and the "Bad Boys" in the last three years of the decade.

What's your point? The Lakers had 3 HOFers vs. the Celtic's 4 HOFers yet they still beat them twice was what I was trying to say.

[jlauber]

What's your point? The Lakers had 3 HOFers vs. the Celtic's 4 HOFers yet they still beat them twice was what I was trying to say.

Here is why...


Its not clear cut, its definitely arguable who would've won between the 80s Celtics and 90s Bulls.

I won't argue that point...BOTH teams were great...but, IMHO, the Lakers of the 80's were BETTER. They went 2-1 against Boston, and it really SHOULD have been 3-0, and they went 2-1 against the 76ers.

[guy]

Here is why...



I won't argue that point...BOTH teams were great...but, IMHO, the Lakers of the 80's were BETTER. They went 2-1 against Boston, and it really SHOULD have been 3-0, and they went 2-1 against the 76ers.

Okay. I was just disputing Niquesports point that cause the Celtics had 4 HOFers they would've won, implying that the only teams that ever beat them had at least 4 HOFers as well.

[jlauber]

If I am not mistaken (and I couldn't find the quote), didn't Rodman say that his Piston teams were better than the 96-98 Bulls?

In any case, the Bulls of the 90's WERE a GREAT dynasty. Had MJ played the entire decade, one has to wonder if they would not have gone 9-10 (and if he had not retired twice.)

As some have pointed out, maybe the league was diluted (I believe so myself), but you still can't punish Chicago for dominating the decade. Had they "only" won 3-4 rings in their run...then, a case could be made that they were not a true dynasty.

I won't try to diminish the Celtic Dynasty of the 60's, either. Nine titles in the decade, including championships with three teams that did not have the best record in the league, which included a 48-34 4th place team..and 11 out of 13.

Still, IMHO, the Laker Dynasty of the 80's came in the most competitive period in basketball history. So MANY LOADED rosters. And yet, they were close to winning seven titles in 10 years, and finished with five in eight finals.

[Abraham Lincoln]

You can't compare rosters across eras at face value. If that is the case then the 67' Sixers or 72' Lakers>everyone else.
Those are indeed the two top teams in NBA history, but there have been quite a few teams with superior rosters on paper to the '72 Lakers, for instance the '71 team.

[Indian guy]

If I am not mistaken (and I couldn't find the quote), didn't Rodman say that his Piston teams were better than the 96-98 Bulls?

Which is a BOGUS statement to anyone who's actually seen both teams. The late 80's Bulls, often a 1-man team, used to give the Pistons as tough a fight as anyone in the NBA. The 96-98 Bulls are a FAR, FAR better team compared to their 88-90 selves. There's just no way the Bad Boys Pistons have a chance against the best Bulls teams of the 90's.

[Niquesports]

I dunno, man, there were great teams for the Bulls first threepeat. I could see you talking about the second, but the Magic were a really good team.

I don't think that teams like the Spurs (for the Lakers) were any better than other teams were... it's just that the Lakers had a lot of factors. Maybe the Lakers had more overall talent, but you knew what the Bulls would bring. The Lakers had some chemistry issues.

I would say the 72-10 Bulls has to be one of the greatest teams ever, even though they didn't have a center. Not only were MJ and Pippen two of the greatest players in the game at that time, but they meshed perfectly.

But if you look at individual talent, the Bulls look like crap on paper compared to other 'stacked' teams. I think that's kind of your point...

-Smak

Thats my point exactly. Jordan would win any comparison agaisnt anyone, Pipen would win many but would lose some and be even in a lot. But after that talent wise The Bulls cant compare to any other Greats other 10 men.

[Niquesports]

So? First of all, if he gets in or not, Rodman DEFINITELY deserves to be in the HOF, so the Bulls 2nd-three peat had 3. Second, the Lakers had 3 HOFers, Magic, Kareem, and Worthy, and they beat those Celtics twice. Its not clear cut, its definitely arguable who would've won between the 80s Celtics and 90s Bulls.


IF Rodman gets in Im fine with that But thats stil 3 against 3 with IMO the Lakers having the edge. But what about the other 9 guys in which the Lakers have a clear advanatage

[Niquesports]

Which is a BOGUS statement to anyone who's actually seen both teams. The late 80's Bulls, often a 1-man team, used to give the Pistons as tough a fight as anyone in the NBA. The 96-98 Bulls are a FAR, FAR better team compared to their 88-90 selves. There's just no way the Bad Boys Pistons have a chance against the best Bulls teams of the 90's.


In 89 they lost 4-2 and in 88 they lost 4-1 that not really given the Pistons a tough fight. Once the Pistons got Aguirrethey were had much better team chemistry. Jordan would have his work cut out for him with Dumars and Isaih would have a field day against the Bulls Guards.

[1987_Lakers]

As others have noted also, as great as the '86 front line was, the '67 Sixers team had a better front court. All things considered Jackson, Walker, Cunningham, & Chamberlain were equal offensively, much better defensively, and could control both backboards to a much greater degree.

Gail Goodrich & Peter Vescey (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48zv5_nba-vault-the-1967-sixers-rick-kaml_sport) will agree as they have seen both teams in action.

The 1967 Sixers front court is the only front court that can compare with the '86 Celtics front court. And lol @ Peter Vescey thinking Cedric Maxwell was on the '86 Celtics and not Bill Walton.:oldlol:

[Lebron23]

The Zen Master + Triangle Sytem + Jordan and Pippen + a bunch of good role players = The 1990's Bulls would beat any great teams in NBA History.

Winning 6 NBA Championships in the last 8 years is already a remarkable accomplishment.

[G.O.A.T.]

The Zen Master + Triangle Sytem + Jordan and Pippen + a bunch of good role players = The 1990's Bulls would beat any great teams in NBA History.

Winning 6 NBA Championships in the last 8 years is already a remarkable accomplishment.

Would they beat the 2010 Cleveland LeBrons?

[Lebron23]

Would they beat the 2010 Cleveland LeBrons?


Yes

[G.O.A.T.]

Yes

wow no way they're overrated then

[OldSchoolBBall]

In 89 they lost 4-2 and in 88 they lost 4-1 that not really given the Pistons a tough fight. Once the Pistons got Aguirrethey were had much better team chemistry. Jordan would have his work cut out for him with Dumars and Isaih would have a field day against the Bulls Guards.

What about 1990? You know, Detroit's second championship season? The '92/'96/'97 Bulls would have smoked the '89 or '90 Pistons. Jordan used to push them to the limit himself, before Pip and Grant really developed.

[Duncan21formvp]

90's was the only era where top 3 players won league and finals mvp's and also the only era where the US didn't lose in international play.

No other era can say that.

[Blzrfn]

The Bulls had a great run for that era, but they usually played teams that were missing something, and there were a few years that they didn't play the best or the most talented team in the West. For example, in 1991, the Lakers got lucky and knocked off Portland, only to get crushed by Chicago. If the Blazers would have played them a year earlier in the Finals, their odds of beating them are far better because of the home court, and the fact that their 1991 team was better than their 1992 team.

Also, the Blazers were missing a piece of the puzzle, and his name was Sabonis. If he comes over in 1990 instead of 1995, we may not be talking about the Bull dynasty.

Another example is 1998. The Lakers probably had a better chance against Chicago than the Jazz did, but the Jazz somehow seemed to have the Lakers' number, and swept them in the Conference Finals. If Houston would have upset the Jazz that year in the first round(they were up 2-1 in the best of five), the Lakers probably end up in the Finals, and they would have had a good chance to beat Chicago.

As for how the 90's Bulls compare all-time, I would put them behind several teams, like the Russell-Auerbach era Celtics, 80's Lakers and Celtics, 67 Sixers, and the 83 Sixers.

[Dengness9]

You haters are all forgetting 1 thing. None of these 60's,70's, or 80's teams had Michael Jeffrey Jordan. He's the greatest ever period. Argue all you want but we all know he is the undisputed champ of this shit. I'D never in a million years bet against a Michael Jordan led team.

P.S. Niquesports or whatever your name is, you have thorougly embarrassed yourself in this thread. You live in a world of denial and patheticness. Bill Russell in the convo for best ever??? And your top 5 doesn't include Bird? Laughable doesn't even come close to describing my reaction to reading that garbage. You are just terrible. Retire from the ISH game, you suck.

[Dengness9]

The Bulls had a great run for that era, but they usually played teams that were missing something, and there were a few years that they didn't play the best or the most talented team in the West. For example, in 1991, the Lakers got lucky and knocked off Portland, only to get crushed by Chicago. If the Blazers would have played them a year earlier in the Finals, their odds of beating them are far better because of the home court, and the fact that their 1991 team was better than their 1992 team.

Also, the Blazers were missing a piece of the puzzle, and his name was Sabonis. If he comes over in 1990 instead of 1995, we may not be talking about the Bull dynasty.

Another example is 1998. The Lakers probably had a better chance against Chicago than the Jazz did, but the Jazz somehow seemed to have the Lakers' number, and swept them in the Conference Finals. If Houston would have upset the Jazz that year in the first round(they were up 2-1 in the best of five), the Lakers probably end up in the Finals, and they would have had a good chance to beat Chicago.

As for how the 90's Bulls compare all-time, I would put them behind several teams, like the Russell-Auerbach era Celtics, 80's Lakers and Celtics, 67 Sixers, and the 83 Sixers.


And you are just salty MJ and Pip and the Bulls whooped that ass in 92 and Jordan hit all those 3's in the first half right by Kersey and further embarrasses y'all. And your salty cuz u drafted Sam Bowie. And because you drafted Oden instead of Durant.

Sabonis is the shit, one of the greatest passing bigs ever, but stop Mj and the Dynasty?????!!!!! Get the f*#% outta here with that bullshit.

[Da_Realist]

The Bulls had a great run for that era, but they usually played teams that were missing something, and there were a few years that they didn't play the best or the most talented team in the West. For example, in 1991, the Lakers got lucky and knocked off Portland, only to get crushed by Chicago. If the Blazers would have played them a year earlier in the Finals, their odds of beating them are far better because of the home court, and the fact that their 1991 team was better than their 1992 team.

Also, the Blazers were missing a piece of the puzzle, and his name was Sabonis. If he comes over in 1990 instead of 1995, we may not be talking about the Bull dynasty.

Another example is 1998. The Lakers probably had a better chance against Chicago than the Jazz did, but the Jazz somehow seemed to have the Lakers' number, and swept them in the Conference Finals. If Houston would have upset the Jazz that year in the first round(they were up 2-1 in the best of five), the Lakers probably end up in the Finals, and they would have had a good chance to beat Chicago.

As for how the 90's Bulls compare all-time, I would put them behind several teams, like the Russell-Auerbach era Celtics, 80's Lakers and Celtics, 67 Sixers, and the 83 Sixers.

LOL @ this. If the 91 Blazers were so great, then why did they lose to the Lakers with homecourt advantage? The same Lakers team that the 91 Bulls beat in 5. There is a reason the Blazers lost to the Lakers...because the Lakers were better.

Same thing with the 98 Lakers. They had more talent than the Jazz, but talent isn't everything. The Jazz were a better team. And the Bulls were even better than the Jazz. The same team that swept the Lakers lost by 54 points to the Bulls in Game 3, on their way to losing in 6 despite having homecourt advantage. The Bulls would have beaten the Lakers despite their abundance of talent because they were a better team.

[Niquesports]

The Zen Master + Triangle Sytem + Jordan and Pippen + a bunch of good role players = The 1990's Bulls would beat any great teams in NBA History.

Winning 6 NBA Championships in the last 8 years is already a remarkable accomplishment.


Pat Riley + Jabbar + Worthy+ a group of great role players + some magic =The 87 lakers Greatest team in NBA History. ALso the Bulls had scrub role players none could have started for any other team.

5 Titles in an era with Birds Celtics,Dr J 's Sixers,isiah's Pistons now thats remarkable.

[TennesseeFan]

Wtf?

[Niquesports]

You haters are all forgetting 1 thing. None of these 60's,70's, or 80's teams had Michael Jeffrey Jordan. He's the greatest ever period. Argue all you want but we all know he is the undisputed champ of this shit. I'D never in a million years bet against a Michael Jordan led team.

P.S. Niquesports or whatever your name is, you have thorougly embarrassed yourself in this thread. You live in a world of denial and patheticness. Bill Russell in the convo for best ever??? And your top 5 doesn't include Bird? Laughable doesn't even come close to describing my reaction to reading that garbage. You are just terrible. Retire from the ISH game, you suck.


Hey you 10 year old that started watching basketball in 2000. The Bulls didnt have a Erving Magic Johnson the Greatest All Around Player in the History of the Game. ALso I hope you didnt bet against Jordan his first 7 years or you would be broke. IF your too youong to know how great the Lakers "whole" team was your in denial .You thinking that the Bulls are even a top 10 team is laughable. Go back to your play station . By the way Russell lead his teams to 11 titles thats more than Jordan and Bird combined .
:cheers:

[julizaver]

This was my favourite team - when I starting watching NBA - for me the Bulls are the best team in the 90's - and they have competition - for me - 80's and 90's are the golden era of basketball - the NBA hit it's peak with TV's coverege all around the world.

The Bulls teams were amazing - they realy looks like they have some weak spots - esspecially in the middle - but I tell you something - they have competition - Detroit Pistons denied them 3 times from finals - after that the NY Knicks team coached by Pat Riley give them some trouble (in fact after late 80's Pistons, that was their greatest rival). They have competition of course - the Blazers team was very strong with Drexler, Robinson, Williams and co. After that the Barkley's Suns, Jazz with Malone-Stocton duo, the young Supersonics team, the young Magic with O'Neal and Hardway. Very sad that Jordan quits in 1993 - cause probably they should faced that Rockets team with Olajuwon at his peak.

Maybe the Bulls from 1996 were the best - they had Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc, Harper. The Bulls are the only team in history, who made a dynasty without all-star center. They are not overrated for sure - they deserved their plays in history.

[97 bulls]

List of Centers on Great Teams that all would have destroyed Longley

Jabbar
Malone
Hakeem
Wilt
Parrish
Reed
I cant name 1 team that I would call great whose Center was "much' better than Longley.

Other teams had role players also.
Pistons with Vinnie Johnson and Rodman John Sally James Edwards coming off the bench
The Lakers had Michael Cooper who could have defended both Jordan and Pippen.

As I said man for man the Bulls would be 1 of the weaker teams of all time
once again nique, you arent getting the point. the bulls didnt need longley to outplay his man. just play defense and hit open shots. he did that. any points from him was gravy.

and longley played against shaq, mourning, ewing, and mutombo. all hof material centers.

i dont see what wrong with the bulls bench? kukoc was a top 6th man and put up 13 ppg of the bench, kerr was the best 3pt shooter in the league, or at least one of the best. jason caffey averaged 13 and 8 in rodmans absence, and brian williams was a viable post option when at full stength.

[97 bulls]

Pat Riley + Jabbar + Worthy+ a group of great role players + some magic =The 87 lakers Greatest team in NBA History. ALso the Bulls had scrub role players none could have started for any other team.

5 Titles in an era with Birds Celtics,Dr J 's Sixers,isiah's Pistons now thats remarkable.
let me ask you a question nique. if any of the celtics, pistons, or sixers were in the west, do the lakers stil have 5 titles? cuz i dont think they do.

[Niquesports]

once again nique, you arent getting the point. the bulls didnt need longley to outplay his man. just play defense and hit open shots. he did that. any points from him was gravy.

and longley played against shaq, mourning, ewing, and mutombo. all hof material centers.

i dont see what wrong with the bulls bench? kukoc was a top 6th man and put up 13 ppg of the bench, kerr was the best 3pt shooter in the league, or at least one of the best. jason caffey averaged 13 and 8 in rodmans absence, and brian williams was a viable post option when at full stength.
The bench is no way near the Lakers bench.
Michael Cooper a all time defender a clutch 3pt shooter could finsih the break
A.C. Green a top defender a rebounder and a scorer off the bench
Kurt Rambis the dirty work guy
I'd give the lakers the edge.

[97 bulls]

id also like to point out that while the celtics, and lakers have 4 and 3 hofers, in any given year, they only had 2 playing at a hof level. 85 worthy was not playing at a hof level. 87 kareem wasnt playing at a hof level. if you guys are gonna play that game, then the 97 bulls have 5 hof level playrs and coach. in jordan, pippen, rodman, parrish, and jackson.

[Samurai Swoosh]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Ah yes, arguably the greatest era of big men with some of the most talented players ever. Tell me: how were the 90's watered down? And did you even watch a game in the 90's?
Dude, in many ways they are right.

We're talking about the late 90's. The decline of 80's stars. The rise in expansion and a watering down of the talent pool.

Several drafts of players that never became superstars.

I'm a Bulls fan and I can agree the late 90's were watered down.

The '96 Bulls aren't the best Bulls team. In fact I clearly rate them 4th among all Bulls championship teams.

The '92 or '93 team have better cases as being all-time greats than the '96 Bulls. The '93 team coasted the whole reg season, but don't get it twisted, they were amazing.

[97 bulls]

The bench is no way near the Lakers bench.
Michael Cooper a all time defender a clutch 3pt shooter could finsih the break
A.C. Green a top defender a rebounder and a scorer off the bench
Kurt Rambis the dirty work guy
I'd give the lakers the edge.
in 87, green started. mychal thompson came off the bench. i like my kerr, kukoc, and brian williams bench.

[97 bulls]

Dude, in many ways they are right.

We're talking about the late 90's. The decline of 80's stars. The rise in expansion and a watering down of the talent pool.

Several drafts of players that never became superstars.

I'm a Bulls fan and I can agree the late 90's were watered down.

The '96 Bulls aren't the best Bulls team. In fact I clearly rate them 4th among all Bulls championship teams.

The '92 or '93 team have better cases as being all-time greats than the '96 Bulls. The '93 team coasted the whole reg season, but don't get it twisted, they were amazing.
im not gonna go back and forth with you guys about the best bulls teams. but i think the 96-98 bulls were much better than the 91-93 teams. i never liked the bench. the y were pippen and jordan. and splash of horace grant.

[97 bulls]

and why wont any of you guys respond to my post about the league being diluted? how can it be diluted if most of the great athletes were playing basketball? in the 80s basketball had to compete with football, track and field, boxing, and baseball. not to mention the 80s had no eurpean players.

please resond. unless you have no answer

[Samurai Swoosh]

im not gonna go back and forth with you guys about the best bulls teams. but i think the 96-98 bulls were much better than the 91-93 teams. i never liked the bench. the y were pippen and jordan. and splash of horace grant.
The early 90's Bulls bench was better. Had more grit to them. Same amount of scoring potential, higher bball IQ, size, defense. Just all around better. But that isn't the tipping point of what makes them better. Depth a PG was world's better. Prime Jordan, both physically and skill wise, a prime Pippen, a Horace Grant who provides in the context of the game near the same amount of defense and rebounding ability Rodman gave you ... while also being a 13 to 15 PPG threat every night. Superior play at the center position. It isn't even close to me.

I will give you '96. But you would seriously in a sane mind argue '97 and especially 1998, which was clearly the worst team of the bunch to be better than the 1991, 1992, or 1993 Bulls?

You're out of your damn mind.

[97 bulls]

The early 90's Bulls bench was better. Had more grit to them. Same amount of scoring potential, higher bball IQ, size, defense. Just all around better. But that isn't the tipping point of what makes them better. Depth a PG was world's better. Prime Jordan, both physically and skill wise, a prime Pippen, a Horace Grant who provides in the context of the game near the same amount of defense and rebounding ability Rodman gave you ... while also being a 13 to 15 PPG threat every night. Superior play at the center position. It isn't even close to me.

I will give you '96. But you would seriously in a sane mind argue '97 and especially 1998, which was clearly the worst team of the bunch to be better than the 1991, 1992, or 1993 Bulls?

You're out of your damn mind.
lol, your the one thats krazy. the early 90s bulls had a higher iq? they basically rolled out scott williams, stacy king and craig hodges or pax. kerr is just as good a shooter as them, and id take williams and caffey over king and scott williams any day. pippen was at his best in 94-97 not early 90s. and while jordan was physically superior, i like his mental aproach and his low post ability in the 2nd 3peat.

i always thought horace grant was soft and mentally weak.

im gonna close by asking you the same thing a guy asked me about the 1st 3peat bulls. what did grant, king, williams, paxson, etc do outsider of chicago?

rodman 2 dpoy awards and 2 rings with the pistons along with the rbds titles

kerr: all-time 3pt fg leader and integral part of 2 championships in san antonio

kukoc: regarded as one of the best players ever to ome from europe and average 18 ppg and 7 rbds as a starter

harper: one of the best sgs in the 80s and an integral part of 3 lakers championships

brian williams: average 16 and 9 as a starter in detroit and was one the 1st eighth seeded team to be a first seeded team. and check his stats as a backup to shaq and mutombo

theres a reason why the 95-98 bulls could loose jordan and win 55 games and loose pippen for 30 and win 62 still. or loose rodman and not have brian williams a whole season and still win 69 games.

its cuz of greatness.

[Blzrfn]

LOL @ this. If the 91 Blazers were so great, then why did they lose to the Lakers with homecourt advantage? The same Lakers team that the 91 Bulls beat in 5. There is a reason the Blazers lost to the Lakers...because the Lakers were better.

Same thing with the 98 Lakers. They had more talent than the Jazz, but talent isn't everything. The Jazz were a better team. And the Bulls were even better than the Jazz. The same team that swept the Lakers lost by 54 points to the Bulls in Game 3, on their way to losing in 6 despite having homecourt advantage. The Bulls would have beaten the Lakers despite their abundance of talent because they were a better team.

1. They handed LA game 1. If they win that game like they should have, that series plays out a lot differently, and they probably dispatch of LA in five.

2. The Jazz were better than the Lakers, for whatever reason, but I think that the Lakers matched up better with Chicago than the Jazz did. The Bulls were ready to be beat that year, but Indiana and Utah couldn't quite do it(although the Pacers should have). I think that the Lakers could have.

[Niquesports]

let me ask you a question nique. if any of the celtics, pistons, or sixers were in the west, do the lakers stil have 5 titles? cuz i dont think they do.
Maybe not let me ask you a question if the 90's Bulls played in the 80 do you think they still have 6 titles ? cuz I dont think they do

[Niquesports]

and why wont any of you guys respond to my post about the league being diluted? how can it be diluted if most of the great athletes were playing basketball? in the 80s basketball had to compete with football, track and field, boxing, and baseball. not to mention the 80s had no eurpean players.

please resond. unless you have no answer


So are you saying that there were no great athlets in football,track and field boxing and baseball in the 90's what was Deion Sanders how about Bo Jackson what basketball team did they play for ?

[raptorfan_dr07]

While I agree that there are other teams who are in the discussion for greatest team ever, the Bulls are far from overrated. I find it very confusing how a team that set the record for most wins in a regular season, as well as winning 6 championships in 8 years can be overrated. :oldlol: You don't think their the greatest team ever? That's cool, you can definitely make a case for other teams. Just don't get brainwashed by the mindless idiots on this forum(Roundball Rock, Fatal9, Desperado/Alphawolf/Soopa, etc) who would have you believe the 90's Bulls were the luckiest bunch of untalented losers ever and Scottie Pippen was the only player who could do anything. :roll:

If that's the case, why hasn't any other team won 70 games? I mean, it's just that easy, if the Bulls could do it, anyone can, right? :rolleyes: And the 6 titles in 8 years? Only team to have done better was Russell's Celtics. Mikan's Lakers did win 5 in 6 years, and they don't get anywhere near the respect they deserve.

[Desperado]

Teams that would beat the '96 Bulls.



1962, 1963, 1964 1965 and 1966 Celtics

1967 and 1968 76ers

1970, 1971 and 1973 Knicks

1971 Bucks

1969, 1971, 1972 and 1973 Lakers

1973 Celtics

1976 Celtics

1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 76ers

Every 1980's Lakers team with Magic Johnson

Ever 1980's Celtics team with Larry Bird

1988, 1989 and 1990 Detriot Pistons

[Niquesports]

Teams that would beat the '96 Bulls.



1962, 1963, 1964 1965 and 1966 Celtics

1967 and 1968 76ers

1970, 1971 and 1973 Knicks

1971 Bucks

1969, 1971, 1972 and 1973 Lakers

1973 Celtics

1976 Celtics

1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 76ers

Every 1980's Lakers team with Magic Johnson

Ever 1980's Celtics team with Larry Bird

1988, 1989 and 1990 Detriot Pistons
:applause:

[EricForman]

nique and desperado, you know that the further you trash the 90s bulls as a team, it only makes jordan look better, right? i mean, jordan is undoubtedly top 3 or 4 all time. even the most delusional haters like roundball concedes this. so if jordan himself is a top 4 all time, yet his cast is so overrated and sucks, and they still won 6 titles in 8 years and set record for most wins, doesnt that make jordan's case for GOAT even more?

[Samurai Swoosh]

nique and desperado, you know that the further you trash the 90s bulls as a team, it only makes jordan look better, right? i mean, jordan is undoubtedly top 3 or 4 all time. even the most delusional haters like roundball concedes this. so if jordan himself is a top 4 all time, yet his cast is so overrated and sucks, and they still won 6 titles in 8 years and set record for most wins, doesnt that make jordan's case for GOAT even more?
Jordan is the GOAT ... context included.

[Niquesports]

While I agree that there are other teams who are in the discussion for greatest team ever, the Bulls are far from overrated. I find it very confusing how a team that set the record for most wins in a regular season, as well as winning 6 championships in 8 years can be overrated. :oldlol: You don't think their the greatest team ever? That's cool, you can definitely make a case for other teams. Just don't get brainwashed by the mindless idiots on this forum(Roundball Rock, Fatal9, Desperado/Alphawolf/Soopa, etc) who would have you believe the 90's Bulls were the luckiest bunch of untalented losers ever and Scottie Pippen was the only player who could do anything. :roll:

If that's the case, why hasn't any other team won 70 games? I mean, it's just that easy, if the Bulls could do it, anyone can, right? :rolleyes: And the 6 titles in 8 years? Only team to have done better was Russell's Celtics. Mikan's Lakers did win 5 in 6 years, and they don't get anywhere near the respect they deserve.

I have a lot of respect for this post. Through out this thread it has been mistaken that I feel the Bulls were a weak team. That wasn't my intentions .Im just trying to make a case that they didn't have the depth of other great teams.Part of the problem was that the team was built around MJ.Just like the Cavs are built around Lebron. The Lakers although Magic and Jabbar were great players every other player was just as important a part. Heck in 88 Byron Scott lead the team in scoring. Can anyone imagine Steve Kerr leading the Bulls in scoring? So the point is as great as Jordan was the other greats had GOAT's also but could the Bulls role players step up and lead the team if Mj had an equal opponent. My answer to this is NO!!!!!!!!!

[Niquesports]

nique and desperado, you know that the further you trash the 90s bulls as a team, it only makes jordan look better, right? i mean, jordan is undoubtedly top 3 or 4 all time. even the most delusional haters like roundball concedes this. so if jordan himself is a top 4 all time, yet his cast is so overrated and sucks, and they still won 6 titles in 8 years and set record for most wins, doesnt that make jordan's case for GOAT even more?
I never said Jordan isnt a top 5 GOAT depending on how you want to rank the others I can see MJ as the GOAT.

[Leviathon1121]

Maybe not let me ask you a question if the 90's Bulls played in the 80 do you think they still have 6 titles ? cuz I dont think they do

If the 90's Bulls were in the 80's, you would get to add another HOF caliber player or two to go along with Jordan and Pippen, plus better role players, right?
I don't see any Jordan and Pippen having any less success in that scenario.

[97 bulls]

If the 90's Bulls were in the 80's, you would get to add another HOF caliber player or two to go along with Jordan and Pippen, plus better role players, right?
I don't see any Jordan and Pippen having any less success in that scenario.
they dont even need to add another hof caliber player. ron harper and dennis rodman played in the 80s. and harp was damn good. and they have 3 hof caliber players. why are the bulls the only team that has to have a great hof player at every position? geeze

[97 bulls]

So are you saying that there were no great athlets in football,track and field boxing and baseball in the 90's what was Deion Sanders how about Bo Jackson what basketball team did they play for ?
abosolutely not. football was at its peak in the 90s. but for thr first time the young athletic generation that would dominate the 90s grew up watching magic and bird etc in the 80s. which made them mor willing to go out and play basketball.

the same as in the 60s and 70s when boxing and track was at it most popular due to the olympics along with football. nobody really watched basketball at that time.

[97 bulls]

forgot about baseball too in the 70s

[Niquesports]

abosolutely not. football was at its peak in the 90s. but for thr first time the young athletic generation that would dominate the 90s grew up watching magic and bird etc in the 80s. which made them mor willing to go out and play basketball.

the same as in the 60s and 70s when boxing and track was at it most popular due to the olympics along with football. nobody really watched basketball at that time.


I would say the players got better because more focus was put on basketball AAU teams began to rise and players began to play more year round . I dont think it s that more of the top athlets started playing basketball its just the ones who did play got better by playing more

[Dengness9]

Hey you 10 year old that started watching basketball in 2000. The Bulls didnt have a Erving Magic Johnson the Greatest All Around Player in the History of the Game. ALso I hope you didnt bet against Jordan his first 7 years or you would be broke. IF your too youong to know how great the Lakers "whole" team was your in denial .You thinking that the Bulls are even a top 10 team is laughable. Go back to your play station . By the way Russell lead his teams to 11 titles thats more than Jordan and Bird combined .
:cheers:


Once again your embarrassing. Im much older than you think and you must be the young little ***** waiting for puberty to hit, who doesn't even have Bird in his top 5. It's ok though. Cuz even after you have posted in this thread a 1000 times, your goal and what your trying to achieve is such a lost cause still. You aren't fooling anyone, just wasting your pathetic time in your pathetic life, where you try to take away from what MJ and the Bulls did.

MJ = greatest ever
96 Bulls = greatest team ever.


Nice cheers emoticon. That gay ass smiley face is you chugging two 25oz mugs of semen you ******. Haha, you are such a homo.

:no: that's my emoticon telling your mom I won't bukkake her & your lil sis again. They're breathes stink just like their poonani.

[Niquesports]

Once again your embarrassing. Im much older than you think and you must be the young little ***** waiting for puberty to hit, who doesn't even have Bird in his top 5. It's ok though. Cuz even after you have posted in this thread a 1000 times, your goal and what your trying to achieve is such a lost cause still. You aren't fooling anyone, just wasting your pathetic time in your pathetic life, where you try to take away from what MJ and the Bulls did.

MJ = greatest ever
96 Bulls = greatest team ever.


Nice cheers emoticon. That gay ass smiley face is you chugging two 25oz mugs of semen you ******. Haha, you are such a homo.

:no: that's my emoticon telling your mom I won't bukkake her & your lil sis again. They're breathes stink just like their poonani.

Oh did you have a half a day at school today. What did you learn "pathetic" thats a big word good boy want some milk and cookies. Go wash your hands.

[icemanfan]

In 8.:cheers:
indeed!

[Dengness9]

[QUOTE=Niquesports]Oh did you have a half a day at school today. What did you learn "pathetic" thats a big word good boy want some milk and cookies. Go wash your hands.[/QUOTE

I do need to wash my hands, I dug up your grandma and took her on a date. We talked about how Bill Russell is better than MJ since she was alive for Bill's playing days. After the convo I skull banged her and reburied her.

[Niquesports]

[QUOTE=Niquesports]Oh did you have a half a day at school today. What did you learn "pathetic" thats a big word good boy want some milk and cookies. Go wash your hands.[/QUOTE

I do need to wash my hands, I dug up your grandma and took her on a date. We talked about how Bill Russell is better than MJ since she was alive for Bill's playing days. After the convo I skull banged her and reburied her.


Awwwwwwwwwwwww did you have fun. I hope you wraped up . Now get off the computer and go do your home work. You have spelling words you have to learn . Let me help you CAT BOY DOG your getting good. After you finish your homewrok you can wash TV until 7. Then you need to take your bath with your lil rubber ducky . Then put on your PJ's you know the MJ Space Jams and get in bed by 8. Also dont drink anything after 7. You know you still pee in the bed.
:roll:

[97 bulls]

I would say the players got better because more focus was put on basketball AAU teams began to rise and players began to play more year round . I dont think it s that more of the top athlets started playing basketball its just the ones who did play got better by playing more
you cant honestly tell me that from 1960 to 1980 basketball didnt get more popular. and not just as far as watching but playing too. my father told me that most local parks didnt even have basketball courts in the 60s and 70s. you cant say that from 80 to now. so if more people are playing basketball in the 80 resulting in better and more talented players how isthe league watered down?

now id agree that if the same amunt of people that played ball in the 60s and 70s played in the 80s and 90s id agree but you know thats not the case. not to mention the evolution of the game as a whole. the league doesnt get worse, it gets better.

[Niquesports]

you cant honestly tell me that from 1960 to 1980 basketball didnt get more popular. and not just as far as watching but playing too. my father told me that most local parks didnt even have basketball courts in the 60s and 70s. you cant say that from 80 to now. so if more people are playing basketball in the 80 resulting in better and more talented players how isthe league watered down?

now id agree that if the same amunt of people that played ball in the 60s and 70s played in the 80s and 90s id agree but you know thats not the case. not to mention the evolution of the game as a whole. the league doesnt get worse, it gets better.


Maybe I guess its where your from. Im from DC in the 70's when I was playing and the 50's and 60's when my father was playing every court in the city would be full. If you lost you would just go to the next courts because you would have to wait 5 games before you could play again.I thinnk we are looking at this differently. Yes the players have gotten better but the teams aren't as strong because of expansion. When the Lakers pistons ect.. would have 3 or 4 star players in the 90's and today teams are lucky to have 1 star player.

[97 bulls]

Maybe I guess its where your from. Im from DC in the 70's when I was playing and the 50's and 60's when my father was playing every court in the city would be full. If you lost you would just go to the next courts because you would have to wait 5 games before you could play again.I thinnk we are looking at this differently. Yes the players have gotten better but the teams aren't as strong because of expansion. When the Lakers pistons ect.. would have 3 or 4 star players in the 90's and today teams are lucky to have 1 star player.
im from los angeles. and thats amazing cuz i thought washington was more of a football town (redskins). i dont think rutger park now is that busy. but i totally understand what your saying. its just wrong. again yes the players are better but also if more athletes are choosing basketball, how is the talent diluted? if you have 5 teams picking from 5000 players and then 7 teams picking from 7000 players that are better, how is the 5 team league better? its just simple math.

[Niquesports]

im from los angeles. and thats amazing cuz i thought washington was more of a football town (redskins). i dont think rutger park now is that busy. but i totally understand what your saying. its just wrong. again yes the players are better but also if more athletes are choosing basketball, how is the talent diluted? if you have 5 teams picking from 5000 players and then 7 teams picking from 7000 players that are better, how is the 5 team league better? its just simple math.

As I said I dont feel that the players are weaker I think its the teams. Because of the salary cap FA and so many teams to choose from I dont think we will see a team with 3 future HOF"ers in there prime on one team again. I think for the most part what we will see on the good teams is 1 super star a aging vet with a little left the tank and the rest role players. OR a team like the Celtics 3 aging players put together for a 1 or 2 year run but all for the most part past there prime.

[1987_Lakers]

id also like to point out that while the celtics, and lakers have 4 and 3 hofers, in any given year, they only had 2 playing at a hof level. 85 worthy was not playing at a hof level. 87 kareem wasnt playing at a hof level. if you guys are gonna play that game, then the 97 bulls have 5 hof level playrs and coach. in jordan, pippen, rodman, parrish, and jackson.

The '86 Celtics had 5 players in the HOF, 4 of them were playing in their prime in Bird, McHale, Parish, & DJ.

[97 bulls]

As I said I dont feel that the players are weaker I think its the teams. Because of the salary cap FA and so many teams to choose from I dont think we will see a team with 3 future HOF"ers in there prime on one team again. I think for the most part what we will see on the good teams is 1 super star a aging vet with a little left the tank and the rest role players. OR a team like the Celtics 3 aging players put together for a 1 or 2 year run but all for the most part past there prime.
like the 85 lakers?

lets look at the 87 lakers. they had 2 guys playing at a hof level in worthy and magic, then they had kareem aveaging 17 and 6. they had 3 guys that would eventually be in the hall. but only 2 were plying at hof caliber in 87.

the fact is that the bulls had 3 guys playng at a hof pace and 4 really good role players. 2 capable of starting on other teams.

[Niquesports]

like the 85 lakers?

lets look at the 87 lakers. they had 2 guys playing at a hof level in worthy and magic, then they had kareem aveaging 17 and 6. they had 3 guys that would eventually be in the hall. but only 2 were plying at hof caliber in 87.

the fact is that the bulls had 3 guys playng at a hof pace and 4 really good role players. 2 capable of starting on other teams.

The Bulls only had 2 HOFers Rodman isnt in yet and its not a sure thing he will get in. Any way Jabbar was still a bigger factor than Rodman . We can agree to disagree but Cooper and crew was better than the Bulls bench. BUt I must admit I still feel the Bulls dont match up with the other great teams I have more respect for them because you have made some good points. Not that I didnt have respect for them in the first place. Just dont have them as a top 5 team All TIme

[GiveItToBurrito]

o yea 6 championships in 10 year is so overrated.

Well, I mean, look at the competition. How many rings did those Knicks, Sonics, Jazz, Magic, and Blazers teams win? I mean, come on, Stockton and Malone are supposed to be taken serious? The Knicks were playing that guy from the Snickers commercials. Totally the result of a weak era. :roll:

[BlueandGold]

i lol'd, but seriously though why u hatin on mj

[Jailblazers7]

This thread is crazy. The 90's Bulls won 6 rings and set the single season record for wins. Oh and they had the best player ever and arguably the best coach ever. They deserve every ounce of praise they get.

[The Magic Man]

I was gonna try and jump in this but them I read...


I mean, come on, Stockton and Malone are supposed to be taken serious? The Knicks were playing that guy from the Snickers commercials. Totally the result of a weak era. :roll:


I don't think I can even compete with that.

[Desperado]

Well, I mean, look at the competition. How many rings did those Knicks, Sonics, Jazz, Magic, and Blazers teams win? I mean, come on, Stockton and Malone are supposed to be taken serious? The Knicks were playing that guy from the Snickers commercials. Totally the result of a weak era. :roll:


:oldlol:

truth...

C'mon John Starks was a grocery bag boy and playing in the CBA.

[GiveItToBurrito]

:oldlol:

truth...

C'mon John Starks was a grocery bag boy and playing in the CBA.

And that "great" Allan Houston? He couldn't even make the team in 2008, that's how much better today's guys are.

[Blzrfn]

Teams that would beat the '96 Bulls.



1962, 1963, 1964 1965 and 1966 Celtics

1967 and 1968 76ers

1970, 1971 and 1973 Knicks

1971 Bucks

1969, 1971, 1972 and 1973 Lakers

1973 Celtics

1976 Celtics

1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 76ers

Every 1980's Lakers team with Magic Johnson

Ever 1980's Celtics team with Larry Bird

1988, 1989 and 1990 Detriot Pistons

1. I would add the 61 Celtics to that, as well as the 2008 Celtics.

2. I also think that the 1978 Blazers could have beaten the 96 Bulls. That team would have been remembered as one of the best ever if injuries didn't derail Bill Walton.

3. I would add the 2003 Spurs to this list. I still think that was the best of their four championship teams.

[sekachu]

Well, I mean, look at the competition. How many rings did those Knicks, Sonics, Jazz, Magic, and Blazers teams win? I mean, come on, Stockton and Malone are supposed to be taken serious? The Knicks were playing that guy from the Snickers commercials. Totally the result of a weak era. :roll:


what the hell are you thinking? If the knick , sonic, jazz magic have won the ring, how the hell the bulls won 6 championship in 90s

why dont you think why those team can't win a ring?

[97 bulls]

The Bulls only had 2 HOFers Rodman isnt in yet and its not a sure thing he will get in. Any way Jabbar was still a bigger factor than Rodman . We can agree to disagree but Cooper and crew was better than the Bulls bench. BUt I must admit I still feel the Bulls dont match up with the other great teams I have more respect for them because you have made some good points. Not that I didnt have respect for them in the first place. Just dont have them as a top 5 team All TIme
but only a few believe that he shouldnt be there. and most of those few believe he wont get in due to his off-court behavior. definately not due to him not being good enough.

[97 bulls]

The '86 Celtics had 5 players in the HOF, 4 of them were playing in their prime in Bird, McHale, Parish, & DJ.
thats true 86 celtics. but i honestly dont think dennis johnson gets in had e not passed away. i mean hes been retired for over 20yrs now.

[Niquesports]

but only a few believe that he shouldnt be there. and most of those few believe he wont get in due to his off-court behavior. definately not due to him not being good enough.


he has many individual accomplishments but does he get in over Bernard King ? There are serval players that should get in before him imo. Now with his rebounding and DPOY awards that should get him in but as an all around player No .

[97 bulls]

1. I would add the 61 Celtics to that, as well as the 2008 Celtics.

2. I also think that the 1978 Blazers could have beaten the 96 Bulls. That team would have been remembered as one of the best ever if injuries didn't derail Bill Walton.

3. I would add the 2003 Spurs to this list. I still think that was the best of their four championship teams.
why stop there? add every team that has played and will play from 1932 to 2050. including d-league teams cuz they have only a few teams. which obviously means the talant level isnt "diluted"

[1987_Lakers]

but i honestly dont think dennis johnson gets in had e not passed away. i mean hes been retired for over 20yrs now.

If Joe Dumars was a first ballot HOFer, then why in the world should Dennis Johnson not be in the HOF? DJ is considered one of the greatest perimeter defenders of all time, he has four rings, 1 Finals MVP, & he made Magic Johnson look human.

[Dengness9]

[QUOTE=Dengness9]


Awwwwwwwwwwwww did you have fun. I hope you wraped up . Now get off the computer and go do your home work. You have spelling words you have to learn . Let me help you CAT BOY DOG your getting good. After you finish your homewrok you can wash TV until 7. Then you need to take your bath with your lil rubber ducky . Then put on your PJ's you know the MJ Space Jams and get in bed by 8. Also dont drink anything after 7. You know you still pee in the bed.
:roll:

so you are a 50 something year old man who spends all his time on a bball forum, cuz his wife won't bang him nemore and he hates his life. You have nothing better to do than this and your 50???? From where I'm from we call your kind, a pedophile. I bet if I knew your real name you'd show up on the sexual predator registry.

You that old and don't know MJ is the goat and the 96 Bulls are the goat team???

Plz don't reply to this by again telling me my nightly schedule you Pedo, stop looking in dudes windows at night u perv. Go peep in on Bill Russell the "GOAT"

[97 bulls]

If Joe Dumars was a first ballot HOFer, then why in the world should Dennis Johnson not be in the HOF? DJ is considered one of the greatest perimeter defenders of all time, he has four rings, 1 Finals MVP, & he made Magic Johnson look human.
good question about dumars. i think hof is a centimental thing. and watch, as new voters come in and the old ones leave, therell be alot more on the bubble players getting into the hall.

[97 bulls]

he has many individual accomplishments but does he get in over Bernard King ? There are serval players that should get in before him imo. Now with his rebounding and DPOY awards that should get him in but as an all around player No .
i think king will eventually get his due. hopefully he will be around to see it. and there are alot of players in the hall solely due to scoring. george gervin comes to mind. great scorer nothing much else. so why should rodman be any different?

[O.J A 6'4Mamba]

90's was so water down. Easily the weakest era in the modern era. However Bulls would have ran any 80's or 00's team out building. Hell if the "Jordan Rules" werent in place MJ might have gotta 1 ring in the 80's

[Lebron23]

90's was so water down. Easily the weakest era in the modern era. However Bulls would have ran any 80's or 00's team out building. Hell if the "Jordan Rules" werent in place MJ might have gotta 1 ring in the 80's


I don't think so. The Celtics and Pistons were just a more talented team than the late 1980's Chicago Bulls.

Jordan is the greatest player of all time, but he also had a very good supporting cast and the best coaching staff in the 1990's.

The Bulls won 55 games without Jordan in the 1994 NBA Season.

[GiveItToBurrito]

90's was so water down. Easily the weakest era in the modern era. However Bulls would have ran any 80's or 00's team out building. Hell if the "Jordan Rules" werent in place MJ might have gotta 1 ring in the 80's

How are the Jordan Rules an excuse for MJ not winning a ring in the 80's? They just consisted of fouling hard when he went in the paint and making other players on the Bulls beat the Pistons (and later Knicks). There's nothing special about them at all, any team could have used that strategy then or now.