1998 Chicago Bulls vs. 1999 San Antonio Spurs

[Lebron23]

Who wins in a best of 7 series?

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/1998/0622_large.jpg

Chicago Bulls Playoffs Roster

C- Luc Longley/Bill Wennington
F- Dennis Rodman/Dickey Simpkins
F- Scottie Pippen/Toni Kukoc/Scott Burrell
G- Michael Jordan/Jud Buechler
G- Ron Harper/Steve Kerr/Randy Brown

Coach: Phil Jackson

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/1999/0531_large.jpg

San Antonio Spurs Playoffs Roster

C- David Robinson/Will Purdue
F- Tim Duncan/Malik Rose
F- Sean Elliot/Jerome Kersey/Gerald King
G- Mario Ellie/Jaren Jackson/Antonio Daniels/
G- Avery Johnson/Steve Kerr

Coach: Greg Popovich

[stax]

I don't know, tough one to call. Bulls in seven. Bah.

By the way this is probably the closest we ever came to it: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=253477

Also two Steve Kerrs - is one of them evil? That could make a difference. :lol

[Lebron23]

Chicago Bulls in 6 games. Spurs had a very good front court. Robinson was still an elite Center in 1999.

[Dizzle-2k7]

bulls win this but if we're talking about 2003 or 2005 spurs ---- the spurs win.

[Lebron23]

bulls win this but if we're talking about 2003 or 2005 spurs ---- the spurs win.


Welcome back. 2007 and 2005 Spurs > 2003 and 1999 Spurs.

[sekachu]

Who wins in a best of 7 series?

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/1998/0622_large.jpg

Chicago Bulls Playoffs Roster

C- Luc Longley/Bill Wennington
F- Dennis Rodman/Dickey Simpkins
F- Scottie Pippen/Toni Kukoc/Scott Burrell
G- Michael Jordan/Jud Buechler
G- Ron Harper/Steve Kerr/Randy Brown

Coach: Phil Jackson

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/1999/0531_large.jpg

San Antonio Spurs Playoffs Roster

C- David Robinson/Will Purdue
F- Tim Duncan/Malik Rose
F- Sean Elliot/Jerome Kersey/Gerald King
G- Mario Ellie/Jaren Jackson/Antonio Daniels/
G- Avery Johnson/Steve Kerr

Coach: Greg Popovich



Both team tie with defense
Bulls offense>>> Spurs

Bulls wins in 6

[CavaliersFTW]

1999 Spurs. And it isn't even close.

http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/You+_4c98f8ffe43e8b3e6f451a27488012bd.jpg

[Lebron23]

I just wish he had not retired twice in 1993 and 1999. Bulls would have tied the the 1960's Boston Celtics 8th consecutive championship.

[Lebron23]

1999 Spurs. And it isn't even close.

http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/You+_4c98f8ffe43e8b3e6f451a27488012bd.jpg


1998 Chicago Bulls were the superior NBA team. 35 yrs.old Jordan > 23 yrs.old Duncan.

[magnax1]

I don't know, tough one to call. Bulls in seven. Bah.

By the way this is probably the closest we ever came to it: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=253477

Also two Steve Kerrs - is one of them evil? That could make a difference. :lol
:lol

Probably a really close series. I think Utah was better then either teams though. Mostly because I'm a bitter Jazz fan, but none the less... Utah was better both years lol

[TMT]

Welcome back. 2007 and 2005 Spurs > 2003 and 1999 Spurs.

Don't know about that. Our 2007 team wasn't really that strong, we lucked out that GS beat the Mavs in the first round and had a smooth ride to the Finals.

I think Bulls in 7 games is a good prediction.

[Odinn]

Welcome back. 2007 and 2005 Spurs > 2003 and 1999 Spurs.
2005 Spurs > 1999 Spurs >= 2007 Spurs > 2003 Spurs

[Eric Cartman]

That awkward moment when Steve Kerr is guarding himself.

[Bigsmoke]

maybe Spurs.

[Lebron23]

maybe Spurs.


1998 Chicago Bulls swept the 1998 San Antonio Spurs in the Regular Season without Scottie Pippen in the 2nd game, and without 7'2" Luc Longley in the first game. The 1999 Spurs were a much better team, but Jordan was undefeated in the NBA Finals. Chicago Bulls in 6 games.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199803140SAS.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199711030CHI.html

[TAZORAC]

The spurs were too deep for the bulls. Look at the bulls bench

Just too think THAT TEAM won 72 games..

[Lebron23]

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kygzcpQfHU1qaswvco1_500.jpg

http://dberri.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/david-robinson-tim-duncan.png

[SwooshReturns]

bulls win this but if we're talking about 2003 or 2005 spurs ---- the spurs win.
I honestly don't think so ...

I don't think any version of the Spurs could beat the '98 Bulls.

And that's probably the worst actual Bulls championship team, even if they were entertaining dominating through will power alone.

The Spurs were like the scavanger championship team. Always picking up rings on the down end of some dynasty, or before the up swing and creation of a new one.

Consistently very good (much like a microcosm for Duncan himself) ... never truly dominating and great.

People over-rank the hell out of Duncan and the Spurs, this guy never even went to back to back Finals, let alone win two of them in a row.

:oldlol:

[Kurosawa0]

People forget how hard it was for the Bulls to get that last ring. By the end of that Utah series it was basically just Jordan grinding it out himself. The Spurs would've probably beaten them in 6.

[Kurosawa0]

People over-rank the hell out of Duncan and the Spurs, this guy never even went to back to back Finals, let alone win two of them in a row.

If Manu doesn't foul Dirk in game seven in 06 and Fisher's shot in 04 doesn't go in, they go to 4 straight.

[Lebron23]

People forget how hard it was for the Bulls to get that last ring. By the end of that Utah series it was basically just Jordan grinding it out himself. The Spurs would've probably beaten them in 6.


Scottie Pippen was a shadow of his former self in his last season with the Chicago Bulls. He was still a good defender when he played for the Blazers, but his offensive numbers went down.

[97 bulls]

I honestly don't think so ...

I don't think any version of the Spurs could beat the '98 Bulls.

And that's probably the worst actual Bulls championship team, even if they were entertaining dominating through will power alone.

The Spurs were like the scavanger championship team. Always picking up rings on the down end of some dynasty, or before the up swing and creation of a new one.

Consistently very good (much like a microcosm for Duncan himself) ... never truly dominating and great.

People over-rank the hell out of Duncan and the Spurs, this guy never even went to back to back Finals, let alone win two of them in a row.

:oldlol:
Hey Swoosh, in 98, the Bulls won 62 games. Pippen missed 38 games. How many wins would the Bulls have had with a full season from Pippen

[SwooshReturns]

By the end of that Utah series it was basically just Jordan grinding it out himself.
Only tough series was the Pacers one ... and I think it was because mentally the Bulls felt like they had them after beating them the first few games, and had a few mental lapses that continuously let the Pacers back in it.

As for the Utah series? It was more competitive in '97. The Bulls creamed the Jazz. Even setting the bench mark for biggest margin of victory in a Finals game. They held Utah, a fellow Finals competitor to under 59 points in one game ...

:oldlol:

Game 6 was a grind because it was literally just MJ who won that game. Pippen was a shell of himself, Kukoc was non-existent ... it was literally a 35 year old man's will winning a game.

If the Bulls keep that core intact, keep Jackson, add some younger pieces around MJ / Pip / Rodman ... if Pippen was the best player on an all around super talented Blazers team that heading into the 4th quarter of game 7 v.s. the 2000 Lakers should've won the game. With the best closer of all-time in Jordan, and a some younger pieces helping out ... how do the Bulls not compete for rings in 1999, 2000, or even 2001 ???

Even if the would've finally been dethroned by the Lakers, and the torch officially passed ...

[Lebron23]

The Spurs were the best franchise in the 2000's. They won 4 NBA titles, and they won 50 or more games since the 1997-98 NBA Season. Duncan was also a superior Finals performer than Kobe. Tim Duncan is a very underrated player in this forum. He's the ideal teammate. A great player on the court and much better person off the court.

[Kurosawa0]

As for the Utah series? It was more competitive in '97. The Bulls creamed the Jazz. Even setting the bench mark for biggest margin of victory in a Finals game. They held Utah, a fellow Finals competitor to under 59 points in one game ...

And yet if Jordan misses that last shot the series goes 7, with the last game being in Utah. That team barely won that last ring and would probably lose to a lot of the Lakers and Spurs teams.

[SwooshReturns]

The Spurs were the best franchise in the 2000's
Most consistent, hardly the best ... 2001 Lakers and 2008 Celtics were the all-around best and most dominant. Both book ends to teams that would be dynastys. Well the early 2000 Lakers were a dynasty ... but the 2008 Celtics should've been had KG never got hurt. All superior to the scavenger Spurs team of the 2000s. Hell, I take the Pistons run of greatness in 2004 over any in particular Spurs team.


If Manu doesn't foul Dirk in game seven in 06 and Fisher's shot in 04 doesn't go in, they go to 4 straight.
That's too many "ifs" though.


Hey Swoosh, in 98, the Bulls won 62 games. Pippen missed 38 games. How many wins would the Bulls have had with a full season from Pippen
I'd say 67 - 69 wins ... pushing 70 games, much like the '97 Bulls.

Hell in being honest both the '96 Bulls team and the '97 team each had like 3 - 4 games they should've won but lost for some dumb lucky reason.

The '96 Bulls should've been like 75 - 7

And the '97 Bulls should've been like 72 - 10

The sickness

:facepalm

[Kurosawa0]

Scottie Pippen was a shadow of his former self in his last season with the Chicago Bulls. He was still a good defender when he played for the Blazers, but his offensive numbers went down.

The question is about the 1998 Bulls. Not about if the Bulls in 1999 could've still won.

[SwooshReturns]

And yet if Jordan misses that last shot the series goes 7.
But Jordan doesn't choke like that ... :oldlol:

Like we said, they needed to win that game and MJ knew the importance because Pippen was done. That's why the guy went H.A.M. and dropped 45 much needed points.

Kukoc played nice in game 5, but for much of the '98 season he was VERY erratic.

[Kurosawa0]

That's too many "ifs" though.

If two is "too many" you need to go back the kindergarten. :lol

[SwooshReturns]

to go back the kindergarten. :lol
Oh really?

:oldlol:

I will see you in class then ...

[Kurosawa0]

But Jordan doesn't choke like that ... :oldlol: .

And yet in 1991, Jordan did miss a potential game winner in the Finals. It happens.

And here's the thing, the 1999 Spurs was better team than the Jazz.

[Kurosawa0]

Oh really?

:oldlol:

I will see you in class then ...

Yes, because a typo is the same as not being able to count to three.

[Bigsmoke]

1998 Chicago Bulls swept the 1998 San Antonio Spurs in the Regular Season without Scottie Pippen in the 2nd game, and without 7'2" Luc Longley in the first game. The 1999 Spurs were a much better team, but Jordan was undefeated in the NBA Finals. Chicago Bulls in 6 games.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199803140SAS.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199711030CHI.html

winning 4 titles in the row isnt going to be easy.

not saying the Spurs would just run laps around the Bulls but i think MJ and Pippen might have some tired legs. Not to mention that MJ would be 36 :confusedshrug:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

'98 Bulls in 5-6. '98 Utah, imho, was better or equal to the '99 Spurs.


Yes, because a typo is the same as not being able to count to three.

Wow, some of you people are really petty. Who gives a sh*t? :oldlol:

[rodman91]

David Robinson vs Dennis Rodman.. polar opposites :oldlol:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cVddBG4WYRU/SdfKMHXIuFI/AAAAAAAAAl8/TaL4mWp9IKg/s400/0429_large.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vofbYTlo_-k/TyC7ddbSANI/AAAAAAAAAFw/1vUdF6C_nOY/s1600/dennis-rodman-stripper-basketball-coach.jpg

[SwooshReturns]

And yet in 1991, Jordan did miss a potential game winner in the Finals. It happens.
Rarely ... he came through more often than not ...

He hit a buzzer beater tying shot in that same series

Hit a game winning buzzer beater in the '93 Finals

Hit a game winning buzzer beater in '97 Finals

Assisted on a game winner in the '97 Finals

Hit a game winning 3 in the '97 Finals (Flu Game)

Hit a game winning shot in the '98 Finals

More often than not ... MJ comes through when you need him to most. That's why he's the best ever.


And here's the thing, the 1999 Spurs was better team than the Jazz.
Honestly think it was marginal at best. Even if they give the Bulls a better series, I don't think they're winning against the '98 Bulls. Which is my opinion on the series.

[SwooshReturns]

Yes, because a typo is the same as not being able to count to three.
This guy ...

Two "ifs" in sports is too many and too hypothetical for me.

Deal with it, son.

[Bigsmoke]

good morning Swoosh

beautiful day we are having today once again :pimp:

[Kurosawa0]

Duncan and Robinson were still both double-double caliber bigs in 1999. The Bulls had a woeful front line. They had a mediocre center and undersized power forwards.

It would be possible that Duncan could be the best player in the series.

[SwooshReturns]

good morning Swoosh

beautiful day we are having today once again :pimp:
I know man ... it's been like a week straight and I don't want to jinx things, but it's been feeling like straight early June in the Chi.

:pimp:

[SwooshReturns]

Duncan and Robinson were still both double-double caliber bigs in 1999. The Bulls had a woeful front line. They had a mediocre center and undersized power forwards.
Never mattered much when facing the Ewing Knicks, Shaq Magic of the world ...

Yeah you have the front line advantage.

We have the clear cut wing and guard advantages.

How are you getting the ball to Duncan or D-Rob when Jordan, Brown, and Pippen are smothering your inferior guards?

That's why we always managed to beat teams with superior front courts. Can't get them the ball when they're being hounded by two of the best guard / wing defenders (both on ball, and help defense) of all-time.

:facepalm

[Kurosawa0]

Never mattered much when facing the Ewing Knicks, Shaq Magic of the world ...

Yeah you have the front line advantage.

We have the clear cut wing and guard advantages.

How are you getting the ball to Duncan or D-Rob when Jordan, Brown, and Pippen are smothering your inferior guards?

That's why we always managed to beat teams with superior front courts. Can't get them the ball when they're being hounded by two of the best guard / wing defenders (both on ball, and help defense) of all-time.

:facepalm

We?

Dear God, never mind...

[Jotaro Durant]

this going to 7 games.......................i pick bulls

[rzp]

lol at people talking like the 2003 Spurs was the worst one. They just kicked the legendary 3-peat Lakers. Pretty sure that Lakers was better than any of those suns or mavs or even pistons they faced in 2005 or 2007. It was TD on his best shape plus many young talents.

[SwooshReturns]

lThey just kicked the legendary 3-peat Lakers.
2003 Lakers was a roster left to rot outside of Kobe and Shaq.

Kobe was their best player, Shaq took way too much time to heal an injury ... was a major out of shape fat ass that season, and the Lakers figured they could get cheap and keep winning with just those two guys.

They were a shell of what they were from 2000 - 2002

[Odinn]

Most consistent, hardly the best ... 2001 Lakers and 2008 Celtics were the all-around best and most dominant. Both book ends to teams that would be dynastys. Well the early 2000 Lakers were a dynasty ... but the 2008 Celtics should've been had KG never got hurt. All superior to the scavenger Spurs team of the 2000s. Hell, I take the Pistons run of greatness in 2004 over any in particular Spurs team.
:facepalm
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=231705

No. Dominant means winning a series in at least 6 games or plainy game7 with that crappy teams or making 16-10 in the playoffs? 2008 Celtics highly overrated because the Boston finally won a title after Bird and the big 3 got their rings. But they were not better than 2005 Spurs.

Also didn't the Spurs beat the Pistons in 2005 NBA Finals?:facepalm :facepalm

And if we start uses ifs, that would favour the Spurs because they lost to a miraculous shot and Ginobili's idiotic foul. They could be the first team won 5 straight titles after the '60s Celtics.

[SwooshReturns]

Spurs sure were a dominating dynasty ... never even going to back to back championships and all.

:oldlol:

[Odinn]

Spurs sure were a dominating dynasty ... never even going to back to back championships and all.

:oldlol:
And weren't you the claim 2008 Celtics team was more dominant / better 2005 Spurs team?:oldlol:

[SwooshReturns]

And weren't you the claim 2008 Celtics team was more dominant / better 2005 Spurs team?:oldlol:
I do believe that yes ... 2008 Celtics and 2001 Lakers are the best teams I've seen since the 90's Bulls.

So the 2008 Celtics had two seven game series with youthful athletic teams that played to their disadvantages? They still won.

And then they put a pillow over the faces of the Lakers and smothered them to death.

I'm pretty sure they would've got back and won in 2009 had KG never went down with an injury that ended him prematurely ...

Guy was in legit MVP talks the season before.

2005 Spurs were the best Spurs team, IMO ... but I would rank them 4th or 5th best out of the championship teams of the 2000's

1) 2008 Celtics
2) 2001 Lakers
3) 2004 Pistons
4) 2005 Spurs
5) 2010 Lakers

[Owl]

1999 Spurs. And it isn't even close.
Bulls SRS 7.84 23rd best regular season of all time in spite of Scottie Pippen playing only 44 games. So unless we're saying Scottie doesn't get to play, the Bulls are actually even better than that number.

Spurs an impressive 7.48 SRS (33rd) but that was with a healthy team. And then there's the fact the from '90-91 to 98 nobody beat the Bulls at full strength.

[Odinn]

I do believe that yes ... 2008 Celtics and 2001 Lakers are the best teams I've seen since the 90's Bulls.

So the 2008 Celtics had two seven game series with youthful athletic teams that played to their disadvantages? They still won.

And then they put a pillow over the faces of the Lakers and smothered them to death.

I'm pretty sure they would've got back and won in 2009 had KG never went down with an injury that ended him prematurely ...

Guy was in legit MVP talks the season before.

2005 Spurs were the best Spurs team, IMO ... but I would rank them 4th or 5th best out of the championship teams of the 2000's

1) 2008 Celtics
2) 2001 Lakers
3) 2004 Pistons
4) 2005 Spurs
5) 2010 Lakers
What an awful list.

2005 Spurs basically defeated 2004 Pistons. But not gonna talk about just Spurs. 2001 Lakers should be #1. And 2010 Lakers team wasn't a team of 2000's also not better than 2009 Lakers.

[SwooshReturns]

2005 Spurs basically defeated 2004 Pistons.
Yea but 2004 Pistons's overall body of work was more impressive to me.


But not gonna talk about just Spurs. 2001 Lakers should be #1.
This is MY list ... how I saw things.

True, forgot about 2010 technically not being a decade team ... then I would fill that slot with the 2006 Heat.

[Jotaro Durant]

I do believe that yes ... 2008 Celtics and 2001 Lakers are the best teams I've seen since the 90's Bulls.

So the 2008 Celtics had two seven game series with youthful athletic teams that played to their disadvantages? They still won.

And then they put a pillow over the faces of the Lakers and smothered them to death.

I'm pretty sure they would've got back and won in 2009 had KG never went down with an injury that ended him prematurely ...

Guy was in legit MVP talks the season before.

2005 Spurs were the best Spurs team, IMO ... but I would rank them 4th or 5th best out of the championship teams of the 2000's

1) 2008 Celtics
2) 2001 Lakers
3) 2004 Pistons
4) 2005 Spurs
5) 2010 Lakers
:hammerhead: :hammerhead: :hammerhead: :hammerhead:

[97 bulls]

Most consistent, hardly the best ... 2001 Lakers and 2008 Celtics were the all-around best and most dominant. Both book ends to teams that would be dynastys. Well the early 2000 Lakers were a dynasty ... but the 2008 Celtics should've been had KG never got hurt. All superior to the scavenger Spurs team of the 2000s. Hell, I take the Pistons run of greatness in 2004 over any in particular Spurs team.


That's too many "ifs" though.


I'd say 67 - 69 wins ... pushing 70 games, much like the '97 Bulls.

Hell in being honest both the '96 Bulls team and the '97 team each had like 3 - 4 games they should've won but lost for some dumb lucky reason.

The '96 Bulls should've been like 75 - 7

And the '97 Bulls should've been like 72 - 10

The sickness

:facepalm
Lol I agree

[Mr. Incredible]

[QUOTE=Eric Cartman]That awkward moment when Steve Kerr is guarding himself.[/QUOTE Lol

[SilkkTheShocker]

the 08 Celtics are so overrated. They got taken to 7 against the Hawks, were a PJ brown jumper from losing to Lebron and Delonte West, beat a washed up Pistons team, and played LA without Bynum. DOMINATION!!!

[linZoMourning]

I honestly don't think so ...

I don't think any version of the Spurs could beat the '98 Bulls.

And that's probably the worst actual Bulls championship team, even if they were entertaining dominating through will power alone.

The Spurs were like the scavanger championship team. Always picking up rings on the down end of some dynasty, or before the up swing and creation of a new one.

Consistently very good (much like a microcosm for Duncan himself) ... never truly dominating and great.

People over-rank the hell out of Duncan and the Spurs, this guy never even went to back to back Finals, let alone win two of them in a row.

:oldlol:

worst post ever. spurs never dominated?? spurs were never great?? I guess having the best winning percentage in ALL OF AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL SPORTS IN AN 11 YEAR SPAN that KEEPS GROWING. I guess that isnt domination?? Thats domination of america. not just the NBA kid. the record of greatest winning percentage is still going to.

[linZoMourning]

What an awful list.

2005 Spurs basically defeated 2004 Pistons. But not gonna talk about just Spurs. 2001 Lakers should be #1. And 2010 Lakers team wasn't a team of 2000's also not better than 2009 Lakers.

yah im telling you this swoosh guy is a complete joke. he just said 2004 pistons were better then 2005 spurs would beat the pistons in the finals :facepalm


everything he says is trollish just ignore him

[SilkkTheShocker]

I do believe that yes ... 2008 Celtics and 2001 Lakers are the best teams I've seen since the 90's Bulls.

So the 2008 Celtics had two seven game series with youthful athletic teams that played to their disadvantages? They still won.

And then they put a pillow over the faces of the Lakers and smothered them to death.

I'm pretty sure they would've got back and won in 2009 had KG never went down with an injury that ended him prematurely ...

Guy was in legit MVP talks the season before.

2005 Spurs were the best Spurs team, IMO ... but I would rank them 4th or 5th best out of the championship teams of the 2000's

1) 2008 Celtics
2) 2001 Lakers
3) 2004 Pistons
4) 2005 Spurs
5) 2010 Lakers


Are you saying the 08 Cavaliers were youthful and atheltic? They had a starting lineup of Delonte West, Wally Szcerbiak, Lebron, Ben Wallace, and Big Z. And they played at one of slowest paces in the NBA. Watch the games jackass. Don't talk out your ass.

[linZoMourning]

swoosh is getting owned all over the place. too easy to spot a troll

[97 bulls]

I-do-agree-with-Swoosh-when-he-says-none-of-those-Spurs-teams-could-beat-the-98Bulls. The-fact-is-that-the-98Bulls-were-every-bit-as-dominant-as-the-96-and-97-versions. They-won-62-games-with-Scottie Pippen-missing-half-the-season. Just-ask-yourself,-how-many-wins-do-they-get-with-a-healthy-Pippen? 68?-70?

They-were-more-dominant-in-the-finals-too. They-were-up-three-to-one-including--thay-96-54-raping-on-game-3. That-game--6-isnt-nearly-as-close-as-it-wad-with-arelatovely-healthy-Pippen

[rodman91]

I-do-agree-with-Swoosh-when-he-says-none-of-those-Spurs-teams-could-beat-the-98Bulls. The-fact-is-that-the-98Bulls-were-every-bit-as-dominant-as-the-96-and-97-versions. They-won-62-games-with-Scottie Pippen-missing-half-the-season. Just-ask-yourself,-how-many-wins-do-they-get-with-a-healthy-Pippen? 68?-70?

They-were-more-dominant-in-the-finals-too. They-were-up-three-to-one-including--thay-96-54-raping-on-game-3. That-game--6-isnt-nearly-as-close-as-it-wad-with-arelatovely-healthy-Pippen

What happened to your keyboard?

[Artillery]

the 08 Celtics are so overrated. They got taken to 7 against the Hawks, were a PJ brown jumper from losing to Lebron and Delonte West, beat a washed up Pistons team, and played LA without Bynum. DOMINATION!!!

The '08 Celtics as well as Garnett himself are overrated. One title and Swoosh calls them a dynasty :oldlol:

[97 bulls]

What happened to your keyboard?
Spacebar-doesnt-work-on-my-phone

[Lebron23]

I watched the 1999 NBA Finals again. Both Houston and Sprewell had a good finals performance, but the Spurs abused their front court.

Spurs would beat the Bulls in 6 or 7 games.

A 21 to 23 yrs. Duncan destroyed Rodman in their regular season match up. Pippen already declined as an offensive player in his last season with the Bulls. Michael would get his numbers against the spurs, but the spurs would win because they have the superior front court. A past his prime Robinson was still way better than Longley.

[SamuraiSWISH]

If the '99 Knicks sans Ewing could give these Spurs a fight. I fully believe the '98 Bulls could beat them or give them a fight at the very least. That '99 Spurs team isn't mythologically dominant like say the 2001 Lakers, 2008 Celtics or something.

If the '98 team continued into '99 and maybe added some young players to counteract the now advancing ages of MJ, Pip, Rodman and Harper ... they still could've won.

[Rose'sACL]

Spurs would win in 6.

[Fresh Kid]

tha 98 bulls would win in 6 maybe 5.

[Smoke117]

I-do-agree-with-Swoosh-when-he-says-none-of-those-Spurs-teams-could-beat-the-98Bulls. The-fact-is-that-the-98Bulls-were-every-bit-as-dominant-as-the-96-and-97-versions. They-won-62-games-with-Scottie Pippen-missing-half-the-season. Just-ask-yourself,-how-many-wins-do-they-get-with-a-healthy-Pippen? 68?-70?

They-were-more-dominant-in-the-finals-too. They-were-up-three-to-one-including--thay-96-54-raping-on-game-3. That-game--6-isnt-nearly-as-close-as-it-wad-with-arelatovely-healthy-Pippen

The competition was a ****ing joke in 98. The 2013-2014 Spurs crush the 98 bulls. That 99 Spurs team is overrated in general though...they were one of the only teams who were getting together and practicing during the lockout...which obviously gave them an advantage over the competition.

[L.A. Jazz]

The Spurs would have to overcome the same problems as the Utah Jazz.

The Bulls big guards give the small floor generals (Stockton, Avery) major problems.
And they have no good defenders for Jordan. Utah's Russell was ok, but the had noone who could switch. The Spurs have not one. Elie or Elliot cant guard MJ.

[3ball]

.
Let's compare Lebron and MJ's performance vs. Duncan/Popovich:



Lebron missed his walk-off attempt and needed Ray Allen to save him:


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-05-2015/XxRuyC.gif



Otoh, Jordan MADE his walk-off attempt from the exact same spot in his first meeting against Duncan/Popovich to send the game into overtime:


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-05-2015/rP-QUs.gif



After hitting the walk-off, MJ dominated overtime, including 2 dunks over Duncan:


https://media.giphy.com/media/26FPq7nUqs2V8LyNO/giphy.gif



In his 2nd meeting against Duncan, MJ dominated Duncan even more thoroughly:


https://media.giphy.com/media/TbKAH5Pl5N91S/giphy.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/4-11-2015/cyFnUr.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/VgAj53MW9ee5O/giphy.gif



It's obvious that Jordan only ever DOMINATED Duncan and guys like Duncan - they weren't "rivals" like they are for Kobe and Lebron.. 6/6

[3ball]

.
In addition to the clear-cut proof above, the Spurs matchup horribly with the Bulls.

They have no one to guard MJ or Pippen, whereas Rodman could guard Duncan.

[JBSptfn]

What an awful list.

2005 Spurs basically defeated 2004 Pistons. But not gonna talk about just Spurs. 2001 Lakers should be #1. And 2010 Lakers team wasn't a team of 2000's also not better than 2009 Lakers.

01 Lakers are the most overrated team ever from what I have seen online.

[Lebron23]

Bump

[Lebron23]

I watched the 1999 NBA Finals again. Both Houston and Sprewell had a good finals performance, but the Spurs abused their front court.

Spurs would beat the Bulls in 6 or 7 games.

A 21 to 23 yrs. Duncan destroyed Rodman in their regular season match up. Pippen already declined as an offensive player in his last season with the Bulls. Michael would get his numbers against the spurs, but the spurs would win because they have the superior front court. A past his prime Robinson was still way better than Longley.
I agree with my old posts.

[red1]

.
Let's compare Lebron and MJ's performance vs. Duncan/Popovich:



Lebron missed his walk-off attempt and needed Ray Allen to save him:


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-05-2015/XxRuyC.gif



Otoh, Jordan MADE his walk-off attempt from the exact same spot in his first meeting against Duncan/Popovich to send the game into overtime:


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-05-2015/rP-QUs.gif



After hitting the walk-off, MJ dominated overtime, including 2 dunks over Duncan:


https://media.giphy.com/media/26FPq7nUqs2V8LyNO/giphy.gif



In his 2nd meeting against Duncan, MJ dominated Duncan even more thoroughly:


https://media.giphy.com/media/TbKAH5Pl5N91S/giphy.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/4-11-2015/cyFnUr.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/VgAj53MW9ee5O/giphy.gif



It's obvious that Jordan only ever DOMINATED Duncan and guys like Duncan - they weren't "rivals" like they are for Kobe and Lebron.. 6/6

3ball in maximum insecurity mode after 2016 :roll:


how did jordan ever dominate kobe or duncan? for all we know kobe would drop 50 on his bald head.

[IllegalD]

I agree with my old posts.


Keep melting down, baby boy. That Last Dance got ya'll n*ggas SHOOK!!!

[Uncle Drew]

The Bulls needed every ounce to squeeze by the Pacers. They weren't winning against this Spurs team.

[Soundwave]

Bulls win. Robinson wasn't as good as he used to be and Duncan was too raw to win a battle of will between him and Jordan at that point in his career. Plus Rodman would be extra motivated to stick it to the Spurs.

[Axe]

The Bulls needed every ounce to squeeze by the Pacers. They weren't winning against this Spurs team.
Lol you act like lebron and his teams never underwent full 7 games in either the ecf nor finals during his championship seasons.

Poor thing.

[rmt]

If Manu doesn't foul Dirk in game seven in 06 and Fisher's shot in 04 doesn't go in, they go to 4 straight.

In that hypothetical scenario - 5 straight (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007).

[SamuraiSWISH]

Bulls would’ve won in 1999 as it stands if it wasn’t for the odd over inflated narcissism from Crumbs. That is the worst of the Spurs championship teams. And Bulls never had troubles with that era of the Spurs squads. God forbid Chicago re-tooled even slightly from 98 and with all that lock out workout / rest then they would’ve been totally fine.

[rmt]

lol at people talking like the 2003 Spurs was the worst one. They just kicked the legendary 3-peat Lakers. Pretty sure that Lakers was better than any of those suns or mavs or even pistons they faced in 2005 or 2007. It was TD on his best shape plus many young talents.

Do you mean the Pistons who beat basically the same Lakers in the Finals the year before?

2003 Spurs were definitely the worst - a peak Duncan and bunch of INEXPERIENCED team mates (Parker, SJax, Manu).

[ArbitraryWater]

Bulls would’ve won in 1999 as it stands if it wasn’t for the odd over inflated narcissism from Crumbs. That is the worst of the Spurs championship teams. And Bulls never had troubles with that era of the Spurs squads. God forbid Chicago re-tooled even slightly from 98 and with all that lock out workout / rest then they would’ve been totally fine.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SecretIgnorantCanadagoose-size_restricted.gif

[72-10]

the super old Bulls still would've won against a team led by past his prime, minimal impact Robinson and great but too inexperienced Duncan. The Spurs might have a field day in the interior, though. Remember, the Spurs beat an 8 seed.

[Mr Feeny]

It would have been interesting to see. Jordan, Pippen and harper would have had easy matchups in the backcourt. But Duncsn and arobinson would have been problematic for Longeley and an aging Rodman.

[97 bulls]

It would have been interesting to see. Jordan, Pippen and harper would have had easy matchups in the backcourt. But Duncsn and arobinson would have been problematic for Longeley and an aging Rodman.

The Bulls would've beat the Spurs. I shutter to think how hard of a time 5'10 inch Avery Johnson would've had trying to bring the ball up and initiate the offense with 7 seconds on the 24 second clock.

Much like they did Magic, Hardaway, Stockton, and Jackson.

[Mr Feeny]

The Bulls would've beat the Spurs. I shutter to think how hard of a time 5'10 inch Avery Johnson would've had trying to bring the ball up and initiate the offense with 7 seconds on the 24 second clock.

Much like they did Magic, Hardaway, Stockton, and Jackson.

That's what I'm saying. Their matchup on the perimeter would have been really favourable. At the same time, Rodman was a shell of his former self in 1998. By 99, he was even worse. That would have been trouble because the spurs could have spammed Duncan postups.

[97 bulls]

That's what I'm saying. Their matchup on the perimeter would have been really favourable. At the same time, Rodman was a shell of his former self in 1998. By 99, he was even worse. That would have been trouble because the spurs could have spammed Duncan postups.
Kinda hard to post up and run through the proper progressions with a few seconds on the shot clock. But that's exactly what the Spurs would've had to encounter.

[sportjames23]

1999 was a lockout shortened season, right? That benefits the Bulls immensely. Jordan, Pippen, Harper and Rodman rested and ready to go? Yeah, Bulls run the table that year.

[Roundball_Rock]

The Spurs. They were better than the Pacers and Jazz who gave the Bulls' trouble in 98'. Any other championship version of the Bulls beats the 99' Spurs but not the 98' team.

[Mr Feeny]

The Spurs. They were better than the Pacers and Jazz who gave the Bulls' trouble in 98'. Any other championship version of the Bulls beats the 99' Spurs but not the 98' team.

They definitely weren't better than the 98 Jazz or even close to as good as the 98 Jazz.

[Axe]

The Spurs. They were better than the Pacers and Jazz who gave the Bulls' trouble in 98'. Any other championship version of the Bulls beats the 99' Spurs but not the 98' team.
Having 'The Big Fundamental' really helps a lot. Just try asking Pop about that if you don't agree.

[Lebron23]

1999 Spurs also beat the Shaq, Kobe, and Rice Lakers in 5 games.

[Lebron23]

The Spurs. They were better than the Pacers and Jazz who gave the Bulls' trouble in 98'. Any other championship version of the Bulls beats the 99' Spurs but not the 98' team.

Amen. Duncan and the Spurs would have defeated them, and if the stay for another 2 seasons they would be like the 2024 Golden State Warriors

[ArbitraryWater]

1998 Chicago Bulls swept the 1998 San Antonio Spurs in the Regular Season without Scottie Pippen in the 2nd game, and without 7'2" Luc Longley in the first game. The 1999 Spurs were a much better team, but Jordan was undefeated in the NBA Finals. Chicago Bulls in 6 games.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199803140SAS.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199711030CHI.html


swept is funny, it was 2 games

[ArbitraryWater]

They definitely weren't better than the 98 Jazz or even close to as good as the 98 Jazz.

:oldlol:

this dude had jokes