pls post a team that you think can beat the 95-96 bulls in a series

[swi7ch]

quick facts:

* nba title
* 72-10 record in the regular season
* 15-3 record in the playoffs
* all-star mvp, regular season mvp, and finals mvp in jordan
* phil jackson won coach of the year award
* kukoc won the 6th man award
* jordan's 30.4 ppg led the league (was 3rd in steals at 2.2)
* rodman's 14.9 rpg led the league
* jordan and pippen were named to the 1st team all nba team
* jordan, pippen, rodman were named to the 1st team all defensive team
* kerr was second in the league in 3 pt percentage

roster:

http://i.imgur.com/9IAl1.png

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

80s Lakers, 80s Celtics, late 80s Pistons (maybe)

[bwink23]

93-94 Houston Rockets....The Rockets always gave the Bulls fits...

[k0kakw0rld]

2011-2012 Miami Heat :applause:

[pauk]

1. 80s Lakers & 80s Celtics would i think wipe the floor with anybody...

2. Miami Heat... Maybe not the Heat last year... last year they were just getting in to the chemistry, new teammates, new offense, new roles and so on... they are much better right now... and once they taste the blood of the championship this year, how easy it can be, they will i think go on a rampage this decade winning back to back championships... just a bold prediction thats all :D

[chocolatethunder]

Both Rocket teams that won titles. They were the last good basketball teams as far as I'm concerned.

[I<3NBA]

This team will beat the living daylights out of that Bulls team

PG Black Widow
SG Hawkeye
SF Captain America
PF Thor
C Hulk

Bench
Iron Man

Coach: Nick Fury

[iamgine]

Any of the '91-'93 Bulls can beat the '96 Bulls.

[AlphaWolf24]

01 Lakers...Kobe = MJ...

86 Lakers
84 Celtic's
10' Lakers
08'Celtics

[blablabla]

70'Knicks Frazier would lock mjs ass up

[pauk]

01 Lakers...Kobe = Pippen...


fixed... Kobe averaged that time somewhat more points, but Pippen averaged more rebounds, assists, steals, blocks and was a much better defender..... so dont take that comparasant as an insult, Pippen was great and Kobe was great to.... but Kobe was not even close to as good as he is even today or in his last 2 championship runs where he was the man...

in those 3 championship runs it was SHAQ who was the JORDAN

Come on Alpha.... even Reggie Miller bashed Kobe in the Finals...

2000 Finals:
Reggie: 24.3 ppg
Kobe: 17.0 ppg

[Bigsmoke]

the best team ever

[97 bulls]

None, they beat the lakers and pistons who beat the Celtics.

[Micku]

None, they beat the lakers and pistons who beat the Celtics.

No Kareem or Cooper. No prime Worthy. And the 96 Bulls never face the Pistons Isiah Thomas Pistons or the Magic and Kareem Lakers. They never face a prime Bird, Parish, or Mchale either.

85 and 86 Celtics would give them a challenge. 85 and 87 Lakers would too. 83 Sixers would. The late 80s Pistons team.

[1987_Lakers]

None, they beat the lakers and pistons who beat the Celtics.

What an awful logic.:facepalm

A Lakers team without Kareem, Cooper, & Riley as the coach. That '91 Lakers team is not even close as good as the mid-late 80's teams.

They beat the Pistons who beat the Celtics?:facepalm

They beat them in '88 when Boston was already starting to get old. 4/5 starters for the Celtics were already in their 30's & they had a limited bench. The leading scorer for the Celtics off the bench in that postseason averaged 3 PPG, they were a 5 man team.

[SuperPippen]

01 Lakers...Kobe = MJ....

86 Lakers
84 Celtic's
10' Lakers
08'Celtics


'01 Lakers would have a good chance. Shaq and Kobe were the greatest duo ever that season.

'86 Lakers would almost certainly get defeated. '87 Lakers probably would as well, IMO.

'84 Celtics would also probably get defeated. '86 Celtics, on the other hand, would probably be able to defeat the Bulls. That frontcourt would dominate, even against Pippen and Rodman.

'10 Lakers? Get the **** outta here.

'08 Celtics? It would be close, but I would expect the Bulls to pull this one out.

[L.A. Jazz]

from the teams i saw myself, i take the 2001 Lakers. a team of veterans with the best Shaq and young Kobe.

[TheMarkMadsen]

fixed... Kobe averaged that time somewhat more points, but Pippen averaged more rebounds, assists, steals, blocks and was a much better defender..... so dont take that comparasant as an insult, Pippen was great and Kobe was great to.... but Kobe was not even close to as good as he is even today or in his last 2 championship runs where he was the man...

in those 3 championship runs it was SHAQ who was the JORDAN

Come on Alpha.... even Reggie Miller bashed Kobe in the Finals...

2000 Finals:
Reggie: 24.3 ppg
Kobe: 17.0 ppg


Lol your an idiot. Kobe SHUT DOWN miller in the finals, the only games where reggie went out Kobe was hurt for. And if you take out the game where Kobe gets injured his ppg goes way up.

Obviously you did not watch a single game of the 2000 finals, so please keep your opinion out of here

[Meticode]

Both Rocket teams that won titles. They were the last good basketball teams as far as I'm concerned.
Not even the Bulls that won it after them were a good last team? Or even the 3 peat Lakers?

[PHILA]

http://i.imgur.com/Vw3Wu.jpg



December 6, 1966

"They are the greatest basketball team ever assembled, "Schaus said casually the other night, realizing he said a mouthful, not to mention made a few more enemies in Boston.

"Only in team defense, and only because of Russell, can Boston match up anywhere. This Philly team shoots and rebounds better than any club Boston ever put on the court. The 76ers have no weakness, none whatsoever.

"Let me give you a breakdown on this club and you judge from there. They say the backcourt is their weakest link, but Greer (Hal) is great on offense, the statistics prove that. Jones (Wally) harasses everyone on defense and Costello (Larry) is steady and a good teacher for the rookies, Goukas (Matt) and Melchionni (Bill).

"I don't think anyone would argue with their front line. They have three great (not good, but great) rebounders in addition to Chamberlain in Walker (Chet), Cunningham (Billy) and Jackson (Luke).

"With this rebounding power, they can be free-wheelers on offense. Like Cunningham, he shoots from all over. So he misses a few. A teammate will get the rebound, most likely.

"With this strength up front, they can jam the middle on defense. This is the thing to do in pro basketball, to take away the drive and the close-range shots. That's why Russell is so great, but he doesn't have the help Wilt does."

Philadelphia is shooting 48 percent as a team, which is well above the NBA record of .459. Boston never shot over 44 percent. "There are so many great shooters at Philly, you can't stop 'em all," moans Schaus.






[I]Lock Haven Express - January 27, 1968

76er Luke Jackson Makes Eyeballs Pop

"When Luke Jackson goes up for a rebound and shakes coming off the boards he makes a lot of eyeballs pop in an important place

[PHILA]

Christian Science Monitor - Mar 16, 1966

"We can hope for a Philadelphia loss, but I personally think the 76ers will win their last three games," said K.C. Jones. "But if we don't catch Philadelphia during the regular season, I think can in the playoffs."

"Physically, the 76ers have the most powerful front court in pro basketball," Jones continued. They play a wide-open game, patterned very much after what the Celtics do. "

"Philadelphia has gambled a lot this year on defense and, because they know if their man gets away from them, Chamberlain will pick him up. They also shoot often and without fear, because they know that if they miss, Wilt will probably get the rebound. "Schayes [Coach Dolph Schayes] has put in alot of plays this season which compliment the shooting ability of Chamberlain, Walker, Greer, Cunningham, and Jackson. There are times when the 76ers will clear out one whole side of the court just so that Cunningham can go one-on-one."

Mel Counts has a theory as to why the Celtics are only winning their games by an average of four points this year, where last season they consistently won by eight. "Rivals play the way we used to," Counts explained. "Against teams which hit the boards well, like Philadelphia and Baltimore, we're in trouble if we don't score with our shot. Someone like Chamberlain or Johnny Green crashes the boards and there is no one like Heinsohn around to help Russell tap in the rebound."

[1987_Lakers]

I'm sorry but that midget backcourt of Greer/Jones (6 foot 2) have no shot vs the tall backcourt of Harper/MJ (6 foot 6).

[nycelt84]

None, they beat the lakers and pistons who beat the Celtics.

The Celtics and Pistons both missed the playoffs in 1996 so what the hell are you talking about?

[Deuce Bigalow]

'80's Lakers

G - Magic Johnson
F - James Worthy
C - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Coach - Pat Riley

They have a good chance

[bwink23]

Lol your an idiot. Kobe SHUT DOWN miller in the finals, the only games where reggie went out Kobe was hurt for. And if you take out the game where Kobe gets injured his ppg goes way up.

Obviously you did not watch a single game of the 2000 finals, so please keep your opinion out of here


Kobe RARELY EVER guarded Reggie Miller in the Finals...try Youtube...if you don't believe me, then i'll go ahead and post the games here. Either way your way off.

SHUT DOWN :lol

[macpierce]

Kobe RARELY EVER guarded Reggie Miller in the Finals...try Youtube...if you don't believe me, then i'll go ahead and post the games here. Either way your way off.

SHUT DOWN :lol
your agenda is clear PAUK, I mean bwink

[Owl]

I like the 71 Bucks (who had the most dominant single season, but are forgotten because they rested starters for the last couple of weeks damaging their regular season record). But no, I don't think there has been a team better than that Bulls team. A team that can beat them? Well any given Sunday and all that, hell the Raptors beat them once that year so perhaps the team is
Oliver Miller
Carlos Rogers
Tracy Murray
Alvin Robertson
Damon Stoudemire
Zan Tabak
(and) Doug Christie
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199603240TOR.html
But I don't think the three-peat, repeat or 72 Lakers, the 86 or Russell Celtics or 83 or 67 76ers could handle those Bulls, or to put it more acurately the Bulls were better than all those teams.

[bwink23]

your agenda is clear PAUK, I mean bwink


First off, i'm not Pauk...Second, if you see an agenda, then why state it?? The information posted was false, i call out BULLSHIT....if you don't post BULLSHIT, you won't get called out on it...simple enough to understand, even for kids like you who *********e constantly.

[poido123]

'80's Lakers

G - Magic Johnson
F - James Worthy
C - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Coach - Pat Riley

They have a good chance

This and the Celtics 80's teams would have a chance, but that 90's bulls team is the best that Ive seen, saying the late 80's pistons is a mute point, since rodman was playing for them then.

[Doranku]

fixed... Kobe averaged that time somewhat more points, but Pippen averaged more rebounds, assists, steals, blocks and was a much better defender..... so dont take that comparasant as an insult, Pippen was great and Kobe was great to.... but Kobe was not even close to as good as he is even today or in his last 2 championship runs where he was the man...

in those 3 championship runs it was SHAQ who was the JORDAN

Come on Alpha.... even Reggie Miller bashed Kobe in the Finals...

2000 Finals:
Reggie: 24.3 ppg
Kobe: 17.0 ppg

Wait, is this dude really gonna call Kobe out for getting outscored by Reggie Miller in a finals where he got injured halfway through when his lover boy LeBron got outscored by JASON TERRY in the finals when LeBrick was IN HIM PRIME?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[chazzy]

comparasant
Comparison

[LABean]

Kobe's Lakers and Magic's Lakers. :bowdown:

[poido123]

Kobe's Lakers and Magic's Lakers. :bowdown:

Any of Kobe's teams would not beat that bulls team. Jordan and pippen would rotate on Kobe, with Rodman to get in the head of Shaq, I just couldnt see it happening. Shaq would still dominate, Kobe would be squeezed the life out of, pippen and jordan would give him fits.

Bulls in 5 or 6. 1 or 2 games won on shaqs advantage over the bulls bigs.

[Owl]

Any of Kobe's teams would not beat that bulls team. Jordan and pippen would rotate on Kobe, with Rodman to get in the head of Shaq, I just couldnt see it happening. Shaq would still dominate, Kobe would be squeezed the life out of, pippen and jordan would give him fits.

Bulls in 5 or 6. 1 or 2 games won on shaqs advantage over the bulls bigs.
Indeed earlier versions of those Lakers teams with substantially more talent (admittedly far less cohesive) had their shot at dethroning Chicago but couldn't get past Utah.

[D-Wade316]

1963 Celtics
1964 Celtics
1965 Celtics
1967 Sixers
1971 Bucks
1972 Lakers
1983 Sixers
1986 Celtics
1987 Lakers
2001 Lakers

:confusedshrug:

[Odinn]

1964-65 Celtics
1966-67 Sixers
1969-70 Knicks
1970-71 Bucks
1971-72 Lakers
1982-83 Sixers
1984-85 Lakers
1985-86 Celtics
1986-87 Lakers
1988-89 Pistons
1998-99 Spurs
2000-01 Lakers
2004-05 Spurs
2007-08 Celtics
2008-09 Lakers

1995-96 Bulls one of the 5 teams ever but that doesn't mean they can get beaten by only other top 5 teams. The bolded ones would have serios chance to beat 1996 Bulls. Others would have less but still would.

[archkiller]

Bill Russell's 11 championship celtic

[MMM]

01 Lakers...Kobe = MJ...

86 Lakers
84 Celtic's
10' Lakers
08'Celtics

10 Lakers were not an elite championship team heck there is a number of Laker teams that should be ranked ahead of them.

[poido123]

This really is a bit of a mute topic. To compare any team from another era is pure speculation. Im also not sure how the eras from yesteryear would fare against the 90s onwards teams, the technology, speed and athleticism, even skill does look noticeably different when Ive watched highlights of wilt, russell, robertson, west etc. this isnt a knock on the older legends, but the type of basketball would be elite for that era, but may not translate to today's basketball.

Before anyone attacks me for having no clue, Im basically making an observation from what Ive seen, I do know highlights etc dont show everything, but I do see with my own eyes some difference in speed and athleticism.

[CardiacKemba]

01 Lakers...Kobe = MJ...

86 Lakers
84 Celtic's
10' Lakers
08'Celtics

'10 Lakers? :facepalm
'08 Celtics? :facepalm

The first two you mentioned are possibilities though I agree.

[wally_world]

G - Steve Nash
G - Kobe Bryant
F - Kevin Garnett
F - Kevin McHale
C - Tim Duncan or Hakeem
6M - Mitch Richmond
BN - Bill Walton
BN - Doug Christie
BN - Robert Horry
BN - Derek Fisher

Not a huge fan of Kobe, but i like his competitiveness, and if there's anyone that's as competitive as MJ, it's him. KG and Duncan/Hakeem are 2 of the best and quickest help defenders to come to the defender's aid if MJ blows by him.

On the offensive end this team in unstoppable. McHale and Duncan/Hakeem will destroy any of the Bull's big in the post, while Nash will feed the team.

Bench has the greatest 6MOY of all time in Walton, Mitch Richmond (the toughest guy MJ ever played against), a great defender in Christie, as well as 2 of the best roleplayers of all time in Horry/Fisher.

[ralph_i_el]

The Monstars

[kNicKz]

2001 lakers

[Blzrfn]

I would like to see the 96 Bulls against the 86 Celtics. That would be great.

I think that there is way too much love for the 01 Lakers, though. They struggled to beat a Sixer team that had Iverson and little else. The 96 Bulls take them in five games max, and the Lakers only win one because of Shaq.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

85 Lakers
86 Celtics
01 Lakers

The 01 Lakers struggled against the 76ers? They lost the opening game and then won 4 straight. Shaquille's Magic did beat the 95 Bulls in the playoffs too. Say no to drugs.

[Micku]

I would like to see the 96 Bulls against the 86 Celtics. That would be great.

I think that there is way too much love for the 01 Lakers, though. They struggled to beat a Sixer team that had Iverson and little else. The 96 Bulls take them in five games max, and the Lakers only win one because of Shaq.

I think it's legitimate love. I think of it this way. The Lakers in 01 was a less talented offensive version of the Magic in 96, but with a prime Shaq and a better version of Penny. And with better defense.

With that said, the Bulls would probably still win.

[eliteballer]

They're not playing with the short 3 point line right?

[eliteballer]

I think that there is way too much love for the 01 Lakers, though. They struggled to beat a Sixer team that had Iverson and little else. The 96 Bulls take them in five games max, and the Lakers only win one because of Shaq

What a load of crap. The Lakers obliterated the Sixers and if the Sonics can take the Bulls to six games, the 01 Lakers can do AT LEAST that.

[ninephive]

02-03 Spurs would have a chance. No one to stop Duncan, Bowen to at least tire Jordan a bit. Spurs took out Suns, Lakers, Mavs (without Dirk, yes), but proved to be a team that could catch fire (23-0 run on Mavs led by Kerr, SJack in 4th quarter to close out series...19-0 run on Nets in 4th quarter to close out the Finals). Nets were a great defensive team too (swept Celtics & Pistons on the way to the Finals).

[AlphaWolf24]

fixed... Kobe averaged that time somewhat more points, but Pippen averaged more rebounds, assists, steals, blocks and was a much better defender..... so dont take that comparasant as an insult, Pippen was great and Kobe was great to.... but Kobe was not even close to as good as he is even today or in his last 2 championship runs where he was the man...

in those 3 championship runs it was SHAQ who was the JORDAN

Come on Alpha.... even Reggie Miller bashed Kobe in the Finals...

2000 Finals:
Reggie: 24.3 ppg
Kobe: 17.0 ppg


Lebron James stan bashing Kobe about the NBA Finals.....


part of the universe just imploded...

[SilkkTheShocker]

01 Lakers...Kobe = MJ...

86 Lakers
84 Celtic's
10' Lakers
08'Celtics

The 08 celtics almost lost to a team in the playoffs where Delonte West was the 2nd best player

[ganja0710]

1. 80s Lakers & 80s Celtics would i think wipe the floor with anybody...

2. Miami Heat... Maybe not the Heat last year... last year they were just getting in to the chemistry, new teammates, new offense, new roles and so on... they are much better right now... and once they taste the blood of the championship this year, how easy it can be, they will i think go on a rampage this decade winning back to back championships... just a bold prediction thats all :D
:roll: :roll: :roll:

[10x91= 5 Rings]

85 Lakers
86 Celtics
01 Lakers

The 01 Lakers struggled against the 76ers? They lost the opening game and then won 4 straight. Shaquille's Magic did beat the 95 Bulls in the playoffs too. Say no to drugs.


That was before MJ got back in shape and the Bulls got this dude,who always had Shaq`s number and toyed with him. Sweep,Sweep,Sweep

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg3BiOw4TWo&feature=related

http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i366/sportlistikz/0304_large.jpg

[NugzHeat3]

Very tough question. I'd say the 1986 Celtics, based on the 10 games I've seen, could possibly beat them. They're virtually flawless and have more talent top to bottom. It's not exactly a fair comparison though. 1986 Celtics wouldn't have the same make up in 1996 just like the 1996 Bulls won't have the same make up in 1986 because of salary cap and expansion and this point is in favor of the Bulls, not the Celtics.

Those Rockets teams a couple of people mentioned earlier were great and I think the 1994 team could give them a very tough battle (can't say for sure) but probably not the 1995 one. I say this because of the sole reason of rebounding. Rebounding, along with PG defense (which would be minimized since Bulls can't exploit that), were two major weaknesses that teams could thoroughly exploit on the 1995 Rockets which is why they were on the verge of elimination a good # of times. Otis Thorpe was traded and their back up got injured. Dennis Rodman would feast down there and the issue Rodman had in 1995 with the Spurs (no respect for his team, unwilling to guard the perimeter) won't be present since Phil, Jordan, Pippen and co had him under control and motivated. Offensive rebounding would literally kill them down there because even though their help defense because of Hakeem's roaming presence would be good, they won't be able to close the possessions since Hakeem can't anchor both the interior and the rebounding at the same time. No way Horry can stick with Rodman; I remember Barkley getting 20+ boards with multiple injuries when they stuck Horry on him in the playoffs. That series vs 1995 Rockets wouldn't be that tight.

Look at this match up from 1996 w/ Houston being motivated to avenge their loss earlier in the month with Drexler back and Clyde played pretty well this game. I remember Aingle/Lundquist calling this game and they both gave Drexler props for the job he did on both ends.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199601300HOU.html

Jordan had a shit game for his standards and Pippen had 12 turnovers which isn't going to happen in the playoffs but their rebounding saved them. They had 21 offensive boards and 51 in total to Houston's.... 27. This isn't something Houston can adjust to, they have to live with it and it would lose them the series, imo. This is similar to how Rodman's offensive rebounding was crucial in a couple of games in the 1996 finals because Bulls offense was struggling at times.

Next team, I think that could possibly beat them is the first three peat Laker team especially the 2001 team because they

[ILLsmak]

quick facts:

* nba title
* 72-10 record in the regular season
* 15-3 record in the playoffs
* all-star mvp, regular season mvp, and finals mvp in jordan
* phil jackson won coach of the year award
* kukoc won the 6th man award
* jordan's 30.4 ppg led the league (was 3rd in steals at 2.2)
* rodman's 14.9 rpg led the league
* jordan and pippen were named to the 1st team all nba team
* jordan, pippen, rodman were named to the 1st team all defensive team
* kerr was second in the league in 3 pt percentage

roster:

http://i.imgur.com/9IAl1.png

2005-2006 Miami Heat.

or

2000-2001 Lakers.

Basically, I'd say they'd have to have someone who could compete with Jordan, a beast big and a PF SF that rebounded and defended as hard as the bulls.

I think people underrate how stacked that Heat championship team was.

-Smak

[TheBigVeto]

I'll post several teams:

1983 Sixers
1986 Celtics
1987 Lakers
1991-1993 Bulls
1994 Rockets
2003 Spurs
2004 Pistons
2008 Celtics
2011 Mavs

All those teams can beat the 95-96 Bulls (the most overrated Bulls team).

[Horatio33]

02-03 Spurs would have a chance. No one to stop Duncan, Bowen to at least tire Jordan a bit. Spurs took out Suns, Lakers, Mavs (without Dirk, yes), but proved to be a team that could catch fire (23-0 run on Mavs led by Kerr, SJack in 4th quarter to close out series...19-0 run on Nets in 4th quarter to close out the Finals). Nets were a great defensive team too (swept Celtics & Pistons on the way to the Finals).

I'm a Spurs fan but you're smoking crack here. Jordan would dominate, Pippen would guard Rookie Manu or Shaky Parker/Claxton. Duncan was awesome but Rodman would slow him a bit. Robinson was a shadow of the player he was. 86 Celtics have the best bet.

[Horatio33]

2005-2006 Miami Heat.

or

2000-2001 Lakers.

Basically, I'd say they'd have to have someone who could compete with Jordan, a beast big and a PF SF that rebounded and defended as hard as the bulls.

I think people underrate how stacked that Heat championship team was.

-Smak

Nah, Heat team was lucky it heated (no pun!) up at the right time, Shaq had an awful (for him) finals, Wade was amazing, Payton, Walker, Zo just did enough. Pippen would have cooled Wade down a little, Jordan would OBLITERATE Walker/Posey.

[ImmortalD24]

2001 Lakers


/thread

[ImmortalD24]

I'll post several teams:

1983 Sixers
1986 Celtics
1987 Lakers
1991-1993 Bulls
1994 Rockets
2003 Spurs
2004 Pistons
2008 Celtics
2011 Mavs

All those teams can beat the 95-96 Bulls (the most overrated Bulls team).
:roll: :roll:

[BlueandGold]

quick facts:

* nba title
* 72-10 record in the regular season
* 15-3 record in the playoffs
* all-star mvp, regular season mvp, and finals mvp in jordan
* phil jackson won coach of the year award
* kukoc won the 6th man award
* jordan's 30.4 ppg led the league (was 3rd in steals at 2.2)
* rodman's 14.9 rpg led the league
* jordan and pippen were named to the 1st team all nba team
* jordan, pippen, rodman were named to the 1st team all defensive team
* kerr was second in the league in 3 pt percentage

roster:

http://i.imgur.com/9IAl1.png

On top of all this they had one of the most versatile and dominant closing defensive lineups of all time in Jordan (1-3), Pippen (1-4), Harper (1-3) and Rodman (1-5).

I don't think any team that season or possibly all time could boast a significant matchup advantage against them.

[SwooshReturns]

The '93 Bulls, and the '92 Bulls ...

I don't think the 2001 Lakers or 2008 Celtics can beat them (the two best teams since the '90s Bulls Dynasty)

[icewill36]

i honestly think 08 celtics could contend with them...

[SwooshReturns]

It just infuriates me to no end when people automatically consider the '96 Bulls the best team of that dynasty. '97 Bulls were probably better (MJ in better shape), Brian Williams low post scoring off the bench ... but the best Bulls team to me are the '92 and '93 squads.

The 1994 Bulls team that never was if MJ didn't retire in my educated opinion would've been hands down the best Bulls team of that decade / era of domination.

[Owl]

It just infuriates me to no end when people automatically consider the '96 Bulls the best team of that dynasty. '97 Bulls were probably better (MJ in better shape), Brian Williams low post scoring off the bench ... but the best Bulls team to me are the '92 and '93 squads.

The 1994 Bulls team that never was if MJ didn't retire in my educated opinion would've been hands down the best Bulls team of that decade / era of domination.
If you consider Brian Williams part of that squad (I know he was, but when people think historically, the temptation is to say he was a holdout who signed up late for an easy ring, didn't play most games so isn't in that team for comparison purposes) then yeah you go with the team with him in.

People don't consider '93 Bulls the greatest because their record for a team of their talent was abysmal. Now if it's purely on paper, hypothetical matchup maybe people give it consideration. But because they did so poorly (and yeah they had a legit excuse, 2 guys playing in the Olympics) and most people comparing teams are at least as much (and sometimes explicitly only) considering seasons, more than the team somewhat outside of the context of their performance. On paper I can absolutely see why you'd want BJ and Grant, (though I can also see the merit of Toni, Rodman and Kerr).

'92 Bull have the vintage season as well the players so I can see why some might favour them, but for me the impact of expansion is overstated (Bulls actually did worse vs expansion teams than rest of the league and lost BJ for nothing so they were made to look worse not better by expansion imo) and Bulls were more dominant in 96 than 92.

[NugzHeat3]

I wouldn't say 1997 was better than 1996.

Only thing I can say is Jordan was quicker in 1997 (like Swoosh said). He lost some weight which helped him defensively both vertically and laterally. One example is that Jordan's defense on Strickland in the playoffs is something he couldn't have duplicated with his 1996 self. They put him on PGs early in the 1995-96 season and he was having trouble keeping up with them. He was probably a bit quicker standstill as well.

As for Brian Williams, he never made much of an impact anyway. I read Phil never seemed high on him and that kind of shows because he wasn't getting much minutes.

They seemed more like a team that were carried by Jordan and Pippen with the rest of the team just being along for the ride than the 1996 team that just overwhelmed everybody. Rodman didn't seem to be at the top of his game in the playoffs regardless of his mind games with Zo and Karl. I think both Jordan and Pippen had to pick up some of the rebounding that was his duty. Kukoc had a piss poor playoff run as well.

One thing that's in their favor is competition. In the end, it probably just comes down to splitting hairs though.

[CavaliersFTW]

1967 Philadelphia 76'ers - definitively

1971 Milwaukee Bucks - definitively

1972 LA Lakers - by a slim margin

1986 Boston Celtics - definitively

[SwooshReturns]

I wouldn't say 1997 was better than 1996.

Only thing I can say is Jordan was quicker in 1997 (like Swoosh said). He lost some weight which helped him defensively both vertically and laterally. One example is that Jordan's defense on Strickland in the playoffs is something he couldn't have duplicated with his 1996 self. They put him on PGs early in the 1995-96 season and he was having trouble keeping up with them. He was probably a bit quicker standstill as well.

As for Brian Williams, he never made much of an impact anyway. I read Phil never seemed high on him and that kind of shows because he wasn't getting much minutes.

They seemed more like a team that were carried by Jordan and Pippen with the rest of the team just being along for the ride than the 1996 team that just overwhelmed everybody. Rodman didn't seem to be at the top of his game in the playoffs regardless of his mind games with Zo and Karl. I think both Jordan and Pippen had to pick up some of the rebounding that was his duty. Kukoc had a piss poor playoff run as well.

One thing that's in their favor is competition. In the end, it probably just comes down to splitting hairs though.
Would you consider either the '96 or '97 Bulls to be better than '91, '92 or '93 teams?

On paper the games aren't played. That's why I prefer players like Kobe Bryant to LeBron James. Sports are played with rich context, that increase pressure.

Sports aren't math equations.

With context included ... I don't see any team being better than the 1993 Bulls.

Unrivaled toughness, competitive spirit.

Like I said the only Bulls team that would've been better was the 1994 squad.

MJ still in his prime, both physically and skillfully ... Pippen at his absolute pinnacle season

Grant, and BJ having the best seasons of their careers. Kukoc off the bench.

Best Bulls Team that never happened.

[NugzHeat3]

Would you consider either the '96 or '97 Bulls to be better than '91, '92 or '93 teams?

On paper the games aren't played. That's why I prefer players like Kobe Bryant to LeBron James. Sports are played with rich context, that increase pressure.

Sports aren't math equations.

With context included ... I don't see any team being better than the 1993 Bulls.

Unrivaled toughness, competitive spirit.

Like I said the only Bulls team that would've been better was the 1994 squad.

MJ still in his prime, both physically and skillfully ... Pippen at his absolute pinnacle season

Grant, and BJ having the best seasons of their careers. Kukoc off the bench.

Best Bulls Team that never happened.
I'm partial to the first three peat team myself because they're more athletic and energetic.

I wouldn't be surprised if the the 1994 team could've turned out that way. But, I don't think it's a guarantee Pippen, Grant and BJ still have their best seasons if MJ doesn't leave.

They didn't have much pressure from the media but they still had something to prove from a personal standpoint since everybody had counted them out. I'm not sure they ever gain that fire within themselves if Jordan doesn't leave. When you have a guy like Jordan on your team, there's a tendency to coast since you know he have a consistent, reliable threat that you can depend on night in, night out. The rest of them never had that pressure when Jordan was there.

Don't get me wrong. Jordan's presence and those championship years definitely helped mature, develop and prepare Pippen, Grant and the rest of the guys for such a season but I'm not sure if they ever showcase their 1994 selves within his presence. Also, by no means am I saying he held them back.

[SwooshReturns]

I'm partial to the first three peat team myself because they're more athletic and energetic.

I wouldn't be surprised if the the 1994 team could've turned out that way. But, I don't think it's a guarantee Pippen, Grant and BJ still have their best seasons if MJ doesn't leave.

They didn't have much pressure from the media but they still had something to prove from a personal standpoint since everybody had counted them out. I'm not sure they ever gain that fire within themselves if Jordan doesn't leave. When you have a guy like Jordan on your team, there's a tendency to coast since you know he have a consistent, reliable threat that you can depend on night in, night out. The rest of them never had that pressure when Jordan was there.

Don't get me wrong. Jordan's presence and those championship years definitely helped mature, develop and prepare Pippen, Grant and the rest of the guys for such a season but I'm not sure if they ever showcase their 1994 selves within his presence. Also, by no means am I saying he held them back.
Agreed. In all cases.

[97 bulls]

It just infuriates me to no end when people automatically consider the '96 Bulls the best team of that dynasty. '97 Bulls were probably better (MJ in better shape), Brian Williams low post scoring off the bench ... but the best Bulls team to me are the '92 and '93 squads.

The 1994 Bulls team that never was if MJ didn't retire in my educated opinion would've been hands down the best Bulls team of that decade / era of domination.
The only reason you feel the 1st threepeat bulls are better is Jordans statistics. Honestly, what makes tje first threepeat team better? Even if you feel Jordan was better during the first threepeat, he wasnt that much better. The year and half that Pippen had leading the bulls garnered him respect, maturity, and status. And thus the relationship and chemistry between Jordan and Pippen evolved into something so powerfull that words dont do it justice.

Most would agree Rodman was an upgrade over Grant. He could dominate and take over games in a way Grant never could. And Kukoc more than made up for Grants offense.

I also feel Harper was an upgrade over Armstrong due to his defense and clutch shooting. As well as his size and athleticism.

But most of all is the bench. Which is why I favor the 97 bulls. Id take Caffey, Brian Williams, and Kerr and Wennigton over Paxson, Scott Williams, Stacey King, and Perdue.

Another point is that we know the 96-98 bulls were more than capable without Jordan based on how they faired in 94 and 95. The fact is the 94 team aside from Pippen, Grant, and Armstrong were totally different from the 93 team.

Then they proved in 98 that they could be successful without Pippen. That now great they were.

[jlauber]

Both, the 66-67 Sixers and the 71-72 Lakers were every bit as dominant in their seasons (and in more competitive leagues) as that 95-96 Bulls team. And player-for-player, they would match up quite well those Bulls teams. The edge that the Bulls might have with MJ, would be negated by either Wilt's overwhelming edge at his position (particularly the '67 Chamberlain.) And I would love to see the Bulls challenge Wilt in the lane. Or Rodman trying to get a rebound against Chamberlain.

[97 bulls]

Both, the 66-67 Sixers and the 71-72 Lakers were every bit as dominant in their seasons (and in more competitive leagues) as that 95-96 Bulls team. And player-for-player, they would match up quite well those Bulls teams. The edge that the Bulls might have with MJ, would be negated by either Wilt's overwhelming edge at his position (particularly the '67 Chamberlain.) And I would love to see the Bulls challenge Wilt in the lane. Or Rodman trying to get a rebound against Chamberlain.
What makes the late 60s and early 70s more competitive besides your bias?

[1987_Lakers]

'67 Sixers - Great team with great talent, but their guards would be very undersized if you put them in the NBA today. Also a bad FT shooting team.

'72 Lakers - Great starting five, but they lack depth, no one on the bench you can depend on. Hairiston at 6 foot 7 would be an undersized PF in today's league.

[jlauber]

What makes the late 60s and early 70s more competitive besides your bias?

The fact that teams were STACKED with talent.

How about this...


I have said it before, but take a look at the NBA in the 66-67 season. SEVEN of the TEN teams were just LOADED with talent.

The best example of that were the Lakers. That team had Rahman (Walt Hazzard), who would average 24 ppg the very next season. They had PF Rudy LaRusso who would averaged 22 ppg the very next season. They had Archie Clark, who would be an all-star, and average 20 ppg, the very next season. They had Gail Goodrich, who would go on to a HOF career. They had 6-10 journeyman center Darrell Imhoff, who averaged 10 ppg and 13 rpg that season. They had TWO seven-footers, including one, Mel Counts, who had a good outside shot and could play the PF position. And they had West and Baylor, both of whom were in their near-primes, and who averaged 29 ppg and 27 ppg, respectively.



And, they went 36-45.

The 39-42 Hawks were LOADED with HOFers and players who had multiple 20 ppg seasons. Players like Bridges, Beaty, Guerin, Silas, and Hudson. The 36-45 Knicks had players like HOFer Reed, HOFer Bellamy, Barnett , Komives, Van Arsdale (who would go on to have multiple 20+ ppg seasons), and Cazzie Russell (one of the best 6th men of his era.) The 39-42 Royals had a near-prime HOFer Oscar, HOFer Lucas, Happy Hairston (who go on to be one of the best rebounding forwards of his era), 6-11 Walt Wesley, (a career backup center who would have a 50 point game in his career), Bob Love,( who would be one of the best scorers in the league in the 70's), as well as Flynn Robinson and Jon McGlocklin, who were among the best pure shooters of that era (or ANY era.) The 44-37 Warriors, with HOFer Barry and Thurmond; 6-10 PF Clyde Lee (who would be a force on the glass in the 70's); Jeff Mullins, (who would be a multiple 20 ppg season scorer in his career); that Jimmy King that was mentioned in the OP ( a 6-2 white guy who could dunk); Fred Hetzel, (who scored 21 ppg the very next season); and the decent veteran Tom Meschery.

Of course, the 60-21 Celtics had perhaps the DEEPEST roster in NBA HISTORY (rivaled only by their 62-63 team, which fielded NINE HOFers.) That squad was LOADED with talented players. HOFers like Russell, Havlicek, Sam and KC Jones, Satch Sanders, Bailey Howell, and backup center Wayne Embry. Once again, ALL of those guys were HOFers. They also had Don Nelson, Larry Siegfried, Toby Kimball, and Jim Barnett...ALL were quality players in their careers (for instance, the little known Kimball was an 11-12 guy the very next season.)

And the mighty 68-13 Sixers, who were not nearly as deep as Boston, but were probably better, player for player, 1-6.

Hell, even the expansion Bulls went 33-48. So, all-in-all, that may have been the most competitive NBA season in NBA history.

Think about that...the Lakers, with Baylor and West, who were the "Lebron and Wade" of their era...and a boatload of surrounding talent...could only go 36-45.

[jlauber]

'67 Sixers - Great team with great talent, but their guards would be very undersized if you put them in the NBA today. Also a bad FT shooting team.

'72 Lakers - Great starting five, but they lack depth, no one on the bench you can depend on. Hairiston at 6 foot 7 would be an undersized PF in today's league.

Hairston was probably as tall as Rodman. The Lakers also had LeRoy Ellis on their bench, who was an athletic 6-10 or 6-11 and who had excellent range. John Q. Trapp was a defensive specialist and a tough rebounder off of the bench. Pat Riley was a decent all-around guard. And most here probably don't know anything about Flynn Robinson. Read Charley Rosen's book on the '72 Lakers. Robinson was considered LA's best shooter...which is saying a lot, since that Laker team had Goodrich and West. He was actually a very good scorer, too (he had a season of over 20 ppg.)

And, despite their relatively old age on that roster, they LIT UP the NBA with a blistering fast-break. They averaged 121 ppg that season (only allowing 109), which was nearly 5 ppg better than the next best team, and 11 ppg better than the league average. They ROUTINELY scored 130+ ppg.

[Ne 1]

Teams that would beat the 1996 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

1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 Lakers

1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 Celtics

1988, 1989 and 1990 Detroit Pistons

[1987_Lakers]

ALL FIVE of the Lakers starters during the '72 postseason averaged 38+ MPG, that tells me they didn't have much faith in their bench.

[97 bulls]

The fact that teams were STACKED with talent.

How about this...
Lol I can say the same thing about any teams of sny era. I thought you were gonna come with facts not opinions. Most of the people from that era would tell you the best athletes didnt even play basketball. It was a distant fourth or fifth most popular sport behind boxing, football, baseball, and track and field. Therefore, yout point is moot

[Cali Syndicate]

Lol your an idiot. Kobe SHUT DOWN miller in the finals, the only games where reggie went out Kobe was hurt for. And if you take out the game where Kobe gets injured his ppg goes way up.

Obviously you did not watch a single game of the 2000 finals, so please keep your opinion out of here

Reggie had a solid outing in 5 of the 6 games. WTF you talking about?

[jlauber]

Lol I can say the same thing about any teams of sny era. I thought you were gonna come with facts not opinions. Most of the people from that era would tell you the best athletes didnt even play basketball. It was a distant fourth or fifth most popular sport behind boxing, football, baseball, and track and field. Therefore, yout point is moot

Yep...look at all of the 6-5+ boxers back in the 60's. And professional track and field was enormously popular back then, too.

Look, basketball was not invented in the 50's. It was invented in the 1890's. College's quickly picked it up, and were playing it by the 1890's. There were PROFESSIONAL basketball teams playing in the 20's. And, aside from the shot-clock, in the mid-50's, and the 3 pt. shot in the late 70's-early 80's (and in the late 60's and 70's in the ABA), the game has changed little since the 1890's. Same size court. Same size basket. Roughly the same ball. Same number of players. Same time limit. Same dimensions. And with minor tweaks, roughly the same rules.

I have shown here many times, now...there were GREAT ATHLETES playing in the NBA in the 60's, too (guys like Baylor, Gus Johnson, Russell, and Chamberlain.) Not that basketball really requires a player to be a great ATHLETE...even today. Basketball is as much a game of skill, desire, physical size, as athleticism. The great shooters of the 60's, would be great shooters today, as well. My god, Bill Sharman had a season of .932 FT shooting in the 50's. And I can guarantee you that Jerry Lucas and Jon McGlocklin were as good as pure shooters who have played the game. I have said it before, but I attended a Warriors-Knicks game in the early 70's, and in the pre-game shoot-around, Lucas made some 20+ straight shots from close to between the circles, and as far as 25 ft. He also was hitting 15 ft, FT line HOOK shots.

I was listening to Bill Russell on the Golf Channel a few nights ago. He told a story of a discussion with MJ, in which he told Jordan that, his assist to Paxson in the clinching Finals game would never have happened in the 60's. When MJ asked him why, Russell responded by saying that Paxson would have been watching that game from the stands. He was simply not a good enough player to have made the NBA's top-100 players back in the 60's.

[305Baller]

1971 Bucks

[97 bulls]

Yep...look at all of the 6-5+ boxers back in the 60's. And professional track and field was enormously popular back then, too.

Look, basketball was not invented in the 50's. It was invented in the 1890's. College's quickly picked it up, and were playing it by the 1890's. There were PROFESSIONAL basketball teams playing in the 20's. And, aside from the shot-clock, in the mid-50's, and the 3 pt. shot in the late 70's-early 80's (and in the late 60's and 70's in the ABA), the game has changed little since the 1890's. Same size court. Same size basket. Roughly the same ball. Same number of players. Same time limit. Same dimensions. And with minor tweaks, roughly the same rules.

I have shown here many times, now...there were GREAT ATHLETES playing in the NBA in the 60's, too (guys like Baylor, Gus Johnson, Russell, and Chamberlain.) Not that basketball really requires a player to be a great ATHLETE...even today. Basketball is as much a game of skill, desire, physical size, as athleticism. The great shooters of the 60's, would be great shooters today, as well. My god, Bill Sharman had a season of .932 FT shooting in the 50's. And I can guarantee you that Jerry Lucas and Jon McGlocklin were as good as pure shooters who have played the game. I have said it before, but I attended a Warriors-Knicks game in the early 70's, and in the pre-game shoot-around, Lucas made some 20+ straight shots from close to between the circles, and as far as 25 ft. He also was hitting 15 ft, FT line HOOK shots.

I was listening to Bill Russell on the Golf Channel a few nights ago. He told a story of a discussion with MJ, in which he told Jordan that, his assist to Paxson in the clinching Finals game would never have happened in the 60's. When MJ asked him why, Russell responded by saying that Paxson would have been watching that game from the stands. He was simply not a good enough player to have made the NBA's top-100 players back in the 60's.
They were great athletes J, but they werent the best athletes of the time. And honestly, most NBA players heights are distorted. Bottom line is the NBA of the 60s and 70s is not what it is going back to the 90s

[jlauber]

1971 Bucks

The '71 Bucks were a great team. I personally have them at #4 all-time (behind the '72 Lakers, the '67 Sixers, and the '96 Bulls). They not only went 66-16, they then went 12-2 in the playoffs. Their regular season point differential of +12.2 is third all-time (behind the '72 Lakers and '96 Bulls at +12.3), and their playoff differential of +14.5 is the all-time post-season record. They also outshot their opponents that season by a .509 to .424 margin, which is the largest in NBA history.

Now, for the bad news. They probably had the easiest road to a title in NBA history. They beat a 41-41 Warrior team in the first round. In the WCF's, theyt beat an old 48-34 Laker team that didn't have West and Baylor in the playoffs. And then they swept a 42-40 Bullets team in the Finals.

And they had a huge hole at the so-called PF position, too. In fact, when the healthy Lakers were shredding the league in '72, the Bucks had to make a trade to get PF Curtis Perry in an attempt to match LA's huge edge in rebounding. It didn't help, either. The Lakers beat them 4-1 in their 5 regular season H2H's, and then after losing game one of the WCF's, the Lakers won four of the next five, including a 115-90 drubbing in LA in game five, and a remarkable 4th quarter comeback win, in Milwaukee, in the clinching game six win.

IMHO, the '72 Lakers were a considerably better team than the '71 Bucks.

[jlauber]

They were great athletes J, but they werent the best athletes of the time. And honestly, most NBA players heights are distorted. Bottom line is the NBA of the 60s and 70s is not what it is going back to the 90s

Yes, they have been distorted. Just ask CavsFan, who has shown that many of the players of the 60's were UNDER-MEASURED, while many since the 80's, have been OVER-MEASURED.

As for the rest of your post...the game was just not that different in the 90's than what it was in the 60's. Just watch YouTube footage. Here is an example (and again, thanks to CavsFan)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWVi0EtJcZg

[97 bulls]

Yes, they have been distorted. Just ask CavsFan, who has shown that many of the players of the 60's were UNDER-MEASURED, while many since the 80's, have been OVER-MEASURED.

As for the rest of your post...the game was just not that different in the 90's than what it was in the 60's. Just watch YouTube footage. Here is an example (and again, thanks to CavsFan)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWVi0EtJcZg
Speaking from personal experience, ive met bill Russell. He was not 6'10. The same goes gor Bill Walton who looked closer to 6'9 when I met him.

Im sorry J, but ive never talked to an older person who would say the 60s was ultra competitive. The Celtics won 8 straight years for goodness sake

[Scholar]

How about the 2011-12 Western Conference All-Stars? :D Sure, they don't play defense during the All-Star weekend, but I bet they would against the '96 Bulls.

[jlauber]

Speaking from personal experience, ive met bill Russell. He was not 6'10. The same goes gor Bill Walton who looked closer to 6'9 when I met him.

Im sorry J, but ive never talked to an older person who would say the 60s was ultra competitive. The Celtics won 8 straight years for goodness sake

I have never met either Russell or Walton, but I have seen photos in which Russell looked as tall as anyone 6-10+. Walton was known to have been over 7-0.

The Celtics beat the Lakers in OT in game seven of the '62 Finals, after beating the Warriors by two points in game seven of the '62 ECF's.

In the '63 ECF's, Boston beat the Royals, 4-3.

In the '65 ECF's, the 62-18 Celtics beat the 40-40 Sixers in game seven by one point.

The '66 Celtics beat LA, 4-3, in the Finals, winning that game seven by a 95-93 margin.

The '67 Sixers routed 60-21 Celtics, 4-1, and nearly swept them (only a 121-117 loss in Boston in game four prevented the sweep.)

The '68 Celtics came back from a 3-1 deficit in the ECF's, to win a game seven, 100-96, in a series in which Philly was without HOFer Billy Cunningham the entire series, and then had injuries to starters Luke Jackson and Wali Jones in game five. In addition to that, Chamberlain was nursing an assortment of injuries, and was noticeably limping in the last five games of that series.

And in the '69 Finals, the Celtics won game seven, 108-106, in a game in which Chamberlain was on the bench in the last five minutes of the game.

[Mr. Jabbar]

01 Lakers: That team was no joke.

[La Frescobaldi]

80-86 Celtics.

80-83 Sixers.
72 Lakers.
71 Lakers before injury to Baylor, West, and Erickson..
71-73 Bulls.
83 Bucks.
71-73 Bucks.
70-74 Knicks
66-68 Sixers
60-65 Celtics.

Almost any 80s Lakers. Take your FREAKING pick.
2002 Kings.
Any of the first 3-peat Bulls.
97 Bulls.
Any Shaq Lakers 2000-2003.

that 96 Bulls team is so overrated by weakness of the NBA of that day. As Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman ALL said most blatantly.

edit again Oh I forgot the Isiah Pistons, the late 70s Bullets & Walton's teams, and the Rick Barry Warriors.

FU 96 bulls with your totally stacked bullcrap and your referees throwing games for you and all your f'n crap.

[CavaliersFTW]

'67 Sixers - Great team with great talent, but their guards would be very undersized if you put them in the NBA today. Also a bad FT shooting team.

Not that your deliberately doing it - but most people just don't know that list heights are not comparable across era's. The NBA didn't begin to successfully mass-market it's players and make massive bank off player endorsements until the 1980's. And as anyone knows, money talks. After the 1980's the listed heights of players exploded - they became very exaggerated. Because as far as marking an NBA superstar goes, the bigger the better. Thankfully draft data offers a window to reality, so that we can actually compare vintage players to modern ones.

1967 76'ers in bold.

Point Guards:
Wali Jones 6'2
Bob Weiss 6'2
*Hal Greer 6'2 (*Also swings to shooting guard)
Kyrie Irving 6'1.75
Deron Williams 6'1.75
Derrick Rose 6'1.5
Bill Melchionni 6'1
Larry Costello 6'1
Steve Nash 6'1
Chris Paul 5'11.75
Allen Iverson 5'11.5 (listed 6'0 on D/E due to rounded data)
Deron Williams 5'11
Nate Robinson 5'7.75

Shooting Guards:
*Chet Walker 6'6 (*primarily SF that occasionally swings to SG)
Matt Guokas 6'5
Michael Jordan 6'4.85
Kobe Bryant 6'4.75
Jerry Stackhouse 6'4.5
Ray Allen 6'4
Tyreke Evans 6'4
Dwayne Wade 6'3.75
O. J. Mayo 6'3.25
Gilbert Arenas 6'2.25
Hal Greer 6'2
Eric Gordon 6'2
Delonte West 6'1.5

Small Forwards:
Chet Walker 6'6
Dave Gambee 6'6
Paul Pierce 6'6
Caron Butler 6'5.25
Al Thornton 6'5.25
Alonzo Gee 6'5.25

Power Forwards:
Luke Jackson 6'9
Shawn Kemp 6'8.75
Amare Stoudemire 6'8.5
Blake Griffin 6'8.5
Rashard Lewis 6'8.5
Taj Gibson 6'8.5
Al Jefferson 6'8.5
Juwan Howard 6'8.5
Kevin Love 6'7.75
Udonis Haslem 6'7.75
Carlos Boozer 6'7.75
Tristan Thompson 6'7.5
Josh Smith 6'7
Michael Beasley 6'7
Billy Cunningham 6'6
Dennis Rodman 6'6
Charles Barkley 6'5
Jason Maxiell 6'5

Centers:
Wilt Chamberlain 7'1.06
David Robinson 7'0
Tyson Chandler 6'11.5
Greg Oden 6'11
Javale McGee 6'11
Joakim Noah 6'10.5
Alonzo Mourning 6'9.5
Luke Jackson 6'9 (Strictly the teams PF that season, he was only a lifeline at the C spot in case something happened to Wilt... Wilt never came out of games, he didn't need backups off the bench.)
Dwight Howard 6'9
Omeka Okafur 6'8.75
Bismack Biymobo 6'8.31
Ben Wallace 6'7


That team is literally the opposite of your criticism. Those 67 76'ers were, and still are, a large and physically imposing team.

Sources:
www.draftexpress.com/measurements
http://archive.fiba.com/pages/eng/fa/player/p/pid/36627/sid/2945/tid/379/_/2000_Olympic_Games_Tournament_for_Men/index.html



'72 Lakers - Great starting five, but they lack depth, no one on the bench you can depend on. Hairiston at 6 foot 7 would be an undersized PF in today's league.
Hairston is a small forward, not a power forward. Since Wilt never came out of games Leroy Ellis was the Lakers (only) PF. He only had limited minutes. He played on Lakers line-ups that needed extra length because at 6'10 he's nearly an inch taller than Dwight Howard. They thrived on 4 man small-ball with that roster with Wilt as the 300+ pound monster in the middle. That's all they needed for their game. If any team is grossly undersized it's those Bulls in the face of Wilt. Who the hell is going to deal with Wilt in the paint!?

I also disagree with all of your other claims, That 76'er team >>>>>>>>>> deeper than the Bulls and across the board has more talent overall. I agree the '72 team isn't as good as the '76ers team, but the Bulls to me, are no stronger than that '72 team. That series could go either way - the 76'ers would win any 7 game series, they don't have any legitimate weaknesses and your missing the definite weaknesses of those bulls when matched up with these two teams. The man in the middle. The bulls have literally no way of dealing with Wilt - none - nadda. The 76er's can best deal with MJ and Pippen because those guys are all young, long, and athletic. No they won't shut Pippen or MJ down nobody really can, but they'll defend them as good as any team can and that's all they need to do because MJ's supporting case is not as good as Wilt's on that 76'er team. Plus, as I said, nobody is even gonna come close to bothering Wilt in the low-post from that Bulls team. Wilt's 76'ers would hands down beat them - they expose the Bulls primary weakness, a quality center.

The Lakers would have a tougher time defending MJ and Pippen. But those Bulls aren't any deeper with quality players than the '72 Lakers. That series could go either way.

[bdreason]

Late 80's Lakers and Celtics. Maybe one of Shaqs Lakers squads. That's about it IMO.