1996 Bulls vs 2012 Heat or 2008 Celtics

[jalbert009]

Who has a better chance to beat the 96 bulls. The teams match up pretty well. Strong in PF,SF & SG position and all had a SF as their 6th man. If you can think of a better team in the 2000's - Present who could beat this Bulls team who would it be?

1996 Bulls 72W-10L
Longley
Rodman
Pippen
Jordan
Harper

6th Man: Kukoc

2012 Heat 46W-20L
Haslem
Bosh
James
Wade
Chalmers

6th Man: Battier

2008 Celtics 66W-16L
Perkins
Garnett
Pierce
Allen
Rondo

6th Man: Posey

[Clippersfan86]

:facepalm 2008 Celtics obviously.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Celtics would lose. Heat would get annihilated. At 40-26 they have no place in the discussion based on record and they aren't a Champion yet.

[Tenchi Ryu]

Hell, you'd have been better off throwing the 98 Bulls in here. 96 was probably the best Bulls team assembled after 93.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Celtics have the better chance, but neither of them could beat the '96 Bulls. I'd say if they played 100 series, the '12 Heat would win 10-20% of the time and the '08 Celtcs would win 15-30% of the time

[jalbert009]

Hell, you'd have been better off throwing the 98 Bulls in here. 96 was probably the best Bulls team assembled after 93.

So would there be any team in the Post-Jordan Era that could beat the 96 Bulls?

[Teanett]

bulls vs celtics= 4:2
bulls vs heat= bulls go up 2:0 and heat hand in their resignation.

[Tenchi Ryu]

So would there be any team in the Post-Jordan Era that could beat the 96 Bulls?
2000 Dynasty Lakers could definitely give them a run for their money....2008 Boston would lose, but they'd put up a good fight.

[Teanett]

So would there be any team in the Post-Jordan Era that could beat the 96 Bulls?

i think 2006 miami would give them problems because of shaq and zo and a lot of smart veterans.

[Jotaro Durant]

celtics 7 games
bulls get at heat 4-1

[Real Men Wear Green]

i think 2006 miami would give them problems because of shaq and zo and a lot of smart veterans.
They'd get beat. Shaq was a shell of himself and those Bulls took down a far better Shaq and Penny, who wouldn't be far behind Wade

[Dragonyeuw]

So would there be any team in the Post-Jordan Era that could beat the 96 Bulls?

2001 Lakers would give them a serious run..

[Teanett]

They'd get beat. Shaq was a shell of himself and those Bulls took down a far better Shaq and Penny, who wouldn't be far behind Wade

they would get beat but zo and shaq were big dudes.
but on the other hand, the bulls beat the jazz so i dont know what the **** i'm talking about...:confusedshrug:

the answer is probably: there's no team that could beat them.

[Real Men Wear Green]

2001 Lakers would give them a serious run..
Again, the Shaq/Penny Magic got swept. Does Bryant make them that much better, being covered by Pip and MJ? Those two killed wings and we've senn Bryant struggle to score in series vs. lesser defenders like Prince, Pierce and Allen.

[jalbert009]

2000 Dynasty Lakers could definitely give them a run for their money....2008 Boston would lose, but they'd put up a good fight.


2001 Lakers would give them a serious run..

That 1996 Magic Team with Shaq and Penny Hardaway was built similar to that Dynasty Lakers and they got swept buy the Bulls.

[Clippersfan86]

I think the 00 Blazers, 01 Lakers and 08 Celtics could all put up a fight against the 96 Bulls. Shaq alone is a big enough of an x factor that the Bulls can't match up with to where I'd pick Lakers in 7. Vs Celtics Bulls would win in 6 or 7. Against Blazers team (super deep) I have Bulls in 6.

[Tenchi Ryu]

That 1996 Magic Team with Shaq and Penny Hardaway was built similar to that Dynasty Lakers and they got swept buy the Bulls.
Yea, but Shaq was unstoppable in 2000, and just overall a lot better than his 96 Magic days. Then you have to remember that 96 Shaq wasn't running the triangle and didn't have P.Jax.

And as good as Penny was, he's just simply not athletically on Prime Kobe's level.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I think the 00 Blazers, 01 Lakers and 08 Celtics could all put up a fight against the 96 Bulls. Shaq alone is a big enough of an x factor that the Bulls can't match up with to where I'd pick Lakers in 7. Vs Celtics Bulls would win in 6 or 7. Against Blazers team (super deep) I have Bulls in 6.
And yet they swept his team.

[jalbert009]

Wow! If a Prime Jordan was playing in the 2000's instead of the 90's. Imagine how many ringless Greats there would be from this generation? :lol

[Clippersfan86]

And yet they swept his team.

Yes... when he was a what 2nd or 3rd year player? Please dude. Besides Orlando was nowhere near as good as the 01 Lakers.

[Smoke117]

Wow! If a Prime Jordan was playing in the 2000's instead of the 90's. Imagine how many ringless Greats there would be from this generation? :lol


:rolleyes: If Jordan was playing in the 00's that doesn't automatically mean he would be winning championships...you still have to put a team around him. Nobody wins championships alone.

[Dragonyeuw]

Again, the Shaq/Penny Magic got swept. Does Bryant make them that much better, being covered by Pip and MJ? Those two killed wings and we've senn Bryant struggle to score in series vs. lesser defenders like Prince, Pierce and Allen.

Shaq was better in 2001, and 2001 Kobe was better than 96 Hardaway. I didn't say they'd beat the Bulls, I said they'd give them a run.

[Clippersfan86]

Shaq was better in 2001, and 2001 Kobe was better than 96 Hardaway. I didn't say they'd beat the Bulls, I said they'd give them a run.

Exactly. I said they would make it a 6 or 7 game series. People seem to have this idea that 1996 Bulls would sweep any team ever constructed.

[Odinn]

None of these teams is not a true challenge for '96 Bulls.

[Micku]

Again, the Shaq/Penny Magic got swept. Does Bryant make them that much better, being covered by Pip and MJ? Those two killed wings and we've senn Bryant struggle to score in series vs. lesser defenders like Prince, Pierce and Allen.

While Magic was more talented than the Lakers, the Lakers had better team because of their defense and coaching. Plus, Grant went down in the first game against the Bulls series. While it may not change that much in the outcome, the Magic might've gave a better fight.

Regardless, the Lakers might've lost too.



I think the 00 Blazers, 01 Lakers and 08 Celtics could all put up a fight against the 96 Bulls. Shaq alone is a big enough of an x factor that the Bulls can't match up with to where I'd pick Lakers in 7. Vs Celtics Bulls would win in 6 or 7. Against Blazers team (super deep) I have Bulls in 6.

As somebody else said, the Bulls swept the Magic with Shaq. And look at the entire 96 playoffs in the East. The Bulls have to deal with Ewing, Mourning and Shaq in the playoffs. Usually the common weakness that ppl said the Bulls had was the center spot, but they never had a problem dealing with the some of the top centers in the 90s.

[jalbert009]

:rolleyes: If Jordan was playing in the 00's that doesn't automatically mean he would be winning championships...you still have to put a team around him. Nobody wins championships alone.

How about Jordan on this current Bulls minus Rose.

Noah/Asik
Boozer/Gibson
Deng/Korver
Jordan/Hamilton
Watson/Lucas

I Think they win it all :bowdown:

[Smoke117]

Shaq was better in 2001, and 2001 Kobe was better than 96 Hardaway. I didn't say they'd beat the Bulls, I said they'd give them a run.

That 2001 Laker team is the most overrated team ever. There was not even one other VERY GOOD-GREAT team in the league they had to play. The Blazers imploded and the Kings and Spurs were still not there yet as far as being real contenders. The east? The east was just pathetic. The Lakers had the easiest run in maybe the history of the NBA in 2001. Yeah the Kings and Spurs should have at least won a game, so it is impressive that they swept their way to the finals, but neither the Blazers, Kings, or Spurs had a chance at stopping the Lakers run in 2001. The 2008 Celtics could have beat the 2001 Lakers so of course the 96 Bulls would have.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Yes... when he was a what 2nd or 3rd year player? Please dude. Besides Orlando was nowhere near as good as the 01 Lakers.
Fourth year, and already had 2 29ppg seasons. Shaq was Shaq.

Shaq was better in 2001, and 2001 Kobe was better than 96 Hardaway. I didn't say they'd beat the Bulls, I said they'd give them a run.
Shaq was largely the same player from his second season until he started to decline. He did get smarter but 29 and 3 is as good as Shaq is going to be, and that was at 21. Bryant was superior to Penny but the rest of the supporting cast gave Orlando an edge. None of the other Lakers match Scott and Anderson. That Magic team was loaded.

[magnax1]

08 Celtics would probably push them to 6.
12 heat would be out in 4 or 5.
01 Lakers would probably be out in 5 or 6. Kobe vs MJ/Pippen is a bad match up. Hell they could even stick Harper on him. Rodman did as good of a job defending Shaq as anyone. I could see the 00 team giving them a bit better of a series, but still not very competitive.

[Dragonyeuw]

So what we can draw from this discussion, no matter who you match up against the 96 Bulls, there's just no way they lose.

I don't know why we bother with these hypothetical threads, they never go anywhere.

[Clippersfan86]

So what we can draw from this discussion, no matter who you match up against the 96 Bulls, there's just no way they lose.

I don't know why we bother with these hypothetical threads, they never go anywhere.

Agree. It's stupid. People don't factor in intangibles or even simple things such as fatigue, refs etc. No way to play out these hypothetical things and swear up and down 96 Bulls are untouchable. It's ignorant.

[Smoke117]

Celtics 2009 Garnett pre injury might have had a chance. They were better than the 2008 Celtics.

[RaininTwos]

the bulls arent untouchable..:facepalm

each way its a six-seven game series

[Real Men Wear Green]

So what we can draw from this discussion, no matter who you match up against the 96 Bulls, there's just no way they lose.

I don't know why we bother with these hypothetical threads, they never go anywhere.
Those of us that saw them go 72-10 are going to be hard to convince.

[Whoah10115]

Yes... when he was a what 2nd or 3rd year player? Please dude. Besides Orlando was nowhere near as good as the 01 Lakers.




No. You can make the case for the 2001 Lakers, but Orlando is certainly near them. That starting lineup for Orlando was sick. That level of Penny was a monster and could at least hang with that Kobe. Tho I also think that Penny could bring out the best in Kobe.

[Dragonyeuw]

Those of us that saw them go 72-10 are going to be hard to convince.

I saw them go 72-10, tuned in to most of their games that year and I'm a huge fan of that team. I don't share this notion that they'd completely annihilate every great team that's come along since 1996. Hell, even the notion can someone can give them a good test drives some of you guys into a foaming frenzy.

[magnax1]

Those of us that saw them go 72-10 are going to be hard to convince.
This. Do people realize that team had the best offensive rating, defensive rating, and rebounding differential in the league that year. They're arguably both the best offensive and defensive team ever too.
If there is an argument for another team over 96, it is to me that if you played the 96 team in a league without the shortened three point line it wouldn't be quite as effective offensively. That team was just stacked with great shooters that really took advantage of that rule.

[RaininTwos]

I saw gary payton lock MJ up that year too. but let us continue to think they are invincible.

[Micku]

Agree. It's stupid. People don't factor in intangibles or even simple things such as fatigue, refs etc. No way to play out these hypothetical things and swear up and down 96 Bulls are untouchable. It's ignorant.

Well, the Bulls are one of the best teams of all time. They aren't untouchable, and they do lose games obviously. But they faced against Shaq already. They faced against a pretty talented team in the late 90s Lakers, which were more talented than the early 00s Lakers. Prime Shaq had more defense, and his post game was a bit better, but Shaq was always good.

But the Bulls were really good. They were the top defensive and offensive team in the league in 96. What do you expect when you go against one of the best teams in NBA History?

Anyway, I think the Celtics could push it to six games.


So what we can draw from this discussion, no matter who you match up against the 96 Bulls, there's just no way they lose.

I don't know why we bother with these hypothetical threads, they never go anywhere.


The 1986 Celtics, the 1985 and 87 Lakers, and the 83 76ers could possibly beat the Bulls. It would've been a great hypothetical series.

[KG215]

How about this instead. What would this team do against the Pacers and going forward in the playoffs this year?

PG Mario Chalmers
SG Michael Jordan
SF Shane Battier
PF Scottie Pippen
C Joel Anthony/Turiaf/Pittman

Battier and Pippen are probably interchangeable at PF depending on the match-up.

[97 bulls]

Yea, but Shaq was unstoppable in 2000, and just overall a lot better than his 96 Magic days. Then you have to remember that 96 Shaq wasn't running the triangle and didn't have P.Jax.

And as good as Penny was, he's just simply not athletically on Prime Kobe's level.
But the rest of that magic team was just flat out better than the threepeat lakers. Nick Anderson, Horace Grant in his prime, Dennis Scott, Brian Shaw in his prime.

People forget that the lakers had an old version of horace grant as their starting PF. And brian shaw was there too.

[Bigsmoke]

the Celtics in 86 can beat them

not any of those teams.

Size and Bird is all you need.

not saying that MJ wouldn't average like 37ppg in that series.

[97 bulls]

Agree. It's stupid. People don't factor in intangibles or even simple things such as fatigue, refs etc. No way to play out these hypothetical things and swear up and down 96 Bulls are untouchable. It's ignorant.
But just think, is it really that unreasonable to say those bulls were invincible? I always say this, they won 55the games without michael jordan. They won 62 games with pippen missing half the season, they won 69 games with rodman missing half the season.

Go back and see how other sunasties faired when they lost key players. And trying to use their competition/expansion as a reason for their dominance is silly. They won 55 games without jordan, pre expansion.

They toyed with the league. The only way they were able to be dethroned was cuz management broke them up.

[97 bulls]

the Celtics in 86 can beat them

not any of those teams.

Size and Bird is all you need.

not saying that MJ wouldn't average like 37ppg in that series.
The showtime lakers beat the celtics two out of the three time they played them. And their frontline wasnt any bigger than the bulls. And definately not better defensively or on the boards.

And scottie pippen would cancel out bird. Yep i said it. When your second best player can matchup against the oppositions best player, that teams in trouble

[Bigsmoke]

The showtime lakers beat the celtics two out of the three time they played them. And their frontline wasnt any bigger than the bulls. And definately not better defensively or on the boards.

And scottie pippen would cancel out bird. Yep i said it. When your second best player can matchup against the oppositions best player, that teams in trouble

Robert Parish and Kevin McHale would give Luc Longley nightmares. As good as a defender Rodman was, he was still only 6'6 and McHale is 7'0 with all the low post skills you can think of.

and lets be real... Bird would toy around with Pippen :no:

every position favors the Celtics besides each teams SGs

[97 bulls]

Robert Parish and Kevin McHale would give Luc Longley nightmares. As good as a defender Rodman was, he was still only 6'6 and McHale is 7'0 with all the low post skills you can think of.

and lets be real... Bird would toy around with Pippen :no:

every position favors the Celtics besides each teams SGs
Rodman is listed at 6'8. So is Pippen. Ac Green and James Worthy were listed at 6'9. Thats a 1 inch difference. And longley was 7'2the the same as Jabaar.

Regardless of height. The bulls were dominant defensively. Rodman alone could match green and jabaar in rebounds. And worthy is nothing compared to pippen on defense.

Whats more, the celtics werent super athletics, theyre not gonna be outjumping the bulls for boards.

And as far as pippen and bird, go check their head to head stats. Its a wash.

[Bigsmoke]

Rodman is listed at 6'8. So is Pippen. Ac Green and James Worthy were listed at 6'9. Thats a 1 inch difference. And longley was 7'2the the same as Jabaar.

Regardless of height. The bulls were dominant defensively. Rodman alone could match green and jabaar in rebounds. And worthy is nothing compared to pippen on defense.

Whats more, the celtics werent super athletics, theyre not gonna be outjumping the bulls for boards.

And as far as pippen and bird, go check their head to head stats. Its a wash.

i grew up watching the Bulls. Rodman wasnt 6'8 :coleman:
**** what you heard

Bird was declining once Pippen was reaching his prime. Check out Shaq's and Brook Lopez' stats when they go head-to-head. :confusedshrug:

Why are we bring up the Lakers? They didn't win after their 7'2 Center Kareem retired in the Magis era didn't they? Ac Green and James Worthy weren't 7 feet like Parish and McHale.

[Micku]

The showtime lakers beat the celtics two out of the three time they played them. And their frontline wasnt any bigger than the bulls. And definately not better defensively or on the boards.

And scottie pippen would cancel out bird. Yep i said it. When your second best player can matchup against the oppositions best player, that teams in trouble

Maybe they would beat them on the defensive rebound. It would be a nice battle.

And I don't think Pippen wouldn't cancel Bird out. Pippen in 96 only average 16.9 ppg, 8.5, and 5.9 apg with 39% shooting in the playoffs. That's not good enough against prime Bird. But Pippen could defend and bother Bird possibly, but the Bulls had Grant defending Bird when they played I think. So, you'll never know.

Besides the shooting guard position, the Celtics is better at every position. I wonder how much trouble would Mchale and Parish give the Bulls?

The Lakers is different. Pippen vs prime Worthy would be interesting. Magic always cause match up problems, but Jordan, Pippen and Harper could switch up on him, so that wouldn't be a problem that much. Bryon Scott hardly ever have a good game against the Bulls. The series would be determine on Kareem probably.

[Tenchi Ryu]

96 was a damn good team, and not many teams i can see beating them. But I still think 86 Celtics and 87 Lakers can take them down. Now 92-93 Bulls is a whole different beast. MJ in his physical prime, Pippen beginning his prime, Grant in his, Vet saavy Cartright. Dependable 3 point clutch shooter Pax, Having BJ who could shoot the jumper and play a good PG game. The bench was looking pretty sweet too.

Although if MJ never retired, 94 Bulls would have been the best team of all time easily with the players coming in. It would have basically been a fusion of the the first and second 3 peat teams.

[97 bulls]

Maybe they would beat them on the defensive rebound. It would be a nice battle.

And I don't think Pippen wouldn't cancel Bird out. Pippen in 96 only average 16.9 ppg, 8.5, and 5.9 apg with 39% shooting in the playoffs. That's not good enough against prime Bird. But Pippen could defend and bother Bird possibly, but the Bulls had Grant defending Bird when they played I think. So, you'll never know.

Besides the shooting guard position, the Celtics is better at every position. I wonder how much trouble would Mchale and Parish give the Bulls?

The Lakers is different. Pippen vs prime Worthy would be interesting. Magic always cause match up problems, but Jordan, Pippen and Harper could switch up on him, so that wouldn't be a problem that much. Bryon Scott hardly ever have a good game against the Bulls. The series would be determine on Kareem probably.
Pippen played hurt in 96. If youre not gonna acknowledge that then we dont need to continue this conversation after this post. I know this isnt the first time youve seen me post my stance on this Mick.

The way i see it, if were gonna compare alltime teams, im comparing them at their best at the time they played. Im not factoring in injuries or a bad playoff series. Ive seen enough of pippen to know he was better than his stats showed in 96. The fact that the bulls could still win with injuries to key players is a testament to their greatness.

[Bigsmoke]

96 was a damn good team, and not many teams i can see beating them. But I still think 86 Celtics and 87 Lakers can take them down. Now 92-93 Bulls is a whole different beast. MJ in his physical prime, Pippen beginning his prime, Grant in his, Vet saavy Cartright. Dependable 3 point clutch shooter Pax, Having BJ who could shoot the jumper and play a good PG game. The bench was looking pretty sweet too.

Although if MJ never retired, 94 Bulls would have been the best team of all time easily with the players coming in. It would have basically been a fusion of the the first and second 3 peat teams.

agreed

with that said, there were more teams in 1996 than there were in 86 and in 87

23 in 1986 and in 1987 compared to 29 in 1996

fewer teams = Greater chances to get talent

[97 bulls]

i grew up watching the Bulls. Rodman wasnt 6'8 :coleman:
**** what you heard

Bird was declining once Pippen was reaching his prime. Check out Shaq's and Brook Lopez' stats when they go head-to-head. :confusedshrug:

Why are we bring up the Lakers? They didn't win after their 7'2 Center Kareem retired in the Magis era didn't they? Ac Green and James Worthy weren't 7 feet like Parish and McHale.
Lol **** what i heard? Im suposed to take your word? Mchale wasnt 7'0 for one, he was listed at 6'10.

And im bringing up the showtime lakers because you said the celtics size would give the bulls problems. Well the lkaers are basically the same height as the bulls. And they beat the celtics in two out of their three championships.

[97 bulls]

96 was a damn good team, and not many teams i can see beating them. But I still think 86 Celtics and 87 Lakers can take them down. Now 92-93 Bulls is a whole different beast. MJ in his physical prime, Pippen beginning his prime, Grant in his, Vet saavy Cartright. Dependable 3 point clutch shooter Pax, Having BJ who could shoot the jumper and play a good PG game. The bench was looking pretty sweet too.

Although if MJ never retired, 94 Bulls would have been the best team of all time easily with the players coming in. It would have basically been a fusion of the the first and second 3 peat teams.
The bulls bench during the first threepeat was thin in my opinion. Pippen was better during the second threepeat too. And the second threepeat bulls bench was wayyyy better.

Armsrtong was not a PG. He was a short SG.

And the second threepeat jordan was no slouch. And even if you feel jordan was physically better, that doesnt make him a better basketball player.

[Tenchi Ryu]

The bulls bench during the first threepeat was thin in my opinion. Pippen was better during the second threepeat too. And the second threepeat bulls bench was wayyyy better.

Armsrtong was not a PG. He was a short SG.

And the second threepeat jordan was no slouch. And even if you feel jordan was physically better, that doesnt make him a better basketball player.
I had found this article, take a look.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~bjalas/basketball/bulls/bulls.htm

Jordan just had way too many options in his prime. Don't get me wrong, we saw that Jordan's fadeaway was pretty couldn't be stopped. But he could murder you so many ways in his prime. Shoot the J, dunk on your ass, post you up, outrun you, out hustle you....He was just a monster.

Pippen was at his best IMO in 94, but he was able to sample a portion of the prime in 92-93 as well.

[Micku]

Pippen played hurt in 96. If youre not gonna acknowledge that then we dont need to continue this conversation afterwash this post. I know this isnt the first time youve seen me post my stance on this Mick.

The way i see it, if were gonna compare alltime teams, im comparing them at their best at the time they played. Im not factoring in injuries or a bad playoff series. Ive seen enough of pippen to know he was better than his stats showed in 96. The fact that the bulls could still win with injuries to key players is a testament to their greatness.

You're right. He was hurt throughout the season. And Rodman was playing injured too in the playoffs. But it's the same way of how 87 Celts team was hurt throughout the season. And how 98 team was hurt throughout the season. And how the 1991 Lakers team was hurt too.

Either way tho. I think the Celts are better than the Bulls 4/5 positions. The Bulls do have better defense. And I think if any teams have could beat the Bulls team of 96, it would be the Celts 86, Lakers 85, 87, and 83 76ers.

[97 bulls]

agreed

with that said, there were more teams in 1996 than there were in 86 and in 87

23 in 1986 and in 1987 compared to 29 in 1996

fewer teams = Greater chances to get talent
This is just dumb reasoning. The celtics did not draft robert parrish, dennis johnson, bill walton, scott wedman, jerry sitchinting, or sly williams. The lakers played in a terrible conference.

The 94 bulls won 55 games without michael jordan pre expansion. They played against the same amount of teams as the 88 back to back lakers did. Why didnt the lakers sniff 70 wins?

I just blew your theory out of the water. But im sure you dont care about facts.

[97 bulls]

I had found this article, take a look.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~bjalas/basketball/bulls/bulls.htm

Jordan just had way too many options in his prime. Don't get me wrong, we saw that Jordan's fadeaway was pretty couldn't be stopped. But he could murder you so many ways in his prime. Shoot the J, dunk on your ass, post you up, outrun you, out hustle you....He was just a monster.

Pippen was at his best IMO in 94, but he was able to sample a portion of the prime in 92-93 as well.
Do you really believe the nonsense in that article? Its a bunch of biased nonsense. Its no different than lebron james fans beleving derrick rose shouldnt have won the mvp based on statistics. An you vehemently argue that.


And second threepeat jordan could still dunk on you etc. But he was more of a cerebral player and his team was far and away better.

[t-rex]

Boston in 6 or 7.

[t-rex]

You're right. He was hurt throughout the season. And Rodman was playing injured too in the playoffs. But it's the same way of how 87 Celts team was hurt throughout the season. And how 98 team was hurt throughout the season. And how the 1991 Lakers team was hurt too.

Either way tho. I think the Celts are better than the Bulls 4/5 positions. The Bulls do have better defense. And I think if any teams have could beat the Bulls team of 96, it would be the Celts 86, Lakers 85, 87, and 83 76ers.


The 1986 Boston Celtics are the greatest single season team in NBA history. PERIOD.

[Tenchi Ryu]

The 1986 Boston Celtics are the greatest single season team in NBA history. PERIOD.
:no: :no: :no: :no:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxd9pwjeoF1qay78vo1_500.jpg

[Tenchi Ryu]

Do you really believe the nonsense in that article? Its a bunch of biased nonsense. Its no different than lebron james fans beleving derrick rose shouldnt have won the mvp based on statistics. An you vehemently argue that.


And second threepeat jordan could still dunk on you etc. But he was more of a cerebral player and his team was far and away better.
Its not the stats thats important, all the stats do is back up what I'm saying that Jordan and Pippen were just clearly better players in the first 3 peat. But you wouldn't even need to look at the stats, just watch them.

Second 3 peat jordan could dunk on you, First 3 peat jordan WOULD dunk on you. The speed and youth was just too much. 96-98 jordan had to work on his game and redefine it cause Father time ALWAYS wins. Prime Jordan was just gonna score on you, period. He didn't need to fadeaway, he would just play bigger than you.

And you could maybe say Pippen's defensive prowess was better, but he was just a far more explosive player when younger. By the time 96-97 hit, he just wasn't that same player from 94. But in 92-93, he was entering into being that player. And IMO, the RISE will always be better than the DECLINE of a player.

[t-rex]

:no: :no: :no: :no:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxd9pwjeoF1qay78vo1_500.jpg


The Celtics and Pistons of the 1980s owned the Bulls and Michael Jordan when Jordan was in the prime of his career.(Jordan's best career year was actually 1987.) Jordan couldn't win a title until Magic, Larry and Isiah got old. He could NEVER beat the great teams of the 1980s when these teams were in their prime. Birds Celtics swept prime Jordan and the Bulls in 1986 and 1987. How's that for a greatest of all time player? He couldn't even win one game for his team! Imagine if that was Lebron with today's media?

The Pistons owned Jordan and the Bulls until they got old. Then and only then did the Bulls ascend to dominance.

As for the record difference, the NBA was more watered down in the late 1990s due largely to expansion and other smaller factors. The league was much tougher in the 1980s. During a span from 1980 to 1989 there are the 83 Sixers, 87 Lakers, 89 Pistons and 86 Celtics all of whom rank among the great teams of all time.


How many great teams of all time come out of the 1990s?:confusedshrug:


Nobody is going to debate that the NBA was much better and deeper in the 1980s compared to the 1990s.


The Chicago Bulls of the late 90s were good teams. But if they had played in the 80s, they never would have even gotten out of the Eastern Conference.

[Tenchi Ryu]

The Celtics and Pistons of the 1980s owned the Bulls and Michael Jordan when Jordan was in the prime of his career.(Jordan's best career year was actually 1987.) Jordan couldn't win a title until Magic, Larry and Isiah got old. He could NEVER beat the great teams of the 1980s when they were in their prime.

No, MJ couldn't win a title until he got what ALL the other greats got, a reliable amount of help. MJ was great but he couldn't do it alone. Bird, Magic and Isaiah didn't do it alone as well. All 3 played with legit allstars. MJ just had to wait to get his team molded just like all the other legends did, and that came in the form of Pippen and Grant blossoming into the Stars they became. Even in the 80s, MJ was torching all the greats in head2head match ups. But as we all know, bball is a team sport, and even the GOAT can't do it alone.

[OldSchoolBBall]

lol @ anyone who doesn't believe that the '91-'93 and '96/'97 Bulls would DESTROY the '89/'90 Pistons. :oldlol: Jordan took them to 6 and 7 games singlehandedly, and now you're giving him a mature Pip/Grant or his '96/'97 cast? Please...

[Upgrayedd]

'96 Bulls would beat the '08 Celtics in 6 games and sweep the 2012 Heat.

[t-rex]

No, MJ couldn't win a title until he got what ALL the other greats got, a reliable amount of help. MJ was great but he couldn't do it alone. Bird, Magic and Isaiah didn't do it alone as well. All 3 played with legit allstars. MJ just had to wait to get his team molded just like all the other legends did, and that came in the form of Pippen and Grant blossoming into the Stars they became. Even in the 80s, MJ was torching all the greats in head2head match ups. But as we all know, bball is a team sport, and even the GOAT can't do it alone.


Bird won a title his second year. He didn't have to wait for father time to kill off his competition for him.

[Tenchi Ryu]

Bird won a title his second year. He didn't have to wait for father time to kill off his competition for him.
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[OldSchoolBBall]

Bird won a title his second year. He didn't have to wait for father time to kill off his competition for him.

Did you even look at who they faced that postseason to win the title? '87-'90 Jordan would have destroyed those teams if he had the talent around him that Bird had. Those Celtics faced no one even REMOTELY comparable to the '86/'87 Celtics, '88-'90 Pistons, or even the '89 Cavs, and Bird had way more talent on that team than MJ had on any pre-'91 Bulls team. Again, grow up and get real. :oldlol:

[hitmanyr2k]

The Pistons owned Jordan and the Bulls until they got old. Then and only then did the Bulls ascend to dominance.


Yeah, in 1991 the core of the Pistons (29 year old Isiah, 26 year old Dumars, 29 year old Rodman, 31 year old Aguirre) were just sooooo old. They were ancient :oldlol:

[97 bulls]

Its not the stats thats important, all the stats do is back up what I'm saying that Jordan and Pippen were just clearly better players in the first 3 peat. But you wouldn't even need to look at the stats, just watch them.

Second 3 peat jordan could dunk on you, First 3 peat jordan WOULD dunk on you. The speed and youth was just too much. 96-98 jordan had to work on his game and redefine it cause Father time ALWAYS wins. Prime Jordan was just gonna score on you, period. He didn't need to fadeaway, he would just play bigger than you.

And you could maybe say Pippen's defensive prowess was better, but he was just a far more explosive player when younger. By the time 96-97 hit, he just wasn't that same player from 94. But in 92-93, he was entering into being that player. And IMO, the RISE will always be better than the DECLINE of a player.
Like i said before, jordan was more cerebral, more confident. Take for example 91 finals, i believe it was game three, and the lakers were up two. And jordan gets the ball with a full head of steam take a jumpshot over the outstretched hands of vlade divac. Remember how he looked as that shot went up? He had a look as if to say "please go in". Now think back to the 97 nba finals game 1. The jazz were up 1 jordan take a hard dribble pulls up then swooshes it. Or game 6, when kerr hit that shot off the pass from jordan. They catch a conversation jordan has with steve kerr, he calmly tells kerr how the jazz are gonna defend them. And tells him to be ready. But there was no fear, no apprehension, no sign of concern. Thats why id take that jordan over the first threepeat jordan.

And dunks be damned, javalle mcgee will dunk on you, harold minor would dunk on you. Everybody in the nba can dunk. That highlight reel stuff is exciting, but its still just two points.

[97 bulls]

The Celtics and Pistons of the 1980s owned the Bulls and Michael Jordan when Jordan was in the prime of his career.(Jordan's best career year was actually 1987.) Jordan couldn't win a title until Magic, Larry and Isiah got old. He could NEVER beat the great teams of the 1980s when these teams were in their prime. Birds Celtics swept prime Jordan and the Bulls in 1986 and 1987. How's that for a greatest of all time player? He couldn't even win one game for his team! Imagine if that was Lebron with today's media?

The Pistons owned Jordan and the Bulls until they got old. Then and only then did the Bulls ascend to dominance.

As for the record difference, the NBA was more watered down in the late 1990s due largely to expansion and other smaller factors. The league was much tougher in the 1980s. During a span from 1980 to 1989 there are the 83 Sixers, 87 Lakers, 89 Pistons and 86 Celtics all of whom rank among the great teams of all time.


How many great teams of all time come out of the 1990s?:confusedshrug:


Nobody is going to debate that the NBA was much better and deeper in the 1980s compared to the 1990s.


The Chicago Bulls of the late 90s were good teams. But if they had played in the 80s, they never would have even gotten out of the Eastern Conference.
This post is dumb on so many levels. Id debate you but im sure youd just run away

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Someone needs to make a Michael Jordan smirking head and post it here.

[Collie]

Bird won a title his second year. He didn't have to wait for father time to kill off his competition for him.

Robert Parish alone was better than any of the combined 2nd and 3rd best players of the late 80's Bulls. Add Tiny, Cornbread and a young McHale, and you have an excellent team.

Go take a look at the 88 Bulls (50-32, 2nd round). Can you even tell me who their second leading scorer was?

[Blzrfn]

That 2001 Laker team is the most overrated team ever. There was not even one other VERY GOOD-GREAT team in the league they had to play. The Blazers imploded and the Kings and Spurs were still not there yet as far as being real contenders. The east? The east was just pathetic. The Lakers had the easiest run in maybe the history of the NBA in 2001. Yeah the Kings and Spurs should have at least won a game, so it is impressive that they swept their way to the finals, but neither the Blazers, Kings, or Spurs had a chance at stopping the Lakers run in 2001. The 2008 Celtics could have beat the 2001 Lakers so of course the 96 Bulls would have.

Smoke, you get it. This is what I have been saying about the 01 Lakers all along. When ESPN Classic did their "Who's #1", they rated that team ninth all-time on their Best NBA Teams Ever show. What a crock. They had them ahead of the old Celtic teams. No way. Those Celtic teams had multiple HOFers. The 00-02 Lakers had two players and a bunch of stiffs. The coach made the team.

And, I agree with you about the 08 Celtics. The 2008 Celtics, 2009 Lakers, and the 03 and 05 Spur teams were the best championship teams of the 2000's. They could beat any of the 91-93 Bull title teams, and those teams would give the 96 Bulls a run for their money.

[t-rex]

Wow! overrun with biased Bulls fans. I think you guys are missing the point. In the 1980s it was tougher to win a championship. The fact that there are several posts highlighting the great teams and how important it was to build really good deep squads proves my point.

Those teams were better. The idea that the Bulls team of 1996 would have won 72 games in the mid to late 80s is ridiculous. The Bulls teams are historically overvalued because they played against weaker competition. This is why when compared with an '86 Celtics team or '83 Sixers team or '85/'87 Lakers team, taking the team from the 1980s is the better bet.

The 1996 Bulls were a great team. But in 1986 they are not winning 72 games. On the other hand a great team from the 1980s probably does win 5 or 10 games more, because the competition is diminished.

Now lets look at the 1986 Celtics

PG- Dennis Johnson- (MVP 1979 NBA Finals, great defensively, good shooter)
SG- Danny Ainge (Great outside shooter)
C- Robert Parish (HOF Center)
SF- Larry Bird (One of the top 10 greatest players in NBA history)
PF- Kevin McHale ( Top 3 greatest power forwards in NBA history)

6th man- Bill Walton (6th man of the year, regarded as one of the greatest centers/PF in NBA history)


Vs 1996 Chicago Bulls

PG-Ron Harper (average outside shooter/better than average on D)
SG-Michael Jordan (One of the top 3 greatest players in NBA history)
C-Luke Longley (not sure what to say here)
SF-Scotty Pippen (Great defender, top 50 player of all time)
PF-Dennis Rodman (Great defender, great rebounder/terrible offensive player)

6th man- Tony Kukoc (above average scorer/very average defensively)


Yup, I've got no problem saying Boston in 6 or 7.

Heck, someone within this thread has to be objective.

[t-rex]

And, I agree with you about the 08 Celtics. The 2008 Celtics, 2009 Lakers, and the 03 and 05 Spur teams were the best championship teams of the 2000's. They could beat any of the 91-93 Bull title teams, and those teams would give the 96 Bulls a run for their money.


You are right on the money. We have way too many people posting in this thread who lack any perspective and objectivity.

[t-rex]

Did you even look at who they faced that postseason to win the title? '87-'90 Jordan would have destroyed those teams if he had the talent around him that Bird had. Those Celtics faced no one even REMOTELY comparable to the '86/'87 Celtics, '88-'90 Pistons, or even the '89 Cavs, and Bird had way more talent on that team than MJ had on any pre-'91 Bulls team. Again, grow up and get real. :oldlol:


Please look at who the 1996 Bulls had to go through to win their NBA Title. The Sonics are not going to scare anybody.

And again, when you are talking about talent and great teams of the decade, that is exactly my point. The teams were better. The competition was superior. Therefore the accomplishments of the teams of that era should be held in higher value. Please show me comparable competition in 1996 for the Chicago Bulls?

[97 bulls]

You are right on the money. We have way too many people posting in this thread who lack any perspective and objectivity.
Then why cant you be objective? Face the facts. Did the 83 sixers beat the 87 lakers, the 86 celtics or the 89 pistons? No. They beat an injury riddled laker team. A team that would lose to any of the teams the bulls played in their six trips to the fianls

Again, be objective. What competiton did the 86 celtics face? The rockets? Wow what a powerhouse. How bout in the ECF? An injury filled bucks team. Sidney Moncrief could barely walk.

How bout the 87 lakers? Ask any boston fan and theyll tell you. The celtics were injured when they lost to the lakers. Walton was done, ans mchale was playing on a fractured foot. And the lakers played in the worse conference the nba has ever seen.

The pistons in 89 beat the lakers without magic and byron scott.

None of the alltime great teams youve mentioned won a championship beating another great team.

You want to debate, lets do it. I got alot more ammo

[t-rex]

Yeah, in 1991 the core of the Pistons (29 year old Isiah, 26 year old Dumars, 29 year old Rodman, 31 year old Aguirre) were just sooooo old. They were ancient :oldlol:

This is written by someone who gives the impression that they simply google stats and don't watch or didn't watch the games.

I can tell you factually that the 1991 Pistons were fading fast. Age is sometimes very unscientific. Some players are washed up at 30. Some players peak at 22. Others are great at 35. Some players like Bynum have grey hair at 23! Age is very hard to predict. And it doesn't always happen gradually. The Detroit Piston team of 1991 was not close to the Piston teams of 1987-1990, despite what "google" tells you. Anyone following the NBA during this time will tell you this. By 1991, the entire world was waiting for the Bulls to finally kick down the door and ascend to their championship. It was no surprise when the Bulls beat the Pistons. Everyone knew 1991 was the Pistons last "hurrah" as a great team.

The next thing you know someone is going to post that the Bulls were better than the showtime Lakers because the 1991 Bulls beat the Lakers in the NBA Finals that year!:facepalm But what I said about the Pistons applied to the Lakers too. By 1991, the 1980s were over. And the historically great teams that brought the NBA back from the brink of death were fading fast.

Jordan's Bulls (to their credit) took advantage of this transition time in NBA history, and thus went on to dominate an entire decade virtually unmatched. This is how Jordan won 6 championships while the Showtime Lakers only have 5, despite the fact the Lakers (like Boston) of the 1980s were a far superior team.


Please guys, sometimes you have to do more than just "google' some stats to determine the better team. Its a lot more complicated than that.

[t-rex]

Then why cant you be objective? Face the facts. Did the 83 sixers beat the 87 lakers, the 86 celtics or the 89 pistons? No. They beat an injury riddled laker team. A team that would lose to any of the teams the bulls played in their six trips to the fianls

Again, be objective. What competiton did the 86 celtics face? The rockets? Wow what a powerhouse. How bout in the ECF? An injury filled bucks team. Sidney Moncrief could barely walk.

How bout the 87 lakers? Ask any boston fan and theyll tell you. The celtics were injured when they lost to the lakers. Walton was done, ans mchale was playing on a fractured foot. And the lakers played in the worse conference the nba has ever seen.

The pistons in 89 beat the lakers without magic and byron scott.

None of the alltime great teams youve mentioned won a championship beating another great team.

You want to debate, lets do it. I got alot more ammo


This is good! I am typing as fast as I can.

Question?

Give me one all time great team that Jordan beat in an ECF?

Question 2?

Give me one all time great team that Jordan beat to win an NBA Championship?

[t-rex]

This post is dumb on so many levels. Id debate you but im sure youd just run away

Actually I haven't run away. I am posting away in this thread.:confusedshrug:

[chips93]

Question?

Give me one all time great team that Jordan beat in an ECF?

Question 2?

Give me one all time great team that Jordan beat to win an NBA Championship?

hard to be considered an all-time great team, when you cant sniff a championship, since you gotta beat jordan

its a circular logic

[Micku]

The Celtics and Pistons of the 1980s owned the Bulls and Michael Jordan when Jordan was in the prime of his career.(Jordan's best career year was actually 1987.) Jordan couldn't win a title until Magic, Larry and Isiah got old. He could NEVER beat the great teams of the 1980s when these teams were in their prime. Birds Celtics swept prime Jordan and the Bulls in 1986 and 1987. How's that for a greatest of all time player? He couldn't even win one game for his team! Imagine if that was Lebron with today's media?


That's unfair, seeing how those Celts had 4 HOFs starters close to their prime or in their prime/peak while the Bulls didn't really have anybody close to their talent except for Jordan. The Pistons were similar too.

Actually, Pippen and Grant didn't come into their own until around 89 or 90. Pippen had an improve jumpshot in 91 and better defensive and Grant became better overall. Pippen and Grant improved overtime and they entered their prime in 92, but peaked in the mid 90s when Jordan was out.

Even when the Bulls were on top, they weren't the most talented team around. The Blazzers, Shaq's Magic, late 90s Lakers, and etc were better in terms of talent. They were like the Pistons who brought defense and team ball to the table to defeat the the superior talented teams. Not to mention the Bulls were well coached with Phil Jackson.

Would they beat the Celts, Lakers, 76ers, and Pistons of the 80s? I dunno. I think they could beat each other. I do think that the Bulls could beat the Pistons tho.

And like 97 Bulls mentioned, it's not like the Pistons, Lakers, Celts faced each other at their peak or anything. They were still beat each other tho, and that count for something. And the exception to the rule would be 85 Lakers vs 85 Celts too.

[Whoah10115]

Its not the stats thats important, all the stats do is back up what I'm saying that Jordan and Pippen were just clearly better players in the first 3 peat. But you wouldn't even need to look at the stats, just watch them.




No. Pippen was better in 96 and probably 97 than he was in 93. His 92 season was better than his 93 season, but his prime really started in the 93-94 season. That and 94-95 are obviously his two best seasons, but he was just as good a player in 95-96 and better than he was in 93.

[OldSchoolBBall]

And, I agree with you about the 08 Celtics. The 2008 Celtics, 2009 Lakers, and the 03 and 05 Spur teams were the best championship teams of the 2000's. They could beat any of the 91-93 Bull title teams, and those teams would give the 96 Bulls a run for their money.

None of the teams you mentioned could beat the '91-'93 Bulls in a series. The only team that possibly could is the '01 Lakers. lol @ thinking that the '09 Lakers or '03 Spurs especially stand a chance. '08 Celts would also lose - MJ/Pip/Grant are ideal defenders for Allen/Pierce/KG, with the former being far more athletic.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Please look at who the 1996 Bulls had to go through to win their NBA Title. The Sonics are not going to scare anybody.


Yet the '96 Sonics and '96 Magic had two legit all-stars and legit third stars as well, something none of the teams Boston beat in '81 had. The '96 Magic/Sonics would beat ANY of the teams Bird beat in that postseason in a series.

[97 bulls]

This is good! I am typing as fast as I can.

Question?

Give me one all time great team that Jordan beat in an ECF?

Question 2?

Give me one all time great team that Jordan beat to win an NBA Championship?
The pistons in 91. The magic in 96. The knicks. The pacers of 98.

The sonics of 96, the blazers of 92, the jazz, ans suns. They all were great teams.

[1987_Lakers]

The pistons in 91. The magic in 96. The knicks. The pacers of 98.

Those are not all-time great teams.

[97 bulls]

Those are not all-time great teams.
Were the 83 lakers an alltime great team? The 86 rockets? The 87 celtics? The 89 lakers?

Theres a clear double standard when it comes to the bulls.

[tommyhtc]

The Celtics and Pistons of the 1980s owned the Bulls and Michael Jordan when Jordan was in the prime of his career.(Jordan's best career year was actually 1987.) Jordan couldn't win a title until Magic, Larry and Isiah got old. He could NEVER beat the great teams of the 1980s when these teams were in their prime. Birds Celtics swept prime Jordan and the Bulls in 1986 and 1987. How's that for a greatest of all time player? He couldn't even win one game for his team! Imagine if that was Lebron with today's media?

you are taking it too far, while I agree that the 86 celtics may overwhelm the 96 bulls, what are you saying here is not true.

Jordan's best year was not 1987. he was in his 3rd year, despite his 37 PPG, he is not all-rounded, and is not making his teammates better. He was a scoring machine in 1987, but not peak jordan.

he was swept in 1986 with a terrible supporting cast, he scord 49 and 63 in the first two games, do you expect him to beat the mighty 86 celtics by himself?

how's what for the GOAT? nobody can win a game by himself, not Jordan, nor any other great you can name.

are you seriously comparing Jordan's feats in 1986 to Lebron's 2011 finals? really?



The Pistons owned Jordan and the Bulls until they got old. Then and only then did the Bulls ascend to dominance.


In 1990, Jordan took the pistons, who are all in their absolute prime, to 7 games. In game 7, other than jordan, only Horace grant scored more than 10 points,( grant scored 10) Pippen went 1 for 10 because of his headache and Jordan was the only one who showed up, with 31 points 9 assists and 8 rebounds.

do you really think Jordan defeated the pistons until they got old? 91 pistons was full of injuries, but calling them old is not true, with them being one year removed from beating portland for their second straight title.



As for the record difference, the NBA was more watered down in the late 1990s due largely to expansion and other smaller factors. The league was much tougher in the 1980s. During a span from 1980 to 1989 there are the 83 Sixers, 87 Lakers, 89 Pistons and 86 Celtics all of whom rank among the great teams of all time.

How many great teams of all time come out of the 1990s?:confusedshrug:

Nobody is going to debate that the NBA was much better and deeper in the 1980s compared to the 1990s.


the 80s were stacked, but not as stacked as you think. You have 2 or 3 super elite teams at the top, and many mediocre teams as well.

The western conference other than the 86 rockets(who only had one or two years of excellece) was not very stacked. Lakers had a few easy runs out of the west, especially in the late 80s.

[Collie]

the 91-93 and 96 Bulls would beat the 87 and 88 Lakers, the 89 and 90 Pistons as well. The teams that made life for the championship Bulls the hardest time were teams with great big men (Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing to an extent).

Late 80's Kareem was no longer that big of a threat. The guy was still a good scorer, but he was a defensive liability and couldn't rebound. Slashers tore those Lakers teams up (Freakin' Sleepy Floyd lit them up for 51 points!). It would basically be 91 Lakers-Bulls again. The Lakers were basically Magic and friends by that point. The Pistons had a very hard time with a Bulls team that was nowhere near the 90's Bulls team.

[Teanett]

Vs 1996 Chicago Bulls

PG-Ron Harper (average outside shooter/better than average on D)
SG-Michael Jordan (One of the top 3 greatest players in NBA history)
C-Luke Longley (not sure what to say here)
SF-Scotty Pippen (Great defender, top 50 player of all time)
PF-Dennis Rodman (Great defender, great rebounder/terrible offensive player)

6th man- Tony Kukoc (above average scorer/very average defensively)


Yup, I've got no problem saying Boston in 6 or 7.

Heck, someone within this thread has to be objective.
that's not being objective.
rodman and harper were not average or terrible offensively.
they did not score much but that doesnt mean they couldnt play offense.
they both have five rings each playing important roles with other championship teams too.
dennis rodman is in the hof, your description sounds like reggie evans.

[Cali Syndicate]

Please guys, sometimes you have to do more than just "google' some stats to determine the better team. Its a lot more complicated than that.

You wrote this then go on to state in 87 Jordan was at his best. Based on what? Stats? In 87 Jordan was a relentless scorer attacking with no regard. Jordan in 90 was still that player but also had developed a more consistent jumper, smarter defensively and played along a team concept.

Experience, development and honed skills > raw aggression and talent.

[Blzrfn]

None of the teams you mentioned could beat the '91-'93 Bulls in a series. The only team that possibly could is the '01 Lakers. lol @ thinking that the '09 Lakers or '03 Spurs especially stand a chance. '08 Celts would also lose - MJ/Pip/Grant are ideal defenders for Allen/Pierce/KG, with the former being far more athletic.

Yes, they could. Those Bulls teams were OVERRATED!!!

If they play Portland in 91 instead of 92(when the Blazers would have had home court), do they win it all? I don't know if they do.

If Portland doesn't choke in Game 6 in 92, and wins that game going away, do the Bulls win Game 7? There is a good chance that they don't. Portland was more talented, plain and simple.

And, in 93, if the Suns don't leave Paxson open, and if there is a Game 7, Suns kick supreme butt. No doubt!! They were better that year.

The Bulls (and the 00-02 Flukers) won because of their coach more than the talent that they had. Phil Jackson is good at mind games, but he knows how to run a team, and he got the most out of both of those teams. When Jackson took over as Chicago coach, one of the first things that he did was close off practices and not let player entourages hang around.

[bwink23]

Yes, they could. Those Bulls teams were OVERRATED!!!

If they play Portland in 91 instead of 92(when the Blazers would have had home court), do they win it all? I don't know if they do.

If Portland doesn't choke in Game 6 in 92, and wins that game going away, do the Bulls win Game 7? There is a good chance that they don't. Portland was more talented, plain and simple.

And, in 93, if the Suns don't leave Paxson open, and if there is a Game 7, Suns kick supreme butt. No doubt!! They were better that year.


Post deleted for too many IF'S.....:biggums:

[LJJ]

Give me one all time great team that Jordan beat to win an NBA Championship?

Zeke's Pistons obviously. Did you just prove you don't really know what you are talking about? Thank you.

[Blzrfn]

Post deleted for too many IF'S.....:biggums:

Whatever.

[NugzHeat3]

the 91-93 and 96 Bulls would beat the 87 and 88 Lakers, the 89 and 90 Pistons as well. The teams that made life for the championship Bulls the hardest time were teams with great big men (Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing to an extent).

Late 80's Kareem was no longer that big of a threat. The guy was still a good scorer, but he was a defensive liability and couldn't rebound. Slashers tore those Lakers teams up (Freakin' Sleepy Floyd lit them up for 51 points!). It would basically be 91 Lakers-Bulls again. The Lakers were basically Magic and friends by that point. The Pistons had a very hard time with a Bulls team that was nowhere near the 90's Bulls team.
I think this is exaggerated a little.

I'm not saying they didn't have a huge flaw at center because lets be real here, all those guys were garbage no matter what Bulls fans who prop them up to ridiculous levels say. But they were able to cover up the flaw very well by pressuring the ball which meant less time on the clock to feed the post as well as a more difficult entry pass which meant the center could've had to come out further out to receive the ball.

They also had Jordan, Pippen and Grant (all tremendous defenders) to double team which could mean sending various types of double teams such as hard, quick double teams on the catch or helping on the move from various angles. I've seen games where I was there thinking the other team (usually Zo/Heat, Ewing/Knicks) is relying way too much on the center and it's almost hurting them on offense. I thought Bulls were enticing them to throw the ball into the post and taking advantage of it.

In the second three peat, they also had another advantage with Rodman to guard the bigger centers like he did vs Shaq and Zo in the conference finals and he held his own because of how strong he was and had a low center of gravity. He didn't give up good position and often frustrated players.

You can see this in the 1992 and 1993 series vs Cleveland when Daugherty was relatively limited because they forced the ball out of Price's hands, tried to force him to the other side of the court so he can't run PnR or feed the post to Brad and when he did get the ball the clock was on it's way down and they were sending GREAT double teams at him. Brad was also not like Hakeem/Shaq in that he made his move early, usually took time to set up.

You can also see this in the 1995 ECSF with Shaq averaging 24.8 ppg on 48.4% shooting along with 4.0 assists per game and 4.2 turnovers per game which aren't as impressive than his season numbers. To put this into perspective, Shaq had a better series vs Hakeem and Houston than he did vs the Bulls despite their garbage frontline. How did this happen? The strategy is explained above. They often double teamed him (usually whoever was guarding Horace) and pressured the ball too (remember Jordan on Penny). Of course, Shaq's impact was much greater than his numbers because he was definitely responsible for Grant having a great series. And Shaq did play much better in the 1996 ECF when I'm sure he adjusted to their gameplan although they didn't double team him continously like they did in 1995 since their strategy was to single cover him with either Dennis or Longley until he really got going.

You can see how terrible Zo was in both the 1996 and 1997 playoffs although I can say it's just as much of a flaw in his game than it was the defense. Forget Rodman who totally checked him out mentally but Longley was bothering him too and he just couldn't get any rhythm on offense. That combined with the double teams which were quick, forced him to make bad decisions and took away the middle made it hard to watch because this was supposedly a franchise anchoring big man.

Ewing never gave them any trouble than expected. He faced them multiple times and he never had a DOMINANT offensive series. It was mostly the team defense and the tenacity they played with that made those series so close.

[97 bulls]

Zeke's Pistons obviously. Did you just prove you don't really know what you are talking about? Thank you.
Exactly. And i knew hed run like a punk. It seems that the only way the bulls would have credibility for some people, is to have beaten the 87 lakers, the 89 pistons, the 86 celtics, or the 83 sixers. Those exact teams, at full strength. But the head scratcher is that none of the teams mentioned did that.

The sixer team the lakers beat in the early 80s didnt have moses malone. Charles jones was the center.

The lakers didnt have worthy due to a broken leg in 83. Or bob mcadoo

The 86 celtics didnt play any of the teams mentioned

The 87 lakers beat an injured celtics team (mchale had a broken foot)

And the pistons in 89 beat a laker team that didnt have magic or byron scott.

The bulls beat the pistons in 91 in a sweep. And the lakers in 5. Even though the lakers didnt have kareem or cooper. But whatsthe more, is thatthe most peoplepeople feel the 91bulls was nowhere near their best team.

Theres no reason why any of the teams shouldnt get full credit for their championship runs.

[97 bulls]

I think this is exaggerated a little.

I'm not saying they didn't have a huge flaw at center because lets be real here, all those guys were garbage no matter what Bulls fans who prop them up to ridiculous levels say. But they were able to cover up the flaw very well by pressuring the ball which meant less time on the clock to feed the post as well as a more difficult entry pass which meant the center could've had to come out further out to receive the ball.

They also had Jordan, Pippen and Grant (all tremendous defenders) to double team which could mean sending various types of double teams such as hard, quick double teams on the catch or helping on the move from various angles. I've seen games where I was there thinking the other team (usually Zo/Heat, Ewing/Knicks) is relying way too much on the center and it's almost hurting them on offense. I thought Bulls were enticing them to throw the ball into the post and taking advantage of it.

In the second three peat, they also had another advantage with Rodman to guard the bigger centers like he did vs Shaq and Zo in the conference finals and he held his own because of how strong he was and had a low center of gravity. He didn't give up good position and often frustrated players.

You can see this in the 1992 and 1993 series vs Cleveland when Daugherty was relatively limited because they forced the ball out of Price's hands, tried to force him to the other side of the court so he can't run PnR or feed the post to Brad and when he did get the ball the clock was on it's way down and they were sending GREAT double teams at him. Brad was also not like Hakeem/Shaq in that he made his move early, usually took time to set up.

You can also see this in the 1995 ECSF with Shaq averaging 24.8 ppg on 48.4% shooting along with 4.0 assists per game and 4.2 turnovers per game which aren't as impressive than his season numbers. To put this into perspective, Shaq had a better series vs Hakeem and Houston than he did vs the Bulls despite their garbage frontline. How did this happen? The strategy is explained above. They often double teamed him (usually whoever was guarding Horace) and pressured the ball too (remember Jordan on Penny). Of course, Shaq's impact was much greater than his numbers because he was definitely responsible for Grant having a great series. And Shaq did play much better in the 1996 ECF when I'm sure he adjusted to their gameplan although they didn't double team him continously like they did in 1995 since their strategy was to single cover him with either Dennis or Longley until he really got going.

You can see how terrible Zo was in both the 1996 and 1997 playoffs although I can say it's just as much of a flaw in his game than it was the defense. Forget Rodman who totally checked him out mentally but Longley was bothering him too and he just couldn't get any rhythm on offense. That combined with the double teams which were quick, forced him to make bad decisions and took away the middle made it hard to watch because this was supposedly a franchise anchoring big man.

Ewing never gave them any trouble than expected. He faced them multiple times and he never had a DOMINANT offensive series. It was mostly the team defense and the tenacity they played with that made those series so close.
Its funny that you call the bulls centers garbage then admonish how well they played defensively against some of the greatest centers ever. What gives? Isnt this kinda contradictory?

[NugzHeat3]

Its funny that you call the bulls centers garbage then admonish how well they played defensively against some of the greatest centers ever. What gives? Isnt this kinda contradictory?
Huh? I didn't give any credit to their centers which make no mistake were pure trash.

I gave credit to how well they were able to minimize that flaw by their pressure defense on guards and entry passes and double teaming with excellent defenders to make it harder for the big men. Also gave credit to Rodman but he wasn't their C.

[97 bulls]

Huh? I didn't give any credit to their centers which make no mistake were pure trash.

I gave credit to how well they were able to minimize that flaw by their pressure defense on guards and entry passes and double teaming with excellent defenders to make it harder for the big men. Also gave credit to Rodman but he wasn't their C.
In order for a double team to work, your center has to be able to hold his position. The bulls center were big and strong. And rarely got manhandled in the post.

On offense, their job was to hit open jumpers and they were excellent jumpshooters. What makes them garbage?

Whats the difference between kendrick perkins and luc longley? Other than the fact that longleys jumpshot is much better. And as much as you probably hate to admit, longley was a capable post scorer

[NugzHeat3]

In order for a double team to work, your center has to be able to hold his position. The bulls center were big and strong. And rarely got manhandled in the post.

On offense, their job was to hit open jumpers and they were excellent jumpshooters. What makes them garbage?

Whats the difference between kendrick perkins and luc longley? Other than the fact that longleys jumpshot is much better. And as much as you probably hate to admit, longley was a capable post scorer
Not always. If you have bigger perimeter defenders with length (Harper/Jordan/Pippen) and you're pressing hard enough on the entry pass, the post player would have to come higher towards the wing or further out on the baseline to create a better angle for the guard/forward to pass at. Your big man doesn

[Roundball_Rock]

The 96' Bulls can't be compared with an 80's team at face value. Why? Expansion. A team with Bird, McHale, Parish, DJ, Ainge, and Bill Walton simply would not exist in 1996. If you are going to compare the 96' Bulls to an 80's team you have to either give the Bulls additional all-star caliber players if you have them traveling to the 80's, or have to take some players off the 80's team if they are transported to 1996. People often forget to factor this in when it comes to cross-era comparisons, especially when it comes to teams from the 60's and 80's.

[Tenchi Ryu]

Hell, MJ was torching Larry and his squad in 86....imagine if he had a Prime Pippen, Grant and a good set of role players....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi1aO17iKxI

[veilside23]

michael jordan wins 6 out of 6.. so id go with his team...

[97 bulls]

[QUOTE=NugzHeat3]Not always. If you have bigger perimeter defenders with length (Harper/Jordan/Pippen) and you're pressing hard enough on the entry pass, the post player would have to come higher towards the wing or further out on the baseline to create a better angle for the guard/forward to pass at. Your big man doesn

[97 bulls]

The 96' Bulls can't be compared with an 80's team at face value. Why? Expansion. A team with Bird, McHale, Parish, DJ, Ainge, and Bill Walton simply would not exist in 1996. If you are going to compare the 96' Bulls to an 80's team you have to either give the Bulls additional all-star caliber players if you have them traveling to the 80's, or have to take some players off the 80's team if they are transported to 1996. People often forget to factor this in when it comes to cross-era comparisons, especially when it comes to teams from the 60's and 80's.
Id have to disagree with this Rock. As i stated earlier, half of the celtics team came through trades. The lakers got magic on a coin flip.

Id also like to point out that basketball was not nearly as popular in the 70s. Which means that they werent getting as many of the best athletes of the 80s.

I say this to say there was nothing wrong with the talent level of the 90s teams.

Another point. The league expanded in 88 and 89. The lakers were still great. The bulls in 94 won 55 games playing against the same amount of teams as the 88lakers. All they did in 96 was add jordan and get an upgrade in rodman over grant