SHOWTIME Lakers vs 90s Bulls

[mehyaM24]

sick of hearing this propaganda that LA was still "showtime" in 91. magic wasnt even in his prime. no kareem. no cooper. worthy and scott were injured. LOL

so....

Showtime: 80,82,85,87-88
magic/kareem/worthy/cooper/Scott/mcadoo/wilkes

Bulls: 91-93, 96-98
91-93 bulls - jordan/pippen/grant/cartwright/paxon/armstrong
96-98 bulls - jordan/pippen/rodman/kukoc/harper/kerr

best bulls team vs the best lakers team: who wins?

[SHAQisGOAT]

Really close but imo the 87 Lakers would beat the best Bulls championship squad (either 96 or 92).
And if you had all of those championship teams, that you've mentioned, facing each other (Lakers vs Bulls), LA would win most matchups.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

The 'best team' from Chicago is either circa '92 or '96.

The 'best team' from LAL is either circa '85 or '87.

Any way you slice it, I'm goin' Lakers in 7. They were the very definition of stacked.


Really close but imo the 87 Lakers would beat the best Bulls championship squad (either 96 or 92).
And if you had all of those championship teams, that you've mentioned, facing each other (Lakers vs Bulls), LA would win most matchups.

Pretty much this.

[97 bulls]

The Bulls smashed the Lakers in 91. And no the Lakers weren't old. Granted that wasn't their best team, but neither was 91 the best Bulls team. And the Bulls won 4-1. There would be a much better argument had the Bulls beat the Lakers in seven.

[Upgrayedd]

'96 Bulls = GOAT. No one is beating them that season. Not any version of the showtime Lakers or any version of the Larry Bird Celtics.

[ImKobe]

The Bulls smashed the Lakers in 91. And no the Lakers weren't old. Granted that wasn't their best team, but neither was 91 the best Bulls team. And the Bulls won 4-1. There would be a much better argument had the Bulls beat the Lakers in seven.

Put a 37 year old Kareem on that team & they destroy Chicago.

[IncarceratedBob]

Lakers would have beat the Bulls in 91 if Worthy and Scott were healthy

[Nikola_]

"In the early 80s, we knew we could outrun and outscore you," the Lakers' Magic Johnson said. "That's not the way we look at the game anymore."

:lol

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1985_finals.html#LAL-BOS

look at those stats, fvckin 148 points in the finals ?

[mehyaM24]

Put a 37 year old Kareem on that team & they destroy Chicago.

:cheers:

[SexSymbol]

The Bulls smashed the Lakers in 91. And no the Lakers weren't old. Granted that wasn't their best team, but neither was 91 the best Bulls team. And the Bulls won 4-1. There would be a much better argument had the Bulls beat the Lakers in seven.
That's debatable

[TheMan]

:cheers:
I'll take the Showtime Lakers over LeBron's Heat easily. Miami is stacked but Magic's team sweeps Miami as LeBron get's outscored by another role player during the Finals in Byron Scott.

[97 bulls]

Put a 37 year old Kareem on that team & they destroy Chicago.]
The Lakers replaced Jabaar with Vlade Divac and Sam Perkins. That tandem more than made up for what they missed in Jabaar. By 87, Kareem was at best a good center.

The Bulls would win because

1. Dennis Rodman alone would outrebound the Lakers frontline. As Pat Riley used to say, "If you can't rebound, you can't run."


2. Their not being able to run forces them to have to post up Jabaar on Longley or Worthy Jordan. We saw what Pippen could do to Magic in 91. Even Magic said Pippen frustrated him. They'd be one and done.

3. The Bulls offense is better than the Lakers defense.

[red1]

80s celtics vs 90s bulls

[97 bulls]

That's debatable
No its not. In fact, aside from Jordan, the second three-peat Bulls were much deeper than the first.

[red1]

That's debatable
you really don't know anything

[JohnFreeman]

Kareem would do some damage

[r0drig0lac]

'96 Bulls = GOAT. No one is beating them that season. Not any version of the showtime Lakers or any version of the Larry Bird Celtics.
this

[mehyaM24]

85 kareem > 96 rodman
85 magic > 96 jordan
85 worthy = 96 pippen
85 byron scott > 96 toni kukoc

:confusedshrug:

[ThePhantomCreep]

The Bulls smashed the Lakers in 91. And no the Lakers weren't old. Granted that wasn't their best team, but neither was 91 the best Bulls team. And the Bulls won 4-1. There would be a much better argument had the Bulls beat the Lakers in seven.
The '91 Bulls were far closer to their peak than the Lakers were. They went 15-2 in those playoffs for a reason.

The Lakers didn't even have Worthy for the decisive game 5. He was hobbled all series.

[L.Kizzle]

Lets see, the Lakers hadn't won a title in 3 years, yet still make the Finals with injured players and no Kareem.

I'd take any of the teams that won a title (80; 82; 85; 87; 88.) Hell a few of those teams that didn't win like 83 and 84 I'm taking over the best Bulls teams of 92 and 96.

[K Xerxes]

That's debatable

You are honestly an atrocious poster. Ironic since you like to flaunt some kind of objective persona. I'm not sure if this account is serious or a troll.

[97 bulls]

85 kareem > 96 rodman
85 magic > 96 jordan
85 worthy = 96 pippen
85 byron scott > 96 tony kukoc

:confusedshrug:
Lol. So Worthy having played only two years was already better than Scottie Pippen in his prime?

Magic and Jordan are equal offensively, but on defense? Magic is terrible. Look up John Paxsons stats if you don't believe me.

Id take Rodman over Jabaar. Like I stated earlier, Jabaar was a shell of his former self.

And Id take Kukoc over Scott. Scotts stats are inflated.

[mehyaM24]

Lol. So Worthy having played only two years was already better than Scottie Pippen in his prime?

Magic and Jordan are equal offensively, but on defense? Magic is terrible. Look up John Paxsons stats if you don't believe me.

Id take Rodman over Jabaar. Like I stated earlier, Jabaar was a shell of his former self.

And Id take Kukoc over Scott. Scotts stats are inflated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqnHGZHbY3Q

85 worthy was a better scorer than pippen ever was, not only that, but the lakers run and gun style would negate any advantages pippen and jordan had defensively.

also 85 kareem averaged 25.7 points, 10 rebounds and 5 assists per game while shooting over 60%. in the finals too. id take that production over anything rodman, divac or perkins give :oldlol:

[97 bulls]

The '91 Bulls were far closer to their peak than the Lakers were. They went 15-2 in those playoffs for a reason.

The Lakers didn't even have Worthy for the decisive game 5. He was hobbled all series.
Bull. Magic, Scott, Worthy, Green and Perkins were all in their prime. Dicvac had been playing pro ball over seas since he was a teen.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Lol. So Worthy having played only two years was already better than Scottie Pippen in his prime?

Magic and Jordan are equal offensively, but on defense? Magic is terrible. Look up John Paxsons stats if you don't believe me.

Id take Rodman over Jabaar. Like I stated earlier, Jabaar was a shell of his former self.

And Id take Kukoc over Scott. Scotts stats are inflated.

Shells don't win Finals MVP while annihilating a HOF center (Parish) in the process.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Bull. Magic, Scott, Worthy, Green and Perkins were all in their prime. Dicvac had been playing pro ball over seas since he was a teen.

Aside from Green, all were better in previous seasons.

Scott was another player who was hobbled in those Finals. He was ineffective all series, and missed game 5.

[97 bulls]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqnHGZHbY3Q

85 worthy was a better scorer than pippen ever was, not only that, but the lakers run and gun style would negate any advantages pippen and jordan had defensively.

also kareem averaged 25.7 points, 10 rebounds and 5 assists per game while shooting over 60%. in the finals too.
Did you not read Rileys quote? If you can't rebound, you can't run. Rodman alone matches what Jabaar and Worthy were capable of. And thats not counting what Pippen and Longley would contribute.

Just because Jabaar had a great series vs Boston, doesn't mean he would vs a superioir defensive squad. And dont forget that if take choose the 85 Lakers to get a younger Jabaar, you loose Magic at his best, you get younger inexperienced players in Worthy and Scott, old has beens in Mcadoo and Wilkes. .

[mehyaM24]

LOL both the 85 lakers and 96 bulls averaged 3,000+ rebounds. what makes you think showtime "cant" rebound? idiot

[DonDadda59]

the lakers run and gun style would negate any advantages pippen and jordan had defensively.

The only time in the 80s the Lakers played a team that was even remotely close to the Bulls defensively was against the Pistons in '88 and '89 (They barely won a 7 game series and then were swept by Detroit). In both cases, the Lakers run n' gun offense was considerably slowed down. In '88 they played the season at a pace of 99.1, in the finals the Pistons brought that down to 90.7. The next season LA played at a pace of 100.1. The Bad Boys slowed them down again to the tune of 90.4 en route to a complete sweep.

The '91 Lakers were slower paced, played at 94.1 and the young Bulls brought that down even further to 85.8. All the Bulls had to do was put Scottie on Magic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eibq7MpTAvE), press him full court, and the Lakers pace dropped by nearly 9 possessions per game.

Yet you're here convinced the Bulls would somehow be helpless against the Lakers' fast break? Especially with the '96 Bulls squad with Rodman working the boards?


Kareem would do some damage

Maybe. But after having dealt repeatedly with Ewing, Shaq, Malone, Barkley, etc in the playoffs I doubt the Bulls lose sleep over a 37 year old+ Kareem.

[ThePhantomCreep]

The only time in the 80s the Lakers played a team that was even remotely close to the Bulls defensively was against the Pistons in '88 and '89 (They barely won a 7 game series and then were swept by Detroit). In both cases, the Lakers run n' gun offense was considerably slowed down. In '88 they played the season at a pace of 99.1, in the finals the Pistons brought that down to 90.7. The next season LA played at a pace of 100.1. The Bad Boys slowed them down again to the tune of 90.4 en route to a complete sweep.

The '91 Lakers were slower paced, played at 94.1 and the young Bulls brought that down even further to 85.8. All the Bulls had to do was put Scottie on Magic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eibq7MpTAvE), press him full court, and the Lakers pace dropped by nearly 9 possessions per game.

Yet you're here convinced the Bulls would somehow be helpless against the Lakers' fast break? Especially with the '96 Bulls squad with Rodman working the boards?



Maybe. But after having dealt repeatedly with Ewing, Shaq, Malone, Barkley, etc in the playoffs I doubt the Bulls lose sleep over a 37 year old+ Kareem.

The lack of context with regards to the '89 series is laughable. No Scott, no Magic for 2 games, and a 42-year old Jabbar.

Yup, virtually no difference between that team and the squads that won it all. Nothing to see here.

Ewing's Knicks (who gave the Bulls all they could handle in '92 and '93) had Starks and filler. Kareem's supporting cast was a pinch more talented overall.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Did you not read Rileys quote? If you can't rebound, you can't run. Rodman alone matches what Jabaar and Worthy were capable of. And thats not counting what Pippen and Longley would contribute.

Just because Jabaar had a great series vs Boston, doesn't mean he would vs a superioir defensive squad. And dont forget that if take choose the 85 Lakers to get a younger Jabaar, you loose Magic at his best, you get younger inexperienced players in Worthy and Scott, old has beens in Mcadoo and Wilkes. .
Magic was MVP runner-up in 1985. More than good enough.

Worthy was a nightmare for the Celtics in those 1985 Finals. Watching a severely hobbled worthy get whatever he wanted vs Pippen in 1991, it's difficult to see how Pip contains the '85 version. Rodman himself said Worthy was impossible to guard.

[DonDadda59]

The lack of context with regards to the '89 series is laughable. No Scott, no Magic for 2 games, and a 42-year old Jabbar.

Yup, virtually no difference between that team and the squads that won it all. Nothing to see here.

Bruh, bring all the 'context' you want. I wasn't even addressing individual talent. I was addressing the guy's claim that the Bulls wouldn't be able to slow down the Lakers' offense. 3 different series against defenses that were better than their usual finals/playoffs opponents and their pace was slowed considerably.

And as I showed with the video link, the Bulls had the perfect strategy and personnel to bring the Lakers offense to a grind and waxed them after game 1. They could have Kareem at any age during his Lakers tenure, Scott, whoever. The Bulls (especially '96) slow down their 'showtime' attack and would be by far the best defense any incarnation of that team had seen, even the one that was swept by the Bad Boys. And on the other side, they struggle to do anything against the triangle and the tandem of Jordan-Pip on the wings.

[1987_Lakers]

90's Bulls vs Showtime Lakers is a tossup IMO. Lakers have amazing weapons, but Chicago has players like Harper, Jordan, & Pippen that can defend Magic, Scott, & Worthy. I probably pick the Bulls since they can slow down the pace of the game since they were the better rebounding team.

The 86 Celtics beat any version of Showtime & Jordan's Bulls though.

[DonDadda59]

The 86 Celtics beat any version of Showtime & Jordan's Bulls though.

I agree with this.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Bruh, bring all the 'context' you want. I wasn't even addressing individual talent. I was addressing the guy's claim that the Bulls wouldn't be able to slow down the Lakers' offense. 3 different series against defenses that were better than their usual finals/playoffs opponents and their pace was slowed considerably. A half-court game suits the Lakers just fine.

And as I showed with the video link, the Bulls had the perfect strategy and personnel to bring the Lakers offense to a grind and waxed them after game 1. They could have Kareem at any age during his Lakers tenure, Scott, whoever. The Bulls (especially '96) slow down their 'showtime' attack and would be by far the best defense any incarnation of that team had seen, even the one that was swept by the Bad Boys. And on the other side, they struggle to do anything against the triangle and the tandem of Jordan-Pip on the wings.

Meh. Kareem was in his 41 by 1988, he hit the wall hard that year, and that's why the Lakers struggled. They still won it all. That was easily the weakest of the Lakers title teams.

The '89 Finals was lost due to all the injuries. A healthy Lakers squad could have possibly taken that series, considering how red-hot they were leading up to the Finals.

1991 barely qualifies as Showtime. Dunleavy deliberating slowed the pace because he didn't have the horses to run a high-octane offense.

To take the struggles of those teams and say the peak Showtime Lakers would suffer a similar fate is a fallacy. '85 Kareem isn't going to average 12 a game on Longley, the way '88 Kareem did against Laimbeer. No, it's going to be closer to 22-25, depending on how spry he feels. He absolutely tooled Robert Parish in all three Finals, what's Wennington going to do to stop him?

Btw, the '85 and '87 Celtics (great rebounding and half court teams) tried slowing the pace too, and it didn't work.

[97 bulls]

The lack of context with regards to the '89 series is laughable. No Scott, no Magic for 2 games, and a 42-year old Jabbar.

Yup, virtually no difference between that team and the squads that won it all. Nothing to see here.

Ewing's cks (who gave the Bulls all they could handle in '92 and '93) had Starks and filler. Kareem's supporting cast was a pinch more talented overall.
But we dont even need to go that far. The Bulls and Lakers actually played each other. And the Bulls molly whopped them 4-1. And the one win came on a last second shot. And I just dont see how replacing Jabaar would (an old Jabaar at that) would swing the series in that big of a different direction.

[97 bulls]

LOL both the 85 lakers and 96 bulls averaged 3,000+ rebounds. what makes you think showtime "cant" rebound? idiot
I didnt say they couldn't rebound. I said they wouldn't rebound effectively vs the Bulls.

And to show why you cant compare stats like you are attempting to do. The Bad Boy Pistons are considered one of the greatest defensive teams ever. In 1989, they finished fourth in defense point allowed giving up on avg 101 ppg. In 97? Thats puts them in the bottom five. And not in a good way.

[97 bulls]

I agree with this.
Lol. I dont. It was by sheer luck that they beat the Lakers in 84.

[DonDadda59]

Meh. Kareem was in his 41 by 1988, he hit the wall hard that year, and that's why the Lakers struggled. They still won it all. That was easily the weakest of the Lakers title teams.

That's great and all but they still played at a relatively fast pace (they were always around 10th in the league) and the Pistons D lessened that by nearly 10 possessions per game... 2 years in a row, regardless of who was on the court.


The '89 Finals was lost due to all the injuries. A healthy Lakers squad could have possibly taken that series, considering how red-hot they were leading up to the Finals.

They swept their way to the finals playing the usual defenses they were used to and then once again ran into a defensive squad adept at slowing down the pace and were themselves swept.


1991 barely qualifies as Showtime. Dunleavy deliberating slowed the pace because he didn't have the horses to run a high-octane offense.

Bulls still cut their pace down drastically by having Pip hound Magic full court with aggressive D while Jordan was allowed to roam and create havoc. If the pace had been maintained, regardless of whether it was 'showtime' or not, then maybe you'd have a point. But the Bulls tactics and personnel cut their pace down by c. 9 possessions.


To take the struggles of those teams and say the peak Showtime Lakers would suffer a similar fate is a fallacy. '85 Kareem isn't going to average 12 a game on Longley, the way '88 Kareem did against Laimbeer. No, it's going to be closer to 22-25, depending on how spry he feels. He absolutely tooled a Robert Parish in all three Finals, what's Wennington going to do to stop him?

So he'd be putting up worse #s than Shaq when the Magic were swept by the Bull in '96?


Btw, the '85 and '87 Celtics (great rebounding and half court teams) tried slowing the pace too, and it didn't work.

The Celtics didn't have anyone that could body up Magic full court and affect him with size, length, and athleticism like Pippen did in '91.

Whether or not the Bulls could slow Magic/the Lakers offense down isn't a hypothetical. We saw it play out in '91. And you can talk about injuries and 'context' all you want but he was a season removed from winning MVP and led the Lakers to the championship round doing what he usually did (including putting up 26/10/13 against the Warriors). He and the team ran into some Dobermans and were completely taken out of their game.

[ThePhantomCreep]

But we dont even need to go that far. The Bulls and Lakers actually played each other. And the Bulls molly whopped them 4-1. And the one win came on a last second shot. And I just dont see how replacing Jabaar would (an old Jabaar at that) would swing the series in that big of a different direction.

Except you're not replacing Divac with Kareem, you're replacing the '91 Lakers with the '85 Lakers.

'85 Kareem is better than Divac.
'85 Magic is a wash with the '91 version. He was MVP runner-up both years.
'85 Worthy is far better than the severely hobbled '91 version.
'85 Scott is better than hobbled '91 version (4.5 PPG in the Finals).

Cooper isn't retired. '85 has the better bench. They had been to Finals four straight years, much better chemistry.

I can't believe I have to explain to people how much better the 1985 Lakers were. I mean WOW.

[DonDadda59]

Lol. I dont. It was by sheer luck that they beat the Lakers in 84.

I'm just talking about the '86 Celtics, no other version. Pretty sure he was too.

[1987_Lakers]

Lol. I dont. It was by sheer luck that they beat the Lakers in 84.

Was this sheer luck?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEbAQaLHT1E

See what a difference Bill Walton is.

[Round Mound]

Showtime Lakers....All The Way

[SHAQisGOAT]

Byron Scott at his best was almost as good of a scorer as Pippen, and he wasn't even 1987 Lakers' 3rd scoring option (for example), think about that :lol

Kareem would destroy the Bulls' bigs even in his late 30s, they had no match for him.

Worthy was always big, really good all-around, great scoring threat. Pippen would've had to expend lots of energy, keeping up with him in transition, guarding him in the post, chasing him off-ball and keeping him out of the paint. No other player could "keep up" with him on the Bulls, Jordan was too short (Harper too), Rodman was older... Then who would guard the GOAT PG (assuming they're playing vs the 96 Bulls)? MJ got murked trying to guard Magic (or Bird) in the post, too small really, same for Harper, Rodman at that time wouldn't be able to keep up on the perimeter with Johnson, and 87 saw peak Magic, terrific all-around offensive player. Maybe put Rodman on Worthy and have Pippen on Magic.. still Dennis would've had lots of trouble, young Rodman at his best, said Worthy was almost impossible to stop, now imagine a 34 yo Rodman, who was mostly playing PF, against 25 yo Worthy in his prime.

LA had the only player to win DPOY off the bench. We're talking about Michael Jordan here but Cooper would make him work really hard to get his, and Scott did his thing on defense as well. And Coop could also provide a bit of scoring, really good spotting up, athletic, plus a better passer/playmaker and ballhandler than any of the Bull's PG's.

Lakers also had:
> AC Green, who was a really good defensive player, a good rebounder, athletic and savy, and solid scorer.
> Mychal Thompson had a pretty good peak as a player - putting up like 19/9/4 - and he could still ball, really good in the post on both ends, nice shotblocker, could pass the ball and also rebound, better than any Bulls' big not named Rodman, and he was back-up lol.
> Kurt Rambis, who was all-out hustle, really good rebounder, scrappy and smart.

LA had too many scoring threats, plenty of mismatches, plus they were very smart and could all pass the ball, any team would be screwed against that.
Lakers would've had Scott on MJ, with Coop off the bench, Worthy on Pippen or even AC, Magic would be helping out the rest and put on Harper, who didn't score as much as before, was already 32 and had suffered major injuries before, Kareem could also worry more about protecting the paint, same for Mychal... they' be set, also a very balanced and pretty good rebounding team.

Showtime Lakers passing game was insane, led by the greatest passer of all-time, their fastbreak was killer with that passing and some great athletic players able to run the floor and finish, tough as hell to keep up with them. They were stacked like crazy :eek: filled with great players making up a great team, clicking on all levels.. Series would be pretty close, don't get me wrong, but LA takes it, it's clear to me.

People mentioning LA with no Kareem, no Cooper, injured Worthy and Scott? :rolleyes: :facepalm :lol Imagine the 96 Bulls with either Pippen or Rodman substituted by a worse player, no Kukoc, and Pippen or Rodman (one who wasn't "replaced") playing injured, same for Harper or Kerr. Now imagine that team going up against one of the showtime Lakers championship squads, can anyone say demolished? :oldlol:
Some of you seriously think a sophomore Divac and Sam Perkins could replace (even a 39 years old) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, plus a younger Mychal Thompson and Kurt Rambis? Gtfoh. After 1988 the Lakers were never even close to their championship-level, especially their best teams.

[SHAQisGOAT]

And to show why you cant compare stats like you are attempting to do. The Bad Boy Pistons are considered one of the greatest defensive teams ever. In 1989, they finished fourth in defense point allowed giving up on avg 101 ppg. In 97? Thats puts them in the bottom five. And not in a good way.

:biggums:

Please tell me you're only saying that to somewhat prove a point..

Can't compare points allowed during different years, especially so far apart. They're not playing in the "same" league, they're not playing against the same teams... That would make the 2014 Bobcats a better defensive team than the 1989 Pistons and that's just presposterous, put those 'Cats in 1989 and they sure as hell would be given more points than the Pistons, considerably.

I'm just gonna assume what I've said 1st, if not :facepalm

[ThePhantomCreep]

It's also a myth that Pippen contained Magic in those Finals. Dude nearly averaged a triple double in that series, and dropped 20 dimes in Game 5. No Kareem, no Cooper, no Worthy, no Scott, and he still got 20 fricken assists against one of the ATG perimeter defenses. Magic was otherworldly, and could not be doubled. Ever.

I'd argue that '85 Magic was better too, as '91 Magic was older and had to rely on his jumper more.

[97 bulls]

Meh. Kareem was in his 41 by 1988, he hit the wall hard that year, and that's why the Lakers struggled. They still won it all. That was easily the weakest of the Lakers title teams.

The '89 Finals was lost due to all the injuries. A healthy Lakers squad could have possibly taken that series, considering how red-hot they were leading up to the Finals.

1991 barely qualifies as Showtime. Dunleavy deliberating slowed the pace because he didn't have the horses to run a high-octane offense.

To take the struggles of those teams and say the peak Showtime Lakers would suffer a similar fate is a fallacy. '85 Kareem isn't going to average 12 a game on Longley, the way '88 Kareem did against Laimbeer. No, it's going to be closer to 22-25, depending on how spry he feels. He absolutely tooled Robert Parish in all three Finals, what's Wennington going to do to stop him?

Btw, the '85 and '87 Celtics (great rebounding and half court teams) tried slowing the pace too, and it didn't work.
You wanna know how a Showtime Lakers vs 90s Bulls matchup would look like? Go to youtube and look at the Bulls v Magic 1996.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Lol. I dont. It was by sheer luck that they beat the Lakers in 84.

Sheer luck = Larry Bird

But yea, 1984 Lakers were better on paper than the 1984 Celtics, they were stacked plus playing much better during the playoffs while pretty much everybody on the C's not named Bird was underperforming. Still the Celtics grinded it out, Bird was a beast and sparked a fire, Lakers had plenty of "choking" moments, so I wouldn't call it sheer luck.

And the 84 Celtics wouldn't beat the best championship Bulls, but that 1986 squad would beat any of them, not really the same.. Bird was even better at his peak, McHale was at his best, Parish was still really good, DJ was still a pretty good asset, Ainge had blossomed into a really good overall shooter plus could pass the rock and was a very scrappy player, Walton was there and managed to be a big factor still at that point, Sichting was a nice addition, absolutely money from mid-range that year, Wedman still did something.. Plus they had unreal passing, team-play, IQ and on-court chemistry, great on both ends.

[SHAQisGOAT]

You wanna know how a Showtime Lakers vs 90s Bulls matchup would look like? Go to youtube and look at the Bulls v Magic 1996.

:biggums:

Please tell you didn't just do that comparison? :facepalm You should just quit this dicussion at this point :wtf:

[97 bulls]

It's also a myth that Pippen contained Magic in those Finals. Dude nearly averaged a triple double in that series, and dropped 20 dimes in Game 5. No Kareem, no Cooper, no Worthy, no Scott, and he still got 20 fricken assists against one of the ATG perimeter defenses. Magic was otherworldly, and could not be doubled. Ever.

I'd argue that '85 Magic was better too, as '91 Magic was older and had to rely on his jumper more.
I have a video in which Magic himself says Pippen and the Bulls basically had him flustered.

And again. That wasn't by any means the Bulls most talented squad.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Was this sheer luck?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEbAQaLHT1E

See what a difference Bill Walton is.

$20 bucks says the Celtics collectively sighed with relief when Sampson's shot dropped. Not saying they would have lost, but LA's style was all wrong for them.

[Marchesk]

'96 Bulls = GOAT. No one is beating them that season. Not any version of the showtime Lakers or any version of the Larry Bird Celtics.

Put them up against a great team with a GOAT level center. One of Wilt's title teams, Kareem's Bucks, or the best of Shaq's LA teams. Or second peat Houston.

The Bulls couldn't contain a 6'10 Kemp in the finals. They would get dominated in the paint by a great center.

[ThePhantomCreep]

You wanna know how a Showtime Lakers vs 90s Bulls matchup would look like? Go to youtube and look at the Bulls v Magic 1996.

You've just entered :biggums: territory.

Van Exel, Jones, Ceballos, Peeler, and a 37-year old Magic coming off the bench = Showtime at its peak?!!

[Asukal]

You've just entered :biggums: territory.

Van Exel, Jones, Ceballos, Peeler, and a 37-year old Magic coming off the bench = Showtime at its peak?!!

He probably meant Orlando Magic with a near prime Shaq.

[ThePhantomCreep]

He probably meant Orlando Magic with a near prime Shaq.
Yeah, you're right.

Still not the same, as impressive as that beating was.

Penny was great, but he's no Magic. Then you have...Nick Anderson, Dennis Scott, Ho Grant?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yeah, you're right.

Still not the same, as impressive as that beating was.

Penny was great, but he's no Magic. Then you have...Nick Anderson, Dennis Scott, Ho Grant?

And even then, Grant did not play in the series (not saying it'd be any different, just saying).

[SHAQisGOAT]

I have a video in which Magic himself says Pippen and the Bulls basically had him flustered.

And again. That wasn't by any means the Bulls most talented squad.

Yea but he still averaged 19/8/12 with a considerably worse team, and he wasn't even at his best anymore, plus older.

I can also say that young Rodman at his best (at least on the perimeter) said Worthy was like impossible to guard.

Now riddle me this, who would guard Worthy? Pippen would be the best choice, and even injured Worthy was giving him hell... Then who do you put on Magic? 96 Rodman wouldn't be able to quite keep up with 87 Magic on the perimeter and in transition, all the way. Jordan and Harper would be too small for either. Have Pippen on Magic and Rodman on Worthy? See what Dennis was saying (and what was happening) above. And then they also have Kareem who would destroy Chicago's bigs even at that point. Shit Mychal and AC would even do damage given the matchup problems. Oh and there's this guy named Byron Scott who was capable of 20 ppg on great shooting. Lakers were more stacked and much deeper, adding to the names above, also with Cooper, Rambis.. shit Wes Matthews had just come off of a 11/6 season, in 25 min, Brickowski (who was traded for Mychal) averaged 16/7/4 the following season with the Spurs, and Billy Thompson put up 11/7 with MIA, and them dudes were playing like 10 minutes, garbage time :oldlol:

GOAT PG at his peak, GOAT C still pretty good, top10 SF in his prime, great shooting/scoring SG in his prime, one of the best defenders of all time, at his best, capable of some scoring/shooting and really good passing/playmaking, 3 pretty serviceable bigs.. all sorts of matchup problems, still pretty young for the most part, very athletic, terrific passing game, killer fastbreak, more than good enough (pressure) defense.
:eek:

http://www.heartofamericapartners.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/stacked-books1.jpg

If that wasn't, by all means, the Bulls most talented squad, what to say about the Lakers? :lol

[Micku]

Yeah, you're right.

Still not the same, as impressive as that beating was.

Penny was great, but he's no Magic. Then you have...Nick Anderson, Dennis Scott, Ho Grant?

They were good tho. They just were just not a better combo than James Worthy, AC Green, Byron Scott, and Michael Cooper.

It would've been a great series tho. While Kareem would probably give them trouble, the Bulls did great centers. In the 96 playoffs, they faced Mourning, Ewing, and Shaq. The problem being is that the perimeter game with those teams was not as good as the perimeter games with the Lakers. Plus it'll be interesting to see Cooper defend Jordan in a 7 game series.

[97 bulls]

:biggums:

Please tell you didn't just do that comparison? :facepalm You should just quit this dicussion at this point :wtf:
That team is rightfully drew comparisons to the Lakers. Penny to Magic, Shaq and Jabaar, Grant, Scott, Anderson vs Worthy, Scott and Green.

Youre either too young to remember or a bold faced liar.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

sick of hearing this propaganda that LA was still "showtime" in 91. magic wasnt even in his prime. no kareem. no cooper. worthy and scott were injured. LOL

so....

Showtime: 80,82,85,87-88
magic/kareem/worthy/cooper/Scott/mcadoo/wilkes

Bulls: 91-93, 96-98
91-93 bulls - jordan/pippen/grant/cartwright/paxon/armstrong
96-98 bulls - jordan/pippen/rodman/kukoc/harper/kerr

best bulls team vs the best lakers team: who wins?
Magic wasnt prime?:biggums: :biggums:
91 was easily one of Magics top 5 seasons:biggums: :biggums:

[SHAQisGOAT]

That team is rightfully drew comparisons to the Lakers. Penny to Magic, Shaq and Jabaar, Grant, Scott, Anderson vs Worthy, Scott and Green.

Youre either too young to remember or a bold faced liar.

DeShawn Stevenson drew comparisons to MJ out of high-school, for example... so what?

That team couldn't really touch the best showtime Lakers squads, and I loved to watched them play.
Considering, let's say, 87 vs 96... Magic J was just better than Penny, Shaq's above Kareem, nobody's even close to Worthy on the Magic (exluding those other 2), Byron has the edge over Nick, Coop+AC+Mychal+Rambis >> Grant+Scott+Shaw+... Plus Lakers had better chemistry developed over plenty of years, better passing game and overall offense, a better coach, better offense and defense, higher IQ and better under pressure. Oh and they had various injuries in the ps.
Can't really compare, Lakers were clearly better, guess I'm just too young to remember :rolleyes:

[97 bulls]

Yeah, you're right.

Still not the same, as impressive as that beating was.

Penny was great, but he's no Magic. Then you have...Nick Anderson, Dennis Scott, Ho Grant?
Well damn bro. How impressive were the Laker victories then? Moses Malone wasnt on that Sixer team in 1980. The same goes for 82. Bird hurt his hand in a bar fight in 85. Mchale and Walton were hurt in 87. And Thomas was hurt in 88.


Now theres at least five Pro Lakers guys in here. Please explain why those championships have any more relevance than the Bulls beating the Lakers in 91.

[97 bulls]

They were good tho. They just were just not a better combo than James Worthy, AC Green, Byron Scott, and Michael Cooper.

It would've been a great series tho. While Kareem would probably give them trouble, the Bulls did great centers. In the 96 playoffs, they faced Mourning, Ewing, and Shaq. The problem being is that the perimeter game with those teams was not as good as the perimeter games with the Lakers. Plus it'll be interesting to see Cooper defend Jordan in a 7 game series.
Michale Cooper would've given up almost 40 lbs to Jordan in the post. I just dont see it.

[Round Mound]

Byron Scott at his best was almost as good of a scorer as Pippen, and he wasn't even 1987 Lakers' 3rd scoring option (for example), think about that :lol

Kareem would destroy the Bulls' bigs even in his late 30s, they had no match for him.

Worthy was always big, really good all-around, great scoring threat. Pippen would've had to expend lots of energy, keeping up with him in transition, guarding him in the post, chasing him off-ball and keeping him out of the paint. No other player could "keep up" with him on the Bulls, Jordan was too short (Harper too), Rodman was older... Then who would guard the GOAT PG (assuming they're playing vs the 96 Bulls)? MJ got murked trying to guard Magic (or Bird) in the post, too small really, same for Harper, Rodman at that time wouldn't be able to keep up on the perimeter with Johnson, and 87 saw peak Magic, terrific all-around offensive player. Maybe put Rodman on Worthy and have Pippen on Magic.. still Dennis would've had lots of trouble, young Rodman at his best, said Worthy was almost impossible to stop, now imagine a 34 yo Rodman, who was mostly playing PF, against 25 yo Worthy in his prime.

LA had the only player to win DPOY off the bench. We're talking about Michael Jordan here but Cooper would make him work really hard to get his, and Scott did his thing on defense as well. And Coop could also provide a bit of scoring, really good spotting up, athletic, plus a better passer/playmaker and ballhandler than any of the Bull's PG's.

Lakers also had:
> AC Green, who was a really good defensive player, a good rebounder, athletic and savy, and solid scorer.
> Mychal Thompson had a pretty good peak as a player - putting up like 19/9/4 - and he could still ball, really good in the post on both ends, nice shotblocker, could pass the ball and also rebound, better than any Bulls' big not named Rodman, and he was back-up lol.
> Kurt Rambis, who was all-out hustle, really good rebounder, scrappy and smart.

LA had too many scoring threats, plenty of mismatches, plus they were very smart and could all pass the ball, any team would be screwed against that.
Lakers would've had Scott on MJ, with Coop off the bench, Worthy on Pippen or even AC, Magic would be helping out the rest and put on Harper, who didn't score as much as before, was already 32 and had suffered major injuries before, Kareem could also worry more about protecting the paint, same for Mychal... they' be set, also a very balanced and pretty good rebounding team.

Showtime Lakers passing game was insane, led by the greatest passer of all-time, their fastbreak was killer with that passing and some great athletic players able to run the floor and finish, tough as hell to keep up with them. They were stacked like crazy :eek: filled with great players making up a great team, clicking on all levels.. Series would be pretty close, don't get me wrong, but LA takes it, it's clear to me.

People mentioning LA with no Kareem, no Cooper, injured Worthy and Scott? :rolleyes: :facepalm :lol Imagine the 96 Bulls with either Pippen or Rodman substituted by a worse player, no Kukoc, and Pippen or Rodman (one who wasn't "replaced") playing injured, same for Harper or Kerr. Now imagine that team going up against one of the showtime Lakers championship squads, can anyone say demolished? :oldlol:
Some of you seriously think a sophomore Divac and Sam Perkins could replace (even a 39 years old) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, plus a younger Mychal Thompson and Kurt Rambis? Gtfoh. After 1988 the Lakers were never even close to their championship-level, especially their best teams.


:applause:

[Round Mound]

It's also a myth that Pippen contained Magic in those Finals. Dude nearly averaged a triple double in that series, and dropped 20 dimes in Game 5. No Kareem, no Cooper, no Worthy, no Scott, and he still got 20 fricken assists against one of the ATG perimeter defenses. Magic was otherworldly, and could not be doubled. Ever.

I'd argue that '85 Magic was better too, as '91 Magic was older and had to rely on his jumper more.

:applause:

[97 bulls]

Put them up against a great team with a GOAT level center. One of Wilt's title teams, Kareem's Bucks, or the best of Shaq's LA teams. Or second peat Houston.

The Bulls couldn't contain a 6'10 Kemp in the finals. They would get dominated in the paint by a great center.
The Bulls had a 3-0 lead on Seattle. After that blow out in game 3 in Seattle, the Bulls just didn't take them seriously anymore

[97 bulls]

Well damn bro. How impressive were the Laker victories then? Moses Malone wasnt on that Sixer team in 1980. The same goes for 82. Bird hurt his hand in a bar fight in 85. Mchale and Walton were hurt in 87. And Thomas was hurt in 88.


Now theres at least five Pro Lakers guys in here. Please explain why those championships have any more relevance than the Bulls beating the Lakers in 91.
Bump

[SHAQisGOAT]

Michale Cooper would've given up almost 40 lbs to Jordan in the post. I just dont see it.

He gave up more to Bird, plus considerably more inches, and Bird could do this type of stuff:

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

...

Bird still called Coop the best defender he ever faced and he was always praised for his D on somebody like Larry.

Just an example above, you're underrating the hell out of Cooper here. He was a bit taller than MJ (despite not being listed as it), crazy long, very athletic, really quick feet and quick hands, fast with great recovery timing, very strong for his size, had every little trick in the book, knew your every move and how to frustrate the hell out of you, major trash-talker and very agressive, just a great defensive player. It doesn't happen by chance to be the only player to win DPOY off the bench, and a guard at that, making 8 all-defensive teams in 11 seasons. Shit, he played great defense on Jordan, frustrating him plenty of times (shouldn't be talking hypothetically), in the mid-to-late 80s, by 88 he wasn't the same though.

[Soundwave]

It'd be a fun match up. I tend to think great defence beats great offence most of the time though and the Bulls would still be able to score more than enough.

I don't think the Lakers would be able to play that fast break style, they'd be forced to play half court basketball, the Bulls would simply not take the bait there.

The 80s Pistons matched up well vs. the Lakers and the Bulls were basically the heir apparent of the Pistons.

The Bulls faced Shaq and Ewing in the playoffs too, so playing against a team with a 7 footer wasn't any big deal. Divac was actually pretty damn good in the 91 Finals.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Well damn bro. How impressive were the Laker victories then? Moses Malone wasnt on that Sixer team in 1980. The same goes for 82. Bird hurt his hand in a bar fight in 85. Mchale and Walton were hurt in 87. And Thomas was hurt in 88.


Now theres at least five Pro Lakers guys in here. Please explain why those championships have any more relevance than the Bulls beating the Lakers in 91.

Who was talking about "championship relevance" here? That's all pretty subjective too.

All I've said is that the Lakers weren't even close to their best championship squads' level. Kareem was long gone, Coop wasn't there, off the bench, to offer great defense and relieve Magic off his ballhandling duties, Worthy and Scott were injured, Mychal really old, Rambis also gone.
Also, and again, imagine the 96 Bulls with either Pippen or Rodman substituted by a considerably worse player, no Kukoc, and Pippen or Rodman (one who wasn't "replaced") playing injured, same for Harper or Kerr, and someone like Longley too old. Now imagine that team going up against one of the showtime Lakers championship squads.. they would've gotten their asses handed to them, no chance, just like Bulls were getting beaten by the C's in the mid 80s.

Again, if you say the 91 Lakers weren't at their best, what to say for the Lakers? :rolleyes:
Can't be using the 91 Lakers to make a case against the 87 Lakers, or even the 96 Magic or so, shit...

[ThePhantomCreep]

Well damn bro. How impressive were the Laker victories then? Moses Malone wasnt on that Sixer team in 1980. The same goes for 82. Bird hurt his hand in a bar fight in 85. Mchale and Walton were hurt in 87. And Thomas was hurt in 88.


Now theres at least five Pro Lakers guys in here. Please explain why those championships have any more relevance than the Bulls beating the Lakers in 91.

I said the victory over the Magic was impressive, that wasn't sarcasm.

Is it as impressive as a hypothetical victory over the '85 Lakers? Were those Magic as good? Absolutely not on both counts.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Who was talking about "championship relevance" here? That's all pretty subjective too.

All I've said is that the Lakers weren't even close to their best championship squads' level. Kareem was long gone, Coop wasn't there, off the bench, to offer great defense and relieve Magic off his ballhandling duties, Worthy and Scott were injured, Mychal really old, Rambis also gone.
Also, and again, imagine the 96 Bulls with either Pippen or Rodman substituted by a considerably worse player, no Kukoc, and Pippen or Rodman (one who wasn't "replaced") playing injured, same for Harper or Kerr, and someone like Longley too old. Now imagine that team going up against one of the showtime Lakers championship squads.. they would've gotten their asses handed to them, no chance, just like Bulls were getting beaten by the C's in the mid 80s.

Again, if you say the 91 Lakers weren't at their best, what to say for the Lakers? :rolleyes:
Can't be using the 91 Lakers to make a case against the 87 Lakers, or even the 96 Magic or so, shit...

All you have to do is look at the '95 Bulls to see how they'd fare without one of their key cogs in the lineup.

[1987_Lakers]

Now theres at least five Pro Lakers guys in here. Please explain why those championships have any more relevance than the Bulls beating the Lakers in 91.

What they are trying to point out is that the '91 Lakers team was no where near as good as the '85 & '87 teams, which they have a point.

Kareem (One of the league's best in '85, still All-Star caliber in '87)
Cooper (One of the leagues best defenders and sixth men)
Riley (One of the greatest coaches of all time)

Those are 3 guys the '91 team didn't have. Pretty big losses don't you think? That '91 team wasn't near the offensive Juggernaut those '85 & '87 teams were.

[ThePhantomCreep]

It'd be a fun match up. I tend to think great defence beats great offence most of the time though and the Bulls would still be able to score more than enough.

I don't think the Lakers would be able to play that fast break style, they'd be forced to play half court basketball, the Bulls would simply not take the bait there.

The 80s Pistons matched up well vs. the Lakers and the Bulls were basically the heir apparent of the Pistons.

The Bulls faced Shaq and Ewing in the playoffs too, so playing against a team with a 7 footer wasn't any big deal. Divac was actually pretty damn good in the 91 Finals.Didn't Shaq's Magic beat the Bulls one year? I know I know, the Bulls were without a Rodman or a Grant, but considering how Bulls fans downplay the loss of Kareem/Cooper/Riley in 1991, it's fair to bring up.

As for Ewing, his Knicks gave the Bulls all they could handle and he didn't have Magic/Worthy/Scott/Cooper, he had Starks/Oakley/Mason/C. Smith. Give Ewing the first set of players, then we'll see how much of a big deal it is.

The Pistons matched up well because they were crazy deep, and Kareem was no longer a reliable 18-20 a game scorer. He was done. The Pistons pushed the Lakers to the brink in '88, but so did the Jazz and Mavericks. It wasn't a singular feat they pulled off. Hell, the Mavericks series was played at an even slower place than the finals, 88.6. That's almost the pace the 2013 Finals were played at. LA still won, with easily their weakest title team.

Kareem averaged 26/9/5 on 60% shooting in the '85 Finals, and that's with Cap's dreadful Game 1 performance lowering his averages. He did virtually all of his damage on half-court sets vs a HOF center named Robert Parish. He's better than the '91 version of Vlade Divac and he's going to extremely difficult to defend without doubling. Same with Magic, same with Worthy.

[97 bulls]

Who was talking about "championship relevance" here? That's all pretty subjective too.

All I've said is that the Lakers weren't even close to their best championship squads' level. Kareem was long gone, Coop wasn't there, off the bench, to offer great defense and relieve Magic off his ballhandling duties, Worthy and Scott were injured, Mychal really old, Rambis also gone.
Also, and again, imagine the 96 Bulls with either Pippen or Rodman substituted by a considerably worse player, no Kukoc, and Pippen or Rodman (one who wasn't "replaced") playing injured, same for Harper or Kerr, and someone like Longley too old. Now imagine that team going up against one of the showtime Lakers championship squads.. they would've gotten their asses handed to them, no chance, just like Bulls were getting beaten by the C's in the mid 80s.

Again, if you say the 91 Lakers weren't at their best, what to say for the Lakers? :rolleyes:
Can't be using the 91 Lakers to make a case against the 87 Lakers, or even the 96 Magic or so, shit...
But Jabaar was replaced. Sam Perkins and Vlade Divac were good centers. And they brought more to the table. You act as if the Lakers had Mike Smrek replacing Jabaar in 91. And as much as you hate to admit, they contributed more statistically than the Laker bigs in the mid 80s.

Worthy and Scott were missed one game bro. The last one. After which the Bulls had already had a commanding 3-1 lead.

More importantly, what you continue to fail to ignore, is that your Lakers Neeeeever beat a team at full strength. The opposition always had key parts missing. Hell in 96? Kukoc Played with a bad back, Pippen played with a badly sprained ankle, and Harper didnt play.

What's the friggn difference? The 80 and Sixers were nowhere near as good as the 83 version because they had Moses Malone. Not to mention that the Bulls in 91? Were nowhere as good as the 96 version.

[97 bulls]

All you have to do is look at the '95 Bulls to see how they'd fare without one of their key cogs in the lineup.
Lol one? They missed Grant, Cartwright, Scott Williams, no Rodman, or Brian Williams Longley was hurt. And if your referring to the regular season, they didnt have Jordan as well. At least the Lakers replaced Jabaar with quality centers like Perkins and Divac. The Bulls in 95? Rookie and 1st year players in Dickey Simpkins, Corie Blount, Journeymen like Larry Krystowiak.

[97 bulls]

What they are trying to point out is that the '91 Lakers team was no where near as good as the '85 & '87 teams, which they have a point.

Kareem (One of the league's best in '85, still All-Star caliber in '87)
Cooper (One of the leagues best defenders and sixth men)
Riley (One of the greatest coaches of all time)

Those are 3 guys the '91 team didn't have. Pretty big losses don't you think? That '91 team wasn't near the offensive Juggernaut those '85 & '87 teams were.
And Im saying the exact same thing. The Lakers never beat the Sixers when they were as good as they were in 83. They beat the Pistons with an injured Isiah Thomas. The Celtics had key players injured. Whats the difference?

[SHAQisGOAT]

But Jabaar was replaced. Sam Perkins and Vlade Divac were good centers. And they brought more to the table. You act as if the Lakers had Mike Smrek replacing Jabaar in 91. And as much as you hate to admit, they contributed more statistically than the Laker bigs in the mid 80s.

Worthy and Scott were missed one game bro. The last one. After which the Bulls had already had a commanding 3-1 lead.

More importantly, what you continue to fail to ignore, is that your Lakers Neeeeever beat a team at full strength. The opposition always had key parts missing. Hell in 96? Kukoc Played with a bad back, Pippen played with a badly sprained ankle, and Harper didnt play.

What's the friggn difference? The 80 and Sixers were nowhere near as good as the 83 version because they had Moses Malone. Not to mention that the Bulls in 91? Were nowhere as good as the 96 version.

No, just no, stop it man.. Look at the numbers all you want and mention "selected" ones, I wouldn't give up mid 80s Kareem for (sophomore) Divac and Perkins (who was more a PF btw) - you really don't know what you're talking about if you would - let alone Jabbar plus (younger) Mychal Thompson and Kurt Rambis. Kareem was still a major factor up until 1987. Contributed more statiscally? I don't know what you're implying but no they didn't contribute more.

Talking about missed games? :rolleyes: :facepalm Doesn't matter if they were playing injured then? James was playing with an injured ankle (still was making damage when he played, so imagine healthy Worthy), and Scott was playing with a shoulder injury, do you think he went from like 15 ppg on really good efficiency to 5 ppg on terrible %'s because the Bulls were locking him the **** down?.. and let's not act like two key players missing a game ain't nothing as well.

Keep failing to see the point I was making and saying the same stuff yet again...
You can say the 91 Bulls were "closer" to the 96 Bulls than the 91 Lakers to, say, the 87 Lakers.

Anyways, I'll say it again, extremely competitive and close series but the best showtime Lakers team would beat the best championship Bulls team.

[97 bulls]

Didn't Shaq's Magic beat the Bulls one year? I know I know, the Bulls were without a Rodman or a Grant, but considering how Bulls fans downplay the loss of Kareem/Cooper/Riley in 1991, it's fair to bring up.
Nobody here is downplaying it bro.

As for Ewing, his Knicks gave the Bulls all they could handle and he didn't have Magic/Worthy/Scott/Cooper, he had Starks/Oakley/Mason/C. Smith. Give Ewing the first set of players, then we'll see how much of a big deal it is.
Go back and look at that Knick team in 92. That team was damn good. Possibly two hall of famers if Mark Jackson gets in. Xavier McDaniel, Oakley, Gerald Wilkins. Not to mention, the Bulls in 96 were a different team when compare to the second threepeat team? And I say this because the 94 Bulls were closer to the 96 Bulls as opposed to the early 90s teams. And that team without Jordan took the Knicks to seven hard fought games.

The Pistons matched up well because they were crazy deep, and Kareem was no longer a reliable 18-20 a game scorer. He was done. The Pistons pushed the Lakers to the brink in '88, but so did the Jazz and Mavericks. It wasn't a singular feat they pulled off. Hell, the Mavericks series was played at an even slower place than the finals, 88.6. That's almost the pace the 2013 Finals were played at. LA still won, with easily their weakest title team.
The Pistons were up 3-2 and if I remember correctly had the lead when Thomas went down. How hypocritical of you to knock the Bulls beating the Lakers due to the Lakers having key players out, but then give full credit to the Lakers who won under the same circumstances. In fact more so. Because the the Bulls were never in danger of losing to the Lakers in 91, and the Pistons had the one game lead over the Lakers when Thomas got hurt.

Kareem averaged 26/9/5 on 60% shooting in the '85 Finals, and that's with Cap's dreadful Game 1 performance lowering his averages. He did virtually all of his damage on half-court sets vs a HOF center named Robert Parish. He's better than the '91 version of Vlade Divac and he's going to extremely difficult to defend without doubling. Same with Magic, same with Worthy.
The Lakers never encountered a defense as good as the Bulls. That includes Jabaar. The closest was the Pistons and they probably never would've beaten them had it not been for
Thomas badly sprained ankle.

All im reading is a bunch of hypocrisy, contradictory statements, and double.standards. Can one of you explain why it's ok that the Lakers never beat a championship team at their best, then hold it against the Bulls?

[diamenz]

85 kareem > 96 rodman
85 magic > 96 jordan
85 worthy = 96 pippen
85 byron scott > 96 toni kukoc

:confusedshrug:

gee, your thread was great until you decided to chime in. those players excel at different facets of the game - you can't just put one over the other.


85 magic > 96 jordan

you're some simpleton.

[Psileas]

It'd be a fun match up. I tend to think great defence beats great offence most of the time though and the Bulls would still be able to score more than enough.

I don't think the Lakers would be able to play that fast break style, they'd be forced to play half court basketball, the Bulls would simply not take the bait there.

The 80s Pistons matched up well vs. the Lakers and the Bulls were basically the heir apparent of the Pistons.

The Bulls faced Shaq and Ewing in the playoffs too, so playing against a team with a 7 footer wasn't any big deal. Divac was actually pretty damn good in the 91 Finals.

Ewing was no better than the 3rd or 4th best big man in most of his seasons and had garbage teammates, so of course the Bulls should be expected to beat the Knicks. The Knicks still tried to match up relying on their defense, but in the end, the most talented team won. If anything, the Knicks pushing the Bulls to 7 and 6 games in '92 and '93 is a good indication that they were beatable.
Shaq is 1-1 vs the Bulls and while Jordan wasn't at 100% in '95, Shaq wasn't at 100% in '96, either (it wasn't a very good season for his standards), plus the Magic lost Horace Grant (and then Brian Shaw, too) and although they were beaten badly in game 1, we know that games 2 and 4 were close.
Kareem would have the luxury of having tons of elite teammates, so you can't liken his case to theirs. In '87, he was still able to give Parish 20+ ppg, while having peak Magic and close to peaking Worthy and Scott next to him. Plus Thompson on the bench. '87 Lakers were deep as hell.
And LOL at everyone trying to equate even old Kareem, with his tons of experience, clutch ability, constant need to double-team to young Vlade Divac, just because of the stats. You might as well take 2001 Kobe over 1998 Jordan or 2002 Antoine Walker over 2002 Jordan. I mean, again, look at the stats. :rolleyes:

[TheMan]

I agree with Lakers fans here, 87 Lakers were deep as hell, that's that definition of stacked. That's why MJ>Magic and MJ>KAJ.

Jordan didn't have the luxury of an all time stacked team and yet he did more with less. Larry Bird and Bill Russell also had more stacked teams and that's why MJ is also better than those two. Although that isn't the intention of this thread, it proves MJ's #1 GOAT status. That you Laker fans for confirming what we already knew.
:applause:
MJ GOAT:bowdown:
:pimp:

[juju151111]

Ewing was no better than the 3rd or 4th best big man in most of his seasons and had garbage teammates, so of course the Bulls should be expected to beat the Knicks. The Knicks still tried to match up relying on their defense, but in the end, the most talented team won. If anything, the Knicks pushing the Bulls to 7 and 6 games in '92 and '93 is a good indication that they were beatable.
Shaq is 1-1 vs the Bulls and while Jordan wasn't at 100% in '95, Shaq wasn't at 100% in '96, either (it wasn't a very good season for his standards), plus the Magic lost Horace Grant (and then Brian Shaw, too) and although they were beaten badly in game 1, we know that games 2 and 4 were close.
Kareem would have the luxury of having tons of elite teammates, so you can't liken his case to theirs. In '87, he was still able to give Parish 20+ ppg, while having peak Magic and close to peaking Worthy and Scott next to him. Plus Thompson on the bench. '87 Lakers were deep as hell.
And LOL at everyone trying to equate even old Kareem, with his tons of experience, clutch ability, constant need to double-team to young Vlade Divac, just because of the stats. You might as well take 2001 Kobe over 1998 Jordan or 2002 Antoine Walker over 2002 Jordan. I mean, again, look at the stats. :rolleyes:
01 Kobe is comparable to 98 Mj actually. 01 Kobe is one of Kobe best seasons. Mj was 35 years old with a crack knuckle and noticeable slower. The Bulls were on fumes in 98. Anyways I see the 96 Bulls beating the 87 Lakers. People are forgetting one thing and that's defense The 96 defense was great defensively and had 3 top 5 defenders in Mj,Pip, and Rodman on its team. The 96 Bulls were also Number 1 offensive ly so they had no problem scoring.

[mehyaM24]

gee, your thread was great until you decided to chime in. those players excel at different facets of the game - you can't just put one over the other.
?

give me magic's ~18/17/6 on 53% shooting in the playoffs over jordan's 30ppg on 46% shooting

and why not? the lakers were stacked. period.

[mehyaM24]

I agree with Lakers fans here, 87 Lakers were deep as hell, that's that definition of stacked. That's why MJ>Magic and MJ>KAJ.

Jordan didn't have the luxury of an all time stacked team and yet he did more with less. Larry Bird and Bill Russell also had more stacked teams and that's why MJ is also better than those two. Although that isn't the intention of this thread, it proves MJ's #1 GOAT status. That you Laker fans for confirming what we already knew.
:applause:
MJ GOAT:bowdown:
:pimp:

right, and if jordan's bulls played in that era, he would have zero rings, thus revoking his "goat candidacy". hell bird and magic would have extra titles and an even greater legacy :rockon:

[juju151111]

?

give me magic's ~18/17/6 on 53% shooting in the playoffs over jordan's 30ppg on 46% shooting

and why not? the lakers were stacked. period.
What are you even talking about? The 96 Mj never played the Lakers in the playoffs. Are you slow are something? Also the Bulls were far superior defensive team. Pippen would likely be guarding Magic. The 96 Bulls were stacked too and are a top 10 team ever. #1 offense and defense in that season.

[mehyaM24]

What are you even talking about? The 96 Mj never played the Lakers in the playoffs. Are you slow are something? Also the Bulls were far superior defensive team. Pippen would likely be guarding Magic. The 96 Bulls were stacked too and are a top 10 team ever. #1 offense and defense in that season.

what? you might want to read that again before calling anybody "slow".

[TheMan]

right, and if jordan's bulls played in that era, he would have zero rings, thus revoking his "goat candidacy". hell bird and magic would have extra titles and an even greater legacy :rockon:
Those two teams were stacked as hell. You know this, even in this thread you wanted to prove the Showtime Lakers were stacked as hell. Guess what, when you have a stacked team, it's easier to win than if you don't, ask LeBron.:oldlol:

If MJ entered the NBA in 1980 and his peak prime were in the 80's instead of early 90's, he would of either had to get his team to get "stacked" like the early 80's 76ers, Showtime Lakers, Larry's Celtics or late 80's Pistons just to compete or he would've gone the LeBron route and just make it easy on himself and joined the Celtics or Lakers:lol I'm betting he would be to Alpha to join someone elses team and he'd stick it out like he did.:pimp:

Stay mad, hater
http://doubledribble.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/michael-jordan-6-fingers.jpg

[mehyaM24]

putting all your eggs in a basket with jerry reinsdorf? good luck with that :oldlol:

i actually give 96 bulls a shot, dont think they beat any version of the lakers pre 87 though(same with boston).

[TheMan]

MehyaM24, go ahead and argue how many chips LeBron would have in the 80's with his Cavs team or his current Heat team.

0

He's won two in this weak era with that shitty front court, imagine the ass raping those HOF FCs would do on your Heat:oldlol:

Too easy, next:pimp:

[juju151111]

what? you might want to read that again before calling anybody "slow".
You posted Mj and Magic stats like you were proving something. They never faced each others team in the playoffs. Those stats would probably change. The Bulls are Farr superior defensive team and had prime Pippen. My point is just because you posted Mj shot 30 ppg vs 96 competition means it would be the same against the Lakers:facepalm

[97 bulls]

Ewing was no better than the 3rd or 4th best big man in most of his seasons and had garbage teammates, so of course the Bulls should be expected to beat the Knicks. The Knicks still tried to match up relying on their defense, but in the end, the most talented team won. If anything, the Knicks pushing the Bulls to 7 and 6 games in '92 and '93 is a good indication that they were beatable.
Shaq is 1-1 vs the Bulls and while Jordan wasn't at 100% in '95, Shaq wasn't at 100% in '96, either (it wasn't a very good season for his standards), plus the Magic lost Horace Grant (and then Brian Shaw, too) and although they were beaten badly in game 1, we know that games 2 and 4 were close.
Kareem would have the luxury of having tons of elite teammates, so you can't liken his case to theirs. In '87, he was still able to give Parish 20+ ppg, while having peak Magic and close to peaking Worthy and Scott next to him. Plus Thompson on the bench. '87 Lakers were deep as hell.
And LOL at everyone trying to equate even old Kareem, with his tons of experience, clutch ability, constant need to double-team to young Vlade Divac, just because of the stats. You might as well take 2001 Kobe over 1998 Jordan or 2002 Antoine Walker over 2002 Jordan. I mean, again, look at the stats. :rolleyes:
This whole post wreaks of lies, agenda, and rehashed drivel.

Ewing had scrubs? Xavier Mcdaniel, Gerald Wilkins, Charles Oakley, were scrubs? Mark Jackson is third all-time in assists, and nominated to the Hall of Fame. Hardly garbage.
Besides..I've already responded to another poster who made a similar point. The 92 @ 93 Bulls were a totally different team from the 96 @ 97 versions. Saying that, the 94 Bulls were much more similar to the second threepeat team. The 94 Bulls had Longley, Kerr, Wennington, and Kukoc. There were seven guys that won a Championship with the Bulls in 93 that did not play or played sparringly on 94 due to age. Cartwright, Paxson played sparringly due to age and injuries. And thus were replaced with Longley and Kerr. Williams had an injury plagued season, King was traded, and Trent Tucker left. And that's not counting Michael Jordan. Add Jordan (which would basically make them the 96 Bulls) and that Bulls Knicks series is done in five.



And LOL at everyone trying to equate even old Kareem, with his tons of experience, clutch ability, constant need to double-team to young Vlade Divac, just because of the stats. You might as well take 2001 Kobe over 1998 Jordan or 2002 Antoine Walker over 2002 Jordan. I mean, again, look at the stats.*


This is really the only part worth responding to. The reason why I bring up Divac and Perkins is because you guys continue to make it seem as if the Lakers had a big doughnut at center. And no competent bigs to speak of. Id be the first to say even late 30s Jabaar was better than Divac. But is he that much better to the point that he turns what was essentially a sweep into a seven game series? Especially when the bigs the 91 Lakers had produced at a better rate than the 87 Lakers did.

Are you really implying that Kurt Rambis was better than Sam Perkins? Come on. Compare Mychal Thompson and AC Green. The 91 Lakers bigs just weren't as bad as you and your brethren are trying to make them be.

[97 bulls]

01 Kobe is comparable to 98 Mj actually. 01 Kobe is one of Kobe best seasons. Mj was 35 years old with a crack knuckle and noticeable slower. The Bulls were on fumes in 98. Anyways I see the 96 Bulls beating the 87 Lakers. People are forgetting one thing and that's defense The 96 defense was great defensively and had 3 top 5 defenders in Mj,Pip, and Rodman on its team. The 96 Bulls were also Number 1 offensive ly so they had no problem scoring.
Theyre not forgetting. Theyre ignoring. The only way for the Bulls Championship runs to have merit is that the teams they faced have to be 100% healthy, having all players in their primes, and the Bulls players injuries cant be considered. Jordans hand in 98? Pippens badly sprained ankle and back problems? Kukocs back? Rodmans injuries? Doesnt matter.

[97 bulls]

putting all your eggs in a basket with jerry reinsdorf? good luck with that :oldlol:

i actually give 96 bulls a shot, dont think they beat any version of the lakers pre 87 though(same with boston).
But what great teams did the Lakers or Celtics of the 80s beat?

[TheMan]

MehyaM24, go ahead and argue how many chips LeBron would have in the 80's with his Cavs team or his current Heat team.

0

He's won two in this weak era with that shitty front court, imagine the ass raping those HOF FCs would do on your Heat:oldlol:

Too easy, next:pimp:
Answer this

[ThePhantomCreep]

Lol one? They missed Grant, Cartwright, Scott Williams, no Rodman, or Brian Williams Longley was hurt. And if your referring to the regular season, they didnt have Jordan as well. At least the Lakers replaced Jabaar with quality centers like Perkins and Divac. The Bulls in 95? Rookie and 1st year players in Dickey Simpkins, Corie Blount, Journeymen like Larry Krystowiak.
Cartwright was done as early as 1992, and Scott Williams? Did you seriously just lament the loss of that bum? Kukoc and Longely easily make up for their losses. Grant was the only key loss.

It goes without saying that Chicago's roster overhaul was less severe than LAL's from 1988 to 1991.

[juju151111]

Theyre not forgetting. Theyre ignoring. The only way for the Bulls Championship runs to have merit is that the teams they faced have to be 100% healthy, having all players in their primes, and the Bulls players injuries cant be considered. Jordans hand in 98? Pippens badly sprained ankle and back problems? Kukocs back? Rodmans injuries? Doesnt matter.
Exactly. Shit is funny to me. Even with all those injuries in 98 to Rodman,Mj,Pip etc.... They still won 60+ games:lol

[97 bulls]

And why are these Laker fans avoiding this question.....

If the Bulls drubbing of the Lakers can have no merit due to the Lakers missing key players, what does that say about the teams they beat in the finals? In case you guys forgot,
80. Sixers didnt have Malone
82. Still no Malone for the Sixers
85. Bird played with an injured hand (his shooting hand mind you)
87. Mchale had a fractured foot and Walton was injured
88. Thomas badly sprains his ankle. And to add insult me to injury the Pistons were up in that game and had a 3-2 series lead

And all those series went 6-7. The Lakers barely got one off the Bulls. Then commenced to losong three straight at home.

[97 bulls]

Cartwright was done as early as 1992, and Scott Williams? Did you seriously just lament the loss of that bum? Kukoc and Longely easily make up for their losses. Grant was the only key loss.

It goes without saying that Chicago's roster overhaul was less severe than LAL's from 1988 to 1991.
Scott Williams played a huge role off the bench. His defense and abilities in the trap and full court press were missed greatly. As well as his toughness and rebounding. Dont allow your agenda to get in the way of common sense.

[97 bulls]

Exactly. Shit is funny to me. Even with all those injuries in 98 to Rodman,Mj,Pip etc.... They still won 60+ games:lol
It just shows how truly great the Bulls were. Especially that second threepeat.


55 wins with no Jordan and Pippen missing ten games

72 wins?

69 wins with Rodman missing almost 30 games

62 wins with Pippen missing half the season.

[juju151111]

It just shows how truly great the Bulls were. Especially that second threepeat.


55 wins with no Jordan and Pippen missing ten games

72 wins?

69 wins with Rodman missing almost 30 games

62 wins with Pippen missing half the season.
I think the 96 Bulls is also in the top 40 or something defensive team ever. Filipii posted the chart. They are Farr superior on that end. They were extremely balance.

[97 bulls]

And why are these Laker fans avoiding this question.....

If the Bulls drubbing of the Lakers can have no merit due to the Lakers missing key players, what does that say about the teams they beat in the finals? In case you guys forgot,
80. Sixers didnt have Malone
82. Still no Malone for the Sixers
85. Bird played with an injured hand (his shooting hand mind you)
87. Mchale had a fractured foot and Walton was injured
88. Thomas badly sprains his ankle. And to add insult me to injury the Pistons were up in that game and had a 3-2 series lead

And all those series went 6-7. The Lakers barely got one off the Bulls. Then commenced to losong three straight at home.
Bump for Psilas, Mayhem, 87 Lakers, Phantom creep, basically any Laker fan.

Are the Showtime Lakers championships questionable? Based on your interpretation of the Bulls beating the Lakers in 91?

[Rocketswin2013]

Realistically, there are only a few select teams that I think could play with the post-95 Bulls without having to play their best game.
86' Celtics
72' Lakers
00' Lakers
13' Heat (yes)
01' Lakers( When healthy)
87' Lakers
And probably 71' Bucks

[GaryRaymond23]

Realistically, there are only a few select teams that I think could play with the post-95 Bulls without having to play their best game.
86' Celtics
72' Lakers
00' Lakers
13' Heat (yes)
01' Lakers( When healthy)
87' Lakers
And probably 71' Bucks

I'd agree with all besides the 13 Heat. I just can't see Wade/LeBron outplaying Jordan/Pippen at all in a 7 game series or Bosh outplaying Rodman for that matter.

[ThePhantomCreep]

And why are these Laker fans avoiding this question.....

If the Bulls drubbing of the Lakers can have no merit due to the Lakers missing key players, what does that say about the teams they beat in the finals? In case you guys forgot,
80. Sixers didnt have Malone
82. Still no Malone for the Sixers
85. Bird played with an injured hand (his shooting hand mind you)
87. Mchale had a fractured foot and Walton was injured
88. Thomas badly sprains his ankle. And to add insult me to injury the Pistons were up in that game and had a 3-2 series lead

And all those series went 6-7. The Lakers barely got one off the Bulls. Then commenced to losong three straight at home.

The Bulls victory has no merit if you think it would carry over to the more dominant championship Lakers team.

Using your logic, the 1990 Suns would beat the '85/'87 Lakers, simply because they beat them in 1990.

Still laughing at loss of Scott Williams. A game-changer on par with losing Kareem. Uh huh.

[aboss4real24]

I'd agree with all besides the 13 Heat. I just can't see Wade/LeBron outplaying Jordan/Pippen at all in a 7 game series or Bosh outplaying Rodman for that matter.

rodman wouldnt score more then 8 points

[ThePhantomCreep]

You posted Mj and Magic stats like you were proving something. They never faced each others team in the playoffs. Those stats would probably change. The Bulls are Farr superior defensive team and had prime Pippen. My point is just because you posted Mj shot 30 ppg vs 96 competition means it would be the same against the Lakers:facepalm

And? You act like 1985 Magic would turn into a 12/7 guy with 1996 Pippen on him. Pippen at his athletic peak could only marginally bother an older Magic with a relatively average supporting cast.

[Da_Realist]

Realistically, there are only a few select teams that I think could play with the post-95 Bulls without having to play their best game.

13' Heat (yes)


No. Not big enough. Post-95 Bulls had Rodman (all time great rebounder), Pippen and Jordan (both excellent rebounders for their positions) and they had some big guys that would give the Heat some real problems on the boards. The post-95 Bulls had MJ but really won with defense and rebounding. Aside from Lebron, there really isn't anyone on the Heat that could get a key rebound when it is needed.

[juju151111]

rodman wouldnt score more then 8 points
Neither will Bosh. Lol 96 Bullss>>>>> Heat in every facet of the game.
Offense= Bulls
Defense= Bulls
Coach= Bulls
Rebounding= Bulls
Competition= Bulls(Bulls faced the Magic in 96 ECF while the Heat faced the freaking Pacers who won like 40+):lol

[ThePhantomCreep]

rodman wouldnt score more then 8 points

That almost matches Bosh (12ppg in the 2013 Finals).

The Heat would get crushed.

[GaryRaymond23]

rodman wouldnt score more then 8 points

:facepalm

Do you even know how many points Rodman averaged while on the Bulls ..

Jesus ****ing Christ.

[juju151111]

And? You act like 1985 Magic would turn into a 12/7 guy with 1996 Pippen on him. Pippen at his athletic peak could only marginally bother an older Magic with a relatively average supporting cast.
Magic would still be great, but Pippen would limit him and 91 Magic was superior shooter to 85 Magic. I never said he would shut him down , but he would bother him. Peak Pippen 92-97. Magic isn't getting stopped through. It would be a great Matchup through.

[97 bulls]

The Bulls victory has no merit if you think it would carry over to the more dominant championship Lakers team.

Using your logic, the 1990 Suns would beat the '85/'87 Lakers, simply because they beat them in 1990.

Still laughing at loss of Scott Williams. A game-changer on par with losing Kareem. Uh huh.
But again, the 91 Bulls were not the Bulls best team either.

And no the Suns anology is a bad one because they didnt even win a championship. Hell they didnt even make it to the championship.

Whats more. Is consider your argument. The Bulls Championship in 91 is questionable because they didn't beat the Lakers at full strength. Or better yet the best version of that dynasty. And if thats the case, what about the Lakers and the teams they faced? Please answer that question.

[mehyaM24]

You posted Mj and Magic stats like you were proving something. They never faced each others team in the playoffs. Those stats would probably change. The Bulls are Farr superior defensive team and had prime Pippen. My point is just because you posted Mj shot 30 ppg vs 96 competition means it would be the same against the Lakers:facepalm

i have no clue what you're talking about. i posted their respective production, and magic is clearly superior. not only that, but the 85 lakers faced better competition.


But what great teams did the Lakers or Celtics of the 80s beat?

both were better than the bulls(who faced no legendary teams in the 90s). same with the philadelphia. detroit in 88 and 89 might be too :confusedshrug:

[juju151111]

i have no clue what you're talking about. i posted their respective production, and magic is clearly superior. not only that, but the 85 lakers faced better competition.



both were better than the bulls(who faced no legendary teams in the 90s). same with the philadelphia. detroit in 88 and 89 might be too :confusedshrug:
Which is why I said it doesn't matter because those stats would be different. Mj would be facing the Lakers not his 96 competition. We don't know if the Lakers could stop him. They didn't face any legendary competition because they beat them all. 60+ win teams still got destroyed by the bulls.

[mehyaM24]

bird,dr j,magic agree that the 90s were weak and watered down because of expansion.

1996 interview, during the finals:

bob costas: you had larry,magic--there is nothing comprable to that quality of competition at the top for these chicago bulls

bob costas: it seems a little awkard to talk about the bulls as one of the best teams of all time

dr j: my sixers with moses malone could have beaten any of these present day teams

bird: we had the height advantage

magic: kareem is the x factor because there is nobody that could stop him on the bulls. it would have been a great finals, but at the end kareem would have ended up winning it for us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p57WjbKSoJ0

http://s4.postimg.org/ponaj35jh/136097537_640.jpg

[Da_Realist]

I don't see how the 83 Sixers could beat the 96 or 97 Bulls. Maurice Cheeks had no jumpshot. Dr J didn't either. The Bulls won with probably the best perimeter defense in history plus great rebounding plus MJ. Not only could they shut teams down, but they had the best perimeter scorer in league history playing in the best offense (triangle). Moses was Philly's greatest advantage but he wore guys down by rebounding his own misses around the rim. Rodman would take half of those opportunities away.

With the Bulls defense, all the games would at least come down to the last few possessions. We know Chicago will get off a few good shots working through MJ but who would Philly rely on to score down the stretch?

As far as Detroit, I think post-95 Bulls are a nightmare matchup for them. Detroit won with defense and rebounding. So did Chicago. But Chicago also had MJ on the other end. The Pistons relied on their three guards (Thomas, Dumars and VJ) to score but they were all undersized. Post 95-Bulls had 6'6" Harper, 6'6" Jordan and 6'8" Pippen on the perimeter that would have stifled the Pistons ability to score. So you have two great defensive teams but one of them could still get good shots, the other one would struggle late in games.

[mehyaM24]

Which is why I said it doesn't matter because those stats would be different. Mj would be facing the Lakers not his 96 competition. We don't know if the Lakers could stop him. They didn't face any legendary competition because they beat them all. 60+ win teams still got destroyed by the bulls.

just like the bulls winning titles in the 90s. against 80s legends the outcome would be different.

[Da_Realist]

85/87 Lakers and 86 Celtics have big advantages where the 90's Bulls are vulnerable. I could definitely see both the Lakers and Celtics winning and would probably mark them as favorites in a mythical playoff matchup. However, the Bulls were a hardened, focused, competitive, highly disciplined, championship-level, all time great defensive team with 2 great players, a great rebounder, a really good bench and a great coaching staff. I also wouldn't be surprised if they found a way to win as well.

Defense tends to even things out a bit.

[97 bulls]

bird,dr j,magic agree that the 90s were weak and watered down because of expansion.

1996 interview, during the finals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p57WjbKSoJ0

http://s4.postimg.org/ponaj35jh/136097537_640.jpg
The 94 Bulls (essentially the 96 Bulls minus Jordan) won 55 games prior to expansion in 96.

Now how many more wins do the Bulls get with an upgraded Kukoc, an upgrade at PF in Rodman, and the Dolly Lama of upgrades in replacing Pete Myers with Michael Jordan.

And why wouldn't those guys say their teams were better? Jordan in that 2K commercial said his team was the best. So Pippen and Ron Harper.

[Nikola_]

just like the bulls winning titles in the 90s. against 80s legends the outcome would be different.

so lakers gonna score 140 points in the finals in slow paced era ?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1985_finals.html#LAL-BOS

and give up 102 FG attempts ? http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/198505270BOS.html

[juju151111]

just like the bulls winning titles in the 90s. against 80s legends the outcome would be different.
Oh plz stop the nonsense. The 96 team is a top 5 team all-time. No team from the 80s is destroying them.

[97 bulls]

so lakers gonna score 140 points in the finals in slow paced era ?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1985_finals.html#LAL-BOS

and give up 102 FG attempts ? http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/198505270BOS.html
Another point that is routinely missed. The 90 style of tempo was a lot slower than the 80s.

[SHAQisGOAT]

so lakers gonna score 140 points in the finals in slow paced era ?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1985_finals.html#LAL-BOS

and give up 102 FG attempts ? http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/198505270BOS.html

they're "gonna" win

[SHAQisGOAT]

I agree with Lakers fans here, 87 Lakers were deep as hell, that's that definition of stacked. That's why MJ>Magic and MJ>KAJ.

Jordan didn't have the luxury of an all time stacked team and yet he did more with less. Larry Bird and Bill Russell also had more stacked teams and that's why MJ is also better than those two. Although that isn't the intention of this thread, it proves MJ's #1 GOAT status. That you Laker fans for confirming what we already knew.
:applause:
MJ GOAT:bowdown:
:pimp:

Yea but Magic's was going against Bird's team and vice-versa :rolleyes:

[SHAQisGOAT]

Best championship Bulls team doesn't win against the 86 Celtics nor the 87 Lakers, plus in the 80's they're not winning 72 games :lol League was pretty watered down in their 2nd 3-peat.

[ThePhantomCreep]

so lakers gonna score 140 points in the finals in slow paced era ?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1985_finals.html#LAL-BOS

and give up 102 FG attempts ? http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/198505270BOS.html

No, but you guys are kidding yourselves if you think they're scoring in the 80s or 90s. Chicago would basically have drill every shot in sight to slow Showtime. A cold streak at any point in the game and they're ruined.

An often glossed over fact is that three of the Bulls five starters were average at best offensively. Longley, Rodman, and aged Harper are not scaring anyone with their skills.

[Nikola_]

they're "gonna" win


"In the early 80s, we knew we could outrun and outscore you," the Lakers' Magic Johnson said. "That's not the way we look at the game anymore."

"Detroit has created a defensive mind-set around the league, and teams copy success," Laker Coach Pat Riley said. "In the early 80s, transition defense was non-existent. When a team was running, a coach would say 'Just get back.' Now there's sophistication to defense.

"Points scored and shooting percentages have dropped and it's not because of a decline in talent, it's a rise in defense."
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-03-04/sports/sp-2723_1_defense-wins-games

85-86 lakers

110 points or less (11-12)

120 points or more (34-3)

[Micku]

Michale Cooper would've given up almost 40 lbs to Jordan in the post. I just dont see it.

He gave up more lbs with Bird and did a decent job against him in the post and off the ball movement. And Bird called him the best defender against him. I read that Cooper was stronger than he looked.

Like I said, it would've been interesting to see Cooper defend Jordan in a playoff series.

[97 bulls]

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-03-04/sports/sp-2723_1_defense-wins-games

85-86 lakers

110 points or less (11-12)

120 points or more (34-3)
Ouch. Great post Nikola. This should end it.

[97 bulls]

He gave up more lbs with Bird and did a decent job against him in the post and off the ball movement. And Bird called him the best defender against him. I read that Cooper was stronger than he looked.

Like I said, it would've been interesting to see Cooper defend Jordan in a playoff series.
But Bird wasnt nearly as quick as Jordan. Both had wicked fadeaways. And unlike Bird, Jordans superior leaping ability makes that shot unguardable.

Again. I just dont see how the Bulls would lose. You cant possibly believe that Cooper would do a better job on Jordan than Pippen on Magic.

And to add, resting the Lakers chances on how dominant a 40 year old Jabaar could be. I mean, the Lakers knew he was through. That's why they made him their fourth option.

[Psileas]

This whole post wreaks of lies, agenda, and rehashed drivel.

This is 97 bulls talking, the poster who has ripped practically all legends that didn't play in the 90's. Love the irony...


Ewing had scrubs? Xavier Mcdaniel, Gerald Wilkins, Charles Oakley, were scrubs? Mark Jackson is third all-time in assists, and nominated to the Hall of Fame. Hardly garbage.

This isn't a roster that contends for titles in the 80's or beats the Bulls, sorry. More like a team made in the mold of the Pistons, but with considerably less talent. Oakley was having his best years with the late 80's Bulls and everyone pretty much ignores this. McDaniel's prime came also in the late 80's. He only played for 1 season in NY (not surprising that '92 was their best season). Maybe if he had come earlier, they'd have been more respectful. Wilkins? They didn't even care to keep him after '92. Jackson was nice, but you know that his assist totals are mostly a product of longevity.
When I said "scrubs", I didn't mean it literally. I'm talking about teams that contend for titles. You would also recognize this if this was a team that faced the 80's Celtics or Lakers, but they happened to go against the Bulls.


Besides..I've already responded to another poster who made a similar point. The 92 @ 93 Bulls were a totally different team from the 96 @ 97 versions. Saying that, the 94 Bulls were much more similar to the second threepeat team. The 94 Bulls had Longley, Kerr, Wennington, and Kukoc. There were seven guys that won a Championship with the Bulls in 93 that did not play or played sparringly on 94 due to age. Cartwright, Paxson played sparringly due to age and injuries. And thus were replaced with Longley and Kerr. Williams had an injury plagued season, King was traded, and Trent Tucker left. And that's not counting Michael Jordan. Add Jordan (which would basically make them the 96 Bulls) and that Bulls Knicks series is done in five.

We don't need hypotheticals here. The Bulls did face the Knicks in '96 and it ended in 5, with some games being close. Are you claiming the '96 Knicks are on par with the '92 Knicks?


This is really the only part worth responding to. The reason why I bring up Divac and Perkins is because you guys continue to make it seem as if the Lakers had a big doughnut at center. And no competent bigs to speak of. Id be the first to say even late 30s Jabaar was better than Divac. But is he that much better to the point that he turns what was essentially a sweep into a seven game series? Especially when the bigs the 91 Lakers had produced at a better rate than the 87 Lakers did.

Are you really implying that Kurt Rambis was better than Sam Perkins? Come on. Compare Mychal Thompson and AC Green. The 91 Lakers bigs just weren't as bad as you and your brethren are trying to make them be.

First of all, it's "Jabbar", not "Jabaar".
Second, this was as much of a virtual sweep as it was a virtual 3-2 (the Bulls sent one game in OT), with one more game being up for grabs till the end (game 5), despite Worthy and Scott missing this whole game. The Lakers used 7 freakin' players in the whole game, including 1 rookie.
Taking this into account, it doesn't seem that extraordinary to think that replacing Divac with Jabbar would create enough extra marginal efficiency to make it a real series. Especially if Scott/Worthy were healthy.

The problem I have with some claims about certain Lakers' teams is the notion that having lost within 5 or even 4 games means they had no chance to do anything. The '83, '89 and '91 Lakers in theory lost badly. In practice, given how close most of their games were and combined with the injuries that plagued them, it's easy to realize that, under more balanced circumstances, they'd have way better chances for the title. Especially in '89.

[97 bulls]

No, but you guys are kidding yourselves if you think they're scoring in the 80s or 90s. Chicago would basically have drill every shot in sight to slow Showtime. A cold streak at any point in the game and they're ruined.

An often glossed over fact is that three of the Bulls five starters were average at best offensively. Longley, Rodman, and aged Harper are not scaring anyone with their skills.
They had a guy comming off the bench capable of dropping 20 a night in Kukoc. The Sonics approached their series the same way. Leave Rodman to help on Jordan. How did.that work for them?

In fact, id start Kerr over Harper. Based on what we saw from Magics feeble attempt at guarding Paxson.

[Micku]

But Bird wasnt nearly as quick as Jordan. Both had wicked fadeaways. And unlike Bird, Jordans superior leaping ability makes that shot unguardable.

Again. I just dont see how the Bulls would lose. You cant possibly believe that Cooper would do a better job on Jordan than Pippen on Magic.

And to add, resting the Lakers chances on how dominant a 40 year old Jabaar could be. I mean, the Lakers knew he was through. That's why they made him their fourth option.

Jordan is quick, but Cooper is quick too and has length. He could guard 1-3, sometimes 4 depending on the matchup. I was just commenting on the fact that Cooper defended one of the best offensive players pretty well in off the ball movement and the post, and who also gave up more lbs than Jordan would.

I didn't say anything like Cooper doing a better job than Pippen with Magic or any comparison of a defensive event. I just said it would be interesting to see Cooper defending Jordan. Are you suggesting that Cooper wouldn't bother him at his defensive peak? Even Joe Dumars bother Jordan a bit, granted MJ was still MJ and got his.

[1987_Lakers]

They had a guy comming off the bench capable of dropping 20 a night in Kukoc. The Sonics approached their series the same way. Leave Rodman to help on Jordan. How did.that work for them?

In fact, id start Kerr over Harper. Based on what we saw from Magics feeble attempt at guarding Paxson.
:oldlol:

[97 bulls]

:oldlol:
Lol. Did you not watch the 91 Finals? Pax hit open shot after open shot. Why wouldn't Kerr?

[1987_Lakers]

Why in the world would you start midget Kerr to defend Magic when you have a big guard like Harper, just doesn't make sense. It seems like bringing Harper off the bench would throw Chicago off guard. Kerr is at his best when he is coming off the bench.

[Soundwave]

The late 80s/early 90s Pistons beat both the Lakers and Celtics.

And sorry but the Bulls were simply better than the Bad Boy Pistons, once Pippen stopped being such a p*ssy, the Pistons couldn't stop the Bulls from having their way with them.

[97 bulls]

Jordan is quick, but Cooper is quick too and has length. He could guard 1-3, sometimes 4 depending on the matchup. I was just commenting on the fact that Cooper defended one of the best offensive players pretty well in off the ball movement and the post, and who also gave up more lbs than Jordan would.

I didn't say anything like Cooper doing a better job than Pippen with Magic or any comparison of a defensive event. I just said it would be interesting to see Cooper defending Jordan. Are you suggesting that Cooper wouldn't bother him at his defensive peak? Even Joe Dumars bother Jordan a bit, granted MJ was still MJ and got his.
Sure Coop would bother Jordan. Just not enough to change a series of that magnitude.

[97 bulls]

Why in the world would you start midget Kerr to defend Magic when you have a big guard like Harper, just doesn't make sense. It seems like bringing Harper off the bench would throw Chicago off guard. Kerr is at his best when he is coming off the bench.
John Paxson was 6'2. Kerr 6'3. The way I see it. Cooper isn't gonna be in the game for 40 minutes. Scotts gonna get the bulk at the two. Somethings gotta give. Do the Lakers leave Cooper and minimize Scotts offensive abilities or do they put Scott in, have him face Jordan, force Magic to have to come help, and thus constantly leave Kerr open like he did Paxson.

Here's the matchups as I see it.

Pippen on Magic
Jordan on Worthy
Rodman on Green
Kerr on Scott
Longley on Jabbar (thanx Psilas)

[mehyaM24]

so lakers gonna score 140 points in the finals in slow paced era ?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1985_finals.html#LAL-BOS

and give up 102 FG attempts ? http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/198505270BOS.html

as long as kareem/magic/worthy are healthy, they score 100 every game and there is nothing mikey could do about it. forget pippen.

look at nash's suns and pace the league averaged at the time. nothing anyone can do when a team decides to run it down your throat.

lakers in 5-6
celitcs in 5
sixers in 7

[ThePhantomCreep]

Sure Coop would bother Jordan. Just not enough to change a series of that magnitude.

I agree with this. Jordan will get his.

A 41% shooting series, like the one Jordan had in the '96 Finals, would be absolutely fatal though. LAL feasted on missed shots.

[97 bulls]

I agree with this. Jordan will get his.

A 41% shooting series, like the one Jordan had in the '96 Finals, would be absolutely fatal though. LAL feasted on missed shots.
That depends on how he gets to that percentage. Jordans percentage was that bad because he had two really bad games. Not because he shot bad every game. Besides. Even if hes missing, I just dont see how they would rebound enough to be effective with Rodman down there. I mean. This man rebounded at a rate that was higher than Wilt and Russell.

[SHAQisGOAT]

The late 80s/early 90s Pistons beat both the Lakers and Celtics.

And sorry but the Bulls were simply better than the Bad Boy Pistons, once Pippen stopped being such a p*ssy, the Pistons couldn't stop the Bulls from having their way with them.

Shit post.

Yea they sure did.. yet you forget to mention that it took a broken down Bird and the Celtics overall, plus Kareem pretty much done along with Coop, for the Pistons to get "over them" :rolleyes: Because they weren't doing it before, even against "lesser" versions of their best squads (Boston and LA).

And again, Bulls "only" beat them when they were pretty much falling apart.

[SHAQisGOAT]

John Paxson was 6'2. Kerr 6'3. The way I see it. Cooper isn't gonna be in the game for 40 minutes. Scotts gonna get the bulk at the two. Somethings gotta give. Do the Lakers leave Cooper and minimize Scotts offensive abilities or do they put Scott in, have him face Jordan, force Magic to have to come help, and thus constantly leave Kerr open like he did Paxson.

Here's the matchups as I see it.

Jordan on Worthy
Kerr on Scott
Longley on Jabbar (thanx Psilas)


:roll:

God damn :eek: 1st degree murder right there, or better yet suicide if you go out like that.

You realize Worthy would kill MJ in the post, right? Jordan didn't have the height and James was really good down-low, look at what happened when Michael tried to guard Bird or Magic - and both times had to be "switched", never doing it again. Phil wouldn't put MJ on Worthy and even Jordan would agree. There's a reason why Jordan had Worthy (at PF) in his all-time starting 5, he knows how good Big Game Jame was, he knows who "gave him" that NCAA title.

Kerr on Scott? :oldlol: Better get Harper in there or Jordan on him, or else you're completely screwed. This dude probably don't even know what Byron was about. Scott could play D and was very athletic plus much better than Kerr on offense, keep thinking that Kerr would give that edge to the Bulls with open shots :lol

Jabbar vs Longley... well there's nobody else you could put on Kareem, he would absolutely destroy though, even in his late 30's, not a chance for Luc :lol

[97 bulls]

:roll:

God damn :eek: 1st degree murder right there, or better yet suicide if you go out like that.

You realize Worthy would kill MJ in the post, right? Jordan didn't have the height and James was really good down-low, look at what happened when Michael tried to guard Bird or Magic - and both times had to be "switched", never doing it again. Phil wouldn't put MJ on Worthy and even Jordan would agree. There's a reason why Jordan had Worthy (at PF) in his all-time starting 5, he knows how good Big Game Jame was, he knows who "gave him" that NCAA title.

Kerr on Scott? :oldlol: Better get Harper in there or Jordan on him, or else you're completely screwed. This dude probably don't even know what Byron was about. Scott could play D and was very athletic plus much better than Kerr on offense, keep thinking that Kerr would give that edge to the Bulls with open shots :lol

Jabbar vs Longley... well there's nobody else you could put on Kareem, he would absolutely destroy though, even in his late 30's, not a chance for Luc :lol
Allow me this question, who was John Paxson defending in 91?

What you're doing is thinking with your heart and not your mind. What im doing is showing the matchup problems the Bulls would propose.

If you put Scott on Kerr, who is Magic Gonna Guard? Pippen? Jordan? Lol Rodman?

Can Worthy stop Pippen?

Do you really see A.C. Green being able to keep Rodman off the boards?

The Bulls pose plenty of matchup problems for the Lakers

[SHAQisGOAT]

Allow me this question, who was John Paxson defending in 91?

What you're doing is thinking with your heart and not your mind. What im doing is showing the matchup problems the Bulls would propose.

If you put Scott on Kerr, who is Magic Gonna Guard? Pippen? Jordan? Lol Rodman?

Can Worthy stop Pippen?

Do you really see A.C. Green being able to keep Rodman off the boards?

The Bulls pose plenty of matchup problems for the Lakers

Yet again mentioning a series where Scott (and Worthy) was injured :facepalm You just said you'd put Kerr on Byron so I guess you really don't even know what you're saying though :lol

With my heart and not my mind? Wtf does that even mean??? Coming from the guy who said Kerr would guard Scott then hit some open shots, getting the "upper-hand" of that "situation". Would be funny to see Scott killing Kerr though, it would be something similar to having someone like Pablo Prigioni guarding Monta Ellis, right now. This is ****ing Byron Scott: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUdYa5hdMPw
Oh and did I mentioned he was a really good shooter and overall scorer, many moves, pulled from mid or 3, nice iso scorer, could pass too... Go watch him play please, he even led the Lakers in scoring in the 1988 rs.

Why would the Lakers put Scott on Kerr? Scott would be on Jordan, with Coop off the bench. Magic would be on Harper/Kerr, helping out and ready to grab the boards and/or get on the break.

Can Pippen stop Worthy? :rolleyes: Yea Pippen was definitely a better defensive player, not that James couldn't play D plus was tall and pretty athletic, but you can also say that Worthy was a better scorer. Great matchup that would've been, Pippen could've very well gotten the upper-hand most of the time, on the other hand who would guard Magic though? And injured Worthy was still given hell to Scottie and the Bulls.

That would be the main thing though, right? Doesn't matter that Kareem would rape the Bulls' bigs, while Chicago would be screwed with having to guard Worthy and Magic, Pippen can't be on two places at the same time, plus Scott was a really good scorer and could kill any team.. Lots of mismatches there. And they had enough rebounding, worked very well as an unit. Plus AC was a good rebounder, hustled plenty, even more with Rambis. They had so much they could use, stacked all the way.

The Lakers presented even more matchup problems for the Bulls.

[97 bulls]

Oh come off it. The Bulls were up 3 games to 1 with both Worthy and Scott still being there. Worthy hurt his ankle almost three weeks prior to the point where he reagravated it. Byron Scott slipped on a wet spot late in game four (with the Bulls having the game in hand) and up to that point really hadnt done a damn thing. You act as if both players were injured and limping up and down the court.

Here's an article from the Los Angeles times in which their injuries are discussed


Worthy left the game for good with 2 minutes, 49 seconds to go in the third quarter after aggravating a sprained left ankle first injured two weeks ago in the Western finals against Portland.

``In the second half, it kind of got to the point where I was unable to do anything I felt I needed to do,`` Worthy said. ``I was doing more damage than helping the team. At that point, I felt I should pull myself.``

Worthy lasted 31 minutes and finished with 12 points on 6-of-16 shooting. The 6-foot-9 forward was limited to three rebounds, after grabbing only one in 48 minutes in Game 3 Friday night.

Lakers trainer Gary Vitti was not upbeat in describing Worthy`s chances of playing in Game 5 Wednesday night.

``I believe in our trainer`s miracle treatment,`` Worthy said.

With 3:13 to play, Scott was lost with an injured shoulder, after slipping on a wet spot at the Forum.

``It`s a very, very bad bruise,`` said Scott, who was taken to Centinella Hospital for precautionary X-rays which came back negative. ``(Bill) Cartwright came down on me. The shoulder is extremely sore now.``

After going 0 for 8 Friday night, Scott was 2 of 4 in 34 minutes Sunday.

Now whats your excuse? Scotts age? He was 28 I believe.

Heres a vid made about Scottie Pippen. Forward to the 3 minute mark. Take note of what Magic said about Scottie Pippens defense on him. He clearly states that Pip gave him problems.

How about Worthys stats? He had two statistically good games. One was 24 on 52%. The other was in game 3. Where he scored 19 on 52% in 48 minutes. Three of those baskets came off fast breaks due to TOs. So really, when he was being defended by Jordan, he did nothing special.

And since you're so big on injuries, how do you respond to Jordan jamming his big toe. Which hurt him to the point that it was painful to plant that foot and he changed shoes trying to get relief from the pain.

Like I stated. The Bulls beat the Lakers because they were more talented and posed huge mismatches.
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qd6Aq1FeyA

[97 bulls]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qd6Aq1FeyA

Fast forward to the three minute mark.

[97 bulls]

I even went back and checked Worthys stats prior to that injury. He hardly set the world on fire aside from when he played against Chris Mullin and the no defense Run TMC Warriors. Who also tried to outscore their opponents.