Could Jordan's Bulls Beat This Spurs Team?

[atljonesbro]

This Spurs team is better than anything they faced in the finals. I could see this San Antonio team beating them.

[Kiddlovesnets]

Id say 95-96 and 96-97 Bulls would nail it, no other teams could possibly stand a chance.

[navy]

Home front runners. Who has HCA?

[DonDadda59]

:oldlol:

Here we go again. Spurs crush the Thunder in the first 2 games, Spurs = GOAT team, better than any team MJ faced. They get crushed in 2 games at OKC. Crickets. Spurs = GOAT chokers.

Now we're back to square one.

Consistency :applause:

[hitmanyr2k]

This Spurs team is better than anything they faced in the finals. I could see this San Antonio team beating them.

The '92, '93, '96 and '97 Bulls would have their way with this Spurs team but they would give the '91 and '98 Bulls all they could handle.

[Legends66NBA7]

I'd say the only debate would be against the 98 Bulls.

[LeBird]

Probably a good match-up, even IMO.

[atljonesbro]

The '92, '93, '96 and '97 Bulls would have their way with this Spurs team but they would give the '91 and '98 Bulls all they could handle.
You say that with such confidence as they'd win by 30 every game. Delusional.

[lilteapot]

They'd win in 5.

[Jameerthefear]

lol?
the spurs aren't unbeatable by any stretch of the imagination lmao. they get overrated so much

[The_Pharcyde]

Yeah they would handle this squad

They were a composed title team like the spurs but with more talent plus you have to throw in the goat factor

[Random_Guy]

lol Jordan's bulls would demolish this team. not nostalgia it is what it is.
a frond court of pippen and mj would shut the spurs down.

[SamuraiSWISH]

The '92, '93, '96 and '97 Bulls would have their way with this Spurs team
Yes


but they would give the '91 and '98 Bulls all they could handle.
This too.

[poido123]

You say that with such confidence as they'd win by 30 every game. Delusional.


I don't think you understand how good those teams were dude.

Have you watched basketball before the year 2000?

[atljonesbro]

lol Jordan's bulls would demolish this team. not nostalgia it is what it is.
a frond court of pippen and mj would shut the spurs down.
Demolish? Yeah that's nostalgia.

[hitmanyr2k]

You say that with such confidence as they'd win by 30 every game. Delusional.

If you think Jordan or Pippen would be scared of old man Duncan and Splitter in the paint you're dreaming :oldlol:

You'd get a lot of this...

http://i.imgur.com/MSVeeUE.gif

[Rodmantheman]

:oldlol:

Here we go again. Spurs crush the Thunder in the first 2 games, Spurs = GOAT team, better than any team MJ faced. They get crushed in 2 games at OKC. Crickets. Spurs = GOAT chokers.

Now we're back to square one.

Consistency :applause:


:oldlol:

[chris02jammers]

Bulls beat 90s Spurs in the regular season with Duncan and Robinson

[Micku]

This Spurs team is better than anything they faced in the finals. I could see this San Antonio team beating them.

I dunno about that. Are they better than the 93 Suns and the 97 and 98 Jazz?

The 97 Jazz did beat a Rocket team with Hakeem, Barkley, and Clyde Drexler. And they constantly owned the Lakers with 4 all stars with Shaq, Kobe, Nick Van Exel, and Eddie Jones.

Anyway, I think the 92-93, 96-98 Bulls could take him. 92 and 93 Bulls could take him because Jordan was still in his prime, Pippen and Grant improved a lot.

I don't know how difficult it'll be. The 91 and 98 Bulls team is where they would probably have the most trouble with, and that's the Spurs best chance to beat them.

[atljonesbro]

I don't think you understand how good those teams were dude.

Have you watched basketball before the year 2000?
92: 4-2 vs the Blazers
93: 4-2 vs the Suns
96: 4-2 vs the Sonics
98: 4-2 vs the Jazz

They're not "demolishing" or "having their way" with anyone lmao. I sense nostalgia.

[poido123]

If you think Jordan or Pippen would be scared of old man Duncan and Splitter in the paint you're dreaming :oldlol:

You'd get a lot of this...

http://i.imgur.com/MSVeeUE.gif


That glide and that drive so effortless...

[MrC1991]

Yes the 90s Bulls would beat this years spurs or any year of the Spurs....

[SHAQisGOAT]

:coleman:

96 and also 92 Bulls would win in less than 7. They would give other of their championship teams a great run but the Bulls would win the vast majority of those matchups.

[poido123]

92: 4-2 vs the Blazers
93: 4-2 vs the Suns
96: 4-2 vs the Sonics
98: 4-2 vs the Jazz

They're not "demolishing" or "having their way" with anyone lmao. I sense nostalgia.


Suns, Sonics, Jazz are all top 3 teams in today's NBA. I'd say those Sonics and Jazz teams can beat SA now fairly comfortably. I'm not having a go at SA or anything, they have a very good team, but some of those teams MJ faced were great in their own right.

This current Spurs team is effective against some of these teams with disorganised coaching and lack of play sets. They also exploit teams who don't have much of a frontline and have a weakness guarding the 3pt shot.

I don't see any of those teams losing to San Antonio.

[atljonesbro]

Suns, Sonics, Jazz are all top 3 teams in today's NBA. I'd say those Sonics and Jazz teams can beat SA now fairly comfortably. I'm not having a go at SA or anything, they have a very good team, but some of those teams MJ faced were great in their own right.

This current Spurs team is effective against some of these teams with disorganised coaching and lack of play sets. They also exploit teams who don't have much of a frontline and have a weakness guarding the 3pt shot.

I don't see any of those teams losing to San Antonio.
I disagree, I think San Antonio is better than all those teams.

[poido123]

I disagree, I think San Antonio is better than all those teams.


No worries. It's your opinion, but why make a thread about it?

I have plenty of opinions that I don't make threads about. :confusedshrug:

Just sayin.

[hitmanyr2k]

Yes the 90s Bulls would beat this years spurs or any year of the Spurs....

Disagree. The '05 Spurs team would give any championship Bulls team trouble. That was the perfect Spurs team. They could run you out of the building with young Parker/Ginobili or slow it down and play the inside/out game with Prime Duncan. They had clutch 3 point shooters galore (Ginobili, Horry, Barry, Bowen) to space the floor for Duncan to operate in the post and also open up driving lanes for Ginobili and Parker in the half court. Their defense was always good, if not great with Duncan as their anchor in the paint along with help from Nazr Mohammed and their perimeter shut down guy in Bruce Bowen.

[jstern]

This sounds like a thread that would be made if the Spurs had just won the championship, not after breaking a 2 game losing streak.

We're talking about a double 3 peat dynasty.

I want the Spurs to win the championship this year. And if they do this question will come up again, some people will entertain it simply because they want to win the argument.

But if the Spurs win the championship and this question comes up in 5 or 20 years, it would be a laughable question. The difference is that some of you are prisoners of the moment and the Spurs just happened to finish a blow out win. Anything that happened a few days ago doesn't matter. Two blow out losses in a row doesn't matter, because it's all about the current moment.

[Micku]

92: 4-2 vs the Blazers
93: 4-2 vs the Suns
96: 4-2 vs the Sonics
98: 4-2 vs the Jazz

They're not "demolishing" or "having their way" with anyone lmao. I sense nostalgia.

The Sonics were done after after game 3. The Bulls were leading 3-0 before the Sonics won 2 straight. It was kind'a like how the Celtics 10 lead the series 3-0 against the Magic. They demolished them as well, but the Magic won 2 games.

The Suns was a interesting series, and the Suns could've won game 6. But the Bulls were leading the 3-1 before game 5. They were better better. But imagine ISH back then? Ppl would be saying it's over once Bulls had a 3-1 lead.

Even the 98 series, the Bulls won 3 straight in a row and lead the series 3-1 too before the Jazz won game 5.

[LeBird]

I disagree, I think San Antonio is better than all those teams.

Yeah, clearly. Bulls might win most times in this match up, but the Spurs are better than anyone the Bulls faced in the 90s.

[atljonesbro]

This sounds like a thread that would be made if the Spurs had just won the championship, not after breaking a 2 game losing streak.

We're talking about a double 3 peat dynasty.

I want the Spurs to win the championship this year. And if they do this question will come up again, some people will entertain it simply because they want to win the argument.

But if the Spurs win the championship and this question comes up in 5 or 20 years, it would be a laughable question. The difference is that some of you are prisoners of the moment and the Spurs just happened to finish a blow out win. Anything that happened a few days ago doesn't matter. Two blow out losses in a row doesn't matter, because it's all about the current moment.
The spurs were one fluke 3 away from winning. You can't really take much away from them. They win this year and that'd be 2 straight.

[DonDadda59]

Yeah, clearly. Bulls might win most times in this match up, but the Spurs are better than anyone the Bulls faced in the 90s.

Explain how the AARP all stars are better than the '96 Sonics. Go!

[jstern]

The spurs were one fluke 3 away from winning. You can't really take much away from them. They win this year and that'd be 2 straight.

Again, this is more of the prisoner of the moment thing, where just winning the latest championship is viewed as a much more valuable and harder championship than anything that came before. I remember when Kobe won his 4th championship, all of a sudden it was absolute and undeniable proof by so many that Kobe was greater than Jordan.

[Legends66NBA7]

Also, 04/05-06/07 Spurs > 11/12-13/14 Spurs.

[eliteballer]

The 03-07 Spurs teams were better, now they played some insane defense:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EaWhVhjj68

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lle3rUNH0_U

[LeBird]

Again, this is more of the prisoner of the moment thing, where just winning the latest championship is viewed as a much more valuable and harder championship than anything that came before. I remember when Kobe won his 4th championship, all of a sudden it was absolute and undeniable proof by so many that Kobe was greater than Jordan.

Same thing happens all the time. Jordan has benefitted from the same phenomena (to an even greater extent really) with his championships.

Look at it objectively...the Spurs are consistently excellent in an excellent era.

[Mrofir]

The 2005 Spurs team was better than this Spurs team. If this Spurs team could beat the Jordan Bulls, then the 2005 Spurs team would be the best team in the history of the league.

[DonDadda59]

Same thing happens all the time. Jordan has benefitted from the same phenomena (to an even greater extent really) with his championships.

Look at it objectively...the Spurs are consistently excellent in an excellent era.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Marlo_Stanfield]

That glide and that drive so effortless...
Pippen is top 15 alltime:applause: :applause:
best 2nd option ever and true alpha of the Bulls dynasty
mad underrated:applause:

[Legends66NBA7]

I'd also like to know how the 99 Spurs would matchup against the dynasty Bulls.

[MrC1991]

Pippen is crazy underrated and I have him in my top 20. Anyone would be underrated playing along side the GOAT.

[DonDadda59]

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Michael-Jordan-Blocks-Tim-Duncan.gif

[Collie]

What would the Spurs advantage be? 3-point shooting is the only thing I can think of (and old man TD, but he'd get frustrated by Rodman/Grant).

[eliteballer]

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Michael-Jordan-Blocks-Tim-Duncan.gif

blocking a rookie wow:no:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Same thing happens all the time. Jordan has benefitted from the same phenomena (to an even greater extent really) with his championships.

Look at it objectively...the Spurs are consistently excellent in an excellent era.

lol @ "excellent era". Delusional troll :oldlol:

[Micku]

The 2005 Spurs team was better than this Spurs team. If this Spurs team could beat the Jordan Bulls, then the 2005 Spurs team would be the best team in the history of the league.

I felt that the 05 Heat could take on the 05 Spurs. Take them to the limit and perhaps beating them if they were healthy.

But I agree. I think the 05 Spurs team is the best out of all the Spurs team. How about the 1999 Spurs team tho?

[jstern]

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Michael-Jordan-Blocks-Tim-Duncan.gif

As I scrolled down I thought this was going to be a response to the Pippen dunk. Funny surprise.

[oarabbus]

Jordan wouldn't be 6/6 if he had to face this Spurs team in the finals, no chance. Sorry MJ.

[poido123]

Jordan wouldn't be 6/6 if he had to face this Spurs team in the finals, no chance. Sorry MJ.



:(

How short memories become. That's of course that you have a memory of pre 2000.

[deja vu]

Who's gonna stop Jordan? Diaw? :roll:

[LeBird]

:(

How short memories become. That's of course that you have a memory of pre 2000.

He's on point. No way Jordan goes 6/6 having to face a team like this Spurs consistently.

[sekachu]

This Spurs team is better than anything they faced in the finals. I could see this San Antonio team beating them.



90s mid New York , Pacer, Jazz, Houston are as good as the current spurs. The answer is no.

[Collie]

If you could tell me HOW exactly are the Spurs gonna beat the Bulls, then sure, I'd say they can.

[poido123]

He's on point. No way Jordan goes 6/6 having to face a team like this Spurs consistently.


Tell us all why?

What are the matchups and how will Spurs exploit the Bulls in a series?

[Roundball_Rock]

The 1991 Bulls are underrated. That actually was the Bulls team that posted the best playoff record (15-2--the 1996 team went 15-3). They won 61 games in the regular season, more than the 93' team and only 1 less than the 98' team. I suspect the main reason people underrate that team is because they underrate 91' Pippen and Grant. By 1991 Pippen was a player who averaged 22/9/6/3/1 in the playoffs. In 1991 Pippen was the third player picked for the Dream Team--behind only Jordan and Magic. 1991 was no fluke: in 1992 Pippen averaged 21/8/7/2/1 (still the record number of assists in the triangle offense) and Chuck Daly viewed him as the best player on the Dream Team after MJ. "Give me Michael and Scottie--and everbody else does not matter."--Chuck Daly

[DonDadda59]

blocking a rookie wow:no:

Dude was an MVP/DPOY caliber player the minute he stepped on the court (finished 5th in MVP voting as a rook). About as NBA ready as any draftee in History. 21/12/3/3 his rookie season, led his team to the 'ship the next year (with the Bulls dynasty broken up).

[LeBird]

Tell us all why?

What are the matchups and how will Spurs exploit the Bulls in a series?

Simple: these Spurs are better than the opponents Bulls faced. Talent-wise comparable with them all and most importantly they have a winning mentality and aren't chokers. Bulls didn't face a consistent threat throughout the 90s, imagine if they faced a team like these Spurs who aren't even as good as they used to be.

[Jameerthefear]

why is everyone stupid enough to fall for lebird's trolling? u guys are really dumb.

[deja vu]

He's on point. No way Jordan goes 6/6 having to face a team like this Spurs consistently.
No way the Spurs win 4 titles if they face the Jordan Bulls, too. We can go both ways.

[eliteballer]

The Spurs biggest advantage would be that they can bomb away from the 3 point line in a way the Bulls can't(discounting the shortened line in 96 and 97)

[Milbuck]

:oldlol:

Here we go again. Spurs crush the Thunder in the first 2 games, Spurs = GOAT team, better than any team MJ faced. They get crushed in 2 games at OKC. Crickets. Spurs = GOAT chokers.

Now we're back to square one.

Consistency :applause:
Came in here to say this. These Spurs are a phenomenal team, perhaps better than a few of those finals teams Jordan faced (Lakers, Sonics, Blazers). But to jump to saying they're better than Jordan's Bulls is ****ing absurd. 1 year they might get them, 2 if they're lucky. Nothing more. If Westbrook gives them trouble, I shudder to think what MJ would do to them. Kawhi's a terrific young player and a great defender, but he'd get trashed head to head.

[poido123]

Simple: these Spurs are better than the opponents Bulls faced. Talent-wise comparable with them all and most importantly they have a winning mentality and aren't chokers. Bulls didn't face a consistent threat throughout the 90s, imagine if they faced a team like these Spurs who aren't even as good as they used to be.




So your argument is the Spurs can beat those Bulls opponents? Break down that? How will the Spurs beat those opponents.

I'd like to see you breakdown the Bulls weaknesses and how the Spurs will exploit them...I'll wait.

[Roundball_Rock]

Could the 14' Spurs even beat the 98' Spurs? Duncan, as noted earlier by another poster, was an elite player as a rookie (5th in MVP voting and 1st team all-NBA) and in 98' Robinson still remained an elite player (7th in MVP voting and 2nd team all-NBA).

The 2011-2014 Spurs have been good but are not a juggernaut. The Heat will expose that in the Finals.


The Spurs biggest advantage would be that they can bomb away from the 3 point line in a way the Bulls can't(discounting the shortened line in 96 and 97)

Different eras. Had the 3 been as important a part of the game then as it is now the Bulls roster would have been constructed differently. The late 90's Bulls featured the best three point shooter in the league in Kerr along with effective three point shooters in Kukoc, Pippen, Jordan, Buechler.

[LeBird]

No way the Spurs win 4 titles if they face the Jordan Bulls, too. We can go both ways.

100% true.

Bulls will beat the Spurs more times than they lose IMO, but it's closer than what it was in the 90s where there basically was no legit competition to them.


So your argument is the Spurs can beat those Bulls opponents? Break down that? How will the Spurs beat those opponents.

I'd like to see you breakdown the Bulls weaknesses and how the Spurs will exploit them...I'll wait.

It's not that simple. It's not that either team is weak on the perimeter or in the post or don't have a bench. They're two pretty complete teams with experienced winners.

Imagine the 90s Rockets with a longer peak and a better talent range and depth. They would then consistently challenge those Bulls.

[Micku]

100% true.

Bulls will beat the Spurs more times than they lose IMO, but it's closer than what it was in the 90s where there basically was no legit competition to them.


I disagree with that. There was competition. But the Bulls usually blew them out of the water and didn't allow a lot of series to go 7 games for the most part. Just because they dominated doesn't mean that they weren't competition. Kind'a like the 2001 Lakers dominated their opponents, but the teams that they faced were really good. It's just that the 2001 Lakers was just one of the best teams of all time that clicked at the right moment. Same with the Bulls.

The Bulls just stopped a lot of good teams. A couple of teams with a lot of talent too.

[DonDadda59]

Imagine the 90s Rockets with a longer peak and a better talent range and depth. They would then consistently challenge those Bulls.

:oldlol:

You mean imagine the 90s Rockets if Hakeem was 38 years old and wasn't allowed to play back-to-backs from fear his old body would break down. Or if they got absolutely crushed every time they played away from home in the playoffs.

Stop, son.

[LeBird]

I disagree with that. There was competition. But the Bulls usually blew them out of the water and didn't allow a lot of series to go 7 games for the most part. Just because they dominated doesn't mean that they weren't competition. Kind'a like the 2001 Lakers dominated their opponents, but the teams that they faced were really good. It's just that the 2001 Lakers was just one of the best teams of all time that clicked at the right moment. Same with the Bulls.

The Bulls just stopped a lot of good teams. A couple of teams with a lot of talent too.

There clearly wasn't, there's not even an argument for it. Which team in the 90s had the players and the consistency that challenged the Bulls? The closest was the Jazz and they were better 10 years before.

It was an era of 1-2 season wonders that didn't really have legit winners or team structure for consistent success.

[sportjames23]

This Spurs team is better than anything they faced in the finals. I could see this San Antonio team beating them.


I can see you're still a dumbass.

The only Spurs team that could give MJ's Bulls teams some problems were the ones with David Robinson on them. And MJ's Bulls would still beat them in 5 or 6 games.

This Spurs team is feasting on a weak era league, just like Miami. There's only three teams today who could win it all--Spurs, Heat, Thunder. That's it.

During the Bulls championship years, they went through good/great teams like the Knicks, Blazers, Suns, Jazz, Sonics, Pacers, Heat, Cavs--all capable of winning in today's NBA.

[poido123]

100% true.

Bulls will beat the Spurs more times than they lose IMO, but it's closer than what it was in the 90s where there basically was no legit competition to them.



It's not that simple. It's not that either team is weak on the perimeter or in the post or don't have a bench. They're two pretty complete teams with experienced winners.

Imagine the 90s Rockets with a longer peak and a better talent range and depth. They would then consistently challenge those Bulls.


That's an amazing whatif :lol

Whatif the Bulls had Olajuwon too? Whatif there was no salary cap? :hammerhead:

And it is that simple. If you can't break down one simple weakness Spurs can exploit on those teams, then I don't know what to say.

[LeBird]

That's an amazing whatif :lol

Whatif the Bulls had Olajuwon too? Whatif there was no salary cap? :hammerhead:

And it is that simple. If you can't break down one simple weakness Spurs can exploit on those teams, then I don't know what to say.

How is that an amazing 'what if'? Hakeem clearly had the ability to anchor a team like Duncan, the problem is he didn't have the other pieces around him and for long enough like Duncan. They would have basically been the Spurs but for that reality.

Your point is simplistic, lots of great sides have weaknesses - this Heat team has some glaring ones - but it's strengths still overshadow those and they succeed year after year. It's like saying that Chicago didn't have a legit C so they can't win, before they end up winning a shitload of titles.



This Spurs team is feasting on a weak era league, just like Miami. There's only three teams today who could win it all--Spurs, Heat, Thunder. That's it.

During the Bulls championship years, they went through good/great teams like the Knicks, Blazers, Suns, Jazz, Sonics, Pacers, Heat, Cavs--all capable of winning in today's NBA.


Never go full retard.

[Anaximandro1]

1999 Spurs team tho?

99 Spurs would destroy the current NBA.

They had a 6-8 start, and went 52-7 the rest of the way (including the NBA finals)

GOAT defensive team, veterans who knew how to play their roles and the best player in the NBA.

They never had the chance to defend the title because Duncan missed the 2000 playoffs with a torn meniscus.

prime Duncan + Robinson would terrorize Bosh /Andersen, West / Hibbert, Ibaka / Perkins ... and old man Duncan / Splitter.

[Micku]

There clearly wasn't, there's not even an argument for it. Which team in the 90s had the players and the consistency that challenged the Bulls? The closest was the Jazz and they were better 10 years before.

It was an era of 1-2 season wonders that didn't really have legit winners or team structure for consistent success.

The Knicks?

They went against them for like 4 years in a row and they had Pat Riley as the coach. Granted they beat them every time Jordan was there in the playoff series. They were one of the two teams that pushed the Bulls to a seven game during their dynasty.

Just because they beat them, it doesn't mean that they weren't good teams. Like the Bulls competition level could be better than the Spurs competition right now (maybe better than the Spurs too). Like the 2001 Lakers beat good teams. It seems you want to look for teams that are on the quality level like the Bulls. And that is rare, but fun argument.

[poido123]

How is that an amazing 'what if'? Hakeem clearly had the ability to anchor a team like Duncan, the problem is he didn't have the other pieces around him and for long enough like Duncan. They would have basically been the Spurs but for that reality.

Your point is simplistic, lots of great sides have weaknesses - this Heat team has some glaring ones - but it's strengths still overshadow those and they succeed year after year. It's like saying that Chicago didn't have a legit C so they can't win, before they end up winning a shitload of titles.




Never go full retard.


Because Whatifs apply to both sides. You can't say what if rockets had better support around Hakeem, but then assume Jordan can't have that whatif too?

Your argument was that Spurs could beat all of those teams. Now your argument is, Hakeem and Duncan need more help to win against those teams.

So which is it?

[97 bulls]

Both Bulls teams would kill these Spurs. Especially the second threepeat. They could go small and still be big and be able to switch everything, play passing lanes, and rebound.

They could go

Kukoc 6"11
Rodman 6'8
Buchler 6'6
Jordan 6'6
Pippen 6'8

And still have depth with Kerr, Harper, and Brian Williams

They wouldn't lose anything defensively and and still be able to rebound. Who on this team would be able to stop Jordan? Pippen? Or Kukoc? Who's gonna keep Rodman off the boards?

[SamuraiSWISH]

Came in here to say this. These Spurs are a phenomenal team, perhaps better than a few of those finals teams Jordan faced (Lakers, Sonics, Blazers).
:oldlol:

[LeBird]

The Knicks?

They went against them for like 4 years in a row. Granted they beat them every time Jordan was there in the playoff series. They were one of the two teams that pushed the Bulls to a seven game during their dynasty.

Just because they beat them, it doesn't mean that they weren't good teams. Like the Bulls competition level could be better than the Spurs competition right now (maybe better than the Spurs too). Like the 2001 Lakers beat good teams. It seems you want to look for teams that are on the quality level like the Bulls.

Great defensive team, but those Knicks never had what it took. That's not even hindsight talking. They were not a very good all-round team. If anything, that they pushed those Bulls like that shows just how much trouble the Bulls could have had if they did face some legit competition. John ****ing Starks was a star in that era.


Because Whatifs apply to both sides. You can't say what if rockets had better support around Hakeem, but then assume Jordan can't have that whatif too?

Your argument was that Spurs could beat all of those teams. Now your argument is, Hakeem and Duncan need more help to win against those teams.

So which is it?

Do you understand the reason I used them as a point of comparison or are you oblivious?

I'm trying to depict a team akin to the current Spurs team to show what could have been. Why would I pretend that the Chicago Bulls were anything but what they were; the whole point is to keep them as a constant and juxtapose with comparative opposition.

The point was that these Spurs would have been a much better competition for the Bulls than any of those teams were. It's doubtful the Bulls go 6/6 facing that kind of competition.

[oh the horror]

How is this even a debate?! :oldlol:

[SamuraiSWISH]

Current Spurs aren't better than the: '93 Knicks, '93 Suns, '96 Magic, '96 Sonics, '97 Heat, or '97 Jazz.

[poido123]

Great defensive team, but those Knicks never had what it took. That's not even hindsight talking. They were not a very good all-round team. If anything, that they pushed those Bulls like that shows just how much trouble the Bulls could have had if they did face some legit competition. John ****ing Starks was a star in that era.



Do you understand the reason I used them as a point of comparison or are you oblivious?

I'm trying to depict a team akin to the current Spurs team to show what could have been. Why would I pretend that the Chicago Bulls were anything but what they were; the whole point is to keep them as a constant and juxtapose with comparative opposition.

The point was that these Spurs would have been a much better competition for the Bulls than any of those teams were. It's doubtful the Bulls go 6/6 facing that kind of competition.



Who's doubting this other than you?

Again, give me something, anything. A matchup, a weakness, anything. :banghead:

[atljonesbro]

Current Spurs aren't better than the: '93 Knicks, '93 Suns, '96 Magic, '96 Sonics, '97 Heat, or '97 Jazz.
Yes they are.

[livinglegend]

Current Spurs aren't better than the: '93 Knicks, '93 Suns, '96 Magic, '96 Sonics, '97 Heat, or '97 Jazz.

the same bulls fans were trying to convince everyone in 2011 that they would beat Heat in the playoffs. Why should we believe you now ? What makes your opinions credible?

[97 bulls]

@Le Bird

You have the weakest argument in all sports. Essentially what youre saying is it would've been better for the Bulls to lose one or two of their titles to show how good their competition is.

Youve been asked this at least three times...... what was wrong with the Bulls competiton? And before you answer that it was "watered down", remember that the Bulls without Jordan won 55 games BEFORE expansion in 96.

[poido123]

Yes they are.


I suppose you believe in unicorns too?

[atljonesbro]

..
I had about as much depth as him. Where's the .. for his comment?

[livinglegend]

How is this even a debate?! :oldlol:

In 2012, before the finals, everyone was convinced that the winner of WCF would win the championship easily. They were so convinced that for them ''it wasnt even a debate''. Look what happened.

[sportjames23]

Jordan wouldn't be 6/6 if he had to face this Spurs team in the finals, no chance. Sorry MJ.


No, he'd be 7/7.

Sorry, troll.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Yes they are.
You weren't even alive in the 90's, how would you know?

:biggums:

[oarabbus]

Dude was an MVP/DPOY caliber player the minute he stepped on the court (finished 5th in MVP voting as a rook). About as NBA ready as any draftee in History. 21/12/3/3 his rookie season, led his team to the 'ship the next year (with the Bulls dynasty broken up).


People get blocked... what's so impressive? LeBron has gotten blocked. MJ has gotten blocked :confusedshrug:

[sportjames23]

He's on point. No way Jordan goes 6/6 having to face a team like this Spurs consistently.


Like he didn't face better defensive and offensive teams than this Spurs team on a consistent basis in the 90s? :rolleyes:

Your act is weak, Lebron stan.

[poido123]

the same bulls fans were trying to convince everyone in 2011 that they would beat Heat in the playoffs. Why should we believe you now ? What makes your opinions credible?



Turn your computer off and go find something else to do.

Your mum might of got pleasure by having you, but we don't feel so fortunate.

:(

[oh the horror]

What's funny to me is this.


Some of you haven't even been alive longer than some people have been watching ball. I've been watching basketball for about 24 years or so now. You have no fu*king context in what you're debating. I've seen players come an go, watched entire careers blossom and some fail.


You call it "nostalgia" but frankly I call you inexperienced.


You go to stats and try to compare players individually and check YouTube videos. Problem is, it doesn't work like that.


This Spurs team isn't even the best spurs team they've ever had. And you're going to tell me that a multiple time champion Bulls team wouldn't beat them soundly?


We don't even know if this Spurs team is going to even win the title THIS year.

[LeBird]

@Le Bird

You have the weakest argument in all sports. Essentially what youre saying is it would've been better for the Bulls to lose one or two of their titles to show how good their competition is.

Youve been asked this at least three times...... what was wrong with the Bulls competiton? And before you answer that it was "watered down", remember that the Bulls without Jordan won 55 games BEFORE expansion in 96.

Either you can't read or aren't that bright. Neither is good news for you.

It's a pretty simple point to grasp: Bulls' competition wasn't strong comparative to what was on offer 10 years prior and 10 years past. Simply looking at the teams on offer shows there were dynasties prior and past competing against each other (Celtics/Lakers/Sixers; Lakers/Spurs/Heat) whereas in the 90s there was only 1 consistent team: the Bulls. Even trying to argue that the Sonics or the Jazz or the Suns competed is disingenuous because everybody knows even when they did compete it was for a very short time. That in itself showed the strength of those teams to be a mirage because which great team is only great for 1-2 seasons? Yet you're trying to argue there were 3-4 of them. I mean, really.

It shouldn't be controversial for anyone but a Bulls/Jordan fanboy to appreciate that if they had faced a consistent threat; a well-built team with stars and depth; that they are unlikely to win every final they ended up winning.

[livinglegend]

Turn your computer off and go find something else to do.

Your mum might of got pleasure by having you, but we don't feel so fortunate.

:(

you are proving me right by insulting instead of making an argument.

[atljonesbro]

What's funny to me is this.


Some of you haven't even been alive longer than some people have been watching ball. I've been watching basketball for about 24 years or so now. You have no fu*king context in what you're debating. I've seen players come an go, watched entire careers blossom and some fail.


You call it "nostalgia" but frankly I call you inexperienced.


You go to stats and try to compare players individually and check YouTube videos. Problem is, it doesn't work like that.


This Spurs team isn't even the best spurs team they've ever had. And you're going to tell me that a multiple time champion Bulls team wouldn't beat them soundly?


We don't even know if this Spurs team is going to even win the title THIS year.
Lol the age card. Talk about all this knowledge you have from experience but say a whole lot of nothing in your post.

[poido123]

In 2012, before the finals, everyone was convinced that the winner of WCF would win the championship easily. They were so convinced that for them ''it wasnt even a debate''. Look what happened.


That isn't even true :oldlol:

People were saying Spurs had a really good chance to beat the Heat.

Now go away.

[poido123]

What's funny to me is this.


Some of you haven't even been alive longer than some people have been watching ball. I've been watching basketball for about 24 years or so now. You have no fu*king context in what you're debating. I've seen players come an go, watched entire careers blossom and some fail.


You call it "nostalgia" but frankly I call you inexperienced.


You go to stats and try to compare players individually and check YouTube videos. Problem is, it doesn't work like that.


This Spurs team isn't even the best spurs team they've ever had. And you're going to tell me that a multiple time champion Bulls team wouldn't beat them soundly?


We don't even know if this Spurs team is going to even win the title THIS year.


I made a list of good posters in the other thread.

Can't believe I forgot to put you on that list :applause:

[livinglegend]

That isn't even true :oldlol:

People were saying Spurs had a really good chance to beat the Heat.

Now go away.

wait a second, i ve a thread to prove my point. I just have to find it.

[oh the horror]

You'll all get there one day too.


When some kid tells you a prime Wiggins could destroy a prime Lebron James you can check them.

[poido123]

Lol the age card. Talk about all this knowledge you have from experience but say a whole lot of nothing in your post.


It means a lot when there are people who have watched the NBA and gone along to all those games.

I'm assuming you didn't watch them play, since you didn't even argue the fact that you were old enough.

[poido123]

wait a second, i ve a thread to prove my point. I just have to find it.


So you are going to dig the ISH collection and find one thread made by a troll to support your claim? Are you also going to retrieve all those threads that said Spurs are a good chance to win?

:confusedshrug:

[atljonesbro]

It means a lot when there are people who have watched the NBA and gone along to all those games.

I'm assuming you didn't watch them play, since you didn't even argue the fact that you were old enough.
He said literally nothing in his post lol. His age clearly doesn't show any knowledge. Pretty sad you think it's ok to just say, "I'm the oldest so I'm RIGHT!" Basically acting like a child.

[atljonesbro]

You'll all get there one day too.


When some kid tells you a prime Wiggins could destroy a prime Lebron James you can check them.
All your experience clearly brought you nothing. Just stated your opinion like the rest of us :oldlol:

[Warfan]

Only Bulls teams I could see the Spurs beating are 98' and 91'.

[poido123]

He said literally nothing in his post lol. His age clearly doesn't show any knowledge. Pretty sad you think it's ok to just say, "I'm the oldest so I'm RIGHT!" Basically acting like a child.


He sounded pretty mature and switched on to me.

You on the other hand are still spewing this ridiculous nonsense, that only you and a few other trolls agree on, but you want to turn around and call him childish and lacking knowledge?

You haven't presented anything that suggests why the Spurs are better than any of those championship Bulls teams.

I am still waiting on one of you guys to come up with a reasonable and plausible matchup analysis or weakness breakdown. :hammerhead:

[atljonesbro]

He sounded pretty mature and switched on to me.

You on the other hand are still spewing this ridiculous nonsense, that only you and a few other trolls agree on, but you want to turn around and call him childish and lacking knowledge?

You haven't presented anything that suggests why the Spurs are better than any of those championship Bulls teams.

I am still waiting on one of you guys to come up with a reasonable and plausible matchup analysis or weakness breakdown. :hammerhead:
Same for you pal. The 1 and a half line analysis is pretty weak.

[livinglegend]

So you are going to dig the ISH collection and find one thread made by a troll to support your claim? Are you also going to retrieve all those threads that said Spurs are a good chance to win?

:confusedshrug:

no, its a thread where OP predicted that Heat would beat OKC/Spurs in the finals and everyone were making fun of him for saying that. ( just like some members are doing in this thread) They all predicted that heat would lose easily. I just cant find the thread.

[poido123]

Same for you pal. The 1 and a half line analysis is pretty weak.


You're claiming a current team can beat a team from the past.

It is your call to make the analysis, not me.

[oh the horror]

I didn't say anything because what's the f*cking debate?


This Spurs squad isn't even the best SPURS team they've had down there in San Antonio. And we're going to have a debate that some of the greatest championship teams ever with the greatest player ever wouldn't be able to beat this team?


I mean which Bulls team are we talking? Even if you go to the older version of the threepeat squad they'd have some serious problems in SA.

[Micku]

Great defensive team, but those Knicks never had what it took. That's not even hindsight talking. They were not a very good all-round team. If anything, that they pushed those Bulls like that shows just how much trouble the Bulls could have had if they did face some legit competition. John ****ing Starks was a star in that era.

They took the Rockets of 94 to seven games and almost won it all. The same Rockets that beat Stockton-K.Malone, Barkley Suns, and Portland. The Bulls just usually stop the Knicks from reaching the finals. If the Bulls weren't there, then the Knicks probably would've be in the Finals from 92-94. So, who knows.

And John Starks wasn't a really a star like Tim Hardaway, Joe Dumars, Clyde, or Kevin Johnson or anything like that. He only made the all star once in 94. That was his best year. And he was never on any of the All NBA teams.

But it seems like you are saying that the Bulls had to lose for you to consider them to have competition. But their competition could be better than the competition right now. Like would you consider the 92 or 93 Knicks better than Thunder and the Pacers?

[poido123]

I didn't say anything because what's the f*cking debate?


This Spurs squad isn't even the best SPURS team they've had down there in San Antonio. And we're going to have a debate that some of the greatest championship teams ever with the greatest player ever wouldn't be able to beat this team?


I mean which Bulls team are we talking? Even if you go to the older version of the threepeat squad they'd have some serious problems in SA.


Splitter or old man Duncan keeping rodman off the offensive boards? Leonard and Green to guard Pippen/MJ? Oh dear :facepalm

You could switch those players either way and it still is a major mismatch both offensively and defensively.

Then the Bulls have the shooters that are either better or equal to what San Antonio has. Kerr, Harper, Pippen, Jordan midrange, Kukoc, all can pass and shoot as good as anybody San Antonio has.

There is no area that San Antonio can truly exploit on that 98 team. Rodman would likely go to Duncan, Longley on Splitter.

Parker is about the only one who is a matchup problem? But the Bulls team has two of the best perimeter defenders to ever play? Then you have Rodman and Longley to stop any penetration in the paint.

I just don't see it.

Series would go 5 or 6 max.

[bond10]

If you think Jordan or Pippen would be scared of old man Duncan and Splitter in the paint you're dreaming :oldlol:

You'd get a lot of this...

http://i.imgur.com/MSVeeUE.gif

Damn that's smooth.

[97 bulls]

Either you can't read or aren't that bright. Neither is good news for you.

It's a pretty simple point to grasp: Bulls' competition wasn't strong comparative to what was on offer 10 years prior and 10 years past. Simply looking at the teams on offer shows there were dynasties prior and past competing against each other (Celtics/Lakers/Sixers; Lakers/Spurs/Heat) whereas in the 90s there was only 1 consistent team: the Bulls. Even trying to argue that the Sonics or the Jazz or the Suns competed is disingenuous because everybody knows even when they did compete it was for a very short time. That in itself showed the strength of those teams to be a mirage because which great team is only great for 1-2 seasons? Yet you're trying to argue there were 3-4 of them. I mean, really.

It shouldn't be controversial for anyone but a Bulls/Jordan fanboy to appreciate that if they had faced a consistent threat; a well-built team with stars and depth; that they are unlikely to win every final they ended up winning.
The Bulls faced the Knicks five times and the Pistons three times. And beat the Jazz twice. During the Celtics run, they played the Sixers and Bucks three times if I remember correctly, and the Lakers three times.

And if I remember correctly, the Lakers faced the Celtics three times and the Rockets twice during their run.

So whats the difference?

[Micku]

I remember the 2012 Spurs team was getting the same talks about being an all time great team. And when they lost, everybody stopped talking about it. Nobody even talked about how the Thunder beat this supposed all time team, and you would think that the Thunder would get hyped up like the Spurs for beating them.

[poido123]

Damn that's smooth.


4 effortless steps from the 3pt line, GOING AROUND an opponent.

Athletic and in control.

[kkb_12]

This Spurs team is good one - one of top 3 teams in the past two years.

90's Bulls team was number one team of decade, and arguably of all time...

[knicksman]

people already forgot that spurs has never been in the conference finals during the time when west was so competitive. The only reason why they are great is because of weakened league due to superstars.

[Leroy Jetson]

people already forgot that spurs has never been in the conference finals during the time when west was so competitive. The only reason why they are great is because of weakened league due to superstars.
Are you at all familiar with the NBA. The West has been the dominant the entire time Duncan has played. You don't consider Shaq Lakers, Nash Suns, Dirk Mavs, and current Thunder quality competition. Please enlighten us of all the great eastern teams during this time. If anything the Spurs get dogged on for weak finals competition because they beat all the good teams coming out of the west and the east champ was crap.

[livinglegend]

That isn't even true :oldlol:

People were saying Spurs had a really good chance to beat the Heat.

Now go away.

There s you go:
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=266844

In that thread, people acted the same way they are acting in here. They acted basketball gods that knew who would win. They trusted their basketball knowledge and their eyes, and look what happened. They were wrong.

This is why threads like these are useless. You cant just say which team would win without seeing them playing each other.

[Sarcastic]

Spurs might be able to push 1990 Bulls to 7 games or so, but any of the other teams from 1991 to 1998 wouldn't go past 5 or 6 with the Spurs.

[beastee]

If you are under 30...don't reply to this thread. Unless you have actually watched the 91-98 bulls play on a consistent basis and have seen their competition first hand...you are just guessing based on youtube observation, stats and old timers opinions.

Just like I can never give true opinions of Dr. J, Oscar, Wilt, etc. because I have only seen highlights and watched clips of their games, perused basketball reference and watched documentaries.

The 3 most dominant teams I have ever seen with my own eyes are the bulls of the 90s (probably 92-93 are the best) the Spurs of 04-07 and the current Heat championship run. That is not to say the current Spurs would not give any of those team fits (and potentially beat them), but to build a topic based off opinion - you better come with some good supporting evidence and I haven't seen enough yet here.

[Rose'sACL]

Current Spurs aren't better than the: '93 Knicks, '93 Suns, '96 Magic, '96 Sonics, '97 Heat, or '97 Jazz.
Yes,they are.

[Soundwave]

Yes,they are.

Not with a 38 year old Duncan with 1000000000000000000000000 miles on his legs.

Bulls would put Pippen on Tony Parker, suffocate his driving offense, and that be curtains for the Spurs offensively.

No one on the Spurs really would even bother Jordan defensively either. He would eat their perimeter players alive (the "give him the outside/mid-range shot" tactic they used on LeBron would back fire massively against Jordan who would take and make that all day).

[Rose'sACL]

Not with a 38 year old Duncan with 1000000000000000000000000 miles on his legs.

Bulls would put Pippen on Tony Parker, suffocate his driving offense, and that be curtains for the Spurs offensively.

No one on the Spurs really would even bother Jordan defensively either. He would eat their perimeter players alive (the "give him the outside/mid-range shot" tactic they used on LeBron would back fire massively against Jordan who would take and make that all day).
But lebron is the better finisher at the rim. Also, stop comparing heat to bulls. Heat matchup well with okc who beat the spurs and matchup badly with spurs. Heat in the 90s would be built differently.

[The_Pharcyde]

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Michael-Jordan-Blocks-Tim-Duncan.gif
Where is this clip from, excellent quality considering the age

[DonDadda59]

Yes,they are.

At home maybe, and not on back-to-backs :oldlol:


Where is this clip from, excellent quality considering the age

I'm actually not sure, but if I were to guess judging by the quality, it'd be one of these vids:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO4Ij4YNyQo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nln3jrIq8SI

[Calabis]

:oldlol:

Here we go again. Spurs crush the Thunder in the first 2 games, Spurs = GOAT team, better than any team MJ faced. They get crushed in 2 games at OKC. Crickets. Spurs = GOAT chokers.

Now we're back to square one.

Consistency :applause:

Guess this won't help their theory of these new modern day athletes, when a bunch of old past their prime players is now considered the GOAT team in this new "Athletic" era :oldlol:

[Rose'sACL]

Guess this won't help their theory of these new modern day athletes, when a bunch of old past their prime players is now considered the GOAT team in this new "Athletic" era :oldlol:
I hope you understand that your ESPN tier knowledge that spurs are an old team would work here. They are not old. Duncan is old and he is not asked to do as much as he used to because he has a deep team that is young.

[The_Pharcyde]

At home maybe, and not on back-to-backs :oldlol:



I'm actually not sure, but if I were to guess judging by the quality, it'd be one of these vids:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO4Ij4YNyQo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nln3jrIq8SI


nah those are just michael jordan to the max clips, thanks tho

[Soundwave]

But lebron is the better finisher at the rim. Also, stop comparing heat to bulls. Heat matchup well with okc who beat the spurs and matchup badly with spurs. Heat in the 90s would be built differently.

MJ is just as good at finishing at the rim, probably moreso in a half court situation just because he can get to the rim easier than LeBron can. LeBron just doesn't have the stop-go speed that Jordan had.

But really does it matter, MJ didn't care if he torched you for 40+ using his jumper or the drive, he would just find the weakness in the defence and then exploit it, that's part of what makes him different from Kobe/LeBron I think.

Those two guys have "their way" of playing offense. If the defense isn't allow them to play their game or the flow of the game is not going their way, then Kobe would often go AWOL and start taking stupid shots. LeBron responds by becoming more passive and passing the ball away in that situation.

Jordan would just keep adjusting/testing the D, he didn't care if he got his 30-40 playing in the post, or slashing to the rim, or on the fastbreak, or from the outside.

[DonDadda59]

I hope you understand that your ESPN tier knowledge that spurs are an old team would work here. They are not old. Duncan is old and he is not asked to do as much as he used to because he has a deep team that is young.

The Spurs core is old and Duncan still has a heavy burden for the team. He's the leader in MPG, RPG, BPG, 2nd in scoring. He's 38.

Ginobli at 37 is the 3rd leading scorer and 2nd in APG coming off the bench.

Parker, at age 32 is no spring chicken given his minutes logged and injury History, and he's the leading scorer and assist man.


Guess this won't help their theory of these new modern day athletes, when a bunch of old past their prime players is now considered the GOAT team in this new "Athletic" era :oldlol:

These supposed modern day super athletes are getting grandfathered by a team that could have come straight out of the 60s or 70s :lol

[SamuraiSWISH]

MJ is just as good at finishing at the rim, probably moreso in a half court situation just because he can get to the rim easier than LeBron can. LeBron just doesn't have the stop-go speed that Jordan had.

But really does it matter, MJ didn't care if he torched you for 40+ using his jumper or the drive, he would just find the weakness in the defence and then exploit it, that's part of what makes him different from Kobe/LeBron I think.

Those two guys have "their way" of playing offense. If the defense isn't allow them to play their game or the flow of the game is not going their way, then Kobe would often go AWOL and start taking stupid shots. LeBron responds by becoming more passive and passing the ball away in that situation.

Jordan would just keep adjusting/testing the D, he didn't care if he got his 30-40 playing in the post, or slashing to the rim, or on the fastbreak, or from the outside.
http://niketalk.com/content/type/61/id/849882/width/350/height/700/flags/LL

[OldSchoolBBall]

The ****!? :oldlol: EVERY Bulls championship team except for POSSIBLY '98 would wax this Spurs team.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Where is this clip from, excellent quality considering the age
MJ 2 Max

35 year old MJ swatting young Duncan's weak ass layup attempt into the San Antonio stands.

:oldlol:

[r0drig0lac]

this must be a joke, any Bulls team of the decade of 90 wipe the floor with the current spurs, this coming from a Spurs fan. However Spurs the best team ever (2005) could go against them that's for sure

[Upgrayedd]

Westbrook and Durant are giving the Spurs problems. Do you really think the Spurs would have a chance against Jordan and Pippen? :facepalm

I don't think the Spurs would beat any of the Jordan championship teams.

[Upgrayedd]

This Spurs team is better than anything they faced in the finals. I could see this San Antonio team beating them.

This Spurs team is good. But really? Better than those Jazz teams with Malone and Stockton? Better than that Sonics team with Kemp and Payton? Better than that Suns team with Barkley? The Blazers with Drexler? The Lakers? :facepalm

[atljonesbro]

This Spurs team is good. But really? Better than those Jazz teams with Malone and Stockton? Better than that Sonics team with Kemp and Payton? Better than that Suns team with Barkley? The Blazers with Drexler? The Lakers? :facepalm
That Spurs team with Duncan, Ginobli, Parker, AND the GOAT Coach that makes every role player on the team way better than they actually are?

See how easy that is?

[Legends66NBA7]

So were all in agreement that the 04/05-06/07 Spurs are better and more than arguably the 99 Spurs than the current Spurs (11/12-13/14 faction) ?

I haven't read what makes the current team better than those teams.

[jstern]

So were all in agreement that the 04/05-06/07 Spurs are better and more than arguably the 99 Spurs than the current Spurs (11/12-13/14 faction) ?

I haven't read what makes the current team better than those teams.

From what I gather, what makes them better is that they're playing in 2014, and even though they are older they are doing against stronger, faster humans than 2005, due to evolution. So imagine if they played against a team from the 1990s.

[SamuraiSWISH]

2008 Celtics
1993 Suns
1993 Knicks
2010 Celtics
1997 Jazz
1996 Sonics
1992 Knicks
1996 Magic
2011 Mavericks
1997 Heat
1998 Jazz
2012 Celtics
1992 Blazers / 2013 Spurs / 2014 Spurs (talented, deep rosters but chokers)
2012 Thunder
1992 Cavaliers
1993 Cavaliers
1991 Lakers
2011 Bulls
1991 Pistons

[Maestro33]

Sorry but 95 Magic was an unreal team. And the Bulls swept them. That Magic team would win the championship today so..... Nope sorry

[eliteballer]

Sorry but 95 Magic was an unreal team. And the Bulls swept them. That Magic team would win the championship today so..... Nope sorry

No Horace Grant...hell he was so injured going into the series he shouldn't have even played game 1.

[guy]

Either you can't read or aren't that bright. Neither is good news for you.

It's a pretty simple point to grasp: Bulls' competition wasn't strong comparative to what was on offer 10 years prior and 10 years past. Simply looking at the teams on offer shows there were dynasties prior and past competing against each other (Celtics/Lakers/Sixers; Lakers/Spurs/Heat) whereas in the 90s there was only 1 consistent team: the Bulls. Even trying to argue that the Sonics or the Jazz or the Suns competed is disingenuous because everybody knows even when they did compete it was for a very short time. That in itself showed the strength of those teams to be a mirage because which great team is only great for 1-2 seasons? Yet you're trying to argue there were 3-4 of them. I mean, really.

It shouldn't be controversial for anyone but a Bulls/Jordan fanboy to appreciate that if they had faced a consistent threat; a well-built team with stars and depth; that they are unlikely to win every final they ended up winning.

Its incredible that you continue to be either too dumb that you fail to see or too biased that you completely ignore how flawed this argument is.

And by the way, when were the Lakers and Heat competing against each other?

[jzek]

Jordan played in the era of the best big men - Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Olajuwon, Malone, Barkley, etc. and he beat them all. So the Spurs having Duncan is no big deal.

Jordan's team also beat some of the best PGs in the game like Stockton, Payton, KJ, etc. So the Spurs having TP is no big deal.

What would make this Spurs team so special? :confusedshrug:

[Maestro33]

No Horace Grant...hell he was so injured going into the series he shouldn't have even played game 1.

I'll give you a game for that. Great memory! If I recall though Kukoc wasn't exactly mint after hurting himself vs The Knicks. But yeah Horace was definitely worth a game. I stand by my point though and I think its a good debate. The Bulls 3rd quarter runs were just too much along with the way they controlled the pace of the game. San Antonio lets people back in way too much. The Bulls put their foots on throats more often than SA imo. Throw in the fact that Mike and Socttie would wreak havoc on the second tier Spurs and Id have most of those Bulls teams over the Spurs. Maybe not 98.

[97 bulls]

No Horace Grant...hell he was so injured going into the series he shouldn't have even played game 1.
He did play in game 1 and the Bulls won by 38. Kukoc played with a bad back as well.

[Micku]

96 Magic vs 14 Spurs would be interesting.

The Magic wasn't all that great defensively, but they had more talent than any team the Spurs faced in this playoffs so far.

It'll be interesting how they would contain Shaq and Penny and stop the role players of Grant, Nick Anderson, and Dennis Scott.

I do think the Magic 96 was better than the Thunder 14.

[Cold soul]

Pop sure has interesting timeout speeches. :oldlol:

http://i57.tinypic.com/2aaentw.gif

[97 bulls]

Its incredible that you continue to be either too dumb that you fail to see or too biased that you completely ignore how flawed this argument is.

And by the way, when were the Lakers and Heat competing against each other?
Exactly. Its like saying the Heat would be better served by losing to the Spursbor Thunder because it will give their last two championships credibility.

And for the life of me I can't see the argument against the Bulls not beating good teams. They swept the Pistons who had four hall of famers counting Daly. The same team that was the reigning champs. Back to back champs mind you. Then beat Lakers in five. They convincingly wiped out two dynasties and only lost one game. And everyone acknowledges that 91 wasn't the Bulls best team.

And if your gonna put an asterisk next to the Bulls 91 championship because of "injuries" and name players missing, then dammit do the same for his "golden 80s" champions. None of them played each other at full strength.

[mark henson 123]

1992 team was the best bulls team!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

john paxson
Michael Jordan
scottie pippen
horance grant
scot Williams

that club would beat the crap ou t of any spurs teams!:coleman:

[mark henson 123]

Jordan played in the era of the best big men - Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Olajuwon, Malone, Barkley, etc. and he beat them all. So the Spurs having Duncan is no big deal.

Jordan's team also beat some of the best PGs in the game like Stockton, Payton, KJ, etc. So the Spurs having TP is no big deal.

What would make this Spurs team so special? :confusedshrug:


wrong idot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jordan lost to shag in 1995.
are you on crack?:coleman: