more overrated dynasty: bulls or spurs

[mehyaM24]

bulls:
-played an injured lakers team without kareem in the finals
-jordan faced zero swingmen of note besides maybe drexler? LOL
-pippen was the second best player (perimeter) in the 90s..double LOL
-won titles during the expansion era. stacked the deck ala miami except against WORST competition
-did it all with no other super team. the 80s had the SIXERS,LAKERS,CELTICS

spurs:
-never repeated
-faced over the hill teams
-their "superstar" is more overrated than jordan (shaq,wilt,kareem,russell,hakeem are all better)
-as i mentioned, facing over the hill teams, just picking up the scraps like vultures

[SouBeachTalents]

Lol @ the Bulls dynasty being overrated. If Jordan doesn't play baseball they probably 8-peat

[fpliii]

Lol @ the Bulls dynasty being overrated. If Jordan doesn't play baseball they probably 8-peat
MJ didn't have a bad series, and they still lost to the Magic in his first postseason back. Without Grant (last season was 94) or Rodman (first season was 96) no chance in hell they win that year.

[NBAplayoffs2001]

bulls:
-played an injured lakers team without kareem in the finals
-jordan faced zero swingmen of note besides maybe drexler? LOL
-pippen was the second best player (perimeter) in the 90s..double LOL
-won titles during the expansion era. stacked the deck ala miami except against WORST competition
-did it all with no other super team. the 80s had the SIXERS,LAKERS,CELTICS

spurs:
-never repeated
-faced over the hill teams
-their "superstar" is more overrated than jordan (shaq,wilt,kareem,russell,hakeem are all better)
-as i mentioned, facing over the hill teams, just picking up the scraps like vultures

Heat proclaimed 4 finals appearance dynasty.

[TheReal Kendall]

Is it better to win all your rings at once or compete and win just as many over 10+ years span???

[mehyaM24]

Lol @ the Bulls dynasty being overrated. If Jordan doesn't play baseball they probably 8-peat

jordan was lucky his bulls didnt meet up with houston.

the rockets toyed with chicago throughout the 90s, particularly 91-96

[played0ut]

none of the above

[SamuraiSWISH]

Easily Spurs. Fraud 1999 ring, worst NBA season since the 70s. Never won back to back. Never won over 65 games. No three peats. If MJ didn't retire, and if Krause didn't get cheap. The Bulls could've legit won 8 - 10 rings, plausibly. Clearly they dominated an entire decade. The 90's belongs to them. Spurs can't say the same for the 2000s, or the 2010s.


MJ didn't have a bad series
But not up to his normal legendary standards. Bad wind, no legs. Rusty. Please, if MJ is there the whole season developing rapport with new teammates they have a much better chance at winning. Hell they were a Luc Longely blown layup away (assist from MJ) in game 6 from taking it 7 games.

They could've won in '94 quite easily. Hell, that would've been the last season or two of MJ's physical prime. Then in '99? They could've competed for a championship as well. 8th seed Knicks went to the damn Finals.

:oldlol:

[SouBeachTalents]

Easily Spurs. Fraud 1999 ring, worst NBA season since the 70s. Never won back to back. Never won over 65 games. No three peats. If MJ didn't retire, and if Krause didn't get cheap. The Bulls could've legit won 8 - 10 rings, plausibly. Clearly they dominated an entire decade. The 90's belongs to them. Spurs can't say the same for the 2000s, or the 2010s.


But not up to his normal legendary standards. Bad wind, no legs. Rusty. Please, if MJ is there the whole season developing rapport with new teammates they have a much better chance at winning. Hell they were a Luc Longely blown layup away (assist from MJ) in game 6 from taking it 7 games.

They could've won in '94 quite easily. Hell, that would've been the last season or two of MJ's physical prime. Then in '99? They could've competed for a championship as well. 8th seed Knicks went to the damn Finals.

:oldlol:

I've always been curious about that. I think the Bulls would've had their hands full with the Pacers, who the year before pushed them as close to defeat as any other team during the dynasty, and I personally think they do lose to the Spurs

[Meticode]

None. The Bulls played legit opponents in the Finals, and the Spurs had some of the hardest conferences ever to get out of to even make it to the Finals. Sometimes the conference play was harder than the actual Finals games (ie: 2014 vs. the Heat)

[mehyaM24]

i dont know why people keep saying the bulls would "easily 8-peat" (had jordan not retired to play baseball)

honestly the rockets would have destroyed chicago. they had no answer for hakeem, who come playoff time, was ****ing unreal.

[fpliii]

But not up to his normal legendary standards. Bad wind, no legs. Rusty. Please, if MJ is there the whole season developing rapport with new teammates they have a much better chance at winning. Hell they were a Luc Longely blown layup away (assist from MJ) in game 6 from taking it 7 games.

They could've won in '94 quite easily. Hell, that would've been the last season or two of MJ's physical prime. Then in '99? They could've competed for a championship as well. 8th seed Knicks went to the damn Finals.

:oldlol:
Oh, definitely not up to his standards, but he wasn't the reason they lost. He looked pretty athletic in the playoffs that year, but got huge for the 72 win season. Even if they managed to get past Orlando, I don't think they'd beat Houston.

Agree about 94. Grant was great that year too. My one problem with 99 is the team was exhausted the year before, MJ had to carry most of the load that year. 99 was a short season anyway, that team would've been tired as hell. Would've been interesting to see for sure, but Krause was a fakkit so they never got a chance.

[SouBeachTalents]

i dont know why people keep saying the bulls would "easily 8-peat" (had jordan not retired to play baseball)

honestly the rockets would have destroyed chicago. they had no answer for hakeem, who come playoff time, was ****ing unreal.

Lol, never said "easily", but they're definitely the favorites to win in 94-95 if Jordan's playing and training all year

[SamuraiSWISH]

Agree about 94. Grant was great that year too. My one problem with 99 is the team was exhausted the year before, MJ had to carry most of the load that year. 99 was a short season anyway, that team would've been tired as hell. Would've been interesting to see for sure, but Krause was a fakkit so they never got a chance.
Knicks were old though too, and they made the Finals. While not having near the leadership, or regimentation of Jordan, Phil Jackson, or Scottie Pippen.

MJ / Pippen / Harper were the Breakfast Club. They would've stayed in shape had they been kept together, and their decade plus of rapport would've carried them past many hurdles. MJ still wanted to play that season too. He hadn't been dethroned. It was his curse to never get beat, he always had a lingering what if for even more championships.

All Krause needed to do was keep them together, try and bring some youthful depth to the bench ... they would've been golden to compete for at least 2x more seasons in 1999, and 2000.

[JellyBean]

Oh Lord. Just shut this thread down now.

[mehyaM24]

Oh Lord. Just shut this thread down now.

ish is FULL of crybabies :oldlol:

i never said the bulls or spurs werent good (in fact, i think the 2014 spurs win a handful of titles in the 90s), but that doesnt mean, as "dynasties", they werent overrated or had NO flaws.

[SouBeachTalents]

ish is FULL of crybabies :oldlol:

i never said the bulls or spurs werent good (in fact, i think the 2014 spurs win a handful of titles in the 90s), but that doesnt mean, as "dynasties", they werent overrated or had NO flaws.

What major flaws did the Bulls have? They won 6 titles and were only pushed to a Game 7 twice during that entire run

[Fork]

Bulls loose the Rockets, and I bet if you put in any other superstar in Jordan's place (i.e Lebron or Kobe) they still win 6 titles since the teams were so stacked. Especially in 96

[Marchesk]

Never won back to back.

Should have, though.

[Marchesk]

Bulls loose the Rockets, and I bet if you put in any other superstar in Jordan's place (i.e Lebron or Kobe) they still win 6 titles since the teams were so stacked. Especially in 96

Come on man. Both Kobe and Lebron have had dissapointing finals. Jordan didn't. And that Sonics series doesn't matter, because he still got FMVP, and they were up 3-0, so it wasn't in doubt.

[houston]

none both deserve props

[Duncan21formvp]

Lakers in the 80's

Here was there comp in the 80's.

81
Houston Rockets: 40-42 (*** they lost this series)

82
Phoenix Suns: 46-36
San Antonio Spurs: 48-34

83
Portland Trail Blazers: 46-36
San Antonio Spurs: 53-29

84
Kings: 38-44
Mavericks: 43-39
Suns: 41-41

85
Suns: 36-46
Blazers: 42-40
Nuggets: 52-30

86
Spurs: 35-47
Mavericks: 44-38
Rockets: 51-31 (*** they lost this series)

87
Nuggets: 37-45
Warriors: 42-40
Sonics: 39-43

88
Spurs: 31-51
Jazz: 47-35
Mavs: 53-29

[deja vu]

Bulls loose the Rockets, and I bet if you put in any other superstar in Jordan's place (i.e Lebron or Kobe) they still win 6 titles since the teams were so stacked. Especially in 96
You mean the 2/5 guy? :roll:

[Paul George 24]

bulls:
-played an injured lakers team without kareem in the finals
-jordan faced zero swingmen of note besides maybe drexler? LOL
-pippen was the second best player (perimeter) in the 90s..double LOL
-won titles during the expansion era. stacked the deck ala miami except against WORST competition
-did it all with no other super team. the 80s had the SIXERS,LAKERS,CELTICS

spurs:
-never repeated
-faced over the hill teams
-their "superstar" is more overrated than jordan (shaq,wilt,kareem,russell,hakeem are all better)
-as i mentioned, facing over the hill teams, just picking up the scraps like vultures

LAKERS IS MORE OVERRATED..............IMO

PLAYED PACERS WIHEN THEIR STARTING CENTER IS RIK SMITS,OLD MUTOMBO,AND JASON COLLINS & KMART :lol

[JellyBean]

Lakers in the 80's

Here was there comp in the 80's.

81
Houston Rockets: 40-42 (*** they lost this series)

82
Phoenix Suns: 46-36
San Antonio Spurs: 48-34

83
Portland Trail Blazers: 46-36
San Antonio Spurs: 53-29

84
Kings: 38-44
Mavericks: 43-39
Suns: 41-41

85
Suns: 36-46
Blazers: 42-40
Nuggets: 52-30

86
Spurs: 35-47
Mavericks: 44-38
Rockets: 51-31 (*** they lost this series)

87
Nuggets: 37-45
Warriors: 42-40
Sonics: 39-43

88
Spurs: 31-51
Jazz: 47-35
Mavs: 53-29

:facepalm The Lord did not hear my request to shut this thread down. :oldlol:

That 80s Laker dynasty faced some tough teams. Don't let the records fool you. It wasn't a cake walk for the Lakers. When you are facing teams like the Denver Nuggets, Spurs, and Suns all three were capable of scoring 110-125 points a night. That is not some weak competition, my friend.

[sekachu]

bulls:
-played an injured lakers team without kareem in the finals
-jordan faced zero swingmen of note besides maybe drexler? LOL
-pippen was the second best player (perimeter) in the 90s..double LOL
-won titles during the expansion era. stacked the deck ala miami except against WORST competition
-did it all with no other super team. the 80s had the SIXERS,LAKERS,CELTICS

spurs:
-never repeated
-faced over the hill teams
-their "superstar" is more overrated than jordan (shaq,wilt,kareem,russell,hakeem are all better)
-as i mentioned, facing over the hill teams, just picking up the scraps like vultures




Sound like you are damn bitter after the heat lost. Talk about weak era. All the things you listed above could be applied on heat too. Weakest east ever, no superstar in the east. Colluded with the second best player wade and so on.......:lol

[PickernRoller]

The Spurs were never a dynasty. The assumption this thread is based off from the get-go is wrong.

[TheMan]

We're really now entertaining idiotic arguments about "dynasties being overrated"? Really scraping the bottom of the barrell with absolute morons like the OP.


:applause:

OP putting in dat work to be ISH shittiest poster.

[BlackVVaves]

Spurs have won 50 games every season except the lockout year for 14 straight years. But, somehow they're overrated.

The Bulls of the 90s won 6 championships in one decade. But, somehow they're overrated.

Hey OP, what team do you support? Because I'm sure as hell we can all nitpick and ridicule that franchise in quintessential troll fashion to illustrate how overrated they are.

[BlackVVaves]

The Spurs were never a dynasty. The assumption this thread is based off from the get-go is wrong.

Who made up the subjective rule that you're only a dynasty if your championships are in concession?

So, the 80s Celtics weren't a dynasty right?