Did Jordan ever face a team in the Finals as good as the '06-07 Spurs?

[teflon don]

On the fringe of Game 2, I want everyone's opinion on this question.

Should be a good thread.

[LakerWarrior12]

YES HE DID! HE FACED 5 STRONG TEAMS EXLUDING THE LAKERS!!!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :mad:

And he did that with a good supporting cast, a better supporting cast than those awful Cavs.

[White Chocolate]

As far as Finals teams, the 1997 and 1998 Jazz were better.

Non-Finals teams, the 1988-1990 Pistons, the 1992 and 1993 Knicks, the 1996 Sonics, the 1997 Heat and 1998 Pacers.

[Cannonball]

Add to the fact of jordans superb cast.

[teflon don]

As far as Finals teams, the 1997 and 1998 Jazz were better.

Non-Finals teams, the 1988-1990 Pistons, the 1992 and 1993 Knicks, the 1996 Sonics, the 1997 Heat and 1998 Pacers.
All those teams better than this year's Spur team and a Barkley led Suns squad?

I think you're reaching....severely.

[melvinthompson]

As far as Finals teams, the 1997 and 1998 Jazz were better.

Non-Finals teams, the 1988-1990 Pistons, the 1992 and 1993 Knicks, the 1996 Sonics, the 1997 Heat and 1998 Pacers.

I wouldn't say Pacers or Heat, but those Knicks teams were legit. Imagine all the flopping the Spurs could do against those teams. Oakley would have murdered Ginobili.

[White Chocolate]

All those teams better than a Barkley led Suns squad?

I think you're reaching.


I didn't name all the teams. I'll give some more:


The 1993 Suns, the 1995-1996 Magic. Any others?

[teflon don]

I didn't name all the teams. I'll give some more:


The 1993 Suns, the 1995-1996 Magic. Any others?
WTF?

Are these all shock posts?

[ConanRulesNBC]

Is this a joke? Jordan played against the Lakers, Blazers, Suns, Sonics and Jazz. I think almost all of those teams would beat this Spurs team easily.

[Loki]

The '93 Suns, '92/'93 Knicks, '96 Sonics, '97/'98 Jazz, and '98 Pacers were all comparable to the Spurs. Hard to say who's "better" because the Spurs are playing against different comp. team-wise. I don't think there are as many solid teams in the league as there used to be -- teams that played team ball, played good defense, and were tough mentally (biggest point imo).

I'd even put the Blazers up there, but they weren't all together mentally (similar to how we saw Detroit -- a clearly superior team -- fall apart from a lack of leadership this year). And of course the '89/'90 Pistons were better, but Chicago didn't beat them.

[White Chocolate]

WTF?

Are these all shock posts?


Where is the shock? Loki agrees with it and I'm sure others would as well.

[Fatal9]

What exactly have the Spurs proven in these playoffs? That they can beat the Nuggets, Jazz and Cavs...all of whom were never contenders in the first place? Notice I didn't include the Suns, needing suspensions to beat a team doesn't prove anything. I am sorry, but I am not impressed by this Spurs team when they have yet to beat a single "great" team fairly.

[Poseidon]

91 Lakers, 92 Blazers, 93 Suns, 96 Sonics....all BETTER teams than the 2007 Spurs.

[RIP CITY]

I think there were a few teams that the Bulls faced in the Playoffs over Jordan's career that were better than this Spurs team, but the Spurs would give some of those Bulls teams a run.

[WADE MONEY]

WTF?

Are these all shock posts?

:roll: at the new guy trying to act knowledgeable

[Richie2k6]

97' Jazz > 07 Spurs.

[Rockets(T-mac)]

Ofcourse there were teams better. The Spurs were better in 2005 any way.

[White Chocolate]

97' Jazz > 07 Spurs.


'98 Jazz> '07 Spurs.

[Poseidon]

'98 Jazz> '07 Spurs.

I disagree. I'll take this Spurs team over those Jazz teams (but not by much).

[White Chocolate]

I disagree. I'll take this Spurs team over those Jazz teams (but not by much).


The Jazz were tied for the best record in the league that year. I can't see the Spurs being better than them.

[Dizzle-2k7]

:lol:

the only team that would give the spurs trouble are the sonics with kemp/payton. payton would probably own parker and kemp was unstoppable. however, spurs would still take it in 6.

those knicks squads just werent professional enough to be champions, and theres no way they beat these spurs in 7.

pacers match up well in the front court, but their backcourt defense lacked, and the spurs would take it in 6.

much love to the jazz, but even they would fall to this current spurs squad.

bottom line is that tim duncan is just too good for anybody. tony parker is playing championship basketball and so is everyone else. this team has incredible chemistry on both sides of the ball ,something that hasnt been seen by too many teams.

ISH = 99% FOOLS :banghead:

[Loki]

Here's a question I'd like to ask:

When did the 2007 Spurs become so overrated? :confusedshrug:

Don't get me wrong, they're a great team, but they won 58 games (not 65+), they've gone 14-4 in the postseason, and the best team they've defeated to get to the Finals is known as a perennial playoff disappearer (Phoenix).


Someone tell me when and how the '07 Spurs have come to be looked at as some all-time level team?

[Dizzle-2k7]

The Jazz were tied for the best record in the league that year. I can't see the Spurs being better than them.

the west back then was mute compared to the west now.

[BlackMoses]

I'll take the Spurs of today over the Jazz of the late 90's. Malone was the master of vanishing when it mattered, while the Spurs have plenty of guys who can step up in the clutch.

[Dizzle-2k7]

Here's a question I'd like to ask:

When did the 2007 Spurs become so overrated? :confusedshrug:

Don't get me wrong, they're a great team, but they won 58 games (not 65+), they've gone 14-4 in the postseason, and the best team they've defeated to get to the Finals is known as a perennial playoff disappearer (Phoenix).


Someone tell me when and how the '07 Spurs have come to be looked at as some all-time level team?

are you serious?

there were 5 possible finals teams in the west alone : suns, spurs, mavs, rockets, and nuggets.

the west is the toughest conference OF ALL TIME. i havent heard one person say the spurs are the best team ever, but only a fool could say theyre not one of the all time great teams in history.

4 rings is magical, pokey, yet you call them overrated? stick to kobe topics cuz you're brainless in everything else. :no:

[Dizzle-2k7]

lets not forget the fact that the entire spurs organization is on cruise control for the regular season.

the spurs are built for championships.

[Loki]

the west back then was mute compared to the west now.

1998 West:

Jazz 62 wins
Lakers 61 wins
Sonics 61 wins
Spurs 56 wins
Suns 56 wins
Blazers 46 wins
Wolves 45 wins
Rockets 41 wins

Average: 53.5 wins


2007 West:

Mavericks 67 wins
Suns 61 wins
Spurs 58 wins
Rockets 52 wins
Jazz 51 wins
Nuggets 45 wins
Warriors 42 wins
Lakers 42 wins

Average: 52.3 wins

[Dizzle-2k7]

great you showed me some numbers. does that prove anything? not really.

[Loki]

are you serious?

there were 5 possible finals teams in the west alone : suns, spurs, mavs, rockets, and nuggets.

the west is the toughest conference OF ALL TIME.

As I've just shown, it's not even the toughest Western Conference of the last 10 years, let alone all time. :oldlol:

[Loki]

great you showed me some numbers. does that prove anything? not really.

Sure, numbers don't mean anything ever. Not when it comes to Kobe "numbers don't matter" Bryant, and apparently not when it comes to any other of your bogus claims, either. :oldlol:

[ConanRulesNBC]

This Spurs team wouldn't stand a chance against any of the Bulls championship teams. It would be a sweep.

Bruce Bowen guarding Michael Jordan? Jordan would score about 30+ PPG. Who would be able to defend Scottie Pippen? I'm not saying that Tim Duncan wouldn't have some good games but Rodman would do a great job defending him.

If you put this Spurs team back in the '90s against some of the western conference teams like the Rockets with Hakeem, Jazz with Stockton & Malone, Sonics with Payton & Kemp this Spurs team wouldn't even make it to the NBA finals.

[Fatal9]

When did the 2007 Spurs become so overrated? :confusedshrug:


I asked the exact same question earlier...no responses from any Spur fans so far. They have proven absolutely nothing so far except that they can beat non-contending/inexperienced teams. As for the Suns, the Spurs needed suspensions to win a pivotal game 5 against them (took away homecourt and made the Suns face elimination), imo Suns had the advantage in the series before the suspensions occurred (2-2, and 2 of last 3 games are at home). Like you mentioned, they didn't even have that great a record in the regular season, only third best in the league.

[DCL]

the spurs beat a mediocre denver team, an undermanned phoenix team disrupted by almighty stern, and a jazz team that wasn't even in the playoffs last year! their road to the finals wasn't exactly historic. i'm with loki. when did the spurs become so overrated, as if they were one of the greatest teams ever? some of you don't obviously don't have much basketball history in your minds if you're so easily wowed or shaking your heads in total disbelief at the spurs like they're one of the most unbeatable teams of all time.

[ConanRulesNBC]

The Spurs are a very good team but they just wouldn't stand a chance against the top teams of the '80s and '90s.

[Dizzle-2k7]

the spurs are the only reasons the lakers dont have 5 consecutive championships.

bulls sweep the spurs? puhlease.

whos gonna stop tony parker?

of course jordan would get his, but whos to say bowen and the spurs INCREDIBLE help defense dont contain him? did the bulls ever face a team with a defending big as great as duncan? heck no. and with rodmans offensive skills, duncan would be roaming like crazy to help defend jordan.

if you think the bulls would win in a 7 game series, so be it. but to say its a sweep is just dumb.

[Noob Saibot]

Michael Jordan's Bulls could handle Tim Duncan's Spurs (unless w/ David Robinson) no problem.

might be a sweep (unless you add David Robinson).

[Loki]

the spurs beat a mediocre denver team, an undermanned phoenix team disrupted by almighty stern, and a jazz team that wasn't even in the playoffs last year! their road to the finals wasn't exactly historic. i'm with loki. when did the spurs become so overrated, as if they were one of the greatest teams ever? some of you don't obviously don't have much basketball history in your minds if you're so easily wowed or shaking your heads in total disbelief at the spurs like they're one of the most unbeatable teams of all time.

To be clear, I'm speaking of this specific iteration of the Spurs, not any of their other teams over the last 7-8 seasons.

[ConanRulesNBC]

the spurs are the only reasons the lakers dont have 5 consecutive championships.

bulls sweep the spurs? puhlease.

whos gonna stop tony parker?

of course jordan would get his, but whos to say bowen and the spurs INCREDIBLE help defense dont contain him? did the bulls ever face a team with a defending big as great as duncan? heck no. and with rodmans offensive skills, duncan would be roaming like crazy to help defend jordan.

if you think the bulls would win in a 7 game series, so be it. but to say its a sweep is just dumb.

Jordan could stop Tony Parker. This Spurs defense would contain Jordan? LMAO!! Jordan would score 30+ PPG easily against this Spurs team. Pippen wuld add another 20-30 PPG. And like I said Duncan would have some good games but Rodman was a terrific defender who was used to going up against big guys and even used to guard Shaq. Duncan wouldn't be going off and scoring 30-40 PPG against Dennis Rodman.

Bulls would sweep the Spurs. It wouldn't even be a fair matchup. Also, don't forget that the Bulls have Ron Harper in their starting lineup and they have Toni Kukoc and Steve Kerr coming off the bench.

And the Bulls went through many teams with hall of fame big men. They defeated teams like the Knicks with Ewing, Magic with Shaq, Jazz with Karl Malone, etc.

[Noob Saibot]

whos gonna stop tony parker?

Scottie Pippen buddy.

[Dizzle-2k7]

i couldve sworn jordan only averaged 24-25 ppg against the sonics great defensive efforts..

and guess what? this current spurs squad is better then the sonics. so how can you assume jordan averages 30+ ppg?

:roll: jordan or pippen guarding tony parker? not happening, buddy. not if the bulls are serious about winning in 7.

[Loki]

i couldve sworn jordan only averaged 24-25 ppg against the sonics great defensive efforts..

and guess what? this current spurs squad is better then the sonics. so how can you assume jordan averages 30+ ppg?

:roll: jordan or pippen guarding tony parker? not happening, buddy. not if the bulls are serious about winning in 7.

Those Sonics had Gary Payton, who was a better defender than Bruce Bowen by a good margin; They had fantastic rotations on the perimeter; they played an aggressive trapping style to get the ball out of Jordan's hands and swarm him all over the floor (that's not SA's style); and they played physical ball that is not allowed to be played today (due to handchecking/contact rules) against him.

And Jordan averaged 27.3 ppg, but it was on poor (for him) shooting. Some of that was the defense being played, but a lot of it wasn't, but that's a topic for another thread.

[beau_boy04]

For those trying to compare the 07 Spurs to the 96 Bulls please forget about it. There's 2 words - Dennis Rodman. You take out Tim Duncan and the Spurts are in trouble. In addition to that you have MJ and Pip attacking the wing and disrupting the lanes. Bulls in 5 or 6 games.

Book it.

[Noob Saibot]

jordan or pippen guarding tony parker? not happening, buddy. not if the bulls are serious about winning in 7.

Tony Parker ain't no Gary Payton or John Stockton. nothing to be concerned about if i was Michael or Scottie.

Duncan is the Spurs totem pole, but the Bulls got 7'2" Luc Longley and "The rebound King" Dennis Rodman will steal all the rebounds away from the Spurs.

If Ginobili doesn't play well. The Spurs without Robinson have no shot of beating the Bulls in 7.

[ConanRulesNBC]

I just can't believe people really think the Spurs would win even one game against the Bulls.

[Y2Gezee]

Im sure the Spurs would "stand a chance" vs the best of the 90's, but I'd take pretty much every team the Bulls ever faced in the finals. Except maybe the Blazers and Lakers. Lakers due mainly due to the injuries to Worthy.

99 Spurs I think would be a better test due to them having Duncan and Robinson producing at a allstar level.

[JtotheIzzo]

match ups at times would be fabulous:

Bowen on Jordan would be interesting as would Manu on Pippen.

Duncan would be fun to watch going against Worm too.

I think the Bulls would win because Pippen and Jordan could keep Tony Parker out of the middle and frustrate him with their length.

The only hope for the Spurs would be big production from the bench and a huge series from Michael Finley.

Bulls in Six

[ConanRulesNBC]

Wow, this Spurs team really is overrated. You really think it would go to 6 games?

[JtotheIzzo]

Wow, this Spurs team really is overrated. You really think it would go to 6 games?


I think the Spurs are better than the '98 Jazz,a nd they went six, so yeah, six games easy.

[EuJazz]

Jordan himself said that the Jazz were the toughest team of any of his titles. The second of the Jazz teams, that is. I'd take them still > the '07 Spurs, maybe it's a bias, but it's definitely arguable.

[eeeeeebro]

serious note i think 07 - 08 spurs > 1991 bulls but bulls with rodman > spurs and even 1991 would arguably have to be a grinded out series to tell if spurs won or not so we wont know but i definately know rodman would effect duncan some how

[el_locoteee]

All those teams better than this year's Spur team and a Barkley led Suns squad?

I think you're reaching....severely.


You forgot Kevin Johnson and Dan Majerle combination > Paker Ginobili combination.

And I know Barkley never won anything but he was a beast, Prime Brakley > Duncan

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHO/1993.html

[JtotheIzzo]

You forgot Kevin Johnson and Dan Majerle combination > Paker Ginobili combination.

And I know Barkley never won anything but he was a beast, Prime Brakley > Duncan

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHO/1993.html

Barkley's my fave player all time, but this one is tough

and Manu would own Thunder Dan, but KJ would beat up Parker. Taht Suns team was the best team the Bulls beat IMO though so I wont argue with you too hard.

[el_locoteee]

Barkley's my fave player all time, but this one is tough

and Manu would own Thunder Dan, but KJ would beat up Parker. Taht Suns team was the best team the Bulls beat IMO though so I wont argue with you too hard.

Im talking about the combination the results of KJ a Dan give better results than Ginabili, Parker combination.

And Prime barkley better than prime Duncan but overoll Duncan puts consistents numbers and got the results, Brakley decide to eat Donut instead.

This is why Jordan won (Sorry bowen you cant defend that)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74Evzj9f3jc

Sorry you dont going to see this in Lebron, not this Lebron maybe in the future.

[BlackMoses]

The Spurs would give the Bulls a lot of problems.

The backcourt would be in favor of the Bulls, but they wouldn't shut down the Spurs at all.

The Spurs would own the front court.

Horry gives the Spurs a big advantage because of his ability to space the floor and knock down the three. Who's going to guard him???? If the Bulls put a small on him, he can post up. With all the space, Duncan is isolated on Rodman. Rodman would be in foul trouble very quickly.

The Bulls don't have any offense coming form the front court which would allow Duncan to roam and help on MJ. Manu would be drawing a few charges from Pippen and Jordan's rentless drives.

Honestly, this Spurs team is better than just about anyone Michael faced. It would be a tough series, with both teams taking their games at home. I think the series goes at least 6-7 games, with the Bulls taking it in the end. If the Spurs had Robert Horry from a few years back, then the Spurs would win.

[SCdac]

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/7593/bowenonjordangq3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Bowen on (prime) Jordan would be a site to see!... this picture obviously isn't that, but worth posting either way.

As for the Spurs, I'll take them being "overrated". If the best team in the league is overrated, then imagine how bad some of these other "great" teams right now would be against the best teams of the 80's and 90's. It's laughable. I'd like to think if a couple of teams in the league had a chance against the best 80's/90's teams, the Spurs would be high on, or on top of, the list. Not a bad thing at all imo. The Spurs have remained constant contenders for almost a decade, being overrated in terms of "all time greatest teams" isn't the worst that could happen. Try making an argument for the '07 Suns or Mavs against the better teams of the 90's. :oldlol:

Personally, I don't think the Spurs would be thoroughly "dominated" by those teams. Beaten in 5 or 6, most likely, but not quite dominated. Physical basketball isn't absent from their repertoire, so I don't see that being their biggest weakness. They're pretty deep, and if big men where more of a necessity back then, they have a handful of them (Duncan, Elson, Oberto, Horry, Butler, Ely, Bonner), albeit most are average - at best. There's so many variables to a series/matchup though. I do find it interesting that in the majority of posts in this thread, nobody has brought up any matchups, or mentioned any players/rosters other than Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Malone, Stockton, Payton and other perenial "all-stars". I didn't know NBA basketball was a game of 3 on 3. Nobody has mentioned Gregg Popovich either. In terms of this thread, I think he's being underrated. Solid, defensive-minded, coach who will get on a teams' ass even when they're winning. If there's one guy I'd want going up against the then-Jacksons and Rileys, it'd be Popovich.

[SCdac]

The Spurs would give the Bulls a lot of problems.

The backcourt would be in favor of the Bulls, but they wouldn't shut down the Spurs at all.

The Spurs would own the front court.

Horry gives the Spurs a big advantage because of his ability to space the floor and knock down the three. Who's going to guard him???? If the Bulls put a small on him, he can post up. With all the space, Duncan is isolated on Rodman. Rodman would be in foul trouble very quickly.

The Bulls don't have any offense coming form the front court which would allow Duncan to roam and help on MJ. Manu would be drawing a few charges from Pippen and Jordan's rentless drives.

Honestly, this Spurs team is better than just about anyone Michael faced. It would be a tough series, with both teams taking their games at home. I think the series goes at least 6-7 games, with the Bulls taking it in the end. If the Spurs had Robert Horry from a few years back, then the Spurs would win.

I like the way you think!

Also, about the part in bold. It made me think. Who would have more of an advantage in the game, if it was played in today's game, or in the 90's. Like I said in my above post, I don't think the Spurs have trouble playing tough defense and offense (both physically and mentally). It would be very interesting to watch Jordan/Pippen/Rodman playing in todays game of ticky tack fouls. Would also be interesting to watch Duncan/Horry/Bowen playing together in a more aggressive era, with Popovich steering the ship.

[lovethetriangle]

The '93 Suns, '92/'93 Knicks, '96 Sonics, '97/'98 Jazz, and '98 Pacers were all comparable to the Spurs. Hard to say who's "better" because the Spurs are playing against different comp. team-wise. I don't think there are as many solid teams in the league as there used to be -- teams that played team ball, played good defense, and were tough mentally (biggest point imo).

I'd even put the Blazers up there, but they weren't all together mentally (similar to how we saw Detroit -- a clearly superior team -- fall apart from a lack of leadership this year). And of course the '89/'90 Pistons were better, but Chicago didn't beat them.


Thread should've ended here.

[gigantes]

of course he did. what kind of dumbass question is this?

are you drunk?

[Y2Gezee]

I don't see how Bowen guarding Jordan is that big of a site to see. He couldn't **** with him one on one, much like he can't now, and help would have to come. As MJ still drops 30 on 48+%. Manu couldn't **** with Pippen one on one, and Pippen would slow down or stop either Parker or Manu and Jordan the other. The Worm would make Duncan atleast work, aswell as the doubles they threw at him.

The Spurs would compete due to their total team D, but still. 6 at best.

[SCdac]

I don't see how Bowen guarding Jordan is that big of a site to see. He couldn't **** with him one on one, much like he can't now, and help would have to come. As MJ still drops 30 on 48+%. Manu couldn't **** with Pippen one on one, and Pippen would slow down or stop either Parker or Manu and Jordan the other. The Worm would make Duncan atleast work, aswell as the doubles they threw at him.

The Spurs would compete due to their total team D, but still. 6 at best.

That's part of the reason I'd like to see it. There's no way Bowen is stopping Jordan, but I'd love to see him try. Bruce would do his best to frustrate him and get him out of his zone for sure (much like in the picture I posted up). It would be one of the best perimeter defenders today vs. arguably the best basketball player ever. Would be a good head-to-head battle in my opinion. More so than, say, Bowen vs. Anthony/Bryant/James/Wade, etc. And on the flipside, I'd rather watch Jordan guarded by Bowen, rather than Bell/Artest/Battier/etc. Something about Bowen, with his pesky defense, just gets under a player's skin. Would Jordan be able to keep his cool? Would he get physical on the defensive end too? etc. Alot of controversy surrounding Bowen, not exactly a low-profile player.

[beau_boy04]

That's part of the reason I'd like to see it. There's no way Bowen is stopping Jordan, but I'd love to see him try. Bruce would do his best to frustrate him and get him out of his zone for sure (much like in the picture I posted up). It would be one of the best perimeter defenders today vs. arguably the best basketball player ever. Would be a good head-to-head battle in my opinion. More so than, say, Bowen vs. Anthony/Bryant/James/Wade, etc. And on the flipside, I'd rather watch Jordan guarded by Bowen, rather than Bell/Artest/Battier/etc. Something about Bowen, with his pesky defense, just gets under a player's skin. Would Jordan be able to keep his cool? Would he get physical on the defensive end too? etc. Alot of controversy surrounding Bowen, not exactly a low-profile player.


I can't believe we guessing about MJ (GOAT, All NBA Team, 1st Def Team, mentally strong, clutch, etc) to someone who is one dimensional Bowen. Instead of wondering how bad Jordan would looked being compared by Bowen, just imagine how quick Bowen will pick up those 2 fouls in the first quarter and foul out in the game in early in the 4th quarter. There is no stopping Jordan! :bowdown: just ask Payton and Joe Dumars.

We also have to take in consideration that MJ and Pippen were 2 of the cockiest players in the league. Just ask Patrick Ewing about it when PIppen dunked over him. Manu and Parker would be so intimidated its not even funny.

You put Manu, Bowen, and Parker all abilities together and you still fall short of what Pippen was. Please don't double guess MJ/Pip again.

What do Patrick Ewing, Charles Barkley, Reggie Miller, Gary Payton, Shawn Kemp, Karl Malone, John Stockton all have in common? they got no rings to show thanks to Mr. Jordan yes he is the GOAT.

This thread is a joke.

[SCdac]

I can't believe we guessing about MJ (GOAT, All NBA Team, 1st Def Team, mentally strong, clutch, etc) to someone who is one dimensional Bowen.

First, you act like I'm comparing the two players. Why, I don't know. Second, how exactly does that make him a worse defender? Whatever energy he saves on the offensive end carries over. He's a defensive specialist, you know?...

As for the rest of your post, I have no idea what you're on about. I didn't beat up Jordan's kid man, don't freak out. :confusedshrug:

[WoGiTaLiA1]

I am sorry, but I am not impressed by this Spurs team when they have yet to beat a single "great" team fairly.

The Spurs are the only "great" team in the league at the moment. Not their fault that there is a lack of competition, they are doing exactly what they should, they are taking advantage of the inferior teams.

Jordan has had playoffs where all 4 teams he faced were as good as these Spurs. I mean the Jazz were probably the weakest team they faced and they were better at every position but the 4 and even thats close. I mean they were better at center, as good at SF, better at SG and it's not even close at PG.

[bekalc]

Jordan himself said that the Jazz were the toughest team of any of his titles. The second of the Jazz teams, that is. I'd take them still > the '07 Spurs, maybe it's a bias, but it's definitely arguable.
I disagree with you the Jazz were not better than the Spurs. And you know who else shares my opinion? Jerry Sloan. He said this Spurs team is better than his Jazz, and he would know.

I actually think that the Bulls would have a hard time with the Spurs. (Yes, this Spurs.) I'm not saying that I think the Spurs would win a series, but I think the Bulls would have a hard time.

People keep on saying well Dennis Rodman would stop Duncan.. Please. Duncan would tower over Rodman and would eat him for breakfeast. Rodman would get into quick foul trouble. The real fact is that the Bulls never really had to face a team with a dominant big man.

(Yes, they had to face Patrick Ewing. But I always felt Patrick was a bit overrated, I don't think he's the potentional scoring monster Duncan was).

[KWALI]

There is some crack being passed around right now....NO WAY were the JAZZ Finals teams a better match-up for the BULLS than this SPURS team...the JAZZ had NO CHANCE of beating the Bulls becuz of the way the team is structured...You need a speedster at PG to beat the bulls and a guy who can dominate the inside...the JAzz had neither. They relied on precision execution more than anything else and the Bulls were a finesse defensive team they were uniquely designed to deal with execution driven offense like the JAzz

The Best team the BULLS beat for a ring considering health/personel/style of play etc was the SONICS.....
The guy saying the BUlls never beat a dominating big man they beat Kemp scorin like 40 a game so yes they did.

Ewing's knees were pretty ****ed up and he liked his face J as much as anything so he didn't go to work as much as he maybe should but the KNIDKs weren't well balanced teams...Riley's fault.


PHX was really good but KJ not being full strength meant the BUlls avoided the PHX's best. It's happens but it was a greater factor than any BUlls injury.

BLazers were the most talented top to bottom but they lacked the BBALL knowledge etc to get it donw against MJ and PIPP who just understood teh game alot better than Terry and Drexler.

[Loki]

The real fact is that the Bulls never really had to face a team with a dominant big man.

They beat Ewing three times, swept Shaq, beat Malone twice, beat Barkley, beat Mourning twice, and had an excellent regular season record vs. Houston (5-1) and SA (6-0) during the second three-peat. Who else were they supposed to beat? They beat whoever was in front of them.

[WoGiTaLiA1]

People keep on saying well Dennis Rodman would stop Duncan.. Please. Duncan would tower over Rodman and would eat him for breakfeast. Rodman would get into quick foul trouble. The real fact is that the Bulls never really had to face a team with a dominant big man.

This is the same Rodman that defended Shaq better than anyone in the NBA? The same guy who defended Hakeem and Ewing as well as anyone in the league? Bulls had to beat Barkley, Malone, Ewing, Mourning, Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson and Kemp. Duncan is better than a couple of those guys and on the same level or below the others. The Bulls beat anyone and Rodman and Pippen in particular could guard anyone.

Spurs would struggle, they might win a game or 2 but not a series. Bulls are better at C, SF and SG and they neutralize both PF and PG. That is why they were great. Every night they played they knew they had the best SF and SG on the court and that Rodman would neutralize any PF or C.

[Dizzle-2k7]

it takes more than a 2 man team to beat this current spurs team.

spurs are too deep, too solid all around and too consistent. they have an outstanding coach and incredible chemistry.

outside of jordan and pippen, who else steps up? ron harper? not likely. tony parker eats him up baaaaad.

someone mentioned steve kerr? he might influence the outcome in 1 game, but thats about it. same with kukoc.

spurs got an unguardable PG, a great slasher (gino) and a handful of 3pt threats..

oh yea lets not forget the greatest PF of all time.

[EricForman]

it takes more than a 2 man team to beat this current spurs team.

spurs are too deep, too solid all around and too consistent. they have an outstanding coach and incredible chemistry.

outside of jordan and pippen, who else steps up? ron harper? not likely. tony parker eats him up baaaaad.

someone mentioned steve kerr? he might influence the outcome in 1 game, but thats about it. same with kukoc.

spurs got an unguardable PG, a great slasher (gino) and a handful of 3pt threats..

oh yea lets not forget the greatest PF of all time.

Kukoc, Harper and Rodman are above average players, it's not a "two man team" (although I will say Jordan does have a "weaker cast" than Magic, Bird, Wilt, Kareem, Russell all did when they won their rings).

You really think Tony Parker would be unstoppable against the Bulls? Since when did tony Parker become a superstar? Because thats what you're trying to paint him as. Damn people climb on Parkers nuts fast. Parker's playoffs isn't even as good as Deron Williams, Baron Davis, or Steve Nash's postseason was... now you guys think the Bulls would have no answer, what so ever, for him?

You mention Duncan as the GOAT PF as if that's gonna make a strong case of Spurs over Bulls.... the Bulls have the GOAT PLAYER, period. Not GOAT <insert one position here>, but the GOAT OF EVERY POSITION.

[Dizzle-2k7]

nobody has been able to stop tony parker.

jordan can be contained. the sonics did it. theres no doubt that these spurs could do it ,too.

[EricForman]

nobody has been able to stop tony parker.

jordan can be contained. the sonics did it. theres no doubt that these spurs could do it ,too.

Wow, are you implying Parker is more unstoppable than Jordan? Seriously. Read that again... "NOBODY has been able to stop Tony Parker, Jordan can be contained".

By the way, nobody has been able to stop Tony Parker? Why was he sitting on the bench during 4th quarters/crucial stretches of both his NBA finals? in 03, Speedy Claxton played crunchtime minutes, in 05, Brent Barry and Manu took turns playing point in the 4th quarter. Tony Parker was on the bench in the final stretch of BOTH game 6 the Spurs clinched their title.

Tony Parker has never been stopped, really?

Read what you're writing, guy. You make Tony Parker sound like the most "unstoppable force" in the league over everyone else.

You don't think the Bulls ever faced a PG as good as Parker during their run? Wanna know a secret? John Stockton and Gary Payton were better than Tony Parker, by far. And they played--and lost-- against the Bulls.


jordan can be contained. the sonics did it. theres no doubt that these spurs could do it ,too.

The Spurs went back in time and brought back a 1996 Gary Payton (best defensive guard ever)? I didn't know that.

[Mathius]

Is this thread still going on? Are people trying to say that Duncan/Parker is better than Malone/Stockton? Give me a break.

Duncan might have the skills of Malone, but he'll never be as strong, and there's no way Parker=Stockton in any way, shape, or form.

The rest of the Spurs personnel works because of execution, not because of any great number of skills. Most of the players are way past their prime, and they work because they understand the game.

Hornacek was better than Manu by far. Bryon Russell in his prime, was better than an aging Michael Finley OR Robert Horry or whoever the spurs decide to plug into SF at any given time. Anybody the Jazz plugged into the center spot was at least as good as Oberto/Elson

And that's just the last championship team Jordan went against.

Mathius

[EricForman]

Is this thread still going on? Are people trying to say that Duncan/Parker is better than Malone/Stockton? Give me a break.


according to the genius Dizzle 2k7, Tony Parker is more unstoppable than Jordan too. Or at least that's how it came out with his last post.

[JtotheIzzo]

The Spurs are the only "great" team in the league at the moment. Not their fault that there is a lack of competition, they are doing exactly what they should, they are taking advantage of the inferior teams.

Jordan has had playoffs where all 4 teams he faced were as good as these Spurs. I mean the Jazz were probably the weakest team they faced and they were better at every position but the 4 and even thats close. I mean they were better at center, as good at SF, better at SG and it's not even close at PG.


Manu is better than any jazz player not named Stockton or Malone

[Loki]

nobody has been able to stop tony parker.

jordan can be contained. the sonics did it. theres no doubt that these spurs could do it ,too.

And what do you think, Duncan would average 30/15 vs. Chicago or something? :oldlol: Dude averaged 26.8/13.6 reb against the Phoenix Suns, for crying out loud. Yet you're acting like he'd do better than that against one of the GOAT PF defenders (Rodman), the two best post-doublers from the weak and strong sides in the past 15 years (Jordan/Pippen), and one of the 3 or 4 best team defenses of the past 15 years.

No.

[r32soul]

i will say that it is an interesting matchup.. especiall the 96-98 Bulls teams..

Rodman v. Duncan - This is classic matchup. One of the best defensive PF to ever play the game, against one of the best offensive PF to ever play the game. Duncan will probably still get 20+pts, 12+ reb, 2+ blks a game, but Rodman will make sure he works for it.

Bowen v. Jordan - Again a classic matchup. I think Bowen can make Jordan work to a certain extent, but Jordan just have too many moves. The one thing that Bowen is great at is keeping the defender in front of him, however, Jordan will just post Bowen up and just do his patent fadeaway all game.

Pippen v. Ginobilli, Parker - Pippen will have a hard time keeping up with both players especially Parker, but the length of Pippen will make both player take a lot of tough shots.

With all the said, the X-factor remains to be the role players. Both team have excellent shooters, clutch shooters, good defensive role players.

Horry, Finley, Barry, Oberto v. Kerr, Wennington, Kukoc, Harper.

So who wins the series.. I think it can be a tough 7 game series, with Bulls winning it. I mean when you look at player for player, it's as even as it can get. However, looking at the game itself, you know that whoever win the games will win it in the last two minutes. And there's no one I know is better in the last two minutes than MJ himself.

[EricForman]

Dude, I dont even care who would win the series, I just want Dizzle to explain how he came to the conclusion that Tony Parker is more unstoppable than Jordan in his last post.

[MaxFly]

The Spurs are the only "great" team in the league at the moment. Not their fault that there is a lack of competition, they are doing exactly what they should, they are taking advantage of the inferior teams.

Jordan has had playoffs where all 4 teams he faced were as good as these Spurs. I mean the Jazz were probably the weakest team they faced and they were better at every position but the 4 and even thats close. I mean they were better at center, as good at SF, better at SG and it's not even close at PG.

If that is the case, the Spurs would really suck, being compared to 6th, 7th and 8th seeds of the past. We're basically saying that this Spurs team could have been a 6th, 7th and 8th seed out east at certain points during the 90s. :confusedshrug:

Also, I've personally abstained from making position by position comparisons when it comes to the Spurs. Their strength tends to be team play, playing as a cohesive unit. With them, it's not so much about how a certain player matches up with another player, but rather how the team matches up and which weaknesses they can exploit.

[Loki]

Also, I've personally abstained from making position by position comparisons when it comes to the Spurs. Their strength tends to be team play, playing as a cohesive unit. With them, it's not so much about how a certain player matches up with another player, but rather how the team matches up and which weaknesses they can exploit.

Just as it was for the Bulls despite Jordan's alpha dog status on the team. The Bulls were a better team than San Antonio. People are talking matchups because teamwork isn't quantifiable, and because of foolish statements by Drizzle.


The Spurs -- and, more specifically, Tim Duncan -- are quickly becoming the most overrated thing around.

[Mathius]

Manu is better than any jazz player not named Stockton or Malone

Uhm. No. Hornacek was better, and B. Russell probably was for at least a season or two.

Mathius

[Nero]

There is some crack being passed around right now....NO WAY were the JAZZ Finals teams a better match-up for the BULLS than this SPURS team...the JAZZ had NO CHANCE of beating the Bulls becuz of the way the team is structured...You need a speedster at PG to beat the bulls and a guy who can dominate the inside...the JAzz had neither. They relied on precision execution more than anything else and the Bulls were a finesse defensive team they were uniquely designed to deal with execution driven offense like the JAzz

The Best team the BULLS beat for a ring considering health/personel/style of play etc was the SONICS.....
The guy saying the BUlls never beat a dominating big man they beat Kemp scorin like 40 a game so yes they did.

Ewing's knees were pretty ****ed up and he liked his face J as much as anything so he didn't go to work as much as he maybe should but the KNIDKs weren't well balanced teams...Riley's fault.


PHX was really good but KJ not being full strength meant the BUlls avoided the PHX's best. It's happens but it was a greater factor than any BUlls injury.

BLazers were the most talented top to bottom but they lacked the BBALL knowledge etc to get it donw against MJ and PIPP who just understood teh game alot better than Terry and Drexler.


Good post.

Just to add a little. A better example of a team with a big man the bulls beat were Shaq's Magic. He went off on them but they still managed to win. He played a lot more like TD than Kemp. Kemp was more of a Amare type player. Great finisher with a nice midrange J. Ewing was nothing but a long range set shooter during the Bulls 3rdpeat -- not sure about the first. I think TD would eat Rodman alive, not to mention the other slow bigs -- luc longley, wennington. He'd have 6 inches on him and one of Rodmans biggest weapons was his ability to get inside opponents head. TD's never bothered by antics. The question would be how the excellent help D of the Bulls, MJ, Pippen, Harper would affect TD and whether they'd be able to cover the many Spurs 3 points shooter in time after the kickout.

[JtotheIzzo]

Uhm. No. Hornacek was better, and B. Russell probably was for at least a season or two.

Mathius

dude, you cant be serious, Manu would rape Horny and then sell his body parts...it aint even close, c'mon, I know you are a Cavs fan and wish to cast aspersions on the Spurs, but falkin hell dude, Manu is one of the best players in the world, and took everyone's gold medals the last few years.

[Nero]

i will say that it is an interesting matchup.. especiall the 96-98 Bulls teams..

Rodman v. Duncan - This is classic matchup. One of the best defensive PF to ever play the game, against one of the best offensive PF to ever play the game. Duncan will probably still get 20+pts, 12+ reb, 2+ blks a game, but Rodman will make sure he works for it.

Bowen v. Jordan - Again a classic matchup. I think Bowen can make Jordan work to a certain extent, but Jordan just have too many moves. The one thing that Bowen is great at is keeping the defender in front of him, however, Jordan will just post Bowen up and just do his patent fadeaway all game.

Pippen v. Ginobilli, Parker - Pippen will have a hard time keeping up with both players especially Parker, but the length of Pippen will make both player take a lot of tough shots.

With all the said, the X-factor remains to be the role players. Both team have excellent shooters, clutch shooters, good defensive role players.

Horry, Finley, Barry, Oberto v. Kerr, Wennington, Kukoc, Harper.

So who wins the series.. I think it can be a tough 7 game series, with Bulls winning it. I mean when you look at player for player, it's as even as it can get. However, looking at the game itself, you know that whoever win the games will win it in the last two minutes. And there's no one I know is better in the last two minutes than MJ himself.

The shooter aren't really comparable. I think 3 point shooting has gotten a lot better since the 90's. Not sure if it's the rules or all this euro talent or what but the standards have gone up there. The Spurs shooters of Bowen, Finley, Barry, and Manu are all class three point shooters. Only Kerr of the Bulls can shoot like those and he doesn't get too many minutes. Kukoc, Harper, Pippen, Jordan, Horry are on a lower level of long range shooting. Oberto/Elson v. Luc and Wennington are about equal midrange shooters. Oberto/Elson are a better combo cuz of better rebounding and D. Luc and Wennington were awfully defensively. They were there to grab a few boards and hit the open 15 footer.

I see the Spurs as running a more efficient offense with their great shooters, post play, and penetration. Other than MJ the bulls offense isn't too great. Pippen would have trouble in the series as he's either a 3 point shooter or a slasher (doesn't have much of a midrange game) -- both areas the Spurs excel defensively. The bulls would kill the Spurs on the boards and probably cause many turnovers (from TD, parker, and Manu) with their great trapping D, giving them more scoring opportunities.

[MaxFly]

Just as it was for the Bulls despite Jordan's alpha dog status on the team. The Bulls were a better team than San Antonio. People are talking matchups because teamwork isn't quantifiable, and because of foolish statements by Drizzle.


The Spurs -- and, more specifically, Tim Duncan -- are quickly becoming the most overrated thing around.

I think a few of you have lost track of the discussion, Loki. This is more about the teams that Jordan faced, not the Bulls themselves.

[ConanRulesNBC]

serious note i think 07 - 08 spurs > 1991 bulls but bulls with rodman > spurs and even 1991 would arguably have to be a grinded out series to tell if spurs won or not so we wont know but i definately know rodman would effect duncan some how

First, how do you know how good the 07/08 Spurs are going to be? Second, I'd take the 1991 Bulls with a starting 5 of Bill Cartwright, Horace Grant, Scottie Pippen, Michael Jordan and John Paxson over this 06/07 Spurs, easily.

[Loki]

I think a few of you have lost track of the discussion, Loki. This is more about the teams that Jordan faced, not the Bulls themselves.

The original thinly veiled subtext, and the explicit subject of the last few pages, was how they'd fare in a head-to-head matchup.

[ConanRulesNBC]

nobody has been able to stop tony parker.

jordan can be contained. the sonics did it. theres no doubt that these spurs could do it ,too.

Please tell me you're kidding.

[Loki]

I see the Spurs as running a more efficient offense with their great shooters, post play, and penetration. Other than MJ the bulls offense isn't too great.

2007 Spurs: 109.3 points per 100 possessions (5th out of 30)

1996 Bulls: 115.8 points per 100 possessions (1st out of 29; an NBA record)

1997 Bulls: 114.8 points per 100 possessions (1st out of 29)


League averages were essentially the same. But yeah, the Spurs have the more efficient offense. :rolleyes:

[OneWay]

To whom it may concern, these Spurs are not as good as the 3peat Lakers. Just saying.

[lovethetriangle]

Wow, this is the first thread wherein I absolutely and utterly agree with Loki and EricForman.

Please children, know your bulls.

And Why the F have the 07' Spurs become a team for the ages??

And When the FFFFF did Tony Parker become the next Zeke????

I need answers.

[starks]

This is why Jordan won (Sorry bowen you cant defend that)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74Evzj9f3jc




I don't think even the biggest h8er could claim Bowen can guard Jordan after seeing the above video. Remember, that was a time when it was allowed to put your hands all over the offensive player. Bowen either fouls out halfway through the 3rd, or he gets burned real bad.

[MaxFly]

The original thinly veiled subtext, and the explicit subject of the last few pages, was how they'd fare in a head-to-head matchup.

Recently, I've seen someone imply that the Spurs may be only about as good now as some of the 8th, 7th or 6th teams Jordan faced in the playoffs. In fact, that was the person I quoted and responded to when you quoted me. I wasn't making a point concerning how the Spurs would match up with the Bulls, but rather the fact that one cannot break down individual matchups as he did with the Jazz and the Spurs, because, inspite of the individual matchups, the Spurs play an overall better team game than the Jazz, as evidenced by the 5 game series inspite of all the mismatches the Jazz apparently had.

Let me ask, when you read my post, did you bother to read the whole post, including the person I quoted, in order to understand the context of the post, or did you simply look for some point of contention?

[Nero]

2007 Spurs: 109.3 points per 100 possessions (5th out of 30)

1996 Bulls: 115.8 points per 100 possessions (1st out of 29; an NBA record)

1997 Bulls: 114.8 points per 100 possessions (1st out of 29)


League averages were essentially the same. But yeah, the Spurs have the more efficient offense. :rolleyes:


Wow. All I remember from the Bulls on offense are 1) Jordan fadeaways, threethrows, drives (in that order) 2) fast break points with MJ/Pippen/Harper 3) Rodman tip ins 4) Harper/Pippen/Kukoc/Kerr threes ( those are pretty low percentage shots though!) 5) Luc/Wennington midrange shots 6) Bison Williams (?) for a little while with some nice post play. How did they ever become #1 in the league on offense? I thought they were a great defensive and rebounding team, not offensive team.

[EricForman]

i just wanna know if dizzle and poseidon are the same person. both spew some BS claims and then when I reply to refute adn ask them to clarify a ridiculous claim they made, they just straight leave the thread for good. Happened like three times this week.

[Nero]

I don't think even the biggest h8er could claim Bowen can guard Jordan after seeing the above video. Remember, that was a time when it was allowed to put your hands all over the offensive player. Bowen either fouls out halfway through the 3rd, or he gets burned real bad.

Artest would destroy Jordan with 90's rules. Probably crack his ribs. No way Jordan could score against his physical play.

[starks]

Artest would destroy Jordan with 90's rules. Probably crack his ribs. No way Jordan could score against his physical play.

Artest is just another Knicks player from the early 90s. (i.e. Starks, Xavier, Mason, Oakley, G. Wilkins, Mark Jackson etc.). He won't do anything that those could not.

[EricForman]

Artest would destroy Jordan with 90's rules. Probably crack his ribs. No way Jordan could score against his physical play.

Have you watched the Bulls/Pistons series in the late 80s? You don't think Jordan can handle physical play?

There are quite simply too many morons on ISH. they say things for the sake of saying things. I don't believe you really feel Artest would "destroy" Jordan... it's one of thsoe "gee I'll make a hyperbole claim to draw attention".

[Loki]

Wow. All I remember from the Bulls on offense are 1) Jordan fadeaways, threethrows, drives (in that order) 2) fast break points with MJ/Pippen/Harper 3) Rodman tip ins 4) Harper/Pippen/Kukoc/Kerr threes ( those are pretty low percentage shots though!) 5) Luc/Wennington midrange shots 6) Bison Williams (?) for a little while with some nice post play. How did they ever become #1 in the league on offense? I thought they were a great defensive and rebounding team, not offensive team.

The Bulls had 4 of the 6 most efficient offensive seasons of all-time ('91, '92, '96, and '97; their 1996 mark is an NBA record).

They executed their offense brilliantly and managed to get high quality looks. And their primary option was a very efficient volume scorer.

[Loki]

Artest would destroy Jordan with 90's rules. Probably crack his ribs. No way Jordan could score against his physical play.

:roll:

Ron Artest on Jordan after playing scrimmages in the summer with his prior to his Wizards comeback at nearly age 39: "If he hadn't injured his knee, he'd still be dropping 30 every night."

[EricForman]

:roll:

Ron Artest on Jordan after playing scrimmages in the summer with his prior to his Wizards comeback at nearly age 39: "If he hadn't injured his knee, he'd still be dropping 30 every night."

I thought Jordan injured his knee during the first eason of his comeback with the Wizards? So how can Artset mention the knee injury BEFORe Jordan came back?

Artest did crack his rib though. Only way he coulda stopped MJ.

[Mathius]

dude, you cant be serious, Manu would rape Horny and then sell his body parts...it aint even close, c'mon, I know you are a Cavs fan and wish to cast aspersions on the Spurs, but falkin hell dude, Manu is one of the best players in the world, and took everyone's gold medals the last few years.

I'm completely serious. Manu is a product of the system. He benefits from the players around him. He's a shooter and a hustler, period (oh, and a flopper).

The same in the Olympics. The team he is on benefits from having better players than most european teams in the league.

And I've got news for you, the Olympics have no place in this argument. Hornacek played during a period where the NBA wasn't this soft, pansy league that it is now. Men's USA basketball dominated the Olympics during their period. PHYSICALLY!

Now, the exact opposite is the case. The European teams are the ones that are playing the physical brand of basketball, and the USA team is suffering.

The fact is, Hornacek was playing all star basketball with Phoenix and Philly before he even went to the Jazz. By the time he got there, he was a quality vet who wasn't called on to score like he had in the past.

Manu can't even compare.

And why the hell should I want to "cast aspersions on the Spurs" Pull your head out of your ass. Just because my team is in the finals against them doesn't mean I'm suddenly a bias idiot like the rest of these mental midgets that frequent this board.

The Spurs are a great team. In all honesty, they'll probably win the championship this year, even though they're boring as sin to watch, and dirty as hell. They've done what I've said the Cavs should have done for years, which is quit basing players based on their last season and start remembering what they're capable of. Horry, Finley, Glenn Robinson a few years ago, all players that are veterans who were all stars, or at least in Horry's case, big contributers to their former teams.

Look at Miami last year. Gary Payton, Zo, Antoine Walker, and this year Eddie Jones were all veterans that people said were "done" in this league because their numbers weren't what they have been in the past. And Miami won the championship last year.

I have my share of problems with the Spurs organization starting with Bruce Bowen and ending with Pop and Duncan, but I can't argue with their success.

And if you think because I'm a Cavs fan I'm going to start ripping on them, you're a bigger idiot than I thought.

Mathius

[Loki]

I thought Jordan injured his knee during the first eason of his comeback with the Wizards? So how can Artset mention the knee injury BEFORe Jordan came back?

Artest did crack his rib though. Only way he coulda stopped MJ.

No, he started having bad tendinitis over that summer. He hurt it even worse later in the season, though, when he missed over a month. But he was playing in pain that entire season.

[KWALI]

The simple answer was yes he BUlls beat better teams than these Spurs. The only thing I'd add is while I am not sure the Jazz Finals teams are not a better than the current SPURS I am sure the Current Spurs present a more difficult match-up than the Jazz did...simply becuz the pick and roll with Stockton and Malone really didn't bother then BUlls becuz of the length and speed of their defenders...

Karl Malone's post game was really pathetic with the ball. I don't know why people think he was this post monster..he wasn't he had no post moves with the ball...he did all his damage b4 he received tehb all and simply caught and finished. TD on the other hand would have a field day with Rodman...

People are talking about Rodman covering other great centers..but they one didn't have the rules they have now which makes it impossible to cover TD and two Rodman 'covering' those guys well meant they went for 30 and 10 intsead of 37 and 17...good job but it's not like he locked them up.

In addition TP while not measuring up to stockton presents a whole different set of challenges interms of D..challenges teh slowing Harper, MJ and PIPPEn would not have been as adept at handling

[xxxSuperStar]

Don't know if its been posted, but highlights of Jordan's 43 points at age 40...with one knee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TkvX356cpQ&mode=related&search=

The info with this video is good too. Read it!

[KWALI]

I'm completely serious. Manu is a product of the system. He benefits from the players around him. He's a shooter and a hustler, period (oh, and a flopper).

The same in the Olympics. The team he is on benefits from having better players than most european teams in the league.

And I've got news for you, the Olympics have no place in this argument. Hornacek played during a period where the NBA wasn't this soft, pansy league that it is now. Men's USA basketball dominated the Olympics during their period. PHYSICALLY!

Now, the exact opposite is the case. The European teams are the ones that are playing the physical brand of basketball, and the USA team is suffering.

The fact is, Hornacek was playing all star basketball with Phoenix and Philly before he even went to the Jazz. By the time he got there, he was a quality vet who wasn't called on to score like he had in the past.

Manu can't even compare.

And why the hell should I want to "cast aspersions on the Spurs" Pull your head out of your ass. Just because my team is in the finals against them doesn't mean I'm suddenly a bias idiot like the rest of these mental midgets that frequent this board.

The Spurs are a great team. In all honesty, they'll probably win the championship this year, even though they're boring as sin to watch, and dirty as hell. They've done what I've said the Cavs should have done for years, which is quit basing players based on their last season and start remembering what they're capable of. Horry, Finley, Glenn Robinson a few years ago, all players that are veterans who were all stars, or at least in Horry's case, big contributers to their former teams.

Look at Miami last year. Gary Payton, Zo, Antoine Walker, and this year Eddie Jones were all veterans that people said were "done" in this league because their numbers weren't what they have been in the past. And Miami won the championship last year.

I have my share of problems with the Spurs organization starting with Bruce Bowen and ending with Pop and Duncan, but I can't argue with their success.

And if you think because I'm a Cavs fan I'm going to start ripping on them, you're a bigger idiot than I thought.

Mathius

Um MAnu can most certainly compare to Hornacek...they are actaully pretty similiar except HOnacek was a dead eyes shooter and a skills guard who could play PG...and Manu is a streaky shooter and a skilled guard who can play PG...

Similiar in size but Manu is more athletic (also age at this point makes a diff) But Hornacek wasn't as goos as a penetrator for scores even at his best and as was said Hornie was a much better shooter.

[Knoe Struh Damus]

nobody has been able to stop tony parker.

jordan can be contained. the sonics did it. theres no doubt that these spurs could do it ,too.

Eva?

And Ginobili is better than Hornacek was during the Jazz title runs. Jeff in his prime definitely rivals Manu, but he was getting up there in years when the Jazz were in the finals.

[plupiter]

The Bulls would beat the Spurs fairly easily, the only possible exception is the '98 Bulls with Pippen having the sore back and Jordan being 35. Why? Well people, especially Spurs/Duncan fans, aren't going to like the answer: the Spurs are not supremely mentally tough.

The Spurs are consistent. The Spurs are a very good defensive team. The Spurs are a pretty good offensive team. The Spurs have very good chemistry. Yet, the Spurs are not mentally tough, in the way the Bulls were.

The Lakers dominated the Spurs through their title runs, really breaking their spirit, and you never felt Duncan could assert himself as the best player on the court. I don't see him taking control of the game from Jordan, I don't see him imposing his will on the game over Jordan. Frankly, I don't see Duncan wanting it quite as much as Jordan. Not to mention the fact that Jordan/Pippen would eat Parker/Ginobli for breakfast. That would be an all-time sharkfest.

I know the Spurs are "admirable", but they really tend to win their championships in off years--the strike shortened season, the Laker breakup season, the season Wade went down ahead in the conference finals, and now this year really catching breaks in the playoffs. Not their fault, but what really tough teams have they ever beat? That should be the question, not who the Bulls beat.

[Wadeisabeast]

I never realized that people consider this year's Spurs team to be one of the greatest teams of all time.

[EricForman]

I never realized that people consider this year's Spurs team to be one of the greatest teams of all time.

They didn't start considering them that until maybe two days ago. Just last year some people on ISH were starting "Duncan is over the hill" threads. Manu at one point was consistently trashed by most people on ISh andw as ranked as low as 4th, 5th tier shooting guard.

That's how ISH is. Just wait, if the Cavs take next two games to lead 2-1. Suddenly "THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL SPURS CAN WIN THIS SERIES" will pop up, despite a 2-1 lead not being that big, and Duncan will be over the hill again while Lebron will be better than Jordan.

Then next season start, if Lakers start 2-0 and Kobe averages 35, suddenly Kobe is better than Lebron and Jordan.

[The_Masterplan]

What exactly have the Spurs proven in these playoffs? That they can beat the Nuggets, Jazz and Cavs...all of whom were never contenders in the first place? Notice I didn't include the Suns, needing suspensions to beat a team doesn't prove anything. I am sorry, but I am not impressed by this Spurs team when they have yet to beat a single "great" team fairly.
needing to use the suspensions as an excuse is sickening. They beat the suns 3-2 when both teams were full strength.

[Mathius]

They didn't start considering them that until maybe two days ago. Just last year some people on ISH were starting "Duncan is over the hill" threads. Manu at one point was consistently trashed by most people on ISh andw as ranked as low as 4th, 5th tier shooting guard.

That's how ISH is. Just wait, if the Cavs take next two games to lead 2-1. Suddenly "THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL SPURS CAN WIN THIS SERIES" will pop up, despite a 2-1 lead not being that big, and Duncan will be over the hill again while Lebron will be better than Jordan.

Then next season start, if Lakers start 2-0 and Kobe averages 35, suddenly Kobe is better than Lebron and Jordan.

It's not just ISH. You're 100% right though. I've been saying this about VC in New Jersey. The guy put up like 3 triple doubles in 4 games at the end of the year, almost had another one against the Bulls to give the Nets better seeding and put the Cavs in #2, but he has one bad series against the Cavs and suddenly he's done and he's not worth his paycheck. :rolleyes:

Mathius

[Carbine]

Stats are nice, Loki, but they are all but thrown out the window when it comes down to a seven game series.

Things can change in a hurry; in the real world and in basketball.

Also, another important factor that needs to be considered is what rules are we playing with here? Obviously nobody is going to shut down Parker, he has too nice of a handle, change of direction and acceleration to be stopped consistently without handchecking. That is a fact.

Also, I like the Rodman/Duncan matchup and am really surprised that some say Rodman neutralizes that matchup.

He was the kind of defender that got under your skin, and was very successful at it. That's why I think it's a tough matchup for Rodman, he wasn't going to stop Duncan up top, the only chance he has would be to strip him down low (much like Thomas was doing for PHX, and you seen how that turned out)... and the fact that Duncan rarely lets anyone get under his skin, due to his calm on the court personality, would limit Rodman' defensive impact.

I think it would be close. If I was a betting man I would drop money on the Bulls to win; after all they are considered by many to be one of the top 2 or 3 dynastys ever.

Spurs wouldn't be out-matched, though. That's my opinion.

[PejaNowitzki]

92 Blazers and 93 Suns would have raped the current Spurs. I'll throw in the Rockets of that era as well, along with the late 80s Pistons and Lakers.

[SayTownRy]

As for the Suns, the Spurs needed suspensions to win a pivotal game 5 against them (took away homecourt and made the Suns face elimination), imo Suns had the advantage in the series before the suspensions occurred (2-2, and 2 of last 3 games are at home). Like you mentioned, they didn't even have that great a record in the regular season, only third best in the league.

how many times are you gonna post about that suns series in this thread. :rolleyes:

get over it man, the suns couldn't get it done in game 6 like a truly inspired championship team.

[EricForman]

Also, another important factor that needs to be considered is what rules are we playing with here? Obviously nobody is going to shut down Parker, he has too nice of a handle, change of direction and acceleration to be stopped consistently without handchecking. That is a fact.


I am stunned at the amount of people on here bringing up "no one on the Bulls can stop Parker" and then don't mention "no one can stop Jordan" or Dizzle actually saying Jordan would be contained.....

Um, did I just wake up from a coma? Since when is Tony Parker considered more unstoppable or more of a "matchup problem" for teams now over Michael Freaking Jordan?

Seriously, what the hell is giong on here on ISH? Is Tony Parker secretly averaging 31 and 11 on 55% FG that I am not aware of? How did he suddenly earn the title of "most unstoppable and biggest mismatch" in the league?

Let me check some ESPN boxscores....

hmmmm

Parker shoots 6 for 19 to score 17 points to go with a whopping 2 rebounds and 3 assists in game 4 vs Utah.

Parker has a 5 for 13 for ELEVEN points and needed 18 shots to score 16 points in two games vs the Suns.

But Parker is unstoppable... no one on the Bulls would be able to control him even though he stanked up both NBA finals he played in....

check the lines, Ginobili is more efficient than him. Parker is not even the second most unstoppable guy on his own team.

You guys really need to get thsi "no one on the Bulls can stop Tony Parker" crap out of here.

[KWALI]

I am stunned at the amount of people on here bringing up "no one on the Bulls can stop Parker" and then don't mention "no one can stop Jordan" or Dizzle actually saying Jordan would be contained.....

Um, did I just wake up from a coma? Since when is Tony Parker considered more unstoppable or more of a "matchup problem" for teams now over Michael Freaking Jordan?

Seriously, what the hell is giong on here on ISH? Is Tony Parker secretly averaging 31 and 11 on 55% FG that I am not aware of? How did he suddenly earn the title of "most unstoppable and biggest mismatch" in the league?

Let me check some ESPN boxscores....

hmmmm

Parker shoots 6 for 19 to score 17 points to go with a whopping 2 rebounds and 3 assists in game 4 vs Utah.

Parker has a 5 for 13 for ELEVEN points and needed 18 shots to score 16 points in two games vs the Suns.

But Parker is unstoppable... no one on the Bulls would be able to control him even though he stanked up both NBA finals he played in....

check the lines, Ginobili is more efficient than him. Parker is not even the second most unstoppable guy on his own team.

You guys really need to get thsi "no one on the Bulls can stop Tony Parker" crap out of here.


SO you pick the bad games and that supposed to mean more than the good games? It's not that he's more unstoppable than MJ you idiot or the best SPur it's that he presents a DIFFERENT LOOK THAN THE BULLS FACED IN MOST OF THEIR PLAY-OFF SERIES..especially in teh second threepeat...the kind of look KJ would have given them if fully healthy and even then once he read where he could get his shot off against the Bulls KJ got pretty affective.

IN the First threepeat the Bulls faced three teams better than the Spurs

in the second three peat they played one team better than the current Spurs.

LIke Plupiter said the Spurs have never really beaten anyone in the Finals. Their biggest eseries were really b4 the Finals vs teh Lakers etc...cept the Last time the PIstons had their shot and Horry killed them.

[EricForman]

It's not that he's more unstoppable than MJ you idiot or the best SPur it's that he presents a DIFFERENT LOOK THAN THE BULLS FACED IN MOST OF THEIR PLAY-OFF SERIES..especially in teh second threepeat...the kind of look KJ would have given them if fully healthy and even then once he read where he could get his shot off against the Bulls KJ got pretty affective.




Why don't you read, moron. Read what Dizzle wrote. Read what the other guy wrote. Words like "there is no way Parker can be stop. that is fact" or "No one can stop Tony Parker, Jordan, however, can be contained" is implying Tony Parker is impossible to stop and no one on the Bulls would be able to do a thing.


SO you pick the bad games and that supposed to mean more than the good games?

No sh*t sherlock the good games mean more. I showed the bad games to show Tony Parker obviously not impossible to stop if he has had several bad games already. Not to mention he's note ven as efficient/effective as Manu, nor was he more unstoppable than say, Baron Davis or Jason Kidd or Steve Nash was this post season. So what the hell did Tony Parker do to deserve people to claim "The Bulls cannot stop him, that is fact"?

If the Bulls can't stop Tony Parker, they would flat out get murdered by Nash, Baron or Deron Williams then, cause all three had a more impressive post season than Tony Parker so far. :confusedshrug:

[Loki]

The Bulls would beat the Spurs fairly easily, the only possible exception is the '98 Bulls with Pippen having the sore back and Jordan being 35. Why? Well people, especially Spurs/Duncan fans, aren't going to like the answer: the Spurs are not supremely mentally tough.

The Spurs are consistent. The Spurs are a very good defensive team. The Spurs are a pretty good offensive team. The Spurs have very good chemistry. Yet, the Spurs are not mentally tough, in the way the Bulls were.

The Lakers dominated the Spurs through their title runs, really breaking their spirit, and you never felt Duncan could assert himself as the best player on the court. I don't see him taking control of the game from Jordan, I don't see him imposing his will on the game over Jordan. Frankly, I don't see Duncan wanting it quite as much as Jordan.

Exactly how I see it. The Bulls were a lot more mentally tough than SA. No team ever broke the Bulls mentally the way SA was mentally broken several times by LA over the years. Has nothing to do with matchups -- SA was shook.

[KWALI]

Why don't you read, moron. Read what Dizzle wrote. Read what the other guy wrote. Words like "there is no way Parker can be stop. that is fact" or "No one can stop Tony Parker, Jordan, however, can be contained" is implying Tony Parker is impossible to stop and no one on the Bulls would be able to do a thing.



No sh*t sherlock the good games mean more. I showed the bad games to show Tony Parker obviously not impossible to stop if he has had several bad games already. Not to mention he's note ven as efficient/effective as Manu, nor was he more unstoppable than say, Baron Davis or Jason Kidd or Steve Nash was this post season. So what the hell did Tony Parker do to deserve people to claim "The Bulls cannot stop him, that is fact"?

If the Bulls can't stop Tony Parker, they would flat out get murdered by Nash, Baron or Deron Williams then, cause all three had a more impressive post season than Tony Parker so far. :confusedshrug:

I don`t know what the meanings of unstoppable`are in these or your posts.

[KWALI]

Exactly how I see it. The Bulls were a lot more mentally tough than SA. No team ever broke the Bulls mentally the way SA was mentally broken several times by LA over the years. Has nothing to do with matchups -- SA was shook.

They were shook by SHAQ though and taken apart at times by KB8...playing off SHAQ...but a team that relies on a perimeter player is the SPURS fortay..... I am not sure how they would deal with a post guard like second threepeat BULLS. by 90`s rules they would get beat pretty easy but with current rules they`d atleast be a better series than the Jazz....The JAzz were just as shook.

MAilman doesn`t deliver on SUndays :oldlol:

[Loki]

You also have to keep in mind two things:

-- Under old rules, Parker would be much more containable. Under new rules, Jordan would be much less containable. Don't think it's a coincidence that Parker's average jumped 2.6 ppg and an astounding 6.5% FG from '04 to '05 once they got rid of handchecking. Yes, some of that is him maturing as a player. But all of it isn't.

-- Under zone rules, the Bulls' defense would be significantly better, especially against post players. You can't look at the Spurs' defense and the the Bulls' defense and draw conclusions (even though the Bulls were comparable or better defensively even without zone rules), because the Bulls would look better defensively today. They had two players with the best defensive instincts I ever saw for non-bigs (Jordan and Pippen), a great one-on-one and team defender in Rodman, and another great, long defender in Harper.

[EricForman]

[QUOTE=KWALI]I don`t know what the meanings of unstoppable`are in these or your posts.

[MaxFly]

-- Under zone rules, the Bulls' defense would be significantly better, especially against post players.

Are you simply saying that the Bulls would be a better team defensively than the Spurs today, or that because of the zone, the Bulls would be a better defensive team today than they were in the past?

[KWALI]

The meaning of unstoppable means CANNOT BE STOPPED. Not only has Tony Parker NOT been as dominant as other PGs such as Baron, Nash, Kidd, Deron over the same period, he isn't as efficient as Manu or Duncan. Doesn't that kill the "Tony Parker is absolutely unstoppable" crap?

It's just insulting to say the Bulls would have NO answer for Tony Parker. Tony Parker is not a better player than any of the best player on any of the teams the Bulls beat.

I still don't have a point? My point is so good Dizzle left the thread, even though he was online and replied to another thread after I called him out on his Tony Parker line.

I'm not even arguing if the Bulls could beat the Spurs or vice versa, I just want the guys that made those comments to KNOW they are flat out wrong and Tony Parker is in no way, shape, or form more unstoppable than Jordan.

No infact it doesn`t becuz those are performances against different teams and we are talking about a match-up.

Was he `stopped`in those bad games or did he just have bad games shooting...as Loki indicated vs the Sonics...MJ had a game were he just missed shots he normally hit. TP isn`t a dominating player but he normally gets the Spurs easy baskets and off to a good start. All these efficiency things

I am not concerned whether or not an idiot posts in a thread or not. The fact that TP or any quick guard is a bad match-up for the second threepeat Bulls is valid....and becuz he could guard Ron Harper on D he wouldn`t have to guard MJ much so him getting baked on D isn`t a big issue...Unless they start going to Harper...which doesn`t happen much.

[Mathius]

Also, I like the Rodman/Duncan matchup and am really surprised that some say Rodman neutralizes that matchup.

He was the kind of defender that got under your skin, and was very successful at it. That's why I think it's a tough matchup for Rodman, he wasn't going to stop Duncan up top, the only chance he has would be to strip him down low (much like Thomas was doing for PHX, and you seen how that turned out)... and the fact that Duncan rarely lets anyone get under his skin, due to his calm on the court personality, would limit Rodman' defensive impact.


Is this a joke? If Duncan were so calm and collected, we wouldn't have literally millions of shots of him whining to the refs with that stupid look on his face.

Mathius

[KWALI]

Are you simply saying that the Bulls would be a better team defensively than the Spurs today, or that because of the zone, the Bulls would be a better defensive team today than they were in the past?

Actually I am pretty sure Both and its true. The only thing is they don`t have a back stop like TD. But it`s not one sided the Spurs are right there with them.

[EricForman]

I am not concerned whether or not an idiot posts in a thread or not. The fact that TP or any quick guard is a bad match-up for the second threepeat Bulls is valid....and becuz he could guard Ron Harper on D he wouldn`t have to guard MJ much so him getting baked on D isn`t a big issue...Unless they start going to Harper...which doesn`t happen much.

if Lebron can guard Parker decently in game 1, what makes you think Pip can't gaurd Parker?

Oh wait, Pippen won't be guarding Parker because he'll be guarding someone that's a more dangerous threat to the Bulls-- Manu Ginobili.

[Loki]

Are you simply saying that the Bulls would be a better team defensively than the Spurs today, or that because of the zone, the Bulls would be a better defensive team today than they were in the past?

The latter.

[KWALI]

if Lebron can guard Parker decently in game 1, what makes you think Pip can't gaurd Parker?

Oh wait, Pippen won't be guarding Parker because he'll be guarding someone that's a more dangerous threat to the Bulls-- Manu Ginobili.

Plus becuz of the problems with his back he`ll not be quick enough. None of the Bulls perimeter players will be....and that`s where TP becomes a mathc-up problem where John Stockton doesn`t...u get it yet:ohwell:

[KWALI]

The latter.
I stand corrected...I think the SPurs are a better pack it in defensive team while the BUlls can actually attack with their D.

[beau_boy04]

nobody has been able to stop tony parker.

jordan can be contained. the sonics did it. theres no doubt that these spurs could do it ,too.


so is easier to contain Jordan and not Parker? hahah you need to stop smoking that kutch ;)

Jordan and Pippen were both better defender than Bowen. Bowen is regarded as the best perimeter defender right now. If Bowen was playing for Cleveland I'm pretty sure Bowen could contain Parker easily ;)

[beau_boy04]

i will say that it is an interesting matchup.. especiall the 96-98 Bulls teams..

Rodman v. Duncan - This is classic matchup. One of the best defensive PF to ever play the game, against one of the best offensive PF to ever play the game. Duncan will probably still get 20+pts, 12+ reb, 2+ blks a game, but Rodman will make sure he works for it.

Pippen v. Ginobilli, Parker - Pippen will have a hard time keeping up with both players especially Parker, but the length of Pippen will make both player take a lot of tough shots.


Duncan is not the best offensive PF of all-time! not even close to it. Karl Malone, Charles Barkley are just few examples of players better on the offensive end than Duncan. ;)

[Loki]

Plus becuz of the problems with his back he`ll not be quick enough. None of the Bulls perimeter players will be....and that`s where TP becomes a mathc-up problem where John Stockton doesn`t...u get it yet:ohwell:

Why are we assuming the '98 Bulls specifically again (by far the oldest, most injury-plagued, and worst version of the team)?

[Dizzle-2k7]

well which one are u going with loki? either way, the spurs win.

[Loki]

well which one are u going with loki? either way, the spurs win.

:oldlol:

[ConanRulesNBC]

well which one are u going with loki? either way, the spurs win.

Do you just act stupid on purpose?

[dak121]

Tony Parker was getting his ass kicked by Devin Harris of all people last year in the playoffs. And he's going to blow by the Bulls with ease?

This is seriously stupid. Outside of Duncan, Spurs have nothing on the Bulls. And Rodman would be a significantly tougher defensive matchup than anyone Duncan has faced this postseason.

This Spurs 'dynasty' is the product of a youth filled league full of underdeveloped squads. They would get killed by the best teams of the past. They're a poor man's Bad Boys Pistons.

[DCL]

these spurs being one of the best teams ever???

no, but what is true is that these spurs are becoming one of the most OVERRATED teams ever.

[KWALI]

Why are we assuming the '98 Bulls specifically again (by far the oldest, most injury-plagued, and worst version of the team)?


They are the only team tha Spurs match up with better than the team the Bulls actually played in the finals.....The Jazz were, to me, by far the worst team the Bulls ever beat.

[SayTownRy]

psssh, more like underrated.

duncan runs this league. he's the league's perrenial: mvp, dpoy, and a repeat champion.

he impacts the league now like jordan did then.

and tony parker creates matchup problems for any team. ANY team.

[bekalc]

Duncan is not the best offensive PF of all-time! not even close to it. Karl Malone, Charles Barkley are just few examples of players better on the offensive end than Duncan. ;)

Take a look at field goal percentage. Duncan doesn't take as many shots as Charles did or Karl did. But Duncan is an amazing offensive player.

[Loki]

Take a look at field goal percentage. Duncan doesn't take as many shots as Charles did or Karl did. But Duncan is an amazing offensive player.

Umm, Barkley was clearly a much better scorer than Duncan. Now, if you're going to expand "offensive player" to include things like game management and decision-making, Duncan may (and likely does) have the edge -- but strictly scoring (as your mention of FG% would eeem to imply)? Barkley owns Duncan. Owns.

You should check the FG% yourself before you tell others to.

[deion2123]

i couldve sworn jordan only averaged 24-25 ppg against the sonics great defensive efforts..

and guess what? this current spurs squad is better then the sonics. so how can you assume jordan averages 30+ ppg?

:roll: jordan or pippen guarding tony parker? not happening, buddy. not if the bulls are serious about winning in 7.

the Sonics were a better team than this Spurs team...GP in his prime is better than Parker...Kemp in his prime is not as good as Duncan but would still have his way with Duncan with the way Amare Stoudemire does...Detlef, Hersey Hawkins, and McMillan is better than Ginobili + Spurs scrubs...McMillan, GP, and Hawkins are better defenders than the Spurs have....please stop

[Nero]

You also have to keep in mind two things:

-- Under old rules, Parker would be much more containable. Under new rules, Jordan would be much less containable. Don't think it's a coincidence that Parker's average jumped 2.6 ppg and an astounding 6.5% FG from '04 to '05 once they got rid of handchecking. Yes, some of that is him maturing as a player. But all of it isn't.

.

That had nothing to do with handchecking. IT was because Parker amost completely quit taking 3 pointers and 20 footers as well as improving on the few he did take to his better shooting with his new shooting coach Chip. Those were 30% shots for him and he took about 6 per game.

[johndeeregreen]

needing suspensions to beat a team doesn't prove anything.
This misconception is ridiculous and stupid.

[deion2123]

nobody has been able to stop tony parker.

jordan can be contained. the sonics did it. theres no doubt that these spurs could do it ,too.
please stop posting nonsense..GP in his prime is 10x the defensive player Bowen is...MJ was off that series not so much GP shutting him down...cause the next season I saw MJ drop 45 with GP guarding him the entire game

[SCdac]

This misconception is ridiculous and stupid.

As are most on this board. Some very bitter fans on ISH. And most make it a point to be heard. Annoying, to say the least.

[Nero]

please stop posting nonsense..GP in his prime is 10x the defensive player Bowen is...MJ was off that series not so much GP shutting him down...cause the next season I saw MJ drop 45 with GP guarding him the entire game

But the talent in the league is so much better it's really not even fair to compare teams from the past. Just look at one of the Spurs most unimportant, unathletic bech players -- Barry -- who's as good of a dunker as MJ ever was.

[deion2123]

But the talent in the league is so much better it's really not even fair to compare teams from the past. Just look at one of the Spurs most unimportant, unathletic bech players -- Barry -- who's as good of a dunker as MJ ever was.

you are joking right ??

[Nero]

you are joking right ??

The evidence strongly supports that Barry was a slightly better dunker than MJ. And he can barely get court time for the Spurs. What does that tell you about the disparity in talent between today and yesteryear?

[deion2123]

The evidence strongly supports that Barry was a slightly better dunker than MJ. And he can barely get court time for the Spurs. What does that tell you about the disparity in talent between today and yesteryear?

the hell are you talking about ?? Barry is garbage...he is nowhere near the athlete MJ was

[EricForman]

the hell are you talking about ?? Barry is garbage...he is nowhere near the athlete MJ was

Nero isn't serious. he can't be. dont fall into it. he just wants to make bs claims to rile people up. There isn't a single person on earth that believes Brent Barry is a better athlete than Jordan.

[MaxFly]

The latter.

It's peculiar to hear you state that. Haven't you been one of the primary proponents of the notion that, in all, the new rules have simply weakened the effectiveness of defenses that can be played in the modern NBA? It's interesting to suddenly hear you say that the Bulls would be a significantly better defensive team, and not just in post defense. Does that include perimeter defense as well?

[BlackMoses]

I can understand the point about Parker being a tougher matchup in this series than Jordan. The Spurs have one of the best perimeter defenders of the past decade in Bruce Bowen to put on Jordan. Who's going to guard Parker? If it is Pippen, then the Bulls are losing one of their best help defenders since he will be burnt A LOT. The same goes if Jordan is guarding. The matchup for Jordan is a whole lot easier (granted, MJ would still drop his points on a good fg%) for the Spurs than the matchup for Parker is for the Bulls.

While Rodman, Pippen, and Jordan are legendary defenders, the rest of the team is either too slow or horrible on defense to contain the Spurs perimeter. Yeah, Kerr and Kukoc are great offensive players, but they are some of the worst defensive players of the past 25 years.

With the Spurs uncanny ball movement and team philosophy, they could very well knock off the Bulls.

The Spurs also have a lot off options off the bench. Michael Finley, Barry, Horry, and Vaughn are all solid rotation players.

[BlackMoses]

It's peculiar to hear you state that. Haven't you been one of the primary proponents of the notion that, in all, the new rules have simply weakened the effectiveness of defenses that can be played in the modern NBA? It's interesting to suddenly hear you say that the Bulls would be a significantly better defensive team, and not just in post defense. Does that include perimeter defense as well?

It's a very one sided way of looking at things. A failure to recognize that while the Bulls might be able to contain Duncan a bit more, they will be hurt even more by Parker and Ginobli. The rules and changes balance themselves out.

[Nero]

I can understand the point about Parker being a tougher matchup in this series than Jordan. The Spurs have one of the best perimeter defenders of the past decade in Bruce Bowen to put on Jordan. Who's going to guard Parker? If it is Pippen, then the Bulls are losing one of their best help defenders since he will be burnt A LOT. The same goes if Jordan is guarding. The matchup for Jordan is a whole lot easier (granted, MJ would still drop his points on a good fg%) for the Spurs than the matchup for Parker is for the Bulls.

While Rodman, Pippen, and Jordan are legendary defenders, the rest of the team is either too slow or horrible on defense to contain the Spurs perimeter. Yeah, Kerr and Kukoc are great offensive players, but they are some of the worst defensive players of the past 25 years.

With the Spurs uncanny ball movement and team philosophy, they could very well knock off the Bulls.

The Spurs also have a lot off options off the bench. Michael Finley, Barry, Horry, and Vaughn are all solid rotation players.

Kerr was actually surprisingly good defensively. Teams assumed he sucked because he was short, couldn't jump, and was white. I remember Knicks would always try to isolate him and either drive or post him up. Driving didn't work cuz Kerr had a great knack for staying in front of his man and neither did posting him up becauze they were forced to do it with one of their weaker players (better ones were guarded by MJ and Pip) and it throw their offensse out of sync. Even when Kerr played for the Spurs teams weren't able to exploit him defensively. I remember one game in the 03' playoffs, they tried and he stripped the ball and drew a charge on 2 consecutive plays. Pretty funny.

[Dizzle-2k7]

:roll:

so now steve kerr's defense is the reason the bulls beat the spurs?

:bowdown:

[Nero]

The Spurs also have a lot off options off the bench. Michael Finley, Barry, Horry, and Vaughn are all solid rotation players.

Bulls had Brown, Wennington, and Jud Bucheler who were a fearsome trio off the bench. Brown v. Vaughn would be a great defensive pg matchup. A 21 game between Brown, Vaughn, and Snow would be a treat to watch for sure.

[wally_world]

93 Phoenix Suns

still cant belive they lost! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Nero]

:roll:

so now steve kerr's defense is the reason the bulls beat the spurs?

:bowdown:


Not the reason, but definitely a key. You have to admit that Kerr's uncanny ability to stay in front of his man is unmatched by any of Parker's opponents in these playoffs.

[90sDynasty]

1st three peat-93 suns

2nd three peat *In my opinion, the better team* 96-98 Jazz.

Utah played close every single game , with the exception of game 3 in 1998. Leads would rarely go over 10 points, luckily an MJ/Kerr combo would spell death many times for Utah in the clutch.

[Soundwave]

Spurs are a bit overrated ... IMO, they're a little mentally soft, that's why they've never won more than 1 title in a row.

It's just there isn't another team currently that has their sh-t together that can challenge the Spurs right now. I think Dallas would've beaten them, but they got matched up against the worst possible team in Golden State (their kryptonite) in round one.

I would say '92 Blazers, '93 Suns, '96 Sonics, and '97/'98 Jazz could all beat the Spurs or match up pretty damn evenly against them. The '96 Sonics remember ousted Hakeem's defending champion Rockets .... rather easily. Parker would not be able to score that many points on a prime Payton, and the Spurs have issues with athletic big men ... a prime Shawn Kemp would give them fits.

In a Spurs-Bulls match up, Bulls would put Pippen on Tony Parker and shut his ass down which would dramatically change San Antonio's entire offense.

[MaxFly]

It's a very one sided way of looking at things. A failure to recognize that while the Bulls might be able to contain Duncan a bit more, they will be hurt even more by Parker and Ginobli. The rules and changes balance themselves out.

To tell you the truth, if this is what he is saying, I agree with him. I think that people mistake a lack of physical contact for poorer defense, ignoring the fact that teams generally have more sophisticated and complex defensive schemes than in the past. I don't think the hand check rules have made as much of a difference as many believe.

[Loki]

Just look at one of the Spurs most unimportant, unathletic bech players -- Barry -- who's as good of a dunker as MJ ever was.

:oldlol:

Wow...

[Loki]

It's peculiar to hear you state that. Haven't you been one of the primary proponents of the notion that, in all, the new rules have simply weakened the effectiveness of defenses that can be played in the modern NBA? It's interesting to suddenly hear you say that the Bulls would be a significantly better defensive team, and not just in post defense. Does that include perimeter defense as well?

Haha, I knew you'd come back saying something like this. It depends on the personnel and the team's commitment to defense. A team like Chicago, which had 3 long perimeter defenders with tremendous instincts (particularly Jordan and Pippen, but also Harper) and a great defender in Rodman, but no shotblocking presence whatsoever, would only be helped by being able to play an "area," since their one defensive weakness (post/interior defense) would be mitigated. This includes post and interior (paint) defense in general. Their only real shotblockers -- Jordan and Pippen -- would be able to be much closer to the action inside.

[MaxFly]

Haha, I knew you'd come back saying something like this. It depends on the personnel and the team's commitment to defense. A team like Chicago, which had 3 long perimeter defenders with tremendous instincts (particularly Jordan and Pippen, but also Harper) and a great defender in Rodman, but no shotblocking presence whatsoever, would only be helped by being able to play an "area," since their one defensive weakness (post/interior defense) would be mitigated. This includes post and interior (paint) defense in general. Their only real shotblockers -- Jordan and Pippen -- would be able to be much closer to the action inside.

That's interesting... Following that logic, teams like the Spurs and Pistons would also benefit greatly from the new rules, considering both teams have good perimeter defenders in addition to good players defending the post. The new defensive rules give players the ability to roam much more and double team a player earlier, and given both teams commitment to defense, this would be a great advantage over the previous rules.

It's funny, because the last time this discussion was had, many posters, including you, stressed that the rules affected all teams negatively. Now you've changed your stance slightly, saying that the personnel and the team's commitment are very important to defense and that some teams actually benefit from the new rules, playing better defense now than they would have without these rules. These are things that I've been saying every since the rules were ammended.

It took a discussion about Jordan and the 90s Bulls for you to see the light. Go figure. :D

[Rasheed1]

Haha, I knew you'd come back saying something like this. It depends on the personnel and the team's commitment to defense. A team like Chicago, which had 3 long perimeter defenders with tremendous instincts (particularly Jordan and Pippen, but also Harper) and a great defender in Rodman, but no shotblocking presence whatsoever, would only be helped by being able to play an "area," since their one defensive weakness (post/interior defense) would be mitigated. This includes post and interior (paint) defense in general. Their only real shotblockers -- Jordan and Pippen -- would be able to be much closer to the action inside.

exactly, the bulls were great defenders partially because they were long in the arms and could move their feet.... they reminded me of a group of dopermans when they get out running....Ginobilli and Parker would have trouble getting beyond their reach....and no touch fouls would make things really hard on ginobilli if he has Pippen or Jordan on him..

people forget than while Rodman was shorter than Duncan, he was a beast and he was powerful enough to keep guys like SHaq and malone off the block, so he could definitely keep TD out of the low post area and disrupt his game...

Bowen wouldnt stop Mj, they'd need to double and trap and Mj would split that and penetrate the middle..

I dont see how the Spurs could stand

[EricForman]

yo dizzle i still want you to explain your "tony parker is more unstoppable than jordan" comment.

[MaxFly]

yo dizzle i still want you to explain your "tony parker is more unstoppable than jordan" comment.

Lol, I'd like and explanation for that as well.

[Admiral]

1998 West:

Jazz 62 wins
Lakers 61 wins
Sonics 61 wins
Spurs 56 wins
Suns 56 wins
Blazers 46 wins
Wolves 45 wins
Rockets 41 wins

Average: 53.5 wins


2007 West:

Mavericks 67 wins
Suns 61 wins
Spurs 58 wins
Rockets 52 wins
Jazz 51 wins
Nuggets 45 wins
Warriors 42 wins
Lakers 42 wins

Average: 52.3 wins



owned.

[Soundwave]

The '96 Sonics and '98 Jazz would beat the Spurs in a 7-game series.

The '92 Blazers (more depth), '93 Suns could probably also do it. I wouldn't neccessarily count the '91 Lakers out either.

Parker and Manu are borderline All-Stars ... they would be exposed for what they are if they tried to do that to a prime Pippen or Payton or even Stockton.

Those players are too smart to get worked by borderline All-Stars like that. Not happening. Bruce Bowen is also a p-ssy compared to some of the defenses Jordan had to face (Knicks, Pistons, etc.), that wouldn't phase him at all.

[beau_boy04]

yo dizzle i still want you to explain your "tony parker is more unstoppable than jordan" comment.

:roll: :oldlol: :oldlol:

[poeticism707]

I just want to thank everyone for posting on this particular thread on ISH. I'm going to save it and keep it as personal record to trot out when necessary. All of you that have argued so long, laboriously, with well documented arguments about how the Bulls and just about every other team in the 90s (and other eras no doubt) would destory the Spurs in their 3 (4?) title years making it abundantly clear that:

Tim Duncan is inarguably top-5 ALL TIME, and maybe even the GOAT. Why? Because you Tim Duncan and Spurs bashers cannot have it both ways. When you are comparing whatever other flavor of the month big man or player (ie KG, Malone, Barkley, Hakeem, Shaq; or guards like Kobe, Nash, etc) you always talk about how great the spurs organization is, and how great Parker and Ginobli are. But in the historical sense this thread overwhelmingly proves that The Spurs are the worst of the worst, could not beat any great dynasties. So how did they do it then? How did the Spurs win 2 titles from the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, 1 from the New Bad boy Pistons, and maybe even a 4th from every else? Since the role players are as bad as you think, not being able to hold a candle to other great players, role players and otherwise, then what is the reason this sorry bunch of bums has won 3 (maybe 4 up 2-0 in the Finals) titles? There is only won reason left: Tim Duncan. Since his teammates are so horrid, he has won more titles and finals MVPs than everyone but the very elite (Russel 11-13, Jordan 6, Magic 5, Bird 3). HOWEVER he has won with so much less. They were great dynasties the likes of which his Spur teammates couldn't be their teams' ball boy. That means (and this is nifty KG-would-win-just-as-much-or-more-with-Spurs-instead-of-Duncan argument) that if Russel won 11 (or 13) with the Celtics, Duncan would have won 15 in his place. Put Duncan on the Bulls instead of Jordan, he'd win 8-9! Duncan with the Showtime Lakers? 7-8? Duncan with the 80s Celtics 5-6! Duncan instead of Shaq, making it the Duncan and Kobe (lol) Lakers? 10 titles (I'm not kidding)? Again, for the slow witted, how is this possible? Well, if Duncan can win 3 (maybe 4) titles with talentless nobodies, just average NBA joes historically, then TD is is the GOAT, of every position, of all time.
Just to repeat our lesson in logic ISH, you cannot have it both ways: Either the Spurs suck (like this thread attests) and Duncan is is the GOAT or at least top-3/4 all time, or TD sucks, and the Ginobli and Parker are HOFs, and should win a 2-3 MVPs. According to this thread, you've already made your decision. TD is the GOAT! :applause:

[SCdac]

There is only won reason left: Tim Duncan.

I disagree. Duncan IS the Spurs, don't get me wrong. But he's not the "won" (or sole) reason the Spurs are consistently contenders/champions.

I said back in page whatever of this thread, Gregg Popovich is being severely underrated. He is a HOF coach and isn't even being factored into people's arguments.

When you talk about great teams, you have to mention their coaches.

As is, Popovich is standing with 576 wins and 276 losses with the Spurs (.676). And he's not one to avoid implementing defensive schemes, which is huge in all of his 3 titles with the Spurs.

[poeticism707]

I disagree. Duncan IS the Spurs, don't get me wrong. But he's not the "won" (or sole) reason the Spurs are consistently contenders/champions.

I said back in page whatever of this thread, Gregg Popovich is being severely underrated. He is a HOF coach and isn't even being factored into people's arguments.

When you talk about great teams, you have to mention their coaches.

As is, Popovich is standing with 576 wins and 276 losses with the Spurs (.676). And he's not one to avoid implementing defensive schemes, which is huge in all of his 3 titles with the Spurs.

This is an excellent point, and Pop deseves his share of credit. HOWEVER, who did Shaq and Jordan have coaching them-Phil Jackson, tied for NBA record with 9 titles? Russel's coach was legendary Red Aurbach-also 9 titles. Showtime Lakers- Pat Riley, 6+ (not sure exactly how many) titles? You have presented an asterisk to the Spurs, in this case Tim Duncan (as this thread shows) that every great player gets, and this STILL proves my point further: those other coaches mentioned had more to work with. All the Pop had was Tim Duncan and some volunteers from the crowd. Thanks for proving that Duncan is the GOAT of all positions, of all time! :applause:

[beau_boy04]

People are saying the Spurs sucks is because they are being compared to the Bulls dynasty thats it. If they were being compared to another championship team, The Spurs would have a better chance. Dunca is not even a top 5 all-time, let alone the GOAT ;)

[Loki]

Tim Duncan is inarguably top-5 ALL TIME, and maybe even the GOAT.

No.

[poeticism707]

People are saying the Spurs sucks is because they are being compared to the Bulls dynasty thats it. If they were being compared to another championship team, The Spurs would have a better chance. Dunca is not even a top 5 all-time, let alone the GOAT ;)

Go back and read through the threads. Most people are saying rather strongly that the none of the Spurs teams could beat any dynasties (even though the topic is MJs Bulls), as well waa as not being championship contenders in other eras. In essence would never win a nerver win titlte in any other era.

[gengiskhan]

Hmm lets see.

1991 finalist Runner Up MVP : Magic
1992 finalist Runner Up MVP : Drexler
1993 finalist NBA MVP : Barkley
1996 finalists Runner Up MVP + NBA DPOY : Kemp & Payton
1997 finalist NBA MVP: Malone
1998 finalist Runner up MVP: Malone


so yes. Every time, MJ faced the very best team in the finals.

unlike today's garbage NBA era where NBA MVP & Runner Up MVP Rose & Howard are watching NBA finals in their living room.