Bill Simmons: "96 Bulls are not a top-10 All-time and are worse than the '01 Lakers"

[teflon don]

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=16169

Wow. Just wow.

But seriously, is there anything more enjoyable than seeing a critically-acclaimed sports writer lose all bodily credibly in just one sentence. Wow.

Let's get this future 10-page thread started.

[LakerWarrior12]

The 2007-2008 Lakers are better than the Portland TrailBlazers and Zach Chokester.

[Make It Rain]

Wow, truly an idiot. They swept Shaq's Magic that year.

[Lebron23]

The 2007-2008 Lakers are better than the Portland TrailBlazers and Zach Chokester.


Kobe will no longer win any championship rings unless he played as a role player in some future powerhouse team in the NBA. Maybe a sidekick of OJ Mayo, Derrick Rose and Michael Beasley once the LA LAKERS became a lottery team next season.

[joe]

You guys are just so in love with MJ and his legacy that you're afraid to admit that he would ever faulter to any team. you didn't even listen to his arguments, which were basically..

The league was falling apart that year, talent wise. All the good teams were on the downside of their "prime," and MJs bulls were the best team left.

Furthermore, while you're busy defending the greatness of MJ, bill simmons even said that the 92 Bulls were a great team, just that he didn't think the 98 bulls were a top-10 team

You guys are so, so, so competely sickening with your MJ homerism. Just stop, everyone on this site. Just stop.

When someone states that they think MJ's Bulls could be beaten by a Prime-Shaq led Championship team that went 15-1 in a VERY tough western conference finals... and you are actually OFFENDED and say that that person has lost all credibility, i think you need to see a therapist. its very sad, some of the MJ love that goes on here.

[Lakerz_Forever]

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


^^^^^ sums up the majority's reaction.

[Lakerz_Forever]

You guys are just so in love with MJ and his legacy that you're afraid to admit that he would ever faulter to any team. you didn't even listen to his arguments, which were basically..

The league was falling apart that year, talent wise. All the good teams were on the downside of their "prime," and MJs bulls were the best team left.

Furthermore, while you're busy defending the greatness of MJ, bill simmons even said that the 92 Bulls were a great team, just that he didn't think the 98 bulls were a top-10 team

You guys are so, so, so competely sickening with your MJ homerism. Just stop, everyone on this site. Just stop.

When someone states that they think MJ's Bulls could be beaten by a Prime-Shaq led Championship team that went 15-1 in a VERY tough western conference finals... and you are actually OFFENDED and say that that person has lost all credibility, i think you need to see a therapist. its very sad, some of the MJ love that goes on here.



bullsh!t. MJ = GOAT

end of story

[wTFaMonkey]

wtf??!?!?

they are the number one team in all of history

this is john hollinger from espn.com


Hands down, the greatest team of all time. How can you choose another when these guys won 72 regular-season games and 14 of their first 15 in the postseason? The Bulls were so good they were first in both offensive and defensive efficiency, and outscored their opponents by 12.2 points per game.

With names like Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, and Toni Kukoc, not to mention a coach like Phil Jackson, this team was pretty much unbeatable -- in fact, seven of its playoff wins were by 17 points or more. The only nit to pick was the Bulls' consecutive losses to the Sonics in the Finals, but they were up 3-0 by then and seemingly bored with how good they were.

[DCL]

You guys are just so in love with MJ and his legacy that you're afraid to admit that he would ever faulter to any team. you didn't even listen to his arguments, which were basically..

The league was falling apart that year, talent wise. All the good teams were on the downside of their "prime," and MJs bulls were the best team left.

Furthermore, while you're busy defending the greatness of MJ, bill simmons even said that the 92 Bulls were a great team, just that he didn't think the 98 bulls were a top-10 team

You guys are so, so, so competely sickening with your MJ homerism. Just stop, everyone on this site. Just stop.

When someone states that they think MJ's Bulls could be beaten by a Prime-Shaq led Championship team that went 15-1 in a VERY tough western conference finals... and you are actually OFFENDED and say that that person has lost all credibility, i think you need to see a therapist. its very sad, some of the MJ love that goes on here.

put the crack pipe down.

[joe]

wtf??!?!?

they are the number one team in all of history

this is john hollinger from espn.com


if you actually read Bill Simmons chat, you'd see that he has issues with the forumula John Hollingre used to come to that conclusion, mainly the fact that it didnt take into account the quality of the league for the year Given Team won the championship.

his argument was that shaq-kobe lkaers from 2001 went through an extremely talented western conference, along with the sixers who had Iverson and Mutumbo during his prime.

also, he said that the league was at one of its absolute weakest eras from 96-98.

[dejordan]

in terms of overall talent that bulls team wasn't as good as a lot of teams, HOWEVER, jordan was unstoppable, everyone else fed off of him and made their shots, and they played the best defense you ever saw. so they're always in any series against any team because with mj drawing doubles or scoring at will, everyone else gets to just do what they do and then they go down the other end and defend as well as anyone can.

so if you wanna rank them player by player or in terms of potential, they aren't close to number 1. if you want to rank them on what they accomplished and how well they competed no matter the opponent, then you can rank them all the way at the top if you want.

[joe]

bullsh!t. MJ = GOAT

end of story

did i ever, at any point, in ANY post that i've EVER made on this or ANY web site, say that MJ is not the GOAT? NO.

what i said was, the fact that you guys are so threatened by the mere mention of an MJ-led team being beaten, especially by a team that was so talented (Like the 2001 Lakers), might mean that it's time you get some help for your complete homerism of MJ.

And you are a prime example of this. You probably scanned my post, seen that it was Anti-MJ, or at the very least Anti-Bulls, and immediately jumped to the Aid of your Idol, defending his status as GOAT. well guess what buddy? I never said he wasn't GOAT.

[Chrono90]

jordan was unstoppable and shaq was unstoppable, but i take the bulls over chicago because they won more regular season games

[Soundwave]

Bill Simmons: Read my article. Please read my article. I'll add more controversey.

You can argue the '96 Bulls aren't the best ever (though you'd be in the minority), but not even top 10 ... gimme a break.

The NBA was soft in 1996? The '96 Orlando Magic or the '96 Sonics would tear the 2007 NBA apart. The '96 Jazz, Rockets, Pacers, Knicks, and Suns were nothing to scoff at either ... all of those teams if put into 2007 would have a pretty strong shot at getting to the Finals. The 95-96 Miami Heat who were the 8th seed in the 1996 Eastern Conference could probably be the no.1 or no.2 seed in the 2007 NBA Eastern Conference.

Teams like the 2007 Lakers or Warriors wouldn't even make the playoffs in 1996, and half the East at least wouldn't make it.

[wTFaMonkey]

if you actually read Bill Simmons chat, you'd see that he has issues with the forumula John Hollingre used to come to that conclusion, mainly the fact that it didnt take into account the quality of the league for the year Given Team won the championship.

his argument was that shaq-kobe lkaers from 2001 went through an extremely talented western conference, along with the sixers who had Iverson and Mutumbo during his prime.

also, he said that the league was at one of its absolute weakest eras from 96-98.

weak??!? can you explain "weak"??

[sydneyking]

You can argue the '96 Bulls aren't the best ever (though you'd be in the minority)
What??? Showtime and 80s Celts are definitely better than the 96 Bulls.


You guys are just so in love with MJ and his legacy that you're afraid to admit that he would ever faulter to any team. you didn't even listen to his arguments, which were basically..

The league was falling apart that year, talent wise. All the good teams were on the downside of their "prime," and MJs bulls were the best team left.

Furthermore, while you're busy defending the greatness of MJ, bill simmons even said that the 92 Bulls were a great team, just that he didn't think the 98 bulls were a top-10 team

You guys are so, so, so competely sickening with your MJ homerism. Just stop, everyone on this site. Just stop.

When someone states that they think MJ's Bulls could be beaten by a Prime-Shaq led Championship team that went 15-1 in a VERY tough western conference finals... and you are actually OFFENDED and say that that person has lost all credibility, i think you need to see a therapist. its very sad, some of the MJ love that goes on here.

Great post. Saying that the Bulls weren't the "best ever", is not equivalent to denying MJ GOAT status.

[Lebron23]

jordan was unstoppable and shaq was unstoppable, but i take the bulls over chicago because they won more regular season games


How can that happen????

[gts]

tht's an interesting take, looking at other team rosters at the time i can certainly see where he would come to that conclusion...
lol at all the guys who suddenly are qouting holinger when half the time anyone posts stats they scream "stats don't tell the story"

[Soundwave]

I would say the majority of basketball fans if polled would pick the 96 Bulls as the best team ever (now whether you want to debate against that is your perogative, but it wouldn't change that you're likely in the minority).

But to not even put them in the top 10 ... obviously this is a piece written to get attention for shock value because no one would read it otherwise.

The NBA being watered down in 1996 is so laughable as well. The NBA was a lot stronger in 1996.

[Carbine]

Saying those Lakers from '01 were better than the Bulls in '96 isn't going out on a limb or anything.

I mean we're talking about an absoulute prime Shaq here. Some say at his best he was better than Jordan at his best. Very good supporting cast. One of the best sidekicks ever. I truly believe the supporting casts do not give the Bulls, or the Lakers, a clear advantage.

I think it comes down to how effective both Michael and Shaq played. My money would be on Shaq. I think it's an open and shut case that Shaq outplays a past prime Jordan.

In the end, that's the difference.

[BlackMoses]

Bill Simmons: Read my article. Please read my article. I'll add more controversey.

You can argue the '96 Bulls aren't the best ever (though you'd be in the minority), but not even top 10 ... gimme a break.

The NBA was soft in 1996? The '96 Orlando Magic or the '96 Sonics would tear the 2007 NBA apart. The '96 Jazz, Rockets, Pacers, Knicks, and Suns were nothing to scoff at either ... all of those teams if put into 2007 would have a pretty strong shot at getting to the Finals. The 95-96 Miami Heat who were the 8th seed in the 1996 Eastern Conference could probably be the no.1 or no.2 seed in the 2007 NBA Eastern Conference.

Teams like the 2007 Lakers or Warriors wouldn't even make the playoffs in 1996, and half the East at least wouldn't make it.


:roll: :roll: He's not comparing it to 2007! He's comparing the best years the league has ever had. For all the MJ love, Shaq was still 3-4 years away from his prime, Kemp was too young, and Malone was too easy to frustrate.

MJ is one of the greats to ever play the game, but by no means is he that much more significant in a matchup than LARRY BIRD. MJ+Pippen is a killer combination, one of the best ever, but the depth of the team is a joke compared to the all time teams.

The MJ apologist response might be: well, the 90's Bulls played together better than any team ever, that's why the won the most games, and MJ simply wanted it more than anyone else!!!

I say bullcrap. All the best teams play as a team and have the ability to take it to the next level, THAT's WHY THEY'RE THE BEST TEAMS! Once you get rid of that block you have to look at the lineups.

To use an example of a team that would have toyed with the 96 Bulls, I'll go with the 85-86 Celtics:

PG Dennis Johnson - 9 time all defensive team, (6 time first team), two time all NBA, 5 all-star games, Finals MVP --> DJ > Ron Harper

SG Danny Ainge - clear disadvantage here (MJ would destroy Ainge), but Ainge is comparable to Steve Kerr --> MJ > Ferry

SF Larry Bird- don't need to go into specifics, way better than Pippen, same competitive instincts as MJ (Larry Legend just had to go against harder competition)

PF Kevin McHale - one of the best PF's to ever play the game. Comparable to Duncan in the post (Kevin wasn't as good a rebounder though). Rodman was a good defender and top 3 rebounder of all time: but McHale was a 6 time all defensive team member, all NBA first team, 7 time all star, one of the better shot blockers of the 80's, and always had one of the best shooting %'s in the league --> McHale > Rodman

C Robert Parish - Chief clowns on anyone the Bulls have here

and 6th man of the year: Bill Walton- While the Bulls calling card might be the strength of the team as a whole under the leadership of MJ, Bill Walton is one of the better team players the game has ever seen. Bill and Tony might have both been 6th men of the year, but Bill is on a whole other level. Bill wasn't a defensive liability, and was more than serviceable at the offensive end. He was one of the better rebounders in the league even after his numerous surgeries. He was an experienced veteran who had previously been a star, the same could not be said for Kukoc. --> Walton > Kukoc

-----

Then there are the intangibles like home crowd, desire (street hunger), energy, motivation and such. While MJ was one of the most dedicated players to ever play the game, and the Bulls as a group carried a sort of bravado, Larry and the Celtics would match them at every opportunity. So if you look at the matchups and the intangibles, the Bulls cleary take it.

Even MJ at his all time individual greatest (averaged 44 points a game against the Celtics that year in the playoffs) couldn't top a Celtics team just getting started on their playoff run.

[Soundwave]

LOL, Jordan in '86 was no where even close to his individual greatest. He had absolutely no support on that team at all, if the Celtics didn't win that series that'd be utterly pathetic.

Does any one even actually believe the '96 Bulls aren't even a top 10 all-time team?

*crickets*

The guy is writing a fluff piece based on sensationalism. The fact is he probably wouldn't get as much attention if he wrote the '96 Bulls would sweep the 80s Celtics and then the 80s Lakers back to back. He knows the '96 Bulls are the consensus pick of the best team ever by the general public and a lot of hardcore basketball fans ... you can tell people aren't paying much attention to basketball these days when writers are stooping to write these kinds of pieces.

[BlackMoses]

LOL, Jordan in '86 was no where even close to his individual greatest.

Does any even actually believe the '96 Bulls aren't even a top 10 all-time team?

*crickets*

Really, then what was his INDIVIDUAL BEST performance? I'm not talking about winning, I'm talking about playing out of his mind. Sure he was not quite in his prime yet, he would get more mature and manage games better, but when did he ever put a more sublime game or series together?

[Carbine]

His game peaked around '90-'92 in my opinion; certainly not back in '86.

[Soundwave]

Really, then what was his INDIVIDUAL BEST performance? I'm not talking about winning, I'm talking about playing out of his mind. Sure he was not quite in his prime yet, he would get more mature and manage games better, but when did he ever put a more sublime game or series together?

Honestly, I think Jordan was capable of doing that (scoring 40,50, even 60) whenever he really felt like it.

It wasn't great team basketball though and he wasn't required to do it as much later on in his career.

I would say some of his performances vs. the Knicks later on in the playoffs, game 1 of the 1992 finals, the game he played sick vs. the Jazz, the 1988 season when he won MVP, scoring title, AND defensive player of the year, his last game as a Bull, etc. are more impressive performances.

Just because he had a higher point total in those certain games doesn't IMO make those his best games. Otherwise the 69 point game vs. Cleveland should be his best game ever (which it isn't).

[Loki]

His game peaked around '90-'92 in my opinion; certainly not back in '86.

:oldlol:

Seriously -- how can a player's game peak in their second season? Jordan's game management, skills/athleticism, balancing of team/individual play, and basketball IQ peaked from '90-'93.

[Carbine]

The flu game is regarded by many to be overrated, but believe me... under those circumstances, it was incredable. I recently had flu like symptoms, nothing that required IV's but anyway, it was VERY difficult to play a semi-run basketball game on courts that were 3/4 the NBA size. Everything from the jumpshot, to mental focus, etc were effected.

I have great respect for that individual effort put forth by MJ.

His game against PHX in the finals where he scored 55 (or 56, I can't remember) was one of my favorites to watch.

[Carbine]

Not really sure why you quoted me there Loki, but whatever.

I agree 100% with you.

[G-train]

I dont see how the league was weak enough in 96 to discredit the Bulls team greatness. It was a weak time, mainly due to a surge in strategy that limited scoring. Some rule changes has eliminated this. Talent wise, the centres and power forwards are on a different level now compared to now. And a case can be made for the guards. Do the research and check out the talent.

I mean, that 96 team with veteran smart (yet most effective) Jordan, prime Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc, Harper (an excellent defender and a smart offensive player who lost his slashing skills due to injury) is definitely top ten.

Look at this and understand. It is better than young athletic jordan, young pippen, grant, cartwright and paxson and that team destroyed the pistons who had competed with the prime lakers/ celts.

[Loki]

Not really sure why you quoted me there Loki, but whatever.

I agree 100% with you.

I was agreeing with you too. I'm not sure how anyone could think that Jordan's game peaked in his sophomore season.

[Carbine]

No doubt.

I actually own the Ultimate Jordan DVD with that particular game on it from '86 and it's just beyond me how somebody could say he was at his best; aside from looking at a boxscore - which that poster probably did because many people talk out of their you know what around here. :oldlol:

His game was so raw back then compared to what it evolved into.

[starks]

First off, whether a team faces inferior competition or not is irrelevant. The important thing is domination over the competition that is available. A team has no control over the competition. All they can do is beat whoever comes in front of them. Bulls had a +10.6ppg point differential in the playoffs. It wasn't like they were barely winning in the regular season or playoffs. There's no way to prove that they couldn't beat if there were better teams.

Second, the competitive balance would be about the same for every team. Some years, there are more than one great teams and some very bad teams. Some years there are no great teams and less very bad teams. No sudden jumps happen in overall difficulty around the league in just one year.Meaning that, if there were more BAD teams in 1996, then it would mean that there were also more GOOD teams for the Bulls to play.

So, if you are a .800 team like the Bulls, which is easier? Beating two different .500 teams or beating a .700 team plus a .300 team?

[IBLEEDGREEN43]

they are a top 10 team of all time, but the 1986 celtics were better and always will be the greatest NBA team ever esembled..

[G-train]

they are a top 10 team of all time, but the 1986 celtics were better and always will be the greatest NBA team ever esembled..

I would say a few of the Russell teams may have been better..... and an argument could be made for the Jerry West laker team that won 69 or whatever it was

[EricForman]

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=16169

Wow. Just wow.

But seriously, is there anything more enjoyable than seeing a critically-acclaimed sports writer lose all bodily credibly in just one sentence. Wow.

Let's get this future 10-page thread started.


Hey, I don't agree, but saying "the 01 lakers could have beaten the 96 bulls" is HELL LOT more reasonable than the ass clowns claiming Tony Parker is more unstoppable than Jordan or "no one on the Bulls could handle Tony Parker" on that other Jordan thread.

[ConanRulesNBC]

So 72-10 doesn't mean anything??? Not better than the 2001 Lakers? Is that a freaking joke or what?

[ConanRulesNBC]

also, he said that the league was at one of its absolute weakest eras from 96-98.

Jazz, Magic, Rockets, Sonics, Knicks, Pacers, Heat were "weak"? Who the f is this guy? I'd even take those Magic teams with Shaq, Horace Grant and Hardaway over the Lakers with Shaq and Kobe.

[EricForman]

Jazz, Magic, Rockets, Sonics, Knicks, Pacers, Heat were "weak"? Who the f is this guy? I'd even take those Magic teams with Shaq, Horace Grant and Hardaway over the Lakers with Shaq and Kobe.


Come on, be resonable. 2001 Shaq would own 96 Shaq, and 2001 Kobe was the best "team player Kobe". That was when his skills was reaching superstar level AND he was still willing to play second fiddle because his ego hadn't blown up yet. Saying the 2001 team could beat the 96 Bulls IS NOT THAT OUTRAGEOUS. I don't agree, but still, it's not. PRIME SHAQ+Kobe before his ego blew up+very, very good role players.

Now in hindsight, Kobe and Shaq may not have had super talents around them but they had guys with high basketball IQ and smart vets.

Fisher, Fox, Horry, all three of these guys knows how to flop, knows how to play "dirty", knows how to rough up mentally weak guys to take them out of their game, they are VERY good role players. They are smart.

[EricForman]

the 01 team also had guys like JR Rider, Horace Grant, Lindsay Hunter (very good on ball defender) AND Ron Harper.

They were a damn good team.

BUt still, no one beats a angry Jordan. Plus Jordan would have extra motivation to kill Horace Grant. hahah

[IBLEEDGREEN43]

I would say a few of the Russell teams may have been better..... and an argument could be made for the Jerry West laker team that won 69 or whatever it was

maybe.. but as far as talent on a roster.. the 86 celtics own the crown

[-primetime-]

this is what happened to Shaq when he crossed paths with MJ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8g40udNBfM

I know he wasn't in his prime but MJ would still posterize his ass all night long...

[LMFAO]

Bill Simmons: Yes. Emphatically. I think they won the most games ever. I would not have them in the top-10. You're telling me they could have beaten the 2001 Lakers in a series? Or the '86 Celtics? Or the '85 Lakers? or the '83 Sixers? Gimme a break.

uh ...what...WTF Stupid, stupid thing to say. Truly. I am no Bulls fan but damn anyone who has been alive long enough to see the last couple of decades plus of basketball should no better. 96 Bulls are the top of the heap as far as championship teams go.

[beau_boy04]

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=16169

Wow. Just wow.

But seriously, is there anything more enjoyable than seeing a critically-acclaimed sports writer lose all bodily credibly in just one sentence. Wow.

Let's get this future 10-page thread started.


Bill's on crack thats why ;)

[LMFAO]

they are a top 10 team of all time, but the 1986 celtics were better and always will be the greatest NBA team ever esembled..
ummmm, no. no they are not.

[Soundwave]

Well hell, you could also make an arguement that the 2001 Lakers would beat the 80s Celtics or Lakers too.

Or the 1990 Pistons could also have taken both.

But here come the Bird/Magic "apologists" now I guess.

My personal feeling is in a 7 game series defense > offense just about every single time.

[ConanRulesNBC]

The Bulls went 72-10. How can they not be in the top 10?

[IBLEEDGREEN43]

ummmm, no. no they are not.


name a team with a better roster than

bird
parrish
mchale
walton
dennis johnson

good luck

[-primetime-]

name a team with a better roster than

bird
parrish
mchale
walton
dennis johnson

good luck
jordan/pippen/rodman and any 2 random nba players

[IBLEEDGREEN43]

jordan/pippen/rodman and any 2 random nba players

bird/mchale/parrish is better than jordan, pippen, rodman... jordans the greatest of all time, but as far as im concerned.. rodman is no where near parrish, and pippen wasnt better than mchale.. no way

[ConanRulesNBC]

jordan/pippen/rodman and any 2 random nba players

lmao! So true.

[IBLEEDGREEN43]

lmao! So true.


as far as hall of famers, and talent

bird
walton
mchale
parrish
ainge
johnson

is better than any bulls team, ever.. its pretty simple to see..

[G-train]

jordan > bird
Pippen >= Mchale
Rodman < than Parish but >>rebounder, defender which is all he needed to do.

Edge goes to Celts for talent overall , but 96 Bulls combined better as a team IMO

[WoGiTaLiA1]

Prime-Shaq led Championship team that went 15-1 in a VERY tough western conference finals...

Chicago went through a better East and then played a real team in the finals to boot. The NBA's decline may have started around 96 but it went into full steam ahead in 99 and has gotten worse with each passing year to the point where the league is pretty much a joke.

[sydneyking]

jordan/pippen/rodman and any 2 random nba players
This is one of the worst posts I've seen in a long time.

The Lakers second best player was Kareem!. They would definitely account for the Bulls. So would Bird & company.

[-primetime-]

This is one of the worst posts I've seen in a long time.

The Lakers second best player was Kareem!. They would definitely account for the Bulls. So would Bird & company.
Jordan would have dunked all over kareem just like he did with shaq...

do I really need to bring everyone back to reality with a bunch of MJ footage?

you don't think Rodman could handle Kareem as well as anyone else could?...yeah that hook shot was great and all but you have a defensive MVP in Jordan and a great defender in Rodman...I am sorry but the 96 Bulls could hang with the best of them....ALL OF THEM...

I am sick of people trying to act as though they have great basketball knowledge in saying that other teams could have stomped the 90s Bulls...it simply is not the truth...

[IBLEEDGREEN43]

Jordan would have dunked all over kareem just like he did with shaq...

do I really need to bring everyone back to reality with a bunch of MJ footage?

you don't think Rodman could handle Kareem as well as anyone else could?...yeah that hook shot was great and all but you have a defensive MVP in Jordan and a great defender in Rodman...I am sorry but the 96 Bulls could hang with the best of them....ALL OF THEM...

I am sick of people trying to act as though they have great basketball knowledge in saying that other teams could have stomped the 90s Bulls...it simply is not the truth...

the 90's bulls.. would literally be like the 2007 cavs in the finals, against the 86 celtics.... all one player getting the team by.. especially against a team like boston in the 86' season..

the bulls simply wouldnt be able to match up with the 86 celtics.. with jordan scoring alot.. like lebron right now, and pippen being like drew gooden or big Z.. the rest of the team is blahhhhhhhhh and the 86 celtics were fine tuned like the current spurs team..

celtics would win easy..

it would be like.. jordan may score alott.. we could go down low to.... against mchale.. and we have a scoring presence... uh... against parrish... and we have a great player... uh.. to match up with bird.. while a number of players we could throw at jordan...

[G-train]

I respect you opinion, but the Celts have no one to guard a smart efficient Jordan, nor the versatile Pippen. Likewise the celts had a very finely tuned offense with 3 or 4 great options. It would be pretty close

[wang4three]

Kobe will no longer win any championship rings unless he played as a role player in some future powerhouse team in the NBA. Maybe a sidekick of OJ Mayo, Derrick Rose and Michael Beasley once the LA LAKERS became a lottery team next season.

?????????

Kobe will be better than them for the next 5 years, in which he probably will age and slow down.

[-primetime-]

the 90's bulls.. would literally be like the 2007 cavs in the finals, against the 86 celtics.... all one player getting the team by.. especially against a team like boston in the 86' season..

the bulls simply wouldnt be able to match up with the 86 celtics.. with jordan scoring alot.. like lebron right now, and pippen being like drew gooden or big Z.. the rest of the team is blahhhhhhhhh and the 86 celtics were fine tuned like the current spurs team..

celtics would win easy..

it would be like.. jordan may score alott.. we could go down low to.... against mchale.. and we have a scoring presence... uh... against parrish... and we have a great player... uh.. to match up with bird.. while a number of players we could throw at jordan...

did you really just compare the 96 Bulls to the FU-CKIN CAVS???

I am done with your homerism

[IBLEEDGREEN43]

did you really just compare the 96 Bulls to the FU-CKIN CAVS???

I am done with your homerism


no, i am not comparing the two teams.. the bulls vs the celtics matchup.. is like the current nba finals matchup.. with boston being the spurs.. and chicago being cleveland

[IBLEEDGREEN43]

I respect you opinion, but the Celts have no one to guard a smart efficient Jordan, nor the versatile Pippen. Likewise the celts had a very finely tuned offense with 3 or 4 great options. It would be pretty close

yeah, the frontline of the celtics would overtake the bulls mediocre forwards, though

[johndeeregreen]

One thing that cannot be denied is that Simmons flat-out can write.

[-primetime-]

no, i am not comparing the two teams.. the bulls vs the celtics matchup.. is like the current nba finals matchup.. with boston being the spurs.. and chicago being cleveland
I really do believe you have green blood now...

[IBLEEDGREEN43]

I really do believe you have green blood now...

my point is.. the only matchup advantage would be jordan against the celtics.. thats it.. nothing else.. so.. if jordan played really, really, really good.. the bulls would have a chance.. aka lebrons cavs in the finals... the celtics own the bulls, as far as matchups..

and yes, i do bleed green.. all day, every day

[G-train]

yeah, the frontline of the celtics would overtake the bulls mediocre forwards, though

break that down

Pippen would guard Bird
Rodman would guard Mchale
Longley on Parish

Parish would score on Longley, to the tune of at least 20 per.

But otherwise I dont see a takeover, but a slight edge

[plupiter]

You have to understand who wrote this, it's like understanding the loyalty of posters on ish--then you understand the agendas. Simmons is obviously emotionally invested in the '86 Celtics, and despite him being a Jordan fan, he's going to try and protect that '86 team's place in history. I think his heart may be trumping his brain in this instance. He's not an unbiased observer here.

[IBLEEDGREEN43]

break that down

Pippen would guard Bird
Rodman would guard Mchale
Longley on Parish

Parish would score on Longley, to the tune of at least 20 per.

But otherwise I dont see a takeover, but a slight edge

mchale would shotfake rodman to the ground... and bird would score over pippen..

and walton comes off the bench, he won 6 man in 1986..

dennis johnson was awesome, too

[-primetime-]

if jordan played really, really, really good.. the bulls would have a chance..
ok...

I don't think that would be a problem

the odds that Jordan would play really, really, really, good are 100%

now if you added a fourth "really" then i don't know...

[-primetime-]

this is what jordan would do to Bird and Parish...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bFDwd68-DA

[G-train]

mchale would shotfake rodman to the ground... and bird would score over pippen..

and walton comes off the bench, he won 6 man in 1986..

dennis johnson was awesome, too

dude, Rodman doesnt jump for fakes. thats one reason he was multiple DPOY and considered one of the greatest defenders ever.

Walton came off the bench for Mchale or Parish, so Rodman would guard one. Longley was a sound defender as well - he would get beaten by these guys but not abused

the comment made was that the frontline would overwelm the bulls, so DJ is irrelevant right now

[IBLEEDGREEN43]

ok...

I don't think that would be a problem

the odds that Jordan would play really, really, really, good are 100%

now if you added a fourth "really" then i don't know...

jordan of the 90's.. couldnt beat the 86 celtics by himself, and every other matchup is won by boston.. so why dont you think about that..

im not even being a serious boston fan in this thread..

just look at the matchups.. jordan couldnt do it alone, and every position, other than jordan on whoever, is owned by boston.. even the great scottie pippen.. isnt better than kevin mchale... :bowdown:

[IBLEEDGREEN43]

this is what jordan would do to Bird and Parish...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bFDwd68-DA

yeah, too bad bird got his shot off, whenever.. on whoever, at any time.. he even told defenders what he was going to do.. it wouldnt matter if it was jordan.. he wouldnt be intimidated by jordan, at all

its larry bird.

[-primetime-]

jordan couldnt do it alone,
disagree

even the great scottie pippen.. isnt better than kevin mchale...
disagree

you need to do some reasearch on what pippen did the two years that MJ was gone...

[-primetime-]

yeah, too bad jordan got his shot off, whenever.. on whoever, at any time.. he even told defenders what he was going to do.. it wouldnt matter if it was the celtics.. he wouldnt be intimidated by bird, at all

its Jordan.
fixed

[IBLEEDGREEN43]

disagree

disagree

you need to do some reasearch on what pippen did the two years that MJ was gone...

whether jordan was there or not, you still think he was a better player than kevin mchale.. i consider kevin mchale a top 5 power forward of all time, i dont consider scottie pippen anything except a good player who won titles next to a great player.

[-primetime-]

whether jordan was there or not, you still think he was a better player than kevin mchale.. i consider kevin mchale a top 5 power forward of all time, i dont consider scottie pippen anything except a good player who won titles next to a great player.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottie_Pippen#Pippen_without_Jordan

Michael Jordan unexpectedly retired in 1993, and the 1994 season marked Pippen's stepping out from Jordan's shadow and he performed as one of the best players in the league. That year, he earned All-Star Game MVP honors. He had perhaps his best season, leading the Bulls in scoring, assists, and the entire league in steals, averaging 22.0 points, 8.7 rebounds, 5.6 assists, 2.9 steals, 0.9 three-pointers, and 0.8 blocks per game, while shooting 49.1% from the field and a career-best 32% from the three-point line. For his efforts, he earned the first of three straight All-NBA First Team nods, and finished third in the MVP voting. The Bulls finished the season with 55 wins, only two less than their previous championship year with Jordan still on the team.

[IBLEEDGREEN43]

fixed


believe it or not.. if i had to pick a player, on getting shots off.. i'd take bird in a heartbeart..

[IBLEEDGREEN43]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottie_Pippen#Pippen_without_Jordan

Michael Jordan unexpectedly retired in 1993, and the 1994 season marked Pippen's stepping out from Jordan's shadow and he performed as one of the best players in the league. That year, he earned All-Star Game MVP honors. He had perhaps his best season, leading the Bulls in scoring, assists, and the entire league in steals, averaging 22.0 points, 8.7 rebounds, 5.6 assists, 2.9 steals, 0.9 three-pointers, and 0.8 blocks per game, while shooting 49.1% from the field and a career-best 32% from the three-point line. For his efforts, he earned the first of three straight All-NBA First Team nods, and finished third in the MVP voting. The Bulls finished the season with 55 wins, only two less than their previous championship year with Jordan still on the team.

thats pretty cool, it doesnt mean anything to me... mchale was better

[G-train]

its not about having better individual talents

Why did the Bulls win 72 games?

Defense. the bulls smothered teams into oblivion

1-5

Harper - Great onball defender with long arms and a high bball IQ and would contain DJ, he certainly wouldnt be flogged by DJ.
Jordan - regarded as the greatest defensive guard ever (certainly top 3)
Pippen - regarded as the greatest defensive small forward ever
Rodman -regarded as one of the top 5 defensive power forwards
Longley - A sound defensive center

The celts had a lot of offensive talent, but as a defensive unit, plus the scoring of Jordan and Pippen and the triangle offence running well, its a very close series

[sydneyking]

you don't think Rodman could handle Kareem as well as anyone else could?.
:roll: :roll:

*throws up*

[reppy]

The real question is: could Phil Jackson outcoach himself?

DUNN DUNN DUNNNNNNNNNNNNN

[Sharas]

not top 10 all-time? bull****.

but 2001 lakers would definitely have chance against them. at least. although '96 bulls are one of best defensive teams ever, shaq would still destroy them in the paint. even prime jordan would have a very hard time matching shaq's production. bulls' role players are probably better, but NO ONE could guard shaq back then. it would come to jordan vs. shaq, but it would be a very tough matchup IMO, that could go either way. another important factor would be rodman - would he be able to annoy shaq and get under skin, possibly draw some charges? if he would, bulls would have a clear upper hand. but, who knows:confusedshrug:

and showtime lakers and '86 celtics are definitely better than '96 bulls. you don't have to consider bird or magic better than jordan to conclude this.

bird, mchale, parish, johnson > jordan & pippen

kareem, magic, worthy > jordan & pippen

[EricForman]

you know, I'm watching NBA TV right now and they're showing the 83 finals.. the one where Magic choked all serise and the Lakers got spanked/swept by the Sixers.

Now that I think about it, despite how great those teams are, they've all choked/got outplayed/DESTROYED at one point or another on the big stage.... Celtics by Pistons, Lakers by Pistons, Lakers by Sixers, Lakers by Celtics, Celtics by Sixers, etc, etc.

yeah, I know the usual defense is "both Celtics and Lakers are very, very good teams so they tend to have games where they destroy the others"

But what about Sixers and Pistons?

You're telling me, somehow, the Bulls utter dominance (6-0 in finals, only been pushed to game 7 twice during their six year run) has to be TOTALLY discounted just because their competition was apparently "weaker", while guys like Magic and Bird get free pass, even though one year they're good and next year they could get spanked/destroyed?

And to IBleedCelticGreen, be reasonable. I dont think the Bulls could beat the Celtics either, but it wouldn't be as bad as you make it out to be. One thing I love about people dissing the Bulls is that they always say "The Bulls wouldn't be able to guard so and so", such as you saying "the bulls wouldn't be able to guard McHale or Bird".... but yet you guys always convieniently ignore this guy named, MICHAEL JORDAN.

You say Pip wouldn't be able to guard Bird? Well who the hell is gonna guard Jordan? And for the record, Jordan is better than Bird on offense, and Pip is better than DJ on defense.

I'm not saying the Bulls would win, but why do you guys always convieniently ignore Jordan? I always hear "who on the Bulls would guard Magic? Kareem?" and recently "Who on the Bulls would guard Duncan? Tony Parker?"

yet all those same guys don't answer "who would guard jordan?"

And for the record, Jordan would be a tougher matchup for ANY TEAM IN THE HISTORY OF THE LEAGUE than Bird, Magic, Kareem, Duncan and Tony F*cking Parker ever would.

Look, anytime you guys pull the Bulls against whoever matchup. Just KNOW THIS: Jordan would torch whoever was guarding him WORSE than Magic/Bird/Duncan would torch any member of the Bulls. That's FACT. Bird wouldn't torch Pippen worse than Jordan would torch DJ. Duncan wouldn't torch Rodman worse than Jordan would torch Bowen. Magic wouuldn't torch Ron Harper worse than Jordan would torch Byron Scott. Bill Russell wouldn't torch Longley worse than whoever would be guarding Jordan.

[jo3y91]

did i ever, at any point, in ANY post that i've EVER made on this or ANY web site, say that MJ is not the GOAT? NO.

what i said was, the fact that you guys are so threatened by the mere mention of an MJ-led team being beaten, especially by a team that was so talented (Like the 2001 Lakers), might mean that it's time you get some help for your complete homerism of MJ.

And you are a prime example of this. You probably scanned my post, seen that it was Anti-MJ, or at the very least Anti-Bulls, and immediately jumped to the Aid of your Idol, defending his status as GOAT. well guess what buddy? I never said he wasn't GOAT.
****ing hell somebody else gets it! there is absolutely no reason why bulls would not have had a run for there money against the 01 lakers, seriously prime shaq and up n coming kobe. would have gone 2 7 with kobe making the last shot on MJ's head.

[aj242]

I've said it for years that the first 3peat Bulls were definately better the 2nd 3peat Bulls. The defensive ball pressure especailly in Chicago stadium was outstanding.

[Loki]

the 90's bulls.. would literally be like the 2007 cavs in the finals, against the 86 celtics....

:oldlol:

Let's not get carried away there, buddy.

[OneWay]

2001 Lakers - the greatest team ever assambled. Period. :bowdown:

:rockon:

Just playing. I'm not old enough to know where to rank them all time but that team was freaking dominant and powerful.
Throughout the playoffs Shaq was at 30 ppg and 15 rpg while Kobe was flerting around with numbers like 30-7-6.

Seriously, can a duo get better than that? Hardly.

We can only feel sorry because they lost that one game to the Sixers that they were supposed to win.

Still, the greatest playoff record of all time.

Give it up for the 2001 Los Angeles Lakers. :applause: :bowdown:

[OneWay]

****, I sound like LeBron23.

[JtotheIzzo]

I agree with Bill

the 2001 Lakers didn't lose a game in the Western Conference playoffs that year, they only lost once in the playoffs, game one to the Sixers.

Shaq was the most dominant force in the league, gasp, dare I say more dominant than '96 MJ.

He was get over it.

[OneWay]

While it's popular to praise Shaq and Jordan and unpopular to praise Kobe, let's just remember his playoff numbers that year.

29.4 ppg
7.3 rpg
6.1 apg

Those are comparable numbers to Jordan's regular season numbers in 1996

29.6 ppg
5.9 rpg
4.3 apg

In the playoffs, Jordan was at

30.7 ppg
4.9 rpg
4.1 apg

Just throwing it out there. Just to show how good the 2001 Lakers actually were. Shaq was pretty much at his best while Kobe was averaging Jordan type of numbers and let's not forget that the role players were on top of their task too. Just a shame they lost that one game to Philly. 15-0 would've made a great statement, this way that team isn't nearly as appreciated as it should be.

[Dizzle-2k7]

this years spurs team would kick both their asses. :rockon:

[Rasheed1]

Kobe is not comparable to Mj... In that 2001 run, kobe was not a real problem... McKie and Bell dealt with him pretty well when the series was in doubt.. He got off after it was apparent the 6ers couldnt outmanuever the lakers...

Shaq destroyed us and when he wasnt smashing mutombo's face with his elbows (and blaming mutombo for flopping at the same time) Fischer and Horry were killing us from the arc..

Game 1 - we won
Game 2 - we lost at the very end on a Fischer 3ptr
Game 3 - we lost at the end on an Horry 3 ptr.

by then it was clear we werent gonna be able to even keep competing against these guys... Snow & McKie had broken bones in their feet..Mutombo broke his finger...Ty Hill was invisible since the playoff began, and George Lynch was sidelined with something broken...they were all fading fast and though Iverson was playing his ass off, he couldnt do it all

Shaq dismantled us....... Kobe was hardly Mj or any thing comparable



And No that 2001 Laker team could not beat the 96 Bulls in a series... that Bull team was 72-10 and they would have taken the lakers to the wood shed and whupped their tails

[EricForman]

While it's popular to praise Shaq and Jordan and unpopular to praise Kobe, let's just remember his playoff numbers that year.

29.4 ppg
7.3 rpg
6.1 apg

Those are comparable numbers to Jordan's regular season numbers in 1996

29.6 ppg
5.9 rpg
4.3 apg

In the playoffs, Jordan was at

30.7 ppg
4.9 rpg
4.1 apg

Just throwing it out there. Just to show how good the 2001 Lakers actually were. Shaq was pretty much at his best while Kobe was averaging Jordan type of numbers and let's not forget that the role players were on top of their task too. Just a shame they lost that one game to Philly. 15-0 would've made a great statement, this way that team isn't nearly as appreciated as it should be.


Jordan got those numbers while being doubled and tripled. Kobe got thsoe numbers while teams worried about Shaq probably TWICE as much as they did Kobe (not even an exaggeration.. Shaq from 2000 to 2001 required that much defensive attention), meaning Kobe got those against single coverage--sometimes spot doubles here and there.

I am a Jordan fan but I have no problem hearing "Jordan's Bulls wouldn't have beaten the 2001 Lakers" or 86 Celtics, Magic's Lakers, whatever. Because I feel Jordan's cast didn't measure up to what Shaq had, what MAgic had, what Bird had, etc. I don't even consider it a knock on Jordan that his Bulls would have lost to Bird's Celtics, Bird had a f*cking all star team surrounding his ass.

I just want people to acknowledge the fact that Jordan's Bulls would lose because spot 2 through 12 on his team can't measure up to the Lakers and Celtics's 2 thru 12 . If Jordan had equal cast, he would outplay Magic and BIrd in a 7 game series for sure.

[OneWay]

God, you Jordan fans are so sensitive. I just said Kobe was getting MJ type of numbers, I didn't say he was playing better than MJ or anything. And I knew one of you would jump on me instantly.

Anyway, for the 3peat Lakers, I take Shaq over Jordan. He was getting like 28 ppg and 13 rpg those years. Those years are what earned him the title of the MDE.
Still, Kobe and Jordan would've been hella fun to watch but they'd need some post help. Ho Grant or Rodman would've been enough ;)
Give them a reliable post player/defender and I take that team for the sheer excitement and entertainment.

Still Shaq those years...too dominant for words. But so was MJ. Tough call.

[Loki]

Those are comparable numbers to Jordan's regular season numbers in 1996

29.6 ppg
5.9 rpg
4.3 apg

Those numbers are wrong (you're combining some of his '96 and '97 numbers). Jordan's numbers in '96 were 30.4 pts/6.6 reb/4.3 ast/50% FG in 37.7 mpg.

Kobe's numbers were, as you said, 29.4/7.3 reb/6.1 ast/47% FG in 43.4 mpg.


Jordan's numbers over 43.4 mpg (a 15% increase) would be 35.0 pts/7.6/5.0 ast/50%. At age 33. :)


But yes, Kobe put up great numbers that postseason (easily his best playoff run), comparable to Jordan. But he wasn't doing that as the main focus of the defense like Jordan was. Regardless, I agree that that particular version of the Laker team was incredibly tough, and might be favored against Chicago due to Shaq's dominance and the Bulls' interior thinness. However, Jordan always answered the bell to a greater degree than anyone else; I know he'd take the battle with Kobe personally and play his best ball. Still, it'd be a tough series either way.

[vert48]

the 01 team also had guys like JR Rider, Horace Grant, Lindsay Hunter (very good on ball defender) AND Ron Harper.

They were a damn good team.

BUt still, no one beats a angry Jordan. Plus Jordan would have extra motivation to kill Horace Grant. hahah
This is in reaction to the ridiculous article by Hollinger. Hollinger thinks that MJ is God, so he showed that the 96 Bulls are the greatest ever by using statistics. Had Hollinger thought that the 01 Lakers were the best ever, he would have put the stats together to prove that.

The 96 Bulls were great, but no way do they beat the 83 Sixers, 85 Lakers, 86 Celtics or 87 Lakers in a 7 game series. Anyone that thinks they would does not know basketball and/or started watching in the 90's.

[Loki]

The 96 Bulls were great, but no way do they beat the 83 Sixers, 85 Lakers, 86 Celtics or 87 Lakers in a 7 game series. Anyone that thinks they would does not know basketball and/or started watching in the 90's.

The other teams you listed would definitely be a handful, and Chicago would likely be the underdog in a series. However, I think the Bulls would beat the '83 Sixers since they present almost the ideal defensive matchups against the Sixers' top 4 players: Jordan on Toney, Pip on Dr. J, Rodman on Moses, and Harper on Cheeks. I just can't see the Sixers generating the offense necessary to win with several all-time defenders on them (and an excellent defender in Harper on Cheeks, the weakest of the 4 offensive threats). The same is not true in reverse, however.

[Laker Logic]

In that 2001 run, kobe was not a real problem... McKie and Bell dealt with him pretty well when the series was in doubt.. He got off after it was apparent the 6ers couldnt outmanuever the lakers...

Stop it with the revisionist history. What do you mean "he got off after it was apparent the sixers couldn't outmaneuver the Lakers?" He got off every game after game 1. Game 2...31-8-6. Game 3...32-6-3. Game 4...19-10-9
Game 5...26-6-12.


Shaq destroyed us and when he wasnt smashing mutombo's face with his elbows (and blaming mutombo for flopping at the same time) Fischer and Horry were killing us from the arc..

Shaq did the most damage but it's silly to try to minimize Kobe's contributions that series and pretend that Fisher, Horry or anyone else had more impact.


Game 1 - we won
Game 2 - we lost at the very end on a Fischer 3ptr
Game 3 - we lost at the end on an Horry 3 ptr.

So the Lakers showed their ability to win both blowouts and close games. Your point?




by then it was clear we werent gonna be able to even keep competing against these guys... Snow & McKie had broken bones in their feet..Mutombo broke his finger...Ty Hill was invisible since the playoff began, and George Lynch was sidelined with something broken...they were all fading fast and though Iverson was playing his ass off, he couldnt do it all

You suggested Kobe only got off "after" it became apparent the Sixers couldn't hang, now you say that became apparent only after game 3. But by game 3 Kobe had already had his two highest scoring games of the series...so which is it?


Shaq dismantled us....... Kobe was hardly Mj or any thing comparable

Right. Kobe's numbers were verrrry pedestrian. :rolleyes:

[vert48]

The other teams you listed would definitely be a handful, and Chicago would likely be the underdog in a series. However, I think the Bulls would beat the '83 Sixers since they present almost the ideal defensive matchups against the Sixers' top 4 players: Jordan on Toney, Pip on Dr. J, Rodman on Moses, and Harper on Cheeks. I just can't see the Sixers generating the offense necessary to win with several all-time defenders on them (and an excellent defender in Harper on Cheeks, the weakest of the 4 offensive threats). The same is not true in reverse, however.
Did you ever see that Sixers team play?

[Rasheed1]

Stop it with the revisionist history. What do you mean "he got off after it was apparent the sixers couldn't outmaneuver the Lakers?" He got off every game after game 1. Game 2...31-8-6. Game 3...32-6-3. Game 4...19-10-9
Game 5...26-6-12.

19 & 26 is not getting off... Kobe talked a better game than he played, and he got embarassed by Raja Bell in game 1... Laker would have lost the series if was all about what kobe was doing...... Like I said Kobe was not Mj or anything close...


Shaq did the most damage but it's silly to try to minimize Kobe's contributions that series and pretend that Fisher, Horry or anyone else had more impact.

Shaq is the reason the lakers won the series(not to mention the reason why they even made the finals) Fischer and Horry were the ones killing us with their perimeter shooting off Shaq'a great passin... Kobe was running his mouth more than anything else


You suggested Kobe only got off "after" it became apparent the Sixers couldn't hang, now you say that became apparent only after game 3. But by game 3 Kobe had already had his two highest scoring games of the series...so which is it?



Kobe scored pts when the lakers were rolling....he didnt decide any of the game...he made no clutch plays and he wasnt the reason the Lakers won the series... the reason the lakers won the series was because Shaq was poundng us and then passing out to the guys on the perimeter and they were hitting the shots......


take your panties out your v*gina laker logic....I didnt insult your boyfriend

[Laker Logic]

Kobe talked a better game than he played, and he got embarassed by Raja Bell in game 1... Laker would have lost the series if was all about what kobe was doing......

He averaged 25/8/6 for the series on a team where NO other player on the team outside of Shaq averaged more than 10/6/4..and he "talked a better game than he played"?


Like I said Kobe was not Mj or anything close...

You don't need to say Kobe = MJ to give him due credit for his play for the series.



Shaq is the reason the lakers won the series(not to mention the reason why they even made the finals) Fischer and Horry were the ones killing us with their perimeter shooting off Shaq'a great passin... Kobe was running his mouth more than anything else

Shaq was the dominant player on the team - no one disputes that. He didn't singlehandedly beat Philly or anyone else, and it's always amazing the idiotic lengths people like you who don't like Kobe will go to pretend otherwise.



Kobe scored pts when the lakers were rolling....he didnt decide any of the game...he made no clutch plays and he wasnt the reason the Lakers won the series... the reason the lakers won the series was because Shaq was poundng us and then passing out to the guys on the perimeter and they were hitting the shots......

He scored his points when he scored them....and every game after game one if the Lakers were rolling he had a large part to do with it. Does it really make you feel better to pretend otherwise?



take your panties out your v*gina laker logic....I didnt insult your boyfriend

You'd have less trouble distinguishing between men and women if you spent more time around females, homothug.

[Rasheed1]

Like I said before you busted in with tears in your eyes :cry: Kobe is not Mj nor is he comparable..... I also said kobe wasnt the reason the lakers won the series....they would have lost the series if it was up to kobe (they wouldnt even have been there)



You'd have less trouble distinguishing between men and women if you spent more time around females, homothug.

gotta be the corniest comeback Ive ever seen here :applause:

Spent more time around females :oldlol: I get more p*ssy than the law allows .... I know a sensitive broad when I see one..... watch your mouth young lady

[Laker Logic]

[Like I said before you busted in with tears in your eyes :cry: Kobe is not Mj nor is he comparable..... I also said kobe wasnt the reason the lakers won the series....they would have lost the series if it was up to kobe (they wouldnt even have been there)

Let's just recap.

I say: Kobe played a huge, if secondary role in the 2001 championship.

You say: Kobe was basically a non-factor who talked more than he produced and "only" contributed at some indeterminate point after game 3 when "it became clear the Sixers couldn't keep up," and after he'd already had his two biggest scoring games of the series.

..and yet I'm being "sensitive." You can't even look objectively at the series even 6 years later. :applause:

[Carbine]

I get more p*ssy than the law allows

:oldlol:

That was great.

Personally I have to agree with LL on this one; Kobe played very well for the most part. He did pretty well on Iverson as well; although he did get beat several times off the dribble, his recovery was on the mark blocking numerous shots from behind. It helps that Shaq was there, but it was still nice defense. Easily could have given up on the play but he stuck with it.

Give Kobe credit for his play. He did what was expected from him and then some.

[Soundwave]

The Bulls would have more trouble with the '01 Lakers than with the 80s Celtics/Lakers/Sixers ... I know some people are going to flip out at that statement but I feel it's true.

The Celtics/Lakers/Sixers didn't have one offensive force that absolutely was as physically wearing as Shaq. The '01 Lakers I think you could also say were better defensively than the 80s Lakers or Celts.

That said .... the Bulls had a tendancy to play very well against Shaq (see the '96 playoffs) and a prime Pippen is about as good of a defender as you could create to disrupt Kobe. The Lakers are flying when things go their way but often times when faced with adversity they would fold, unless they got bailed out by mistake-prone teams/chokers like the Trail Blazers or Kings. So it would be interesting how smooth thier offense would run with Kobe being shadowed (like the '04 Pistons did to him) and how long it would take for Rodman to get under Shaq's skin.

I think the Bulls would live with Shaq getting 30/40, but would focus on taking Kobe and Fisher in particular out of their rythmn. That's just how the Bulls operated, they'd zero in one 1 or 2 components of a team's offense and take those away.

It's also funny how basketball "purists" somehow always forget the 1989-90 Pistons in these debates. Those teams did beat the Celtics and Lakers, now you can argue there were injuries there and the Lakers/Celts had run out of gas by then, but I have to think these Pistons teams would've given the Lakers/Celtics all they could handle if you let them play those teams from a few years prior. The Bulls were better than those Pistons teams IMO.

[Loki]

Did you ever see that Sixers team play?

Did you read what I wrote? I don't see how having possibly the ideal defensive matchups at the Sixers' 4 biggest offensive positions isn't a huge advantage for Chicago in that hypothetical matchup. Again, I feel that Chicago would win a series vs. the '83 Sixers, but wouldn't be favored vs. the 80's Lakers/Celts (though they could win).

[Glove_20]

Quick listing of the 11 "Greatest" Teams of All-Time (No order)
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11421

(1 Team per Franchise core)



1967 Philadeplhia 76ers
68-13
http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nba/phil76/Wilt76.jpg

Players: Wilt Chamberlain (Top 10 Player of All-Time)...Hal Greet (Top 10 SG of All-Time)...Billy Cunningham (Top 10 SF of All-Time)...Chet Walker (7 Time All-Star)...Wali Jones (13ppg)...Luke Jackson (1 Time All-Star)...



1986 Boston Celtics
67-15

http://i.tsn.com/i/o/vault/nba/1986.jpg

Players: Larry Bird (GOAT SF), Kevin McHale (Top 10 PF of All-Time), Robert Parrish (HOF), Dennis Johnson (9 Time All-Defensive Selection), Danny Ainge (1 Time All-Star)



1971 Milwaukee Bucks
66-16
http://www.historycentral.com/Bio/people/images/abdul-jabbar.gif

Players: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Top 10 Player of All-Time), Oscar Robertson (Top 10 Player of All-Time), Bod Dandrige (4 Time All-Star), Jim McGlocklin (1 Time All-Star)...



2001 L.A. Lakers
56-26

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040529/040529_kobe_shaq_vmed.widec.jpg

Players: Shaquille O'Neal (Top 10 Player of All-Time), Kobe Bryant (Top 10 SG of All-Time), Derek Fisher (Solid Roleplayer), Robert Horry (Mr. Clutch)...



1983 Philadephia 76ers
65-17
http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nba/phil76/MosesPhl.jpg

Players: Moses Malone (Top 10 Center of All-Time), Julius Erving (Top 5 SF of All-Time), Bobby Jones (9 Time All-Defensive), Maurice Cheeks (5 Time All-Defensive), Andrew Toney (2 Time All-Star)...

[Glove_20]

1972 L.A. Lakers
69-13

http://www.nba.com/media/lakers/history_west_1972.jpg

Players: Jerry West (Top 10 Player of All-Time)...Gail Goodrich (HOF)...Jim Mcmillan (19ppg)...Wilt Chamberlain (Top 10 Player of All-Time)...Happy Haristion (13ppg and 13rpg)...



1989 Detroit Pistons
63-19
http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nba/detroit/isiahdet.jpg

Players: Isiah Thomas (Top 5 PG of All-Time), Joe Dumars (HOF), Mark Agguire (3 Time All-Star), Vinnie Johnson (13ppg), Bill Laimbeer (4 Time All-Star), Dennis Rodman (8 Time All-Defensive)....



1965 Boston Celtics
62-18
http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nba/boston/RussellBOs2.jpg

Players: Bill Russell (Top 10 Player of All-Time), Sam Jones (HOF), John Havlicek (Top 5 SF of All-Time), Tom Heinosohn (HOF), KC Jones (HOF), Tom Sanders (Defensive Stopper)...Willie Naules (4 Time All-Star)...



1996 Chicago Bulls
72-10

http://www.nba.com/media/bulls/jordan_050819.jpg

Players: Michael Jordan (GOAT), Scottie Pippen (Top 5 SF of All-Time), Dennis Rodman (8 Time All-Defensive), Toni Kukoc (13ppg), Ron Harper (Defensive Stopper)...



1970 New York Knicks
60-22
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/events/1998/playoffs/moments_gallery/images/reed.jpg

Players: Willis Reed (HOF), Walt Frazier (Top 10 PG of All-Time), Dave DebBusschere (6 Time All-Defensive 1st), D!ck Barnett (1 Time All-Star), Bill Bradley (1 Time All-Star)...



1987 L.A. Lakers
65-17
http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nba/lala/KareemLA2.jpg

Players: Magic Johnson (GOAT PG)...Kareem Abdul-Abdul Jabbar (Top 5 Center of All-Time)...James Worthy (HOF)...Byron Scott (17ppg)...Michael Cooper (8 Time All-Defensive Selection)...

[Glove_20]

Now with that said.

The teams up there that could give the Bulls some problems are:


67 Sixers
71 Bucks
01 Lakers

All 3 of them had a dominating force inside. So did the 86 Celtics kind of, and 72 Lakers, but none like the 3 up there...


With that said, the Bulls might beat all of them, but you can make a case with basically any of those 11 listed as being the GOAT

[Soundwave]

Personally I think Kobe's playoff performances have actually regressed since 2001.

In the 01-02, he averaged his second or third highest point total for playoffs, but playoff highs for rebounds and assists to go with it, and his second highest FG% for his playoff career (2006's 1st round exit to Phoenix is his highest).

I think he benefitted a lot when he played within Phil's system and played off Shaq. When he tried to get away from that, not coincidentally, the Lakers stopped winning championships.

[RainierBeachPoet]

this thread is too good not to bump

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

You guys are just so in love with MJ and his legacy that you're afraid to admit that he would ever faulter to any team. you didn't even listen to his arguments, which were basically..

The league was falling apart that year, talent wise. All the good teams were on the downside of their "prime," and MJs bulls were the best team left.

Furthermore, while you're busy defending the greatness of MJ, bill simmons even said that the 92 Bulls were a great team, just that he didn't think the 98 bulls were a top-10 team

You guys are so, so, so competely sickening with your MJ homerism. Just stop, everyone on this site. Just stop.

When someone states that they think MJ's Bulls could be beaten by a Prime-Shaq led Championship team that went 15-1 in a VERY tough western conference finals... and you are actually OFFENDED and say that that person has lost all credibility, i think you need to see a therapist. its very sad, some of the MJ love that goes on here.

amen.
oh, and god forbid you think MJ played in a soft, weakened era!

[Glove_20]

Bill Simmons is great when it comes to dealing and ranking players. But teams, he fails. But he is good talking about individual players.

[24/7]

I didn't read this whole thread but I thought it was pretty well accepted that the 87 Lakers were the best team of all time. Almost every poll I have seen put up on this topic usually has them winning.

[Kiddlovesnets]

Stop making funny comments, Bill.:sleeping

[ThaRegul8r]

One thing I love about people dissing the Bulls is that they always say "The Bulls wouldn't be able to guard so and so", such as you saying "the bulls wouldn't be able to guard McHale or Bird".... but yet you guys always convieniently ignore this guy named, MICHAEL JORDAN.

[...]

And for the record, Jordan would be a tougher matchup for ANY TEAM IN THE HISTORY OF THE LEAGUE than Bird, Magic, Kareem, Duncan and Tony F*cking Parker ever would.

Look, anytime you guys pull the Bulls against whoever matchup. Just KNOW THIS: Jordan would torch whoever was guarding him WORSE than Magic/Bird/Duncan would torch any member of the Bulls. That's FACT. Bird wouldn't torch Pippen worse than Jordan would torch DJ. Duncan wouldn't torch Rodman worse than Jordan would torch Bowen. Magic wouuldn't torch Ron Harper worse than Jordan would torch Byron Scott. Bill Russell wouldn't torch Longley worse than whoever would be guarding Jordan.

You know... does anyone else other than me remember Jordan in the Finals in 1996, which is the year in question? Jordan was held to his worst Finals performance of his career, and the only sub-30 ppg Finals of his career, a career-low 27.3 points on 41.5 percent shooting. Anyone but me remember that in Game 2 in which Jordan shot 9-for-22 (40.9 percent), that it was Dennis Rodman's rebounding that won that game for Chicago? (20 rebounds, NBA Finals-record 11 on the offensive glass)


Hershey Hawkins: “Rodman was definitely the difference.”

Vincent Askew: “Rodman killed us."

Sonics coach George Karl: “There is no question he was the MVP of the game. His offensive rebounds hurt us. A lot of possessions, the momentum of the game, the style of the game, and even the scoreboard might have changed.”

Anybody else remember that in the deciding Game 6, Jordan shot an un-Jordanesque 5-for-19 (26.3 percent :eek: )? Jordan shot 26.3 percent in a deciding game? :eek: (Can anyone else remember the last time Jordan had a game like that in a deciding game, let alone in the Finals?) Did everyone block this from their memories? Anyone else other than me remember that it was Rodman's 19 rebounds and Finals-record-tying (for the second time) 11 offensive rebounds that won that game for the Bulls?


Sonics' coach George Karl: "As you evaluate the series, Dennis Rodman won two basketball games. We controlled Dennis for four games. But Game 2 and tonight, he was the reason they were successful.”

Anyone else remember that if not for Rodman, the Bulls would've lost those two games in which Jordan stunk it up and the Sonics would've won that series? Payton was the best defensive guard Jordan faced in the Finals, and he had his worst Finals performance. I think people are just taking the memory of Jordan in general rather than the 1996 Jordan. So you can't just say offhand that Jordan would destroy whoever he was matched up against, since IN THAT SEASON, DURING THOSE FINALS, Jordan didn't "destroy" who was defending him, so it would be possible for a team who had a Dennis Johnson or a Michael Cooper to "stand a chance." (by the way, anyone remember what happened the game after Jordan's much talked about 63-point game against the Celtics in the playoffs? Anyone but me remember DJ held Jordan to 21 and the Bulls were eliminated?)

Be objective in these discussions rather than rabidly taking offense at the suggestion that someone or some team could actually possibly best Jordan.

[Loki]

Payton's defense, while huge, was by no means solely responsible for Jordan's shooting in the '96 Finals. He was bricking wide open baseline 17-footers, layups, and offensive putbacks, which are usually automatic for him. His shot was just off the entire series for whatever reason. He wouldn't have shot 50% or anything had he not been ice cold on top of Payton's great defense (and Seattles constant swarming traps on MJ), but I'd say about 45-47% from having watched the series.

Honestly, I wish people would just watch the series rather than assuming that Payton did some sort of job on Jordan. He played excellent defense, probably the best one could. But it was a combination of the constant doubles/traps, Payton's defense, Jordan being ICE cold, and his teammates being ice cold as well, which allowed Seattle to keep pressure on Jordan because no one else was making them pay (Pippen/Kukoc/Kerr were a combined 36% from the field that series). All these things conspired to produce a relatively poor performance (by Jordan's standards).


by the way, anyone remember what happened the game after Jordan's much talked about 63-point game against the Celtics in the playoffs? Anyone but me remember DJ held Jordan to 21 and the Bulls were eliminated?)

Yeah, we remember it. 49 followed by 63 followed by a 19 point near triple-double (19/10/9) against a perennial first team defender and the best defensive team in the league, with no help. Sounds like a pretty good series to me.

[miles berg]

They are top 10 for sure but that 96 Bulls team was playing in one of the weakest eras of NBA history. '94/'95-'98/'99 was about as bad as I can remember the NBA ever being.

With that said, those Bulls teams were outstanding. They were great no matter what era. But their competition around the league was, IMO, at an all time low in their 2nd set of Three Titles.

[kidachi]

Bill Simmons: Read my article. Please read my article. I'll add more controversey.

You can argue the '96 Bulls aren't the best ever (though you'd be in the minority), but not even top 10 ... gimme a break.

The NBA was soft in 1996? The '96 Orlando Magic or the '96 Sonics would tear the 2007 NBA apart. The '96 Jazz, Rockets, Pacers, Knicks, and Suns were nothing to scoff at either ... all of those teams if put into 2007 would have a pretty strong shot at getting to the Finals. The 95-96 Miami Heat who were the 8th seed in the 1996 Eastern Conference could probably be the no.1 or no.2 seed in the 2007 NBA Eastern Conference.

Teams like the 2007 Lakers or Warriors wouldn't even make the playoffs in 1996, and half the East at least wouldn't make it.


yes yes. true true true. :applause:

[ThaRegul8r]

Honestly, I wish people would just watch the series rather than assuming that Payton did some sort of job on Jordan.

I watched the series when it happened, thank you very much, as well as the entire championship run. The point is that everyone acts as if Jordan would torch whatever poor, hapless, unfortunate soul who had the misfortune of being matched up against him. He didn't do it in the season in question on the biggest stage, so why does everyone assume he'd blow anyone else out of the water? That was his worst Finals by far, and if not for Rodman's offensive rebounding--which made up for no one being able to make a shot, the Bulls would've lost that series. So why does everyone act like they were invincible and couldn't possibly be defeated by any team in history, when it took record rebounding performances by Rodman to keep them from losing to Seattle, who aren't an all-time great team? That's all I'm saying. A little objectivity rather than simply making a blanket statement that no team in history could compete with the Bulls, and that Jordan would decimate his defender.

[Loki]

I watched the series when it happened, thank you very much, as well as the entire championship run. The point is that everyone acts as if Jordan would torch whatever poor, hapless, unfortunate soul who had the misfortune of being matched up against him. He didn't do it in the season in question on the biggest stage, so why does everyone assume he'd blow anyone else out of the water? That was his worst Finals by far, and if not for Rodman's offensive rebounding--which made up for no one being able to make a shot, the Bulls would've lost that series. So why does everyone act like they were invincible and couldn't possibly be defeated by any team in history, when it took record rebounding performances by Rodman to keep them from losing to Seattle, who aren't an all-time great team? That's all I'm saying. A little objectivity rather than simply making a blanket statement that no team in history could compete with the Bulls, and that Jordan would decimate his defender.

I agree with the general sentiment, but I just think it's faulty reasoning to say, "hey, he shot 42% in the '96 Finals, so we can assume that he might have shot that way against any other good/great defender." That series was an anomaly in terms of his Finals performances, and that was due to the reasons I cited -- reasons which we could not assume would have come to pass in other hypothetical series. I just think it's better to go by the totality of evidence (Jordan's general playoff/Finals dominance) rather than an isolated instance.

[DieHardBullsFan]

I dont think that the 89 pistons should be on the top 10 list....they beat a laker team in the finals without Magic, Worthy and Scott....if they were all healthy and the Pistons played them then maybe I would consider them....


Honorable mention

one of the Spurs teams (exclude the 98-99 team) has to be on this list (4 championships in 9 years)

[ThaRegul8r]

I agree with the general sentiment, but I just think it's faulty reasoning to say, "hey, he shot 42% in the '96 Finals, so we can assume that he might have shot that way against any other good/great defender."

As I said, the point was to show that when talking about the 1995-96 Bulls vs. whoever, it's not a given that Jordan's going to destroy whoever he's up against, since it didn't actually happen in real life during that season, against a team which doesn't compare to the all-time great teams that Bulls team is compared against.


That series was an anomaly in terms of his Finals performances, and that was due to the reasons I cited -- reasons which we could not assume would have come to pass in other hypothetical series. I just think it's better to go by the totality of evidence (Jordan's general playoff/Finals dominance) rather than an isolated instance.

You can't just do that, because you're talking about a specific period in time. The 1995-96 Bulls are being discussed here, which means the 1995-96 Jordan, not the 1988-89 Jordan, or the '90-91 Jordan, or the '91-92 Jordan, etc. Just like if you're matching them up against the '85-86 Celtics, it means the '85-86 Bird, not the sum totality of Bird's career. If you're going against the '86-87 Lakers, it means the '86-87 Magic as well as the '86-87 Kareem, rather than say, the '79-80 Kareem where he was the MVP of the league and dropping 32/12 in the playoffs. You don't get to pick and choose, you get those players and what they did in that particular year.

[Soundwave]

No one ... *no* one was going to beat the Bulls that year.

The Sonics going down 3-0 kinda made it anti-climactic. The Bulls kinda eased up after that and Seattle was able to save face by winning 2 in a row, before the inevitable.

[Glove_20]

Yeah I would also put the 96 Bulls as the Greatest Team of All-Time. They were amazing that year.


And really, Payton really did a great job on Jordan. Jordan shot 42% for the series, but when Gary Payton was the primary Defender on Jordan, Jordan shot only 39%. I believe without Gary on Jordan, Jordan shot almost 50%.
Seattle had great overall perimeter defense to help out Payton, but overall, it was Payton's main defender and he did a terrific job slowing down Michael Jordan.


And really, the Sonics had a shot to win the series as well. The Bulls weren't playing their best that series, if the Sonics had brought their best game in, they would've won the series. However, the Sonics didn't, they played neutral.

And even though the Bulls were up 3-0, after it got 3-2, the pressure actually did reach the Bulls. Even all over the media everyone was getting tensed up for the Bulls. So it wasn't easy all along type series for the Bulls.

[Loki]

but when Gary Payton was the primary Defender on Jordan, Jordan shot only 39%. I believe without Gary on Jordan, Jordan shot almost 50%.

To this day, though I've asked you several times, you've never provided a source for the above statistic. Either put up or shut up.

[RainierBeachPoet]

Yeah I would also put the 96 Bulls as the Greatest Team of All-Time. They were amazing that year.


And really, Payton really did a great job on Jordan. Jordan shot 42% for the series, but when Gary Payton was the primary Defender on Jordan, Jordan shot only 39%. I believe without Gary on Jordan, Jordan shot almost 50%.
Seattle had great overall perimeter defense to help out Payton, but overall, it was Payton's main defender and he did a terrific job slowing down Michael Jordan.


And really, the Sonics had a shot to win the series as well. The Bulls weren't playing their best that series, if the Sonics had brought their best game in, they would've won the series. However, the Sonics didn't, they played neutral.

And even though the Bulls were up 3-0, after it got 3-2, the pressure actually did reach the Bulls. Even all over the media everyone was getting tensed up for the Bulls. So it wasn't easy all along type series for the Bulls.

please correct me if i am wrong

payton wasnt the primary defender on mj until game 4. i blame karl for not going with this matchup

we didnt get nate back from his minor injury until game 4

i think that if these two things didnt happen, the series would have been much different; perhaps not the outcome, but a game seven isnt out of consideration in this scenario

the bulls had no answer to monster kemp during that whole series

[ThaRegul8r]

the bulls had no answer to monster kemp during that whole series

No, they didn't. In fact, there was talk at the time as to whether Kemp should be the second player to win Finals MVP from the losing team, because he was the best player in that series.

[Nym]

Here's a website that also argues that the 95-96 Bulls were not the best team ever.
http://pweb.netcom.com/~bjalas/basketball/bulls/donut.htm

I disagree with the website- I guess some people have forgotten the games they have played. I mean, the Bulls defense that year was incredible - I've never seen anything like it. The Magic were having trouble just getting the ball up to midcourt, and also having lots of trouble just inbounding the ball! It was crazy. And the Magic was a very good team that year- if Shaq wasn't injured during the beginning of the season, they could have easily approached the 65-70 win mark. That Bulls defense was suffocating!

The two games they lost to the Sonics- well, I bet some of it could be attributed to Dennis Rodman's partying in Seattle. He recently admitted that he was pretty buzzed from drinking when he was playing (He said he was drinking and then said 'feeling pretty nice' I think were his exact words).

[TheHonestTruth]

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=16169

Wow. Just wow.

But seriously, is there anything more enjoyable than seeing a critically-acclaimed sports writer lose all bodily credibly in just one sentence. Wow.

Let's get this future 10-page thread started.

Simmons spoke THE HONEST TRUTH. 96 bulls = most overrated team in the league history. They're good but not all that. The 90s is the weakest era in the league history.

[dawsey6]

Simmons spoke THE HONEST TRUTH. 96 bulls = most overrated team in the league history. They're good but not all that. The 90s is the weakest era in the league history.

Woah. Don't get ahead of yourself. League history? If the entire decade was weak at all in a sense, don't you think you're taking it to the other extreme?

Jordan himself said that that particular team had the best chemistry he had ever played with from any Bulls team (sourced from For the Love of the Game - My Story by Michael Jordan) If the man himself, who had played with a great team like the '92 Bulls, can classify them above that, than that must count for something. Someone who doesn't know too much about how great a team is might say that the '96 Bulls were the GOAT Team (no shots at anyone, so please don't take it as such), but to people who are smarter than that know that that's not true, but how could you take a team that played such great rhythm basketball for the course of a season, lost only 10 games, beating the competition by such a wide margin, and not put them in the top-10 all-time, just because the league wasn't as strong as other years? Absolutely not fair to the talent, coaching staff, and intelligence of the players (or at least the overall focus), when some kind of credit is due for being as consistant as they were throughout the season, playing great team ball, and, above all, winning the championship, and posting a 15-3 record in the playoffs. Just because some fanatics overrate that team doesn't mean you should underrate them to balance.

[Maestro33]

I agree that the 96 Bulls arent the best team ever. That was the 92 Bulls. But not in the top ten is pure crack smoking garbage. And the weak league. I also agree the league had a lot of weak teams but it also had a strong ass Knicks team, great Sonics team and one of the best teams Ive ever seen in the Magic. Not to mention other strong ones like the Pacers etc. And all of them were wiped out by the Bulls with ease.

I just saw this...

The 90s is the weakest era in the league history

That is truly amazing. This person must either be 90 or 9. Possibly the most off base coment Ive ever seen.

[Glove_20]

RBP, Karl put Payton on Jordan primarily from Game 3 and on. So they 2-2 in that stretch.



To this day, though I've asked you several times, you've never provided a source for the above statistic. Either put up or shut up.


I've asked you numerous amounts of times if you want links


I've also asked you to check your memory or re watch the series. The Sonics game with a game plan of double teaming Jordan whenever he gets the ball, and having their DPOY guard Pippen. Jordan wasn't stopped Games 1 and 2, so it didn't work. Pippen though was limited to 41%.

So Karl then at Game 3 decided to put Payton on Jordan. And from that point on, Jordan was held to 39% shooting.

[Bigboi450]

Jazz, Magic, Rockets, Sonics, Knicks, Pacers, Heat were "weak"? Who the f is this guy? I'd even take those Magic teams with Shaq, Horace Grant and Hardaway over the Lakers with Shaq and Kobe.

That's just dumb. the '01 Shaq would have killed his '96 self. And '01 Horace Grant would have bested his '96 self. '01 Brian Shaw...oh forget it.

The Heat didn't have a team until after the All-Star break. They added 5 new players got in by 1 game and got swept in the first round of the playoffs. Utah, Houston and Seattle were good but they were on the left coast which meant they'd only see the Bulls two times each (They all lost). Pacers Split with the Bulls that year so that's a wash. The Magic were good, going 60-22 with Shaq missing 22 games with injury but they were first class choke artists three years running. IMO the Simmons claim is at least worth discussion. It ain't out of the question.

[Admiral]

Yeah I would also put the 96 Bulls as the Greatest Team of All-Time. They were amazing that year.


And really, Payton really did a great job on Jordan. Jordan shot 42% for the series, but when Gary Payton was the primary Defender on Jordan, Jordan shot only 39%. I believe without Gary on Jordan, Jordan shot almost 50%.
Seattle had great overall perimeter defense to help out Payton, but overall, it was Payton's main defender and he did a terrific job slowing down Michael Jordan.


And really, the Sonics had a shot to win the series as well. The Bulls weren't playing their best that series, if the Sonics had brought their best game in, they would've won the series. However, the Sonics didn't, they played neutral.

And even though the Bulls were up 3-0, after it got 3-2, the pressure actually did reach the Bulls. Even all over the media everyone was getting tensed up for the Bulls. So it wasn't easy all along type series for the Bulls.


so if the sonics had played their best, they would have beaten the greatest team of all time? wouldn't that make THEM the greatest team of all time? and really...doesn't a GOAT team have to bring their best in order to be considered as such? otherwise, a team who is GOAT would be unbeatable in a debate under the "didn't bring their best game" argument...

not tryin to start anything...the logic just seems a little condradictory

[Soundwave]

The 1995-96 Orlando Magic if they were in the NBA right now, IMO would've beat the Spurs or Cavs (or anyone else) decidedly IMO and won the title easily if you put them in 2007 NBA.

Penny would average at least Wade like numbers in the modern NBA (breathe on a 2-guard ... foul) and Duncan would not be able to stop even a 1996-era Shaq (too big ... Shaq actually was in shape and could jump back then).

And the '96 Bulls *swept* that team. So I dunno what that says about the NBA today.

I'd say bull**** on the 90s being weak. Today's NBA is weak. No one plays defense and there are big men that really dominate the paint every night anymore.

[ThaRegul8r]

so if the sonics had played their best, they would have beaten the greatest team of all time? wouldn't that make THEM the greatest team of all time?

No, it wouldn't. It would simply mean that the Bulls weren't the greatest team of all time. The 1972-73 Boston Celtics won 68 games in the regular season and lost to the New York Knicks in the Eastern Conference Finals, so now you never hear of them when people talk about the greatest single-season teams of all time because they didn't get it done.

[Soundwave]

The Bulls manhandled the Sonics to a 3-0 lead, after sweeping Orlando on top of that, I think they just sort of eased off the accelerator a bit. Everyone thought it any team could possibly beat the Bulls it would be Orlando, when they collapsed and then Seattle couldn't even win one of the first three, it was getting ugly.

I remember a lot of people at time in Chicago wanted the Bulls to win the title at home at the United Center, there was almost zero doubt they'd win game six.

I think Jordan's game was a bit off, mentally I think being so close to being back on the mountain maybe started to screw with his head a bit. Winning it on Father's Day .... I'd have to say that was pretty much meant to be.

I'll be honest I think the 1998 Utah Jazz came the closest to beating the Bulls. If Jordan doesn't single handedly win game 6 there ... game 7 ... Pippen hurt, who knows what happens.

[Admiral]

No, it wouldn't. It would simply mean that the Bulls weren't the greatest team of all time. The 1972-73 Boston Celtics won 68 games in the regular season and lost to the New York Knicks in the Eastern Conference Finals, so now you never hear of them when people talk about the greatest single-season teams of all time because they didn't get it done.

i wasn't necessarily claiming them to be the best of all time, i was just saying, glove called them the GOAT but said that, had the sonics played their best, they would have beaten the team he specifically called the GOAT...i don't really think the 96 bulls were the GOAT, but i absolutely think they were top 10 all time, and i think the sonics they played were more debatable about top-10 status than those bulls...that was my point...

[poeticism707]

You guys are just so in love with MJ and his legacy that you're afraid to admit that he would ever faulter to any team. you didn't even listen to his arguments, which were basically..

The league was falling apart that year, talent wise. All the good teams were on the downside of their "prime," and MJs bulls were the best team left.

Furthermore, while you're busy defending the greatness of MJ, bill simmons even said that the 92 Bulls were a great team, just that he didn't think the 98 bulls were a top-10 team

You guys are so, so, so competely sickening with your MJ homerism. Just stop, everyone on this site. Just stop.

When someone states that they think MJ's Bulls could be beaten by a Prime-Shaq led Championship team that went 15-1 in a VERY tough western conference finals... and you are actually OFFENDED and say that that person has lost all credibility, i think you need to see a therapist. its very sad, some of the MJ love that goes on here.

:applause:

[John Starks]

The Bulls manhandled the Sonics to a 3-0 lead, after sweeping Orlando on top of that, I think they just sort of eased off the accelerator a bit. Everyone thought it any team could possibly beat the Bulls it would be Orlando, when they collapsed and then Seattle couldn't even win one of the first three, it was getting ugly.
.

I watched most of that Orl-Bulls series and I still have no clue how Chicago won it. Shaq really was a beast inside and Rodmon, while a good defender, gave up 100lbs on Shaq easily.

They even had plenty of big 2's to matchup with Micheal.

How did that happen?

[Optimus Prime]

The 1996 Chicago Bulls are the best team ever.

Michael Jordan is the greatest player of all time.

Why do these threads keep appearing?

[Glove_20]

so if the sonics had played their best, they would have beaten the greatest team of all time? wouldn't that make THEM the greatest team of all time? and really...doesn't a GOAT team have to bring their best in order to be considered as such? otherwise, a team who is GOAT would be unbeatable in a debate under the "didn't bring their best game" argument...

not tryin to start anything...the logic just seems a little condradictory

I was just saying the 96 Bulls in the Finals weren't playing their best. And if the Sonics had played their very best they could've beat a 96 Bull team that wasn't playing their best. The Bulls could've played better and the Sonics had a chance to win the series...

[RainierBeachPoet]

getting back to the original claim, i had to look up what simmons said:

Brian (Worchester): WOAH WOAH WOAH! Are you saying the 1996 Bulls aren't the best team ever? I HATE the Bulls but I still have to respect their alltime greatness!

http://assets.espn.go.com/i/sn2.gif Bill Simmons: Yes. Emphatically. I think they won the most games ever. I would not have them in the top-10. You're telling me they could have beaten the 2001 Lakers in a series? Or the '86 Celtics? Or the '85 Lakers? or the '83 Sixers? Gimme a break.


he listed FOUR teams that he believes would have beaten the 96 bulls

who are the other SIX that would knock the 96 bulls out of the top ten?

[KWALI]

Chicago went through a better East and then played a real team in the finals to boot. The NBA's decline may have started around 96 but it went into full steam ahead in 99 and has gotten worse with each passing year to the point where the league is pretty much a joke.

The third best team in the East was what the Pacers? Hawks? the Heat? What are you talking about? The East was that good that year at all.

[KWALI]

Payton's defense, while huge, was by no means solely responsible for Jordan's shooting in the '96 Finals. He was bricking wide open baseline 17-footers, layups, and offensive putbacks, which are usually automatic for him. His shot was just off the entire series for whatever reason. He wouldn't have shot 50% or anything had he not been ice cold on top of Payton's great defense (and Seattles constant swarming traps on MJ), but I'd say about 45-47% from having watched the series.

Honestly, I wish people would just watch the series rather than assuming that Payton did some sort of job on Jordan. He played excellent defense, probably the best one could. But it was a combination of the constant doubles/traps, Payton's defense, Jordan being ICE cold, and his teammates being ice cold as well, which allowed Seattle to keep pressure on Jordan because no one else was making them pay (Pippen/Kukoc/Kerr were a combined 36% from the field that series). All these things conspired to produce a relatively poor performance (by Jordan's standards).



Yeah, we remember it. 49 followed by 63 followed by a 19 point near triple-double (19/10/9) against a perennial first team defender and the best defensive team in the league, with no help. Sounds like a pretty good series to me.


He's not saying that Payton was the god defensively only that MJ was vulnerable that season which he was.....That makes it even more possible that another team could have beaten them....

To me the 1980 Lakers were too Crazy ...Norm Nixon Jamal Wilkes...Michael Cooper..Did that Have Bob Macadoo yet? Early 80's Laker teams.....Nasty

And 1983 Sixers? Damn serious teams man

[Admiral]

i gotcha glove, sorry i misunderstood

[RainierBeachPoet]

RBP, Karl put Payton on Jordan primarily from Game 3 and on. So they 2-2 in that stretch.





I've asked you numerous amounts of times if you want links


I've also asked you to check your memory or re watch the series. The Sonics game with a game plan of double teaming Jordan whenever he gets the ball, and having their DPOY guard Pippen. Jordan wasn't stopped Games 1 and 2, so it didn't work. Pippen though was limited to 41%.

So Karl then at Game 3 decided to put Payton on Jordan. And from that point on, Jordan was held to 39% shooting.

thanks for the correction glove20

and another factor was nate mcmillan was back from his injury by game 4 by that time which added a certain emotional lift for the sonics

[Samurai Swoosh]

I can't say the 1996 Chicago Bulls are the best team of all-time. And I think alot of knowledgeable and historic fans of the game would likely disagree with this statement. Growing up in Chicago, as a Bulls fan, the 1996 wasn't the best Bulls team I saw. The best Chicago Bulls teams were either 1991-1992 or 1992-1993. And the latter didn't show it record wise, but when they buckled down and retained focus ... they were the best Bulls team I ever saw take the floor.

[clipps]

What a retard.

[JBSptfn]

if you actually read Bill Simmons chat, you'd see that he has issues with the forumula John Hollingre used to come to that conclusion, mainly the fact that it didnt take into account the quality of the league for the year Given Team won the championship.

his argument was that shaq-kobe lkaers from 2001 went through an extremely talented western conference, along with the sixers who had Iverson and Mutumbo during his prime.

also, he said that the league was at one of its absolute weakest eras from 96-98.

The 01 Western Conference wasn't that great. LA's first round opponent, Portland, was in basket case mode by the playoffs. That team totally collapsed, and there was no way they would win a game. Their second round opponent, Sacramento, didn't have Bibby yet. And, San Antonio, their WCF opponent, had a banged up Admiral, and DA was missing.

Also, Mutombo wasn't in his prime in 2001. That Sixer team was one of the worst to make the Finals.