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

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

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

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]


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 [B]spot 2 through 12 on his team can't measure up to the Lakers and Celtics's 2 thru 12 [/B]. If Jordan had equal cast, he would outplay Magic and BIrd in a 7 game series for sure.

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.

[QUOTE=OneWay]
Those are comparable numbers to Jordan's regular season numbers in 1996

29.6 ppg
5.9 rpg
4.3 apg[/QUOTE]

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 [b]15%[/b] 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.

[QUOTE=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[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=vert48]
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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE] 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...[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE]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..[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

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


[QUOTE]
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[/QUOTE]

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?

[QUOTE]Shaq dismantled us....... Kobe was hardly Mj or any thing comparable[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Loki]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.[/QUOTE]
Did you ever see that Sixers team play?

[quote]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.[/quote]

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 [b]not[/b] Mj or anything close...

[quote]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.[/quote]

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

[quote]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? [/quote]



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

[QUOTE]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......[/QUOTE]

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"?

[QUOTE] Like I said Kobe was [b]not[/b] Mj or anything close... [/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE]
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[/QUOTE]

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.


[QUOTE]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......[/QUOTE]

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?

[QUOTE]
take your panties out your v*gina laker logic....I didnt insult your boyfriend[/QUOTE]

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

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)

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

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

[QUOTE][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)[/QUOTE]

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 [I]after[/I] 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:

[QUOTE]I get more p*ssy than the law allows [/QUOTE]

: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.

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.