Current Lakers vs 90's Bulls

[D2Procon]

My guts tell me Lakers are going to repeat. I don't think I've ever seen a front line as versatile and as good as the Lakers. You heard it first here, Lakers are going to get a three peat with their roster. Anyways.....

Current Lakers vs 91-93 Bulls

Current Lakers vs 96-98 Bulls.

Who would win in a 7 game series???

[tdunk21]

bulls hands down....mj would eat kobe alive.....

[Trainwreck2100]

yay another jordan/kobe thread

[HarlemHeat37]

Bulls in 5 or 6 IMO..

[D2Procon]

yay another jordan/kobe thread

Who said anything about Kobe/MJ? Its between 2 great teams.....

[MiamiHeat]

boring thread. go die in a fire, op

[D2Procon]

boring thread. go die in a fire, op

How about I shove my foot up your ass sideways?

[picc84]

Depends.

Are we still pretending Bynum is an all-star player and its the 2004 version of Artest?

If so, LA has a chance.

If we're talking the actual reality version of the Lakers, which is Kobe/Gasol/Odom and role players, then 90's Bulls probably knock it out.

But if we have the forum fantasy version, I have faith.

[scottspurs]

Jordan would personally take a dump on the Lakers and Scottie Pippen would make Lamar Odom look like Matt Bonner. Jordan would average 50 on Kobe and he wouldn't let him score.

[LnGrrrR]

Bulls, during both threepeats. Jordan and Pippen were better than their respective counterparts, and the bench was much deeper. I don't think there's anyone on those two three-peat teams that the Lakers could exploit enough to win four games.

[Ghazi]

typical knee jerk sensationalism.

Lakers are good, but nothing about them strikes me as an all time great time like those Bulls

No team with Andrew Glassnum as the starting center can be considered THAT good.

btw, I thought Glassy boy would dominate this frontline? 4 points? :lol

[Venti Quattro]

Those Bulls win. I don't care how many games. They're tougher than these Lakers.

[Medvedenko]

I'll go out on a limb and say the Bulls in 7....however it's all dependent on how the game is played, iso or zone d, as in the days before zone D.

[DazedAndConfused]

I love my Lakers, but they are no 90's Bulls.

A better comparison would be the '01 Lakers vs the 90's Bulls. Give me a prime Shaq and young Kobe and we got ourselves one hell of a series.

[Mavs_man_41]

best frontline ever? let's reserve that for dirk/lebron/haywood thanks

[Medvedenko]

typical knee jerk sensationalism.

Lakers are good, but nothing about them strikes me as an all time great time like those Bulls

No team with Andrew Glassnum as the starting center can be considered THAT good.

btw, I thought Glassy boy would dominate this frontline? 4 points? :lol

Those great Bulls centers like Bill Cartwright, LucLongely and Bill Wengington would definitely put them at an all time great team...oh and a 6'7 rodman would d up very well on Gasol...

[Venti Quattro]

Haywood? LOL

[Ghazi]

best frontline ever? let's reserve that for dirk/lebron/haywood thanks

:tu

[monosylab1k]

My guts tell me Lakers are going to repeat. I don't think I've ever seen a front line as versatile and as good as the Lakers. You heard it first here, Lakers are going to get a three peat with their roster. Anyways.....

Current Lakers vs 91-93 Bulls

Current Lakers vs 96-98 Bulls.

Who would win in a 7 game series???

i'm not saying you should kill yourself, but I do think you should at least look into/research the possibility of ending your life

[monosylab1k]

best frontline ever? let's reserve that for dirk/lebron/haywood thanks

yes tbh. mavs>spurs speaks the truth

[Capt Bringdown]

The Bulls were not the pinnacle of NBA basketball. The Showtime Lakers, with all-stars/HOF at damn near every position, would have cratered the Bulls.

And Jordan never faced a frontline as tough as Gasol/Bynum/Odom. The 90's Bulls would not prevail.

[milkshakeballa]

Those great Bulls centers like Bill Cartwright, LucLongely and Bill Wengington would definitely put them at an all time great team...oh and a 6'7 rodman would d up very well on Gasol...

I'm of the opinion that Gasol would have a HELL of a time scoring on Rodman...

[monosylab1k]

Those great Bulls centers like Bill Cartwright, LucLongely and Bill Wengington would definitely put them at an all time great team...oh and a 6'7 rodman would d up very well on Gasol...

I hope that you die of AIDS.

[nevitt_&_smrek]

Under today's rules, the Bulls wouldn't be able to play the same style of defense they were used to. It's especially true for the Rodman squads.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Jordan would personally take a dump on the Lakers and Scottie Pippen would make Lamar Odom look like Matt Bonner. Jordan would average 50 on Kobe and he wouldn't let him score.

"The older I get, the better I was"

I'm sure MJ would love to think your fantasy scenario is plausible, but Kobe is a very good defender. If MJ never came close to averaging 50 against some suspect defenders in lots of series over the years, what makes you think he's magically going to drop a half-century against Kobe and a great Lakers defense?

I think you can make an argument that those Bulls were a better team, but it's not like these Lakers don't belong on the court with them. They'd give them all they could handle with the versatility of the frontcourt.

[Medvedenko]

I hope that you die of AIDS.


lol mono

[milkshakeballa]

IMO to me the 01 Laker playoff team is one of the top 3 teams of all time and the BEST team since 1990.

[scanry]

IMO to me the 01 Laker playoff team is one of the top 3 teams of all time and the BEST team since 1990.

I think the 1991 Bulls were better, and Jordan had just started tearing teams apart.

[TheMACHINE]

Jordan would score 60 and Kobe would score 0..jordan is that good.

[milkshakeballa]

I think the 1991 Bulls were better, and Jordan had just started tearing teams apart.

Prime Shaq. Athletically prime Kobe. Prime role players.

MJ would get his numbers but Kobe was an AMAZING perimeter defender in his younger days...

[monosylab1k]

IMO to me the 01 Laker playoff team is one of the top 3 teams of all time and the BEST team since 1990.

crofl

96 Bulls would own them.

PG - Harper owns Fisher/older Harper (advantage Bulls)
SG - Jordan owns Kobe (advantage Bulls)
SF - Pippen owns Fox (advantage Bulls)
PF - Rodman owns Grant (advantage Bulls)
C - O'Neal owns Longley (advantage Lakers)

Bench - Kukoc/Kerr/Wennington/Simpkins owns Shaw/Horry/Rider/George (advantage Bulls)

That series goes 5, maybe 6 games.

[milkshakeballa]

I think the 1991 Bulls were better, and Jordan had just started tearing teams apart.

And SHaq would drop 40/20...

[monosylab1k]

And SHaq would drop 40/20...

good for him. who's helping?

[monosylab1k]

The 01 Lakers might take the 96 Sonics to 7 games. That would be a series worth watching.

[MiamiHeat]

in this Defensive 3 second violation, no hand checking, ticky tack foul era, Jordan would drop 50 per game.

There has never been a player that could drive and finish like Jordan could.

He would go to the free-throw line so many times, you guys would sound like 2006 Maverick fans

[TDMVPDPOY]

bulls would sweep the lakers....

[Ghazi]

didnt chris richards/miamiheat ask if this years Cavs could beat those Bulls teams? :lol

[MiamiHeat]

didnt chris richards/miamiheat ask if this years Cavs could beat those Bulls teams? :lol

Don't confuse me with that turd Laker fan troll

[milkshakeballa]

crofl

96 Bulls would own them.

PG - Harper owns Fisher/older Harper (advantage Bulls)
SG - Jordan owns Kobe (advantage Bulls)
SF - Pippen owns Fox (advantage Bulls)
PF - Rodman owns Grant (advantage Bulls)
C - O'Neal owns Longley (advantage Lakers)

Bench - Kukoc/Kerr/Wennington/Simpkins owns Shaw/Horry/Rider/George (advantage Bulls)

That series goes 5, maybe 6 games.

The 2001 team would lose to nobody in 5 games. Are you serious?

Harper was a very good point guard back in his day but Fisher shot over 50% from 3 pt land in those playoffs. He was QUICK and actually really frustrated Iverson in the latter part of the finals. A wash IMO.

Jordan would get his no doubt. But like I said Kobe was an AMAZING defender back in his day. And don't forget Kobe average 29 7 and 6 those playoffs IIRC.

Pippen would struggle mightily to drop 20 on Fox. Fox couldn't score on Pippen. Bulls advantage.

Rodman is rendered USELESS in this series against Horace. Horace was a rebounder defender and role player.

Shaq would just ANNILATE Longley and AVERAGE 40/20 in that series.

I have a really hard time seeing ANYTEAM beat this team in a 7 game series...let alone that Bulls team who won 70 games in a WATERED down league.

[monosylab1k]

fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail

fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail

fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail

fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail

fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail

fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail

fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail fail

Like I said, there were two teams in 1996 better than the 2001 Lakers. Bulls and Sonics both.

[angelbelow]

Jordan and Pippen are too deadly on the wings. Kukoc is a better version of Odom too. I dont see the lakers having a good chance.

[MiamiHeat]

The 2001 team would lose to nobody in 5 games. Are you serious?

Harper was a very good point guard back in his day but Fisher shot over 50% from 3 pt land in those playoffs. He was QUICK and actually really frustrated Iverson in the latter part of the finals. A wash IMO.

Jordan would get his no doubt. But like I said Kobe was an AMAZING defender back in his day. And don't forget Kobe average 29 7 and 6 those playoffs IIRC.

Pippen would struggle mightily to drop 20 on Fox. Fox couldn't score on Pippen. Bulls advantage.

Rodman is rendered USELESS in this series against Horace. Horace was a rebounder defender and role player.

Shaq would just ANNILATE Longley and AVERAGE 40/20 in that series.

I have a really hard time seeing ANYTEAM beat this team in a 7 game series...let alone that Bulls team who won 70 games in a WATERED down league.

If it was so watered down, why couldn't anyone else even come close to 72 wins?

Ah, laker fans regurtitating stuff they heard other kobe fans say, those nutjobs who try to dismantle MJ and bring him down to kobe's level.

son, there is nothing on this planet earth that would have allowed Kobe to stop MJ from dropping 50 on him in today's ticky tack NBA. on the other hand, MJ's defense was more than just elite. Jordan is arguably the greatest perimeter defender OF ALL TIME.

He and Pippen were fucking rabid bulldogs causing havoc and getting steals. Kobe would be hounded constantly by MJ-Pippen duo. 2001 Kobe would be shut down into another one of those shitty shooting nights.

By the way, Rodman is no slouch. He might be one of the worst offensive players in history, but that man can rebound on anyone.

[LakasRool4eva]

honestly speakin LA in 6...this team is just tooooooooooooooo good right now...........but its all heresay since these teams r from different times anyways............

[monosylab1k]

considering the league has expanded to more teams now than in 96, it's hilarious to say the league was more watered down back then.

[milkshakeballa]

If it was so watered down, why couldn't anyone else even come close to 72 wins?

Ah, laker fans regurtitating stuff they heard other kobe fans say, those nutjobs who try to dismantle MJ and bring him down to kobe's level.

son, there is nothing on this planet earth that would have allowed Kobe to stop MJ from dropping 50 on him in today's ticky tack NBA. on the other hand, MJ's defense was more than just elite. Jordan is arguably the greatest perimeter defender OF ALL TIME.

He and Pippen were fucking rabid bulldogs causing havoc and getting steals. Kobe would be hounded constantly by MJ-Pippen duo. 2001 Kobe would be shut down into another one of those shitty shooting nights.

By the way, Rodman is no slouch. He might be one of the worst offensive players in history, but that man can rebound on anyone.

Goodness.

No other team won 70 because .... take a fucking guess.... IT WAS WATERED DOWN!

I fully understand Jordan was a GREAT defender...one of the best ever. I still believe Kobe could and would score on him. He was playing out of his mind in those playoffs. Good offense beats good defense in the NBA. MJ would have the advantage no doubt...but not even HALF as much as the advantage an absolute PRIME SHAQ who would command a fucking triple team against Longley.

The Lakers would win this series because of Shaq...not Kobe.

So go stick that up your fucking Kobe hating ass bitch.

[monosylab1k]

No other team won 70 because .... take a fucking guess.... IT WAS WATERED DOWN!

Do you have any idea what the term watered down means? Because the league is more watered down now than before. There are more teams in the league now. Ipso facto, that makes it more watered down.

[ElNono]

Bulls in 5... Kobe with 4 fouls in 14 minutes trying to guard MJ. Phil Jackson playing mind games with both Bynum and Kerr.
I would actually pay to watch as both Rodman and Artest try to outdo each other with freaky hairdo's and funky nail polish.

[milkshakeballa]

considering the league has expanded to more teams now than in 96, it's hilarious to say the league was more watered down back then.

The East was a joke that year.

IIRC it was Bulls

Magic






Pacers






























Knicks sucked that year.

Everybody

You had the Sonics in the West.

[FlyHigh07]

Wtf? There should be no comparison between these 2. They shouldn't even be mentioned next to each other. :pctoss

BULLS FTW

[BUMP]

Are we comparing this years Lakers to the 90's Bulls?

If so there's no comparison.

01 Lakers vs the Bulls would be VERY competitive but i'd still pick the Bulls. Shaq and Kobe still would not be able to beat MJ. He's just too good

[SomeCallMeTim]

Do you have any idea what the term watered down means? Because the league is more watered down now than before. There are more teams in the league now. Ipso facto, that makes it more watered down.

The league expanded a lot in the late 80s/mid 90s. Wolves, Magic, Heat, and Hornets all added in a two year span 88-89 and then the Canadian teams were added in 95.

That is a lot of watering down to assimilate in a short span of time. Could be some correlation between the spreading of talent and suddenly a lack of parity as teams always repeated as champs from the Lakers in 87-88 through the Bulls in 96-98... not sure how strong but just saying it could be significant...

There is exactly one more team in the NBA now than there was during the 2nd threepeat Bulls. A lot easier to assimilate 12 more guys into the league (a 3 percent increase) than 24 (7 percent increase), not to mention the 48 more 6-7 years earlier (a whopping 17 percent increase).

And this last decade has seen the explosion of talent from outside the US, with lots of great players and even some superstars coming from South America, Europe, and Asia. I'd say that deepening of the worldwide talent pool is more than enough to offset the addition of 12 roster spots leagewide.

[milkshakeballa]

Are we comparing this years Lakers to the 90's Bulls?

If so there's no comparison.

01 Lakers vs the Bulls would be VERY competitive but i'd still pick the Bulls. Shaq and Kobe still would not be able to beat MJ. He's just too good

I AM COMPARING the 01 lakers.

Shaq would drop 40/20. THE WHOLE SERIES.

[Ashy Larry]

bulls .....

[BUMP]

I AM COMPARING the 01 lakers.

Shaq would drop 40/20. THE WHOLE SERIES.

Like I said very competitive. Shaq can't be stopped but they could definitely be physical with him and contain him. We're not talking about the Dallas Mavericks. The 90's Bulls were the greatest defensive teams of all time.

[21_Blessings]

Like I said, there were two teams in 1996 better than the 2001 Lakers. Bulls and Sonics both.

The 95 Lakers beat the 95 Sonics :lmao

This Lakers team would smash the shit out of that overrated as fuck Sonics team. Bulls moped up a bunch titles in an extremely weak expansion era.

[monosylab1k]

There is exactly one more team in the NBA now than there was during the 2nd threepeat Bulls.

Which means the league is more watered down now. Do you guys not comprehend basic fucking English?

[monosylab1k]

The 95 Lakers beat the 95 Sonics

That's great. We're talking about the 96 Sonics. Seriously, do you dipshit Laker fans now know how to fucking read?

[milkshakeballa]

Which means the league is more watered down now. Do you guys not comprehend basic fucking English?

I don't think you understand what it means.

Just because there is ONE SINGLE team that exist today that didn't in '96 does not mean it wasn't watered down.

I'm talking about talent.

[21_Blessings]

That's great. We're talking about the 96 Sonics. Seriously, do you dipshit Laker fans now know how to fucking read?

Are you fucking retarded? Oh, you're a Dallas fan!

The 95 Sonics had basically the same core as 96. You literally have to be the dumbest person on the planet if you think those Sonics are beating a Lakers core that just went to 3 straight finals.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Which means the league is more watered down now. Do you guys not comprehend basic fucking English?

:lol

I guess ratios are considered advanced concepts in those fine DFW public school systems.

[TheGreatest23]

Are you fucking retarded? Oh, you're a Dallas fan!

The 95 Sonics had basically the same core as 96. You literally have to be the dumbest person on the planet if you think those Sonics are beating a Lakers core that just went to 3 straight finals.

Retarted Dallas Fans actually thinking im going to thier fat infested hick city to play when i can play for a hot ass city like miami.

[scottspurs]

"The older I get, the better I was"

I'm sure MJ would love to think your fantasy scenario is plausible, but Kobe is a very good defender. If MJ never came close to averaging 50 against some suspect defenders in lots of series over the years, what makes you think he's magically going to drop a half-century against Kobe and a great Lakers defense?

I think you can make an argument that those Bulls were a better team, but it's not like these Lakers don't belong on the court with them. They'd give them all they could handle with the versatility of the frontcourt.

:lmao Great Laker defense? :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Booharv]

It would all come down to coaching matchups.

Bulls Jackson:
http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/81353642.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF8789215ABF3343C02EA548F8601AF52148EA14 FCBAEF69C82638E4C85EF0362DF16A3E

Lakers' Jackson:
http://www.tactileint.com/seasia/saigon/colonel.jpeg

Advantage Bulls.

[admiralsnackbar]

MJ's refs were better than Kobe's refs. Bulls in 6.

[boston.balla]

I'm just gonna say this:

today lakers would take them in 6-7:
zone d -rules matter alot, do you see rodman thriving in that system? :lol thoght so
comparable whistles -self explanatory
kobe manning up and not playing like a primadonna - i don't think mj would dominate him that bad +5-7ppg at most difference, plus consider that artest will foul his way into slowing mj down atleast a game.
gasol taking a very VERY very serious shit all over rodman, odom is superior to kukoc - just watch tape if you consider otherwise, bynum would just need to stay in the middle and it'll be ok = frontline will just murder the bulls.
odom can't guard pippen, pippen can't guard odom (look at last night's game ffs vs motherfucking amare, it's clear pippen's to small and thin for lamar)
at pg chicago had mainly a shooters so fish would not get as raped as people think.

Once you start to look at how the teams play it's quite obvious that la has a slight advantage, so i say in 6-7 tough games la takes it cause of frontline.




Furthermore, let's analyze the bulls and worthy alltime opponents/matchups:

boston 86 would murder the bulls
lakers 87 would absolutely jizz all over them, they match up really nice with bulls
with the fofofo sixers series is really close.
the bad boys beat them more than once
2001 la goes 7 but bulls lose. Who on the bulls stop shaq? Cause mj would not have a huge fg against young kobe
Hell i'd even put this one the line: the 2004 pitons would give them hell(people forget 2004 pitsons bench)


People need to stop considering the bulls as the best team ever because they never faced contenders with huge frontlines. Every time they played contenders with excellent both ways front lines they had a very tough time.

When you look at 1991 lakers, portland, and suns you see on glaring similarity and that is no both ways dominant frontline.
When you look at seattle and jazz you see the same thing.

People don't look against what teams you win, they look at an era with quality c's on other teams and say "they were the best ever. jordan jizz, etc etc", but when you consider how teams are composed and how they play, and what contenders are there you really observe that in the period you didn't have the 80s contenders with classical monster frontlines it all makes much more sense on : how did the bulls defend so well, how did they 2xthreepeat, and most of all against what teams. And those team simply were not that great especially their frontlines.

Furthermore you observe that the bulls needed the "jordan rules" to beat the remains of the great 80s teams at the beginning of the 90s decade.


So please stop the jordan=bulls thing, as we can see the bulls are a great defensive team against great teams without dominant bothways frontlines. When playing great teams with dominant bothways frontlines they are not the greatest => they are not the greatest ever.

[narmerguy]

Are you people retarded? It takes a little over a decade and people forget what Jordan was actually like when he played.

[boston.balla]

Furthermore, if this is a jordan jizz thread, imagine that lebron gets a ft everytime he finished with contact=every time. How many will he shoot?

It's clear that he is the most hit finishers in the history of the league along wilt and shaq, as in almost every time you finish you do it with contact. So.. how many ft should he get.

Bottom line: jordan maybe is goat (magic says hi) but he is goat by a sensibly thin lead if you consider league rules/jordan rules/other contenders/how the game was played/zone d.

Imagine playing a small frontline team (the bulls) against mj and you are the big lakers (with 2 good not great defenders in kobe and artest). You clearly pack the paint and mark him tight .. you see jordan penetrating at will for 7 games against a huge frontline? no way. So no more huge fg => no more huge ppg.

The game has changed alot in 15 years..

[boston.balla]

Are you people retarded? It takes a little over a decade and people forget what Jordan was actually like when he played.


the same way people forget against what teams he played and the matchups (see above post) and how the rules have changed(see other post above).

[Muser]

Todays Lakers - Bulls in 5

01 Lakers - Bulls in 7, but very close..

[Booharv]

Are you people retarded? It takes a little over a decade and people forget what Jordan was actually like when he played.

[Bob Lanier]

:lmao at people who think Rodman couldn't shut down someone as mentally weak as Pau Gasol

:lmao at people who think Pippen would be outplayed by Odom

:lmao at people who think Andrew Bynum would ever be a consistent contributor against anyone

[HarlemHeat37]

Ya, I love Pau's game, he's amazing and has been the Lakers best player in the playoffs, but Rodman would mentally feast on him..it wouldn't even be fair, it's such an ideal matchup for Worm..

I met Rodman at a club in TO last year, and he really is exactly as portrayed..he was drunk as fuck, probably high too, and completely spaced out in his own world, sitting there alone..

[TJastal]

Ya, I love Pau's game, he's amazing and has been the Lakers best player in the playoffs, but Rodman would mentally feast on him..it wouldn't even be fair, it's such an ideal matchup for Worm..

I met Rodman at a club in TO last year, and he really is exactly as portrayed..he was drunk as fuck, probably high too, and completely spaced out in his own world, sitting there alone..

probably waiting for his next cameo on 'Blind Date'

[monosylab1k]

Just because there is ONE SINGLE team that exist today that didn't in '96 does not mean it wasn't watered down.

Yes it does.

You have a glass of orange juice. You add water to it. It's now watered down.

Take that same glass of watered down orange juice. Now add ONE SINGLE DROP of water to it. It's now officially MORE WATERED DOWN than it was before.

just ONE SINGLE TEAM now that wasn't there in 96 automatically means the league is MORE WATERED DOWN.


I'm talking about talent.

if you were talking talent, you should have said the league is more talented today. but you said the league now is less "watered down" which is 100% false. i have fucking scientifically proven it to you.

Learn what the hell you're talking about and then get back to me, kid.

[monosylab1k]

:lol

I guess ratios are considered advanced concepts in those fine DFW public school systems.

:lmao

Dallas Fan "29:1 and 30:1 are not the same thing"

Laker Fan "yes they are"

so advanced!

[lefty]

DUH

90's Bulls would c-stomp the shit out of the Lakers


This thread is retarded

[XFactor]

Shaq's numbers from 1997-2001 are almost the same if not identical. Shaq never scored 30+ on Jordan's Bulls while he was a Laker. And Im talking about the old aged Bulls. How is it possible then all of a sudden to be able to put 40/20 against the same Bulls whom from 1996 -1998 had an average win record of 68 wins/season.

[SomeCallMeTim]

:lmao Great Laker defense? :lmao :lmao :lmao

Yes, and this can be proven through these things we call "defensive statistics." I'll let you google that.

In the meantime, why don't you let the folks who understand what that means continue the conversation without your fine contributions.

[stretch]

I hate agreeing (to an extent) with a moron like milkshakeballa, but the league in the 90's was definitely the weakest it had been since the Russel/Wilt era, and is definitely weaker than it has been in recent years. The league right now is absolutely loaded, and through a lot of the 2000's there have been some really loaded years. Really the only years in this decade that stick out as being a rather weak overall year to me was 03-04 (Pistons won it all), and 06-07 (Spurs won it all). And even then, they weren't incredibly terrible years either. In 06-07, all Western Playoff teams won 50 games. 03-04 was kinda weak though, possibly the weakest of this decade.

[SomeCallMeTim]

:lmao

Dallas Fan "29:1 and 30:1 are not the same thing"

Laker Fan "yes they are"

so advanced!

Thanks for proving my point. Why exactly do you think the denominator has remained the same?

Dallas Fan: 30 > 29!!!

Laker Fan: 29/1,000,000,000 > 30/2,000,000,000

[TheManFromAcme]

I love my Lakers, but they are no 90's Bulls.

A better comparison would be the '01 Lakers vs the 90's Bulls. Give me a prime Shaq and young Kobe and we got ourselves one hell of a series.

Yup.

...but many will think otherwise. That '01 Lakers team was for the ages. MJ/Pippen would have gotten theirs but all around, I'd give an edge to that specific years Laker squad with a prime Shaq and Kobe.

This years team is great but those 90's Bulls teams I am afraid are a little better.

[The Gemini Method]

Who the fuck cares? What I want to know is what kind of debauchery would ensue if Rodman and Artest partied post-game...Now that's something to give a fuck about...

Oh, Scottie P. and his Coors Light could add an additional boost...

[HarlemHeat37]

I hate agreeing (to an extent) with a moron like milkshakeballa, but the league in the 90's was definitely the weakest it had been since the Russel/Wilt era, and is definitely weaker than it has been in recent years. The league right now is absolutely loaded, and through a lot of the 2000's there have been some really loaded years. Really the only years in this decade that stick out as being a rather weak overall year to me was 03-04 (Pistons won it all), and 06-07 (Spurs won it all). And even then, they weren't incredibly terrible years either. In 06-07, all Western Playoff teams won 50 games. 03-04 was kinda weak though, possibly the weakest of this decade.

I definitely agree with your assessment about the 90's, but I disagree with saying that the league is loaded with talent today..individual talent? sure, but not team talent..

This year has 3 legit contenders, which is a good number, but the West is really weak outside of the Lakers..I guess you could say it's loaded due to these 3 teams..

Last year was really weak IMO, due to so many injuries..

I don't think this decade was that loaded in regards to teams TBH..the 80s is probably the only era that was consistently loaded..the 90s is probably the 2nd worst next to the 70s..

[milkshakeballa]

Yes it does.

You have a glass of orange juice. You add water to it. It's now watered down.

Take that same glass of watered down orange juice. Now add ONE SINGLE DROP of water to it. It's now officially MORE WATERED DOWN than it was before.

just ONE SINGLE TEAM now that wasn't there in 96 automatically means the league is MORE WATERED DOWN.



if you were talking talent, you should have said the league is more talented today. but you said the league now is less "watered down" which is 100% false. i have fucking scientifically proven it to you.

Learn what the hell you're talking about and then get back to me, kid.

The orange juice from the 90's is the fucking offbrand shit that you buy at a fucking mexican market.

The orange juice of today's times would be FRESHLY JUICED oranges from Florida. Even if you add ONE (ONE TEAM) ONE FUCKING OUNCE OF WATER....IT IS STILL MUCH MORE POTENT THAN THE SHITTY ORANGE JUICE YOU ARE DRINKING FROM THE NINETIES.

If you it makes you feel better...fine...the league in 01 was WAY MORE talented.

[milkshakeballa]

LOL @ peopel saying Gasol would own Rodman...no way

Today's Laker team would lose to that CHI team in 5 or 6

[resistanze]

I definitely agree with your assessment about the 90's, but I disagree with saying that the league is loaded with talent today..individual talent? sure, but not team talent..

This year has 3 legit contenders, which is a good number, but the West is really weak outside of the Lakers..I guess you could say it's loaded due to these 3 teams..

Last year was really weak IMO, due to so many injuries..

I don't think this decade was that loaded in regards to teams TBH..the 80s is probably the only era that was consistently loaded..the 90s is probably the 2nd worst next to the 70s..
Have to agree to an extent about this decade not being loaded. I think the 2000s Western Conference is pretty overrated. I mean, it looks like the Lakers and Spurs are about to win 11 of the past 12 Conference titles. A loaded conference should've result in some kind of parity.

[stretch]

I definitely agree with your assessment about the 90's, but I disagree with saying that the league is loaded with talent today..individual talent? sure, but not team talent..

This year has 3 legit contenders, which is a good number, but the West is really weak outside of the Lakers..I guess you could say it's loaded due to these 3 teams..

Last year was really weak IMO, due to so many injuries..

I don't think this decade was that loaded in regards to teams TBH..the 80s is probably the only era that was consistently loaded..the 90s is probably the 2nd worst next to the 70s..

I don't think the West is that weak at all. I think the large amount of injuries again really messed things up. The West IMO was just so stacked that no one was able to get much separation due to everyone just pounding on each other. Only 7 games between the 1st and 8th seed, along with the 8th seed nearly taking the 1st seed to a 7 game series? That's pretty damn stacked IMO.

The decade doesn't have the dominant teams that other decades had, but that's more because the talent is so widespread through the league, and because so many teams are able to compete for a title. I think to say only 3 this year were true competitors was completely untrue. The Lakers, Magic, Celtics, Cavs, Mavs, Nuggets, Spurs were all legit contenders. And other teams like the Hawks, Suns, and Jazz were all definitely teams that if hot at the right time (as the Suns were when facing the Spurs, and the Jazz when facing the Nuggets), could pull off an upset or two and be in the Finals as well. Don't forget the injury ridden Blazers who definitely could have been true contenders as well. The league currently is as competitive as it has ever been.

[Ghazi]

Have to agree to an extent about this decade not being loaded. I think the 2000s Western Conference is pretty overrated. I mean, it looks like the Lakers and Spurs are about to win 11 of the past 12 Conference titles. A loaded conference should've result in some kind of parity.

Not sure if this necessarily discredits the West's strength... East has had many different teams make th Finals but has been obviously weaker. Gap is closing though, but will be expanded when Lebron comes to Dallas.

[bostonguy]

It depends which bulls team we are talking about. The 97-98 team was the weakest of em all. That is the team these Lakers would have the best chance against.

[mogrovejo]

I hate agreeing (to an extent) with a moron like milkshakeballa, but the league in the 90's was definitely the weakest it had been since the Russel/Wilt era, and is definitely weaker than it has been in recent years. The league right now is absolutely loaded, and through a lot of the 2000's there have been some really loaded years. Really the only years in this decade that stick out as being a rather weak overall year to me was 03-04 (Pistons won it all), and 06-07 (Spurs won it all). And even then, they weren't incredibly terrible years either. In 06-07, all Western Playoff teams won 50 games. 03-04 was kinda weak though, possibly the weakest of this decade.

Well, that's why the Lakers season hasn't been exactly spectacular. They had the 3rd best record but not even close to 72 wins, they had a pedestrian point differential, their offense is flawed and that shows even in the playoffs.

[mogrovejo]

I'm just gonna say this:

today lakers would take them in 6-7:
zone d -rules matter alot, do you see rodman thriving in that system? :lol thoght so

Yes. Why not?


kobe manning up and not playing like a primadonna - i don't think mj would dominate him that bad +5-7ppg at most difference, plus consider that artest will foul his way into slowing mj down atleast a game.

Jordan would destroy Kobe. And you'd have Kobe defending Pippen? That would be a massacre.



gasol taking a very VERY very serious shit all over rodman

How?

I stopped here because it doesnt' make sense any more. Do people forget how Rodman used to shut down Shaq? A guy like Gasol would just fall into his hands.

This Lakers team would have no chance versus the 90s Bulls. The 87 Lakers would do a lot better.

[mogrovejo]

Kobe could get any shot he wants against MJ and Pippen.

Rodman never shut down Shaq, but he'd make Gasol cry.

The 87 Lakers would destroy the Bulls.

Bird, Magic and Zeke had to get old before MJ could win a title, then the league went through a dry spell for about 8 years and MJ built his legacy on that, with no true rival.

:lmao

[stretch]

I stopped here because it doesnt' make sense any more. Do people forget how Rodman used to shut down Shaq? A guy like Gasol would just fall into his hands.

Exactly. The best way to shut Gasol down is by using "bully" tactics, getting physical, lots of energy, and flopping. Gasol would be given hell by Rodman.

Something that also isn't taken into account is Rodman's ridiculous rebounding ability. He gave the Bulls around 5-6 extra possesions a game, and created all kinds of hell and frustration doing so. The Bulls had such a great mental edge by their incredible rebounding and ability to create turnovers, which gave them a bunch of extra possessions which is something that will really wear on an opponent mentally.

While the Bulls did have their weaknesses (lacked a dominant interior player, and didn't have a whole lot of pure talent outside of MJ and Pippen), they had so many other advantages that more than made up for it. They had such great execution on both sides, crisp passing, great team balance and floor spacing, lots of versatility, and very high IQ players. The teamwork on both ends were amazing. There is no question they aren't as talented as some other teams, but they played basketball the right way, and did it better than any team ever has (in terms of execution, they were as close to perfect as it gets), which is why they are the best TEAM ever.

[bostonguy]

Exactly. The best way to shut Gasol down is by using "bully" tactics, getting physical, lots of energy, and flopping. Gasol would be given hell by Rodman.

Something that also isn't taken into account is Rodman's ridiculous rebounding ability. He gave the Bulls around 5-6 extra possesions a game, and created all kinds of hell and frustration doing so. The Bulls had such a great mental edge by their incredible rebounding and ability to create turnovers, which gave them a bunch of extra possessions which is something that will really wear on an opponent mentally.

While the Bulls did have their weaknesses (lacked a dominant interior player, and didn't have a whole lot of pure talent outside of MJ and Pippen), they had so many other advantages that more than made up for it. They had such great execution on both sides, crisp passing, great team balance and floor spacing, lots of versatility, and very high IQ players. The teamwork on both ends were amazing. There is no question they aren't as talented as some other teams, but they played basketball the right way, and did it better than any team ever has (in terms of execution, they were as close to perfect as it gets), which is why they are the best TEAM ever.


One thing that really stood out to me from the 90's bulls was their team D. They played suffocating D. They had the ability to hold you down. Bulls had a balanced O but that D was just sick.

[SomeCallMeTim]

I don't think the West is that weak at all. I think the large amount of injuries again really messed things up. The West IMO was just so stacked that no one was able to get much separation due to everyone just pounding on each other. Only 7 games between the 1st and 8th seed, along with the 8th seed nearly taking the 1st seed to a 7 game series? That's pretty damn stacked IMO.

The decade doesn't have the dominant teams that other decades had, but that's more because the talent is so widespread through the league, and because so many teams are able to compete for a title. I think to say only 3 this year were true competitors was completely untrue. The Lakers, Magic, Celtics, Cavs, Mavs, Nuggets, Spurs were all legit contenders. And other teams like the Hawks, Suns, and Jazz were all definitely teams that if hot at the right time (as the Suns were when facing the Spurs, and the Jazz when facing the Nuggets), could pull off an upset or two and be in the Finals as well. Don't forget the injury ridden Blazers who definitely could have been true contenders as well. The league currently is as competitive as it has ever been.

I agree with this. The CBA has been doing its job in keeping teams much more stable than in years past with FA departures. Things could change this summer but for about 10 years superstar movement due to free agency has all but vanished. Shaq was the last one to move in his prime and he was before the new CBA.

The results are teams holding onto superstars much longer than they may have otherwise... which is why I really like the NBA's salary cap system. I think it's a fair system (unlike the NFL's which totally jobs the players) and it is good for competitive balance (unlike MLB's system which is terrible for it).

Kobe, Dirk, Duncan, Pierce, and Yao are all superstars who have stayed with their teams long term... not to mention Melo, Wade, LeBron, and Bosh who have stayed through the full 7 years of their original deals/extensions and even younger guys behind them like Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Howard who all will stay through theirs. Throw in regular "star" players like Amar'e, Manu, Parker, Roy, Rondo, etc. staying with their teams and it gives all teams a much fairer shot at developing and maintaining a good team.

[stretch]

One thing that really stood out to me from the 90's bulls was their team D. They played suffocating D. They had the ability to hold you down. Bulls had a balanced O but that D was just sick.

Yeah. They were extremely versatile on defense. Great team defense, but also had some EXCELLENT individual defenders. And their efficient, balanced offense also helped them to have an even more efficient defense as well.

Now I'm not one of those guys who thinks that they would just gutstomp anyone that faces them. I think the 01 Lakers would give them a tough 6, maybe 7 game series, playing them very tight. I hate it though when people say that MJ would score 40 and Kobe wouldn't do jack, because that's crap. Kobe would still do his fair share of damage. The reason why the Bulls would win that series, and is the greatest team ever, is not due to their talent, but mainly because of their intangibles (their ability to execute so well in virtually every facet of basketball) and mental strength (thanks in large part to Jordan's will/desire to win). Teams would most definitely challenge them, but I think in the end, they would be able to pull out a win in pretty much any series matchup.

[mogrovejo]

The '86 Celtics were a better team.

But I agree with their team D. The secret for Rodman being able to defend Shaq so successfully was exactly their team D - Jordan and Pippen would pressure the ball-handlers so much, trap people so hard, created so much havoc and were so good in harassing post entry passes that in most possessions Shaq was unable to repost. No time in the clock for that. He was unable to create better/deeper post position and to create off doubles.

Also, Rodman rebounding... I think people just don't have a notion of how amazing he was. In his best seasons, Rodman hit a 30% rebounding rate. Basically meaning that for every 3 missed shots, he'd grab one. The Bulls were able to limit their opponents to a 1&done offense while having multiples shots per possession themselves.

[HarlemHeat37]

I completely disagree with that, stretch..you can say the same thing about any other year, you're just naming a bunch of decent teams that you consider contenders, but I don't..

Spurs, Nuggets and Mavs absolutely weren't legit contenders at all, and the Suns definitely aren't either..

Hawks and Jazz were 1st round fodder-caliber teams IMO..

The Cavs looked like contenders until the Bulls exposed their frontcourt in the 1st round, then it was clear that they weren't..

I don't really see the difference between other random years in this decade when it comes to amount of teams that are contending..it doesn't compare to the 80s IMO..

I agree that there's more talent when it comes to players, but when you're looking at the competition within the NBA for a specific year, I don't see much of a difference..

The West doesn't have any legit teams outside of LA, not even close IMO..

[stretch]

The '86 Celtics were a better team.

But I agree with their team D. The secret for Rodman being able to defend Shaq so successfully was exactly their team D - Jordan and Pippen would pressure the ball-handlers so much, trap people so hard, created so much havoc and were so good in harassing post entry passes that in most possessions Shaq was unable to repost. No time in the clock for that. He was unable to create better/deeper post position and to create off doubles.

Also, Rodman rebounding... I think people just don't have a notion of how amazing he was. In his best seasons, Rodman hit a 30% rebounding rate. Basically meaning that for every 3 missed shots, he'd grab one. The Bulls were able to limit their opponents to a 1&done offense while having multiples shots per possession themselves.

I think the 86 Celtics would be the Bulls best competition, but I'm taking the Bulls. I think defense overall in the 80's was absolutely awful and overrated, including teams like the Celtics and Lakers. I don't feel that defense was truly something that was masted until the Bad Boy Pistons and MJ's Bulls. Those were teams that really began emphasizing the importance of a true lockdown, suffocating defense. I think a prime Jordan and Pippen in Phil's Triangle offense would be too much for the Celtics defense to handle. Plus, those Celtics had a bit of an issue with turning the ball over, which is something that the Bulls would really capitalize on.

[JamStone]

I don't remember Rodman shutting down Shaq... but that was a long time ago so maybe I don't remember things that clearly. Still, "shutting down" is a pretty strong term. Rodman did a decent to sometimes very good job on Shaq considering the size difference, but saying he shut him down seems like quite an exaggeration. Still, what made Rodman so great was his relentlessness. He was pesky, he was physical, but he didn't let up, not for one play. But what also helped him against Shaq were a couple of things. In the mid to late 90s, Shaq was huge but not the 350+ pound monster he would later become. So as much as there was a size difference, it wasn't nearly the size mismatch it would have been later on. Secondly, Shaq still relied mostly on his sheer size, strength, and athleticism. Shaq got better with his touch around the rim later with the Lakers, but not as much when he was still in Orlando. That was to Rodman's advantage. Still, I don't recall Rodman shutting Shaq down. Slowing him down better than most? Sure. Maybe making a few really key stops. Ok. But shutting him down? I guess I'd have to see those games again to believe it.

Against Pau Gasol, Rodman in his prime would do a great job. But the difference here is that Gasol has size and skill. We can talk about the rules changes as well and that would benefit Gasol, just like we saw Grant Hill get in foul trouble with limited bodying up on Kobe last night. Rodman was the type of defender that put his entire body on you, chest to chest. He would get a lot more foul calls in today's league, if we're playing by the rules now. And, then there's the fact that Gasol has perimeter skills, dribbling, shooting midrange, left and right hook shots in addition to a huge length advantage. Rodman was 6'7, maybe 6'8, but that's pushing it and probably in his bulkier days about 220 lbs. He played mostly around 210 in Detroit and probably in San Antonio as well.

Even if it was proven or conceded that Rodman shut down Shaq, that doesn't necessarily mean he would shut down Gasol. Gasol's skill set would cause problems for a defender who was super aggressive, physical, and tried to use strength and leverage against a player. That works better against a player like Shaq, not as well against a player like Pau, even though Pau plays like a pussy a lot of the time.

I agree with the sentiment that the 90s NBA were relatively weaker than they were in the 80s and even in many of the years in the 2000s. But, those Bulls teams were still unbelievable. Despite having a wide gap in talent from the top two players versus the rest of the team, what made them so good was those less talented players were so good at knowing their roles and playing those roles well. Shooters shot well. Defenders defended well. The role players didn't try to do more than their own individual limitations allowed them to do. That's how a team with a player like Jordan became so great.

I think a 7 game series between those 90s Jordan teams and the current version of the Lakers would be a lot closer than some think, because of the disparity in talent of the front courts. Those Bulls teams did not have great front courts and they didn't face really good front courts in the playoffs. Faced some great individual front court players like Ewing and Shaq and Karl Malone and Barkley, but not really great front courts. The Lakers would pose some problems with size and skill up front. But Jordan would still give Kobe a new asshole, and those Bulls would ultimately prevail. Closer than some would say, probably a pretty well contested 6 game series.

[stretch]

I don't remember Rodman shutting down Shaq... but that was a long time ago so maybe I don't remember things that clearly. Still, "shutting down" is a pretty strong term. Rodman did a decent to sometimes very good job on Shaq considering the size difference, but saying he shut him down seems like quite an exaggeration. Still, what made Rodman so great was his relentlessness. He was pesky, he was physical, but he didn't let up, not for one play. But what also helped him against Shaq were a couple of things. In the mid to late 90s, Shaq was huge but not the 350+ pound monster he would later become. So as much as there was a size difference, it wasn't nearly the size mismatch it would have been later on. Secondly, Shaq still relied mostly on his sheer size, strength, and athleticism. Shaq got better with his touch around the rim later with the Lakers, but not as much when he was still in Orlando. That was to Rodman's advantage. Still, I don't recall Rodman shutting Shaq down. Slowing him down better than most? Sure. Maybe making a few really key stops. Ok. But shutting him down? I guess I'd have to see those games again to believe it.

Against Pau Gasol, Rodman in his prime would do a great job. But the difference here is that Gasol has size and skill. We can talk about the rules changes as well and that would benefit Gasol, just like we saw Grant Hill get in foul trouble with limited bodying up on Kobe last night. Rodman was the type of defender that put his entire body on you, chest to chest. He would get a lot more foul calls in today's league, if we're playing by the rules now. And, then there's the fact that Gasol has perimeter skills, dribbling, shooting midrange, left and right hook shots in addition to a huge length advantage. Rodman was 6'7, maybe 6'8, but that's pushing it and probably in his bulkier days about 220 lbs. He played mostly around 210 in Detroit and probably in San Antonio as well.

Even if it was proven or conceded that Rodman shut down Shaq, that doesn't necessarily mean he would shut down Gasol. Gasol's skill set would cause problems for a defender who was super aggressive, physical, and tried to use strength and leverage against a player. That works better against a player like Shaq, not as well against a player like Pau, even though Pau plays like a pussy a lot of the time.

I agree with the sentiment that the 90s NBA were relatively weaker than they were in the 80s and even in many of the years in the 2000s. But, those Bulls teams were still unbelievable. Despite having a wide gap in talent from the top two players versus the rest of the team, what made them so good was those less talented players were so good at knowing their roles and playing those roles well. Shooters shot well. Defenders defended well. The role players didn't try to do more than their own individual limitations allowed them to do. That's how a team with a player like Jordan became so great.

I think a 7 game series between those 90s Jordan teams and the current version of the Lakers would be a lot closer than some think, because of the disparity in talent of the front courts. Those Bulls teams did not have great front courts and they didn't face really good front courts in the playoffs. Faced some great individual front court players like Ewing and Shaq and Karl Malone and Barkley, but not really great front courts. The Lakers would pose some problems with size and skill up front. But Jordan would still give Kobe a new asshole, and those Bulls would ultimately prevail. Closer than some would say, probably a pretty well contested 6 game series.

well put jammy. especially on the point about Rodman on Shaq, as I don't quite recall him ever shutting Shaq down either, although I think he definitely could give Shaq some fits.

Those guys really played some great team ball, and everyone's strengths were utilized to their best, even down to Luc Longley who wasn't the best of centers, but his ability to shoot a midrange shot really came in handy for opening up the lane for Jordan and Pippen to penetrate and create.

[Nahtanoj]

The best Bulls team out of those 6 was 1991. Phil Jackson himself said this.

He also said the 2001 Lakers would give the 1991 Bulls a run for their money.

As for the 2009-present Laker team? Not in the class of 2001 or 1991 yet, but pretty close, and if played under current rules - I'd say they have a good chance.

The evolution of player size, strength, length, athleticism, three point shooting and defensive rule changes are big factors when comparing eras.

[21_Blessings]

Now I'm not one of those guys who thinks that they would just gutstomp anyone that faces them. I think the 01 Lakers would give them a tough 6, maybe 7 game series, playing them very tight. I hate it though when people say that MJ would score 40 and Kobe wouldn't do jack, because that's crap. Kobe would still do his fair share of damage.

Good point.

19 year old Kobe dropped 33 on MJ. Then added insult to injury by dropping 56 in like 2 quarters on MJ's ass when thought he could just come back again and dominate :lol



The reason why the Bulls would win that series, and is the greatest team ever, is not due to their talent, but mainly because of their intangibles (their ability to execute so well in virtually every facet of basketball) and mental strength (thanks in large part to Jordan's will/desire to win). Teams would most definitely challenge them, but I think in the end, they would be able to pull out a win in pretty much any series matchup.

This is just rose-colored goggles talk. 86/87 Celtics/Lakers would completely destroy those Bull teams. Jordan never really faced a dynasty caliber team during the weak expansion era he played in. Even the early 80s Sixers would give that those Bulls a run for their money.

[stretch]

The best Bulls team out of those 6 was 1991. Phil Jackson himself said this.

He also said the 2001 Lakers would give the 1991 Bulls a run for their money.

As for the 2009-present Laker team? Not in the class of 2001 or 1991 yet, but pretty close, and if played under current rules - I'd say they have a good chance.

The evolution of player size, strength, length, athleticism, three point shooting and defensive rule changes are big factors when comparing eras.

talentwise, sure 1991 was arguably more talented than any of the other teams. but talent isnt everything. they also say that the Bulls in Jordan's rookie year was the most talented team Jordan ever played with, but they didn't do all that well. the teamwork, the fire, and perfect blend of different but complimentary talents of the 96 squads is what made them so great and superior to the 91 team.


This is just rose-colored goggles talk. 86/87 Celtics/Lakers would completely destroy those Bull teams. Jordan never really faced a dynasty caliber team during the weak expansion era he played in. Even the early 80s Sixers would give that those Bulls a run for their money.

lol butthurt

[Bob Lanier]

Rodman played Shaq well in large part because of the height difference, which allowed him to undercut Shaq's center of gravity and prevent him from levering his way deeper in. It's the same thing that's occasionally let players like Ben Wallace, Corliss Williamson and Malik Rose have success against him, although Rodman was a better defender than any of them. His enormous bag of psychological tricks also played a role against a younger Shaq, and Shaq's always been a person with low self-confidence. Still, while he could disrupt Shaq better than just about anyone he never consistently "shut him down."

Gasol would be equally difficult to "shut down" purely technically, with his extremely varied skill-set, but he's always been a player who's, hm, mentally fragile? The Worm would get inside his head and stay there, and those jumpers it looks like he can get off at any time would start turning into bricks.

[JamStone]

Just curious, Bob. Do you remember Rodman "shutting down" Shaq?

To me, doing well against Shaq is not the same thing as shutting him down.

He may have, but I simply don't remember him doing so.

[stretch]

Gasol would be equally difficult to "shut down" purely technically, with his extremely varied skill-set, but he's always been a player who's, hm, mentally fragile? The Worm would get inside his head and stay there, and those jumpers it looks like he can get off at any time would start turning into bricks.

exactly. Gasol is an extremely skilled player, much more skilled than some people realize. but eventually he would get worn down mentally by Rodman.

Crybaby Bitch Bynum would get completely owned though. he would be crying to the refs like a faggot every 2 seconds instead of every 3 seconds like he already does. Rodman would abuse him.

[21_Blessings]

Rodman wouldn't even be guarding Bynum retard.

[Bob Lanier]

Also, stretch is entirely right about the weak defense played in the 80s. As the Spurs have shown this decade, great defense and tough physicality are not the same thing, though they can be complementary. The 80s through 92 were a time of mediocre defense, and even the best teams failed to be as good as those to come in the 90s and 00s. The best defensive squads of the 80s were the 82 Nets and (ironically enough) the 81 Suns; the '86 Celtics played decent defense, but were barely as good as this year's Charlotte Bobcats, much less the better teams of this decade.

However, the '90s Bulls, while they made up for their small size with excellent help defense to some degree, were not great either. Their best defensive team was that of 1996, and that was far from the best defensive team of the 1990s, being worse than a number of Knicks teams, several Spurs teams (including the excellent '99 Spurs, which were probably the third-best defensive team of all time), and the '98 Cavaliers. Yes, they were better defensively (and much more likable) than the '86 Celtics, but not by very much at all.

The best defensive teams since the early '70s, for comparison, were the post-Rasheed Wallace trade Pistons in 2004 and the Spurs of the same year, but every single one of the best defensive teams of the 2000s from the 99-00 Lakers to the 07-08 Celtics was better than the '90s Bulls by a wide margin. And, given that even recent bandwagon Lakers fans should remember the '00 Lakers, which were quite good defensively, it's peculiar how little they understand.

I'd take the '86 Celtics over any Bulls team of the '90s in 5 or 6, personally. While the Bulls are better offensively, any one of their front lines is too weak to handle Bird, McHale, Parish, and Walton simultaneously.

[Bob Lanier]

Just curious, Bob. Do you remember Rodman "shutting down" Shaq?

To me, doing well against Shaq is not the same thing as shutting him down.

He may have, but I simply don't remember him doing so.
I seem to remember a couple of games, one in O'Neal's rookie year against the Pistons, maybe one or two with the Bulls, where he helped hold Shaq to a very low shooting percentage, and numerous others where he frustrated O'Neal on key possessions, but as I said I don't think he's ever consistently "shut down" Shaq.

Ah, this helps, though it doesn't include playoff games. (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=rodmade01&p2=onealsh01)

[Bob Lanier]

I guess it's helpful that the two only played 4 playoff games.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199605190CHI.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199605210CHI.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199605250ORL.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199605270ORL.html

The third is the one I believe I remember, and the only one where Shaq didn't play extremely well.

[JamStone]

Too bad we can't actually get per possession results instead of just game stats. Seems to me that Rodman wouldn't have been the main defender on Shaq in most of those games. Rodman would most likely used for short stretches or a possession or two to give Shaq a different look and those stats don't really give a true picture of how well Rodman defended Shaq in those games. And yeah, it would be more telling if we could see those per possession match-ups in playoff games.

But, thanks for the link.

[stretch]

i like slugging down 21 dicks at the same time.