Jordan/Bulls <> Duncan/Spurs

Yes that reporter dogging us saying we are the worst champs ever got me going.

Jordans Bulls vrs Duncans Spurs.

Tell me what sort of defense was facing the bulls? Was it half as good and accurate as ours? No.

What about the same play over and over the Bulls ran. You think we wouldnt have had an answer? Of course not.

All this bullshit about the Bulls is on my nerves. Now, with all the old talk about them. They are clearly overrated. To be honest, if they played this years suns, they'd get bitch-slapped. High octane offense head to head? Nice.

Bulls were great. The overrating is tiring. The Spurs would have thrown them for loops. Todays starting lineups are better, the defense is better, and the refs are lighter with the calls.

Bulls better than todays Spurs? I wouldnt argue against it, they were awesome. Consider todays factors, and they wouldnt be near as good. Longley and Purdue, Rodman,... they wouldnt have gotten shit on the Wallaces'. Pip...MJ... would have got their numbers. It would have been defense that lost it for them.

Not to say the Bulls had poor defense. They had great D, for what it was worth in the league at that time. But our D, and the Pistons D today? Lots better.

And in the end. Thats why the Spurs would have beaten Jordans Bulls.

Im not biased, but watching old finals and seeing a weak SF/C, they themselves would have gotten owned. Take it to the bank. Thats my thoughts.

Duncan
D Rob
Bowen
Manu
Tony

Bench
S Jax
Avery
Horry
Elie
Nazr

That team would beat any of jordans bulls teams

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shyne

Duncan
D Rob
Bowen
Manu
Tony

Bench
S Jax
Avery
Horry
Elie
Nazr

That team would beat any of jordans bulls teams

---

That team never exsisted therefor doesnt count.

I may just have lots of confidence in this Spurs' team. But how the fuck would the Bulls do what they did vrs our D in 7 games, then be able to stop us? No way.

If the Bulls would have stuck it out one more year, I'm pretty sure the '99 Spurs would have beat them. The Bulls were getting old and Chicago never faced one dominant center in the Finals, much less two.

Too bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

If the Bulls would have stuck it out one more year, I'm pretty sure the '99 Spurs would have beat them. The Bulls were getting old and Chicago never faced one dominant center in the Finals, much less two.

Too bad.

---

Um, the Bulls never faced anyone half as good as us in the finals. That's a fact.

They had some tough teams in the Finals. Those Utah teams they beat owned the Spurs then. Plus that Suns team with Barkley in his prime was good.

The Bulls never played a dominant center in the Finals, though.

Yeah but who did DROB have? You know damn good and well if he had a star like Pip it wouldnt have been a Bull 6 title run.... more like a Spurs/Bulls finals every year being split.

Utah wasnt that great. We didnt have a bench, they did. Thats what it came down to. When we subbed, the got smoked.

The bulls would have a Defensive answer for everyone on our team. rodman would be able hold his own on duncan, scottie would be able to stay with manu, and mj would have owned tony. Those MJ Bulls teams had everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheTruth

The bulls would have a Defensive answer for everyone on our team. rodman would be able hold his own on duncan, scottie would be able to stay with manu, and mj would have owned tony. Those MJ Bulls teams had everything.

---

Don't you think Bruce would be covering MJ?

i think you can say the spurs could have a good chace of beating 5 out of the 6 bulls teams, but the 96-97 bulls team is probibly the greatest of all time. they were so good defensively and offensively. when you win over 70 games, thats amazing.

now heres another aguement. the three peat laker teams against the 05 spurs. both healthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheTruth

The bulls would have a Defensive answer for everyone on our team. rodman would be able hold his own on duncan, scottie would be able to stay with manu, and mj would have owned tony. Those MJ Bulls teams had everything.

---

True. The only Spurs team that would have held up against those Jordan Bulls was '99 Spurs. That team played inside out more than any other Spurs team ... and the inside was the weakest part of those Bulls team.

I don't think Manu and Tony would have found much success going against the defense of Pippen and Jordan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jdspur20

i think you can say the spurs could have a good chace of beating 5 out of the 6 bulls teams, but the 96-97 bulls team is probibly the greatest of all time. they were so good defensively and offensively. when you win over 70 games, thats amazing.

now heres another aguement. the three peat laker teams against the 05 spurs. both healthy.

---

make a thread on the lakers/spurs thing.

but the lakeshow doesnt stand a chance vrs this years spurs. the other 2 titles... eh... could go either way.

and if you think we have trouble with long threes now...imagine what scottie could have done to us.

with the 96-97 bulls your talking about great defenders in the starting lineup. jordan, pippen, rodman. and steve kerr wasn't too bad either as a defender.

I agree that the only Spurs team that could have an answer to the MJ bulls was the '99 team. That team was great defensively and also very good offensively and had an amazing veteran presence.

97 Bulls would pwn any team EVER.

I was speaking mainly on the 3 Spurs title years teams vrs the Bulls 6 all-together.

Put the best SL from the Bulls and the best from the Spurs? Spurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

They had some tough teams in the Finals. Those Utah teams they beat owned the Spurs then. Plus that Suns team with Barkley in his prime was good.

The Bulls never played a dominant center in the Finals, though.

---

Just getting to the Finals was a war with the Knicks back then...seems like it was every year in the Semis or East Finals goin 7 then they'd lick the West.

but those teams out of the West weren't push overs either like you mentioned.

I would like the '99 teams chances. The bulls wouldn't have been able to answer the tim/dave combo. Wennington and longley would have had their asses handed to them by whoever they were trying to guard.

That was also probably our best defensive team, and the Twin Towers ownded anyone trying to bring it to the paint. Elliott would have been able to stay with scottie, and Elie would have made MJ work for everything.

Hakeems Rockets v Us

EZPZ MOFO'S

The only team the spurs could beat is the 97-98 bulls because they were at the end and they owned Utah because of Rodman on Malone. The bulls would own the Spurs the same reason because of Rodman on Duncan or Horace Grant. The bulls are more of a dynasty than San Antonio. Right now there aren't any other teams that have been dominating. It could change next year with Phoenix dominating with San Antonio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brutalis

97 Bulls would pwn any team EVER.[/U]

---

good point. i heard a few arguements the last 2 times we've won from a few of different writers, sports radio, etc. they were saying the 96-97 bulls would rip the 03 and 05 spurs apart. i say the 96-97 bulls would rip any team ever as well, so why single out the spurs??? what about the 04 pistons, or the 00, 01, 02 lakers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jdspur20

good point. i heard a few arguements the last 2 times we've won from a few of different writers, sports radio, etc. they were saying the 96-97 bulls would rip the 03 and 05 spurs apart. i say the 96-97 bulls would rip any team ever as well, so why single out the spurs??? what about the 04 pistons, or the 00, 01, 02 lakers?

---

Same result is what.

It's all about respect dude, and San Antonio Spurs will never have this nor need it.

Talk about fuel for the fire? Fuck anyone thats not in a Spurs uni. :elephant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brutalis

Same result is what.

It's all about respect dude, and San Antonio Spurs will never have this nor need it.

Talk about fuel for the fire? Fuck anyone thats not in a Spurs uni. :elephant

---

agreed. i don't care what anyone else thinks, i just think its funny how different AP sports writers single us out. i think we could win 8 titles in 10 years and we would still get no respect.

Bulls vs Spurs Finals?

I see that playing out the like the Houston game vs. Spurs this year where T-MAC scored like 13 points in 35 sec. Only difference, MJ would be doing that throughout the game.......

As much as I love the Spurs, Bulls would have crushed the 2003 and 2005 team.

Quote:

---

If the Bulls would have stuck it out one more year, I'm pretty sure the '99 Spurs would have beat them. The Bulls were getting old and Chicago never faced one dominant center in the Finals, much less two.

Too bad.

---

Excuse me while I pick myself off the floor...

Those Bulls teams (any one of the Title teams) would have had their way with the 99, 03, or 05 Spurs team.

It's amazing how time (and maybe other things) seems to fade the human memory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HB22inSA

Excuse me while I pick myself off the floor...

Those Bulls teams (any one of the Title teams) would have had their way with the 99, 03, or 05 Spurs team.

It's amazing how time (and maybe other things) seems to fade the human memory.

---

The bulls might have been one of the greats but Rodman, Jordan, and Pippen were aging and that Spurs team of 99 was great. They barely won in 98 so it would be interesting but never know. Mavs 2006 might be able to beat them. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HB22inSA

Excuse me while I pick myself off the floor...

Those Bulls teams (any one of the Title teams) would have had their way with the 99, 03, or 05 Spurs team.

It's amazing how time (and maybe other things) seems to fade the human memory.

---

So you are saying that the team the Bulls could have put on the court in '99 if they hadn't dismantled would have "had their way with" the '99 team?

Interesting take.

That's what I'm saying.

It would have been 4-1, at best.

the bulls wouldn't be as good if they continued in 99 and the spurs would own them.

Well, you guys are talking about a team playing together at the end of their dynasty taking on a team that's just begining to develop its dynasty.

I assumed we were talking about taking both teams at their primes, like the 93-94 Bulls or something....

the best young bull team might have beat the spurs 4-1 but not the 99 bulls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ALVAREZ6

Don't you think Bruce would be covering MJ?

---

i meant when we had the ball on offense. bruce would have to guard mj

Yeah. Jordan was a good defender also and he would do well on Ginobili or Elie. Pippen also defended well so Chicago was a tough team.

I think the spurs defense would have been able to stay with the bulls, but any of the Spurs champs would have trouble scoring 85 pts against the bulls D.

spurs dont need the media's respect

I think the Bulls defense has been horribly underrated because of their offensive capabilities, just like Jordan who is better known as a scorer than a great defender.

I can remember so many times when the Bulls would run a trap (unleashing the Dobermans as Johnny Bach would call it) and they would shut teams down, getting steals and running fastbreaks that couldn't be stopped.

I'm a Spurs fan like anybody else but let's get real.

And for whoever it was that said the Bulls never played great centers in the finals, that's certainly true but that wasn't their fault, in 95-96 alone they got past Zo (3-0)
Pat Ewing (4-1) and Shaq 4-0.

At least two of those guys are HOF's.

Jordan/Bulls overrated???? Come on... I'm as big a spur fan as any, but let's not get carried away. I think the 99 spurs would have battled great against the bulls, possibly beaten them... but no way they were/are overrated.

This thread is a joke, right?

Why the heck are you guys debating stupid points like would the Spurs have beaten the Bulls in 99? News flash, Jordan retired in 98.... there was no "aging Bulls" lineup for the Spurs to match up with ... the dynasty was over, and for a good reason ...

The real question is where the Spurs' title teams can be placed in relation to the Bulls' title teams. I'm a Spurs fan, but here's the plain truth ... the Spurs would have gotten swept ... not good enough match-ups, and just not enough mental strength.

Harper/Pippen/Jordan would have completely shut down Tony/Manu/Bruce ... leaving Rodman/Kukoc to deal with Duncan/Horry which I think they would have done to a certain extent. If you think the Pistons were good at forcing turnovers out of the Spurs, the Bulls' swarming defense would have suffocated the Spurs' game

On the other end of the floor, they would run the triangle with the SG Jordan playing the pivot position ... the same position that Shaq played in the Lakers' triangle. And get this ... Bruce/Manu wouldn't have a chance in hell of stopping Jordan's post moves ... that's the biggest difference between Jordan and Kobe .. Jordan was an incredibly strong post player .. Kobe's longer, but doesn't have the physical strength which MJ utilized to bounce off his defender and hit the high-percentage turnaround jumper.

97 Bulls were the most balanced team of all time: #1 in PPG, #6 in PPG allowed, #3 in FG%, #4 in FG% Allowed.

No other team in history has featured in the top 6 in the four premier statistical categories .. PPG, FG%, PPG allowed, FG% allowed.

Bottomline, leave this comparison alone ... it's not even good for a few laughs

Quote:

---

This thread is a joke, right?

Why the heck are you guys debating stupid points like would the Spurs have beaten the Bulls in 99? News flash, Jordan retired in 98.... there was no "aging Bulls" lineup for the Spurs to match up with ... the dynasty was over, and for a good reason ...

The real question is where the Spurs' title teams can be placed in relation to the Bulls' title teams. I'm a Spurs fan, but here's the plain truth ... the Spurs would have gotten swept ... not good enough match-ups, and just not enough mental strength.

Harper/Pippen/Jordan would have completely shut down Tony/Manu/Bruce ... leaving Rodman/Kukoc to deal with Duncan/Horry which I think they would have done to a certain extent. If you think the Pistons were good at forcing turnovers out of the Spurs, the Bulls' swarming defense would have suffocated the Spurs' game

On the other end of the floor, they would run the triangle with the SG Jordan playing the pivot position ... the same position that Shaq played in the Lakers' triangle. And get this ... Bruce/Manu wouldn't have a chance in hell of stopping Jordan's post moves ... that's the biggest difference between Jordan and Kobe .. Jordan was an incredibly strong post player .. Kobe's longer, but doesn't have the physical strength which MJ utilized to bounce off his defender and hit the high-percentage turnaround jumper.

97 Bulls were the most balanced team of all time: #1 in PPG, #6 in PPG allowed, #3 in FG%, #4 in FG% Allowed.

No other team in history has featured in the top 6 in the four premier statistical categories .. PPG, FG%, PPG allowed, FG% allowed.

Bottomline, leave this comparison alone ... it's not even good for a few laughs

---

I can't help but totally agree.

There is no comparison.

Quote:

---

Why the heck are you guys debating stupid points like would the Spurs have beaten the Bulls in 99? News flash, Jordan retired in 98.... there was no "aging Bulls" lineup for the Spurs to match up with ... the dynasty was over, and for a good reason ...

---

Exactly. Thus the "what if" scenario. What if the Bulls would have tried to stick together one more season?

'Twas the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warlord23

The real question is where the Spurs' title teams can be placed in relation to the Bulls' title teams. I'm a Spurs fan, but here's the plain truth ... the Spurs would have gotten swept ... not good enough match-ups, and just not enough mental strength.

---

What made the Utah Jazz and Seattle Sonics so mentally tough back when the Bulls faced them in the finals? Seattle used to lose in the first round with the same core and nearly identical talent. Why did these teams win 2 games, if in years past couldn't even get to the finals when Jordan was out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warlord23

Harper/Pippen/Jordan would have completely shut down Tony/Manu/Bruce ... leaving Rodman/Kukoc to deal with Duncan/Horry which I think they would have done to a certain extent. If you think the Pistons were good at forcing turnovers out of the Spurs, the Bulls' swarming defense would have suffocated the Spurs' game

---

Shut down sure. But not the extent you say. Those Bulls teams didn't always shut down all the oppositions perimeter players. It is obvious MJ and co. would greatly outplay any Spurs backcourt, but that doesn't mean squat in a debate. Jordan and Pippen would destroy any 2-3 combo ever, even if it included Larry Bird and an all star SG, or even if you threw Magic with Byron Scott as your 2-3 for arguments sake, despite Magic being a 1. Not exactly news here. That Bulls 1-3 combo would school any combo in history of the NBA at the 1-2-3. Yet those Bulls teams did lose some games in the playoffs to teams with inferior players at nearly every position except C.

Quote:

---

On the other end of the floor, they would run the triangle with the SG Jordan playing the pivot position ... the same position that Shaq played in the Lakers' triangle. And get this ... Bruce/Manu wouldn't have a chance in hell of stopping Jordan's post moves ... that's the biggest difference between Jordan and Kobe .. Jordan was an incredibly strong post player .. Kobe's longer, but doesn't have the physical strength which MJ utilized to bounce off his defender and hit the high-percentage turnaround jumper.

---

Yeah.

Quote:

---

97 Bulls were the most balanced team of all time: #1 in PPG, #6 in PPG allowed, #3 in FG%, #4 in FG% Allowed.

No other team in history has featured in the top 6 in the four premier statistical categories .. PPG, FG%, PPG allowed, FG% allowed.

Bottomline, leave this comparison alone ... it's not even good for a few laughs

---

Of course those Bulls teams would beat the Spurs. Pretty easily for the most part. But I am pretty sure the Spurs could get a game or two like the Jazz and Sonics did. Not every team that played MJ in the 90s is automatically superior than modern day championship teams simply because they played against MJ.

I ran the scenario of the 97 Bulls versus the 99 Spurs through 'WhatIfSports.com' ... and must say, i was a little suprised that it said the Spurs won 86-74... with Jordan only scoring 12 points.

I think thats the last time i trust WhatIfSports.com!!

My take on this topic is that the best Bulls champs team, would beat the Best Spurs champs team (99) - mostly because of Jordan, but because the only real advantage we had was Robinson (counting that Rodman probably would of taken Tim slighly off his game) was negated by the huge advantage Jordan + Pippen had at SG/SF.

BUT it would be damn fun to watch thats for sure!

And the 99 Bulls versus the 99 Spurs... come on, its not even close. Look at this lineup (correct me if im wrong) but Randy Brown, Brent Barry, Toni Kukoc, Dickey Simpkins, Luc Longley was their starting 5 that year? Versus Avery, Mario, Sean, Tim + David... puh-lease. SPURS SWEEP.

Edit: Oops, just reread the topic again and it stated if they hadnt dismantled... hrmm, on that note - how old was jordan then, 37? I think factoring in their ages and rodmans futher descent into madness, the spurs probably would of just squeaked through, probably in 7... jordan willing them to 3 wins by himself. But that spurs team was just on a roll in 99... Spurs in 7.

The game has changed.
If you put the Bulls (teleportation) to the 2005 iI think that they would have a giantic problems with the spurs. It's about the evolusion in the game.
I don't think the Bulls met that kind of phisycall play. It was a little difrent.

But If you would gave them time to adopt, well intresting matchups and probably the Bulls (2nd peat) would win.

Tough Q as alwayes when considering and compering the Champions through the years. How about the Bird Celtics? or magic's Lakers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polandprzem

The game has changed.
If you put the Bulls (teleportation) to the 2005 iI think that they would have a giantic problems with the spurs. It's about the evolusion in the game.
I don't think the Bulls met that kind of phisycall play. It was a little difrent.

But If you would gave them time to adopt, well intresting matchups and probably the Bulls (2nd peat) would win.

Tough Q as alwayes when considering and compering the Champions through the years. How about the Bird Celtics? or magic's Lakers?

---

What do you call the New York Knicks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spursdaone

What do you call the New York Knicks?

---

hmmm Knickerbockers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polandprzem

The game has changed.
If you put the Bulls (teleportation) to the 2005 iI think that they would have a giantic problems with the spurs. It's about the evolusion in the game.
I don't think the Bulls met that kind of phisycall play. It was a little difrent.

---

What? The Bulls having problems with physical play? Ever heard of the Bad Boys .. whom the Bulls had to get past in order to get their first 3 peat ... that was an era when hand-checking was allowed, and the Pistons put out a good old beatdown on Jordan.

The Knicks of the mid-90s were one of the most physical and defensive-minded teams you could play against.

You want defense? The 95-96 Bulls had 3, count 'em .. 3, guys on the All-Defensive First Team (Jordan, Pippen, Rodman). They embodied the tough defense that you're talking about. And oh, they won 72 out of 82 along the way.

Okay Warlord now we have a question like this.

Would the Bulls beat the Russells Celtics?

Take a look at the rings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polandprzem

Okay Warlord now we have a question like this.

Would the Bulls beat the Russells Celtics?

Take a look at the rings.

---

I haven't seen Russell's Celtics play to comment on that with any authority. I see what you're driving at though ... you're saying that the game evolves and teams can't be compared on the basis of titles/stats .. fair enough

I just don't think that the game has evolved so much between 1997 and 2005 .. I think people haven't invented any killer offensive or defensive schemes in this time span... I think Jordan and Pippen would still have been athletic enough to play in today's NBA .. they would have played good enough defense .. and the rims haven't changed either

Regarding Russell's Celtics vs Jordan's Bulls, I'm not sure if some of these things stay constant: athletic ability, defensive schemes, the shoes (a lot of fancy footwear today wasn't available 40 years back).

Another thing that definitely hasn't stayed constant is the salary cap and its parity implications .. hence the 60s Celtics having a bench infested with Hall-of-famers .. given all these factors, the comparison is very difficult.

But MJ and the Bulls in today's game is something I can very easily visualize

If/when the Spurs win the 2006 championship, I'll be happy to participate in this discussion. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polandprzem

The game has changed.
If you put the Bulls (teleportation) to the 2005 iI think that they would have a giantic problems with the spurs. It's about the evolusion in the game.
I don't think the Bulls met that kind of phisycall play. It was a little difrent.

But If you would gave them time to adopt, well intresting matchups and probably the Bulls (2nd peat) would win.

Tough Q as alwayes when considering and compering the Champions through the years. How about the Bird Celtics? or magic's Lakers?

---

The Knicks and Heat were pretty tough back then, see what happened to them. They were arguably tougher (or more physical) than the Pistons and Spurs (does not = better defensive team).
I would have thought it would be an interesting matchup. The Bulls won 6 titles, but I believe most of those games went 5 or 6 games. The Bulls never had an overly stellar record in the post season, always lost a few games here and there, and that is including the extremely weak opposition they faced in the first round.
As much it is to pain me, the Bulls probably would have won in 6 or 7 games, mainly because of their perimeter defense (the Spurs have ball-handling issues, and the Bulls excel at exploiting that) but the Spurs have a good chance of beating them as well due to their interior strength in terms of rebounding and scoring. It would be a close series.

Bulls Win...oh and the the Lakers in their 3 peat would have won as well....2 words for you....Phil Jackson...nuff said.
Oh and another thing, the spurs squeaked out a 7 game win this year, clearly not as dominate as those bulls teams or the Lakers for that matter.

7 games Medvedenko? 2000 WCF and 2002 WCF nuff said


To go with a discussion - I know which teams were phisycal U talking Miami , NY , even Bad Boys. But they front cours was not as mobile like todays best frontcourts. That gives a lot on defense. I know the rules with hands I know what referess are whisteling, to add some more agument to todays spurs we have a zone. Bulls played many on isolation and they would had a trouble in that aspect.

It's freackin' tough question and compareing the Champions is the thing I don't like

Is this a fucking joke? That Bulls team is one of the greatest NBA teams ever, this Spurs team not so much. Guess who wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warlord23

What? The Bulls having problems with physical play? Ever heard of the Bad Boys .. whom the Bulls had to get past in order to get their first 3 peat ... that was an era when hand-checking was allowed, and the Pistons put out a good old beatdown on Jordan.

The Knicks of the mid-90s were one of the most physical and defensive-minded teams you could play against.

You want defense? The 95-96 Bulls had 3, count 'em .. 3, guys on the All-Defensive First Team (Jordan, Pippen, Rodman). They embodied the tough defense that you're talking about. And oh, they won 72 out of 82 along the way.

---

The Bulls lost to the Pistons because they weren't that good back then. Pippen and Horace weren't nearly as good as they became when they won their first title. It wasn't because they weren't as tough, they simply weren't as good as the Pistons in the years they lost to them.

Quote:

---

or the Lakers for that matter.

---

Anyone from the west was going to beat whoever came out of the east during their run. As soon as the east fielded a decent team, the Lakers were done.

Those Bulls teams did face teams with superstar 4s, but never really a dominant pivot player that I can recall. It's a shame that they never faced off with Hakeem's Rockets.

I don't think any team of the modern era could have beaten the '98 Bulls. I hate to say it but they were probably one of the greatest teams ever. The 2005 Spurs would have given them a hell of a series, but I say '98 Bulls in 6.

The 97 Bulls would win. Micheal Jordan is unstoppable.

Quote:

---

2 words for you....Phil Jackson...nuff said

---

I could have coached the teams he had to Championships easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shawn Michaels

The Spurs squad can pull off a 70 win season, I BELIEVE!!!!!!!!!


but a certain trade in the PG deparment must be made

---

Pickup Billups but that might destroy the great chemistry San Antonio has. No way they should change point guards. Parker will only get better and his speed is crucial to San Antonio's offense.