Dime: NBA Fantasy Finals: 1998 Bulls vs. 2007 Spurs

[Cant_Be_Faded]

03 and 05 spurs would have owned that 07 spurs were never truly tested in the playoffs

[whottt]

My pick as the best of the Spurs championship teams and one most capable of beating any other champ in history, is the 03 team...

It's not just specualtion that team had the stones to knock off a 3 peat champion...it's a fact they had the stones to do it, because they actually did do it.

That team had no weaknesses and the right mix of youth and experience...the vets on that team would not have let them lose, in fact they even had a cog on those latter Bull champions by the name of Steve Kerr, who was better for the Spurs in terms of post season impact than he was for those Bulls.



By the way, you give any of the Spurs championship teams David Robinson in his prime, and the early Bulls championship teams would lose to them...those teams could barely beat Drob(or Hakeem) with weak casts, they would not have been able to pull it off if theyh had stronger ones.

The only truly tough C in his prime those Bulls teams had to beat was Patrick Ewing...and he was not very good really.

Drob and Hakeem used to own them year in and year out.

[whottt]

I rank the 07 team as the weakest of the 4 Spurs Championship teams...ironic because they were the most dominant in the finals but they IMHO, they dodged a bullet to even make the Finals.

[vednam]

The Bulls, though a great team, are overrated. They played in a watered down era and didn't have any quality challengers.

Think about this, they faced 5 different teams in their 6 finals trips. Their main rival in the Eastern Conference was a Knicks team that consisted of Patrick Ewing (not as good as Hakeem or Shaq, not even close) and a bunch of overachieving ex-CBA players.

I think the 07 Spurs would beat the 98 Bulls and might lose narrowly to the 96 or 97 Bulls. It would be very close. Those Bulls had no one who could check Duncan.

I think the 99 Spurs or the 03 Spurs would match up best with the Bulls.

[baseline bum]

The Bulls, though a great team, are overrated. They played in a watered down era and didn't have any quality challengers.

Think about this, they faced 5 different teams in their 6 finals trips. Their main rival in the Eastern Conference was a Knicks team that consisted of Patrick Ewing (not as good as Hakeem or Shaq, not even close) and a bunch of overachieving ex-CBA players.

I think the 07 Spurs would beat the 98 Bulls and might lose narrowly to the 96 or 97 Bulls. It would be very close. Those Bulls had no one who could check Duncan.

I think the 99 Spurs or the 03 Spurs would match up best with the Bulls.

Did you even watch the Bulls in 96 and 97? It doesn't sound like it.

[Lars]

Bulls in 5

[benefactor]

My pick as the best of the Spurs championship teams and one most capable of beating any other champ in history, is the 03 team...

It's not just specualtion that team had the stones to knock off a 3 peat champion...it's a fact they had the stones to do it, because they actually did do it.

That team had no weaknesses and the right mix of youth and experience...the vets on that team would not have let them lose, in fact they even had a cog on those latter Bull champions by the name of Steve Kerr, who was better for the Spurs in terms of post season impact than he was for those Bulls.



By the way, you give any of the Spurs championship teams David Robinson in his prime, and the early Bulls championship teams would lose to them...those teams could barely beat Drob(or Hakeem) with weak casts, they would not have been able to pull it off if theyh had stronger ones.

The only truly tough C in his prime those Bulls teams had to beat was Patrick Ewing...and he was not very good really.

Drob and Hakeem used to own them year in and year out.

I agree completely. This is why I have said time and time again to many people that Houston probably would have had a legit shot at taking down the Bulls during their two le run.

It's pretty silly that they pick the '07 team. They coasted to and through the Finals with very little resistance. If you really want to pick an intriguing match up then pick the '99 team. I think that team would have a really good shot at beating any of the Bulls championship teams. With the problems the Bulls had with dominant big men I don't see how they could deal with the Duncan/DRob tandem.

[vednam]

Did you even watch the Bulls in 96 and 97? It doesn't sound like it.

Yes. And I also watched their compe ion. They weren't exactly duking it out with other all-time great teams.

[vednam]

Hmmm...so the 6 rings were b/c of the lack of compe ion? Yeah you must be a teenager.

If those same Bulls teams would have played in the 1980s (when there were several legitimately great teams) I think they would have won 2 championships at most.

Those Bulls never faced opponents of the same caliber as the 80s Lakers, Celtics, or 76ers. Even when they finally beat the Pistons, the Pistons were aging and injured. Don't forget that the Bulls lost 3 out of 4 playoff series to those Pistons (who were not on the same level as the Lakers and Celtics teams of the earlier part of the 80s).

Instead of resorting to lame insults, why don't you try to make a sound argument?

[vednam]

Hmm lame insults...ok what about the Suns? They were pretty good and they knocked the Spurs out. The Jazz were damn good too. They always gave the Spurs problems. And if the Celtics of the 50s and 60s played in the 80s they would of only won once or twice. How can you make an assumption like that? Yeah the 80s teams were good, but how can you say that "if" stuff. "If" Manu wouldn't have fouled Dirk on 06 the Spurs would have repeated. That "if" stuff gets to me. There is no if...the Bulls are a dynasty of the 90s and won 6 rings. The NBA is the NBA, they are all the best players in the world, especially in the 90s with Barkley, Drexler, Ewing, etc, etc, etc. You have to give them some credit man. They didn't have that team in the 80s so deal with it.

I think it's a little ridiculous to criticize me for my "what if" statements considering that the entire topic of this thread is a "what if".

Of course those Bulls teams were great and deserve a lot of credit, but I don't think counting rings or mentioning that they had the most popular player of all time is enough to end a discussion like this.

I'm not very impressed with the Malone/Stockton Jazz. They lost many times in early rounds to underdog opponents. I belive that the main reason they advanced to the Finals in 97 and 98 was because the other traditional Western powers (Rockets, Sonics, etc.) were in rebuilding or transition.

The Suns team the Bulls faced didn't have a lot of size. I think one weakness of the 90s Bulls was the fact that they were not as powerful inside as some other champions have been. I think they could have been defeated by a team which dominated the paint (which is why I think the 99 Spurs with Duncan and Robinson would have an excellent chance).

[baseline bum]

Yes. And I also watched their compe ion. They weren't exactly duking it out with other all-time great teams.

The 64-18 Sonics that started Payton/Hawkins/Schrempf/Kemp weren't great compe ion?

[Obstructed_View]

My pick as the best of the Spurs championship teams and one most capable of beating any other champ in history, is the 03 team...

It's not just specualtion that team had the stones to knock off a 3 peat champion...it's a fact they had the stones to do it, because they actually did do it.

That team had no weaknesses and the right mix of youth and experience...the vets on that team would not have let them lose, in fact they even had a cog on those latter Bull champions by the name of Steve Kerr, who was better for the Spurs in terms of post season impact than he was for those Bulls.

The only weakness that team had was that they were so good they could beat most teams by only playing for 20 minutes or so a game. They beat that Lakers team really badly, and with Jack and Bowen they'd have matched up very favorably with any Bulls team of that era.

[BWS-1994]

If the 98 Bulls went with small ball, with Kukoc probably, would they give the 07 Spurs more problems?

Didn't MJ have problems with small, quick guards late in his career?

07 Spurs seems to have a better bench.

And TP-Manu are still younger. They'll hopefully tire Harper/MJ/Pippen should the series go the distance.

[Galileo]

Spurs win the series in 5 or 6 games, at most. The Spurs were an unstoppable machine in '07, had one of the greatest end of season runs of all time. And Tim was healthy.

[vednam]

The 64-18 Sonics that started Payton/Hawkins/Schrempf/Kemp weren't great compe ion?

The Denver Nuggets don't think so.

You can also think of it this way: the Bulls' second best player (Pippen) was clearly better than the Sonics' best player.

[vednam]

That guy is just one of those anti-Bulls, anti-Michael Jordan fans. You can't change his mind.

nice cop-out

[Sean Cagney]

03 and 05 spurs would have owned that 07 spurs were never truly tested in the playoffs

07 team you are right about, the other two were really tested in the playoffs and proved they could beat anyone out there!

Out of all the teams we had the 2007 team was the weakest le team IMO (Not to say weak at all). Some will say the 2003 team because it was raw and Manu and Tony were not at their peak, but Tim was unreal that year! David Robinson was alot better than any Center we had since. Our bench was solid and had a player at every position we could use, a great mix of vets and youth.

1999 team was our toughest IMO (05 close after), but the 2003 team from top to bottom with potential and talent was our deepest team.

I still wish that 2007 team had a bigger challenge from someone, but the Suns were our closest opponent and we all know how that ALWAYS GOES.

I rank the 07 team as the weakest of the 4 Spurs Championship teams...ironic because they were the most dominant in the finals but they IMHO, they dodged a bullet to even make the Finals.

What Bullet? Suns? Mavs being knocked out? They beat both of them that year IMO no matter what.

The suspensions were just stupidity by their players and it was tied 2-2 anyways, not a clear advantage would you say? Spurs blew that damn game 4 from what I can remember, they were in cotrol the whole game and like they do from time to time BLOW the lead and the game.

Suns were not in control of that series suspensions or not, the Spurs outtough them and beat them regardless IMHO.

I said above though that was our weakest le team, some think it was our best le team, guess it depends on what you really look at.

[baseline bum]

The Denver Nuggets don't think so.

You can also think of it this way: the Bulls' second best player (Pippen) was clearly better than the Sonics' best player.

The 2x defending champion Rockets seemed to think so. Remember them? They beat 2 60+ win teams, a 59 win team, and a 57 win team to get the le the year before, but got the broom against the Sonics. No way was Pippen better than Payton in 96, and probably not Kemp either.

[DAF86]

Wasn't the '98 Bulls the Bulls team that went to 7 games in the ECF against Indiana? I think the Spurs might have a chance.

[egtonecity]

First off I am a die hard Spurs fan and I read this board everyday while I’m at work. I watch every game and I am a little homerish when I thought the Spurs could still beat the Mavs in the playoffs this year without Manu and a hobbled Timmy D ….

That being said … Anybody who thinks the 99 Spurs would have given the 98 Bulls a good series in a Finals matchup is so blinded by Spurs homerism you shouldn’t be allowed to speak spurs related basketball because to y’all everybody on the squad is an all star. Its like everybody thinks like Sean Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_, I hate during a game when he rides everybody’s nuts so hard. Its probably his fault that Timmy’s knees and Manu’s ankles are getting bad because they cant handle the extra weight of Sean hanging on their nuts all the time. Its that kind of mentality that kills the credibility of other Spurs’ fans.

Back to the topic….
The only Real advantage you would have would be Duncan and even at that, it wouldn’t be a HUGE HUGE advantage. Rodman would be guarding him and that’s the same Rodman that would do a good job guarding Shaq. No one could stop Timmy then but Rodman would have made it tough.

Just look at the 97-98 season. Spurs had the same team they had the following year except in 98-99 they had Mario Elie and Jerome Kersey. I would list Steve Kerr but he also played for the 97-98 Bulls. Anyways the Bulls and Spurs played head to head twice that year with the Bulls winning both games. One was a double overtime game and the other was like a 10 point win for the Bulls. Then even look at the records, the Bulls went 62-20 which is .750, the Spurs went 37-13 the following season, which is just a little lower at .740 but seriously 32 more games to go and I’m sure the Spurs would have ended with a worse record than the Bulls. 50 games into the 97-98 season the Bulls were at 38-12 which I know is a slightly better record but I doubt the Spurs would have sustained that throughout the whole year.

Now some dude said that he didn’t think much of the Utah Jazz in those days but apparently the 99 Spurs squad was the . How can you not respect or give credit to a Jazz team that waxed the Spurs that whole season? The Jazz and Spurs met 8 times that year, regular season and playoffs. The Jazz beat them 8 out of 10 times ….Then lost to the Bulls in 6 games. But supposedly from one year to the next the acquisitions of Mario Elie and Jerome Kersey were enough to contend with Michael and the Bulls. Give me a break …. Sure the Twin Towers were a force in the middle but none of those Spurs guards were in the same League as Jordan and Pippen and even Ron Harper for that matter. Then you had Kukoc, Brown and even Caffey who would come in off the bench. You have to be kidding me if you think the Spurs would have won more than 1 game in that series, they couldn’t even beat the Jazz more than once. I know I’m gonna get some from y’all saying that Timmy was only a Rook that year and blah, blah, blah …. The truth is that the only modern day champion I could honestly say would be a tough cover would have been that Lakers dynasty from 2000-2002. Only because Shaq was a super beast in those days.

[tmtcsc]

The 99 Spurs and 05 Spurs teams could challenge the bulls.

[tmtcsc]

I rank the 07 team as the weakest of the 4 Spurs Championship teams...ironic because they were the most dominant in the finals but they IMHO, they dodged a bullet to even make the Finals.

Huh ? The '99 Championship team only lost 2 games.

[Obstructed_View]

Then even look at the records, the Bulls went 62-20 which is .750, the Spurs went 37-13 the following season, which is just a little lower at .740 but seriously 32 more games to go and I’m sure the Spurs would have ended with a worse record than the Bulls.

The '99 Spurs started the season 6-8. They then went 53-15 over the rest of the season, including the playoffs. That's a .779 win percentage.

Sorry, Bulls fan, try again.

[clubalien]

bulls in 5?
best spurs team has a better shot then the 07 team