Reply With Quote
158th
Would you consider them as one of the GOAT or the GOAT?
158th
One of.
The first five are easy to pick:
1. 1983 Sixers
2. 1986 Celtics
3. 1985 Lakers
4. 1992 Bulls
5. 1987 Lakers
Not sure how I'd pick the next 5 though, as the next tier of le teams is probably the 68 Sixers, 71 Bucks, 72 Lakers, 84 Celtics, 88 Lakers, 89 Pistons, 95 Rockets, 96 Bulls, 97 Bulls, 99 Spurs, 00 Lakers, 01 Lakers, and 08 Celtics.
Good list BB, but where are the 72-10 Bulls? I'll get grief from my fellow Laker fans but they are the greatest team I ever saw. Of those 10 losses, it think it was by some absurdly low amount of points. I'm to lazy to look it up but I think it was like 10 points.
Anyway, if I were to rank the teams, it would go something like this:
1) 1996 Bulls
2) 1987 Lakers
3) 1985 Celtics
4) 2001 Lakers
5) 1999 Spurs
2001 Lakers had a great playoff run, but when you combine RS and playoff runs resulting in a le, the above is what I get.
And don't clean your monitors with Windex because it's not a misprint: I think the 1999 Spurs should be ranked that high. Their defense was devastating and would not let them be denied that year. They were locked in. But since it was a 50 game season, the * stays.
I'd take the 92 Bulls over the 96 Bulls in a second, since Jordan was much more explosive on the 92 team and they won 67 games without any matchups against Vancouver nor Toronto. I also think the 85 Lakers are a really underrated team when you consider that Abdul-Jabbar was still an MVP-caliber player, McAdoo was still on the team, and that they destroyed a really amazing Celtics team.
1996 Bulls had three interchangeable absolute bulldog defenders in Pippen, Rodman, and MJ (in that order). 1992 Jordan was more explosive than he was in 1996, but it was just the reverse for Pippen + they added Rodman to tilt the scales.
Besides, I don't give MJ too much credit in 1992. In 1991, Pippen took on Magic - not MJ - which freed him up to go off offensively. Plus we had some rookie named Vlade Divac anchoring our defense. At least they beat a potent Sonics team (with an inept coach) in 1996.
In 1992, the beat the fun and gun Suns who couldn't even spell defense.
They beat the Blazers in 92, and that Suns team they beat in 93 was ridiculously talented (though the Bulls had a down year).
my bad. Got my years mixed up. I remember him dominating Drexler that year. I concede your point although I still think '96 was a better team.
Just below "doesn't ing matter"
Why does the Suns no-defense reputation proceed backwards well before they were a 7SOL team? Barkley's laziness cost us that le, but that team could definitely play defense.
your bad, indeed
15-1/23-1(it really should have been 15-0/23 game win streak if the Robert Horry didn't commit that offensive foul with a 5 point lead in OT in game 1 of the Finals) should not be overlooked. The Lakers were 48-26 because Kobe/Shaq were battling each other on the court for most of those 74 games. I don't even like the Lakers, but that 2001 team was historic because of that dominant late run. That was a defending champion who finally found their championship iden y starting 4/3/01 in Utah.
Re: the 1996 Bulls... obviously they were a great team. But it was an expansion year, the league was watered down as all leagues are in expansion years, and the East aside from Orlando (which lost Horace Grant early in the ECF) was a joke.
2001 Lake Show was actually more dominant in the playoffs than the '96 Bulls. I thought the 76ers did well to win one game in the Finals.
I can't really argue with your points against the '96 Bulls, but the fact remains is they were a few botched possessions and poor end game play execution from going 82-0 for real. Look up the box scores, IIRC they didn't lose more than one game by double digits that year. Along their way to ringing, they still had to play the Sonics, Shaq/Kobe Lakers twice, Utah twice, Houston twice, the Knicks were still good, etc. But yeah, it was watered down.
Although they didn't have a 20/10 low post player, they had like 4 bigs that could collectively give them that number offensively, with 24 fouls to strategically give defensively to wear down the likes of Shaq, Ewing, and Robinson. They also had Rodman who could defend all 5 positions. That's just the frontcourt. On the perimeter, Scottie and MJ were locking players down the vast majority of times with a few exceptions. That's just defensively. Offensively, MJ was a threat to go for 40 or 50. Scottie would give his regular all around effort plus doberman like defense.
They were perfectly constructed IMO. They had scorers, passers (Scottie and Kukoc), rebounders, and shooters. It didn't hurt that MJ had the refs in his back left pocket.
The Lakers were 1 Robert Horry up from going 15-0. It took LA beating themselves in overtime to lose that only game. The Bulls did go 72-10( and could have gone better than that), but the 01 Lakers were much more dominant in the postseason. Fishers deadly shooting, Fox's lockdown D, Horry's clutch shooting and intangibles, Grant/Shaw/Lue for quality minutes and the best 1-2 punch in the league to go with the best coach of all time.I can't really argue with your points against the '96 Bulls, but the fact remains is they were a few botched possessions and poor end game play execution from going 82-0 for real. Look up the box scores, IIRC they didn't lose more than one game by double digits that year. Along their way to ringing, they still had to play the Sonics, Shaq/Kobe Lakers twice, Utah twice, Houston twice, the Knicks were still good, etc. But yeah, it was watered down.
Although they didn't have a 20/10 low post player, they had like 4 bigs that could collectively give them that number offensively, with 24 fouls to strategically give defensively to wear down the likes of Shaq, Ewing, and Robinson. They also had Rodman who could defend all 5 positions. That's just the frontcourt. On the perimeter, Scottie and MJ were locking players down the vast majority of times with a few exceptions. That's just defensively. Offensively, MJ was a threat to go for 40 or 50. Scottie would give his regular all around effort plus doberman like defense.
They were perfectly constructed IMO. They had scorers, passers (Scottie and Kukoc), rebounders, and shooters. It didn't hurt that MJ had the refs in his back left pocket.
Agreed, but you don't have to convince me how special that 2001 team was. I remember it well. What actually pissed me off is that the Lakers' FO ed up and traded NVE, then EJ and Campbell for Rice. Imagine what PJ could have done with this lineup:
NVE/Fish
Kobe/EJ
Fox
Horry
Shaq/Campbell
^ This team would have done MAJOR damage to the NBA. That 2001 team was special, but it could have been better and the Lakers would have had more than the 3peat they achieved.
Trying to be as non-biased as possible, I can't deny the 1996 Bulls' team their due tbh.
1. 1986 Celtics
2. 1972 Lakers
3. 2001 Lakers
4. 1996 Bulls
5. 1983 Sixers
Top 5 IMO. The 1992 bulls were dominant in the reg season, but they looked fairly beatable in the post season.
The '01 Lakers team was historic. Horace Grant replacing AC Green made a lot of difference from the '00 team.
The only road bump during the playoff run was when Allen Iverson walked over Tyronn Lue.
I think it was the Fisher injury more than anything. They learned to play without him and then went nuts the last 15 games of the season or so when he came back to provide a big shot in the arm.
never thought I would see a fo fo fo fo . Lakers were one mistake away from pulling it.
this probably will offend spurs fans but I wonder how many les would Duncan have if Kobe and shaq liked each other?
they didn't face much challenge from the rest of the league so its hard to say mayne, maybe they were really that good but you don't get no solid proof to support that idea when the best team they beat was the 76ers, while the spurs were struggling with a drought of talents before the arrival of parker & manu imho
I started watching in 1996. I pretty much stopped watching the Finals from 2006 until 2011.
The 96 team was impressive defensively, and MJ's duel with Sean Kemp was so memorable. But that Bulls team hardly stuck me as a GOAT contender. They won a lot of games, but they did not feel domineering enough in the playoffs...
That 2001 Laker team had a fairly easy path to the Finals, and while they were the undisputed best team that season, I think it spoke more to the less than stellar compe ion that year. I actually felt that the 02 Laker team was far more complete.
It is hard for me to say. I wish I could have seen some earlier Finals to get a better sense of the different styles.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
