Reply With Quote
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.
Excuse me while I pick myself off the floor...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.
Those Bulls teams (any one of the le 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.
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
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.
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' le teams can be placed in relation to the Bulls' le 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 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.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' le teams can be placed in relation to the Bulls' le 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 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
There is no comparison.
Exactly. Thus the "what if" scenario. What if the Bulls would have tried to stick together one more season?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 ...
'Twas the question.
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?
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.
Yeah.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 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.
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.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 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, ey 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?
What do you call the New York Knicks?
hmmm Knickerbockers?
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.
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 les/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
Last edited by Warlord23; 07-04-2005 at 07:37 AM.
If/when the Spurs win the 2006 championship, I'll be happy to participate in this discussion.
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 les, 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
