Reply With Quote
What if we had the Iceman and D-Rob in their prime alongside T.D. and T.P.?
It would be a war and it could go either way. Interesting when the Bulls were put in some computer simulations vs. other great teams they did not fare that well.
Bulls would probably win though due to todays rules would allow Jordan to score at will - he could have averaged 40+ a game with the soft rules in the NBA today.
What if we had the Iceman and D-Rob in their prime alongside T.D. and T.P.?
If we could manage to have the 2005 Long haired Manu , the 2007 MVP parker together + a healthy Timmy,it would be the spurs the series winner,no doubt.
we'd also need the 1980's Baseline Bums and their crazy antics; then maybe we'd have a chance.
Maybe if in your dream Jordan also broke his leg
Then in that case, how about a Jordan in his prime, Pippen in his prime, Rodman in his prime, Grant, Kukoc, and all the best role players from each of the teams, all put together on one squad?
And a healthy Tim, and Manu/Parker in their primes would still have NO chance against a trio of Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman. Manu and Parker would have been SHUT DOWN, and Rodman would annoy the out of Timmy. You must be re ed.
It's impossible to stop a player who would either score or go to the line. Plus, that player could swat other players out of his way without ever a foul being called.
You can't beat that!
The only Bulls team that was the most vulnerable was the 98 team and in ways the 97 but not as much as the 98 team. That 98 team wouldnt have made it through the 99 season as champions simply because teams were starting to seriously catch up to them along with age. Like spursreport said that is the ONLY team that would have lost to the 99,03,05,07 Spurs. I actually agreed with spursreport? OMG
I would first like to say i'm a Spurs fan second only to the Rockets,but if anyone says the spurs would win you must be out of your damn mind.They had better D better shooters a deeper bench and the greatest.I know everyone here loves the Spurs but be realistic they might win one game.
One game? So, what you're saying is the Spurs are worse than the 97-98 Jazz and the 96 Sonics? Please.
It's not out of the realm of possibility...
The Jazz had 2 HOFers, plus byron russel to keep manu in check.
Bruce would also be inneffective because he wouldn't be able to guard Stockton or Malone because of the positions.
Malone maybe a HOF, but Duncan is a superior player on both ends of the floor; and outside of his free-throw shooting (which in the clutch, Duncan might be superior) Duncan is the more versatile offensive player.
The second option on both of those teams was Jeff Hornacek, a shifty shooter but someone who would have suffered under the defense of Bowen. And do not discount the ability of Parker/Bowen to guard Stockton. Stockton was a tough, great and intelligent player but he would have had difficulty handling Parker on the defensive side.
The championship Spurs (which ever iteration you take) are deeper, more versatile and "clutcher" than the two WC champion Jazz teams. I would even hazard to say that the Spurs are better coached.
I understand how you feel. As i said i like the Spurs and hated the out of chicago, but i also watched both teams play. As much as i loath the Bulls i am still forced to be realistic about the situation. THE SPURS MIGHT WIN ONE GAME.
The Bulls were a great team, but they lost games to teams that were not as good as the Spurs. Spurs fans have no confidence in their team. What about Tim Duncan? What about Ron Harper trying to run up and down the court with Tony Parker, who's about 10x faster. The Spurs defense uses rotations that NO TEAM used in the era of Jordan used. Look at the way they scrubbed Lebron in the Finals.
I'm surprised that Spurs fans buy into the media image that the Spurs are not a "real" dynasty, and that they couln't compete with great teams of the past. I actually think the 2004 Pistons would have beat some of the "great" teams of the past.
in EVERY sport that can be measured objectively, like track & field, swimming, cycling, etc. --- the athletes of today are better than in the past. Every 5 years their is a new standard of compe ion. How would Steffi Graff do against Serena or Venus?
Now basketball is becoming like baseball where people believe that players in the past were much better than today. Babe Ruth with his beer belly was a better player than A-Rod. And the showtine Lakers would wipe the floor with any current team. That might be true in fan's imaginations, but the truth is that today's athletes are bigger, faster, and stronger than in the past, even 10 years ago.
Which Bulls team exactly?
It doesn't matter, you kidding me? The "Least"ern Conference sucks!! The WCF is the real NBA Finals.
Besides, everyone knows King James is this era's MJ. He couldn't get a single win. No way the Bulls win.
don't be so dumb. If the spurs could handle Snaq, Kobe and Horry they certainly could handle Stockton and Malone.
First, Stockton versus TP would be FUN to watch on both ends.
But let's get real... Byron Russel was a nice player, solid, but Manu at his best? Please.
And has everyone but me forgotten that TD torched Malone and the Jazz after that first month in his rookie year? And that was ROOKIE TD!
See here:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1&p2=malonka01
You guys are seriously forgetting about Tim Duncan in this entire discussion.
I see you understand my argument.
Saying the NBA talent today is better than in Jordans era is not true. they actually dumbed the game down because today players are fundamental flawed. They took out the handcheck rule to make it easier on shooters. They put the little line underneath the basket to make it easier for post players to score. In Jordans time unless you were a real trooper it was wise to stay out of the paint. If you got in a fight you would be ejected but you might be playing the next game. Today it's the kinder gentler NBA.
In Jordan's era he enjoyed a considerable size and speed advantage most nights. Today all the wings are 6-7 and athletic. The fact that there is more talent than in the past makes it harder for individual players to dominate. The NBA is so much more athletic today, and people argue that slower, smaller players from the past who shot a higher % jump shots were better. If that is true why doesn't a team field some of those players and see how they do. Look at how many college players like Brian Cardinal get run off the court in the NBA. Fact is- today's athletes are bigger, faster and stronger than in the past. That is an objective fact.
I like this guy - he's funny.
"fundamental flawed". Please note that most analysts say the Spurs are one of the most fundamentally sound teams of all time. They are rarely out of position and don't rely on over-whelming athleticism but skill and team play and execution to grind their opponents down.
In Jordan's time? You're referring to the late 80's and early 90's then? Rules have changed since then. But the Spurs of 99 played under the 'old' rules and ran rampant through the playoffs.
Like I said any championship iteration of the Spurs is superior to the Jazz and Sonic teams that the Bulls faced in their last three-peat. So, again I ask you, do you really think the Spurs are worse than those teams?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
