But we have TD, and if he can manage to win 2 more les than I think I will change my answer.
It's an unfair comparison since the Bulls have been around longer. If you'd asked back in 1979 who was a better basketball player, the 16 year old Michael Jordan or the perennial All-star player Rick Barry, most people would've laughed at you. Today, everyone would agree that it's Jordan. I think we'll have to wait at least another decade before this question can be answered fairly. My bet is the Spurs handle the post-Duncan years better than the Bulls handled the post-Jordan years.
Do you even know the history of "your" team? The Spurs have had three great runs behind three HOF players, each lasting a decade, or close to it. Each HOF player took them to at least the Conference Finals. The Spurs have missed the playoffs, what, four or five times in 32 years? That's insanely good.
Outside of that 13 year period of Jordania, the Bulls have been an excrescence of a bad franchise.
Did you just give Pau some props?
I'll disagree with that last statement. As much as I love the Spurs and yes the Spurs have beaten some great teams like the Shaq-Kobe led Lakers in 2003 and the 2005 Pistons, the compe ion ends there. The Jordan led Bulls beat some of the greatest teams and players the NBA has ever seen. Most of the teams they beat had some of the top 50 NBA players of all-time. They beat the Isiah Thomas led Pistons in the 91 ECFs, Magic Johnson's Lakers in the 91 NBA Finals, Clyde Drexler's Blazers in the 92 NBA Finals, Barkley led Suns in 93, Shaq's Magic team in 1996, and Stockton and Malone's Jazz teams in 97 and 98. Not too mention, they played some great series against Patrick Ewing's NY Knick teams in the 90s, and a tough Pacer team in 98 led by Reggie Miller.
Seems that there are different definitions for a success franchise. LO trophies vs. consistency over time/years. Most seem to prefer the LO's to overall consstency.
If it LO's (6 to 4) then obviously it's the Bulls but if it's overall consistency (winnng records/winning %/ # of times to make playoffs...etc.) then the Spurs win hands down.
I personnally vote for the Spurs due to consistency over time. Let's face it sometimes it's a crap shoot when it comes to the draft. Just ask Boston in '97. What if the Blazers had actually drafted MJ instead of Sam Bowie? I know they had Clyde and didn't feel like they needed another SG but if they had a chance to go back and redo that draft don't you think they would have picked MJ? Chicago's 6 LO's don't happen and maybe we are discussing how the Clyde/Michael combo was fantastic. Or not.
Of course I know the history of my team. I'm just not a blind homer. And in sports, almost doesn't count. I know the Spurs were pretty good in the 70s with Gervin, Silas and Kenon. But they never made it to the Finals, much less won a Championship. In the Robinson era, again they were very good, but never made it to the Finals, much less won a Championship. In the Duncan era, they've been awesome, but the failure to achieve even ONE back-to-back Championship means they can't be compared to the Bulls, who had not one but TWO three-peats. Three-peats. Three-peats. Do you know how sick that is?
So, I love my Spurs, but I give props where they are due. Homers don't.
You sure you didn't vote for the Spurs cause you're a Spurs fan?
And using your logic, the Phoenix Suns are a more successful franchise than the Chicago Bulls, as they have a better win % and have made the playoffs more.
Leave it to a Lakers' fan to ask a dumbass question like this. What's brighter? Night or day? stick.
Actually Lakers_55 is one of the few good Lakers fans on here.
I dont see anything outrageous of what he posted.
It isn't dumb, you are. This is a basketball forum and I am here to read good posts. This thread is generating them. There are some great opinions about what makes a team great. What's fun about the question is that there is no right answer at this point in time. If it's 6 les to 6, It would be near 100% of agreement for Spurs. If San Antonio gets le number 5 soon, then a lot of people will change their mind.
You make your argument on what you believe is more likely? There's no guarantee the Spurs win another championship in the next ten years. And, if they don't, would you give the edge back to the Bulls?
No doubt the bulls now. I hope things could change in a few years.
My attempt at humor. I think it's pretty clear the answer is the Bulls because of two three-peats, even though their Franchise has not maintained consistent excellence spanning different key players' tenures as the Spurs have. If the Spurs get another LO trophy this year or next, there are good arguments either way.
I value consistency over potency.
San Antonio.
4 NBA les.
4 Finals Appearances.
9 Conference Finals.
28 playoff appearances
25 (of 32) winning seasons.
60 wins: 3 seasons.
50 wins: 18 seasons.
40 wins: 26 seasons.
when kobe gets out of the nba we will every year because the lakers are the only team that hae truly beat us
it was luck for the mavs to beat us
no kobe= 3 more championships
Yes I'm a Spurs fan. And I simply didn't just "vote" for the Spurs simply because I'm a fan of theirs. But aren't you? Seeing how you regularly post here with the team logo, Duncan pic and all. But that isn't the point is it? I made an observation about how posters judge the topic - LO trophies vs. year in year out consistency. I prefer the latter. A personal choice which others have made, also. So what's your problem?
The Bulls won 6 LO's - two 3peats due to MJ and company. I think his/their accomplishments speak for themselves but that doesn't change what I said. Outside of MJ's tenure this franchise is an NBA doormat. Hasn't done jack frankly. As stated before if Portland drafts him then we talk about the Blazers vs. the Spurs. Right? Chicago has had many great players on their roster over the years but year in and year out the lack of a winning tradition is obvious. As stated in my previous post - the draft is a crapshoot and Chicago was fortunate to get MJ.
As for Phoenix - they haven't won any LO's and aren't the subject being discussed but in your opinion they have a better winning % than the Bulls. So? They don't warrant any discussion when it comes to winning LO's or establishing a dynasty. The Bulls an Spurs do. As stated in the thread the topic was to compare the Bulls to the Spurs.
Did you somehow miss that?
Defintely consistency. I would say the Spurs.
Excellent!
Researching and understanding a subject matter puts you on the road to enlightenment.
Keep it up.
i dunno the bulls are a joke after jordan era
they robbed the knicks of a few trades for lottery picks, nice steal there
too bad they cant put those picks to good use....by building a team....it seems like they keep on drafting the same players after dealing away the players who play the same from the previous years....
I guess I'd rather have one le followed by 9 lotto years than 10 45-55 win seasons with early playoff exits, and Chicago's got that edge with their 6 les. Aside from that, the only Spurs team that would have any shot whatsoever against the Bulls 4 best teams would be the 99 Spurs, and it'd still be a pretty big mismatch (they might be able to take the 93 and 98 teams that were running on fumes though).
Actually it sounds like you are looking for validation for the Lakers and Celts instead. You tried to hijack the question by overriding it with something else not even asked in the 1st place.
I would love to have a 3-peat for the Spurs but since the merger the Spurs have been more consistent on the court. Off the court there have been a couple of times in the past when the Spurs were being discussed as a team that may move out of town, which was pretty much voided by drafting DRob, and Tim.
Draft wise they have been better especially in recent years than the Bulls.
les...edge goes to Chicago.....overall edge goes to the Spurs.....imo.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
