DUH
90's Bulls would c-stomp the out of the Lakers
This thread is re ed
Shaq's numbers from 1997-2001 are almost the same if not identical. Shaq never scored 30+ on Jordan's Bulls while he was a Laker. And Im talking about the old aged Bulls. How is it possible then all of a sudden to be able to put 40/20 against the same Bulls whom from 1996 -1998 had an average win record of 68 wins/season.
Yes, and this can be proven through these things we call "defensive statistics." I'll let you google that.Great Laker defense?
In the meantime, why don't you let the folks who understand what that means continue the conversation without your fine contributions.
I hate agreeing (to an extent) with a moron like milkshakeballa, but the league in the 90's was definitely the weakest it had been since the Russel/Wilt era, and is definitely weaker than it has been in recent years. The league right now is absolutely loaded, and through a lot of the 2000's there have been some really loaded years. Really the only years in this decade that stick out as being a rather weak overall year to me was 03-04 (Pistons won it all), and 06-07 (Spurs won it all). And even then, they weren't incredibly terrible years either. In 06-07, all Western Playoff teams won 50 games. 03-04 was kinda weak though, possibly the weakest of this decade.
Thanks for proving my point. Why exactly do you think the denominator has remained the same?
Dallas Fan "29:1 and 30:1 are not the same thing"
Laker Fan "yes they are"
so advanced!
Dallas Fan: 30 > 29!!!
Laker Fan: 29/1,000,000,000 > 30/2,000,000,000
Yup.
...but many will think otherwise. That '01 Lakers team was for the ages. MJ/Pippen would have gotten theirs but all around, I'd give an edge to that specific years Laker squad with a prime Shaq and Kobe.
This years team is great but those 90's Bulls teams I am afraid are a little better.
Who the cares? What I want to know is what kind of debauchery would ensue if Rodman and Artest partied post-game...Now that's something to give a about...
Oh, Scottie P. and his Coors Light could add an additional boost...
I definitely agree with your assessment about the 90's, but I disagree with saying that the league is loaded with talent today..individual talent? sure, but not team talent..
This year has 3 legit contenders, which is a good number, but the West is really weak outside of the Lakers..I guess you could say it's loaded due to these 3 teams..
Last year was really weak IMO, due to so many injuries..
I don't think this decade was that loaded in regards to teams TBH..the 80s is probably the only era that was consistently loaded..the 90s is probably the 2nd worst next to the 70s..
The orange juice from the 90's is the ing offbrand that you buy at a ing mexican market.
The orange juice of today's times would be FRESHLY JUICED oranges from Florida. Even if you add ONE (ONE TEAM) ONE ING OUNCE OF WATER....IT IS STILL MUCH MORE POTENT THAN THE TY ORANGE JUICE YOU ARE DRINKING FROM THE NINETIES.
If you it makes you feel better...fine...the league in 01 was WAY MORE talented.
LOL @ peopel saying Gasol would own Rodman...no way
Today's Laker team would lose to that CHI team in 5 or 6
Have to agree to an extent about this decade not being loaded. I think the 2000s Western Conference is pretty overrated. I mean, it looks like the Lakers and Spurs are about to win 11 of the past 12 Conference les. A loaded conference should've result in some kind of parity.
I don't think the West is that weak at all. I think the large amount of injuries again really messed things up. The West IMO was just so stacked that no one was able to get much separation due to everyone just pounding on each other. Only 7 games between the 1st and 8th seed, along with the 8th seed nearly taking the 1st seed to a 7 game series? That's pretty damn stacked IMO.
The decade doesn't have the dominant teams that other decades had, but that's more because the talent is so widespread through the league, and because so many teams are able to compete for a le. I think to say only 3 this year were true compe ors was completely untrue. The Lakers, Magic, Celtics, Cavs, Mavs, Nuggets, Spurs were all legit contenders. And other teams like the Hawks, Suns, and Jazz were all definitely teams that if hot at the right time (as the Suns were when facing the Spurs, and the Jazz when facing the Nuggets), could pull off an upset or two and be in the Finals as well. Don't forget the injury ridden Blazers who definitely could have been true contenders as well. The league currently is as compe ive as it has ever been.
Not sure if this necessarily discredits the West's strength... East has had many different teams make th Finals but has been obviously weaker. Gap is closing though, but will be expanded when Lebron comes to Dallas.
It depends which bulls team we are talking about. The 97-98 team was the weakest of em all. That is the team these Lakers would have the best chance against.
Well, that's why the Lakers season hasn't been exactly spectacular. They had the 3rd best record but not even close to 72 wins, they had a pedestrian point differential, their offense is flawed and that shows even in the playoffs.
Yes. Why not?I'm just gonna say this:
today lakers would take them in 6-7:
zone d -rules matter alot, do you see rodman thriving in that system?thoght so
Jordan would destroy Kobe. And you'd have Kobe defending Pippen? That would be a massacre.kobe manning up and not playing like a primadonna - i don't think mj would dominate him that bad +5-7ppg at most difference, plus consider that artest will foul his way into slowing mj down atleast a game.
How?gasol taking a very VERY very serious all over rodman
I stopped here because it doesnt' make sense any more. Do people forget how Rodman used to shut down Shaq? A guy like Gasol would just fall into his hands.
This Lakers team would have no chance versus the 90s Bulls. The 87 Lakers would do a lot better.
Exactly. The best way to shut Gasol down is by using "bully" tactics, getting physical, lots of energy, and flopping. Gasol would be given by Rodman.
Something that also isn't taken into account is Rodman's ridiculous rebounding ability. He gave the Bulls around 5-6 extra possesions a game, and created all kinds of and frustration doing so. The Bulls had such a great mental edge by their incredible rebounding and ability to create turnovers, which gave them a bunch of extra possessions which is something that will really wear on an opponent mentally.
While the Bulls did have their weaknesses (lacked a dominant interior player, and didn't have a whole lot of pure talent outside of MJ and Pippen), they had so many other advantages that more than made up for it. They had such great execution on both sides, crisp passing, great team balance and floor spacing, lots of versatility, and very high IQ players. The teamwork on both ends were amazing. There is no question they aren't as talented as some other teams, but they played basketball the right way, and did it better than any team ever has (in terms of execution, they were as close to perfect as it gets), which is why they are the best TEAM ever.
One thing that really stood out to me from the 90's bulls was their team D. They played suffocating D. They had the ability to hold you down. Bulls had a balanced O but that D was just sick.
I agree with this. The CBA has been doing its job in keeping teams much more stable than in years past with FA departures. Things could change this summer but for about 10 years superstar movement due to free agency has all but vanished. Shaq was the last one to move in his prime and he was before the new CBA.
The results are teams holding onto superstars much longer than they may have otherwise... which is why I really like the NBA's salary cap system. I think it's a fair system (unlike the NFL's which totally jobs the players) and it is good for compe ive balance (unlike MLB's system which is terrible for it).
Kobe, Dirk, Duncan, Pierce, and Yao are all superstars who have stayed with their teams long term... not to mention Melo, Wade, LeBron, and Bosh who have stayed through the full 7 years of their original deals/extensions and even younger guys behind them like Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Howard who all will stay through theirs. Throw in regular "star" players like Amar'e, Manu, Parker, Roy, Rondo, etc. staying with their teams and it gives all teams a much fairer shot at developing and maintaining a good team.
Yeah. They were extremely versatile on defense. Great team defense, but also had some EXCELLENT individual defenders. And their efficient, balanced offense also helped them to have an even more efficient defense as well.
Now I'm not one of those guys who thinks that they would just gutstomp anyone that faces them. I think the 01 Lakers would give them a tough 6, maybe 7 game series, playing them very tight. I hate it though when people say that MJ would score 40 and Kobe wouldn't do jack, because that's crap. Kobe would still do his fair share of damage. The reason why the Bulls would win that series, and is the greatest team ever, is not due to their talent, but mainly because of their intangibles (their ability to execute so well in virtually every facet of basketball) and mental strength (thanks in large part to Jordan's will/desire to win). Teams would most definitely challenge them, but I think in the end, they would be able to pull out a win in pretty much any series matchup.
The '86 Celtics were a better team.
But I agree with their team D. The secret for Rodman being able to defend Shaq so successfully was exactly their team D - Jordan and Pippen would pressure the ball-handlers so much, trap people so hard, created so much havoc and were so good in harassing post entry passes that in most possessions Shaq was unable to repost. No time in the clock for that. He was unable to create better/deeper post position and to create off doubles.
Also, Rodman rebounding... I think people just don't have a notion of how amazing he was. In his best seasons, Rodman hit a 30% rebounding rate. Basically meaning that for every 3 missed shots, he'd grab one. The Bulls were able to limit their opponents to a 1&done offense while having multiples shots per possession themselves.
I completely disagree with that, stretch..you can say the same thing about any other year, you're just naming a bunch of decent teams that you consider contenders, but I don't..
Spurs, Nuggets and Mavs absolutely weren't legit contenders at all, and the Suns definitely aren't either..
Hawks and Jazz were 1st round fodder-caliber teams IMO..
The Cavs looked like contenders until the Bulls exposed their frontcourt in the 1st round, then it was clear that they weren't..
I don't really see the difference between other random years in this decade when it comes to amount of teams that are contending..it doesn't compare to the 80s IMO..
I agree that there's more talent when it comes to players, but when you're looking at the compe ion within the NBA for a specific year, I don't see much of a difference..
The West doesn't have any legit teams outside of LA, not even close IMO..
I think the 86 Celtics would be the Bulls best compe ion, but I'm taking the Bulls. I think defense overall in the 80's was absolutely awful and overrated, including teams like the Celtics and Lakers. I don't feel that defense was truly something that was masted until the Bad Boy Pistons and MJ's Bulls. Those were teams that really began emphasizing the importance of a true lockdown, suffocating defense. I think a prime Jordan and Pippen in Phil's Triangle offense would be too much for the Celtics defense to handle. Plus, those Celtics had a bit of an issue with turning the ball over, which is something that the Bulls would really capitalize on.
I don't remember Rodman shutting down Shaq... but that was a long time ago so maybe I don't remember things that clearly. Still, "shutting down" is a pretty strong term. Rodman did a decent to sometimes very good job on Shaq considering the size difference, but saying he shut him down seems like quite an exaggeration. Still, what made Rodman so great was his relentlessness. He was pesky, he was physical, but he didn't let up, not for one play. But what also helped him against Shaq were a couple of things. In the mid to late 90s, Shaq was huge but not the 350+ pound monster he would later become. So as much as there was a size difference, it wasn't nearly the size mismatch it would have been later on. Secondly, Shaq still relied mostly on his sheer size, strength, and athleticism. Shaq got better with his touch around the rim later with the Lakers, but not as much when he was still in Orlando. That was to Rodman's advantage. Still, I don't recall Rodman shutting Shaq down. Slowing him down better than most? Sure. Maybe making a few really key stops. Ok. But shutting him down? I guess I'd have to see those games again to believe it.
Against Pau Gasol, Rodman in his prime would do a great job. But the difference here is that Gasol has size and skill. We can talk about the rules changes as well and that would benefit Gasol, just like we saw Grant Hill get in foul trouble with limited bodying up on Kobe last night. Rodman was the type of defender that put his entire body on you, chest to chest. He would get a lot more foul calls in today's league, if we're playing by the rules now. And, then there's the fact that Gasol has perimeter skills, dribbling, shooting midrange, left and right hook shots in addition to a huge length advantage. Rodman was 6'7, maybe 6'8, but that's pushing it and probably in his bulkier days about 220 lbs. He played mostly around 210 in Detroit and probably in San Antonio as well.
Even if it was proven or conceded that Rodman shut down Shaq, that doesn't necessarily mean he would shut down Gasol. Gasol's skill set would cause problems for a defender who was super aggressive, physical, and tried to use strength and leverage against a player. That works better against a player like Shaq, not as well against a player like Pau, even though Pau plays like a pussy a lot of the time.
I agree with the sentiment that the 90s NBA were relatively weaker than they were in the 80s and even in many of the years in the 2000s. But, those Bulls teams were still unbelievable. Despite having a wide gap in talent from the top two players versus the rest of the team, what made them so good was those less talented players were so good at knowing their roles and playing those roles well. Shooters shot well. Defenders defended well. The role players didn't try to do more than their own individual limitations allowed them to do. That's how a team with a player like Jordan became so great.
I think a 7 game series between those 90s Jordan teams and the current version of the Lakers would be a lot closer than some think, because of the disparity in talent of the front courts. Those Bulls teams did not have great front courts and they didn't face really good front courts in the playoffs. Faced some great individual front court players like Ewing and Shaq and Karl Malone and Barkley, but not really great front courts. The Lakers would pose some problems with size and skill up front. But Jordan would still give Kobe a new asshole, and those Bulls would ultimately prevail. Closer than some would say, probably a pretty well contested 6 game series.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
