would the jordan's bulls defeat the current Spurs??

[stretch]

Oh ok, so the GOAT of all time was still a decent player.

"The Greatest Of All Time of all time"?

[Mitch Cumsteen]

So you call the Jazz and Sonics teams losers for losing to the Bulls, then state that the SPurs would have lost to the Bulls.
Good point

And Payton does actually have a ring

The difference is that MAYBE the Spurs would have lost to the Bulls IN MY OPINION. But MAYBE not. However, it is a fact that all of those other players were a bunch of chokers and losers who never won a ring. With, of course, the exception of Gary Payton who (as you point out) actually has a ring, just like Beno Udrih. Beno and GP are clearly both great champions.

[stretch]

We already know that TP>Payton

ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

[stretch]

Uh huh Payton the best defensive guard couldn't handle the rookie Parker in his first playoffs.

Daniel Gibson lit Chauncey Billups up in his first playoff outing. Are you saying that Daniel Gibson > Chauncey Billups?

[mardigan]

The Spurs lost in 97/98 to the Malone and Stockton Jazz in 5 games with Robinson and Duncan, which was conveniently not brought up

[stretch]

The Spurs lost in 97/98 to the Malone and Stockton Jazz in 5 games with Robinson and Duncan, which was conveniently not brought up

Interesting.

BTW- I deleted that post that you quoted because I didn't see someone else already beat me to making the same kind of reply.

[mardigan]

The difference is that MAYBE the Spurs would have lost to the Bulls IN MY OPINION. But MAYBE not. However, it is a fact that all of those other players were a bunch of chokers and losers who never won a ring. With, of course, the exception of Gary Payton who (as you point out) actually has a ring, just like Beno Udrih. Beno and GP are clearly both great champions.

At least GP averaged 24 minutes a game through their playoff run, and at least contributed. Beno never has contributed anything to any playoff run.
And yea, those other guys didnt win a ring, but its just as much of an opinion that they were chokers. Just because the Spurs have been the best in a weak league doesnt make the players on the second best team in a stacked league chokers.

[mardigan]

The difference is that MAYBE the Spurs would have lost to the Bulls IN MY OPINION. But MAYBE not. However, it is a fact that all of those other players were a bunch of chokers and losers who never won a ring. With, of course, the exception of Gary Payton who (as you point out) actually has a ring, just like Beno Udrih. Beno and GP are clearly both great champions.

So I guess David Robinson was a choker for being beat by chokers every year until he didnt have to carry the team?


And btw, Robinson averaged less minutes in the 03 le run than GP did in their Heat run.

[Obstructed_View]

No. Bill Cartwright is like 50.

[exstatic]

Bulls=Best Championship Team Evah. End of thread.

Ha hmmm

Sincerely
Bill Russell of the 11 rings.

[exstatic]

The Spurs lost in 97/98 to the Malone and Stockton Jazz in 5 games with Robinson and Duncan, which was conveniently not brought up

Well, Robinson, anyway. Tim injured his ankle and missed games 3-5 which you conveniently didn't bring up.

[SilverPlayer]

Daniel Gibson lit Chauncey Billups up in his first playoff outing. Are you saying that Daniel Gibson > Chauncey Billups?

Are you referring to a whole series or just a game? I see he scored 31, 11, 21, 9, 9 against him. The 31 point game I will give you, but 21 isn't lighting someone up.

The second part of my point was that Parker has since become a of a lot of a better player since he took GP to school. Gibson may have played his best game(s) against Billups, but Parker has since taken it to a level that GP would never even at his peak been able to stop.

GP was a of a player in his glove days, and he would have given Parker trouble with his offense, but defensively no one has been able to keep up with Parker. Ben Wallace's help defense and Shaq's size has intimidated him in the past. Starbery has given Parker the most trouble, but in the end Parker has proven he can overcome those players.

So yeah The Spurs over the Kemp Payton Sonics. And they would have been a very difficult series for the Bulls. I'd give the Spurs even odds against any of the Bulls teams.

I think Shaq and the Kobe's Lakers could have beaten some of the weaker Bulls teams.

[mardigan]

Well, Robinson, anyway. Tim injured his ankle and missed games 3-5 which you conveniently didn't bring up.

1997/98: With the return of David Robinson and the addition of Tim Duncan the Spurs had one of the most formidable frontcourt duos in NBA history. Duncan would make his presence known immediately taking Rookie of the Year honors while leading all NBA players in double doubles with 57. A year after making the steepest decline in NBA history the Spurs made the biggest improvement finishing in 2nd Place with a solid 56-26 record. In the playoffs the Spurs would make easily knock off the Phoenix Suns in 4 games. In the 2nd Round the Spurs were matched up against the Utah Jazz. In the first 2 games in Utah Duncan was impressive, but the Spurs lost two heartbreakers. When the series returned to the Alamodome the Spurs won Game 3 despite Tim Duncan injuring his ankle. In the final 2 games Duncan played through pain but the Spurs chances were shot as they fell in 5 games.
http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nba...nio/spurs.html



Did I? Looks like the Spurs played 9 playoff games that year, and Tim started 9 games the same year, hmmm

[L.I.T]

"The Greatest Of All Time of all time"?

If anyone could be the GOAT of all time, it would be Jordan.

[mavs>spurs2]

don't be so dumb. If the spurs could handle Snaq, Kobe and Horry they certainly could handle Stockton and Malone.

Don't be so naive. It's definately not out of the realm of possibility, but I would probably place my bet on the Spurs.

[mardigan]

Are you referring to a whole series or just a game? I see he scored 31, 11, 21, 9, 9 against him. The 31 point game I will give you, but 21 isn't lighting someone up.

The second part of my point was that Parker has since become a of a lot of a better player since he took GP to school. Gibson may have played his best game(s) against Billups, but Parker has since taken it to a level that GP would never even at his peak been able to stop.

GP was a of a player in his glove days, and he would have given Parker trouble with his offense, but defensively no one has been able to keep up with Parker. Ben Wallace's help defense and Shaq's size has intimidated him in the past. Starbery has given Parker the most trouble, but in the end Parker has proven he can overcome those players.

I understand that argument, but to write off GP d-ing up Parker is pretty unfair as GP never played against Tony in his prime. The guy could guard just about anyone, even doing about as good of a job on MJ as one could hope to do, so its not like Im throwing some crazy idea out there saying GP could guard Tony. GP put up numbers better than anything Tony has put up in his career so far (not saying he wont keep improving, I think he will), so you cant act like its some given that Tony is better than GP ever was.
And the part about Tony not being able to guard Tony is true as well, I remember even in his old age Tony couldnt handle Payton in the post.



And when did he take him to school, I hope its still not that same series you were talking about when GP put up far superior numbers than Tony in just about every area

[Oh, Gee!!]

Ha hmmm

Sincerely
Bill Russell of the 11 rings.

now there's a real debate

[mavs>spurs2]

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.

I agree that the NBA game was much better as a whole back then. Where I disagree is where you say that there was more talent in Jordan's day. I think there is actually more talent in today's NBA, but with less fundamentals so in the end it evens out more or less. I actually preferred watching basketball back in the 90's as opposed to today and I also think that the 80s and early to mid 90s were the NBA's golden years.

That said, I can't see the spurs winning more than 2 games against Jordans bulls. If Jordan was unstoppable before the hand check rule, there would be no way in of slowing him down in today's NBA. And as good as the Spurs d is, as a league defense was on another level back in those days and teams were allowed to get much more physical. I'd also give the edge to the Bulls defensively for this reason. Not to take anything away from Bowen and Tim, but Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman>them defensively. And maybe it's not fair to judge since they played in a much more hard nosed league with different rules (hand checking for example) but this is all I have to go by.

[mavs>spurs2]

I understand that argument, but to write off GP d-ing up Parker is pretty unfair as GP never played against Tony in his prime. The guy could guard just about anyone, even doing about as good of a job on MJ as one could hope to do, so its not like Im throwing some crazy idea out there saying GP could guard Tony. GP put up numbers better than anything Tony has put up in his career so far (not saying he wont keep improving, I think he will), so you cant act like its some given that Tony is better than GP ever was.
And the part about Tony not being able to guard Tony is true as well, I remember even in his old age Tony couldnt handle Payton in the post.



And when did he take him to school, I hope its still not that same series you were talking about when GP put up far superior numbers than Tony in just about every area

I think Mardigan pretty much summed it up. Tony is still improving and may end up better than Payton was, but as of right now career wise the answer is no.

It's nice to have level headed guys like Mardigan, Elliottfan, etc around to balance out some of the re edness displayed by some fans this offseason. It's a good thing to feel confident about your team, but there is a fine line between this and reality. I just about pissed my pants when I read some of the responses in the dream team vs spurs thread.

[mavs>spurs2]

, on second thought, it's really likely that Parker will be THE #1 point guard in a few years. Kidd is already on the decline and Nash won't be able to hold up too much longer, maybe a few years at the very most. His only real compe ion is CP3 and Derron Williams.

[kingmalaki]

I don't see the current Spurs winning that one. Pippen, Harper and MJ could contain your wing players. Your only shot would be if Duncan could go into the Hakeem/Shaq mold where he was dropping 35 every night (similar to the 2006 semis against the Mavs, but Rodman is a big difference from Dirk/Dampier).

However. I do think the 99 team could do it. I think the twin towers would be too much for Chicago.

[kingmalaki]

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.

I think every squad Chicago beat in the Finals would be a contender in today’s league. The weakest team they beat is arguably the Sonics, and even they had an in-prime Kemp, Payton and tons of depth.

I don’t think Harper/Pippen (mainly Scottie) would have an issue with Tony Parker. They didn’t seem to have one with Magic, Marc Jackson, Payton, KJ, Penny (when he was a stud) or Stockton. Parker isn’t better than any of those guards.

If you think the Spurs play better defense then teams like the 80’s Pistons, 90’s Rockets, 90’s Sonics or 90’s Knicks I suggest you go watch some tapes. Those were some great defensive ballclubs.

LeBron doesn’t have a jumper…MJ does. Your defense in the Finals was built around giving him midrange shots that he couldn’t hit. Also, the Cavs are an offensively inept team. The Bulls used the triangle.

The Spurs are very much a real dynasty. I just think sometimes folks forget how good some of those losing teams in the 90's were because they didn't win championships. I think your best shot to beat those squads was the 99 team, where you still had 2 superstar players. Every le team in the 90's had 2 stars and depth (besides Houston). Every team in the 80's had 3 HOF type players, and depth. SA is great for their era, but I don't think the majority of the teams have the talent 1-12 to compete with those squads.

[kingmalaki]

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.

First off, as a Spurs fan you should know that bigger and more athletic does not = better defender. Bowen is average height for his position and not all that athletic.

Secondly, this MJ didn’t face big, athletic defenders thing is a farce. He won all of his les in the 90’s, when dudes like Plastic Man, Hill, Pippen, Sprewell were playing. Go look up the rosters from 90’s squads and you will see plenty of athletic wings. Plus in MJ’s time the game was more physical, you could handcheck, flagrant foul and fight without getting kicked out of games or suspended, etc. Perimiter players in today’s league have it easier than ever.

The sport hasn’t gone through some extreme evolution in 10 years…and MJ was still dropping 20 a game on 45% as a 40 yr old with no athleticism and only a jumper…..

[Cry Havoc]

I agree that the NBA game was much better as a whole back then. Where I disagree is where you say that there was more talent in Jordan's day. I think there is actually more talent in today's NBA, but with less fundamentals so in the end it evens out more or less. I actually preferred watching basketball back in the 90's as opposed to today and I also think that the 80s and early to mid 90s were the NBA's golden years.

Are you kidding me? Have you actually watched the defenses from the 80s? They gave up open 15 footers with regularity. Players could run off a pick and be wide open and have 5 seconds to set his shot. The entire defense would literally sag and watch the shot go up.

The 80s was an atrocious period of defense for the NBA. The 90s and 00s have defensive teams that would absolutely dominate the teams of that period (except for the truly great teams).

There is NO WAY you can call giving up open jumpers all over the place "good fundamentals." No way in . It's no wonder the mid-range shooting has fallen a bit -- players used to have 12 feet between them and the next closest defender.

[spursjustice]

Ha hmmm

Sincerely
Bill Russell of the 11 rings.

That's a dynasty...