Reply With Quote
we are not even sure if this spurs team can win a le
Which Spurs team could give the 95-96 Bulls team a run for their money? I dont know if this post has made it up here yet, which i would be shocked if it hasn't. Anyone want to analyze the matchups?
we are not even sure if this spurs team can win a le
The 04-05 team was the best we've had, I think. Everything they did looked effortless.
I read about this in another blog. It's pointless to compare. There were different styles at a different time. I even heard people comparing teams with those Russell's teams. Totally different basketball.
I think the 99 team had a great run, maybe they would give them a good game.
I think the '03 team was probably the best suited. Still had Robinson to play some D, Duncan was at his peak, Kerr and S-Jax could hit some big shots, and Manu and Tony were both young, but very good athletically.
I'd still pick the 99 team over anybody....Duncan breaking into the league was unstoppable. A Robinson with plenty of spring left to his game. Sean Elliot was at his best both a monster offensively and defensively. JJ and Elie to drain the occasional three ball. And AJ and AD were outstanding PGs. Excellent backups in Malik Rose and Will Perdue.
Without a doubt it was our most balanced team. It was a team without a single hole at any position.
There hasn't been a Spurs team that could make the Bulls sweat...
No Spurs team was beating that 96 squad but i think the 99 team would have beat the 1998 Bulls and ended their dynasty.
this year's Spurs team would give them a better fight than Charles's Suns, or Kemp's Sonics
probably the best team the spurs will ever assemble, though still not enough to take on any of the bulls championship teams if you ask me
02-03 was pretty good. But stopping Jordan was tough.
If reggie millers pacers took them to a game 7, we could beat them.
THe Jazz was the only strong team they ever faced.
'96-'97
2003.
Why is everyone acting like these Bulls teams were gods????
They didn't play the Pacers is 95-96
Miami 3-0
New York 4-1
Orlando 4-0
Seattle 4-2
Because they were...
Rodmans flopping was not even basketball, yet his feakshowishness was a ratings draw. Theoretically some fair reffing takes much of the glow off the *unbeatable* Bulls.
In fact Frank Brickowski (yes Frank) was having a lot of success in that series before the refs suspended him a game for messing up Miss Dennis' makeup.
04-05 team.
Bulls had 2 amazing players, but they had a rather large flaw in that they didn't have anybody to score in the low post (similar to this year's bulls).
Now, the Bulls made up for that because Michael and Scotty were able to drive and/or post to get a lot of easier buckets, and eventually kick out to shooters like Kukoc and Kerr.
But the twin towers of '99 and '03 would have made playing that way very difficult for Chicago.
Remember, they weren't unbeatable. In '98, the Pacers had them on the ropes and the Jazz were right there as well.
To be fair, the OP said "Run for their money", doesn't mean we would have won.
Anyways, this is one of those topics in which everyone involved has to be drinking heavily in order to have an intelligent discussion.
Spurs could have and would have taken a couple of games. 99 or 03 squads. The bulls didnt have a sole to guard timmy and o3 bruce was awesome on defense also. Plus did i mention WHO would guard timmy.. Bill Cartwright...WIll Perdue.. GET THE OUT OF HERE.. oh wait the had some other loser big man but i cant remember his name something like scott williams or chump williams
The 99 team was one of the best teams the NBA has ever seen, I think. Absolute dominance. All 5 guys could play defense, and 2 of them were both top 20 all-time players, just like the Bulls. But the Spurs were a lot more than just Duncan and David, while the Bulls were very little without Jordan and Pippen.
I'd take the Spurs in 7 over almost any of the Chicago teams. Too much post defense. Jordan may have been able to beat one of the greatest big men of all-time in a series.... how about 2? No freaking way they were being stopped that year.
'99 Spurs would have been our best bet: featuring the best frontcourt in recent memory, and they'd have dominated Rodman/Longley/Wennington. But the perimeter gap is even more yawning. MJ/Pip/Harper vs Elliott/Elie/Avery would have been massacre. Elie and Avery would have been relentlessly posted up by the Bulls' big guard line-ups. The difference would be the bench (Kukoc was miles ahead of any bench player we had), the championship poise, and the coaching. Close, but the Bulls would take it.
'03 Spurs wouldn't have a chance: The only big mismatch we have is Duncan; DRob was on his last legs, and SJax/TP/Manu << MJ/Pip/Harp. Especially when Manu wasn't a battle-tested vet and Bowen wasn't known for the kind of defense he has played for the last 3 years.
The '05 Spurs' starters would have given the Bulls a real run for their money. Manu had established himself, Bruce had become the defensive hound and TP had championship experience. Both had stiffs at center, and our backcourt wouldn't have fallen behind the Bulls' backcourt too far. Duncan of course had a decided advantage. The bench would have tipped it again in the Bulls' favor, with Horry and Barry (?!) being no match for Kukoc and Kerr.
IIRC, the 95-96 Bulls were close to the top of the league in both offensive and defensive efficiency ratings (as were the 96-97 Bulls). Too talented, too deep, too veteran, too clutch. Oh, and having 2 top-50 players of all time close to their primes helps.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
