RealGM

Starting with the 99' Spurs which championship team would beat the 92' Bulls in a 7 games series?

2001 Lakers would have the best chance to win imo.

'01 Lakers and that's it. The '92 Bulls were arguably better than the '96 Bulls in terms of ability. Jordan isn't losing at his peak unless it's an all time GOAT team.

ardee wrote:'01 Lakers and that's it. The '92 Bulls were arguably better than the '96 Bulls in terms of ability. Jordan isn't losing at his peak unless it's an all time GOAT team.

My thoughts as well.

Nobody would beat them. The Celtics team before Allen-Pierce-KG were old would come close.

Jordan actually laughs at the idea that the 92 Bulls were even close to the 96 Bulls. At least that what Michael Wilbon says.

I would give the 01 Lakers a chance. In reality I wonder if that team is really that good or they played a bunch of teams that couldn't matchup. The Spurs didn't have Bowen then and had nobody that could guard Kobe. Doug Christie was not guarding Kobe on the Kings either. It wouldn't shock me if the Bulls destroyed them.

I would say last years Heat and the 08 Celtics might be the best matchup. If Pippen disappears like he often did in the playoffs Jordan going to have a tough time beating Lebron and Wade. I don't think Pippen would do much of anything against Lebron.

The Celtics of 08 it could be an interesting series. One of the best defensive teams in history. I like the Bulls to win only because not sure the Celtics could score enough against the Bulls defense to win the series.

The 1992 Bulls had the sixth best SRS of all time and third best of the 3 point era.

I think the 2001 Lakers, then 2008 Celtics fit the bill.

You know, I always find it interesting that in these type of threads a Spurs team is never brought up. Usually the 01 Lakers get the nod in these type of "mention any team from this period" threads.

No one thinks the 99 Spurs or the 07 Spurs match up well with the Bulls? The former has superior star duo with an advantage and size (still good depth), while the other has two star guards and Timmy still in his prime with tons of depth. Both teams played better defense than the Bulls did too. Superior coach as well in my opinion (that is a war in itself though ).


The 92 Bulls to me are beatable by 2 or 3 clubs of the past decade (Lakers, Spurs, Celtics) despite having the GOAT in his peak years.

richboy wrote:Jordan actually laughs at the idea that the 92 Bulls were even close to the 96 Bulls. At least that what Michael Wilbon says.

I would give the 01 Lakers a chance. In reality I wonder if that team is really that good or they played a bunch of teams that couldn't matchup. The Spurs didn't have Bowen then and had nobody that could guard Kobe. Doug Christie was not guarding Kobe on the Kings either. It wouldn't shock me if the Bulls destroyed them.

I would say last years Heat and the 08 Celtics might be the best matchup. If Pippen disappears like he often did in the playoffs Jordan going to have a tough time beating Lebron and Wade. I don't think Pippen would do much of anything against Lebron.

The Celtics of 08 it could be an interesting series. One of the best defensive teams in history. I like the Bulls to win only because not sure the Celtics could score enough against the Bulls defense to win the series.

I would definitely side with the '96 Bulls over '92, however I also think that a good amount of the tiebreaker is a regular season focus in '96 like you basically never see from teams and I can't forget that Jordan was better in '92 whether he wants to admit that or not.

Re: '01 Lakers. What cannot be denied is that the Lakers were an order of magnitude more dominant in the playoffs than the Bulls or anyone else have ever touched, that they did so with a Big 2 more talented than Jordan-Pippen by a good margin, and there's really no reason at all to think that Kobe wouldn't dwarf Jordan's ring totals if Shaq had been willing to be a bit less petulant.

None of this changes that Jordan was unreal (and really much better than Kobe of course), but it shouldn't be at all hard to believe that those Lakers were at least legit. I won't say the Bulls wouldn't have had any shot...but it's not like were exactly a perfect matchup against the Lakers either.

I think the Bulls best claim to fame here is really how much more consistently they played at their peak level than the Lakers played at theirs. That's what makes Jordan a GOAT candidate and Shaq not.

HeartBreakKid wrote:You know, I always find it interesting that in these type of threads a Spurs team is never brought up. Usually the 01 Lakers get the nod in these type of "mention any team from this period" threads.

No one thinks the 99 Spurs or the 07 Spurs match up well with the Bulls? The former has superior star duo with an advantage and size (still good depth), while the other has two star guards and Timmy still in his prime with tons of depth. Both teams played better defense than the Bulls did too. Superior coach as well in my opinion (that is a war in itself though ).

The 92 Bulls to me are beatable by 2 or 3 clubs of the past decade (Lakers, Spurs, Celtics) despite having the GOAT in his peak years.

Going into the '01 playoffs series everyone looked at it as something close to the Matchup of the Decade. This Spur team was right in the same ballpark with any other Spur team that's ever been in terms of dominance and reputation.

When they got beat by 20 points per game in a 4 game sweep to the Lakers, they forfeited the right to ever be looked upon in that way again. That might seem a lot to take away from one series, but results are NEVER as clear cut as that series was. It was as if Ali & Foreman had met and Foreman had knocked Ali's skull clear to Mars while grilling bacon for the folks in the crowd.

The Spurs will go down in history as a team of great teamwork & chemistry led by the ultimate humble star and an absolutely brilliant coach. This needs to be enough.

Doctor MJ wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:You know, I always find it interesting that in these type of threads a Spurs team is never brought up. Usually the 01 Lakers get the nod in these type of "mention any team from this period" threads.

No one thinks the 99 Spurs or the 07 Spurs match up well with the Bulls? The former has superior star duo with an advantage and size (still good depth), while the other has two star guards and Timmy still in his prime with tons of depth. Both teams played better defense than the Bulls did too. Superior coach as well in my opinion (that is a war in itself though ).

The 92 Bulls to me are beatable by 2 or 3 clubs of the past decade (Lakers, Spurs, Celtics) despite having the GOAT in his peak years.

Going into the '01 playoffs series everyone looked at it as something close to the Matchup of the Decade. This Spur team was right in the same ballpark with any other Spur team that's ever been in terms of dominance and reputation.

When they got beat by 20 points per game in a 4 game sweep to the Lakers, they forfeited the right to ever be looked upon in that way again. That might seem a lot to take away from one series, but results are NEVER as clear cut as that series was. It was as if Ali & Foreman had met and Foreman had knocked Ali's skull clear to Mars while grilling bacon for the folks in the crowd.

The Spurs will go down in history as a team of great teamwork & chemistry led by the ultimate humble star and an absolutely brilliant coach. This needs to be enough.

I dont really understand any of this. What does the Laker series have to do with how the 99 or 07Spurs match up against the 02 Bulls? The Ali vs Foreman analogy doesn't really make sense either.

HeartBreakKid wrote:I dont really understand any of this. What does the Laker series have to do with how the 99 or 07Spurs match up against the 02 Bulls? The Ali vs Foreman analogy doesn't really make sense either.

Well you specifically mentioned the '01 Lakers in your post while talking about the '99 & '07 Spurs as if they were clearly superior by a large margin to the '01 Spurs. Literally no one in '01 believed that team to be clearly worse than '99 going in to that series, so it really should be no surprise that that series has a lot to do with how we perceive the Spurs semi-dynasty, and why it is "usually the 01 Lakers that get the nod in these type of threads".

Putting it another way: You're wanting to treat each Spur team like completely different entities and when you're comparing '99 to '11 I think it's wise to do so. There just isn't any obvious cause to separate out '01 from '99 except for the fact that one of those teams got embarrassed by the '01 Lakers and the other never played them.

I suppose I'll grant that '07 is far enough away one could call them a different animal. I have trouble looking at them that way though given the Spurs continued on from '01...and really still are. They are a team that is forever elite, and sometimes goes all the way, but has really never been able to make anyone feel like they were on a different level than everyone else except in '99. '07 was the otherwise most dominant run and they could have easily lost in the 2nd round.

Lakers 2001, Celtics 2008 and Pistons 2004.

LAL is obvious choice because of Shaq. Boston and Detroit because of defense - keep in mind that Bulls 1992 had huge problems (7 G series) with NYK, who played great but still worse D than BOS 2008 and DET 2004 + offensively these two teams were better than Knicks.

Doctor MJ wrote:Well you specifically mentioned the '01 Lakers in your post while talking about the '99 & '07 Spurs as if they were clearly superior by a large margin to the '01 Spurs. Literally no one in '01 believed that team to be clearly worse than '99 going in to that series, so it really should be no surprise that that series has a lot to do with how we perceive the Spurs semi-dynasty, and why it is "usually the 01 Lakers that get the nod in these type of threads".

I think plenty of people would say that those Spurs team was superior to the 01 team.

I never stated that the Lakers were not the best team of that era, but it's not like they were the only elite team. To make no mention of a Spurs team going against a the first three pete Bulls is just an interesting thing that I noticed.

Putting it another way: You're wanting to treat each Spur team like completely different entities and when you're comparing '99 to '11 I think it's wise to do so. There just isn't any obvious cause to separate out '01 from '99 except for the fact that one of those teams got embarrassed by the '01 Lakers and the other never played them.

Or perhaps, I am just picking who I feel are the best incarnation of the Spurs. Why would I pick any thing other than the best Spurs team to go up against the Bulls? Also, David Robinson was clearly on the decline in 01.

I suppose I'll grant that '07 is far enough away one could call them a different animal. I have trouble looking at them that way though given the Spurs continued on from '01...and really still are. They are a team that is forever elite, and sometimes goes all the way, but has really never been able to make anyone feel like they were on a different level than everyone else except in '99. '07 was the otherwise most dominant run and they could have easily lost in the 2nd round.

Seems rather arbitrary to hold them to the same standard of an earlier team simply because they wear the same jersey. Not sure how someone would have to "grant" that the 07 Spurs are a different team from the 01 Spurs. Hell, you even said the 99 Spurs were like the 01 Spurs, so...the 99 Spurs are like the 07 Spurs? I mean I'm really not sure what you're saying here.

The Spurs have been a great team for a long time, yes, but that is no reason to stereotype the entire franchise history. I mean even the 07 Spurs and the 13 Spurs are drastically different despite having the core big 3.

I didn't mention the 99 Spurs because I thought they were better than the Lakers. I mentioned the 99 Spurs in a direct comparison with the Bulls. In fact, that is the only reason why I mentioned the 99 Spurs, because they represented the best of what would be a different challenge to the Bulls. The 07 Spurs are probably the best championship team, and they destroyed the post season. Suns were the only challenge, and rightfully so given that the Suns were a beastly team.

I dont see why the Spurs would not get any mention from the 92 Bulls. I'm not even sure why the Bulls are being put on a pedestal, when I think of all time great championship teams 92 Bulls does not come to mind in particular. I personally think any of the all time great defensive teams from the current era would give the Bulls a ton of problems.

01 Lakers and maybe.. 08 Celtics

Doctor MJ wrote:
Re: '01 Lakers. What cannot be denied is that the Lakers were an order of magnitude more dominant in the playoffs than the Bulls or anyone else have ever touched

They were certainly not an "order of magnitude" more dominant than the '91 Bulls who went 15-2 themselves (the two losses coming on last second game-winning shots) and had a +13.2 (ORtg - DRtg) as compared to the Lakers' +13.7. They may have been better, but that's hyperbole.

The only team that has a chance of beating the '92 Bulls are the '01 Lakers (best chance) and '07 Spurs (much less chance but still possible). That's it. People saying the '08 Celtics or (even worse) the '04 Pistons are kidding themselves. Those Bulls had perhaps the ideal defenders for Boston's big 3 - Pippen on Pierce, MJ on Allen, Grant on KG, while the converse is not true. The Pistons would get murked. Don't look at what they did to Kobe and assume that they're doing that to '92 Jordan. No way, no how. They also don't have enough offensive firepower themselves.

I'd like to see Mike against the celtics. He never faced a defense as good and struggle Many times against teams with sub 101 DRtg in the playoffs(93 Knicks/97Heat)

But on the other hand, the bulls have WAY more talent the 08' Lakers. They wouldn't be able to double/triple/ and Quadruple team Mike like they did Bryant because they would have to pay for it

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nepmd2ygMK4

The Infamous1 wrote:I'd like to see Mike against the celtics. He never faced a defense as good and struggle Many times against teams with sub 101 DRtg in the playoffs(93 Knicks/97Heat)

But on the other hand, the bulls have WAY more talent the 08' Lakers. They wouldn't be able to double/triple/ and Quadruple team Mike like they did Bryant because they would have to pay for it

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nepmd2ygMK4

Nice troll post. He struggled with his shooting in ONE series pre-retirment (i.e., his prime), and he had a severely sprained wrist. And the Bulls certainly did not have "WAY" more talent than the '08 Lakers, if they were even more talented at all.

DavidStern wrote:Lakers 2001, Celtics 2008 and Pistons 2004.

LAL is obvious choice because of Shaq. Boston and Detroit because of defense - keep in mind that Bulls 1992 had huge problems (7 G series) with NYK, who played great but still worse D than BOS 2008 and DET 2004 + offensively these two teams were better than Knicks.

I've always think the 92 Knicks are way underrated, even when you compare them with the 93 and 94 Knicks. I think it has to do with their RS record(Riley first year), cause when you look at that line up, its sick how tough they were, I mean they had, Oak, the X-man, Mason, Starks, Wilkins, Greg Anthony, Mark Jackson, they made Ewing look like the nice guy of the team!
Anyway I like your choices, but I think the Lakers have the better shot. I don't see the Pistons and the Celtics beating MJ (But those would be two helluva series)

No team would beat them as MJ doesn't lose series with HCA. They might go 7 against a few teams but none would beat them in a series.