2001 Lakers vs. 1996 Bulls

[HighFlyer23]

which team was better?

and which team would win in a 7 game series?

the lakers almost went undefeated in the post season that year and the bulls won a record 72 games in 96

2 of the best teams in recent times

[Buckeyevstworld]

How about the 91 or 92 Bulls instead?

[Jazza2319]

that lakers team was amongst the most balanced/dominant of all-time. Bulls have absolutely no answer for Shaq

Any other series i'd take the bulls, but shaq had one of the GOAT performances that year and Kobe was nasty

[dunleavyjr]

2001 Lakers vs 1996 Bulls? Ask this question again after the Lakers win 72 games in a season.

[Jazza2319]

How about the 91 or 92 Bulls instead?

saw a debate between the 96 bulls and 2010 lakers, bulls take that in 5 or 6

[boogydown]

that lakers team was amongst the most balanced/dominant of all-time. Bulls have absolutely no answer for Shaq

Nobody had an answer for Shaq, doesn't mean LA couldn't be beaten.

However, being that Bulls had no issues against Robinson, Hakeem, Ewing and other great centers at that time, you have to give the advantage to the Bulls.

[Frank Mulely]

the 2001 Shaq hype has been reaching fever pitch around RGM lately

[BirdIsDaKing]

1996 Bulls.

[Jazza2319]

that lakers team was amongst the most balanced/dominant of all-time. Bulls have absolutely no answer for Shaq

Nobody had an answer for Shaq, doesn't mean LA couldn't be beaten.

However, being that Bulls had no issues against Robinson, Hakeem, Ewing and other great centers at that time, you have to give the advantage to the Bulls.

none of those guys were even close to being as physically dominant as Shaq. Hakeem was obviously the most skilled big man, but Shaq could barrel through almost every other C in NBA History. Plus they had phenomenal shooters all over the court (Fish, Horry, Fox, Shaw)

[doozyj]

2001 Lakers vs 1996 Bulls? Ask this question again after the Lakers win 72 games in a season.

In the 90s, they would have won all 82. Zing! I kid though, the Bulls were **** stacked, I mean really **** stacked. They were a perfect storm pretty much.

[BirdIsDaKing]

that lakers team was amongst the most balanced/dominant of all-time. Bulls have absolutely no answer for Shaq

Nobody had an answer for Shaq, doesn't mean LA couldn't be beaten.

However, being that Bulls had no issues against Robinson, Hakeem, Ewing and other great centers at that time, you have to give the advantage to the Bulls.

none of those guys were even close to being as physically dominant as Shaq. Hakeem was obviously the most skilled big man, but Shaq could barrel through almost every other C in NBA History. Plus they had phenomenal shooters all over the court (Fish, Horry, Fox, Shaw)

The talent level at the center position in 2001 has a lot to do with it.

[LAKERS_1981]

I take 2001 Lakers in 6.

Shaq at his best
Kobe had his best playoffs
Great D
Good out side shooting
Role players that did there job.

Why they would win?
Shaq would kill them inside
Kobe was great D player then and he would let Jordan work on both ends of the floor(this was not prime Jordan but still great).
Grant vs Rodman would be funn to watch. Rodman better D and better Rebounder but Grant would not back down and gives more O with his shoot.
Pippen would be great and will have time on Kobe but R.Fox was physical D player and he would make Pippen work(but the Lakers would not be scared of Pippen because he was not a player that would have many 30+ pts game on O).

p.s dont give me that 72 wins = greatest. This was a regular season the real time starts in the playoffs and each season is diffrent so if you win 72 games in 96 that dose not mean you would do that in 2001.

[Frank Mulely]

1996 phil vs. 2001 phil would also be fun to watch

[GetBuLLish]

Considering how dominant Shaq was that year yet also factoring in how much chemistry the '96 Bulls had built, I would have to go with the Raps in 4.

[bledredwine]

96 Bulls were beating teams by 20 PPG on a regular basis.

They had unstoppable team work and every fascet of the game EXCEPT for a dominant big man.


Lakers would have no chance against their D, fast breaks and even half court offense for that matter. The Bulls have creamed a very good Shaq on more than one occasion and I seem to remember someone scoring 64 on Shaq at one point.

Never taken to a game 7 for a reason. 72-10. No.

I would take that 96 Sonics team over 2001 LA because they were one of the best defensive teams of all time. Payton and Dumars were the only defenders to somewhat slow-down Jordan. Imagine what they'd do to Kobe. Shaq would have a field day but I don't like their chances.

[BattleTested]

Honestly, Kobe himself in those playoffs might be on par with Jordan of 96. I know people are uncomfortable with this fact, but Kobe peaked in 2001. It was the best ball he'd ever play. 96 Jordan was still legendary, but not quite on the level of his first 3 peat self. I'd say the 22 year old Kobe plays 33 year old Jordan to a near standstill. From there, you've got the most dominant player of all time, another top 10 player who's also peaking. Longley would do all right on Shaq but come on, that dude was getting 30/12 against anyone he was facing at that point. Role players were phenomenal and reliable on both sides. Grant, Fox, Fisher, and Horry all had great postseasons for LA. Rodman was huge for the bulls, as were guys like Harper and Kerr.

Overall I'd take the Lakers because they have a reasonable answer for Jordan while the Bulls have no reasonable answer for Shaq. That Lakers team was clicking on all cylinders. There's never been a team with two top ten players of all time on it who were peaking at the exact same time, backed up by some of the most reliable role players of all time, coached by the GOAT coach. There's a reason the Lakers went 39-2 between April 1st 2001 and December 2001.

[Jajwanda]

It all depends on the shooters. If Chicago takes their chances and runs out on Fox and Horry (they'll get beat in a couple of games) they can basically play the percentages of their help defense to limit Shaq inside or they can completely shut down everyone else and make Kobe's job a challenge.

If we're talking about the way L.A. was playing in 2001 in the playoffs, L.A. in seven grueling games.

If it's the average of how the two teams played Chicago.

[EArl]

1996 phil vs. 2001 phil would also be fun to watch

Ill go with the Lakers because the bulls have no answer at center. Phil vs Phil is a mind ****!

[twomangame]

Bulls.

Phil=Phil
Shaq>>>>>>Longley
Kobe<<Jordan
Fox<<<<<<Pippen
Lakers Harper<<Bull Harper
Grant<Rodman
Horry<<<6th Man of the Year Kukoc
Fisher>Kerr

[Wavy Q]

Bulls.

Phil=Phil
Shaq>>>>>>Longley
Kobe<<Jordan
Fox<<<<<<Pippen
Lakers Harper<<Bull Harper
Grant<Rodman
Horry<<<6th Man of the Year Kukoc
Fisher>Kerr

this isn't how basketball works