VeeshanVault

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I think they stand more than a chance. They play such a physical game that it will throw the lakers. Malone won't be able to throw random elbows without getting smoked. Shaq will get pummeled and frustrated. Kobe will have an adequate player guarding him. Payton will get abused like a junior high school girl.

I see the Pistons in 6.

I am going to say I told you so now rather than later. Phil Jackson is the most overrated coach in the history of the league. The current Lakers would have been abused by the Lakers or Celtics from the 80's. Same with Jackson's Bulls though too.....MJ only brought that team around once the real teams were in their decline. How many rings did MJ have before Magic and the Basketball Jesus retired?

You were partly right. Malone's injury hurts the hell out of the team, and Shaq still dominates the low post when he gets the ball. He moved damn fast last night, faster than I can remember seeing him.

I agree on Jackson being overrated though..

Erm, unless I'm remembering something incorrectly, Malone didn't re-injure his knee until the second game.

Which, obviously, came after the first game. Where the Lakers were still dominated, and Karl had a shitty game. Before he re-injured that knee.

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I am going to say I told you so now rather than later. Phil Jackson is the most overrated coach in the history of the league. The current Lakers would have been abused by the Lakers or Celtics from the 80's. Same with Jackson's Bulls though too.....MJ only brought that team around once the real teams were in their decline. How many rings did MJ have before Magic and the Basketball Jesus retired?

Personally, I think Phil is one of the luckiest coaches in NBA history. Much like Red Auerbach, he's always been blessed with having the best players. That being said, he does have tremendous skill in managing egos and getting people to work together. That, to me, is a great coach. I don't think he's a coaching God, but he is a great coach. Sure, there's several people in the league that could have coached those teams just as effectively...but they're all great coaches too. There's certainly better coaches as well - coaches who make teams and players overachieve. If people are rating Phil Jackson as the greatest coach in history, then he's definitely overrated. I think most people would say he's a great coach that's gotten lucky - and I think that's accurate.

To answer your question, let me ask you one, are you forgetting that the Bulls defeated the Showtime Lakers (with Magic) for their first championship in five games? Apparently so. You must also be forgetting that Larry Bird didn't retire until after the 1992 season.

Your answer? MJ won two championships when Larry ws playing and three when Magic was. Would've have been more, but Magic caught the HIV.

As for your argument, I'd like to see some evidence why you think the Lakers/Celtics of the 80s were better than the Bulls of the 90s. If you really want to debate it, I'd enjoy arguing the other side.

Scotty Bowman = coaching god

Phil Jackson = eh.. =)

you can't compare 80's B'ball with 90's B'ball. it was a whole other game...even 2k B'ball is different from 90's B'ball. it truely is. sry i have no links or anything. it's all emotional bullshit. i just wanna see Aranuil or Noel (whatever he wants to call himself this week) break apart my post and tell me how he doesn't agree with it.

Michael Jordan in his prime is way better than Larry Bird or Magic were in their primes.

The reason the Bulls didnt win until the early 90s was because they had....NOBODY ELSE...AT ALL...on their rosters. WHile the Lakers and Celtics in teh 80s had multiple hall of famers.

Once Pippen was beside him and they had a couple of years, the Bulls were absolutely superior to any other team ever.

How would they match up to those mid-80's teams? Lets put this in perspective.

G Jordan
F Pippin
C Longley
G Harper
F Rodman
6th Kucoc
vs

G Ainge
G Johnson
F Bird
F Walton
C Parrish
6th McHale

Bird would have been matched up with Rodman. Advantage Celtics.
Walton matched up with Pippin. Advantage Celtics.
Parrish matched up with Luc Longley. Advantage Celtics.
Johnson matched up with Harper. Close...but probably adv Bulls.
Jordan matched up with Ainge. Advantage Bulls.
6th man....Kucoc vs McHale. Advantage Celtics.

4 Hall of Famers versus 1 Hall of Famer. The Celtics would destroy that Bulls team in the paint. The Bulls did not have a team that was good enough on the perimeter to challenge the Bird/McHale/Walton/Parrish group on the blocks.

As a team, the Celtics shot .508 in '86. Their opponents FG % was .461.
The Bulls shot .478 and opponents shot .448 in '96.

That means the Celts shot .047 better than they allowed their opponents compared to .030 with the Bulls.

No way in hell would the best Bull's team beat the best Celtics team in a 7 game series. They had no answer for the front 4 of the Celts....and we won't even get into the Lakers matchups from the 80's.


As for Red Auerbach being lucky enough to have those players.....he had those players because he DRAFTED or traded for those players. Phil Jackson inherited his players and stepped into situations where he had everyone in place to make him look good.

It's not fair to compare just one center on the Bulls. Despite the hype, Longley was just one part of the rotating foul machine that was the Bulls center.

Heh, Pippen would have owned Walton, sorry, those knees would have never kept up with Scottie

I think it's difficult to compare eras, but I think it's doable especially where individual stats are concerned. I think the modern player is stronger and more athletic than players in years past. I think past players had better fundamentals and understanding of the game, as well as having smaller egos that were easier to manage for the coaches of their eras. That's one of the reasons why the whole Red AuerBach/Phil Jackson debate is stupid to me. Sure Red built and cultivated his teams, but he NEVER had to manage the egos of the modern day players who are millionaires and celebrities on a level that didn't exist when Red was coaching. Frankly I don't think Phil Jackson gets enough credit for that...

Anyway, I don't think Jordan's Bulls were beatable by any team, any era. Michael Jordan could win a game on sheer will. Several references have been made during the current finals to Chuck Daly's 'Jordan Rules' being applied in a fashion to Kobe. The difference is, Kobe is getting shut down, and Michael Jordan never was... That is to say, the Bulls occasionally lost, and got shut down, but I can't remember Jordan ever getting shut down he was just that good.

Bill Walton starting over Kevin McHale? Scottie Pippen matched up on him? LOL.

Obviously the Bulls win at the guard positions - handily.

Pippen would have been on Bird, and he would have contained him (much like he contained Magic Johnson in the 1991 NBA Finals). I give a slight advantage to the Celtics, but I think Pippen keeps Bird from producing enough to push the Celtics over the top. He is one of the greatest perimeter defenders in NBA history, if not the greatest.

McHale gets a slight advantage over Rodman - not much though. Rodman is a terrific defender and one of the best rebounders the game has ever seen. His almost total lack of offensive productions is the only thing that gives McHale a minute advantage. I see Rodman using his physical advantage and frustrating McHale and containing him very well.

Center, clearly Parrish was a better player than Longley. However, he does have the body to make Parrish work and contain him slightly.

6th Man goes to the Bulls. By the time Walton joined the Celtics he was practically a cripple. There's no way he could keep up with Kukoc.

I see the overall matchup thusly: The Bulls can contain all of the Celtics major scorers, the Celtics have no answer for Michael Jordan. Jordan runs roughshod over the Celtics, Bulls win.

BTW, Scottie Pippen is a Hall of Famer. He's one of the 50 greatest of all time. And, while it's true that Bill Walton is a Hall of Famer, he was nowhere near that caliber while on the Celtics. Also, I'd suggest that Dennis Rodman, if not for his antics and early departure from the league, was easily a Hall of Fame caliber player. I put this matchup at three Hall of Famers vs. three Hall of Famers.

Again, the Bulls BEAT that Lakers team you're so fond of touting.

And, no, I'm not impressed with Red Auerbach's ability to get players in the pre-salary cap, pre-draft lottery, pre-restricted free agency era. It's easy to get players when you are 1) the best team 2) can pay them whatever you want 3) they can freely leave their team for equal money and go to a more successful team. There's a reason they instituted those rules.

Bottom line, the Bulls won more games and more championships in a more competetive league (the best teams won more games, the worst teams ALSO won more). They were a better team. Hands down.

To further what Karae's point...

1996 Chicago Bulls
Record: 72-10
Playoffs: 3-0 vs. Heat, 4-1 vs. Knicks, 4-0 vs. Magic, 4-2 vs. Sonics

The Celtics and Lakers of the '80s have developed a certain mythology about them, but I'll take the Bulls. Consider:

• They nearly led the NBA in both offense and defense, finishing No. 1 in points (105.2) and No. 3 in points allowed (92.9). The Celtics or Lakers never came close to doing that.
• Chicago's average margin of victory was 12.2 points -- in a lower-scoring environment than the '80s. And the Celtics or Lakers never had margin even as great as 10 points per game.
• The Bulls beat the 60-win Magic in the East finals and then the 64-win Sonics in the Finals. None of the three other NBA teams on this list beat even one 60-win team in the playoffs.
• They went 72-10, best record in the NBA history.

noel wrote:To further what Karae's point...

1996 Chicago Bulls
Record: 72-10
Playoffs: 3-0 vs. Heat, 4-1 vs. Knicks, 4-0 vs. Magic, 4-2 vs. Sonics

The Celtics and Lakers of the '80s have developed a certain mythology about them, but I'll take the Bulls. Consider:

• They nearly led the NBA in both offense and defense, finishing No. 1 in points (105.2) and No. 3 in points allowed (92.9). The Celtics or Lakers never came close to doing that.
• Chicago's average margin of victory was 12.2 points -- in a lower-scoring environment than the '80s. And the Celtics or Lakers never had margin even as great as 10 points per game.
• The Bulls beat the 60-win Magic in the East finals and then the 64-win Sonics in the Finals. None of the three other NBA teams on this list beat even one 60-win team in the playoffs.
• They went 72-10, best record in the NBA history.

As much as I agree the Bulls were the better team, that was the watered down year toronto and vancouver joined the league, thus diliting the talent on the opposition considerably.

Heh...I was just looking at the final standings for 1991-92 and 1992-93...in 1991-92 Orlando was 21-61. In 1992-93, after drafting Shaq, they were 41-41. Talk about an impact player...just amazing to me.

Karae wrote:
McHale gets a slight advantage over Rodman - not much though. Rodman is a terrific defender and one of the best rebounders the game has ever seen. His almost total lack of offensive productions is the only thing that gives McHale a minute advantage. I see Rodman using his physical advantage and frustrating McHale and containing him very well.

To add to the Bulls side of this debate, a few years ago when the NBA had its 50th anniversary, Rodman was named one of the 50 greatest players of all time. With rebounding titles, championships, and defenisve player of the year nods, I see him being a Hall of Famer easily.