Who was the better dynasty? [Archive]

View Full Version : Who was the better dynasty?

blackfordpu

May 10th, 2005, 03:27 PM

I was just watching ESPN and they were show casing a couple of the Bulls NBA championship seasons. It got me thinking, who was the better team? The Bulls of the 90's or the Lakers of the early 00's? In my opinion it is the Bulls.

colgate13

May 10th, 2005, 03:28 PM

Bulls.

blueballs

May 10th, 2005, 04:16 PM

The Bulls of the 1990's were one of the greatest dynasties in pro hoops of all time, probably only exceeded by Red Auerbach's Celtics of the 1960's. A veritable who's who of hoops- Russell, Havlicek, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Don Nelson, Tom Heinson, Bill Sharman, Bob Cousy, Frank Ramsey, among others.

The Lakers of the early 2000's aren't even the best Laker "dynasty," ranking below the 1980's Lakers who won 5 titles and finishing second 3 times. Coached for the most part by Pat Riley, those Lakers had Kareem, Magic, Worthy, Bob McAdoo, Norm Nixon, Jamaal Wilkes, Michael Cooper, Byron Scott, AC Green, among others.

polsongrizz

May 11th, 2005, 03:57 AM

http://www.koit.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/bull****.jpg
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D :D :p ;) ;) :) :)

Gil Dobie

May 11th, 2005, 06:44 AM

Bulls of the 90's over the Lakers of the 00's easily.

I would take the 1980's Lakers over the Bulls though. The watered down expansion 1990's, didn't have a super team. IMO the Bulls teams of the 1990's would not have won a championship in the 1980's. Neither would the 2000's Lakers. Philly(early 80's), Boston, LA would have eaten them up.

ChickenMan

May 11th, 2005, 07:57 AM

Agreed... the Magic/Jabbar Lakers and the Bird/Parrish/McHale Celtics were both superior to the Bulls.

blueballs

May 11th, 2005, 10:23 AM

I'd take my chances with the lineup that included Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Brian Williams, Harper... the Bulls won 70 games and that is the gold standard.

The teams in the '80's didn't play the defense the teams in the 90's and today do, just watch the films... players are allowed to walk the ball up, there is little or no hedging on rub offs or picks.

Obviously, this is one of the great things about sports- debating how different teams from different eras would have matched up against one another.

eaglefan452

May 11th, 2005, 01:10 PM

Even though the core of the 90's Bulls' teams was always intact with Jordan, Pippen, and Phil Jackson, they did win with a host of different role players that stepped it up in the playoffs. The 80's "showtime" Lakers were good and definitely would matchup well against those Bulls' teams.

El Griz

May 11th, 2005, 05:49 PM

In my best non-east coast bias judgement, da' Bulls.

Mr. C

May 11th, 2005, 10:23 PM

I agree that those championship teams of the 1980s would have beaten the Bulls, just as the Bulls would have worn out the Lakers of recent vintage. Michael Jordan in his prime would have shut down Kobe Bryant with his superior defensive skills. Shaq would have gotten his points, but the Lakers couldn't score enough at the other positions. The Lakers, Celtics and 76ers championship teams were very balanced and could have exploited the Bulls' weakness in the post. Kareem would have gone off against the Bulls.

SiouxFallsJack

May 12th, 2005, 02:27 AM

The Bulls would easily beat the Lakers '00. At best the 2000 Lakers might have beaten the Bulls once out of the 6 titles the Bulls won.

Unfortunately for Bulls fans, things arent quite as rosy when you turn back the clock. Jordan and company would be no match for the Lakers of Kareem/Magic/Worthy. You take Magic away from the Lakers, they were still a playoff team. On the other hand, the Bulls minus Jordan would struggle to win 30-35 games even in the watered down 90's. Even with Jordan being one of, if not the greatest player in the game, the Bulls could not match the balance of the Lakers.

The Bulls would fare better against the 80's Celtics. I would still give the nod to the front line of Bird/McHale/Parrish over the Bulls a majority of the time.

However, the Bulls would beat the 76ers. Talk about a dream matchup, Dr. J vs. Jordan, sends chills down my spine.

Gil Dobie

May 12th, 2005, 07:36 AM

Pistons beat those Lakers with Kareem '89, those Pistons got swept by those Bulls '91, those Bulls beat those Lakers sans Kareem 4-1 '91, and when MJ retired Pippen lead them to 55 wins '94 and 47 '95. Rodman was on those Piston teams that beat those Celtics '88. No, the 72 win Bulls '96 (including sweeping Shaq in the EC finals) would have beaten any NBA team in history in a seven game series... they never lost a finals playoff series.

http://www.basketball-reference.com

Kareem was 89 in '89 wasn't he, the Lakers were at the end of the run when the Pistons beat them. Many of the kogs had left the team by then. The Pistons of 89 lost Rick Mahorn to expansion, he was a key to their championship run. The Pistons the Bulls beat were not as good as the 89 team. The league was weaker during the Bulls run, per expansion. The Timberwolves were always a gimmie for the Bulls. The good teams of the 1980's would have 4-5 or more players that were all-star quality. In the 90's it was down to 2-3 players per team that were all-star quality.

ChickenMan

May 12th, 2005, 11:29 AM

LacesOut

May 12th, 2005, 11:57 AM

Agreed... the Magic/Jabbar Lakers and the Bird/Parrish/McHale Celtics were both superior to the Bulls.

I'm with him on this one.

blueballs

May 12th, 2005, 12:26 PM

'95/'96 Bulls

Jordan... 30.4
Pippen...19.4
Kukoc... 13.1
Rodman... 5.5
Longley... 9.1
Kerr... 8.4
Harper... 7.4
Wennington... 5.3

'86/'87 Lakers

Johnson... 23.9
Worthy... 19.4
Jabbar... 17.5
Scott... 17.0
Green... 10.8
Cooper... 10.5
Thompson... 10.1
Rambis... 5.7

'85/'86 Celtics

Bird... 25.9
Parrish... 16.1
McHale... 21.3
Johnson... 15.6
Ainge... 10.7
Walton...7.6
Wedman... 8.0
Sichting... 6.5

comparing those rosters and being an unbiased Sixers fan... I'd say Chicago is #3

This comparison is interesting but what it doesn't take into account is the defense of the Bulls. Jordan, Pippen and Rodman are quite possibly the greatest defensive players ever at the 2,3 and 4 positions and Harper was a great defender too.

Again, it is impossible to compare these eras but it makes for some fun during the off season.

Gil Dobie

May 12th, 2005, 12:40 PM

This comparison is interesting but what it doesn't take into account is the defense of the Bulls. Jordan, Pippen and Rodman are quite possibly the greatest defensive players ever at the 2,3 and 4 positions and Harper was a great defender too.

Again, it is impossible to compare these eras but it makes for some fun during the off season.

Don't forget Michael Cooper was a great defensive player also. The defense of the Lakers and Celtics was better than most people thought, because of all the great players on the court at the same time. The Bulls never had a good like Landsberger or Kite to come in and frustrate the other teams stars. If anyone looked at Michael Jordan cross-eyed, they would get thrown out of the game. ;)

SiouxFallsJack

May 12th, 2005, 08:55 PM

Using the Lakers '89 is not a fair comparison. Like Gil Dobie said, Kareem was 89 in '89. Also if I remember correctly, the Lakers had no guards in the series against the Pistons, both Magic and Byron Scott were injured and did not play very much, leaving only Cooper as the only quality guard.

I will concede that the Bulls '96 would probably have beaten the Lakers. The will and determination of Jordan and coach Jackson would refuse to let the Bulls lose to any team. But the Lakers, in their prime would win the other five matchups.