You have the 2003 Pistons ahead of every Bulls dynasty team?????? They won 54 games... Struggled to beat a New Jersey team And lost two games to a Pacers team that didn't compare to Reggies Pacers... I can't respect that list Rail sorry... doesn't make sense
And you have a team on the list that didn't even win the Finals... I don't care how you lost... But how can you be on the top 10 teams of all time list and not win the Title?
True, Hakeem was still in the NBA, but the Rockets starting 5 only played together 21 games in 1996; they were hurt bad by injuries.
Seattle had their best ever season record wise in 1996, when they went 64-18. It took the Bulls 6 games to beat them. Gary Payton will probably be the only Hall-of-Famer on that team. Contrast that with the best record the Magic-Kareem Lakers everhad, 65-17, in 1987. That team came with Hall-of-Famers Magic, Kareem, and Worthy, and they beat the Celtics with at least 4 future HoF's on that team in 6. Kareem claims that wasn't even the best Laker team he played on.
I'm not trying to piss on anyone's opinion, but if that '96 Bull team went back in time 10 years and had to play Bird's 1986 Celtic team, Dr. J's '86 Sixer team, Isiah's Pistons, the Hawks, the Lakers and the Twin Tower era Rockets, there is no way they get 72 wins.
How many teams fro the Bulls dominant era make the top 10? Just the Bulls. With the Lakers, Celticas, Pistons, and 76ers ,making the list from the80's it should be easy to see that if Magic's Lakers were playing in the 90's they probably would have sweeped the decade. The Bulls Lakers series was an over the hill Lakers team. Thjey should not have even been there that was the Blazers series.At least switch #1 and #2 in my opinion.
Royal , you know I love you buddy ... But if the Spurs are so good , how come they havent won Championships back 2 back , they won in 99 in a strike shortened season against the 8th seeded Knicks , they won in 03' against the mediocre Nets , and they barely beat Detroit in 7 in 2005. If they are as good as you say , they should be a dynasty which means at least back 2 back titles ... and for the most part the nucleus and catylsyt of the team has been the same ...for 03 and 05 ... How come they havent ripped off 3 in a row like Lakers did , or the Bulls before them .. teams I consider the most recent dynasties ... Spurs are a very good team , but the shit your talking you would think they have won the last 4 titles easilly. And that is not the case ... as soon as Shaq left LA , they put their stamp on the West .. , in 99' they did sweep LA , but then was their chance to start the dominating dynasty , and they didnt ... they won in a fugazi season then watched LA win 3 straight after The Admiral retired. If they are as good as you say and think , they would have been in the finals at least one year inbetween the Lakers 3 peat.
The Supersonics didn't take them to six really if you read what it says... If you read it you would agree... they went up 3-0 quickly and they said they were bored with winning haha...
Also so just because Kemp got fat they get discarded... Kemp was as good as any forward in the league that
Kemp was a great player not just a good one that year... A great one... a guy that if he could have been consistent and not gotten fat he would have been a hall of famer... He was 6'10 but could play the wing... he was a freak... So I don't like the hall of fame argument...
No team beat Jordan's Bulls so obviously they aren't on the list
If Jordan's Bulls don't exist... Then I would guess that The Jazz may have made the list because they were great... and although the Rockets didn't really play great... I feel the league would have been different w/o the BUlls and they possibly make the list.
I don't really the "bored" line, since it didn't happen in the regular season but it did in the finals...
I agree about Kemp, but the fact remains that that Sonic team did win 64 games in 1996, while the best record a Magic Johnson team ever posted was 65 wins, and Bird's Celtics best was 67. There is no way that Sonic team is anywhere near as good as those 2 teams were, despite the total number of wins, which appears th be one of the main arguments that the article is trying to make about the 1996 Bull team.
Take nothing away from them but the Bulls were very fortunate to get lucky in a weaker NBA time frame. Everything is relevant. Playing Utah in the finals is not quite the lakers or Celts. You can argue that when the Celts and Lakers were in their hey day there were 3-5 teams better than Utah and Phoenix (certainly three teams). Very hard to compare. This is fun but impossible to determine. I would take the Celts and lakers at the top and for 1 year 83 Phili too.
I am not talking about dynasties or when the admiral was there and when Shaq was here or there or whatever the case might be. I am just saying that there is no doubt in my mind that THIS Spur team playing here and now would beat all of those teams on the list. Now what I am not saying, is that they are more superior to the rest of the teams in the league now, compared to those teams then. It is just that the game is so much more athletic and better back then and this team is built perfectly. They have every piece you need.
I think the Lakers in 2002 were pretty devastating - with Shaq and Kobe - they belong on the list.
I would also like to see some of those Bulls teams play this current SA team - I would love to see Bowen and the team try to d-up Jordan like they did James last night - just swarm him - and they would have major troubles stopping Parker, Manu and TD at the rim just like nearly every team does which opens the three ball - I am not saying the Spurs would win but at some point the league got a little more defensive.
Also, it would be nice if the Bulls consistently had to play some real TEAMS during the Jordan era - it got old hearing about the big match up of Jordan and former grocery bagger John Starks and how 5-11 John Stockton and Karl Malone were a great TEAM - not knocking Jordan - you play whose in front of you - just like SA is having a cake walk this year - Denver was a tough matchup for a first round game but they were not beating SA with it's current lack of shooting - the Suns are tough but the suspensions hurt them (and SA is simply tougher) - but that's it - the Jazz and Cavs have as much chance of beating SA as I do of knocking Quinton Jackson out.
I would also like to see some of those Bulls teams play this current SA team - I would love to see Bowen and the team try to d-up Jordan like they did James last night - just swarm him - and they would have major troubles stopping Parker, Manu and TD at the rim just like nearly every team does which opens the three ball - I am not saying the Spurs would win but at some point the league got a little more defensive.
Also, it would be nice if the Bulls consistently had to play some real TEAMS during the Jordan era - it got old hearing about the big match up of Jordan and former grocery bagger John Starks and how 5-11 John Stockton and Karl Malone were a great TEAM - not knocking Jordan - you play whose in front of you - just like SA is having a cake walk this year - Denver was a tough matchup for a first round game but they were not beating SA with it's current lack of shooting - the Suns are tough but the suspensions hurt them (and SA is simply tougher) - but that's it - the Jazz and Cavs have as much chance of beating SA as I do of knocking Quinton Jackson out.
The Bulls would have a hard time stopping those guys?
The Bulls had two of the greatest defenders of all time. Bowen isn't even in Pippen's league as a defender and is about as good as Jordan when he d'ed up... Harper was almost as good as Bowen on the defensive end. And TD would struggle with Rodman no doubt.
Jordan wouldn't struggled getting d'ed up and they couldn't swarm at Jordan. Jordan could kick it to the best three point shooter the game has ever seen, or one of the 50 greatest players the game ever saw Kerr and Pippen. That is what made the team so dominant. The Bulls would beat this SA team just like it beat all the other teams.
