re: 2014 Spurs v 1996 Bulls

'96 Bulls > '14 Spurs

Why? Jordan.

But really, they had a unique offense ran by one of the all time greats. Both are great teams, but the Bulls for me had a real nice bench that consisted of multiple role players who could come in and do damage. They had 3pt. specialists, rebounders, all-defensive players.

No team was funner to watch than the Bulls because you knew they were going to pull off the W (and the numbers don't lie). They've never lost a finals series.

quote:

---

They've never lost a finals series

---

What does this have to do with the thread?

The better overall team is the Bulls, but if San Antonio plays the way they did in the Finals this year, no team in history is beating them. Plain and simple.

The way they shot was incredible. Most of those shots were well defended, yet they were all finding the bottom of the net.

quote:

---

Spurs. The nba is better and more athletic today than back then

---

Racist

quote:

---

96 Bulls > '14 Spurs

Why? Jordan.

---

bullshite reason.

quote:

---

really, they had a unique offense ran by one of the all time greats. Both are great teams, but the Bulls for me had a real nice bench that consisted of multiple role players who could come in and do damage. They had 3pt. specialists, rebounders, all-defensive players.

---

The Spurs are literally the gold standard for bench effectiveness and production.

quote:

---

No team was funner to watch than the Bulls

---

Search for the Spurs' "beautiful game" vids on YouTube and get back to me.

quote:

---

They've never lost a finals series.

---

Irrelevant.

But since you went there, it's not like SA made a habit of losing in the Finals. Of the six they've played in, their only blemish was one of the most improbable losses of all time.

quote:

---

who would guard Jordan AND Pippen no one.

---

Spurs play team defense, not necessarily 1v1 matchups.

Jordan would get his. Pippin would get his, and you'd look up midway through the 4th quarter and it'd be a 4 point game with SA bringing the fresher legs due to superior depth.

A series between the two goes 6 or 7 every time.

Yeah because the 95-96 Seattle Supersonics and the boards own beloved Shaquille O'Neal's Orlando Magic were all cakewalks that season


96-96 Bulls would beat that arse

Comparing teams across eras is always a borderline ridiculous exercise.

But it's fair to say that neither team would finish off the other in less than 6 games.

I will say this: the 14 Spurs are deeper and shot better in the Finals than any squad the Bulls ever saw.

As great as Chicago was, they never destroyed an opponent in the Finals the way SA just did. No one has since before their time.

And despite all that, the Bulls may still have won. Who's to say?

But if you just say bulls win because of Jordan/Pippen, that won't work. SA has left a trail of world class duos and trios in their wake over the past 15 years. Jordan was transcendent but not superhuman. Pop would definitely have made him and the Bulls earn every inch, just like SA has done to other more talented opponents over the years.

quote:

---

I do feel like the Spurs were lucky to escape without playing the Rockets in the playoffs because they were a match up nightmare for this Spurs team.

---

I don't buy this. Yeah the Rockets swept us 4-0 during the season, but so did OKC. Also, the trailblazers were a nightmare matchup for SA until they ran into the playoff Spurs. Many teams talk about flipping a switch, but few do it better from regular season to postseason as well as SA.

Houston with all their defensive liabilities would have been dead in the water against SA's ball movement IMO.

ETA: I agree with your other points though. The East the Bulls went through was tougher than the East the Heat have gone through.

Both iterations of the East are/were inferior to the current West, though, IMO.

You can't compare generations...and no, youtube clips isn't the same as living through the games.

So enough of this - I watched an old clip bullshite.

You can only go by what they did to their peers.

'86 Celtics - Bird, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish were all in their primes, and they were all named to the NBAs 50 Greatest Players list. They trio combined for 63.2 points, 27.4 rebounds and 4.0 blocks per game on 53.2 percent shooting.

And, they had the Sixth Man of the Year in Bill Walton, who averaged 14.1 points, 12.7 rebounds and 2.5 blocks per 36 minutes on 56.2 percent shooting.

You talk about the Spurs bench and depth and chemisty?

The Celtics had four guys average over 15 points per game.

McHale averaged 21.3 ppg and 8.1 rpg, Parish had 16.1 ppg and a 9.1 ppg, and Johnson (15.6) and Ainge (10.1) also scored in double figures. Wedman contributed 8.0 ppg off the bench, and Walton played in a career-high 80 games and averaged 7.6 ppg and 6.8 rpg. Boston led the league in rebounding with 46.4 rpg, nearly five per game more than its opponents.

And the Celtics were virtually unbeatable at home, losing only a game in December to Portland en route to a league-record 40-1 home mark (they would also win all 10 home playoff games).

Talk about passing?

Uh...Larry Bird, Larry Bird, Larry Bird...oh, and McHale and DJ and Walton.

Record: 67-15 (.817)

Playoffs:

1. 3-0
2. 4-1
3. 4-0

Finals: 4-2

So, yeah...I'm not taking a team that struggled to get out of the 1st round...and only shined against an over-rated South Beach team - that gets way too much love only because of LeBron.