re: 2014 Spurs v 1996 Bulls

By this playoff logic the '99 Spurs are one of the greats then...

3-1 over Minnesota
4-0 over LA
4-0 over Portland
4-1 over NY

First of all, when did this become a Spurs vs. Celtics discussion? I thought we were comparing the 14 Spurs to the 96 Bulls?

quote:

---

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.

---

I'll never denigrate the greatness of Bird/McHale/Parish. The original big 3

Only one other trio in the history of the league has notched more playoff victories: the Spurs' Duncan/Parker/Ginobili

Also regarding your NBA 50 Greatest Players list: that was compiled before this current trio's time.

quote:

---

they had the Sixth Man of the Year in Bill Walton

---

Another legend, to be sure.

Keep in mind, though, that Ginobili has revolutionized the modern idea of the 6th man role

quote:

---

You talk about the Spurs bench and depth and chemisty?

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

---

The 14 Spurs notched the best record in a ridiculously tough Western Conference while not having a single player average over 30 minutes per game.

Neither fact diminishes the efficacy and efficiency of either bench.

quote:

---

Talk about passing?

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

---

Terrific passers.

Ginobili and Parker can flat out sling the rock, as well. Not to mention the Spurs have some of the most scintillating passing bigs in the game in Diaw, Splitter, and Duncan.

quote:

---

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

---

Dallas has a coach considered by some to be the best in the game right now besides Pop. Not to mention the SA/DAL series is a hotly contested rivalry. It'd be different if they struggled against the Bobcats, instead of a 49 win division rival with nothing but hate and nothing to lose.

quote:

---

and only shined against an over-rated South Beach team

---

Not sure where this is coming from.

They ran Portland out of the gym.

Three of the 4 wins against OKC were blowouts.

And they posted the highest point differential in Finals wins since the 60s.

Take whichever squad suits your fancy (again, don't remember why the Celtics were even brought up in this thread). But I'd put last year's Spurs up against any of the all time great NBA teams and am confident that they'd more than hold their own.

quote:

---

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

---

I definitely agree with that. I just didn't think Portland had as good of a shot against the Spurs as the Rockets. I know OKC and Houston beat the Spurs 4-0, but I thought that the Spurs would have had a harder time beating the Rockets, and that would have made the OKC series even more difficult. A gentleman's sweep gave the Spurs some nice rest.

quote:

---

Sonics and Heat is close...but it's funny how the Heat were being compared to the great dynasties and then had their arse kicked, and all of a sudden they suck. Reminds me of '05 USC before Texas beat them in the Rose Bowl.

---

I understand the comparison for most people, but I don't think anybody was dogging USC before that National Championship, plus they hadn't lost in 34 straight games. I just thought the Heat were an overrated team heading into that finals because they played in the East, and had gotten worse at every single position than they were year before other than Lebron who was probably equally as good. The Spurs had a much improved bench and their player development last year was great. It was comical to me watching so many people pick the Heat to beat the Spurs team they had almost lost to the year before. Except for the Spurs were better, the Heat were worse, and the Spurs had home court in the new 2-2-1-1-1 format. That Spurs team was one of the best I've seen, I just don't think the Heat were as good as advertised and it makes it harder for me to think the Spurs could beat the Bulls. I sure wish time travel existed and we could see that series though.

I will go with the 1996 Bulls. MJ was unreal and they just had a mode they were in, Plus the Spurs were really motivated to the Heat. Matchup nightmares for the Spurs. imo.

quote:

---

I just didn't think Portland had as good of a shot against the Spurs as the Rockets. I know OKC and Houston beat the Spurs 4-0, but I thought that the Spurs would have had a harder time beating the Rockets, and that would have made the OKC series even more difficult. A gentleman's sweep gave the Spurs some nice rest.

---

Truth be told (and my posts from that juncture of the playoffs bear this out), I didn't like either matchup for SA I think Portland had the best cumulative record against SA of any team outside of OKC the past 3 or 4 years iirc. Lillard/Aldridge/Mo Williams play out of their minds against us.

quote:

---

no, youtube clips isn't the same as living through the games.

---

DELUSIONISTS, WHEN WILL THEY EVER LEARN

quote:

---

'96 Bulls wouldn't lose to anyone,Jordan at his absolute best just wouldn't allow it to happen.

---

This is bullshite fueled by nostalgia.

quote:

---

Having two wings the caliber of Jordan and Pippen would've been impossible for the spurs to stop

---

The Spurs wouldn't have to stop them.

Just slow them down with solid team defense.

quote:

---

Those Bulls were also an infinitely better defensive team than the heat this year

---

And these Spurs were an infinitely better offensive team than any team the Bulls faced.

quote:

---

This is bullshite fueled by nostalgia.

---

no way man, todays players could never compete with the raw athleticism of this:
Look At The Ups Of These NBA Players (0:10)

quote:

---

A common response anytime someone says the older team

---

Honestly I take more issue with "no way [insert name] would allow his team to lose." And i've more than given the older teams their due.

quote:

---

I just think the matchups would be a nightmare for the spurs

---

The Spurs have been beating nightmare matchups for years.

quote:

---

I just don't think a team that got pushed that hard by the mavs

---

The mavs would have been a top 4 seed in the East, we're a rival, and have one of the best coaches in the game.

Not some typical scrub 8 seed, I don't care what you say.

quote:

---

Only guy I've ever said this about is Jordan because the only other person to do that in any sport is Tiger Woods.
Both these guys just decided they weren't gonna lose and nobody could do anything about it

---

I think that undermines the teams they were on. That discredits Steve Kerr and Ray Allen, Shane Battier, etc. Just my personal opinion, though.

quote:

---

I just think those Bulls don't lose to many teams that have ever existed

---

And as a fan of basketball, of course I respect the Bulls and all the other all time great squads in NBA history.

But also as a basketball fan, my eyes didn't lie about being one of the better squads the NBA has witnessed. I'm not slighting the Bulls by saying the Spurs could hang with/beat them. I think the winner would win in no less than 6 either way.

People that say definitively that either team would win in less or going away are underestimating the losing squad in their scenario.