96-98 Chicago Bulls Appreciation Thread

[M Dogg™]

lol you tryin too hard now brobro.....look, i see what u doin, and thats ok. just know that i'm hip to your bullshit, and we good. but yea, i'll say it one more time...aint no one fuckin wit that 80s laker team. and ill take it one step further, 80s pistons and celtics too would shit on the 90s bulls. and if u want me to take it even another step further, 90s bulls never even faced a team as tough as the 2008-2011 celtics in the finals....so yea, this shit is goin in circles now, but i guarantee that if u started a poll of 80s lakers vs 90s bulls on any laker forum, it'd be overwhelming in the showtime lakers favor......just sad that u on the other side, but i'll let u do u tho.

Trying too hard. I basically outlined what would happen. I watched a lot of Lakers and Bulls back then. I took their stats, and put that into what would happen in the game.

answer why the bulls had to win in 6 against the jazz and sonics, on a last second shot by jordan...........and these jazz and sonic teams would undeniably get swept by the 80s lakers. it's just sad that u call urself a laker fan and argue for the other side so vigorously... and this is not something new to u, it's something uv been known for........................all i can do is shake my head and say DAMN. because u know ANYONE within the laker organization or on that showtime team would say "we'd have our way with the 90s bulls"...but u aint part of that team, not even in spirit. ur on the other side, speakin against ur own. it just shows u dont ride or die with the p&g........now, if it was some obvious shit, like 90s bulls vs 90s lakers, then by all means, argue for the bulls....but this is a hypothetical that i would expect laker fans to see from a laker perspective.....but no, not fairweather mdogg.


showtime lakers woulda ran the bulls off the court......they never faced an offense that potent. not even close. and when they faced teams that werent half as good, like the jazz and sonics, they had trouble puttin em out. AGAIN, it's not even close, really.

You do remember the Bulls were up 3-0 on the Supersonics right? They lost the next two games just so they can win at home. Everyone at the time even said so. That was the talk of the sports world, were the Bulls losing on purpose to beat the Sonics at home. The Jazz were a little harder to beat, because they were a much better team. They won their first two at home, after falling behind 2-0. But it's hard winning 3 in a row at home, and the Bulls got them and then beat them at home. But I'm comparing just the 1996 Bulls, the ones that were up 3-0 on the Sonics.

As for my fandom. I use to think like that too. I use to think I had to have Magic #1 on all my list. Showtime was the greatest dynasty ever and the 1987 Lakers are the best team ever. But man, I'm older, I see things clearer now and I can be honest with myself. It's damn near impossible to win 72 games in a year, just like it's impossible to win 33 games in a row, especially traveling on a bus. The 33 games in a row could be broken now because teams travel by jets and players are rested by they time they get to an arena, there is talks of getting rid of back to back games. But in 1971-1972, winning 33 games in a row as next to impossible. It wasn't like the ABA was at it's heights yet, the best still played in the NBA, and to win 33 games in the NBA might be the greatest feat ever, even if I think the 1971-1972 Lakers couldn't even beat he 1968-1969 Lakers.

So I have allowed myself to be honest about the history of the game and see the NBA without my Forum Blue shades. And I see a 72 win team that I hated, and I can appreciate what they did and then I can see how they did it. I can see LeBron for what he was the last 5 years, and know that he had a great 5 year run. It's over now, thank God, but it was impressive. And you spent those last 5 years hating the man just because you wanted Kobe to be better. But just look up and see the most physically gifted star in NBA history, then look at his decline before our very eyes, because this is the test to see if he's an all time great. I don't think he is, but it's interesting to see.

So yeah, you may not like it, and all these Laker fans who only remember Kobe being a Laker may not like it. But I don't care. I've been following the Lakers literally since these kids were shitting diapers. I let myself enjoy the game of basketball, I root for my team and I only wish that in the next few years the Lakers will pass the Celtics all time NBA titles number. Jordan can have best player of all time, the 1996 can have best team, but it's unacceptable that the Celtics have most NBA titles. That's were I draw the line.

[M Dogg™]

NIK clearly forgot about how great Karl Malone, Shawn Kemp, Gary Payton and the great John Stockton all were.

what would happen in a series of the 80s celtics vs the 90s jazz??

1984 Boston Celtics beat the 1998 Utah Jazz

[Sccit]

lol you tryin too hard now brobro.....look, i see what u doin, and thats ok. just know that i'm hip to your bullshit, and we good. but yea, i'll say it one more time...aint no one fuckin wit that 80s laker team. and ill take it one step further, 80s pistons and celtics too would shit on the 90s bulls. and if u want me to take it even another step further, 90s bulls never even faced a team as tough as the 2008-2011 celtics in the finals....so yea, this shit is goin in circles now, but i guarantee that if u started a poll of 80s lakers vs 90s bulls on any laker forum, it'd be overwhelming in the showtime lakers favor......just sad that u on the other side, but i'll let u do u tho.

Trying too hard. I basically outlined what would happen. I watched a lot of Lakers and Bulls back then. I took their stats, and put that into what would happen in the game.

answer why the bulls had to win in 6 against the jazz and sonics, on a last second shot by jordan...........and these jazz and sonic teams would undeniably get swept by the 80s lakers. it's just sad that u call urself a laker fan and argue for the other side so vigorously... and this is not something new to u, it's something uv been known for........................all i can do is shake my head and say DAMN. because u know ANYONE within the laker organization or on that showtime team would say "we'd have our way with the 90s bulls"...but u aint part of that team, not even in spirit. ur on the other side, speakin against ur own. it just shows u dont ride or die with the p&g........now, if it was some obvious shit, like 90s bulls vs 90s lakers, then by all means, argue for the bulls....but this is a hypothetical that i would expect laker fans to see from a laker perspective.....but no, not fairweather mdogg.


showtime lakers woulda ran the bulls off the court......they never faced an offense that potent. not even close. and when they faced teams that werent half as good, like the jazz and sonics, they had trouble puttin em out. AGAIN, it's not even close, really.

You do remember the Bulls were up 3-0 on the Supersonics right? They lost the next two games just so they can win at home. Everyone at the time even said so. That was the talk of the sports world, were the Bulls losing on purpose to beat the Sonics at home. The Jazz were a little harder to beat, because they were a much better team. They won their first two at home, after falling behind 2-0. But it's hard winning 3 in a row at home, and the Bulls got them and then beat them at home. But I'm comparing just the 1996 Bulls, the ones that were up 3-0 on the Sonics.

As for my fandom. I use to think like that too. I use to think I had to have Magic #1 on all my list. Showtime was the greatest dynasty ever and the 1987 Lakers are the best team ever. But man, I'm older, I see things clearer now and I can be honest with myself. It's damn near impossible to win 72 games in a year, just like it's impossible to win 33 games in a row, especially traveling on a bus. The 33 games in a row could be broken now because teams travel by jets and players are rested by they time they get to an arena, there is talks of getting rid of back to back games. But in 1971-1972, winning 33 games in a row as next to impossible. It wasn't like the ABA was at it's heights yet, the best still played in the NBA, and to win 33 games in the NBA might be the greatest feat ever, even if I think the 1971-1972 Lakers couldn't even beat he 1968-1969 Lakers.

So I have allowed myself to be honest about the history of the game and see the NBA without my Forum Blue shades. And I see a 72 win team that I hated, and I can appreciate what they did and then I can see how they did it. I can see LeBron for what he was the last 5 years, and know that he had a great 5 year run. It's over now, thank God, but it was impressive. And you spent those last 5 years hating the man just because you wanted Kobe to be better. But just look up and see the most physically gifted star in NBA history, then look at his decline before our very eyes, because this is the test to see if he's an all time great. I don't think he is, but it's interesting to see.

So yeah, you may not like it, and all these Laker fans who only remember Kobe being a Laker may not like it. But I don't care. I've been following the Lakers literally since these kids were shitting diapers. I let myself enjoy the game of basketball, I root for my team and I only wish that in the next few years the Lakers will pass the Celtics all time NBA titles number. Jordan can have best player of all time, the 1996 can have best team, but it's unacceptable that the Celtics have most NBA titles. That's were I draw the line.

lol they lost on purpose so they can win at home......thats a good one, but not cuttin it. and when it comes to 80s lakers vs 90s bulls, it's not about bein honest....because well never truly know what the outcome woulda been. but to argue FOR the bulls when it goes against conventional wisdom is just a bad look. chick hearn is rollin in his grave right now, do u understand that? it would be one thing if claimin 80s lakers>90s bulls was illogical.....but it's far from, and when ur a fan of one team, thats the one you're supposed to BELIEVE in.......but i guess we simply have 2 different perspectives. like i said, i'll let u do u.....but man, dont let other laker fans hear u.

[M Dogg™]

lol you tryin too hard now brobro.....look, i see what u doin, and thats ok. just know that i'm hip to your bullshit, and we good. but yea, i'll say it one more time...aint no one fuckin wit that 80s laker team. and ill take it one step further, 80s pistons and celtics too would shit on the 90s bulls. and if u want me to take it even another step further, 90s bulls never even faced a team as tough as the 2008-2011 celtics in the finals....so yea, this shit is goin in circles now, but i guarantee that if u started a poll of 80s lakers vs 90s bulls on any laker forum, it'd be overwhelming in the showtime lakers favor......just sad that u on the other side, but i'll let u do u tho.

Trying too hard. I basically outlined what would happen. I watched a lot of Lakers and Bulls back then. I took their stats, and put that into what would happen in the game.

answer why the bulls had to win in 6 against the jazz and sonics, on a last second shot by jordan...........and these jazz and sonic teams would undeniably get swept by the 80s lakers. it's just sad that u call urself a laker fan and argue for the other side so vigorously... and this is not something new to u, it's something uv been known for........................all i can do is shake my head and say DAMN. because u know ANYONE within the laker organization or on that showtime team would say "we'd have our way with the 90s bulls"...but u aint part of that team, not even in spirit. ur on the other side, speakin against ur own. it just shows u dont ride or die with the p&g........now, if it was some obvious shit, like 90s bulls vs 90s lakers, then by all means, argue for the bulls....but this is a hypothetical that i would expect laker fans to see from a laker perspective.....but no, not fairweather mdogg.


showtime lakers woulda ran the bulls off the court......they never faced an offense that potent. not even close. and when they faced teams that werent half as good, like the jazz and sonics, they had trouble puttin em out. AGAIN, it's not even close, really.

You do remember the Bulls were up 3-0 on the Supersonics right? They lost the next two games just so they can win at home. Everyone at the time even said so. That was the talk of the sports world, were the Bulls losing on purpose to beat the Sonics at home. The Jazz were a little harder to beat, because they were a much better team. They won their first two at home, after falling behind 2-0. But it's hard winning 3 in a row at home, and the Bulls got them and then beat them at home. But I'm comparing just the 1996 Bulls, the ones that were up 3-0 on the Sonics.

As for my fandom. I use to think like that too. I use to think I had to have Magic #1 on all my list. Showtime was the greatest dynasty ever and the 1987 Lakers are the best team ever. But man, I'm older, I see things clearer now and I can be honest with myself. It's damn near impossible to win 72 games in a year, just like it's impossible to win 33 games in a row, especially traveling on a bus. The 33 games in a row could be broken now because teams travel by jets and players are rested by they time they get to an arena, there is talks of getting rid of back to back games. But in 1971-1972, winning 33 games in a row as next to impossible. It wasn't like the ABA was at it's heights yet, the best still played in the NBA, and to win 33 games in the NBA might be the greatest feat ever, even if I think the 1971-1972 Lakers couldn't even beat he 1968-1969 Lakers.

So I have allowed myself to be honest about the history of the game and see the NBA without my Forum Blue shades. And I see a 72 win team that I hated, and I can appreciate what they did and then I can see how they did it. I can see LeBron for what he was the last 5 years, and know that he had a great 5 year run. It's over now, thank God, but it was impressive. And you spent those last 5 years hating the man just because you wanted Kobe to be better. But just look up and see the most physically gifted star in NBA history, then look at his decline before our very eyes, because this is the test to see if he's an all time great. I don't think he is, but it's interesting to see.

So yeah, you may not like it, and all these Laker fans who only remember Kobe being a Laker may not like it. But I don't care. I've been following the Lakers literally since these kids were shitting diapers. I let myself enjoy the game of basketball, I root for my team and I only wish that in the next few years the Lakers will pass the Celtics all time NBA titles number. Jordan can have best player of all time, the 1996 can have best team, but it's unacceptable that the Celtics have most NBA titles. That's were I draw the line.

lol they lost on purpose so they can win at home......thats a good one, but not cuttin it. and when it comes to 80s lakers vs 90s bulls, it's not about bein honest....because well never truly know what the outcome woulda been. but to argue FOR the bulls when it goes against conventional wisdom is just a bad look. chick hearn is rollin in his grave right now, do u understand that? it would be one thing if claimin 80s lakers>90s bulls was illogical.....but it's far from, and when ur a fan of one team, thats the one you're supposed to BELIEVE in.......but i guess we simply have 2 different perspectives. like i said, i'll let u do u.....but man, dont let other laker fans hear u.

After they lost game 4, that's what everyone said. They said, watch them lose game 5 so they can win at home. I'm sure they would have loved to sweep. But if you can't sweep, then get it at home. And if they had swept the Sonics and won game 4, they would have went 15-1 in the playoffs, tied with the 2001 Lakers for the best playoff record is history. So let's not act like they struggled against the Sonics. I watched the whole series at the time, and it looked like they just played with them.

[Sccit]

that 15-1 is a whole nother story....80s lakers > 00s lakers > 90s bulls


but yea, no one risks a ring by losing on purpose in the finals LOL...even u know that

[M Dogg™]

that 15-1 is a whole nother story....80s lakers > 00s lakers > 90s bulls


but yea, no one risks a ring by losing on purpose in the finals LOL...even u know that

If you saw, and I did and I was rooting for the Sonics. Those boys played with the Sonics. It wasn't even close dude. You make it sound like the Bulls were in trouble at all.

[Sccit]

that 15-1 is a whole nother story....80s lakers > 00s lakers > 90s bulls


but yea, no one risks a ring by losing on purpose in the finals LOL...even u know that

If you saw, and I did and I was rooting for the Sonics. Those boys played with the Sonics. It wasn't even close dude. You make it sound like the Bulls were in trouble at all.

again, no team loses games on purpose, especially not in the finals ... what if MJ falls with an injury after losing 2 straight?? that's not a risk ANY team would be willing to take when it's all on the line LOL

[M Dogg™]

that 15-1 is a whole nother story....80s lakers > 00s lakers > 90s bulls


but yea, no one risks a ring by losing on purpose in the finals LOL...even u know that

If you saw, and I did and I was rooting for the Sonics. Those boys played with the Sonics. It wasn't even close dude. You make it sound like the Bulls were in trouble at all.

again, no team loses games on purpose, especially not in the finals ... what if MJ falls with an injury after losing 2 straight?? that's not a risk ANY team would be willing to take when it's all on the line LOL

Well that was the conversation that was going on before game 5. I remember it clearly. No one thought the Bulls were in trouble at all, being up 3-0, then losing a game. Maybe the Bulls didn't try to lose on purpose, but that game 5, they looked lazy and uninspired. Many before the game said they'd lose, and then after the game it was questioned if they lost on purpose so they can win at home. They looked like they tried to win game 4, but they lost. They were up 3-0, so again, they were never in trouble. It's just how it was then. And for losing one game, you want to discredit the whole accomplishment. They ran the gauntlet. Were as Showtime beat a bunch of under .500 teams and were fresh to beat the Celtics in 6, the Celtics who ran the gauntlet. If the Showtime Lakers were led by LeBron and called the Heat, you'd discredit them. Maybe after winning 14 out of 15 games, the Bulls just were flat for a couple of games, they did win 86 out of 97 games. But I know then, people just wrote it off as the Bulls losing in Seattle so they can win in Chicago. But not a single person thought the Bulls were in trouble at all at the time. Except I guess for 9 year old Sccit.

[M Dogg™]

Interesting point I saw on this. I did mention Shaq, but the Bulls went through many centers in the playoffs. Maybe the trick is a lack of center to beat the '96 Bulls, or at least go 6 or 7 games with them.:



Kareem would cause the Bulls problems, no doubt about it, but he wasn't the juggernaut he was a few years before. He was 39 years old and 'only' a 17/7 guy at that stage of his career.

Magic would be definitely shared between Michael, Harper and Pippen, with Pippen playing against him the most.

Bulls never played the rockets in the playoffs, so you can't really say how they would go against Hakeem.

Just for note in 1996 the Bulls beat teams on the way to the Championship with the following centers -

First round - Miami Heat - Alonzo Morning (a 22/10 guy during that regular season)
Second Round - New York Knicks - Patrick Ewing (a 22/11 guy during the regular season)
Third Round - Orlando - Shaq (a 27/11 guy during the regular season)
Finals - no real center

That's 3 very good centers. You could argue that all 3 were better than Kareem at that stage of their careers (only looking at the relevant season we are talking about, not over their whole career!). None of the centers dominated the series against the bulls and all scored around their season average during the playoff series against the Bulls (Alonzo - 18ppg, Pat - 23ppg and Shaq - 27ppg)

[Sccit]

that 15-1 is a whole nother story....80s lakers > 00s lakers > 90s bulls


but yea, no one risks a ring by losing on purpose in the finals LOL...even u know that

If you saw, and I did and I was rooting for the Sonics. Those boys played with the Sonics. It wasn't even close dude. You make it sound like the Bulls were in trouble at all.

again, no team loses games on purpose, especially not in the finals ... what if MJ falls with an injury after losing 2 straight?? that's not a risk ANY team would be willing to take when it's all on the line LOL

Well that was the conversation that was going on before game 5. I remember it clearly. No one thought the Bulls were in trouble at all, being up 3-0, then losing a game. Maybe the Bulls didn't try to lose on purpose, but that game 5, they looked lazy and uninspired. Many before the game said they'd lose, and then after the game it was questioned if they lost on purpose so they can win at home. They looked like they tried to win game 4, but they lost. They were up 3-0, so again, they were never in trouble. It's just how it was then. And for losing one game, you want to discredit the whole accomplishment. They ran the gauntlet. Were as Showtime beat a bunch of under .500 teams and were fresh to beat the Celtics in 6, the Celtics who ran the gauntlet. If the Showtime Lakers were led by LeBron and called the Heat, you'd discredit them. Maybe after winning 14 out of 15 games, the Bulls just were flat for a couple of games, they did win 86 out of 97 games. But I know then, people just wrote it off as the Bulls losing in Seattle so they can win in Chicago. But not a single person thought the Bulls were in trouble at all at the time. Except I guess for 9 year old Sccit.

lol wtf ....if the showtime lakers were led by lebron THEN THEY WOULDNT BE THE SHOWTIME LAKERS. u say some weird shit bruh. and i dont give a fuck what people speculate....mufuckaz say a ganga shit. but only an idiot would believe that teams purposely lose games in the finals. and you're not an idiot, so i know u dont truly believe that....really tho, i never said anything about whether or not the bulls looked like they were guna lose the series, so now u just puttin extras on it. i said they had their battles in the finals...it's not like the lakers vs nets in 2002 where it was just pure coasting....and this goes especially for the bulls vs jazz series'. so taking into account that the bulls had to fight to beat the jazz, you can see why one would say showtime lakers are easily better. because it's hard to imagine the showtime lakers losing even one game to the 90s utah or 90s sonics.

[Sccit]

Interesting point I saw on this. I did mention Shaq, but the Bulls went through many centers in the playoffs. Maybe the trick is a lack of center to beat the '96 Bulls, or at least go 6 or 7 games with them.:



Kareem would cause the Bulls problems, no doubt about it, but he wasn't the juggernaut he was a few years before. He was 39 years old and 'only' a 17/7 guy at that stage of his career.

Magic would be definitely shared between Michael, Harper and Pippen, with Pippen playing against him the most.

Bulls never played the rockets in the playoffs, so you can't really say how they would go against Hakeem.

Just for note in 1996 the Bulls beat teams on the way to the Championship with the following centers -

First round - Miami Heat - Alonzo Morning (a 22/10 guy during that regular season)
Second Round - New York Knicks - Patrick Ewing (a 22/11 guy during the regular season)
Third Round - Orlando - Shaq (a 27/11 guy during the regular season)
Finals - no real center

That's 3 very good centers. You could argue that all 3 were better than Kareem at that stage of their careers (only looking at the relevant season we are talking about, not over their whole career!). None of the centers dominated the series against the bulls and all scored around their season average during the playoff series against the Bulls (Alonzo - 18ppg, Pat - 23ppg and Shaq - 27ppg)

those are all second rate centers....alonzo, patrick, and shaq before he hit his prime. furthermore, those centers carried the bulk of their teams load on their shoulders. theyre not playing alongside magic johnson, james worthy, byron scott, bob mcadoo, jamaal wilkes, ac green, michael cooper, kurt rambis, etc....cmon, now.

[Hack Wilson - real]

is NIK arguing the Shaq-Kobe lakers over Jordan/s Bulls or the Kobe/Gasol Lakers?



i can understand someone arguing the Shaq/Kobe lakers over the Bulls because Shaq was the best center on the planet and Kobe was good enough to at least make Jordan compete lol

[Sccit]

is NIK arguing the Shaq-Kobe lakers over Jordan/s Bulls or the Kobe/Gasol Lakers?



i can understand someone arguing the Shaq/Kobe lakers over the Bulls because Shaq was the best center on the planet and Kobe was good enough to at least make Jordan compete lol

no, the 09/10 lakers dont belong in the discussion. kobe took a solid team that wouldnt have even made the playoffs without him to consecutive titles. no one has won with less, besides maybe hakeem.

but yea, the 80s lakers > early 2000s lakers > 90s bulls >>>>>>>>>>>>> late 2000s lakers

[M Dogg™]

is NIK arguing the Shaq-Kobe lakers over Jordan/s Bulls or the Kobe/Gasol Lakers?



i can understand someone arguing the Shaq/Kobe lakers over the Bulls because Shaq was the best center on the planet and Kobe was good enough to at least make Jordan compete lol

no, the 09/10 lakers dont belong in the discussion. kobe took a solid team that wouldnt have even made the playoffs without him to consecutive titles. no one has won with less, besides maybe hakeem.

but yea, the 80s lakers > early 2000s lakers > 90s bulls >>>>>>>>>>>>> late 2000s lakers

It's funny, I was talking to the older homie, the homie that watched all of Showtime and the 90's Chicago Bulls. He is a Laker fan, but he's way more of just an NBA fan than pure Laker fan. I asked him. He said that the 96 Bulls would win. Basically he said it comes down to outside game, and he said that Pippen would get Worthy because he was more athletic. Also Kukoc would spread the floor too much. And that's the big homie, and his opinion I respect a lot. If the big homie said the 96 Bulls beat the 87 Lakers, then you best believe that's the truth.

[Sccit]

is NIK arguing the Shaq-Kobe lakers over Jordan/s Bulls or the Kobe/Gasol Lakers?



i can understand someone arguing the Shaq/Kobe lakers over the Bulls because Shaq was the best center on the planet and Kobe was good enough to at least make Jordan compete lol

no, the 09/10 lakers dont belong in the discussion. kobe took a solid team that wouldnt have even made the playoffs without him to consecutive titles. no one has won with less, besides maybe hakeem.

but yea, the 80s lakers > early 2000s lakers > 90s bulls >>>>>>>>>>>>> late 2000s lakers

It's funny, I was talking to the older homie, the homie that watched all of Showtime and the 90's Chicago Bulls. He is a Laker fan, but he's way more of just an NBA fan than pure Laker fan. I asked him. He said that the 96 Bulls would win. Basically he said it comes down to outside game, and he said that Pippen would get Worthy because he was more athletic. Also Kukoc would spread the floor too much. And that's the big homie, and his opinion I respect a lot. If the big homie said the 96 Bulls beat the 87 Lakers, then you best believe that's the truth.

It's funny. I was just watching the Laker channel the other day, and they showed a lil clip of Gary Vitti saying "the 87 Laker team was the greatest team in basketball history"


keep fightin for the other side to prove a point tho