kdawg
Staff member
- 11,186
- 12,832
Did Jordan play in a watered down era ?
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by acbboyz84,
- Start date
- 3,938
- 11
Depends on what said rules were implemented, From an athletic standpoint guys of today are head and shoulders above the past. No doubt rose would jam over ewing etc... i mean you had guys like robert pack, kj, kenny anderson dunking on guys like this. And guys like wade etc hops/strength are far superior then those guys. Not a opinion but fact.
The physical aspect which many claim todays players wouldnt hack it. I find that flawed due to the fact that 99% of the players today played in the streets/urban ball, for many years well before the nba. So im pretty sure a player like rose playing in the hood caught some elbows like he would from an oakley. I serious doubt melo playing in nyc wasnt playing some major physical ball. Plus again like i have emphasized players of today are far far more stronger and athletic. I remember a workout video they showed of mj benching 180 and everyone was like wow and thinking it was a big deal. I remember ppl being amazed at guys being able to jump 38-40 inches. hell you got guys like nate robinson who could clear that with ease just off a vertical leap.
I mean those guys were tuff, but less be foreal and lets not act like larry bird even with hacking could stop a full steam lebron comming into the lane. I mean worthy would be at a serious disadvantage trying to stop melo from backing him down. Even from the guard standpoint, players today are twice as quick and fast. And this is proven fact just off scouting tape reports.
So basically you would have a battle of skillset fundamentals vs athletism raw talent.
- 3,938
- 11
Depends on what said rules were implemented, From an athletic standpoint guys of today are head and shoulders above the past. No doubt rose would jam over ewing etc... i mean you had guys like robert pack, kj, kenny anderson dunking on guys like this. And guys like wade etc hops/strength are far superior then those guys. Not a opinion but fact.
The physical aspect which many claim todays players wouldnt hack it. I find that flawed due to the fact that 99% of the players today played in the streets/urban ball, for many years well before the nba. So im pretty sure a player like rose playing in the hood caught some elbows like he would from an oakley. I serious doubt melo playing in nyc wasnt playing some major physical ball. Plus again like i have emphasized players of today are far far more stronger and athletic. I remember a workout video they showed of mj benching 180 and everyone was like wow and thinking it was a big deal. I remember ppl being amazed at guys being able to jump 38-40 inches. hell you got guys like nate robinson who could clear that with ease just off a vertical leap.
I mean those guys were tuff, but less be foreal and lets not act like larry bird even with hacking could stop a full steam lebron comming into the lane. I mean worthy would be at a serious disadvantage trying to stop melo from backing him down. Even from the guard standpoint, players today are twice as quick and fast. And this is proven fact just off scouting tape reports.
So basically you would have a battle of skillset fundamentals vs athletism raw talent.
- 2,343
- 28
From the time I have been a member the op has certified himself as the biggest Kobe stan on this board. He takes every and any oppurtunity he can to discredit Jordan, it's embarrassing. To answer the question, which doesn't even deserve the time of day...HELL NO.
- 2,343
- 28
From the time I have been a member the op has certified himself as the biggest Kobe stan on this board. He takes every and any oppurtunity he can to discredit Jordan, it's embarrassing. To answer the question, which doesn't even deserve the time of day...HELL NO.
- 396
- 11
The bulls' bench from the 90's was deep as he*^. They would be starters on some teams now.. and you guys are right; three hall of famers on one team only dominated because it was a "watered down era"
- 396
- 11
The bulls' bench from the 90's was deep as he*^. They would be starters on some teams now.. and you guys are right; three hall of famers on one team only dominated because it was a "watered down era"
- 3,938
- 11
Originally Posted by LieutenantDan93
The bulls' bench from the 90's was deep as he*^. They would be starters on some teams now.. and you guys are right; three hall of famers on one team only dominated because it was a "watered down era"
Def not watered down, but ppl saying that they beat some of the best teams is false. Like others have said they didnt beat the c's the showtime lakers, the twin tower rockets, the bad boys, dj's philly team until they reached the twilight stages of their careers. It would be like okc finally beating the lakers 4 or 5 years from now. I wouldnt exactly call that beating the lakers in their prime or best years. Granted im sure if the team pretty much remained in tack they wouldnt be a easy out, but No one would say they beat the lakers when they were ontop and in their prime years.
And someone said when they played the sonics and jazz the bulls were on the decline is ludacris. That was arguable from a skillset the best years each of the main focal players in chicago had. True mj wasnt quite the athlete he once was but his killer instinct, knowledge of the game and skillset was probably the best of his career. Pippen was at his prime as well as kukoc. That team had the right amount of talent,skillset etc veteran players and young athletic players.
Its hard to say if the bulls would dominate or beat the great team of the 80's. Because for one most of those teams dominate years where before mj came and a few while he was relatively a young inexperienced player. Second some of the key elements which made those bulls teams dominate phil jacksons triangle, his mentoring of jordan, pipen presence etc wasnt there either. Now if you take 94-96 bulls vs prime time teams of the 80's or best teams of present time, im sure they would win some chips but a 6 time dynasty, I aint saying it would be unfathomable/impossible. I just think it would be very difficult. much more difficult then it was in the time frame in which they did when the 6 chips.
- 3,938
- 11
Originally Posted by LieutenantDan93
The bulls' bench from the 90's was deep as he*^. They would be starters on some teams now.. and you guys are right; three hall of famers on one team only dominated because it was a "watered down era"
Def not watered down, but ppl saying that they beat some of the best teams is false. Like others have said they didnt beat the c's the showtime lakers, the twin tower rockets, the bad boys, dj's philly team until they reached the twilight stages of their careers. It would be like okc finally beating the lakers 4 or 5 years from now. I wouldnt exactly call that beating the lakers in their prime or best years. Granted im sure if the team pretty much remained in tack they wouldnt be a easy out, but No one would say they beat the lakers when they were ontop and in their prime years.
And someone said when they played the sonics and jazz the bulls were on the decline is ludacris. That was arguable from a skillset the best years each of the main focal players in chicago had. True mj wasnt quite the athlete he once was but his killer instinct, knowledge of the game and skillset was probably the best of his career. Pippen was at his prime as well as kukoc. That team had the right amount of talent,skillset etc veteran players and young athletic players.
Its hard to say if the bulls would dominate or beat the great team of the 80's. Because for one most of those teams dominate years where before mj came and a few while he was relatively a young inexperienced player. Second some of the key elements which made those bulls teams dominate phil jacksons triangle, his mentoring of jordan, pipen presence etc wasnt there either. Now if you take 94-96 bulls vs prime time teams of the 80's or best teams of present time, im sure they would win some chips but a 6 time dynasty, I aint saying it would be unfathomable/impossible. I just think it would be very difficult. much more difficult then it was in the time frame in which they did when the 6 chips.
- 2,788
- 25
What are yall talking bout, Jordan dominated in the late 80s, as a rookie
, back when he didnt have a consistent jump shot, the lakers at that time had Magic in his prime, and they were stacked. MJ in his prime with help = championship in wateva era. look at when homie came back in 2001, still put up point s and had the Wizards relevant at that point, almost making the playoffs. I feel like the 90s era was more of a challenge that the 2000s, not more gifted or talented, but more competitive, basketball back then was must watch, almost every matchup was watchable.
- 2,788
- 25
What are yall talking bout, Jordan dominated in the late 80s, as a rookie
, back when he didnt have a consistent jump shot, the lakers at that time had Magic in his prime, and they were stacked. MJ in his prime with help = championship in wateva era. look at when homie came back in 2001, still put up point s and had the Wizards relevant at that point, almost making the playoffs. I feel like the 90s era was more of a challenge that the 2000s, not more gifted or talented, but more competitive, basketball back then was must watch, almost every matchup was watchable.
- 6,599
- 439
Anytime you have a dynasty an era is gonna look watered down because of the way 1 team dominated.
You guys see MJ goin 6-0 in the finals and think, man they aint have no competition. But its not like they swept the playoffs each year and won the finals in 4-5 games. There were tons of epic battles leading up to those chips. The knick wars, pacer battles, cavs hung tough too, and finally overcoming the pistons. The sonics and jazz put up a fight as well, even MJs game when he hit the last shot came down to the wire.
If the league was watered down like u think all of those historic moments we witnessed on NBC back in the day wouldve never happened because the games wouldve been blowouts.
MJ was right, he made it look to easy.
You guys see MJ goin 6-0 in the finals and think, man they aint have no competition. But its not like they swept the playoffs each year and won the finals in 4-5 games. There were tons of epic battles leading up to those chips. The knick wars, pacer battles, cavs hung tough too, and finally overcoming the pistons. The sonics and jazz put up a fight as well, even MJs game when he hit the last shot came down to the wire.
If the league was watered down like u think all of those historic moments we witnessed on NBC back in the day wouldve never happened because the games wouldve been blowouts.
MJ was right, he made it look to easy.
- 6,599
- 439
Anytime you have a dynasty an era is gonna look watered down because of the way 1 team dominated.
You guys see MJ goin 6-0 in the finals and think, man they aint have no competition. But its not like they swept the playoffs each year and won the finals in 4-5 games. There were tons of epic battles leading up to those chips. The knick wars, pacer battles, cavs hung tough too, and finally overcoming the pistons. The sonics and jazz put up a fight as well, even MJs game when he hit the last shot came down to the wire.
If the league was watered down like u think all of those historic moments we witnessed on NBC back in the day wouldve never happened because the games wouldve been blowouts.
MJ was right, he made it look to easy.
You guys see MJ goin 6-0 in the finals and think, man they aint have no competition. But its not like they swept the playoffs each year and won the finals in 4-5 games. There were tons of epic battles leading up to those chips. The knick wars, pacer battles, cavs hung tough too, and finally overcoming the pistons. The sonics and jazz put up a fight as well, even MJs game when he hit the last shot came down to the wire.
If the league was watered down like u think all of those historic moments we witnessed on NBC back in the day wouldve never happened because the games wouldve been blowouts.
MJ was right, he made it look to easy.
- 9,470
- 13
- 9,470
- 13
- 7,842
- 4,878
Pre-title Mike years statistically was just disgusting
Regular Season
1984-85 - 82 G, .515 FG%, .845 FT%, 6.5 RPG, 5.9 APG, 2.4 STL, 28.2 PPG
1985-86 - 18 G, .457 FG%, .840 FT%, 3.6 RPG, 2.9 APG, 2.1 STL, 22.7 PPG
1986-87 - 82 G, .482 FG%, .857 FT%, 5.2 RPG, 4.6 APG, 2.9 STL, 37.1 PPG
1987-88 - 82 G, .535 FG%, .841 FT%, 5.5 RPG, 5.9 APG, 3.2 STL, 35.0 PPG
1988-89 - 81 G, .538 FG%, .850 FT%, 8.0 RPG, 8.0 APG, 2.9 STL, 32.5 PPG
1989-90 - 82 G, .526 FG%, .848 FT%, 6.9 RPG, 6.3 APG, 2.8 STL, 33.6 PPG
Playoffs
1984-85 - 4 G, 5.8 RPG, 8.5 APG, 29.3 PPG
1985-86 - 3 G, 6.3 RPG, 5.7 APG, 43.7 PPG
1986-87 - 3 G, 7.0 RPG, 6.0 APG, 35.7 PPG
1987-88 - 10 G, 7.1 RPG, 4.7 APG, 36.3 PPG
1988-89 - 17 G, 7.0 RPG, 7.6 APG, 34.8 PPG
1989-90 - 16 G, 7.2 RPG, 6.8 APG, 36.7 PPG
Regular Season
1984-85 - 82 G, .515 FG%, .845 FT%, 6.5 RPG, 5.9 APG, 2.4 STL, 28.2 PPG
1985-86 - 18 G, .457 FG%, .840 FT%, 3.6 RPG, 2.9 APG, 2.1 STL, 22.7 PPG
1986-87 - 82 G, .482 FG%, .857 FT%, 5.2 RPG, 4.6 APG, 2.9 STL, 37.1 PPG
1987-88 - 82 G, .535 FG%, .841 FT%, 5.5 RPG, 5.9 APG, 3.2 STL, 35.0 PPG
1988-89 - 81 G, .538 FG%, .850 FT%, 8.0 RPG, 8.0 APG, 2.9 STL, 32.5 PPG
1989-90 - 82 G, .526 FG%, .848 FT%, 6.9 RPG, 6.3 APG, 2.8 STL, 33.6 PPG
Playoffs
1984-85 - 4 G, 5.8 RPG, 8.5 APG, 29.3 PPG
1985-86 - 3 G, 6.3 RPG, 5.7 APG, 43.7 PPG
1986-87 - 3 G, 7.0 RPG, 6.0 APG, 35.7 PPG
1987-88 - 10 G, 7.1 RPG, 4.7 APG, 36.3 PPG
1988-89 - 17 G, 7.0 RPG, 7.6 APG, 34.8 PPG
1989-90 - 16 G, 7.2 RPG, 6.8 APG, 36.7 PPG
- 7,842
- 4,878
Pre-title Mike years statistically was just disgusting
Regular Season
1984-85 - 82 G, .515 FG%, .845 FT%, 6.5 RPG, 5.9 APG, 2.4 STL, 28.2 PPG
1985-86 - 18 G, .457 FG%, .840 FT%, 3.6 RPG, 2.9 APG, 2.1 STL, 22.7 PPG
1986-87 - 82 G, .482 FG%, .857 FT%, 5.2 RPG, 4.6 APG, 2.9 STL, 37.1 PPG
1987-88 - 82 G, .535 FG%, .841 FT%, 5.5 RPG, 5.9 APG, 3.2 STL, 35.0 PPG
1988-89 - 81 G, .538 FG%, .850 FT%, 8.0 RPG, 8.0 APG, 2.9 STL, 32.5 PPG
1989-90 - 82 G, .526 FG%, .848 FT%, 6.9 RPG, 6.3 APG, 2.8 STL, 33.6 PPG
Playoffs
1984-85 - 4 G, 5.8 RPG, 8.5 APG, 29.3 PPG
1985-86 - 3 G, 6.3 RPG, 5.7 APG, 43.7 PPG
1986-87 - 3 G, 7.0 RPG, 6.0 APG, 35.7 PPG
1987-88 - 10 G, 7.1 RPG, 4.7 APG, 36.3 PPG
1988-89 - 17 G, 7.0 RPG, 7.6 APG, 34.8 PPG
1989-90 - 16 G, 7.2 RPG, 6.8 APG, 36.7 PPG
Regular Season
1984-85 - 82 G, .515 FG%, .845 FT%, 6.5 RPG, 5.9 APG, 2.4 STL, 28.2 PPG
1985-86 - 18 G, .457 FG%, .840 FT%, 3.6 RPG, 2.9 APG, 2.1 STL, 22.7 PPG
1986-87 - 82 G, .482 FG%, .857 FT%, 5.2 RPG, 4.6 APG, 2.9 STL, 37.1 PPG
1987-88 - 82 G, .535 FG%, .841 FT%, 5.5 RPG, 5.9 APG, 3.2 STL, 35.0 PPG
1988-89 - 81 G, .538 FG%, .850 FT%, 8.0 RPG, 8.0 APG, 2.9 STL, 32.5 PPG
1989-90 - 82 G, .526 FG%, .848 FT%, 6.9 RPG, 6.3 APG, 2.8 STL, 33.6 PPG
Playoffs
1984-85 - 4 G, 5.8 RPG, 8.5 APG, 29.3 PPG
1985-86 - 3 G, 6.3 RPG, 5.7 APG, 43.7 PPG
1986-87 - 3 G, 7.0 RPG, 6.0 APG, 35.7 PPG
1987-88 - 10 G, 7.1 RPG, 4.7 APG, 36.3 PPG
1988-89 - 17 G, 7.0 RPG, 7.6 APG, 34.8 PPG
1989-90 - 16 G, 7.2 RPG, 6.8 APG, 36.7 PPG
- 2,466
- 10
- 2,466
- 10
- 4,893
- 154
Originally Posted by RyGuy45
Pre-title Mike years statistically was just disgusting
Regular Season
1984-85 - 82 G, .515 FG%, .845 FT%, 6.5 RPG, 5.9 APG, 2.4 STL, 28.2 PPG
1985-86 - 18 G, .457 FG%, .840 FT%, 3.6 RPG, 2.9 APG, 2.1 STL, 22.7 PPG
1986-87 - 82 G, .482 FG%, .857 FT%, 5.2 RPG, 4.6 APG, 2.9 STL, 37.1 PPG
1987-88 - 82 G, .535 FG%, .841 FT%, 5.5 RPG, 5.9 APG, 3.2 STL, 35.0 PPG
1988-89 - 81 G, .538 FG%, .850 FT%, 8.0 RPG, 8.0 APG, 2.9 STL, 32.5 PPG
1989-90 - 82 G, .526 FG%, .848 FT%, 6.9 RPG, 6.3 APG, 2.8 STL, 33.6 PPG
Playoffs
1984-85 - 4 G, 5.8 RPG, 8.5 APG, 29.3 PPG
1985-86 - 3 G, 6.3 RPG, 5.7 APG, 43.7 PPG
1986-87 - 3 G, 7.0 RPG, 6.0 APG, 35.7 PPG
1987-88 - 10 G, 7.1 RPG, 4.7 APG, 36.3 PPG
1988-89 - 17 G, 7.0 RPG, 7.6 APG, 34.8 PPG
1989-90 - 16 G, 7.2 RPG, 6.8 APG, 36.7 PPG
Look at these FG% people! Lebron didn't shoot over 50% from the field 'till 2 years ago and he has yet to go over 51%. Last year was the first year Wade's ever done 50%. Melo has yet to shoot 50%. Kobe... never. Durant... never. This man MJ averaged 35 points a game and shot over 53% from the field.
The only non-big men to shoot over 50% from the field and average over 20 points a contest this past year were Wade and Lebron. Neither of whom shot as well or averaged as much.
- 4,893
- 154
Originally Posted by RyGuy45
Pre-title Mike years statistically was just disgusting
Regular Season
1984-85 - 82 G, .515 FG%, .845 FT%, 6.5 RPG, 5.9 APG, 2.4 STL, 28.2 PPG
1985-86 - 18 G, .457 FG%, .840 FT%, 3.6 RPG, 2.9 APG, 2.1 STL, 22.7 PPG
1986-87 - 82 G, .482 FG%, .857 FT%, 5.2 RPG, 4.6 APG, 2.9 STL, 37.1 PPG
1987-88 - 82 G, .535 FG%, .841 FT%, 5.5 RPG, 5.9 APG, 3.2 STL, 35.0 PPG
1988-89 - 81 G, .538 FG%, .850 FT%, 8.0 RPG, 8.0 APG, 2.9 STL, 32.5 PPG
1989-90 - 82 G, .526 FG%, .848 FT%, 6.9 RPG, 6.3 APG, 2.8 STL, 33.6 PPG
Playoffs
1984-85 - 4 G, 5.8 RPG, 8.5 APG, 29.3 PPG
1985-86 - 3 G, 6.3 RPG, 5.7 APG, 43.7 PPG
1986-87 - 3 G, 7.0 RPG, 6.0 APG, 35.7 PPG
1987-88 - 10 G, 7.1 RPG, 4.7 APG, 36.3 PPG
1988-89 - 17 G, 7.0 RPG, 7.6 APG, 34.8 PPG
1989-90 - 16 G, 7.2 RPG, 6.8 APG, 36.7 PPG
Look at these FG% people! Lebron didn't shoot over 50% from the field 'till 2 years ago and he has yet to go over 51%. Last year was the first year Wade's ever done 50%. Melo has yet to shoot 50%. Kobe... never. Durant... never. This man MJ averaged 35 points a game and shot over 53% from the field.
The only non-big men to shoot over 50% from the field and average over 20 points a contest this past year were Wade and Lebron. Neither of whom shot as well or averaged as much.
- 48
- 10
Yes, I believe the late 90's Bulls played in a watered down era. Someone explain this to me: why did it take so long for the Jazz to make the Finals? They had the Stockton & Malone nucleus starting with the '86 season, but didn't make it to the Finals until '97 when they were 35 and 33. That means, during what is supposed to be the normal prime for athletes (late 20's/early 30's), the Suns, Rockets, and Sonics all leapfrogged them to make Finals appearances before them and pretty much dismantled their teams before the Jazz were able to make their run. Why were these teams able to start the build of their teams after the Jazz started theirs and leapfrog them to Finals appearances in the process? The Suns didn't become legit contenders until after they traded for Barkley in the summer of '92, the Rockets had to rebuild around Dream after Sampson couldn't recover from his knee injury and their role players aged, and the Sonics mired in mediocrity until George Karl took over for K.C. Jones in the '92 season. By the time '97 came around, all these teams had their 3-4 year runs and there was an obvious drop off in competition. I'm 30+, and I specifically remember my first thought when Stockton hit that 3 to beat the Rockets in the '97 WCFs being
. I don't think those Jazz teams would be good enough to make the Finals in any other NBA season I've witnessed except maybe '99.
That being said, I do think the early 90's Bulls did play high-level competition. They were somewhat fortunate that by '91, expansion and the aging process depleted the Pistons who had been up to that point probably the deepest team I've ever seen and the Lakers weren't quite the same. In '92, they were so dominant during the regular season that some thought they might run the table in the playoffs. But that up & coming Knicks team gave 'em hell, and the Blazers were a formidable team with previous Finals experience that they outclassed and proved their dominance against. And their run in '93 is their most impressive IMO. After winning back-to-back titles, Jordan & Pippen spending the summer on the Dream Team instead of resting after the '92 postseason, and wearing a big target on their backs all season long, they somehow willed themselves to series victories over the Knicks and Suns without the luxury of HCA. Heading into the '93 Finals, I actually thought that the Suns were the more talented team from top to bottom, but the Bulls proved otherwise.
Lastly, yes, I've been a lifelong Laker fan, but I consider the Lakers 2000-02 title run to be against competition just as weak, if not weaker, than the late 90's Bulls. The whole Eastern Conference was an absolute joke and the West only looked strong in comparison. With Shaq & Kobe, no one from that era should've beaten them. The competition level has picked though since about '08 when the Celtics acquired their big 3 and the Lakers picked up Gasol. It's on the upswing and approaching the level it was at from the mid-80's to early 90's.
Regardless, all you can ask a team to do is to dominate the competition put in front of them, and that's what the Bulls did.
That being said, I do think the early 90's Bulls did play high-level competition. They were somewhat fortunate that by '91, expansion and the aging process depleted the Pistons who had been up to that point probably the deepest team I've ever seen and the Lakers weren't quite the same. In '92, they were so dominant during the regular season that some thought they might run the table in the playoffs. But that up & coming Knicks team gave 'em hell, and the Blazers were a formidable team with previous Finals experience that they outclassed and proved their dominance against. And their run in '93 is their most impressive IMO. After winning back-to-back titles, Jordan & Pippen spending the summer on the Dream Team instead of resting after the '92 postseason, and wearing a big target on their backs all season long, they somehow willed themselves to series victories over the Knicks and Suns without the luxury of HCA. Heading into the '93 Finals, I actually thought that the Suns were the more talented team from top to bottom, but the Bulls proved otherwise.
Lastly, yes, I've been a lifelong Laker fan, but I consider the Lakers 2000-02 title run to be against competition just as weak, if not weaker, than the late 90's Bulls. The whole Eastern Conference was an absolute joke and the West only looked strong in comparison. With Shaq & Kobe, no one from that era should've beaten them. The competition level has picked though since about '08 when the Celtics acquired their big 3 and the Lakers picked up Gasol. It's on the upswing and approaching the level it was at from the mid-80's to early 90's.
Regardless, all you can ask a team to do is to dominate the competition put in front of them, and that's what the Bulls did.
- 48
- 10
Yes, I believe the late 90's Bulls played in a watered down era. Someone explain this to me: why did it take so long for the Jazz to make the Finals? They had the Stockton & Malone nucleus starting with the '86 season, but didn't make it to the Finals until '97 when they were 35 and 33. That means, during what is supposed to be the normal prime for athletes (late 20's/early 30's), the Suns, Rockets, and Sonics all leapfrogged them to make Finals appearances before them and pretty much dismantled their teams before the Jazz were able to make their run. Why were these teams able to start the build of their teams after the Jazz started theirs and leapfrog them to Finals appearances in the process? The Suns didn't become legit contenders until after they traded for Barkley in the summer of '92, the Rockets had to rebuild around Dream after Sampson couldn't recover from his knee injury and their role players aged, and the Sonics mired in mediocrity until George Karl took over for K.C. Jones in the '92 season. By the time '97 came around, all these teams had their 3-4 year runs and there was an obvious drop off in competition. I'm 30+, and I specifically remember my first thought when Stockton hit that 3 to beat the Rockets in the '97 WCFs being
. I don't think those Jazz teams would be good enough to make the Finals in any other NBA season I've witnessed except maybe '99.
That being said, I do think the early 90's Bulls did play high-level competition. They were somewhat fortunate that by '91, expansion and the aging process depleted the Pistons who had been up to that point probably the deepest team I've ever seen and the Lakers weren't quite the same. In '92, they were so dominant during the regular season that some thought they might run the table in the playoffs. But that up & coming Knicks team gave 'em hell, and the Blazers were a formidable team with previous Finals experience that they outclassed and proved their dominance against. And their run in '93 is their most impressive IMO. After winning back-to-back titles, Jordan & Pippen spending the summer on the Dream Team instead of resting after the '92 postseason, and wearing a big target on their backs all season long, they somehow willed themselves to series victories over the Knicks and Suns without the luxury of HCA. Heading into the '93 Finals, I actually thought that the Suns were the more talented team from top to bottom, but the Bulls proved otherwise.
Lastly, yes, I've been a lifelong Laker fan, but I consider the Lakers 2000-02 title run to be against competition just as weak, if not weaker, than the late 90's Bulls. The whole Eastern Conference was an absolute joke and the West only looked strong in comparison. With Shaq & Kobe, no one from that era should've beaten them. The competition level has picked though since about '08 when the Celtics acquired their big 3 and the Lakers picked up Gasol. It's on the upswing and approaching the level it was at from the mid-80's to early 90's.
Regardless, all you can ask a team to do is to dominate the competition put in front of them, and that's what the Bulls did.
That being said, I do think the early 90's Bulls did play high-level competition. They were somewhat fortunate that by '91, expansion and the aging process depleted the Pistons who had been up to that point probably the deepest team I've ever seen and the Lakers weren't quite the same. In '92, they were so dominant during the regular season that some thought they might run the table in the playoffs. But that up & coming Knicks team gave 'em hell, and the Blazers were a formidable team with previous Finals experience that they outclassed and proved their dominance against. And their run in '93 is their most impressive IMO. After winning back-to-back titles, Jordan & Pippen spending the summer on the Dream Team instead of resting after the '92 postseason, and wearing a big target on their backs all season long, they somehow willed themselves to series victories over the Knicks and Suns without the luxury of HCA. Heading into the '93 Finals, I actually thought that the Suns were the more talented team from top to bottom, but the Bulls proved otherwise.
Lastly, yes, I've been a lifelong Laker fan, but I consider the Lakers 2000-02 title run to be against competition just as weak, if not weaker, than the late 90's Bulls. The whole Eastern Conference was an absolute joke and the West only looked strong in comparison. With Shaq & Kobe, no one from that era should've beaten them. The competition level has picked though since about '08 when the Celtics acquired their big 3 and the Lakers picked up Gasol. It's on the upswing and approaching the level it was at from the mid-80's to early 90's.
Regardless, all you can ask a team to do is to dominate the competition put in front of them, and that's what the Bulls did.
- 12,536
- 39
if mj played in this era of basketball then your answer would be yes.
- 12,536
- 39
if mj played in this era of basketball then your answer would be yes.
