Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: It's cliche, but what the hell: Bulls 90's vs Lakers 2000s

  1. #1
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default It's cliche, but what the hell: Bulls 90's vs Lakers 2000s

    Who wins? The 90's Bulls teams or the 00's, Lakers teams?

  2. #2
    Administrator Peck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,632

    Default Re: It's cliche, but what the hell: Bulls 90's vs Lakers 2000s

    I gotta go with the Lakers.

    The Bulls had the pleasure of never facing a team that had a dominate center on it in the finals & that year no matter what you think of him, Shaq was a dominate center.

    Bryant would have at least equaled Pippen & IMO probably would have neutralized him altogether.

    So that leaves Shaq vs. M.J.

    While Jordan is hands down the best player, there would be no stopping Shaq.

    I take the Lakers in 6.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  3. #3

    Default Re: It's cliche, but what the hell: Bulls 90's vs Lakers 2000s

    Bulls....no question. They may not have had to play shaq all that much, but you are talking about MJ. THE MJ. You can't stop him when he gets going. Bulls in 5
    Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

  4. #4

    Default Re: It's cliche, but what the hell: Bulls 90's vs Lakers 2000s

    I'd have to say Bulls-- at least the teams with Harper-Jordan-Pippen-Rodman at 1-4.

    That was in my opinion the greatest all-around defensive team ever assembled. They had arguably 4 of the top 6 or 7 defenders in the league.

    Sure, the middle was a doughnut. But the perimeter defense was suffocating.

    They won 72 games for a reason.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

  5. #5
    Go Colts! Shade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Age
    36
    Posts
    44,298

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: It's cliche, but what the hell: Bulls 90's vs Lakers 2000s

    Bulls easily.

    Of course, Kobe would have been a completely different player, instead of an MJ-wannabe.

  6. #6

    Default Re: It's cliche, but what the hell: Bulls 90's vs Lakers 2000s

    Sure, the middle was a doughnut. But the perimeter defense was suffocating.
    hmmm... What are they going to do...triple team shaq???

    They wouldn't even be able to contain him.

  7. #7
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,127

    Default Re: It's cliche, but what the hell: Bulls 90's vs Lakers 2000s

    If we are talking 2000 Lakers.... vs MJ's Bulls.... I don't think it is cut and dried either way.

    Shaq could/should dominate and Kobe should/could make the Bulls play him (Shaq) honest....

    But we can't forget that in 2000 the Lakers hadn't won a championship with their current cast. The Bulls would have experience on their side.

    Could Jordan alone balance out Shaq's dominance for a series? Would the Bull's carry 'the respect of the officials' who could take Shaq out of his game by calling charging and 3 secs when warranted?

    So, the Lakers could expose the Bulls interior weakness... or actually show it isn't as weak as we have thought. The Bulls have Jordan and Pippen... and some quality role players... the Bulls' interior wouldn't have to match Shaq. They'd just need to be 'ok'. Maybe they rise to that standard if pressed?

    What you'd probably have is a game that would be very interesting to watch. Do the refs call it fairly? That is one key and is hard to debate considering who the players are.

    I go with the experience of the Bulls over the 2000 Lakers. It might go 7... and it might be a war... but I think the Bulls could get the needed stops and big baskets.

    Experience is a major factor when it comes to the playoffs. It is one reason I would've liked to have seen the Pacers tweak the lineup and take another shot. Most teams don't get that close....

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  8. #8
    White and Nerdy Anthem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,738

    Default Re: It's cliche, but what the hell: Bulls 90's vs Lakers 2000s

    Are we talking about the Laker team that beat us or the current version? I think the current version would get smoked.

    The one we played, and the next year, would have beaten any MJ team.

    Sure, MJ > Kobe. But Pippen <<<< Shaq.

    Lakers in 6.
    Welcome to Pacers Digest! New around here? Here are three tips for making the forum a great place to talk about Pacers basketball.

    • Log in. Even if you want to read instead of post, it's helpful because it lets you:
    • Change your signature options. You can hide all signatures by choosing "Settings" (top right) then "General Settings" (middle left) and unchecking the box "Show Signatures" (in the "Thread Display Options" area).
    • Create an ignore list. I know it may seem unneighborly. But you're here to talk about the Pacers, not argue with someone who's just looking for an argument. Most of the regular users on here make use (at least occasionally) of the "Ignore" feature. Just go to "Settings" -> "Edit Ignore List" and add the names.

    Enjoy your time at PD!

  9. #9

    Default Re: It's cliche, but what the hell: Bulls 90's vs Lakers 2000s

    Does Phil get to coach both teams?

  10. #10
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: It's cliche, but what the hell: Bulls 90's vs Lakers 2000s

    Does Phil get to coach both teams?
    Since it was fantasy anyway, SURE! why not? Give'm both the same exact (including age/experience) coaching staffs.

    And Anthem, as easy as it is to do because of the similarities in their game, I don't view it MJ/Kobe and Pippen/Shaq.

    I view it as MJ/Shaq, and Pippen/Kobe. And that tips the scale considerably.

    MJ>Shaq and Pippen at that time would only be maybe <<than Kobe at worst.

  11. #11
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    44
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: It's cliche, but what the hell: Bulls 90's vs Lakers 2000s

    The best team ever - the '83 Sixers would smash both of them. Probably 4-1 over either team in a seven game series (although they might have been able to sweep any version of the Bulls other than the 72-win team.)

    Moses >> Shaq (Against the Bulls, Moses would get to play against Rodman, now wouldn't that be a fun rebounding matchup to watch! - BTW; Moses, as a rebounder, at least > or maybe >> Rodman.)

    Julius > Jordan or Kobe

    Bobby Jones would neutralize Pippen (yes, really)

    Andrew Toney >>> Ron Harper

    Mo Cheeks >>>> Any other guard from either team

    [hr]
    For Bulls/ Lakers: Well, its already been said, but its so true that the Shaq of 2001 or 2001 would just be too much for the Bulls to overcome at either end of the floor. Lakers win 4-2, and our game #6 against the Lakers would be closer than the final score of this game #6.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •