Bulls First 3 Peat vs Bulls Second 3 Peat

[Da_Realist]

i honestly dont remember any team giving the 96-98 bulls problems. the closest they came to being beat was against the pacers in 98. and they were as old as the bulls. and the league wasn't watered down during the second 3peat. the teams the 97 bulls beat for example, were just as good if not better than the early 90s teams.

Denver, Toronto, LA Lakers, Seattle all gave the Bulls headaches because of their youth.

[Indian guy]

i honestly dont remember any team giving the 96-98 bulls problems. the closest they came to being beat was against the pacers in 98. and they were as old as the bulls. and the league wasnt watered down during the second 3peat. the teams the 97 bulls beat for example, were just as good if not better than the early 90s teams.

The '97 Jazz and '98 Pacers gave Bulls the most trouble during the 2nd 3peat. I'll actually agree with you, 1st 3peat Bulls were involved in more 'tough' series'. The '92 run in particular was brutal. Knicks took 'em to 7 games in the ECS. The ECF against the Cavaliers was a grueling 6 game series. Blazers took 'em to 6 as well. In '93 it was Knicks and Suns, both took 'em to 6. In comparison to the 2nd 3peat, where the only time the Bulls looked in any real trouble of losing a series was '97 Jazz and '98 Pacers. None of the other series' were tied after 4 games, compared to 4 such series' in the 1st 3peat. But I'll also say the 1st 3peat team faced tougher competition. IMO Portland, Phx and both Knicks teams were better than any team the Bulls faced during the 2nd 3peat.

[97 bulls]

Denver, Toronto, LA Lakers, Seattle all gave the Bulls headaches because of their youth.

lol ok youre talking about the few teams that beat the bulls. i dont think that a few losses constitutes problems. from 96-98 they were 8-2 vs tor, they were 3-3 vs lakers so i guess ill give you that one. they were 5-1 vs den and even though sea wasnt a young team they dominated them in the finals. so let this argument go.

[1987_Lakers]

lol ok youre talking about the few teams that beat the bulls. i dont think that a few losses constitutes problems. from 96-98 they were 8-2 vs tor, they were 3-3 vs lakers so i guess ill give you that one. they were 5-1 vs den and even though sea wasnt a young team they dominated them in the finals. so let this argument go.

Da_Realist has a point. I wouldn't say The Bulls dominated the Sonics in the Finals. The Sonics won both game 4 & 5 by 10+ points and the Bulls only won game 2 by four points. Not to mention BOTH MJ and Pippen had their worst Finals performances of their career.

MJ shot 41.5% while Pippen shot 34.3%.

Bulls were 1-1 vs the Sonics in '96.
Bulls were 2-0 vs the Sonics in '97. (one of those games went to OT)
Bulls weree 1-1 vs the Sonics in '98.

Sonics definitely gave the Bulls some trouble.

[97 bulls]

The '97 Jazz and '98 Pacers gave Bulls the most trouble during the 2nd 3peat. I'll actually agree with you, 1st 3peat Bulls were involved in more 'tough' series'. The '92 run in particular was brutal. Knicks took 'em to 7 games in the ECS. The ECF against the Cavaliers was a grueling 6 game series. Blazers took 'em to 6 as well. In '93 it was Knicks and Suns, both took 'em to 6. In comparison to the 2nd 3peat, where the only time the Bulls looked in any real trouble of losing a series was '97 Jazz and '98 Pacers. None of the other series' were tied after 4 games, compared to 4 such series' in the 1st 3peat. But I'll also say the 1st 3peat team faced tougher competition. IMO Portland, Phx and both Knicks teams were better than any team the Bulls faced during the 2nd 3peat.

i never really believed the bulls were in trouble in the 97 finals. and i believe the 96sonics were just as good as the 92 blazers and the 97 heat with zo, hardaway, brown, mashburn, marjle, ike austin and kurt thomas, were. better than the knicks. not to mention they didnt have to play a pretty good knicks team in 97. and that the jazz were the defensive equals of the suns.

[97 bulls]

Da_Realist has a point. I wouldn't say The Bulls dominated the Sonics in the Finals. The Sonics won both game 4 & 5 by 10+ points and the Bulls only won game 2 by four points. Not to mention BOTH MJ and Pippen had their worst Finals performances of their career.

MJ shot 41.5% while Pippen shot 34.3%.

Bulls were 1-1 vs the Sonics in '96.
Bulls were 2-0 vs the Sonics in '97. (one of those games went to OT)
Bulls weree 1-1 vs the Sonics in '98.

Sonics definitely gave the Bulls some trouble.

lol the bulls were never in danger of loosing to sonics. be serious.

[Da_Realist]

lol ok youre talking about the few teams that beat the bulls. i dont think that a few losses constitutes problems. from 96-98 they were 8-2 vs tor, they were 3-3 vs lakers so i guess ill give you that one. they were 5-1 vs den and even though sea wasnt a young team they dominated them in the finals. so let this argument go.

But why did the Bulls lose to Denver in the first place? Youth and athleticism. Toronto gave Chicago problems and MJ struggled against them. Why? Same thing. These teams didn't have the talent to consistently beat the Bulls. LAL and Seattle did, which is why the Bulls had a harder time with these teams.

The F3P Bulls were young, athletic and was a lot better than either of these teams I mentioned. That's why I say they would have given the 96-98 Bulls some real problems.

[97 bulls]

Da_Realist has a point. I wouldn't say The Bulls dominated the Sonics in the Finals. The Sonics won both game 4 & 5 by 10+ points and the Bulls only won game 2 by four points. Not to mention BOTH MJ and Pippen had their worst Finals performances of their career.

MJ shot 41.5% while Pippen shot 34.3%.

Bulls were 1-1 vs the Sonics in '96.
Bulls were 2-0 vs the Sonics in '97. (one of those games went to OT)
Bulls weree 1-1 vs the Sonics in '98.

Sonics definitely gave the Bulls some trouble.

on a side note the sonics were a great team and the 96 finals was more of a defensive struggle as opposed to an offenive exibition.

[97 bulls]

But why did the Bulls lose to Denver in the first place? Youth and athleticism. Toronto gave Chicago problems and MJ struggled against them. Why? Same thing. These teams didn't have the talent to consistently beat the Bulls. LAL and Seattle did, which is why the Bulls had a harder time with these teams.

The F3P Bulls were young, athletic and was a lot better than either of these teams I mentioned. That's why I say they would have given the 96-98 Bulls some real problems.

but neither tor or denver consistantly beat the bulls. they won 80% of their games against those 2 teams. thats great in any sport. im pretty sure that the 91-93 bulls lost to young teams too.

[1987_Lakers]

lol the bulls were never in danger of loosing to sonics. be serious.

I was pointing out that they didn't dominate them. Keep up.

[97 bulls]

I was pointing out that they didn't dominate them. Keep up.

wow, its amazing how the bulls are held to such a standard. they win the finals 4-2 and loose a few games during the season but still win 72 and people still complain.

[1987_Lakers]

wow, its amazing how the bulls are held to such a standard. they win the finals 4-2 and loose a few games during the season but still win 72 and people still complain.

You said that the Bulls "dominated" the Sonics in the Finals, I was only correcting you. Don't get so defensive.

[97 bulls]

I was pointing out that they didn't dominate them. Keep up.

i just checked, and the bulls beat the sonics by 17, 22, and 12 in 3 of the 4 games they won. they dominated the sonics. you need to stick to your "80s is best" rant.

[1987_Lakers]

i just checked, and the bulls beat the sonics by 17, 22, and 12 in 3 of the 4 games they won. they dominated the sonics. you need to stick to your "80s is best" rant.

And you are just going to ignore the other 3 games? Ok.

1996 NBA Finals:
Bulls: 93 PPG
Sonics: 89.2 PPG


Bulls in 6 games won by an average of 3.8 PPG and the Sonics did get two victories by the way. I'm sorry but that doesn't qualify as "Dominated"

[97 bulls]

And you are just going to ignore the other 3 games? Ok.

1996 NBA Finals:
Bulls: 93 PPG
Sonics: 89.2 PPG


Bulls in 6 games won by an average of 3.8 PPG and the Sonics did get two victories by the way. I'm sorry but that doesn't qualify as "Dominated"

lol then you are probably the only person that feels that seattle wasnt dominated by chicago. and you dont factor wins like that. you cant factor in the 2 wins by seattle as wins for chicago. which is what your trying to do. now if the bulls won those four games by an average of 3 pts and seattle still won their 2 by 10 id agree. but thats not the case.