2001 Lakers vs 1996 Bulls

[dawsey6]

A prime Lakers 3peat team will beat the 96 Bulls.

Not the smartest eh?

Apparently you're not. Otherwise you'd recognize a rhetorical question.

Yes, Chicago in 1998 suffered considerable losses to inferior teams... during the regular season... in 1998. That year offered a different set of challenges for them than the 1996 Bulls, which makes your point regarding the beatdown at the forum irrelavent. We're going on the 1996 team. Maybe we should also discuss the absolute greatness of the 1998 Lakers playoff run while we're grasping at rosters that have nothing to do with the discussion.

[9erempiree]

Apparently you're not. Otherwise you'd recognize a rhetorical question.

Yes, Chicago in 1998 suffered considerable losses to inferior teams... during the regular season... in 1998. That year offered a different set of challenges for them than the 1996 Bulls, which makes your point regarding the beatdown at the forum irrelavent. We're going on the 1996 team. Maybe we should also discuss the absolute greatness of the 1998 Lakers playoff run while we're grasping at rosters that have nothing to do with the discussion.

My argument is if an inexperience young Lakers team whom lay the wood on the 3peat Bulls, there is no reason why the most dominant team in the post season, losing only one game and blowing out teams, would not beat an aging Bulls team. You can say it's 96 not 98 but if you make them 2 years younger....versus a Lakers team in their prime, whom dominated the playoffs, they will beat them still.

Make one team 2 years younger and make the other team in their prime. I got with the prime team.

[TheMan]

Kobe>Penny and Prime Shaq >>>> Young Shaq

No way Kobe in 2001 was better than 96 Penny and Shaq in 96 wasn't that much off prime Shaq. The biggest difference? Shaq in 2001 had PJax while he had Brian Hill in 96.

96 Penny > 01 Kobe
01 Shaq > 96 Shaq

[TheReal Kendall]

My argument is if an inexperience young Lakers team whom lay the wood on the 3peat Bulls, there is no reason why the most dominant team in the post season, losing only one game and blowing out teams, would not beat an aging Bulls team. You can say it's 96 not 98 but if you make them 2 years younger....versus a Lakers team in their prime, whom dominated the playoffs, they will beat them still.

Make one team 2 years younger and make the other team in their prime. I got with the prime team.

Lakers got swept by the Jazz that year also in the WCF.

Bulls beat Jazz 4-2 in the 98 finals.

So Jazz greater than Lakers. Lakers couldn't win when it mattered most

[97 bulls]

My argument is if an inexperience young Lakers team whom lay the wood on the 3peat Bulls, there is no reason why the most dominant team in the post season, losing only one game and blowing out teams, would not beat an aging Bulls team. You can say it's 96 not 98 but if you make them 2 years younger....versus a Lakers team in their prime, whom dominated the playoffs, they will beat them still.

Make one team 2 years younger and make the other team in their prime. I got with the prime team.

Most Laker fans feel those late 90s Lakers squads were much better than the threepeat one.

And your putting way too much stock in one game. From 96-98 the Bulls were 4-2 vs the Lakers.

[Doranku]

Most Laker fans feel those late 90s Lakers squads were much better than the threepeat one.

And your putting way too much stock in one game. From 96-98 the Bulls were 4-2 vs the Lakers.

[scandisk_]

I will take 2001 Lakers who were primed. The best playoff team ever.

The Lakers already blew out the 3peat Bulls at the Forum and that's with a young inexperienced team. A Lakers team in their prime would smoke the Bulls.

Yeah, I definitely remember that 4 airballs against the Jazz. Could've been 5 against the Bulls in the Finals.

[poido123]

I have no idea, I think it would be a draw lol or come down to 1 possession in a game 7, with a game winner from either team...

[9erempiree]

Most Laker fans feel those late 90s Lakers squads were much better than the threepeat one.

And your putting way too much stock in one game. From 96-98 the Bulls were 4-2 vs the Lakers.

You're lying. No Laker fans will say that unless for nostalgia.

The proof is their dominance. They lost game 1 of the Finals because they had a 2 week layoff.

There were stories about some of the players taking vacations. I believed Fox and Kobe went on vacation and came back. Shaq too. That's how good they were and they knew it.

[9erempiree]

Yeah, I definitely remember that 4 airballs against the Jazz. Could've been 5 against the Bulls in the Finals.

We're talking about the 3peat Lakers here. Like I said, those 4 airballs, lay the wood on the 3peat Bulls and you are willing to bet against the 2001 Lakers team?

It will be a sweep or Lakers still win 4-1

[9erempiree]

2001 Lakers:

Annihilated a top-seeded, 58-win San Antonio team in four games in the conference finals, winning the final two games by 39 points and 29 points, respectively, to complete an unbeaten run through three 50-win teams in the West playoff bracket.

Their demolition of the Spurs, in particular, was impressive -- by my metric, it was the highest-scoring conference finals round since 1967. Better yet, the Lakers won their final eight games of the regular season as well. So, after starting off a ho-hum 48-26, they finished on a 23-1 blitz.

I remember this year. They were predicted to win again but they didn't care about the regular season. This was the beginning of Kobe and Shaq feuding. Can you imagine if they put their differences aside.

Greatest team in history.

[sekachu]

96 bulls win in 6

01 kobe was not already to challenge 96MJ mentally. Too much skills for kobe to handle, MJ defensive would bascially shit on him and inexperience disadvantage.

Nobody could contain shaq in one on one but 96 bulls was one of the best help defensive rotation team when you have MJ and Pippen. Plus, luc longley, bill wennington, john salley, jame edward will hack the shit on him literally since shaq was a 50% ft at best.

[9erempiree]

96 bulls win in 6

01 kobe was not already to challenge 96MJ mentally. Too much skills for kobe to handle, MJ defensive would bascially shit on him and inexperience disadvantage.

Nobody could contain shaq in one on one but 96 bulls was one of the best help defensive rotation team when you have MJ and Pippen. Plus, luc longley, bill wennington, john salley, jame edward will hack the shit on him literally since shaq was a 50% ft at best.

Heck, we've seen what teenage Kobe did to MJ and suddenly a more refine version can't play against MJ?

[TheReal Kendall]

Heck, we've seen what teenage Kobe did to MJ and suddenly a more refine version can't play against MJ?

Why you ignoring my post?

Stop talking bs bro

[97 bulls]

You're lying. No Laker fans will say that unless for nostalgia.

The proof is their dominance. They lost game 1 of the Finals because they had a 2 week layoff.

There were stories about some of the players taking vacations. I believed Fox and Kobe went on vacation and came back. Shaq too. That's how good they were and they knew it.

No. Youre obviously too young to remember. When the Lakers had Nick VanExel, Elden Cambell, Eddie Jones, everyone believed that team was more talented than the threepeat team. Hell they had four All-Stars in 97.

But they blamed Dell Harris for that Jazz debacle. Even nicknaming him "Dumb Del". If I had a nickel for every time I heard a Laker fan think about what might havd been for that squad.