Are the 90's Bulls the most overrated team ever

[Manute for Ever!]

I understand there were plenty of great players in the 90s but the TEAMS were watered down not the players! adding all those expansion teams (Miami, Charlotte, Minnesota, Orlando ,Toronto and Vancouver) made the league watered down.


There were a lot of great players in the 90's - they were just spread out among more teams! Between 1989 and 1996, the league added 6 teams. That's 72 players that otherwise wouldn't be good enough, now playing.

Ask yourself this: If you removed 1/2 of the teams and held a draft of their players, you'd only be keeping the good ones and getting rid of the bad ones. Each team would get stronger.

What happened in the 90's is the exact opposite. They ADDED teams, and spread out the best players among several teams. That's why it became watered-down

They wouldn't have come close to 70 wins in the 80's. Even Dennis Rodman has said that!

You'e just pissed because the Lakers didn't win one that decade. And as for your proposal, above, people discuss this when talking about the '60's and '70's and you get posters still try to interpret having more/less teams in different ways to fit their argument.

[Niquesports]

I did not say that anywhere, but you're a retard if you think it's 100% impossible.

Well anything is possible like it isnt 100 % that your not a "retard"

[Niquesports]

You'e just pissed because the Lakers didn't win one that decade. And as for your proposal, above, people discuss this when talking about the '60's and '70's and you get posters still try to interpret having more/less teams in different ways to fit their argument.

I dont think its take a 5th grade education to know that if you had a draftof 200 of the best players and made 10 different team the teams would be better than if you made 20

[ProfessorMurder]

Well anything is possible like it isnt 100 % that your not a "retard"

English please.

[Showtime]

I understand there were plenty of great players in the 90s but the TEAMS were watered down not the players! adding all those expansion teams (Miami, Charlotte, Minnesota, Orlando ,Toronto and Vancouver) made the league watered down.


There were a lot of great players in the 90's - they were just spread out among more teams! Between 1989 and 1996, the league added 6 teams. That's 72 players that otherwise wouldn't be good enough, now playing.

Those teams still exist, meaning the talent is still spread among more teams, meaning the modern league is watered down too. Great logic there.

[Manute for Ever!]

I dont think its take a 5th grade education to know that if you had a draftof 200 of the best players and made 10 different team the teams would be better than if you made 20

Never said it wouldn't. What I was referring to was the countless ammount of times people have made that argument and had people try to refute it.

[DarkSephiroth]

I understand there were plenty of great players in the 90s but the TEAMS were watered down not the players! adding all those expansion teams (Miami, Charlotte, Minnesota, Orlando ,Toronto and Vancouver) made the league watered down.


There were a lot of great players in the 90's - they were just spread out among more teams! Between 1989 and 1996, the league added 6 teams. That's 72 players that otherwise wouldn't be good enough, now playing.

Ask yourself this: If you removed 1/2 of the teams and held a draft of their players, you'd only be keeping the good ones and getting rid of the bad ones. Each team would get stronger.

What happened in the 90's is the exact opposite. They ADDED teams, and spread out the best players among several teams. That's why it became watered-down


They wouldn't have come close to 70 wins in the 80's. Even Dennis Rodman has said that!

By that logic, the NBA will get weaker and weaker because more teams will be added in the future. Thus, 50 years from now, we will see the weakest, most watered down basketball league in the history of the NBA?

-_-

I think a more valid argument would be the salary cap... but I don't agree that 90's teams were weak. I think the bulls are a top 3 team ever. They had arguably the greatest player of all time, and a great slew of role-players around him who played great team defense.

[Desperado]

Also I would not consider the 90s to be the best era for big men…you basically had four or five HOF quality centers in the league in Shaq, Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson and possibly Alonzo. Maybe Mutombo if you want to go that far. But that's it....

In the 70s, we had Kareem, Walton when he was healthy, Cowens, Reed, Hayes, Unseld, Thurmond, Jerry Lucas, Wilt, Walt Bellamy, Bob Lanier, Moses Malone, Bob McAdoo, plus Artis Gilmore, Dan Issel and Mel Daniels from the ABA. Not all of those guys played throughout the 70s, but they were all there during that generation.

All of the NBA guys I named are Hall of Famers, Issel is a HOF as well, but Gilmore certainly should be in there too, and even Daniels has a decent argument, although I don't see him ever making it, unfortunately.

[97 bulls]

I ask this question not as a knock on MJ because he is a top 3 player All Time. I also give proops to Phil Jackson and Pippen who could hold there own against any coach or SF. BUt is there anyone that believes that Jackson and Pippen would have made that big a difference that the Bulls would have beaten a healthy 80's Celtics, or a Isiah lead Piston. I dont think so. Often times when reading about the Greatest teams of all time I see the Bulls right up there and wonder why. Sure they won a lot of games in a era that had no other great team.has there ever been a championship era team that faced so little challenge ? The weakness at Center, PG, and lack of a bench scorer would kill them agaisnt other All Time teams. Now many of the kids will get on here that just started watching basketball in 90 and call me silly. BUt thats because they are to busy playing playstation to learn about the game.

this is something that i cant comprehend and maybe you can clear this up for me. why do people knock the teams the bulls beat in the 90s but give a pass to the 80s champs?

people always excuse the 87 celtics cuz of "injuries". i mean, if the celtics were really that badly injured, then doesnt that mean the lakers beat an inferior opponant?

were the 86 rockets an all-time great?

the 89 pistons beat a lakers team that had no magic or scott.

and these are the teams that people say is th best of the 80s.

i see no difference in the talent of the teams the bulls beat and an injury plagued celtics team, the 86 rockets, or a lakers team minus magic and scott.

[Fatal9]

Isiah's Pistons? They swept the 91 Pistons. Even if you want to argue that they were broken down by then, the Bulls in 89 and 90, when they were clearly worse then any of their championship teams, pushed those Pistons to the edge. So I don't think they really matter.

Healthy Celtics team? Only Celtics team you can argue the Bulls couldn't have beaten are the 86 Celtics. Whatever, thats one year, and its still arguable. Most of the Bulls championship teams probably beat the 81 Celtics, and they would definitely have a great chance against the 84 Celtics, who were pushed to 7 games by the 84 Knicks who were nothing special.

uh, Celtics dominated the Knicks in that series. I've watched every game of the series and Celtics had a 20+ point lead in all the home games, the series was never really in jeopardy. Knicks squeaked out a couple of victories at home with King having insane scoring nights (great duels with Bird in the series) but got smacked in every pivotal game. hell, the game 7 was probably over in the first 5 minutes. It's the same thing we saw in the Hawks/Celtics series couple of years ago. Celtics killed them every home game, lost a couple of close road games, probably didn't take them as seriously, and ended up beating the Lakers in 6 (that must mean Hawks > Lakers according to you).

were the 86 rockets an all-time great?

better and deeper than any team to win in 90s, that's for sure. watch that team play dumbass, they would outrebound the hell out of every team, had insane athleticism, talent and depth. were one of the few teams I've seen who could not only run with the Lakers, but withstand their huge runs on the road without ever faltering. the team fell apart the following year due to injuries and drug problems but that was a budding dynasty that could have gone in to the early 90s. Hakeem won two rings in the 90s with a MUCH worse supporting cast, that should tell you something.

I usually mark the decline of the NBA competition around '88 when expansion efforts really started and the elite 80s teams began declining due to aging cores, retirements, injuries to players on elite teams etc etc.

[97 bulls]

By that logic, the NBA will get weaker and weaker because more teams will be added in the future. Thus, 50 years from now, we will see the weakest, most watered down basketball league in the history of the NBA?

-_-

I think a more valid argument would be the salary cap... but I don't agree that 90's teams were weak. I think the bulls are a top 3 team ever. They had arguably the greatest player of all time, and a great slew of role-players around him who played great team defense.

dont even waste your time responding to that idiot. time and again people have shown him that this reasoning is assinine due to more and more great athletes playing basketball.

look at baseball now, very few black athletes play baseball now. not because they cant, but because they choose to play football and basketball.

[Niquesports]

By that logic, the NBA will get weaker and weaker because more teams will be added in the future. Thus, 50 years from now, we will see the weakest, most watered down basketball league in the history of the NBA?

-_-

I think a more valid argument would be the salary cap... but I don't agree that 90's teams were weak. I think the bulls are a top 3 team ever. They had arguably the greatest player of all time, and a great slew of role-players around him who played great team defense.

i agree with you about the salary cap, Free agencyas well as the lack of true Big men that can score and play Big has hurt the era. I also agree that Mj is 1 of any 5 players that you could call the GOAT. WIlt,Russ,Magic,Jabbar being the others. But I disagree with you about the slew of great role players. WIthout Pippen this is was a very weak team. One of the weakest cast of Centers to ever win a title , no true scorer to come off the bench, no real scoring inside player. Can you imagine what Hakeem would do to this group of Centers if he was able to destroy DRob,Ewing and a young but still very good Shaq.

[97 bulls]

uh, Celtics dominated the Knicks in that series. I've watched every game of the series and Celtics had a 20+ point lead in all the home games, the series was never really in jeopardy. Knicks squeaked out a couple of victories at home with King having insane scoring nights (great duels with Bird in the series) but got smacked in every pivotal game. hell, the game 7 was probably over in the first 5 minutes. It's the same thing we saw in the Hawks/Celtics series couple of years ago. Celtics killed them every home game, lost a couple of close road games, probably didn't take them as seriously, and ended up beating the Lakers in 6 (that must mean Hawks > Lakers according to you).


better and deeper than any team to win in 90s, that's for sure. watch that team play dumbass, they would outrebound the hell out of every team, had insane athleticism, talent and depth. were one of the few teams I've seen who could not only run with the Lakers, but withstand their huge runs on the road without ever faltering. the team fell apart the following year due to injuries and drug problems but that was a budding dynasty that could have gone in to the early 90s. Hakeem won two rings in the 90s with a MUCH worse supporting cast, that should tell you something.

I usually mark the decline of the NBA competition around '88 when expansion efforts really started and the elite 80s teams began declining due to aging cores, retirements, injuries to players on elite teams etc etc.

look punk i know what im talking about. the 86 rockets were not deeper than the 92 trailblazers or 93 suns. and the jazz were more top heavy. you dont know what your talking about.

[Niquesports]

this is something that i cant comprehend and maybe you can clear this up for me. why do people knock the teams the bulls beat in the 90s but give a pass to the 80s champs?

people always excuse the 87 celtics cuz of "injuries". i mean, if the celtics were really that badly injured, then doesnt that mean the lakers beat an inferior opponant?

were the 86 rockets an all-time great?

the 89 pistons beat a lakers team that had no magic or scott.

and these are the teams that people say is th best of the 80s.

i see no difference in the talent of the teams the bulls beat and an injury plagued celtics team, the 86 rockets, or a lakers team minus magic and scott.

YOu make a very good point but the 86 Celtics had 3 Hof and Dj should get in that would make 4 and that not even counting Walton.
The 89 Pistons had 2 HOF and if Rodman gets in as a Bull he's in as a Piston also. So thats 3 and 3 and the Piston had a better support cast to go along with their 3 HOF.You make a valid point but I still say man for man the Bulls just dont matcu up with the other great teams.

[97 bulls]

also, what makes the 80s teams deeper? them having more guys averaging in double figures in scoring? the league at the time was different than the 90s. you know that. almost ever team in the league ran. thats the reson for the stats. but your a stat whore so i understand why you feel the way you do