Are the 90's Bulls the most overrated team ever

[guy]

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.

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.

[6thManOfTheYear]

a coked up Woolridge

[Niquesports]

87 Lakers, 86 Celtics, and 72 Lakers were all better.

Wilts Sixers, Moses and Dr J Sixers, Isiah Pistons, Russell Celtics, 70 Knicks also

[guy]

all the expansion teams and the influx of high school kids during the 90's watered down the league.

What? The influx of high school kids came in the mid-late 90s and early 2000s, which means they really didn't become that noticeable until the 2000s.

[Kurosawa0]

He's the best youyou've ever seen because you never saw Wilt. There is an something called books read about how Wilt dominated thaen tell me MJ dominated more than Wilt did. I would say the ultimate winner is a guy with 2 NCAA championships, a Olympic Gold, and 11 Rings. This isnt about how Great MJ was he was great early in his career and still was getting swept in the First round against Boston and Detroit.

You can't be the best of all-time when you only win two rings. I'm sorry, but considering the talent Wilt had, his career was mostly a disappointment.

Russell was a great winner, but he isn't the great individual basketball player.

If you have to show the best the sport has ever seen to someone who's never seen basketball before, you're showing them MJ and there's not any competition.

[Manute for Ever!]

How can you say "The '90's Bulls" like it was the same team the entire decade?
Here is the squad for the first title in 1991:



...And here is the 1998 championship team:



The coaching staff is similar, but there was only [COLOR="Red"]two[/COLOR] players that were on all six title teams, Jordan and Pippen. Did you even watch them play? If so, quit acting like they consistently fielded the same team

[Niquesports]

And the best players on his team were a coked up Woolridge, Oakley, and later a young not great Pippen.

So your saying a prime Pippen would have made that big a difference that they would have beaten the 86 Celtics


I guess the same way he helped make Portland a winner as well as the Rockets huh

[Desperado]

Ah yes, arguably the greatest era of big men with some of the most talented players ever. Tell me: how were the 90's watered down? And did you even watch a game in the 90's?

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!

[Niquesports]

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.

Yes as an opinion that sounds good. But on paper it looks silly.
Team A has 4 primed HOfers
Team B has 2
now which teams seems more likely to be better.
When both teams has a top 5 player of All TIme.

[ProfessorMurder]

So your saying a prime Pippen would have made that big a difference that they would have beaten the 86 Celtics


I guess the same way he helped make Portland a winner as well as the Rockets huh

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

[Niquesports]

You can't be the best of all-time when you only win two rings. I'm sorry, but considering the talent Wilt had, his career was mostly a disappointment.

Russell was a great winner, but he isn't the great individual basketball player.

If you have to show the best the sport has ever seen to someone who's never seen basketball before, you're showing them MJ and there's not any competition.

Just as Jordan was unable to beat a Great team so was Wilt. IF Jordan had faced another Great team in its prime you might be saying the same about him.

People say Russ was the Great "Individual basketball Player" that dont understasnd the game. just because he dindt dominate on the offensive end isnt a knock on him. The things he did didnt show up in the box scores under him but it showed his team won and won and won. Give me that over 30pts any day.

Sorry I would think a person that has never seen the game would wonder who is the guy that won 11 rings almost double what Jordan has. But unlike Jordan he had to defeat a top 5 All Time player and another team that had 2 top 10 All TIme players in the Lakers.

[Niquesports]

How can you say "The '90's Bulls" like it was the same team the entire decade?
Here is the squad for the first title in 1991:



...And here is the 1998 championship team:



The coaching staff is similar, but there was only [COLOR="Red"]two[/COLOR] players that were on all six title teams, Jordan and Pippen. Did you even watch them play? If so, quit acting like they consistently fielded the same team

I dont care which of the 6 you pick they would be able to stick with other All TIme Great Teams

[jlauber]

87 Lakers, 86 Celtics, and 72 Lakers were all better.

I would add the '67 76ers and maybe the 70-71 Bucks (66-16 with a +12.2 ppgv differential, then 12-2 post-season with a record +14.5 ppg differential.)

[L.Kizzle]

Yes slightly. Most would have them as the greatest ever cause they won the most games ever. They won 72 games for a "reason", but they also won 72 games for a "reason" ...

[Kurosawa0]

But unlike Jordan he had to defeat a top 5 All Time player

Magic Johnson says hi...