who would win 90's bulls vs the champion spurs of today?

Question

im a bulls fan so i gotta go with the bulls myself.
they had a dominate rebounder in rodman great shooters in jordan, pippen,kerr,paxston,grant,armstrong,and they used to beat the spurs everytime with david robinson who i think is alot better spur than any they got now.

remeber in his day rodman shut down big guys all the time like shaq and kemp

sorry didnt think about that it just the only players i knew from spurs was rodman,robbinson,and kerr later on so it shows how long its been since i watched the nba.

Answer 1

This is not an answer to your question, it is a criticism.

The Bulls players you listed did not play together. Paxson, Grant and Armstrong were part of Bulls I and Rodman, Kerr etc were a part of Bulls II.

It is rather unfair to put together what amounts to a "All 1990s Bulls team" and match them up with a Spurs team from one year.

I mean if you are going to put together that Bulls team, the fair thing would be to match them up with an all Spurs team:

C: Robinson (in his 1999 prime)
PF: Duncan, Robert Horry, Malik Rose
SF: Ginobli, Bowen, Sean Elliot, Jim Jackson
SG: Stephen Jackson, Michael Finley, Derek Anderson,
PG: Tony Parker, Avery Johnson, Antonio Daniels

That is the team the Bulls would be competing against, probably with some players I have forgotten.

Answer 2

The Bulls, definitely. They dominated during their championship years. You'd have to look pretty hard to find a sportswriter who predicted someone else would win the championship back then.

The same is not true for the Spurs -- they deserved the rings they won, but they struggle more and more each year and are far from the consensus championship pick. If there had been a stronger team from the East, the Spurs would have had a fight on their hands.

San Antonio is a good team, and might steal a game or two from the '90s Bulls, but there's no way a Finals series between the two teams would go any further than six games.

Answer 3

This matchup is the battle of the backcourt (significant edge to Wizards) to the battle of the frontcourt (significant edge to the Spurs). Even on the downside of his career, Gilmour could still battle under boards with the best of centers, and the Wizards certainly don't offer that here. I like Iceman's scoring, even if this is not the same Iceman who lit up the ABA. Jeffries was capable and might be able to match Gervin here for the scoring. And while Jamieson is a nice player overall, I would like Mitchell here as well for the defense and rebounding. The PG slot is probably the difference in the series here, because Arenas is a great playmaker, shooter, and even plays well defensively, something that is not recognized very often. I certainly believe he would be a better floor leader than Moore. Hughes would also be a dangerous scorer in this series. Finally, the Wizards have a big athletic advantage here - not because of the difference in eras, but because the best players on this Spurs team are all on the decline, but had enough left in them for a nice season. Gotta go with Washington on this. Wizards in 4

Answer 4

It would be a good 7 game series, but the Bulls would come out on top.

Bowen wouldn't be effective because the Bulls had 2 playmakers (Pippen and MJ).

They also had shooters (Paxson and Kerr).

And Rodman would get inside of Duncan's head

Answer 5

Da Bulls definitely...Sh*t I think they would've won 8 in a row from 91-98 had Jordan not left. Horry owes his two rings with the Rockets in 94 & 95 to Jordan. Jordan should have 8 and Horry "only" 5.

Answer 6

Oh my gosh, the bulls would win this series 100 out of 100 times. Jordan would do what he wanted with this team and Rodman would shut down anything they had to offer.

Answer 7

no one thinks about the match-ups when these questions come up. like sa's tony Parker vs chi's Ron Harper. that's a clear mismatch.Bowen vs Jordan would go to mj but as the spurs prove they can stop anybody(king.... ooo i mean prince James) Scott pippen reminds me of Shawn Marion of the sun and the spurs stop him so pippen would be stoppable and don t get me on the td/roddman match up. plus the spurs bench is much deeper. i think the bulls would win but don t make it like the spurs are push overs (ask den,phx,uta, and cle fans) people need to give the spurs respect they are the most consistent team in alll sports in the last 10 years and don,t bring in the pat they r the most comnsistent of the last 6 years. i swere ther r dumm mofos out there that count out the spurs for no reason. if ur a fan of another team then tell ur team that if u play a little d(like sa) have a unselfise star(like td) ur team might win a championship but untill then stop hatin ps. ur mad know see when sa repeat... ther is no dening it WE ARE THE BEST. PSS RODMAN NEVER SHUT DOWN SHAQ and kemp is overratted(sure he can dunk but thats it)

Answer 8

The 90s bulls would win

Answer 9

The Bulls would outplay, outscore, outrebound and definitely outclass the Spurs. The Spurs weren't even the best team in the West this year, let alone good enough of a team to go heads-up with one of the legendary Chicago teams of the 90s.

Answer 10

its not a question who would win, its the questin how
badly would the Bulls with Jordan, Pipen, Rodman,
and Paxon and Grant would punish the SPURs.
Come on speed, strength, defense, ball control,
all are in favor of Bulls.

Bulls 4-1, with average victory margine of 14 points.

p.s. duncan is better than david robinson, david was
a sissy, duncan is not.