Do the 1996 Chicago Bulls deserve to be called one of the greatest teams in NBA history?

Question

Yes, they won 72 games, but they did it in what was arguably the weakest era's ever, the watered-down 1990's.

Would they have come close to 70+ wins in the 1980's? How would they have fared against the great Celtic dynasty of the 60's?

Keep in mind, there were 6 more teams in 1996 than there was in 1986. That's another 72 players that otherwise wouldn't have even made it to the NBA.

They did have probably the two best players in the league at the time, plus one of the greatest rebounding forwards ever. But beyond that, who did they have?

How would the 96 Bulls do against teams like:

86 Celtics ( Bird, McHale, Parish, DJ, Walton)
87 Lakers ( Kareem, Magic, Worthy)
83 76ers ( Dr. J, Moses, Cheeks, Toney)
72 Lakers ( who won 69 games)
71 Bucks (Kareem and Oscar)
67 76ers ( Wilt, Cunningham, Greer)
60's Celtics ( Russell, the Jones, Havlicek, numerous HOFers)

What do you guys think?

Notorious DPT....READ THE QUESTION....I said the "96 Bulls".....Cartwright, Grant and Paxson were NOT on the 96 team!......you make absolutely no sense anyway!!

'Retta'.....WHY?!!!!!!!!!!!!!

'Alpha Wolf Imposter'.....I did look it up and all I could find was that only 15 of the 50 greatest players played in the 90's....and I've even included players like Magic and McHale, who only played a couple of those years. Maybe you should brush up on your NBA history....2EZ

'Darth Vader'.....I'm not trying to downplay the Bulls accomplishment, I'm simply trying to put this team in historical perspective. Yes, 70 wins is an incredible feat in ANY era. But does that put them above the 71 Lakers, who, despite losing HOFer Elgin Baylor at the beginning of the season, still managed to win only 3 games less than the 96 Bulls, AND put together a 33 consecutive win streak ( a record that still holds today) while having to play tougher teams than the Bulls did.

'Darth'....Baylor, at that point in his career, was more of an emotional leader than anything. The reason he retired was because of a recurring knee injury, hampering his ability to play at the level that he was accustumed to playing at. My point was that, despite losing their "emotional leader", the Lakers rebounded by winning 33 straight en route to 69 wins. Yes, they still had great players.

Do you think the Bulls could have competed with this Laker team, despite having absolutely no answer for Wilt?

'KING'.....Lay off the crack

Answer 1

The fact that a team reached 70 or more wins is remarkable. Beating the long standing 69 wins of the Lakers is remarkable (record standed for about 24 years). I believe the best team ever built is the Lakers of 2004 featuring 4 future HOFs but what is their record? I just don't get the notion of downplaying the Bulls of 1996 achievements (wining 72 games enroute to a championship) when no other team have won those same number of games other than the Bulls.

And for the other quesion, Can the Bulls Beat the other great tems you mentioned? Yes I do believe they stand a chance, remember that the Bulls have other strengths other than their BIG THREE. They have Toni Kukoc, Ron Harper (who at this time blossomed to a more all around performer and better defender) and Steve Kerr (who could shoot the treys when the team needs him). Only liability is at the center position but Phil always have an ace in his sleeve in Dennis Rodman who could bully the centers out like what he did to Kemp, Brikowski, Shaq, Zo, Malone and many others resulting to wins.

Hope this helps.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Despite losing Baylor a few games into the season (mainly because they were losing) they have Wilt Chamberlain who at that time is the most dominant player of that time. MOST DOMINANT. The Lakers also had Gail Goodrich and Jerry West. They lost Elgin but had Gail who was their leading scorer by the way throughout that 1971-72 season averaging 25.9 ppg. He also ranked third in the league in free-throw percentage (.850) and made his second All-Star Game appearance.

That Lakers team did not lack talent at all. While having key reserves Pat Riley and Flynn Robinson.

Answer 2

the suitable team in NBA historic past is particularly the 1995-1996 Chicago Bulls. They gained seventy two video games in a season, then went directly to dominate the NBA playoffs with a checklist of 15-2. the only losses they registered have been interior the NBA Finals, and that exchange into after very nearly putting the Seattle Supersonics in a no-win subject. With Michael Jordan being NBA MVP, Dennis Rodman maximum proper the league in rebounds, Phil Jackson winning coach of the twelve months, and a youthful Toni Kukoc winning 6th guy of the twelve months, that is undemanding to declare that the Chicago Bulls have been the suitable roster in historic past.

Answer 3

The Bulls couldn't beat Bird's Celtics, but given that fact, when you win a NBA all-time high 72 games, not only do you deserve to be labeled as the best team ever, you probably are.

Greatness can only be measured by those who are around you / the opportunity you have in hand, and they answered the challenge and won 72 games. And keep it mind it was nowhere near as bad as the NFL is right now where it's the Patriots who are the globetrotters and 31 versions of the Washington Generals.

Answer 4

I don't care what freakin' era you're from, if you win 72 of 82 games and win the title, you are a great team. Case closed.

Answer 5

yes no nba team has never won 72 games only the 1996 chicago michael jordan bulls, and you cant compare other dynasties or generations to others : different times different people different salaries

Answer 6

No one could touch the bulls. No one can handle defending jordan, pippen, paxon, cartwright and grant. Hands down...all the other teams played teams without good competition.

Answer 7

They had probably one of the greatest teams in sports history. I think they would do well in any era.

Answer 8

They're the GREATEST team ever & played in the TOUGHEST era ever!

Answer 9

Not too well. Jordan was great, but even he couldn't have dunked on Wilt or Russell

Answer 10

bulls of old arent the present loosers sorry but i a fact.