View Full Version : debate: '87 Lakers Vs. '96 Bulls

07-03-2008, 06:19 PM
If they were to go head to head in a 7 game series who do you think would come out on top?

personally, I would take the Lakers because of no one on the Bulls roster with the ability to stop Kareem and the depth of the Lakers bench in comparison to Chicago's '96 team. Although the Bulls did win 72 games, there wasn't another team out there with nearly as much talent, while the Lakers had to share their era with the Celtics, Pistons, the run DMC Warriors, Hakeem's Rockets and a good Sonics team. In '96 there was no equal threat to the Bulls...Let the arguments begin!

07-03-2008, 07:48 PM
lakers in 6

07-03-2008, 08:07 PM
72 wins is a lotta wins, but imo the '96 bulls were over rated. they were the most professional team i have ever seen. they played hard every night. no one ever took a night off. but any of the good laker or celtics teams could beat them. and the '67 warriors of course.


07-03-2008, 11:00 PM

07-04-2008, 12:43 AM
I wanna see Rambis vs. Rodman :D

Mile High Champ
07-04-2008, 08:39 AM
Bulls in 6. I dont think that 96 Jordan team could be beat in a series..

07-04-2008, 07:46 PM
Tough decision but MJ doesn't know the definition of lose when it comes to the Finals.

07-04-2008, 08:05 PM
Lakers with relative ease.

There are 3 other teams from the 80's that would torch those Bulls teams as well. 76'ers at the start of the decade, Celts in the middle, and Pistons at the end.

07-04-2008, 08:34 PM
Lakers in 6

07-04-2008, 08:34 PM
Bulls in 7. They had the better record.

Also they did play the Orlando team who was better than any team the Lakers played out west that year.

07-05-2008, 09:54 AM
Give me the 92 Bulls team any day over either of these 2