# Which Chicago Bulls 3Peat Team Was Better?



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Which Chicago Bulls 3-Peat Championship Team was better? (In Terms of Rosters)

1991-1993 
Michael Jordan 
Scottie Pippen
Horace Grant 
B.J. Armstrong 
Scott Williams 
Stacey King 
Trent Tucker 
Bill Cartwright 
Will Purdue 
John Paxson 
Rodney McCray 
Cliff Livingston 
Craig Hodges 

1996-1998
Michael Jordan
Scottie Pippen
Toni Kukoc
Steve Kerr
Ron Harper
Luc Longley
Bill Winnington
Dennis Rodman
jud Buechler
Randy Brown
Jason Caffey 
Scott Burrell
Brian Williams aka. Bison Dele (R.I.P.)


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Vote, and Discuss....

Enjoy.


----------



## bbasok (Oct 30, 2005)

96 no doubt


----------



## DuMa (Dec 25, 2004)

i really like the 93 team. very cohesive.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

2nd one. Had more talent, depth and experience.


----------



## Black Mamba 24 (Jul 20, 2006)

91-93. If you say otherwise, you just really didn't get a chance to see the original team play.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Yeah, i'm suprised this is so one -sided, i voted for the first 3peat squad, I see it's a lot of new heads to the NBA.

MJ, Pip, Horace, and BJ all made the all star squad.


----------



## xray (Feb 21, 2005)

I was just in awe of the early versions, and I've read many opinions likewise. Perhaps it was Jordan's and Pippen's fire that burned hotter, along with B.J. , Horace, and don't forget Craig Hodges - he was money as well.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Second one. They were like Rockstars then. And the second threepeat was when Pippen took over the team.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Prolific Scorer said:


> Yeah, i'm suprised this is so one -sided, i voted for the first 3peat squad, I see it's a lot of new heads to the NBA.
> 
> MJ, Pip, Horace, and BJ all made the all star squad.



That team was rarely even the best team in the NBA. They were underdogs for their first and third titles.

The second team, was better than the rest of the NBA by a large margin. Just look at their win totals. It's not about new heads to the NBA, it's about common sense. Plus the second 3 peat was a circus. You had Jordan and Pippen who were huge, then Rodman--it was like John Lennon, Paul McCartney, and David Bowie getting together.


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

by far the 2nd, they went 72-10, then 69-13 the next and then still 68ish the last year(dont remember the real W-L record)

They dominated the NBA, the first team was good, but they wernt the dominate force as the 2nd team was. The 2nd team was built to perfection. The first team, there were many teams still able to beat the bulls, they just happen to win the games that mattered most.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

The second three-peat dominated the league quite a bit more then the first team.
Myself, I like the 91-93 team more, but that's just personal preference. I prefer that Jordan to the 96-98 Jordan, not to mention Paxson, BJ Armstrong, etc..

I was a huge Kukoc and Rodman fan though. Talk about a fun team to watch.


----------



## Black Mamba 24 (Jul 20, 2006)

The second one dominated a watered down league, with two brand new franchises thrown in the mix. The first 3-peat took down some of the best team's ever in its path. Those included: 80's Celtics, Barkley's 76ers, Pistons, Magic led Lakers, a VERY GOOD Portland team, the hard core Knick squads... and the list goes on. They were just THAT good.

John Paxson / BJ Armstrong > Ron Harper / Steve Kerr
More Electric Michael Jordan > Older MJ
Scottie Pippen < Scottie Pippen
Horace Grant > Dennis Rodman
Bill Cartwright > Luc Longely


----------



## Black Mamba 24 (Jul 20, 2006)

IMO, that '92 squad...if playing in the 1996 NBA, where the Bulls won 72... that '92 squad wouldn't have lost a game.


----------



## Black Mamba 24 (Jul 20, 2006)

JRose5 said:


> The second three-peat dominated the league quite a bit more then the first team.
> Myself, I like the 91-93 team more, but that's just personal preference. I prefer that Jordan to the 96-98 Jordan, not to mention Paxson, BJ Armstrong, etc..
> 
> I was a huge Kukoc and Rodman fan though. Talk about a fun team to watch.


Not true. That first 3 peat squad played in a MUCH more difficult, and physical league.

Bulls record
1991: 61-21
1992: 67-15
1993: 57-35

Is that not dominating? they had the best record in the league for every year, except the in 1993.
The Bulls in the second three peat, literally got bored with themselves because the competition wasn't as stiff. The firs three-peat dominated in a VERY, VERY strong NBA era.


----------



## Black Mamba 24 (Jul 20, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> Second one. They were like Rockstars then. And the second threepeat was when Pippen took over the team.


I wouldn't say Pippen took it over, more like finally became the equal they always envisioned him to be.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

i think 91-93 they had the better team.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

I think the top-level competition was significantly worse during the Bulls' second three-peat. 

Some of those early '90s sides that didn't win were terrific. Like the Drexler-Porter-Kersey-Cliff-Buck-Duckworth-Ainge Blazers. And the Jazz, who featured a prime Malone and Stockton and that other Malone and a bunch of good defenders. And the Magic-led Lakers. And the incredibly deep Sonics. And the Run TMC Warriors. And an awesome offensive team in the Barkley-KJ Suns. And Riley's Knicks, possibly the best defensive team in NBA history. And the Spurs, featuring a young David Robinson (who was named DPOY in a year in which the league was thick with great candidates), a young Sean Elliott, a young Rod Strickland, a young Avery Johnson, and Terry Cummings. And that Rockets side that finished the '93 season 41-11, blowing out most of the aforementioned teams in the process, including the Bulls and the Suns twice.

In '96 you had the brilliant but dysfunctional Shaq-Penny Magic that had been swept in the Finals the previous year. A deep Pacers side led by Reggie Miller and Rik Smits. Pretty much the same Spurs side, only older and with Rodman instead of Cummings. A similar Jazz side (better at SG, worse at C, and with Stockton starting to decline). And a brilliant Sonics team. That's it. Oh, there was also the Lakers, whose best players were Cedric Ceballos (a bench player on the '93 Suns) and Magic making his short-lived comeback.

The Bulls of the first three-peat had Jordan in his absolute prime. Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong were about to become All-Stars. And Pippen wasn't really any worse than he was in '96.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Black Mamba 24 said:


> The first 3-peat took down some of the best team's ever in its path. Those included: 80's Celtics


How can the Bulls beat the _80's Celtics_ when they 3-peated in the 90's? The only time an MJ-led Bulls team faced the Celtics was in the '86 and '87 playoffs, and they got swept both times.



> Barkley's 76ers


:laugh:

I hope this is a joke. Barkley's 76ers were always a low seed and Bulls defeated them handily in '90 and '91.



> John Paxson / BJ Armstrong > Ron Harper / Steve Kerr
> More Electric Michael Jordan > Older MJ
> Scottie Pippen < Scottie Pippen
> Horace Grant > Dennis Rodman
> Bill Cartwright > Luc Longely


Umm, whatever happened to Kukoc? The 1st 3peat had nobody like Kukoc and the only definite edge it has is Prime MJ>'95-98 MJ.


----------



## Adol (Nov 25, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> And the second threepeat was when Pippen took over the team.


Poppycock.


----------



## Black Mamba 24 (Jul 20, 2006)

You mean to tell me, Bill Cartwright isn't better than Luc Longely?


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

This is always a difficult topic since both sides have good arguments. The first three-peat was my favorite due to Michael being in his prime as a player. I don't know if, say, the 92 squad was really better than the 96 squad, but it's definitely not as simple as comparing W-L records.

Suffice to say, I believe that the 92 Bulls could have three-peated from 96-98 and the 96 Bulls could have three-peated from 91-93. Once MJ, Pip, and PJ tasted blood, they weren't going to make it easy for anybody else. 

Seeing the Bulls play Hakeem's Rockets during the 93-96 period would have been great. Or facing off against some of the more recent championship teams like the Shaq-Kobe Lakers or Duncan's Spurs; both of whom I believe were superior to the teams Chicago faced in the Playoffs during their dual three-peats.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

Black Mamba 24 said:


> Not true. That first 3 peat squad played in a MUCH more difficult, and physical league.
> 
> Bulls record
> 1991: 61-21
> ...


Wrong.

The Blazers had the best league record in 91.

It's hard to compare the two threepeat teams.

On paper the first threepeat team looks better but the second threepeat team had the best chemistry of any Bulls team I have watched.

I also wouldn't say that the first threepeat was in a very strong era.

When the Bulls won 67 games in 92 the East was going through a transition. The Pistons were no longer a powerhouse. The Celtics were aging. The Knicks were finally coming into their own. 

In the West, Magic retired. The Blazers were loaded with talent, Jazz were younger, Warriors were pretenders, the Suns still pre-Barkley.

In 96' when the Bulls won 72 games the East were an emerging conference. The Magic had an unforgettable starting lineup but were young and immature, Pacers were coming into their own, Knicks were no longer a powerhouse.

You could argue though that the West was stronger. The Sonics were loaded and finally overcame the underachiever postseason label, DRob finally got help by the name of Elliot, Jazz were maturing, Magic came back from retirement, Rockets still lethal despite winning 48 games (1 more than the previous season when they won the championship).

Honestly I don't think there was _that_ huge of a discrepency. I will also say the 90s league was stronger but not overwhelmingly stronger. It is not like the Bulls were facing the former powerhouses Pistons and Celtics. Those two teams had declined by then due to aging and injuries. Plus in 97 when the Bulls won 69 games, 6 teams in the East had 50+ wins. The West was also stronger than the year before with Shaq trading sides. I actually think their 69 win season is more impressive than their 72 win season especially when you consider Rodman and Kukoc missed 32 games combined. Fact is the 2nd threepeat team was so good that even in 98 when Pippen missed 38 games they still won 62 games. The Bull's first threepeat team was also good considering they won 55 games minus MJ with the core team still intact in 94'.

Both threepeat teams are close. I think most people often side with first threepeat because of a prime MJ and it is hard to argue against that.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

Even though the 1995-96 team had the better record, I always felt the 1991-92 version was the best Bulls team I saw.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Hoopla said:


> Even though the 1995-96 team had the better record, *I always felt the 1991-92 version was the best Bulls team I saw.*


That team lost 7 games in the postseason though. None of the other 5 champions lost that many.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I have trouble selecting against the second threepeat team, considering it's one of the only times in any sport that a team winning the championship was almost a foregone conclusion.

The Bulls from 1995-96 through their breakup simply tore through the league, to the extent that, if healthy, they seemed only to lose due to disinterest (their losses often came to teams like the Raptors or Nuggets). I've rarely seen dominance on that level. The first threepeat team, while fantastic, was just a dynamic team with a great chance. It wasn't their championship to lose, like it was for the Bulls in the second threepeat.

I don't think the league difficulty was considerably different, to account for the vast difference in dominance.


----------



## dwade3 (Sep 12, 2005)

SPMJ said:


> How can the Bulls beat the _80's Celtics_ when they 3-peated in the 90's? The only time an MJ-led Bulls team faced the Celtics was in the '86 and '87 playoffs, and they got sweptQUOTE]
> 
> yeah but then they beat the detroit pistons who beat the celtics......see, its a cycle....


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> The Bulls from 1995-96 through their breakup simply tore through the league, to the extent that, if healthy, they seemed only to lose due to disinterest (their losses often came to teams like the Raptors or Nuggets).


They also often struggled against teams with good big men. Rodman wasn't the defender he was earlier in his career (wasn't very consistent, and he was better at guarding smaller guys, anyway), and Luc Longley didn't play much defense at all (or rebound, for that matter). Fortunately for the Bulls, most of the good centers and power forwards were declining and/or not on very good teams.

In '96, 9 of their 10 regular season losses were to such teams -- Orlando (Shaq), Seattle (Kemp), Denver (Mutombo), Phoenix (Barkley), Miami (Mourning), Charlotte (Larry Johnson), and Indiana, twice (Smits).

In '97, 10 of their 13 losses came that way -- Utah (Malone), Atlanta (Mutombo), Houston (Olajuwon), Lakers (Elden Campbell -- he wasn't on the level of some of these other guys, I know, but he appears to have killed them), Washington (Webber and Howard), Detroit (Otis Thorpe and Terry Mills), and Miami and New York, twice each.

'98 is even more striking -- 19 of their 20 losses were to teams with very good big men or above-average big men who played very well against them in those games.

Of course, it was a different story in the playoffs, but still, it suggests that the Bulls of the second three-peat did have a significant weakness. Who knows how they would have fared against the early '90s Suns, Rockets, Knicks, Spurs, Blazers, Cavs, Hawks and Jazz?


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> They also often struggled against teams with good big men. Rodman wasn't the defender he was earlier in his career (wasn't very consistent, and he was better at guarding smaller guys, anyway), and Luc Longley didn't play much defense at all (or rebound, for that matter). Fortunately for the Bulls, most of the good centers and power forwards were declining and/or not on very good teams.
> 
> In '96, 9 of their 10 regular season losses were to such teams -- Orlando (Shaq), Seattle (Kemp), Denver (Mutombo), Phoenix (Barkley), Miami (Mourning), Charlotte (Larry Johnson), and Indiana, twice (Smits).
> 
> ...


That was certainly a weakness. The Bulls never had a strong center on either threepeat team. It was always the biggest criticism against the teams.

But those losses you listed during their 72 win season:

Rodman did not play in their loss against the Magic and Sonics. 

Longley did not play in their loss against the Nuggets, Suns, and Hornets.

In their 69 win season:

Rodman did not play in their loss against the Rockets, Lakers, Bullets, Pistons, Heat (Apr 14), and Knicks (Apr 19). 

Longley did not play in their loss against the Heat (Dec 7) and Hawks.

It was a weakness that the Bulls managed to overcome in the playoffs especially when you look at the teams they beat to get to the championship but Rodman and Longley missed a number of those games in which they lost against teams with good big men.

I'm not sure how well the first threepeat Bulls minus a Horace Grant due to injury would fare as well. In the 96 and 97 season, Rodman missed a total of 45 games in the regular season due to suspensions and injuries. When he was on court the team was 105-14 (.882). Longley missed 43 games in 96-97 and 67 games 96-98. 

Fortunately for the first threepeat Bulls' teams Grant only missed 10 games in 91-93. Cartwright missed 40 games in 91-93.

It's speculation how the second threepeat team would fare against those early 90s teams you listed but we know is they did play very well against the Spurs (who still had a prime Admiral), destroyed the Magic in the 96 playoffs and they did beat the Jazz in two finals (during Malone's MVP years). Even among some of the teams you listed in their losses in the 96' and 97' seasons they still had a record of:

2-0 vs Spurs (I only listed their 96' record since Admiral was injured in the 97' season)
3-1 vs Rockets
3-1 vs Magic (I only listed their 96' record since Shaq left the next season)
3-1 vs Sonics
5-3 vs Heat
3-1 vs Lakers
7-1 vs Hornets (The Hornets still had quality big men in 97 in Divac and Mason)
3-1 vs Jazz
6-1 vs Bullets
5-3 vs Knicks
6-2 vs Pacers

That is a combined regular season record of 46-15 (.754). So even though it was a weakness they still pretty much dominated against teams with good big men.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> Who knows how they would have fared against the early '90s Suns, Rockets, Knicks, Spurs, Blazers, Cavs, Hawks and Jazz?


But we do know how they fared in the early 90's against those teams - they beat 'em ALL. An MJ-led Bulls team never lost to the Knicks, Blazers, Cavs and the Suns in the playoffs. All of 'em had very good inside players. Their overall record against those teams during the 2nd 3peat is very good too(as Gilgamesh pointed out). They also beat MVP-level Malone in '97 and '98 in the playoffs. So we KNOW how they fared.


----------



## CSILASVEGAS (Jan 14, 2006)

the second one was more talented. they won more regular season games and they dominated more compared to the first one. they had a deeper roster and they had dennis rodman!!!!! they were more mature and they executed better. but for me, the first one was more exciting to watch. mj was still attacking more tan taking fade away jump shots. that was the time that they just beat the pesky pistons which kept them away from their goal for consecutive years. it was also the 91-93 era where mj had most of his high lights like the shot vs the lakers, the 6 threes vs the blazers and the 4th quarter demolition against the suns in games 2 and 6.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> They also often struggled against teams with good big men. Rodman wasn't the defender he was earlier in his career (wasn't very consistent, and he was better at guarding smaller guys, anyway), and Luc Longley didn't play much defense at all (or rebound, for that matter). Fortunately for the Bulls, most of the good centers and power forwards were declining and/or not on very good teams.


Only in the regular season. In the playoffs, their series against Orlando, Seattle, Atlanta (when they had Mutombo), Washington (Webber and a better Howard), Miami and Utah were surprisingly uncompetitive, all told. Utah played them tough, but never forced it to a seventh game with or without home-court advantage.

Indiana was the Bulls' best playoff test, oddly enough, and I didn't really get the sense that it was because Smits couldn't be stopped. The Pacers played the right combination of aggravating defense, hard-nosed rebounding and had an inside-outside game to bother the Bulls. They were probably the closest thing to the Bad Boys Pistons who originally gave the Bulls so much trouble (though minus the intimidating physical presence).



> Of course, it was a different story in the playoffs, but still, it suggests that the Bulls of the second three-peat did have a significant weakness. Who knows how they would have fared against the early '90s Suns, Rockets, Knicks, Spurs, Blazers, Cavs, Hawks and Jazz?


Well, the playoffs suggest they'd have fared very well. They may have dropped games to those teams in the regular season, but their defensive intensity went way up in the playoffs. Big men who abused Longley in the regular season now had Jordan, Pippen and Rodman harrassing them every time they turned around.


----------



## magohaydz (Dec 21, 2005)

Black Mamba 24 said:


> The firs three-peat dominated in a VERY, VERY strong NBA era.


Probably the strongest era of NBA since 1980 I reckon


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Gilgamesh said:


> That was certainly a weakness. The Bulls never had a strong center on either threepeat team. It was always the biggest criticism against the teams.


Although Cartwright didn't appear to be a great defender (he was above-average, certainly), the top big men always seemed to struggle against those Bulls. That wasn't the case against the Bulls of the second three-peat. Maybe he actually was a very good defender, especially as he focused less on scoring, and we simply couldn't tell (it's possible -- it's sometimes difficult to judge, especially when you have great help defense in Jordan and Pippen and Grant). Maybe it was the flying elbows. 



> But those losses you listed during their 72 win season:
> 
> Rodman did not play in their loss against the Magic and Sonics.
> Longley did not play in their loss against the Nuggets, Suns, and Hornets.
> ...


Good points. But Longley was a very poor defender. I doubt they missed him on that end. 
Rodman may not have played against the Rockets, but Barkley didn't play in that game, either. Barkley was the better player that year. Anyway, it was Olajuwon who did the damage. And it was a blowout. 
Shaq didn't play in the Magic's win over the Bulls in '96. I shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place. Shaq didn't play in the Lakers' win in '97, either. He was much more valuable than Rodman. Rodman couldn't guard him, anyway.



> Even among some of the teams you listed in their losses in the 96' and 97' seasons they still had a record of:
> ...
> 
> That is a combined regular season record of 46-15 (.754). So even though it was a weakness they still pretty much dominated against teams with good big men.


I know, and their merely excellent record against those teams might just be because most of the good teams had good big men. There weren't a lot of good guards back then. 

But my point was that the Bulls weren't invincible and didn't simply lose out of a lack of interest, and only to bad teams, as was suggested. The majority of their losses were to teams with quality big men, even though such teams were a minority. I brought up the early '90s Rockets, Knicks, etc. because not only did some of those teams have excellent big men in their primes, but they were also mostly terrific teams. I mean, the '96-'98 Spurs couldn't have been expected to compete with the Bulls. They had a severely undersized backcourt that would have been destroyed by Jordan and Pippen. The Bullets were at best barely a playoff team. Same with the '96 Heat. The Hornets were decent, but Divac and Mason were no Olajuwon and Thorpe. The Rockets were old and injured, missing Drexler and Barkley once each. The Magic didn't have Shaq in three of the games. The Lakers were without him once, too. The Knicks were much worse than they were in '93. 

Also, the Bulls did have Rodman, so they struggled more against the good centers than against the power forwards. The only really good sides with top centers were the '97 Rockets (the Bulls' record against them: 1-1), '96 and '98 Heat (4-3), '97 Knicks (2-2), '96 Magic (1-0 with Shaq), '97 Lakers (1-1 with Shaq) and the '96 and '98 Pacers (4-4). That's 13-11 against 50+ win teams with good centers. The Bulls weighted average record against all teams in that span was 68-14. 26% of their losses came against this unique 9% of the league.



SPMJ said:


> But we do know how they fared in the early 90's against those teams - they beat 'em ALL. An MJ-led Bulls team never lost to the Knicks, Blazers, Cavs and the Suns in the playoffs. All of 'em had very good inside players. Their overall record against those teams during the 2nd 3peat is very good too(as Gilgamesh pointed out). They also beat MVP-level Malone in '97 and '98 in the playoffs. So we KNOW how they fared.


We don't know how they fared because the '96-'98 Bulls never played those teams. They beat them with Cartwright and Grant and a prime Jordan and Pippen, not Longley and Rodman and an old Jordan and a prime Pippen. Different teams. My point is that the Bulls of the second three-peat may have been weaker against good teams with top big men.


----------



## Petrucci (Feb 12, 2006)

I belive to have read that Jordan thought that the first 3peat was the best. It´s in one of my jordan books so i can´t easily find it...


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> Only in the regular season. In the playoffs, their series against Orlando, Seattle, Atlanta (when they had Mutombo), Washington (Webber and a better Howard), Miami and Utah were surprisingly uncompetitive, all told. Utah played them tough, but never forced it to a seventh game with or without home-court advantage.


Seattle and Utah did each take them to six games, which is pretty good against 70-ish win teams. The '96 Heat, the '96 Knicks and the Bullets were all barely playoff teams. They could have had a 1962 Wilt Chamberlain at center and not fared much differently.



> Indiana was the Bulls' best playoff test, oddly enough, and I didn't really get the sense that it was because Smits couldn't be stopped. The Pacers played the right combination of aggravating defense, hard-nosed rebounding and had an inside-outside game to bother the Bulls. They were probably the closest thing to the Bad Boys Pistons who originally gave the Bulls so much trouble (though minus the intimidating physical presence).


Smits averaged 20.6 ppg in Indiana's six wins against the Bulls, and 11.9 ppg in their eight losses. I'm not counting '97. Smits played well against them then, too, but the Pacers were a poor team and lost anyway.



> Well, the playoffs suggest they'd have fared very well. They may have dropped games to those teams in the regular season, but their defensive intensity went way up in the playoffs. Big men who abused Longley in the regular season now had Jordan, Pippen and Rodman harrassing them every time they turned around.


Like I said in the previous post, I may have been wrong in including power forwards. Rodman could guard the likes of Malone and Kemp. But he had a lot more trouble with Smits, Shaq, etc. There, Longley did much of the work. And, as I said, the Bulls lost nearly half those games. They did easily beat the Heat and the Magic in the playoffs (though Shaq averaged 27 ppg. Zo, not being a good passer, did not react nearly as well to the Bulls' excellent help defense). But both Bulls' sides significantly raised their level of play in the playoffs, while few of their rivals did the same. Remember, the Knicks were 3-1 against the Bulls in the '93 regular season, but lost in 6 in the ECF. The first Bulls side might have performed even better against those mid-'90s Magic and Heat. Cartwright was a better defender than Longley, Horace Grant was a better defender than old Rodman, prime Jordan was a better defender than old Jordan, and Pippen was IMO a better help defender in the early '90s than he was later.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

It seems most people pick the first three-peat because of Jordan being in his prime and the second three-peat because of the incredible combined regular season record.

In the playoffs, both teams went 45-13, so there was not really that much difference where it counted.

Personally, I think the 96-98 Bulls were better in that they found a way to play _their_ game almost every night out. The 91-93 Bulls seemed more susceptible to being bullied or intimidated (e.g. 92 semis). It was more Michael and the Jordanaires. 

The second time around, the leadership was more evenly split between Jordan and Pippen: while they may have been somewhat tired and past their primes, they were better basketball players. I think that last point illustrates the difference between the two teams as a whole.

The first team was probably better in the same sense that Charles Barkley speaks of being a better player in his Philadelphia days: they were in their prime.

Okay, enough analogy and semantics for one evening...


----------



## DaBigTicketKG21 (Apr 27, 2003)

JPSeraph said:


> It seems most people pick the first three-peat because of Jordan being in his prime and the second three-peat because of the incredible combined regular season record.
> 
> In the playoffs, both teams went 45-13, so there was not really that much difference where it counted.
> 
> ...


That 95-96 team is teh best Bulls team I ever witnessed and probably the best ever. The thing about that year was that all the media was doubting Michael now. Saying that he wasn't teh same because of their loss in the playoffs the year before even though he put up 55 against the Knicks that year. Jordan and the whole bulls team just had that inner drive and determination to be back on top. That team featured three of the most versatile defenders of all time. Also, that was one of the most fundamentally sound teams ever and had the deepest bench in the league. 15-3 in the playoffs and 
only team to get 70 wins. 97 and 98 were great too, but that 96 team just took the league by storm. 

However, the 1st three peat team was more fun to watch because of an attacking Jordan.


----------



## GuYoM (Jun 2, 2005)

the 2nd is better


----------

