who was better chicago bulls in 1990s or lakers in 2000 2001 2002?
i think bulls were better cause they had no shelfish lakers had kobe
i think bulls were better cause they had no shelfish lakers had kobe
TLee
Favorite Answer
look it up on whatifsports.com, and i better get the 10 since i recommended this site, lol.
rulon
The 1996 Bulls would do very undesirable issues to the 2001 Lakers. The 2001 Lakers would all sit down interior the bathe attempting to bathe off the dirt from that have. (i had to get extra specific, yet i be attentive to for a actuality i'd get a contravention observe.) there's a clarification why Phil won extra Championships with the Bulls, it is call Jordan.
Anonymous
i dont know...
the bulls of the 90s were basically all MJ, pippen, rodman, and a little bit of toni kukoc
the lakers had kobe, shaq, clutch robert horry, rick fox, horace grant, AC Green, Ron Harper (who was on both teams), and other good role players
i think the bulls were a better team, but the lakers team would win in a game because shaq was so dominant back then
Anonymous
Lakers 2000, 2001, 2002 and the 80;s lakers with Magic.
Bulls beat bunch of no bodies in the finals, Utah, Portland,
Phoenix, none of them had a title.
Lakers in 80s beat boston which had 4 titles, and
200-2002 they beat SA and Detroit good teams.
jrp
Bulls of the 90's would have killed the lakers of th 2000's.
Jordan would have dominated Kobe and rodman would frustate shaq.