How many posters are jordan only fans?

[97 bulls]

I was just wondering how many of us are fans of jordan but not really a fan of the bulls or any other team.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

No one will admit it

[Nevaeh]

Don't think you'll find many Jordan Fans on these Boards, sorry. That ship been sailed lol.

[Miserio]

Jordan fan. Celtics fan.

[Asukal]

I am a Jordan fan, not a stan though. I consider him the GOAT but I do acknowledge that some other greats have a legitimate case. :oldlol:

The only Jordan stan I know in this forum based on how he posts is Gengiskhan. :banana:

[SunsCaptain]

Please...Steve Nash is GOAT. Jordan is nothing! :D

[97 bulls]

I guess I'm asking, how many people will admit their biased jordan fans. The reason ii ask is cuz I notice that certain posters only goal is to defend jordan. They show no alliegance to any team or currnet player. Just jordan

[Collie]

I'm a fan of the 90's Bulls, and a big fan of MJ. I'm not a fan of the current Bulls though.

[G-train]

There is one poster waiting to be named so that he can bullrush the thread and start flaming.

[EricForman]

I was just wondering how many of us are fans of jordan but not really a fan of the bulls or any other team.

I have no idea why you single out Jordan homers like they're a ruining this board when the Kobe homers are much worse. I mean really, are you like some sort of bitter Pippen fan who's annoyed at the attention Jordan got over Pip?

Anyone looking at ISH from an objective point of view can see that most of the troll threads are started by Kobe homers, and while there ARE Jordan homers, they are merely responding to the Kobe homer's troll threads. In terms of pure numbers there are definitely more Kobe trolls. And in terms of LEVEL OF TROLLING, Kobe trolls are worse considering Jordan is closer to whatever the hell Jordan trolls CLAIM than Kobe is of whatever the hell Kobe trolls CLAIM.

Really, I don't see Jordan homers like OldSchoolBball, Starjordan, juju starting threads. I see TheLogo, Jacks3, Nick Young starting sh*t threads, and the FIRST response is ALWAYS that zay_24 or Mr I'm So Rad, aka known Kobe homers.

[Clippersfan86]

There is one poster waiting to be named so that he can bullrush the thread and start flaming.

Killing me with the suspense. Who is it :eek: ?

[Jacks3]

andgar
eric forman
loco
genghiskan

the big four of the jordan dick-sucking brigade.

[97 bulls]

I have no idea why you single out Jordan homers like they're a ruining this board when the Kobe homers are much worse. I mean really, are you like some sort of bitter Pippen fan who's annoyed at the attention Jordan got over Pip?

Anyone looking at ISH from an objective point of view can see that most of the troll threads are started by Kobe homers, and while there ARE Jordan homers, they are merely responding to the Kobe homer's troll threads. In terms of pure numbers there are definitely more Kobe trolls. And in terms of LEVEL OF TROLLING, Kobe trolls are worse considering Jordan is closer to whatever the hell Jordan trolls CLAIM than Kobe is of whatever the hell Kobe trolls CLAIM.

Really, I don't see Jordan homers like OldSchoolBball, Starjordan, juju starting threads. I see TheLogo, Jacks3, Nick Young starting sh*t threads, and the FIRST response is ALWAYS that zay_24 or Mr I'm So Rad, aka known Kobe homers.
I think jordan homers are worse than kobe homers. And seeing as how I'm a bulls fan I don't care that jordan got a lot of attention. At least the kobe homers are laker fans. You jordan homers are pathetic

And my god what is wrong with being biased? Were fans here. Whether we want to admit it or not were all biased in some way shape or form. Do you know where the word fan comes from? Its short for fanatic. How can anyone be an objective fanatic? It makes no sense. And id leave star jordan out. He seems like a bulls fan.

[purplch0de]

Jordan-only fans are idiots... why? Because they're closes minded; never open to absorb anyone elses opinion despite it being based off of statistics or any other fact.

[poido123]

Jordan and bulls fan myself, as for claiming Jordan stans are the worst? well, I think Jordan fans who defend Jordan do it in a way that can only be done for the player he is. What I mean is, Jordan is considered by many to be GOAT, and unfortunately we have to hear the stupid comparisons made by uneducated Kobe fans, who really don't have anything to claim, so they make stupid threads pulling down jordan vs X player, to boost Kobe to be something he is not.

I form the opinion that players like Wilt, Kareem, perhaps russell lay claim to being GOAT, Im fine with that. My opinion is that Jordan is GOAT, as I form my opinion based on what players Ive seen in my lifetime..Therefore, I don't discredit other people's opinion if they believe that whatever player is GOAT, as those players they claim to be, I never saw them play, except for a few highlights I see here and there.

I find it funny that Kobe stans like to point out how bad Jordan fans are, when really it's them who are completely stupid. For one, Kobe is questionable top 10 player of all time, so they wonder why Jordan fans get mad when they bring up a stupid Jordan vs Kobe thread..Or when they make such stupid comparisons, then when they get hit with the facts, they go into YOU MAD rant, and scurry away like cochroaches...

[EricForman]

I think jordan homers are worse than kobe homers. And seeing as how I'm a bulls fan I don't care that jordan got a lot of attention. At least the kobe homers are laker fans. You jordan homers are pathetic

No real regular posters, meaning the Kblazes, GOBBs, All Net, considers me a "Jordan stan/homer/troll". I've defended Kobe on several front, nor do I make ridiculous Jordan claims, your bitterness is leaking through. :oldlol:

And "at least they're Laker fans"? Is that why Gasol gets killed on here and the importance of having a Bynum/Gasol frontline is always dismissed by Kobe fans on here? Wasn't there a thread recently about how the Lakers cast was no better than the Wizard's cast?


And my god what is wrong with being biased? Were fans here. Whether we want to admit it or not were all biased in some way shape or form.

If there's nothing wrong with being biased, why are you starting threads asking for "biased Jordan fans" to show themselves?

And more importantly, I've stated, several times, that I've RARELY seen Jordan trolls start threads or instigate arguments, but Kobe trolls do it EVERY DAY (and this is something that can be proven right now, if you check the first few pages of the forums)

Every time, you ignore this and claim "Jordan trolls are worse".

How so? How are they worse when they're not actively starting threads (meaning they're NOT BRINGING UP THE TOPIC) and what they claim is closer to widely-accepted consensus (Jordan being GOAT, Jordan being GOAT defender) than what Kobe trolls claims (Kobe being best player in the league since 2002, Kobe being Shaq's near equal on the threepeat teams), AND there are FEWER of them?

So how exactly are Jordan trolls worse? EXPLAIN YOURSELF.

You can't, because YOU are a troll. And your bitterness is blowing your cover. Go home, you assclown.

[OmniStrife]

NBA / Suns / Nash / Jordan / Dirk fan (in that order)

Used to be a Bron fan until 2011.
Used to be a Kobe fan until I came here... :banghead:

[Jacks3]

Jordan trolls are the worst.
yup. it's sad how insecure those clowns are.

[kaiiu]

Jordan stans are the worst on ISH

[Asukal]

^See how all these Kobe stans come out and never say anything educated? :hammerhead:

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[LBJ 23]

Used to be a Kobe fan until I came here... :banghead:


Same here. Before I joined this forum my favourite players in order were Lebron, Wade, Kobe. Sadly, after being here for 2 years Kobe fell out of my top 5 mainly because of his fans.

[EricForman]

yo 97 Bulls where you at? care to answer my question from last post about how you can claim Jordan trolls are worse when they start significantly FEWER threads, are in smaller numbers, and what they argue is closer to reality?

Oh yeah, you can't. You a f*cking chump, I've been doing this on ISH since 2004 -- getting OPs to disappear from their own damn thread. :oldlol:

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

I don't understand how a players' fans make him any less great of a basketball player...

[97 bulls]

No real regular posters, meaning the Kblazes, GOBBs, All Net, considers me a "Jordan stan/homer/troll". I've defended Kobe on several front, nor do I make ridiculous Jordan claims, your bitterness is leaking through. :oldlol:

And "at least they're Laker fans"? Is that why Gasol gets killed on here and the importance of having a Bynum/Gasol frontline is always dismissed by Kobe fans on here? Wasn't there a thread recently about how the Lakers cast was no better than the Wizard's cast?
Kobe fans do minimize bynum/gasol. But understand that they're doing it from a historical standpoint. Obviously neither of the two are great historically. But what they fail to realize is that the players they play against are terrible bigs. Which makes both gasol and bynum look much better than they really are.


If there's nothing wrong with being biased, why are you starting threads asking for "biased Jordan fans" to show themselves?
Because they make bulls fans look bad. And there is nothing wrong with being biased when it comes to being a sports fan. The problem I have is when posters go into a thread and act as if their objective and unbiased. And somehow, this gives them more crdeibilty

And more importantly, I've stated, several times, that I've RARELY seen Jordan trolls start threads or instigate arguments, but Kobe trolls do it EVERY DAY (and this is something that can be proven right now, if you check the first few pages of the forums)
Your right. They don't create troll threads. But they sure do contribute to them.

Every time, you ignore this and claim "Jordan trolls are worse".

How so? How are they worse when they're not actively starting threads (meaning they're NOT BRINGING UP THE TOPIC) and what they claim is closer to widely-accepted consensus (Jordan being GOAT, Jordan being GOAT defender) than what Kobe trolls claims (Kobe being best player in the league since 2002, Kobe being Shaq's near equal on the threepeat teams), AND there are FEWER of them?

So how exactly are Jordan trolls worse? EXPLAIN YOURSELF.

You can't, because YOU are a troll. And your bitterness is blowing your cover. Go home, you assclown.
I never said there were more jordan trolls than kobe trolls. I said jordan fans are the worse. What makes them worse? When they claim jordan won 6 championships, set the all-time league record for wins, then follow that up with 69 wins and 67 wins all by hemself.

Or when they diminish the role other bulls players had on those championships. Its just maddening

[RRR3]

I never said there were more jordan trolls than kobe trolls. I said jordan fans are the worse. What makes them worse? When they claim jordan won 6 championships, set the all-time league record for wins, then follow that up with 69 wins and 67 wins all by hemself.

Or when they diminish the role other bulls players had on those championships. Its just maddening
Ummm...have you heard the things Kobe fans have said?

*He's "DA GOAT GAWD"
*He "Led Shaq to 3 rings"
*He is "Better than Jordan"
*He has been the best player since the early 2000's
*He has "5 RINGZ" all on his own
*He is the "most clutch" ever

[Doctor Rivers]

Ummm...have you heard the things Kobe fans have said?

*He's "DA GOAT GAWD"
*He "Led Shaq to 3 rings"
*He is "Better than Jordan"
*He has been the best player since the early 2000's
*He has "5 RINGZ" all on his own
*He is the "most clutch" ever

lol and you feed right into their little game :facepalm

[Dave3]

I don't understand how a players' fans make him any less great of a basketball player...
They don't make him any less of a great player, but they make him harder to cheer for. No one said they think Kobe is a worse player because of his fans, only that they aren't as big fans of him anymore.

That's because it's hard to cheer for a player when in the back of your mind you know every little thing he does right is going to get blown way out of proportion and completely distort the way half the people on ISH see the NBA. If a player has been better than Kobe for 81 games of the season, but Kobe outplays him head to head in the 82nd game, you'll very likely have a majority of his fans (and the entirety of his troll followers) claiming him the best or putting down the other player. I mean look at the front page most of the time. Any thread about LeBron, Wade, Jordan, or whomever else rivals Kobe in any way shape or form is more often started by a Kobe fan than anyone else. Hard to cheer for someone who's fans ruin everything he does with hyperbole. That's just my opinion though, others may have different reasons.

[97 bulls]

Ummm...have you heard the things Kobe fans have said?

*He's "DA GOAT GAWD"
*He "Led Shaq to 3 rings"
*He is "Better than Jordan"
*He has been the best player since the early 2000's
*He has "5 RINGZ" all on his own
*He is the "most clutch" ever
I obviously disagree with those statements. But I'm not a laker fan. Laker fans need to reign these types in. But in my opinion, jordan fans are worse. I bet if you were to ask the posters on this forum that are labeled kobe trolls if they're laker fans they all would say yes. Other than samarui swoosh. Ask your typical jordan troll who their favorite team is and they don't answer. Why? Cuz they're supposedly not biased.

[bond10]

I obviously disagree with those statements. But I'm not a laker fan. Laker fans need to reign these types in. But in my opinion, jordan fans are worse. I bet if you were to ask the posters on this forum that are labeled kobe trolls if they're laker fans they all would say yes. Other than samarui swoosh. Ask your typical jordan troll who their favorite team is and they don't answer. Why? Cuz they're supposedly not biased.


You're misled into thinking Jordan overshadows the bulls because of two reasons:

1. Judging from your posts, you're clearly on Pippen's nuts.
2. ISH's #1 topic is player vs player, and since MJ is the GOAT, he's the benchmark. Hence you'll see a billion player x vs Jordan threads and nobody uses "teams" for an argument between two players.

[Nevaeh]

I never said there were more jordan trolls than kobe trolls. I said jordan fans are the worse. What makes them worse? When they claim jordan won 6 championships, set the all-time league record for wins, then follow that up with 69 wins and 67 wins all by hemself.

Or when they diminish the role other bulls players had on those championships. Its just maddening

Dude, give me a break. I have yet to see any legit Jordan fans give credit only to Jordan. Everyone who witnessed those Bulls runs remembers the big plays and contributions by other players, but lets not front and act like Jordan wasn't the Engine for those runs either.

You want other Players (mainly Pippen) to be given equal credit for those Championships, just like Kobe Stans want Kobe to be given equal credit for the Lakers' 3-peat. Well guess what? Neither of those guys were the franchise Players during those runs. That's just FACT. If stating FACTS is now considered being "worse" than Stans who like to embellish and lie through their teeth about what actually took place with their favorite Player, then that's on THEM.

Just don't get mad when people call you out on it with facts and video to show what really took place back then, so future generations will know the TRUTH and not a bunch of woulda coulda shouldas, qualifiers and flat out lies that peeps like to use to prop up Players beyond what they actually are and, more importantly, what they actually DID on their respective teams.

[kaiiu]

Ummm...have you heard the things Kobe fans have said?

*He's "DA GOAT GAWD"
*He "Led Shaq to 3 rings"
*He is "Better than Jordan"
*He has been the best player since the early 2000's
*He has "5 RINGZ" all on his own
*He is the "most clutch" ever
to much football games for u cuz u Mad den a motha****a

[bond10]

Dude, give me a break. I have yet to see any legit Jordan fans give credit only to Jordan. Everyone who witnessed those Bulls runs remembers the big plays and contributions by other players, but lets not front and act like Jordan wasn't the Engine for those runs either.

You want other Players (mainly Pippen) to be given equal credit for those Championships, just like Kobe Stans want Kobe to be given equal credit for the Lakers' 3-peat. Well guess what? Neither of those guys were the franchise Players during those runs. That's just FACT. If stating FACTS is now considered being "worse" than Stans who like to embellish and lie through their teeth about what actually took place with their favorite Player, then that's on THEM.

Just don't get mad when people call you out on it with facts and video to show what really took place back then, so future generations will know the TRUTH and not a bunch of woulda coulda shouldas, qualifiers and flat out lies that peeps like to use to prop up Players beyond what they actually are and, more importantly, what they actually DID on their respective teams.


He just needs to realize that 98% of the topics on ISH end up becoming <insert top 15 player> vs Jordan. NOBODY is going to say "Jordan is better than Kobe cause he had Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc, Harper, etc. etc."

[chazzy]

Lol at people treating fanbases like clans/political parties or some shit. Taking this way too seriously.

[RRR3]

to much football games for u cuz u Mad den a motha****a
You are literally mentally retarded.

[guy]

I never said there were more jordan trolls than kobe trolls. I said jordan fans are the worse. What makes them worse? When they claim jordan won 6 championships, set the all-time league record for wins, then follow that up with 69 wins and 67 wins all by hemself.

Or when they diminish the role other bulls players had on those championships. Its just maddening

Not sure how you can say that. You can tell Kobe trolls are worse because there are way more unbiased fans that actually agree with Jordan trolls then Kobe trolls. There's also way more ridiculous off the wall claims Kobe trolls make then Jordan trolls. And no one says he won it by himself. Just that he was clearly the biggest reason for that. Not sure how anyone is disputing that.

To your second point, my view on that is that almost all championship supporting casts are overrated because part of the reason they look so good in the first place is cause they play off the strengths of their superstar player, and there weaknesses aren't as noted as a result of the brilliance of their superstar player. For example, are players like Dennis Rodman or Horace Grant really talked about as much today if they played for the Kings their whole career? Are Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili considered anywhere near as relevant from a historical perspective if they weren't playing with Tim Duncan? And to say a player or team is overrated does not mean they weren't great. It could just mean instead of a 9.5 out of 10, they were a 8.5 out of 10. These discussions are mostly centered around Jordan and Kobe's teams because they are the most popular NBA players in history right now, instead of someone like Hakeem or Duncan.

[guy]

yo 97 Bulls where you at? care to answer my question from last post about how you can claim Jordan trolls are worse when they start significantly FEWER threads, are in smaller numbers, and what they argue is closer to reality?

Oh yeah, you can't. You a f*cking chump, I've been doing this on ISH since 2004 -- getting OPs to disappear from their own damn thread. :oldlol:

Dude no offense cause you seem like an alright guy, but you take this board way too seriously. People aren't on insidehoops 24/7 always ready to respond.

[97 bulls]

Dude, give me a break. I have yet to see any legit Jordan fans give credit only to Jordan. Everyone who witnessed those Bulls runs remembers the big plays and contributions by other players, but lets not front and act like Jordan wasn't the Engine for those runs either.

You want other Players (mainly Pippen) to be given equal credit for those Championships, just like Kobe Stans want Kobe to be given equal credit for the Lakers' 3-peat. Well guess what? Neither of those guys were the franchise Players during those runs. That's just FACT. If stating FACTS is now considered being "worse" than Stans who like to embellish and lie through their teeth about what actually took place with their favorite Player, then that's on THEM.
This is exactly what I'm saying. Why do you divey out credits for key roles on championship teams? Could the bulls win while missiong one of their core players? And by core I mean jordan pippen and rodman. Could the celtics win witout bird, parrish or mchale? Like I said in another thread. You guys start this the man nonsense. I never saw jabaar get less credit cuz he wasn't the best player on the lakers back to back team. I never saw mchales career get diminished cuz he never won a title as the "man". Hell there was a thread made a few days ago asking was mchale a franchise player. The ones that answered yes were making comparisons to moses malone, tim duncan, and shaq. Didn't see the jordan fans come in and check them. But there wass no need. I shut that thread down

Just don't get mad when people call you out on it with facts and video to show what really took place back then, so future generations will know the TRUTH and not a bunch of woulda coulda shouldas, qualifiers and flat out lies that peeps like to use to prop up Players beyond what they actually are and, more importantly, what they actually DID on their respective teams.
I never run from an argument. And tell me what I'm wrong on. Or what people call me out on?

[boozehound]

I was just wondering how many of us are fans of jordan but not really a fan of the bulls or any other team.
how ****ing pathetic. So, you obviously dont even like basketball. Its one thing to have him as your favorite player of all time, its another to not like any other players/teams/etc. so, do you bother to watch ball at all? or just the bobcats? jesus christ, this takes fanboi to a whole new level of suck.

[DMV2]

Most real Jordan stan don't even know what Insidehoops is or message boards are. :lol

Most so-called "Jordan stans" on ISH are actually just Kobe-haters, not necessary MJ fans/stans.

[97 bulls]

Not sure how you can say that. You can tell Kobe trolls are worse because there are way more unbiased fans that actually agree with Jordan trolls then Kobe trolls. There's also way more ridiculous off the wall claims Kobe trolls make then Jordan trolls. And no one says he won it by himself. Just that he was clearly the biggest reason for that. Not sure how anyone is disputing that.
No, I said jordan fans try to come off as being unbiased. We all are biased to something when it comes to sports.

To your second point, my view on that is that almost all championship supporting casts are overrated because part of the reason they look so good in the first place is cause they play off the strengths of their superstar player, and there weaknesses aren't as noted as a result of the brilliance of their superstar player. For example, are players like Dennis Rodman or Horace Grant really talked about as much today if they played for the Kings their whole career? Are Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili considered anywhere near as relevant from a historical perspective if they weren't playing with Tim Duncan? And to say a player or team is overrated does not mean they weren't great. It could just mean instead of a 9.5 out of 10, they were a 8.5 out of 10. These discussions are mostly centered around Jordan and Kobe's teams because they are the most popular NBA players in history right now, instead of someone like Hakeem or Duncan.
The second part of your post isn't true either. Case and point. When the kobe fans attack jordan by saying he didn't win his first years in the league what is your response? THAT JORDAN DIDN'T HAVE A TEAM GOOD ENOUGH TO COMPETE. When lebron james would routinely get bounced the same thing was said for him, ask jlauber why wilt didn't win more championships. Magic admitted that if he wasn't drafted by the lakers, he would've elected to stay in college. Why? Cuz he wanted to play on the best team. How many of the great all-time players won without arguably the best team or top 3 most talented team during the years of their championship runs? Your a bulls fan, what are people saying right now about derrick rose and the bulls? He needs a SG to take some pressure off of him. And not wade or kobe. A ROLE PLAYER. Someone that can create his own shot and hit a consisntant outside shot. You don't see a patern here?

The reason I made this thread iis cuz I noticed that none of the jordan fans chimed in on who they thought was the better team between the 86 celtics and the 96 bulls. And I've seen andgar, ghengis, and a few others post in other threads. The only jordan fan that posted in there was old school and he posted to knock the bulls if I remember correct.

[97 bulls]

how ****ing pathetic. So, you obviously dont even like basketball. Its one thing to have him as your favorite player of all time, its another to not like any other players/teams/etc. so, do you bother to watch ball at all? or just the bobcats? jesus christ, this takes fanboi to a whole new level of suck.
Lol what?

[97 bulls]

Dude no offense cause you seem like an alright guy, but you take this board way too seriously. People aren't on insidehoops 24/7 always ready to respond.
Lol yeah its cool. I like Eric. He's always up for a good debate.

[Boston C's]

Ive honestly disliked kobe more because of his legion of idiotic fans... still defend him when need to (there are threads I have) but Da bulls 97 I'm startin to think your a secret jordan hater by making this kind of thread and I hope I'm wrong because I do think your a solid poster on here... I get your point about the jordan homers that they are worse because they only support jordan but I'll tell you this the kobe homers are the same they just say they like the lakers because thats what team kobe plays on... if kobe was on the wolves 2morrow they would all jump on the wolves bandwagon... dont buy their b.s when they say they are laker fans cuz they aren't... im talkin bout the real kobe homers like zay 24 the logo alphawolf nickyoung etc... I do think that jacksx3 is a laker fan because hes mad some objective posts, the legend24 is alright so is mr im so rad... I know im missing a shit load of kobe trolls but you get my point... the kobe trolls are much worse and create much worse threads it gets seriously annoying.. but for anyone that reads this IGNORE THEIR THREADS THEY JUST WANT THE ATTENTION

[EricForman]

I never said there were more jordan trolls than kobe trolls. I said jordan fans are the worse. What makes them worse? When they claim jordan won 6 championships, set the all-time league record for wins, then follow that up with 69 wins and 67 wins all by hemself.

Or when they diminish the role other bulls players had on those championships. Its just maddening


Boy, stop. Ask any regular, objective, NEUTRAL posters on ISH if they've heard MANY different posters claim stuff like above. I get that there are Jordan fanboys on here, but at worst, they underrate Pippen, and that's about it. They've never said anything remotely as ridiculous as "Jordan won everything by himself and Pippen sucks".

Kobe trolls have bashed Gasol/Shaq a hell lot more than any Jordan fans have bashed Pippen, and that's a fact.

Anyway, to sum this up: I argue that Kobe trolls are worse because they START NEW THREADS EVERY SINGLE DAY (while jordan fans rarely start threads, this is a crucial point), hate on a VARIETY of player from Lebron to Gasol to Jordan to Shaq, and are in great numbers. Most of that can be proven. You argue that Jordan fans are worse, because you once heard one guy say "Jordan won everything by himself Pippen sucks!!"



That about says it all.

[97 bulls]

Ive honestly disliked kobe more because of his legion of idiotic fans... still defend him when need to (there are threads I have) but Da bulls 97 I'm startin to think your a secret jordan hater by making this kind of thread and I hope I'm wrong because I do think your a solid poster on here... I get your point about the jordan homers that they are worse because they only support jordan but I'll tell you this the kobe homers are the same they just say they like the lakers because thats what team kobe plays on... if kobe was on the wolves 2morrow they would all jump on the wolves bandwagon... dont buy their b.s when they say they are laker fans cuz they aren't... im talkin bout the real kobe homers like zay 24 the logo alphawolf nickyoung etc... I do think that jacksx3 is a laker fan because hes mad some objective posts, the legend24 is alright so is mr im so rad... I know im missing a shit load of kobe trolls but you get my point... the kobe trolls are much worse and create much worse threads it gets seriously annoying.. but for anyone that reads this IGNORE THEIR THREADS THEY JUST WANT THE ATTENTION
Trust me. I'm not a jordan hater. Jordan is the greatest ever. And I appreciate his role in leading the bulls to 6 titles. But I am a bulls fan first. And I know a lot of the pro kobe people are just trying to get a rise out of your typical jordan fan.

And you'll notice, I do stay away from those jordan/kobe topics. There nothing kobe bryant has done that can warrant him being even remotely compared to jordan.

[juju151111]

Trust me. I'm not a jordan hater. Jordan is the greatest ever. And I appreciate his role in leading the bulls to 6 titles. But I am a bulls fan first. And I know a lot of the pro kobe people are just trying to get a rise out of your typical jordan fan.

And you'll notice, I do stay away from those jordan/kobe topics. There nothing kobe bryant has done that can warrant him being even remotely compared to jordan.
It's funny how you call us troll but we are not the one making the threads. I can't even remember making a antikobe thread. I only comment in these troll threads. Look at Oldschool, show me his troll threads? U won't

[97 bulls]

Boy, stop. Ask any regular, objective, NEUTRAL posters on ISH if they've heard MANY different posters claim stuff like above. I get that there are Jordan fanboys on here, but at worst, they underrate Pippen, and that's about it. They've never said anything remotely as ridiculous as "Jordan won everything by himself and Pippen sucks".

Kobe trolls have bashed Gasol/Shaq a hell lot more than any Jordan fans have bashed Pippen, and that's a fact.

Anyway, to sum this up: I argue that Kobe trolls are worse because they START NEW THREADS EVERY SINGLE DAY (while jordan fans rarely start threads, this is a crucial point), hate on a VARIETY of player from Lebron to Gasol to Jordan to Shaq, and are in great numbers. Most of that can be proven. You argue that Jordan fans are worse, because you once heard one guy say "Jordan won everything by himself Pippen sucks!!"



That about says it all.
Honestly, laker fans saying kobe and shaq were equal from their second championship on is a relatively new thing. I remember laker fans arguing that kobe was on his way to being better than jordan. And I was routinely at the forefront trying to dispell this nonsense. I wish there was a way we could have access to previous posts made by the posters. Then we really can see a patern. And how much the dynamic of this forum has changed.

And there's much more than one or two posters that routinely demote the role of the bulls.

[Doctor Rivers]

Lol at people treating fanbases like clans/political parties or some shit. Taking this way too seriously.

ill go with this

[Jordan23GOAT]

The Bulls are awesome. I loved them after Jordan left and before Rose came.

[boozehound]

Lol what?
misunderstood your "how many of us are fans of jordan only" to mean you were such a fan.

[97 bulls]

It's funny how you call us troll but we are not the one making the threads. I can't even remember making a antikobe thread. I only comment in these troll threads. Look at Oldschool, show me his troll threads? U won't
I actually don't like the term "troll". We all have opinions. Why is it that when one poster disagrees with another, one must be a troll? The only time I refer to posters as trolls is when Im responding to someone that has used that expression. And you stoop to their level when you go into their threads and argue with them. Cuz you know they don't even believe what they're saying.

Old school doesn't make threads. He patrols this forum looking to attack kobe and pippen. And he didn't used to attack pippen. You know when he started? When the pro kobe crowd flipped the script and used his philosophy against him.

When he would say kobe is overrated cuz he rode shaq coattails to 3 championships and played on the best teams duriing this most recent repeat squad, they turned it back on him by saying well how valuable could jordan be since the bulls were able to still be extremely competitive without him?

His only rebutal is to attack jordans teammates. I honestly used to sit back and watch until the attack on the bulls began. Then I had to step in. You notice how he won't debate me? He knows ill shut all that foolishnes up. So instead of showing a pov. Hell just attack me. and respond with insults. As you have, and swoosh, and andgar, ghengis, eric, and a few others.

He's so big on people being overrated, I feel he's overrated as a poster. How hard is it to defend jordan?

[kaiiu]

Even if 97 Bulls says some crazy shit at least he is a real 90s Bulls fan. Not just a MJ stan or bandwagon fan :applause:

[Teanett]

jordan fan here (and 90's bulls)!
i dont really care for one particular team atm. have a soft spot for the knicks tho.

[juju151111]

I actually don't like the term "troll". We all have opinions. Why is it that when one poster disagrees with another, one must be a troll? The only time I refer to posters as trolls is when Im responding to someone that has used that expression. And you stoop to their level when you go into their threads and argue with them. Cuz you know they don't even believe what they're saying.

Old school doesn't make threads. He patrols this forum looking to attack kobe and pippen. And he didn't used to attack pippen. You know when he started? When the pro kobe crowd flipped the script and used his philosophy against him.

When he would say kobe is overrated cuz he rode shaq coattails to 3 championships and played on the best teams duriing this most recent repeat squad, they turned it back on him by saying well how valuable could jordan be since the bulls were able to still be extremely competitive without him?

His only rebutal is to attack jordans teammates. I honestly used to sit back and watch until the attack on the bulls began. Then I had to step in. You notice how he won't debate me? He knows ill shut all that foolishnes up. So instead of showing a pov. Hell just attack me. and respond with insults. As you have, and swoosh, and andgar, ghengis, eric, and a few others.

He's so big on people being overrated, I feel he's overrated as a poster. How hard is it to defend jordan?
Imo Oldschool is a better poster then you.( I am sure plenty of people would say the same) Oldschool isn't bashing Pippen. He is saying he is overrated because they are comparing Shaq( Top 5 arguably) to scottie Pippen. This is not bashing Pippen, this is ****ing real facts. He probably won't debate you because you saying the same crap has Kome trolls. I have never heard Oldschool say MJ won by himself not once since 07 when I joined.

[97 bulls]

Imo Oldschool is a better poster then you.( I am sure plenty of people would say the same) Oldschool isn't bashing Pippen. He is saying he is overrated because they are comparing Shaq( Top 5 arguably) to scottie Pippen. This is not bashing Pippen, this is ****ing real facts. He probably won't debate you because you saying the same crap has Kome trolls. I have never heard Oldschool say MJ won by himself not once since 07 when I joined.
Hey, were all entitled to our opinion.

But answer this quetion. He won't debate me cuz I say the same things as kobe trolls, but hell debate the actual kobe trolls? Most of the threads I go into have nothing to do with kobe.

And who has ever compared shaq to pippen?

[97 bulls]

Even if 97 Bulls says some crazy shit at least he is a real 90s Bulls fan. Not just a MJ stan or bandwagon fan :applause:
Lol thanx. I think

[97 bulls]

jordan fan here (and 90's bulls)!
i dont really care for one particular team atm. have a soft spot for the knicks tho.
:cheers:

[97 bulls]

misunderstood your "how many of us are fans of jordan only" to mean you were such a fan.
I know what you thought. I guess the way I worded it was a little decieving. My bad

[Teanett]

And who has ever compared shaq to pippen?

that would be wade fans. :D

[97 bulls]

Now nick young just made a thread comparing kobes mans defense vs jordan. He did show video, no stats, no statements from coaches, nothing to back up his claim. How many jordan fans will bite.

[Teanett]

Now nick young just made a thread comparing kobes mans defense vs jordan. He did show video, no stats, no statements from coaches, nothing to back up his claim. How many jordan fans will bite.

i did

[AlphaWolf24]

Imo Oldschool is a better poster then you.( I am sure plenty of people would say the same) Oldschool isn't bashing Pippen. He is saying he is overrated because they are comparing Shaq( Top 5 arguably) to scottie Pippen. This is not bashing Pippen, this is ****ing real facts. He probably won't debate you because you saying the same crap has Kome trolls. I have never heard Oldschool say MJ won by himself not once since 07 when I joined.


100% disagree......

Oldschool is a 100% "Jordan stan" , 90% "Jordan Jocker" , 110% "elititist fan"....He trys way too hard.

PS: Ol' skewl, Fans vote for starters( inside joke)


now on to the truth....




97' Bull's seems to me as one of the very few TRUE BULLS fans we have here.

and while it's hard to agree with every opinion of any poster here, he is one of the very few "Bull's fan" that I have came across that understands the game and understands what Michael Jordan is and was....and what he meant to his team , Franchise and the game of basketball.

97' Bull's speaks the truth, and from a Jordan/ Bull's fan that's hard to come by....

Old School ball's speaks like Charlie Browns Teacher.........







next

[BigBalla44]

100% disagree......

Oldschool is a 100% "Jordan stan" , 90% "Jordan Jocker" , 110% "elititist fan"....He trys way too hard.

PS: Ol' skewl, Fans vote for starters( inside joke)


now on to the truth....

http://desmotivaciones.es/demots/201107/1_298.jpg



97' Bull's seems to me as one of the very few TRUE BULLS fans we have here.

and while it's hard to agree with every opinion of any poster here, he is one of the very few "Bull's fan" that I have came across that understands the game and understands what Michael Jordan is and was....and what he ment to his team , Franchise and the game of basketball.

97' Bull's speaks the truth, and from a Jordan/ Bull's fan that's hard to come by....

Old School ball's speaks like Charlie Browns Teacher.........







next
http://desmotivaciones.es/demots/201107/1_298.jpg

[97 bulls]

i did
Yeah but you didn't bite the way I know some of the jordan exclusive fans will. When I say bite. I mean go back and forth with him.

[Teanett]

Yeah but you didn't bite the way I know some of the jordan exclusive fans will. When I say bite. I mean go back and forth with him.

back and forth with nick young?
only retarded 4th graders would do that.

[97 bulls]

back and forth with nick young?
only retarded 4th graders would do that.
Lol

[guy]

97 Bulls,

How do they "try" to come off as unbiased? Do they preface there statements and say they are completely unbiased? My point was although they might be biased, alot of things that they say are strongly agreed with by many non-biased posters.



The second part of your post isn't true either. Case and point. When the kobe fans attack jordan by saying he didn't win his first years in the league what is your response? THAT JORDAN DIDN'T HAVE A TEAM GOOD ENOUGH TO COMPETE. When lebron james would routinely get bounced the same thing was said for him, ask jlauber why wilt didn't win more championships. Magic admitted that if he wasn't drafted by the lakers, he would've elected to stay in college. Why? Cuz he wanted to play on the best team. How many of the great all-time players won without arguably the best team or top 3 most talented team during the years of their championship runs? Your a bulls fan, what are people saying right now about derrick rose and the bulls? He needs a SG to take some pressure off of him. And not wade or kobe. A ROLE PLAYER. Someone that can create his own shot and hit a consisntant outside shot. You don't see a patern here?

How does that make what I said untrue? I never said they play with absolute sh*t and then somehow elevate them to championship level. I said all championship supporting casts get overrated to an extent and the perception is they are better then they really were. Like I said, just cause someone says they are overrated, doesn't mean they are saying they sucked.



The reason I made this thread iis cuz I noticed that none of the jordan fans chimed in on who they thought was the better team between the 86 celtics and the 96 bulls. And I've seen andgar, ghengis, and a few others post in other threads. The only jordan fan that posted in there was old school and he posted to knock the bulls if I remember correct.

I actually think old school is a really good poster and not nearly as biased as some think. He backs up his arguments with alot of facts, stats, and widely held opinions during that era, while some of the Kobe trolls back there's up with mindless garbage with very little context. And I've also seen him hold stances that aren't what the common Jordan fan thinks and aren't as favorable toward him. Examples:

1. He recognizes there are other players like Kareem and Wilt that have an argument for GOAT.
2. He doesn't think the 96 Bulls would beat the 86 Celtics.
3. He thinks Pippen was probably a better defender then Jordan.
4. He doesn't think the Bulls would've won 8 straight if Jordan never retired, either losing to the Rockets in 95 and/or being affected by the mileage.

I actually don't agree with alot of the above, but I can appreciate his opinions cause he actually does not think Jordan was the second coming of Christ.

[97 bulls]

100% disagree......

Oldschool is a 100% "Jordan stan" , 90% "Jordan Jocker" , 110% "elititist fan"....He trys way too hard.

PS: Ol' skewl, Fans vote for starters( inside joke)


now on to the truth....




97' Bull's seems to me as one of the very few TRUE BULLS fans we have here.

and while it's hard to agree with every opinion of any poster here, he is one of the very few "Bull's fan" that I have came across that understands the game and understands what Michael Jordan is and was....and what he meant to his team , Franchise and the game of basketball.

97' Bull's speaks the truth, and from a Jordan/ Bull's fan that's hard to come by....

Old School ball's speaks like Charlie Browns Teacher.........







next
Thanx bro.

[az00m]

im a fan of basketball, not really a fan of a team... if i had to pick i would pick the bulls because i live in indiana. but anyways, i believe jordan is the goat and i will defend his honor!

[1987_Lakers]

97 Bulls,

How do they "try" to come off as unbiased? Do they preface there statements and say they are completely unbiased? My point was although they might be biased, alot of things that they say are strongly agreed with by many non-biased posters.




How does that make what I said untrue? I never said they play with absolute sh*t and then somehow elevate them to championship level. I said all championship supporting casts get overrated to an extent and the perception is they are better then they really were. Like I said, just cause someone says they are overrated, doesn't mean they are saying they sucked.



I actually think old school is a really good poster and not nearly as biased as some think. He backs up his arguments with alot of facts, stats, and widely held opinions during that era, while some of the Kobe trolls back there's up with mindless garbage with very little context. And I've also seen him hold stances that aren't what the common Jordan fan thinks and aren't as favorable toward him. Examples:

1. He recognizes there are other players like Kareem and Wilt that have an argument for GOAT.
2. He doesn't think the 96 Bulls would beat the 86 Celtics.
3. He thinks Pippen was probably a better defender then Jordan.
4. He doesn't think the Bulls would've won 8 straight if Jordan never retired, either losing to the Rockets in 95 and/or being affected by the mileage.

I actually don't agree with alot of the above, but I can appreciate his opinions cause he actually does not think Jordan was the second coming of Christ.

Yea, Oldschool is very unbiased in my book. I've seen him say 1986 Larry Bird is equal to 1996 Michael Jordan, does that sound like an MJ nut?

[Kellogs4toniee]

100% disagree......

Oldschool is a 100% "Jordan stan" , 90% "Jordan Jocker" , 110% "elititist fan"....He trys way too hard.

PS: Ol' skewl, Fans vote for starters( inside joke)


now on to the truth....




97' Bull's seems to me as one of the very few TRUE BULLS fans we have here.

and while it's hard to agree with every opinion of any poster here, he is one of the very few "Bull's fan" that I have came across that understands the game and understands what Michael Jordan is and was....and what he meant to his team , Franchise and the game of basketball.

97' Bull's speaks the truth, and from a Jordan/ Bull's fan that's hard to come by....

Old School ball's speaks like Charlie Browns Teacher.........







next

It might be hard to understand with your mouth all over 97_Bulls @#@$, but ...

http://troll.me/images/xzibit-yo-dawg/yo-dawg-your-a-homo.jpg

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

That f*cking ******* is just as bad as some of the posting that goes on here

[juju151111]

Thanx bro.
Yes big props from one of the biggest trolla here.:hammerhead:

[juju151111]

Yea, Oldschool is very unbiased in my book. I've seen him say 1986 Larry Bird is equal to 1996 Michael Jordan, does that sound like an MJ nut?
Exactly I guess he is a nut because he doesn't think Shaq=Pippen

[97 bulls]

97 Bulls,

How do they "try" to come off as unbiased? Do they preface there statements and say they are completely unbiased? My point was although they might be biased, alot of things that they say are strongly agreed with by many non-biased posters.




How does that make what I said untrue? I never said they play with absolute sh*t and then somehow elevate them to championship level. I said all championship supporting casts get overrated to an extent and the perception is they are better then they really were. Like I said, just cause someone says they are overrated, doesn't mean they are saying they sucked.



I actually think old school is a really good poster and not nearly as biased as some think. He backs up his arguments with alot of facts, stats, and widely held opinions during that era, while some of the Kobe trolls back there's up with mindless garbage with very little context. And I've also seen him hold stances that aren't what the common Jordan fan thinks and aren't as favorable toward him. Examples:

1. He recognizes there are other players like Kareem and Wilt that have an argument for GOAT.
2. He doesn't think the 96 Bulls would beat the 86 Celtics.
3. He thinks Pippen was probably a better defender then Jordan.
4. He doesn't think the Bulls would've won 8 straight if Jordan never retired, either losing to the Rockets in 95 and/or being affected by the mileage.

I actually don't agree with alot of the above, but I can appreciate his opinions cause he actually does not think Jordan was the second coming of Christ.
I don't see how anybody on a championship team can be considered overrated. Especially the core players. Most of the time, championship teams are comprised of 2 to 3 players that are capable of winning 50 or more games as the best player. Basically franchise type players. But accept a role on the team for the good of it. Unfortunately, not all franchise type players get fair chances to see how they'd do under certain circumstances.

[juju151111]

I don't see how anybody on a championship team ca
n be considered overrated. Especially the core players. Most of the time, championship teams are comprised of 2 to 3 players that are capable of winning 50 or more games as the best player. Basically franchise type players. But accept a role on the team for the good of it. Unfortunately, not all franchise type players get fair chances to see how they'd do under certain circumstances.
You didn't address his post at all.:facepalm

[andgar923]

Didn't read through the entire thread, but I did see my name come up in regards to me not posting in the Celts vs Bulls thread.

Why didn't I post in that thread?

I don't know enough of that team and how they would've matched up vs the Bulls.

I also didn't feel like looking up their record vs each other to attempt and form an educated opinion on the matchup.

So.... I stayed out, didn't even click on it.

[97 bulls]

Didn't read through the entire thread, but I did see my name come up in regards to me not posting in the Celts vs Bulls thread.

Why didn't I post in that thread?

I don't know enough of that team and how they would've matched up vs the Bulls.

I also didn't feel like looking up their record vs each other to attempt and form an educated opinion on the matchup.

So.... I stayed out, didn't even click on it.
Really? How old are you?

[andgar923]

Really? How old are you?
Old enough to have remembered, I just don't know how well they could've matched up vs the Bulls.

I do know that they were masters at moving the ball, played great team defense and were the epitome of team offense and efficiency.

Re-reading my post, what I meant was, the 96 Bulls were too far apart from that Celtics team to make a fair comparison. And without a record of their matchups throughout the years in front of me (or off the cuff) it makes it hard.

Their front court would've been too much for the Bulls to handle. The Bulls faced good front courts on their road to championships, but not in the same caliber of ball movement and team work. Most teams the Bulls faced featured a different style of play which allowed the Bulls to key in on specific matchups. But the Celtics' style makes them hard to do that in a series. But then again, the Celtics never faced Pippen in his prime, or a tandem of MJ and Pip roaming and disrupting everything. By the time Pip was entering his prime the Celts were in their downfall, the two don't exactly cross each other.

Now... I do know that the Bulls' record vs the Showtime Lakers fares rather well. It isn't hard to assume that the Bulls in their glory could beat the Showtime Lakers.

Hope I was more clear than in my prior post.

[andgar923]

And for the record....

I'm not solely an MJ fan, and if I was so what?

I'm a basketball fan and MJ happens to be my fav player, it's also by chance that he happens to be considered the consensus GOAT.

I've been a Clipper fans for years, I was on the Heat bandwagon when I discovered Wade (my current fav player), and I pattern my game after Nick Van Exel.

I'm a Libra, I don't like long walks on the park, I hate going to the movies on a date. My fav color is charcoal (greyish), I always manage to stop reading books that I've started to read a quarter of the way into them, and instead of gay bashing I do what is called 'Kobetard' bashing. I ride the streets on my 64 Impala and I club anybody with a Kobe anything.

[97 bulls]

Point taken andgar

[StarJordan]

I wouldn't say jordan only fan...but jordan fan first and foremost!

[Doctor Rivers]

So.... I stayed out, didn't even click on it.

cool story

[StarJordan]

[And seeing as how I'm a bulls fan

why are you a bulls fan?

[guy]

I don't see how anybody on a championship team can be considered overrated. Especially the core players. Most of the time, championship teams are comprised of 2 to 3 players that are capable of winning 50 or more games as the best player. Basically franchise type players. But accept a role on the team for the good of it. Unfortunately, not all franchise type players get fair chances to see how they'd do under certain circumstances.

Well if thats the case, then you are overrating them as well. If you really think that, then you are pretty much ignoring the circumstances of that supporting player. Most of the time, championship teams are not comprised that way. They are usually led by a top 2-3 player in the league, and many times the supporting players end up looking alot better then they are. Not to say those supporting players aren't great, just that they get overrated.

[tontoz]

I am a Jordan fan but i was rooting against the Bulls during their last 3 Finals. I wanted Barkley, Stockton and Malone to get rings.

[97 bulls]

You didn't address his post at all.:facepalm
Sure I did. What did I miss?

[97 bulls]

Well if thats the case, then you are overrating them as well. If you really think that, then you are pretty much ignoring the circumstances of that supporting player. Most of the time, championship teams are not comprised that way. They are usually led by a top 2-3 player in the league, and many times the supporting players end up looking alot better then they are. Not to say those supporting players aren't great, just that they get overrated.
Right. But if this were true, then why is the "supporting cast" the scapegoat for losses? Both sides feed off each other. I'm talking about wins here. Not stats. You've made it blatently clear that lebron james didn't have enough talent to win championships during his seasons with the cavs. Mavs fans love to say dirk has never had a team good enough to win a championship this isn't a double standard?

[Vertical-24]

Admittedly i'm not the hugest Bull-fan despite them being my third-option. I love Mike but I wouldn't consider myself a biased Mike fan either. I'm just a MJ fan.

[guy]

Right. But if this were true, then why is the "supporting cast" the scapegoat for losses? Both sides feed off each other. I'm talking about wins here. Not stats. You've made it blatently clear that lebron james didn't have enough talent to win championships during his seasons with the cavs. Mavs fans love to say dirk has never had a team good enough to win a championship this isn't a double standard?

I actually think he did have enough in his last season with the Cavs, but in his case he just choked, and his attitude and mentality pretty much trickled down his teammates and destroyed them. Its pretty clear. Its a case by case basis, but for the most part, supporting casts do get overrated. Like I said, most championships are led by a top 2-3 player in the league and the supporting casts tend to be considered top 2-3 in the league. Is that some kind of coincidence? No its not, it means that a big reason that supporting cast is so good is cause they cater to and play off that star player's strengths. And many times, they were built relatively easily around that star player because the greater the player, the easier it is usually to build around them. Of course don't get me wrong, sometimes it doesn't matter how good that star player is, the supporting casts could just be that bad that it wouldn't make much of a difference.

[97 bulls]

I actually think he did have enough in his last season with the Cavs, but in his case he just choked, and his attitude and mentality pretty much trickled down his teammates and destroyed them. Its pretty clear. Its a case by case basis, but for the most part, supporting casts do get overrated. Like I said, most championships are led by a top 2-3 player in the league and the supporting casts tend to be considered top 2-3 in the league. Is that some kind of coincidence? No its not, it means that a big reason that supporting cast is so good is cause they cater to and play off that star player's strengths. And many times, they were built relatively easily around that star player because the greater the player, the easier it is usually to build around them. Of course don't get me wrong, sometimes it doesn't matter how good that star player is, the supporting casts could just be that bad that it wouldn't make much of a difference.
But you don't win without either.

How bout you give me an example of a supporting cast that you feel is overrated.

[Nevaeh]

I never run from an argument. And tell me what I'm wrong on. Or what people call me out on?

You're wrong in constantly whining about how your favorite player doesn't get equal billing with his Teammate who was the Franchise player from year one. You get overly defensive if anyone suggests that your favorite player may be a bit overrated at times in terms of team impact.

That's not to say Pip was garbage, but he was only given one full year during his Prime to be" The Man", and based on that one year, you expect everybody to be fainting and fawning over him. Anything he didn't accomplish as a Franchise Player can only be speculated on. All we have to go on is what actually happened. Nothing can change that, no matter how much peeps try to revise history.

[guy]

But you don't win without either.

How bout you give me an example of a supporting cast that you feel is overrated.

My point is, which I meant to say in my post, is that those superstar leaders have a whole lot to do with their supporting cast being so great. So yes, in that case you do need both to win. But the difference is the supporting players are way more replaceable then the star player. I think the 80s Lakers, 80s Celtics, 90s Bulls, early 00s Lakers, all the Spurs championships aside from 03 are overrated to an extent (yes, I left out the 09 and 10 Lakers just cause I'm a little torn on them since I think there's a good amount of wing players that could've done what Kobe did or at least close to it and for whatever reason his fans disparage the shit out of them pretty much everytime they don't win a game. But hey, I'm biased and I know it. But I would not be surprised if he gets underrated in the future) Like I said though, that doesn't mean they weren't great. Reason why I say that is alot of times you hear that the difference between players like Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, and Duncan leading teams to rings and players like Nique, Drexler, Barkley, Malone, Ewing, Robinson, AI, KG, Nash not leading teams to rings is cause they had better teammates around them, which is a very misleading way of looking at it. (I'm leaving Kobe, Lebron, Wade, and Dirk out of this comparison because of what I said about Kobe, Wade has led a team to a title, I ultimately think Lebron will win a title, and Dirk hasn't had this said about him.)

Its alot harder to build around a guy (and for his teammates to flourish more) who is:
1. strictly a scorer like Nique as opposed to a guy who's a better scorer and can do alot more as well like Jordan or Bird.
2. a leader who lacks intensity and can't inspire his teammates as that much like Drexler as opposed to someone who does like Jordan, Bird, or Magic.
3. an undersized PF that can't anchor a defense like Barkley as opposed to a traditional big man who can anchor a defense like Hakeem or Duncan.
4. players that tend to underperform greatly in big moments like Malone or Ewing as opposed to someone who does the exact opposite like Jordan dor Hakeem.
5. a nice big man who can't step his game up in the playoffs and exerts his force and strength like Robinson as opposed to a fierce big man who wants to kill his opponent at any costs like Hakeem or Shaq.
6. an undersized SG who has the body type of a PG that is a ball dominant player that is almost strictly a scorer like AI as opposed to a traditional SG that can do alot more like Jordan, Kobe, or Wade (okay, I did mention them just this one time.)
7. A PF that doesn't have the mentality to close out games for his teams and would rather defer like KG as opposed to someone that does like Duncan (yes, KG has led a team to a title but with not nearly as much impact as the players I've mentioned.)
8. A PG that is a defensive liability and can only be successful in a run and gun system thats not conducive to great defense like Steve Nash unlike all the other players I've mentioned that can do that.

You see my point? Not to mention that you always see these players with teams that are changing key pieces more frequently because they're continuously searching for the right formula, and as a result haven't been able to establish as much chemistry and cohesion.

[97 bulls]

You're wrong in constantly whining about how your favorite player doesn't get equal billing with his Teammate who was the Franchise player from year one. You get overly defensive if anyone suggests that your favorite player may be a bit overrated at times in terms of team impact.

That's not to say Pip was garbage, but he was only given one full year during his Prime to be" The Man", and based on that one year, you expect everybody to be fainting and fawning over him. Anything he didn't accomplish as a Franchise Player can only be speculated on. All we have to go on is what actually happened. Nothing can change that, no matter how much peeps try to revise history.
I've never said pippen was or deserved to be on jordans level. All I've ever said about scottie pippen is that he didn't have the chance to be the man. And question anyone who says he's overrated as far as impact. But what does it matter. I can show you facts stats etc and you still won't come around.

Now let me ask you a question, was kevin mchale a franchise type player? And how great was he as far as impact?

[1987_Lakers]

I've never said pippen was or deserved to be on jordans level. All I've ever said about scottie pippen is that he didn't have the chance to be the man. And question anyone who says he's overrated as far as impact. But what does it matter. I can show you facts stats etc and you still won't come around.

But you have said Pippen was on Larry Bird's level which is ridiculous.:oldlol:

[97 bulls]

My point is, which I meant to say in my post, is that those superstar leaders have a whole lot to do with their supporting cast being so great. So yes, in that case you do need both to win. But the difference is the supporting players are way more replaceable then the star player. I think the 80s Lakers, 80s Celtics, 90s Bulls, early 00s Lakers, all the Spurs championships aside from 03 are overrated to an extent (yes, I left out the 09 and 10 Lakers just cause I'm a little torn on them since I think there's a good amount of wing players that could've done what Kobe did or at least close to it and for whatever reason his fans disparage the shit out of them pretty much everytime they don't win a game. But hey, I'm biased and I know it. But I would not be surprised if he gets underrated in the future) Like I said though, that doesn't mean they weren't great. Reason why I say that is alot of times you hear that the difference between players like Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, and Duncan leading teams to rings and players like Nique, Drexler, Barkley, Malone, Ewing, Robinson, AI, KG, Nash not leading teams to rings is cause they had better teammates around them, which is a very misleading way of looking at it. (I'm leaving Kobe, Lebron, Wade, and Dirk out of this comparison because of what I said about Kobe, Wade has led a team to a title, I ultimately think Lebron will win a title, and Dirk hasn't had this said about him.)

Its alot harder to build around a guy (and for his teammates to flourish more) who is:
1. strictly a scorer like Nique as opposed to a guy who's a better scorer and can do alot more as well like Jordan or Bird.
2. a leader who lacks intensity and can't inspire his teammates as that much like Drexler as opposed to someone who does like Jordan, Bird, or Magic.
3. an undersized PF that can't anchor a defense like Barkley as opposed to a traditional big man who can anchor a defense like Hakeem or Duncan.
4. players that tend to underperform greatly in big moments like Malone or Ewing as opposed to someone who does the exact opposite like Jordan dor Hakeem.
5. a nice big man who can't step his game up in the playoffs and exerts his force and strength like Robinson as opposed to a fierce big man who wants to kill his opponent at any costs like Hakeem or Shaq.
6. an undersized SG who has the body type of a PG that is a ball dominant player that is almost strictly a scorer like AI as opposed to a traditional SG that can do alot more like Jordan, Kobe, or Wade (okay, I did mention them just this one time.)
7. A PF that doesn't have the mentality to close out games for his teams and would rather defer like KG as opposed to someone that does like Duncan (yes, KG has led a team to a title but with not nearly as much impact as the players I've mentioned.)
8. A PG that is a defensive liability and can only be successful in a run and gun system thats not conducive to great defense like Steve Nash unlike all the other players I've mentioned that can do that.

You see my point?
Lol you know what guy? I do. Great post. I must say I don't have much of a rebutal. I don't think if wilkin had the same talent as jordan around him he'd win like jordan. Same with duncan and garnett etc

Touche

[guy]

Lol you know what guy? I do. Great post. I must say I don't have much of a rebutal. I don't think if wilkin had the same talent as jordan around him he'd win like jordan. Same with duncan and garnett etc

Touche

Not to mention that you always see these players with teams that are changing key pieces more frequently because they're continuously searching for the right formula because management sees that its not working and they aren't making any progress or key pieces leaving on their own because they think they can win more somewhere else, and as a result haven't been able to establish as much chemistry and cohesion.

I edited my post to add the above. Just wanted to make sure you got that. :cheers:

[97 bulls]

But you have said Pippen was on Larry Bird's level which is ridiculous.:oldlol:
No, I said in a matchup between the celtics and bulls the SF would be a wash. Because I see pippen being able to take bird out of his comfort zone more than bird on pippen. Pippen doesn't need to outscore him.

I also did say that if pippen played in the 80s, he would've avg 24/9/7. You replied "those are bird type numbers". But eventually agreed with me.

[1987_Lakers]

No, I said in a matchup between the celtics and bulls the SF would be a wash. Because I see pippen being able to take bird out of his comfort zone more than bird on pippen. Pippen doesn't need to outscore him.

I also did say that if pippen played in the 80s, he would've avg 24/9/7. You replied "those are bird type numbers". But eventually agreed with me.

Saying Bird & Pippen would be a wash is insane & trying to figure out how many Pippen would average in the 80's is pointless because nobody really knows.

[97 bulls]

Saying Bird & Pippen would be a wash is insane & trying to figure out how many Pippen would average in the 80's is pointless because nobody really knows.
Your right. We don't know. Just like we don't know who would win between teams that played a decade apart. But that doesn't stop us from speculating.

[97 bulls]

Also, understand that I feel bird is ranked higher than pippen. Bird flat out accomplished more than pippen. Its unfortunate from my pov being a bulls fan but these are the breaks.

[Nevaeh]

I've never said pippen was or deserved to be on jordans level. All I've ever said about scottie pippen is that he didn't have the chance to be the man. And question anyone who says he's overrated as far as impact. But what does it matter. I can show you facts stats etc and you still won't come around.

Now let me ask you a question, was kevin mchale a franchise type player? And how great was he as far as impact?


IMO no he was not a Franchise-Type player. He's what I consider a great complimentary player, but not someone you'd build a team around, nor depend on in the clutch. It takes a special type of player to be "The Man" year in and year out, and based on simply watching games, even without stats, you can tell who the leader of a team is, no matter what era. Watch a few 80s Lakers Games with Magic at PG, and it won't take a PHD to know that he was running the show as "The Man".

[AlphaWolf24]

It might be hard to understand with your mouth all over 97_Bulls @#@$, but ...

http://troll.me/images/xzibit-yo-dawg/yo-dawg-your-a-homo.jpg


ask your girl about that......she said it was to cot damn bookoo...http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/XsFilms/SnelPlaatjes/KubrickFullMetalJacket_sm.jpg

[97 bulls]

IMO no he was not a Franchise-Type player. He's what I consider a great complimentary player, but not someone you'd build a team around, nor depend on in the clutch. It takes a special type of player to be "The Man" year in and year out, and based on simply watching games, even without stats, you can tell who the leader of a team is, no matter what era. Watch a few 80s Lakers Games with Magic at PG, and it won't take a PHD to know that he was running the show as "The Man".
I agree with you. I must say your consistant in your beliefs.

[EricForman]

I never run from an argument. And tell me what I'm wrong on. Or what people call me out on?

Judging by the many neutral posters (like 87Lakers) coming to defense of supposed Jordan trolls/homers (oldschool) and NO ONE has defended a Kobe troll/homer, it's blatant that your entire insistence that Jordan fans/homers/trolls are worse than Kobe fans/homers/trolls on ISH is completely wrong.

Very few serious posters here have ever claimed that Pippen was nothing. If you're upset that people are saying Pippen can't be linked to Jordan's rings the way Shaq can be to Kobe's rings, than you need to snap back to reality and understand that prime Shaq is almost universally regarded as a top 3 or so primes.

Pip was great, but he was far from Shaq's level and you should know this.

[97 bulls]

Judging by the many neutral posters (like 87Lakers) coming to defense of supposed Jordan trolls/homers (oldschool) and NO ONE has defended a Kobe troll/homer, it's blatant that your entire insistence that Jordan fans/homers/trolls are worse than Kobe fans/homers/trolls on ISH is completely wrong.

Very few serious posters here have ever claimed that Pippen was nothing. If you're upset that people are saying Pippen can't be linked to Jordan's rings the way Shaq can be to Kobe's rings, than you need to snap back to reality and understand that prime Shaq is almost universally regarded as a top 3 or so primes.

Pip was great, but he was far from Shaq's level and you should know this.
I never never never ever ever would imply pippen was on the same line as shaq. And like I said, I see a difference between the kobe and jordan supporters. For instance, you say kobe fans degrade pau gasol. Well that didnt happen til this past post season when gasol played like garbage. The year before, those same kobe fans were calling gasol the best low post player in the league. When the previous season started they were touting gasol for mvp. But your avg jordan homer routinely limits pippens contributions to 6 championhips.

[j3lademaster]

I never never never ever ever would imply pippen was on the same line as shaq. And like I said, I see a difference between the kobe and jordan supporters. For instance, you say kobe fans degrade pau gasol. Well that didnt happen til this past post season when gasol played like garbage. The year before, those same kobe fans were calling gasol the best low post player in the league. When the previous season started they were touting gasol for mvp. But your avg jordan homer routinely limits pippens contributions to 6 championhips.

No. The Kobe homers have constantly been underrating Gasol since their first title run in '09. Revisionist history in desperate attempt to prove your point much?

[Nevaeh]

I never never never ever ever would imply pippen was on the same line as shaq. And like I said, I see a difference between the kobe and jordan supporters. For instance, you say kobe fans degrade pau gasol. Well that didnt happen til this past post season when gasol played like garbage. The year before, those same kobe fans were calling gasol the best low post player in the league. When the previous season started they were touting gasol for mvp. But your avg jordan homer routinely limits pippens contributions to 6 championhips.

So what exactly are you looking for in terms of how Jordan/Bulls Fans should view Pippen's contributions to those 6 championships? There's plenty of ways for anyone to watch the games, specifically the Playoffs. Youtube has plenty of them.

Has Pip had some great moments? Hell yeah. A few would be the Multi-Block sequence against Charles Smith, his defense against Magic during the 91 Finals, his burying his Demons against the Pistons, His steal and slap pass to Kukoc while falling during the 97 Finals in game 6 to seal a Championship, and of course the 94 season.

Those are great individual moments. Those moments, however don't summarize an entire career of greatness either. For every great game pip would have, he'd have a few where he was almost invisible. Teams never Game-Planned to stop Pippen. He wasn't feared on last second shots either, as was proved by Phil not using him for one in a crucial game.

How much hand writing on the wall do you need to recognize that Pippen, like McHale, was a complimentary player and not a Franchise Player? And how exactly does knowing this fact, make someone a Troll or Jordan Worshipper?

[BEAST Griffin]

Not many. But there's a lot of Kobe stans on here.


It's just that people with common sense rate him much higher than Kobe.


then Kobe fans project their manlove fantasies about Kobe onto you

[EricForman]

For instance, you say kobe fans degrade pau gasol. Well that didnt happen til this past post season when gasol played like garbage.

You haven't been paying attention on ISH if you think Kobe fans ONLY started to bash Gasol THIS APRIL. "Gasoft" has been a term that's been thrown around since 2008. Everytime the Lakers lost, it was always because Gasol was soft.

I'm done with you man, no sense in arguing with you if you insist on making BS claims. This thread speaks for itself, many have defended Jordan fans, no one has defended Kobe fans....but you.

[97 bulls]

So what exactly are you looking for in terms of how Jordan/Bulls Fans should view Pippen's contributions to those 6 championships? There's plenty of ways for anyone to watch the games, specifically the Playoffs. Youtube has plenty of them.
first, its not just pippen. Its rodman and kukoc as well. But since you asked about pippen, I feel he should be looked at as a franchise type player that played a secondary role.


Has Pip had some great moments? Hell yeah. A few would be the Multi-Block sequence against Charles Smith, his defense against Magic during the 91 Finals, his burying his Demons against the Pistons, His steal and slap pass to Kukoc while falling during the 97 Finals in game 6 to seal a Championship, and of course the 94 season.

Those are great individual moments. Those moments, however don't summarize an entire career of greatness either. For every great game pip would have, he'd have a few where he was almost invisible. Teams never Game-Planned to stop Pippen. He wasn't feared on last second shots either, as was proved by Phil not using him for one in a crucial game.
Typical, so pippens not allowed to have bad games? And let me addredd that play in 94. Was it bad? Yes but under the circumstances, why would pippen get that last shot? There was only 1.8 seconds on the clock. More than likely, a jumpshot was gonna be taken. Kukoc was a better jumpshooter than pippen. Plus, at 6'11, he would be able to shoot over anyone. So it wasn't that the play wasn't drawn up for pippen cuz he wasn't clutch, it was because under the circumstances, kukoc was the best option.

How much hand writing on the wall do you need to recognize that Pippen, like McHale, was a complimentary player and not a Franchise Player? And how exactly does knowing this fact, make someone a Troll or Jordan Worshipper?
This is what's frustraiing about what people say as far as pippen goes. The bar has been set so high. He had a great year leading the bulls. And just to compare, let's look at pippens team in 94 and jordans team in 98.

The 94 bulls starting lineup was

Armstrong
Myers
Pippen
Grant
Longley
Kerr
Kukoc 6th man

The 98 bulls lineup without pippen
Harper
Jordan
Scott Burrell
Rodman
Longley
Kukoc
Kerr

Very similar core of players. The result was the 94 bulls won 68% of their games during jordan departure. And the 98 bulls won 60% of their games without pippen.

And these are facts bro. Now let me see if I can guess your rebutal.
1. Jordan was hurt and old. Maybe, but he still turned in an mvp season.
2. Grant and Amstrong were allstars. Weak argument
3. Grant and Armstrong were better than rodman and harper. Again I disagree. Rodman was still a very good defender and still the best rebounder in the league. And harper was still a very good defender.

Plus, kukoc had three years under his belt, so he obviously was better. Kerr had a few years under the triangle so you know he was better to. And scott burrell (pippens replacement) was better than pete myers (jordans replacement).

Both teams were comming off championships too

Basically pippen faired as well as jordan with basically the same roster

Now why wasn't he a franchise player if he's able to do just as good of a job leading a team as jordan?

[Nevaeh]

This is what's frustraiing about what people say as far as pippen goes. The bar has been set so high. He had a great year leading the bulls. And just to compare, let's look at pippens team in 94 and jordans team in 98.

The 94 bulls starting lineup was

Armstrong
Myers
Pippen
Grant
Longley
Kerr
Kukoc 6th man

The 98 bulls lineup without pippen
Harper
Jordan
Scott Burrell
Rodman
Longley
Kukoc
Kerr

Very similar core of players. The result was the 94 bulls won 68% of their games during jordan departure. And the 98 bulls won 60% of their games without pippen.

And these are facts bro. Now let me see if I can guess your rebutal.


My only rebuttal would be that one of these teams won a Championship with Jordan as the Leader. The other team didn't. You figure out which one.

[guy]

I never never never ever ever would imply pippen was on the same line as shaq. And like I said, I see a difference between the kobe and jordan supporters. For instance, you say kobe fans degrade pau gasol. Well that didnt happen til this past post season when gasol played like garbage. The year before, those same kobe fans were calling gasol the best low post player in the league. When the previous season started they were touting gasol for mvp. But your avg jordan homer routinely limits pippens contributions to 6 championhips.

Wow thats a bunch of bs. They've been getting on Gasol's case ever since the 08 Finals.

[LBJFTW]

I'm a fan of the 90's Bulls, and a big fan of MJ. I'm not a fan of the current Bulls though.

+1

[97 bulls]

My only rebuttal would be that one of these teams won a Championship with Jordan as the Leader. The other team didn't. You figure out which one.
Well pippen did eventually join the bulls in 98. Otherwise, I'm sure they don't win a championship. But is winning a championship the only way to validate a player as a franchise. If this is the case then players like barkley, james, malone, robinson, west, robinson, don't meet your definition of franchise players either.

[97 bulls]

Wow thats a bunch of bs. They've been getting on Gasol's case ever since the 08 Finals.
Well maybe I'm mixing them up with other laker fans. Cuz I've seen them ask and state that the lakers were capable of winning 70.

[bond10]

This is what's frustraiing about what people say as far as pippen goes. The bar has been set so high. He had a great year leading the bulls. And just to compare, let's look at pippens team in 94 and jordans team in 98.

The 94 bulls starting lineup was

Armstrong
Myers
Pippen
Grant
Longley
Kerr
Kukoc 6th man

The 98 bulls lineup without pippen
Harper
Jordan
Scott Burrell
Rodman
Longley
Kukoc
Kerr

Very similar core of players. The result was the 94 bulls won 68% of their games during jordan departure. And the 98 bulls won 60% of their games without pippen.

And these are facts bro. Now let me see if I can guess your rebutal.
1. Jordan was hurt and old. Maybe, but he still turned in an mvp season.
2. Grant and Amstrong were allstars. Weak argument
3. Grant and Armstrong were better than rodman and harper. Again I disagree. Rodman was still a very good defender and still the best rebounder in the league. And harper was still a very good defender.

Plus, kukoc had three years under his belt, so he obviously was better. Kerr had a few years under the triangle so you know he was better to. And scott burrell (pippens replacement) was better than pete myers (jordans replacement).

Both teams were comming off championships too

Basically pippen faired as well as jordan with basically the same roster

Now why wasn't he a franchise player if he's able to do just as good of a job leading a team as jordan?


Stop comparing regular seasons win-loss records to make it seem like Pippen = Jordan. Lebron had plenty of 60+ win seasons with the Cavs (with a supporting cast far below the level of 94-98 Bulls)...does that mean Lebron > Jordan or Pippen? No...

Playoffs is a whole other level and the fact is:
94 Bulls got to the second round, no title.
98 Bulls won the whole thing.

[bond10]

Well maybe I'm mixing them up with other laker fans. Cuz I've seen them ask and state that the lakers were capable of winning 70.

Jordan has fans all over the country, but that doesn't mean they're going to be "Bulls" fans. I'm from NY and I didn't want the Bulls to win, but Jordan is still a hell of a player and I was a fan. Similar to how I'm a fan of Kobe, Lebron, and Wade right now but not their teams...It's OK to be a fan of a player.

[catch24]

The stans on both sides are horrible, but at least Jordan zealots understand the history of the game. Kobe stans make shit up along the way when "trying" to prove a point. Never seen another fanbase tear down the legends and all-time greats of the game because of their insecurity (and fear) for where their favorite player is placed all-time (where he should rank; which players are better; 'Kobe would dominate Pippen and Jordan in the 90's; 'Kobe has to play vs. zone'). These clowns are filled to the brim with excuses...

Check out a Kobe video/mix on Youtube and you'll see what I'm talking about.

[97 bulls]

Stop comparing regular seasons win-loss records to make it seem like Pippen = Jordan. Lebron had plenty of 60+ win seasons with the Cavs (with a supporting cast far below the level of 94-98 Bulls)...does that mean Lebron > Jordan or Pippen? No...

Playoffs is a whole other level and the fact is:
94 Bulls got to the second round, no title.
98 Bulls won the whole thing.
This isn't fair bond. Thebulls wouldn't get past indiana without pippen. And I want trying to imply that pippen is on par with jordan, the conversation was whether or not pippen is a franchise player.

[Nevaeh]

This isn't fair bond. Thebulls wouldn't get past indiana without pippen. And I want trying to imply that pippen is on par with jordan, the conversation was whether or not pippen is a franchise player.

I remember Pip becoming extremely frustrated with the amount of scrutiny and responsibility he had to endure during that season, to the extent that it was reaching a boiling point for him. Had teams zeroed in on him every game, I could see him either demanding help, or retiring early. No, he was not a Franchise Player, based on the "sample size" we saw of him as "The Man" during the Bulls Era.

[97 bulls]

I remember Pip becoming extremely frustrated with the amount of scrutiny and responsibility he had to endure during that season, to the extent that it was reaching a boiling point for him. Had teams zeroed in on him every game, I could see him either demanding help, or retiring early. No, he was not a Franchise Player, based on the "sample size" we saw of him as "The Man" during the Bulls Era.
Jordan was the same way. As well as bryant, and whoever else you want to bring in for your argument. And this is chicago. Everything you do is scrutinized. And I don't remember him being frustrated with any responsibility. He was frustrated in 95 cuz the bulls were loosing players and they weren't replacing them with quality players.

I don't see why you can't just give pippen credit for the job he did in 94 and 95. You say you deal in facts, well the fact is what he did in 94 and 95 was typical of a franchise player. Take some time out a really look at that bulls roster in 95. He had that roster 3 games over 500. His second best player was toni kukoc in his second year. Trying to adjust to the nba style, he (kukoc) stated in a recent interview that he had a hard time comunictaing with his teammates on the floor, luc longley was considered a bust (minnesota didn't want him for christ sake), scott williams was gone, grant was gone, cartwirght gone. Ron harper rarely played cuz he couldn't pick up the offense. He led his team in every major statistical category. He had guys like corie blount and larry krystowiak starting at pf.

He had that team at 34-31 that's about 53% strethced out over a full season, they were on pace to win about 44 games.

Think about what I just stated. How can you say he wasn't a franchise player?

[bond10]

Jordan was the same way. As well as bryant, and whoever else you want to bring in for your argument. And this is chicago. Everything you do is scrutinized. And I don't remember him being frustrated with any responsibility. He was frustrated in 95 cuz the bulls were loosing players and they weren't replacing them with quality players.

I don't see why you can't just give pippen credit for the job he did in 94 and 95. You say you deal in facts, well the fact is what he did in 94 and 95 was typical of a franchise player. Take some time out a really look at that bulls roster in 95. He had that roster 3 games over 500. His second best player was toni kukoc in his second year. Trying to adjust to the nba style, he (kukoc) stated in a recent interview that he had a hard time comunictaing with his teammates on the floor, luc longley was considered a bust (minnesota didn't want him for christ sake), scott williams was gone, grant was gone, cartwirght gone. Ron harper rarely played cuz he couldn't pick up the offense. He led his team in every major statistical category. He had guys like corie blount and larry krystowiak starting at pf.

He had that team at 34-31 that's about 53% strethced out over a full season, they were on pace to win about 44 games.

Think about what I just stated. How can you say he wasn't a franchise player?


ok, pippen was the franchise player in 94 and 95. Now what?

[97 bulls]

ok, pippen was the franchise player in 94 and 95. Now what?
Lol now what? Well, since you agree, then I've proved my point that pippen was a franchise player that played a secondary role.

Not trying to beat a dead horse here but. Let's compare wades 09 season. Which was hiis best season statistically. The heat won 43 games. Basically the same as what the bulls in 95 were projected to finish at.

The heats main guys were

Chalmers
Wade
Haslem
Beasley
Jermaine oneal (granted oneal was with the heat for 27 games, but they had marion before him)

The bulls main guys were
Armstrong
Myers
Pippen
Kukoc
Longley.

Wade had the better team but faired no better than pippen. Actually pippen did better considering he had less talent to work with. And wade is considered the best player in the league. Something I disagree with. But I'm going with the consensus here.

[AlphaWolf24]

I remember Pip becoming extremely frustrated with the amount of scrutiny and responsibility he had to endure during that season, to the extent that it was reaching a boiling point for him. Had teams zeroed in on him every game, I could see him either demanding help, or retiring early. No, he was not a Franchise Player, based on the "sample size" we saw of him as "The Man" during the Bulls Era.


lol What?....

he led the bull's to 55 wins , was allstar MVP and came in 3rd for MVP voting ....

was the first player in like 30 years to lead his team in every statistical catagory..

PiP was a beast that year....oh yeah, he replaced MJ with a CBA Player who hadn't played in the NBA in over 5 years....

PIP was absolutely a great leader and a "franchise" player in every aspect.

He was also the Heart and SOUL of the Portland teams in the early 2000's..in fact judging from a equal sample size....he meant more to the win/loss column then Jordan.

Jordan was far and away a better scorer and better closer...but don't slight Pippen at effecting his team in all other areas.




SMH at Jordan stans.

[bond10]

Lol now what? Well, since you agree, then I've proved my point that pippen was a franchise player that played a secondary role.

Not trying to beat a dead horse here but. Let's compare wades 09 season. Which was hiis best season statistically. The heat won 43 games. Basically the same as what the bulls in 95 were projected to finish at.

The heats main guys were

Chalmers
Wade
Haslem
Beasley
Jermaine oneal (granted oneal was with the heat for 27 games, but they had marion before him)

The bulls main guys were
Armstrong
Myers
Pippen
Kukoc
Longley.

Wade had the better team but faired no better than pippen. Actually pippen did better considering he had less talent to work with. And wade is considered the best player in the league. Something I disagree with. But I'm going with the consensus here.

Pippen > Wade ?? Interesting view.

[rodman91]

What i have seen so far.

Stans:
Many Kobe stans.
One or Two Jordan stans.
One or Two Lebron stans.
One or Two Wade stans.
One european basketball stan.
One Barkley stan.
One or Two Wilt and 60's fan.

Haters:
Too Many Lebron haters.
Many Kobe haters.
Many Iverson haters.
Some european basketball haters.
A few Jordan haters.
A few 60's basketball haters.


Haters are more than stans.

[97 bulls]

Pippen > Wade ?? Interesting view.
This wasn't my point. I know everybody sees wade as a franchise player. Here's another comparison

In 89, larry bird went down 6 games into the season. Kevin mchale obviously has to step in a assume the position as the celtics floor leader. A situation similar to the bulls in 94 and pippen. Except the celtics replaced larry bird with reggie lewis. Pippen got pete myers to replace jordan. They still had parrish, ainge, and johnson. And while johnson was aging, brian shaw stepped in admirably.

The result? 42 wins. And this was in an expansion year. The celtics got 7 of those wins vs the expansion teams. This is a sign that mchale is not a franchise type player. And its not that the celtics had a bad season. I honestly thought the bulls in 94 would fair about the same.

And this isn't comparing bird to jordan. When jordan came back in for a full year, we all know what the bulls did for the next three years. They really could've easily won 70 games over the course of those three years.

What this does show is what I've been saying. Pippen was a franchise player

[aau]

I actually don't like the term "troll". We all have opinions. Why is it that when one poster disagrees with another, one must be a troll? The only time I refer to posters as trolls is when Im responding to someone that has used that expression. And you stoop to their level when you go into their threads and argue with them. Cuz you know they don't even believe what they're saying.

Old school doesn't make threads. He patrols this forum looking to attack kobe and pippen. And he didn't used to attack pippen. You know when he started? When the pro kobe crowd flipped the script and used his philosophy against him.

When he would say kobe is overrated cuz he rode shaq coattails to 3 championships and played on the best teams duriing this most recent repeat squad, they turned it back on him by saying well how valuable could jordan be since the bulls were able to still be extremely competitive without him?

His only rebutal is to attack jordans teammates. I honestly used to sit back and watch until the attack on the bulls began. Then I had to step in. You notice how he won't debate me? He knows ill shut all that foolishnes up. So instead of showing a pov. Hell just attack me. and respond with insults. As you have, and swoosh, and andgar, ghengis, eric, and a few others.

He's so big on people being overrated, I feel he's overrated as a poster. How hard is it to defend jordan?

97

it may not mean much but i jus wanted to say that this
is the best, most provocative and thought provoking
thread from an mj/bulls fan i've ever seen on ish

bar none

[catch24]

Lol now what? Well, since you agree, then I've proved my point that pippen was a franchise player that played a secondary role.

Not trying to beat a dead horse here but. Let's compare wades 09 season. Which was hiis best season statistically. The heat won 43 games. Basically the same as what the bulls in 95 were projected to finish at.

The heats main guys were

Chalmers
Wade
Haslem
Beasley
Jermaine oneal (granted oneal was with the heat for 27 games, but they had marion before him)

The bulls main guys were
Armstrong
Myers
Pippen
Kukoc
Longley.

Wade had the better team but faired no better than pippen. Actually pippen did better considering he had less talent to work with. And wade is considered the best player in the league. Something I disagree with. But I'm going with the consensus here.

Beasley was also an unproven rook and terribly inconsistent but I gotta admit, you raise valid AND strong points. Props dude.

While the league then and now may be a tad-bit different to compare and contrast supporting casts, I'd definitely take Wade's team for sure. A couple months ago I never really thought Pippen was a franchise player, merely a sidekick (albeit a GREAT one) but after reading more of your and Roundball's posts as well as researching his career (particularly thelone 94 and 95 seasons), I kind of now see what you're saying. Dude was really solid. On paper that '95 squad had ZERO business being above .500; especially when you take into account all the injuries in addition to Kukoc being the next best viable option behind Scottie.

Definitely shows how great he was.

[97 bulls]

97

it may not mean much but i jus wanted to say that this
is the best, most provocative and thought provoking
thread from an mj/bulls fan i've ever seen on ish

bar none
Thanx bro. Maybe I should've thought of a better title. But its just frustrating the way this forum is going. And its not just kobe/laker fans or jordan/bulls fan or celtic fans etc. People get attacked for their POVs. This is a forum. How much fun would this place be if we all agreed with each other? I love the knock down drag outs I've had with catch 24, 87 lakers, even old school basketball. But once the name calling and the threats start it gets kinda silly.

And as someone put it, the pro jordan camp is kind off eliteist and snooty. Not in their view of jordan being the greatest ever but in their view that anyone that has an opinion opposing their is a "troll".

[97 bulls]

Beasley was also an unproven rook and terribly inconsistent but I gotta admit, you raise valid AND strong points. Props dude.

While the league then and now may be a tad-bit different to compare and contrast supporting casts, I'd definitely take Wade's team for sure. A couple months ago I never really thought Pippen was a franchise player, merely a sidekick (albeit a GREAT one) but after reading more of your and Roundball's posts as well as researching his career (particularly thelone 94 and 95 seasons), I kind of now see what you're saying. Dude was really solid. On paper that '95 squad had ZERO business being above .500; especially when you take into account all the injuries in addition to Kukoc being the next best viable option behind Scottie.

Definitely shows how great he was.
Thanx catch. Like I stated, I really can't argue with anyone that says they don't know if pippen was a franchise type player cuz of the small sample size.

[97 bulls]

Beasley was also an unproven rook and terribly inconsistent but I gotta admit, you raise valid AND strong points. Props dude.

While the league then and now may be a tad-bit different to compare and contrast supporting casts, I'd definitely take Wade's team for sure. A couple months ago I never really thought Pippen was a franchise player, merely a sidekick (albeit a GREAT one) but after reading more of your and Roundball's posts as well as researching his career (particularly thelone 94 and 95 seasons), I kind of now see what you're saying. Dude was really solid. On paper that '95 squad had ZERO business being above .500; especially when you take into account all the injuries in addition to Kukoc being the next best viable option behind Scottie.

Definitely shows how great he was.
Thanx catch. Like I stated, I really can't argue with anyone that says they don't know if pippen was a franchise type player cuz of the small sample size. But to flat out say no? That's just not being genuine.

But I respect any person that can alter their view on something after hearing an opposing opinion. That shows a lot of character. Even if it just be slightly.

[guy]

This wasn't my point. I know everybody sees wade as a franchise player. Here's another comparison

In 89, larry bird went down 6 games into the season. Kevin mchale obviously has to step in a assume the position as the celtics floor leader. A situation similar to the bulls in 94 and pippen. Except the celtics replaced larry bird with reggie lewis. Pippen got pete myers to replace jordan. They still had parrish, ainge, and johnson. And while johnson was aging, brian shaw stepped in admirably.

The result? 42 wins. And this was in an expansion year. The celtics got 7 of those wins vs the expansion teams. This is a sign that mchale is not a franchise type player. And its not that the celtics had a bad season. I honestly thought the bulls in 94 would fair about the same.

And this isn't comparing bird to jordan. When jordan came back in for a full year, we all know what the bulls did for the next three years. They really could've easily won 70 games over the course of those three years.

What this does show is what I've been saying. Pippen was a franchise player

This is brought up alot along with the post-Magic Lakers, but this is a bad comparison and a good example of why you shouldn't only look at the talent on the floor. First of all, you're ignoring the fact that they had a new coach in Jimmy Rodgers. Not only new for the team, but it was his first head coaching gig of his career, and he never really panned out as a great head coach only a few years later becoming an assistant again. Second, the 89 Celtics were much older and further from there best days then the 94 Bulls were. They had declined from champions to finalist to ECF finalist in the previous 3 years. The motivation really wasn't there since the feeling that the dynasty was over was already there before Bird's injury.

On the other hand, before Jordan's retirement, you can say the Bulls were in the "prime" of their dynasty with everyone being relatively young and players like Pippen, Grant, and BJ still getting better. They had way more motivation, youth, enthusiasm, and on top of that they had experience, which was really the only thing the Celtics had. And of course they still had a HOF coach. A more comparable scenario would be the 99 Bulls if only Jordan and Phil left, and it was an old Pippen/Rodman/Kukoc being coached by Tim Floyd. That team probably doesn't do much different. Or the 09 Pistons who replaced there leader with AI (in this case Lewis for Bird) and hired an inexperienced assistant as head coach. Or the 2010 Spurs if they all of a sudden changed coaches and Duncan retired.

[97 bulls]

This is brought up alot, but this is a bad comparison and a good example of why you shouldn't only look at the talent on the floor. First of all, you're ignoring the fact that they had a new coach in Jimmy Rodgers. Not only new for the team, but it was his first head coaching gig of his career, and he never really panned out as a great head coach only a few years later becoming an assistant again. Second, the 89 Celtics were much older and further from there best days then the 94 Bulls were. They had declined from champions to finalist to ECF finalist in the previous 3 years. The motivation really wasn't there since the feeling that the dynasty was over was already there before Bird's injury.

On the other hand, before Jordan's retirement, you can say the Bulls were in the "prime" of their dynasty with everyone being relatively young and players like Pippen, Grant, and BJ still getting better. They had way more motivation, youth, enthusiasm, and on top of that they had experience, which was really the only thing the Celtics had. And of course they still had a HOF coach. A more comparable scenario would be the 99 Bulls if only Jordan and Phil left, and it was an old Pippen/Rodman/Kukoc being coached by Tim Floyd. That team probably doesn't do much different.
Lol so jimmy rodgers is the sole reason the celtics could barely stay above 500 thanx to getting fat on some expansion teams? Come on Guy. If I remember correct rodgers was one of their assistants. I doubt he changed the dynamic of the team much less the offense. To the point of them falling off that much.

And age isn't a viable excuse either. Robert parrish avg 20 and 12 that year. Reggie lewis chipped in with 20 in birds absence, ainge was ainge, mchale was 31. Dennis johnson was older but brian shaw stepped in and platooned the guard spots. Bird came back the next year and they won 52 games.

Your reaching with this one bro.

[Nevaeh]

Thanx catch. Like I stated, I really can't argue with anyone that says they don't know if pippen was a franchise type player cuz of the small sample size. But to flat out say no? That's just not being genuine.

But I respect any person that can alter their view on something after hearing an opposing opinion. That shows a lot of character. Even if it just be slightly.

97 Bulls,

I don't want you to get the impression that I'm "Picking" on Pippen by saying I don't see him as a Franchise Player along the lines of what you want. But lets be real, he never was in a position to prove himself over a long period of time. That's not taking away from anything he accomplished as a leader either.

You Mentioned both Barkley and Malone in a comparison, but left out the fact that they both led their teams to the Finals as both leaders and MVPs of their teams. Again I'll say if Pip saw dedicated defenses designed specifically for him, I believe he would have become flustered just like Malone did against Rodman.

His career is just one of those things where we can only speculate on what could have been, Kinda like what happened with KG in Minnesota when he didn't have solid help. As it stands, Pip falls in the "Worthy-McHale" camp as far as "Greatness" goes.

[guy]

Lol so jimmy rodgers is the sole reason the celtics could barely stay above 500 thanx to getting fat on some expansion teams? Come on Guy. If I remember correct rodgers was one of their assistants. I doubt he changed the dynamic of the team much less the offense. To the point of them falling off that much.

And age isn't a viable excuse either. Robert parrish avg 20 and 12 that year. Reggie lewis chipped in with 20 in birds absence, ainge was ainge, mchale was 31. Dennis johnson was older but brian shaw stepped in and platooned the guard spots. Bird came back the next year and they won 52 games.

Your reaching with this one bro.

No he wasn't the sole reason, as I've clearly layed out a number of reasons. Changing the coach, along with losing your best player, and already being on the decline anyway is what changed the dynamic. Not just the coach.

Bringing up stats is really stupid. You know why? Because stats are always there. There's always players on every team that are putting up stats. They were going to make up for most of Bird's production either way. Its not like the Celtics stats were going to be 28/9/8 worst then the year before because of losing Bird.

The fact that Bird came back the next year and all they did was win 10 more games and were 4th place in the EC proves my point even more.

[97 bulls]

97 Bulls,

I don't want you to get the impression that I'm "Picking" on Pippen by saying I don't see him as a Franchise Player along the lines of what you want. But lets be real, he never was in a position to prove himself over a long period of time. That's not taking away from anything he accomplished as a leader either.

You Mentioned both Barkley and Malone in a comparison, but left out the fact that they both led their teams to the Finals as both leaders and MVPs of their teams. Again I'll say if Pip saw dedicated defenses designed specifically for him, I believe he would have become flustered just like Malone did against Rodman.

His career is just one of those things where we can only speculate on what could have been, Kinda like what happened with KG in Minnesota when he didn't have solid help. As it stands, Pip falls in the "Worthy-McHale" camp as far as "Greatness" goes.
I understand what your saying neveah. We will never know. He never had a fair chance. But in the short time that he did, he was at least a top 3-5 player. And it took career years from arguably the greatest center ever (olajuwan) and another arguable top 15 player ever (robinson) to deny him the mvp. Remember both turnned in career years.

I guess what I'm saying is all signs point to him being able to be a franchise player. And you bring up the barkley and malone comparison. But they had a fair chance, both had viirtually a whole career to show and prove what they could do. And at leat one year, had arguably the best team in the league. What more can a great player ask for? You got a talented team, competant coaches, the best record in the league and homecourt throughout the playoffs. And in malones case had an injured bulls team that not only was fighting the jazz but the front office.

And I just don't see pippen as being in the worthy/mchale tier. He was in their role, but he was better than them

[97 bulls]

No he wasn't the sole reason, as I've clearly layed out a number of reasons. Changing the coach, along with losing your best player, and already being on the decline anyway is what changed the dynamic. Not just the coach.

Bringing up stats is really stupid. You know why? Because stats are always there. There's always players on every team that are putting up stats. They were going to make up for most of Bird's production either way. Its not like the Celtics stats were going to be 28/9/8 worst then the year before because of losing Bird.

The fact that Bird came back the next year and all they did was win 10 more games and were 4th place in the EC proves my point even more.
And I've come back it the fact that even though the coach changed, the celtics philosophy and schemes more than likely didn't cuz he was the assistant for at leat three years going back to 86.

And you know, your correct stats don't tell the whole story. But I believe they do when were trying to gauge a players effectiveness due to age. Parrish and mchale both did turn in one of their better seasons that year. Along with lewis picking up a decent amount of birds slack. You have no better way of gauging mchale and parrish abilities than I do. I just come from the camp that regardless of age, if your producing, your producing. Nolan ryan at 41 years old was still throwing 100 mile an hour fastballs. You gonna tell the guys he struck out that he was old? Hell parrish managed to play 9 more years after 89.

And its interesting you bring up that stats are a stupid way to gauge a players abilities. Cuz I remember back when I was in a debate and said the bulls had a good center in brian williams, you said he only avg 9 ppg. Even though he was only 28 and avg 16 and 9 the previous year and 16 and o the year after. Care to change your view point?

[guy]

And I've come back it the fact that even though the coach changed, the celtics philosophy and schemes more than likely didn't cuz he was the assistant for at leat three years going back to 86.

Okay regardless of that, its ridiculous to think that changing from the coach they won 2 championships with to the assistant that has absolutely no head coach experience wouldn't have a significant impact. On top of that the assistant is working with a handicap cause they just lost their best player. Its a confidence, leadership, and chemistry issue. You are crazy if you think that doesn't have an impact.



And you know, your correct stats don't tell the whole story. But I believe they do when were trying to gauge a players effectiveness due to age. Parrish and mchale both did turn in one of their better seasons that year. Along with lewis picking up a decent amount of birds slack. You have no better way of gauging mchale and parrish abilities than I do. I just come from the camp that regardless of age, if your producing, your producing. Nolan ryan at 41 years old was still throwing 100 mile an hour fastballs. You gonna tell the guys he struck out that he was old? Hell parrish managed to play 9 more years after 89.

Right, Parish and McHale stats were up cause they also had to make up for Bird's slack. Actually, McHale stats didn't really change much at all from the previous year, and a big reason Parish's stats went up was cause he had to play an extra 4 mpg while obviously taking a larger role. I didn't say they weren't good anymore. I said they were on the decline and the motivation because of the circumstances and the stage of their career wasn't there.

Like I said, to equate to how we view players, the Bulls were in their prime, those Celtics were not. More things were going on with both teams then just them losing their best player, so its not a very comparable situation.



And its interesting you bring up that stats are a stupid way to gauge a players abilities. Cuz I remember back when I was in a debate and said the bulls had a good center in brian williams, you said he only avg 9 ppg. Even though he was only 28 and avg 16 and 9 the previous year and 16 and o the year after. Care to change your view point?

He only average 7 ppg in the season and 6 ppg in the playoffs, so I dont' know where 9 ppg is coming from. I remember saying that it was ridiculous to constantly bring him up as some dude that had a huge impact on the Bulls when he played only 9 games during the season in 15 mpg and then the 19 playoff games in only 18 mpg, which is completely true. Not to mention he put up those numbers you're mentioning on bad teams. Not sure where I'm off base on that and how that really relates to what I said about the Celtics.

[97 bulls]

Okay regardless of that, its ridiculous to think that changing from the coach they won 2 championships with to the assistant that has absolutely no head coach experience wouldn't have a significant impact. On top of that the assistant is working with a handicap cause they just lost their best player. Its a confidence, leadership, and chemistry issue. You are crazy if you think that doesn't have an impact.
sure all those points are gonna have some form of impact. But id say its minimal at best. Your argument would be stronger if the celtics brought in a whole new rookie coach and staff. And then he came in and implemented a new offensive scheme and defense etc.

Right, Parish and McHale stats were up cause they also had to make up for Bird's slack. Actually, McHale stats didn't really change much at all from the previous year, and a big reason Parish's stats went up was cause he had to play an extra 4 mpg while obviously taking a larger role. I didn't say they weren't good anymore. I said they were on the decline and the motivation because of the circumstances and the stage of their career wasn't there.
I think your reaching here. Are you saying they can onyy stay motivated if they feel they're gonna win? I doublt it. These are professional athletes and very prideful. If I remember correct wasn't there cuz mchale was called a blackhole and he replied it was cuz he got minimal shot opportunities? Or something to the effect that mchale held a slight resentment to birds role.

Like I said, to equate to how we view players, the Bulls were in their prime, those Celtics were not. More things were going on with both teams then just them losing their best player, so its not a very comparable situation.
So tell me. What changed as far as the coach? What did rodgers do that was different from jones? Did rodgers change the offense? Did he change the defense? What. I'm telling you that coaching change didn't matter cuz rodgers was an assistant of jones. And for more than 3 years.


He only average 7 ppg in the season and 6 ppg in the playoffs, so I dont' know where 9 ppg is coming from. I remember saying that it was ridiculous to constantly bring him up as some dude that had a huge impact on the Bulls when he played only 9 games during the season in 15 mpg and then the 19 playoff games in only 18 mpg, which is completely true. Not to mention he put up those numbers you're mentioning on bad teams. Not sure where I'm off base on that and how that really relates to what I said about the Celtics.
I'm sorry. I was off by 2-3 points. The point was that he was a good player. He was big, he was active around the basket and he was a solid defender he could run the floor he could post up. Sorta like nene hilario. He contributed in that he helped defend malone. as well as contributed offensively. Especially in that series where the games were relatively low scoring. He had impact on that series. Not like jordan or pippen mind you. But he definately contributed. And remember his 6 ppg were in a series where the score was routinely in the high 80s/low 90s. There's been a whole lot of basketball that been played since the 80s guy. Stop trying to gauge 90s stats against 80s stats

The celtics record wasn't bad. But id expect more than 42 wins from that team regardless of age and a coaching change especially from a veteran battle tested championship caliber team. Thats playing in an expansion year too which netted an easy 7 wins?

And as far as the age thing, for one year, who would you take on your roster? 89 robert parrish and reggie lewis? Or 94 horace grant and bj armstrong? And who was old? Parrish? Who turned in one of his better years? Mchale was 31. Ainge wasn't old. Dennis johnson was, but how many more wins would prime DJ get? 3-5?

[guy]

sure all those points are gonna have some form of impact. But id say its minimal at best. Your argument would be stronger if the celtics brought in a whole new rookie coach and staff. And then he came in and implemented a new offensive scheme and defense etc.

Okay, minimal impact? They lost 15 games more. Can we say 5 was due to Bird being gone, 5 due to the overall decline of the team, and 5 due to the coaching change? Thats not far-fetched and goes to show that this team had alot more things working against them then the Bulls.



I think your reaching here. Are you saying they can onyy stay motivated if they feel they're gonna win? I doublt it. These are professional athletes and very prideful. If I remember correct wasn't there cuz mchale was called a blackhole and he replied it was cuz he got minimal shot opportunities? Or something to the effect that mchale held a slight resentment to birds role.

Actually, McHale was known as a goofball that didn't want the spotlight Bird had. Bird actually resented McHale for not being as dedicated as Bird was despite his amazing talent.

Are you trying to argue that teams don't lose motivation? Are you trying to argue that every team has the same amount of motivation? And the more things aren't going a team's way, the more likely they lose motivation. First there head coach is done, then Bird gets hurt, and on top of that they are older on the decline and are knicked up with injuries. They also didn't have anywhere near the amount of criticism that they were done now without their star player, because they were already considered on the decline even before he went out, thus not having that chip on their shoulder like the Bulls did.



So tell me. What changed as far as the coach? What did rodgers do that was different from jones? Did rodgers change the offense? Did he change the defense? What. I'm telling you that coaching change didn't matter cuz rodgers was an assistant of jones. And for more than 3 years.

He was a different voice that probably didn't command the same respect or provide the same motivation or leadership. He wasn't a head coach for that much longer. How can you not see that being that big of a deal? If a team is already going through alot of changes, a change that like exacerbates everything.



I'm sorry. I was off by 2-3 points. The point was that he was a good player. He was big, he was active around the basket and he was a solid defender he could run the floor he could post up. Sorta like nene hilario. He contributed in that he helped defend malone. as well as contributed offensively. Especially in that series where the games were relatively low scoring. He had impact on that series. Not like jordan or pippen mind you. But he definately contributed. And remember his 6 ppg were in a series where the score was routinely in the high 80s/low 90s. There's been a whole lot of basketball that been played since the 80s guy. Stop trying to gauge 90s stats against 80s stats

Okay, at best he was like the 6th best player on that team at that point. Its not really worth noting is my point. I'm not gauging 90s stats to 80s stats. I'm not sure why you are even bringing that up. Its not that significant of a difference. What, instead of 6 ppg it would be 8 ppg? Big deal.



The celtics record wasn't bad. But id expect more than 42 wins from that team regardless of age and a coaching change especially from a veteran battle tested championship caliber team. Thats playing in an expansion year too which netted an easy 7 wins?

Something similar happened to the Pistons and the Heat not that long ago.



And as far as the age thing, for one year, who would you take on your roster? 89 robert parrish and reggie lewis? Or 94 horace grant and bj armstrong? And who was old? Parrish? Who turned in one of his better years? Mchale was 31. Ainge wasn't old. Dennis johnson was, but how many more wins would prime DJ get? 3-5?

I'd probably take Parish and Lewis. Look, I'm not saying 94 Pippen wasn't better then anyone on the 89 Celtics. I'm saying the situations were significantly different. The Celtics were already at the end of the road pretty much, while the Bulls were still going strong before there star player was gone. Its not comparable. Like I said, a more comparable scenario to the 89 Celtics would be if the 98 Bulls went into 99 without Jordan and Phil but with Pippen/Rodman/Kukoc and with one of their assistants as HC. Or a more comparable scenario to the 94 Bulls would be if the 86 Celtics went into 87 without Bird, but with everyone else still there (coincidentally, McHale had his best season then.)

I really don't understand how this is hard to get. You put way too much emphasis on the talent makeup of a team to determine how good they in a given season and you understate internal things like motivation and leadership. Sometimes a team can go through huge changes but not have a significant drop in wins, or the other way around. At the same time, sometimes a team can have very little change but have a significant drop.

[97 bulls]

Okay, minimal impact? They lost 15 games more. Can we say 5 was due to Bird being gone, 5 due to the overall decline of the team, and 5 due to the coaching change? Thats not far-fetched and goes to show that this team had alot more things working against them then the Bulls.



Actually, McHale was known as a goofball that didn't want the spotlight Bird had. Bird actually resented McHale for not being as dedicated as Bird was despite his amazing talent.

Are you trying to argue that teams don't lose motivation? Are you trying to argue that every team has the same amount of motivation? And the more things aren't going a team's way, the more likely they lose motivation. First there head coach is done, then Bird gets hurt, and on top of that they are older on the decline and are knicked up with injuries. They also didn't have anywhere near the amount of criticism that they were done now without their star player, because they were already considered on the decline even before he went out, thus not having that chip on their shoulder like the Bulls did.



He was a different voice that probably didn't command the same respect or provide the same motivation or leadership. He wasn't a head coach for that much longer. How can you not see that being that big of a deal? If a team is already going through alot of changes, a change that like exacerbates everything.



Okay, at best he was like the 6th best player on that team at that point. Its not really worth noting is my point. I'm not gauging 90s stats to 80s stats. I'm not sure why you are even bringing that up. Its not that significant of a difference. What, instead of 6 ppg it would be 8 ppg? Big deal.



Something similar happened to the Pistons and the Heat not that long ago.



I'd probably take Parish and Lewis. Look, I'm not saying 94 Pippen wasn't better then anyone on the 89 Celtics. I'm saying the situations were significantly different. The Celtics were already at the end of the road pretty much, while the Bulls were still going strong before there star player was gone. Its not comparable. Like I said, a more comparable scenario to the 89 Celtics would be if the 98 Bulls went into 99 without Jordan and Phil but with Pippen/Rodman/Kukoc and with one of their assistants as HC. Or a more comparable scenario to the 94 Bulls would be if the 86 Celtics went into 87 without Bird, but with everyone else still there (coincidentally, McHale had his best season then.)

I really don't understand how this is hard to get. You put way too much emphasis on the talent makeup of a team to determine how good they in a given season and you understate internal things like motivation and leadership. Sometimes a team can go through huge changes but not have a significant drop in wins, or the other way around. At the same time, sometimes a team can have very little change but have a significant drop.
So in essence, what your saying is kc jones was just as valuable to the celtics as having larry bird? Come on bro. You are wayyyyyy overblowing the the role a coach plays on a team, especially a veteran team. With a coach that's grandfathered in. And doesn't change the philosophy. A coach really makes his money in the playoffs when adjustments and exposing weakness becomes extremely important.

And your overblowing the age thing. The only old players were parrish and johnson. And parrish went on to play another 8-9 years and turned in one of his best seasons in 89.

You ever heard the term age ain't nothing but a number? And like I said. I don't think you should say they weren't motivated. That's really insulting those players.

[guy]

So in essence, what your saying is kc jones was just as valuable to the celtics as having larry bird? Come on bro. You are wayyyyyy overblowing the the role a coach plays on a team, especially a veteran team. With a coach that's grandfathered in. And doesn't change the philosophy. A coach really makes his money in the playoffs when adjustments and exposing weakness becomes extremely important.

Okay whatever it was an example. Say the loss of Bird costed them 8 games and the coaching change was 2 games. Happy? Bottom line is there was 3 significant things that contributed to them losing 15 more games.



And your overblowing the age thing. The only old players were parrish and johnson. And parrish went on to play another 8-9 years and turned in one of his best seasons in 89.

He played 8 more seasons, 5 of which were relevant, so the last 3 don't count for much. Just cause he played more doesn't mean he wasn't on the decline. He had one of his best statistical years because Bird left a huge hole to make up and Parish was still capable. That doesn't mean age didn't affect him. Kobe Bryant averaged 25/5/5 in 2002 when he 23 years old and in 2011 when he was 32 years old. You think he wasn't on the decline this year? You think his decline and aging didn't have anything to do with the Lakers' not being as good as they were in previous years?



You ever heard the term age ain't nothing but a number? And like I said. I don't think you should say they weren't motivated. That's really insulting those players.

Okay, tell Duncan, KG, Kidd that age is nothing but a number.

Its not insulting to say that. I know athletes would like fans to believe in this fantasy world where they're motivated all the time no matter what obstacles come in front of them, but thats simply not true, and you're way too gullible if you think they are. There's nothing wrong with thats. Its human nature to be less motivated at times.

[97 bulls]

Okay whatever it was an example. Say the loss of Bird costed them 8 games and the coaching change was 2 games. Happy? Bottom line is there was 3 significant things that contributed to them losing 15 more games.



He played 8 more seasons, 5 of which were relevant, so the last 3 don't count for much. Just cause he played more doesn't mean he wasn't on the decline. He had one of his best statistical years because Bird left a huge hole to make up and Parish was still capable. That doesn't mean age didn't affect him. Kobe Bryant averaged 25/5/5 in 2002 when he 23 years old and in 2011 when he was 32 years old. You think he wasn't on the decline this year? You think his decline and aging didn't have anything to do with the Lakers' not being as good as they were in previous years?
Ok, so he played 5 more relevant seasons. Most players don't play 5 seasons as a career. The fact you admit parrish was still capable should halt the age thing. Cuz the rest of the players weren't old. Except for dennis johnson. Or I guesss I should say hadn't lost their effectiveness. I also feel kobe bryant wasn't. On the decline due to age so much as he declined due to having surgery on his knee this past off season. Jackson drastically cut his minutes to save those knees for the playoffs but his per 36 minute stats were right on par with his normal season. Duncan and garnett are definately on the decline. Not so much statistically on a per minute basis, but on the defensive side of the ball.


Okay, tell Duncan, KG, Kidd that age is nothing but a number.

Its not insulting to say that. I know athletes would like fans to believe in this fantasy world where they're motivated all the time no matter what obstacles come in front of them, but thats simply not true, and you're way too gullible if you think they are. There's nothing wrong with thats. Its human nature to be less motivated at times.
No guy, I'm sorry, I just can't concede that that type of a coaching change netted that much of a difference. You still refuse to show me what changed as far as the philosophy between rogers and jones as a coach. Normally, assistants take what they've learned from their mentors an inculcate them in their own philosophy.

And I understand what your saying as far as being motivated, but I think your over analyzing this. I don't think you can attribute their 89 season to lack of motivation. Obviously on some nights you just don't have it. But not for a whole season. No, I don't buy this.

[KingBeasley08]

im a jordan only fan. i honestly could give less of a crap about pippen and the rest of those bulls.

not a bulls-hater tho. just a jordan fan and kobe hater

[AlphaWolf24]

im a jordan only fan. i honestly could give less of a crap about pippen and the rest of those bulls.

not a bulls-hater tho. just a jordan fan and kobe hater


:lol ...:applause: your honesty.. you = 89% of their fan base and 89% of Kobe slighters...(those that don't understand greatness when it's in their face)

[97 bulls]

im a jordan only fan. i honestly could give less of a crap about pippen and the rest of those bulls.

not a bulls-hater tho. just a jordan fan and kobe hater
I must say beasley you have my respect. The only person willing to come out and say you don't give 2 shits about anyone on the bulls other than jordan. And you admit your a kobe hater lol.

[guy]

Wow, Kobe's age has nothing to do with his decline? You do realize that older players are more likely to get injured right? When did I say Parish wasn't good anymore?


No guy, I'm sorry, I just can't concede that that type of a coaching change netted that much of a difference. You still refuse to show me what changed as far as the philosophy between rogers and jones as a coach. Normally, assistants take what they've learned from their mentors an inculcate them in their own philosophy.

I couldn't really tell you what change in philosophy they had. But to act like a change in leadership, especially to one that didn't have any success in his future endeavors, can't have an impact is pretty stupid. There's been plenty of instances where an assistant replacing the head coach for his first time gig didn't go over so well. Not to mention all the other negative things that were happening at the time for the team.



And I understand what your saying as far as being motivated, but I think your over analyzing this. I don't think you can attribute their 89 season to lack of motivation. Obviously on some nights you just don't have it. But not for a whole season. No, I don't buy this.

You have never seen a team that eventually realizes that they weren't going to have much of an impact in the season and then they just go through the motions? I'm not over analyzing anything. Teams don't always go all out. Celtics weren't going all out that year the way they were the previous 3 years when they were heavy contenders. Its incredibly naive and gullible to think that they do.

I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp. You realize that sometimes teams have steep regular season declines even when they don't really have significant changes? Especially the ones that have deep playoff runs. So why is it hard to think when they do have significant changes it can have an impact? Why did the Bulls lose 10 more games from 92 to 93? The Lakers lost 8 more games from 2009 to 2010? Hell, the Celtics lost 8 more games from 1986 to 1987. These didn't have significant roster changes, just internal issues. To act like teams from year to year play with the exact same drive, motivation, and intensity is incredibly stupid. No point in really having this discussion if you think things are just so black and white like that.

[97 bulls]

Wow, Kobe's age has nothing to do with his decline? You do realize that older players are more likely to get injured right? When did I say Parish wasn't good anymore?



I couldn't really tell you what change in philosophy they had. But to act like a change in leadership, especially to one that didn't have any success in his future endeavors, can't have an impact is pretty stupid. There's been plenty of instances where an assistant replacing the head coach for his first time gig didn't go over so well. Not to mention all the other negative things that were happening at the time for the team.



You have never seen a team that eventually realizes that they weren't going to have much of an impact in the season and then they just go through the motions? I'm not over analyzing anything. Teams don't always go all out. Celtics weren't going all out that year the way they were the previous 3 years when they were heavy contenders. Its incredibly naive and gullible to think that they do.

I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp. You realize that sometimes teams have steep regular season declines even when they don't really have significant changes? Especially the ones that have deep playoff runs. So why is it hard to think when they do have significant changes it can have an impact? Why did the Bulls lose 10 more games from 92 to 93? The Lakers lost 8 more games from 2009 to 2010? Hell, the Celtics lost 8 more games from 1986 to 1987. These didn't have significant roster changes, just internal issues. To act like teams from year to year play with the exact same drive, motivation, and intensity is incredibly stupid. No point in really having this discussion if you think things are just so black and white like that.
First of all guy, I'm not saying that any team has to set a be at a certain level year in and out. But to say a team isn't motivated........ for a whole season? A pridefull, championship pedigree team? No. This is where your overblowing things. Ill even give you that when teams don't do well, they can loose that edge. But that's a trait all teams have year in and out not. Not just the celtics in 89. 90% of teams know what they are after 25 games or so. But I wouldn't say that they stop giving their best. Especially on a game by game basis.

I guess what I'm saying is a team goes into every game thinking they're going to win. No matter whose on the court. As the game progresses, depending on how the game is developeing, like a blowout, maybe a team backs off a says well get them next time. But no team looses motivation for a season. Or I belief that rare.

I'm glad this age discussion is going on, I think a thread should be made with regards to it. Because on some occasions (like this one) it becomes overblown. 32 is not old for a basketball player. Like for instance kobe bryant. Jackson limits his minutes to keep pressure off his knees. But you must look at the mileage, not the age. because bryant started so young, he's probably played enough minutes to amount to a players that much older. Especially when you factor in how many deep playoff runs he's had since being with the lakers.

The effects of age hits people/players at different times. I've seen some people say james looks like he's starting to show his age and he's about 28. Then you have some players that play as if father time will never find them like jordan and parrish. I just don't put much stock in age as much as what I actually see on the court. I'm sure if doc rivers and popovich wanted, they could play duncan and garnett full minutes and they'd get their normal production. But at what cost? Fatigue and the possibility of retireing earlier.

[guy]

First of all guy, I'm not saying that any team has to set a be at a certain level year in and out. But to say a team isn't motivated........ for a whole season? A pridefull, championship pedigree team? No. This is where your overblowing things. Ill even give you that when teams don't do well, they can loose that edge. But that's a trait all teams have year in and out not. Not just the celtics in 89. 90% of teams know what they are after 25 games or so. But I wouldn't say that they stop giving their best. Especially on a game by game basis.

I guess what I'm saying is a team goes into every game thinking they're going to win. No matter whose on the court. As the game progresses, depending on how the game is developeing, like a blowout, maybe a team backs off a says well get them next time. But no team looses motivation for a season. Or I belief that rare.

I don't believe I ever said the team had ZERO motivation, so I'm not overblowing things. And yes, I'm sure they go into every game planning to win, but that doesn't mean there motivation is the same. Good chance they just don't care as much when they don't win. Good chance they don't prepare as well anymore. You're acknowledging that teams aren't set at the same motivation levels every year, so I don't see what there is to dispute. And even a minor drop in motivation can have a huge effect on a season since the difference between a W and L in a given game isn't that big on average.



I'm glad this age discussion is going on, I think a thread should be made with regards to it. Because on some occasions (like this one) it becomes overblown. 32 is not old for a basketball player. Like for instance kobe bryant. Jackson limits his minutes to keep pressure off his knees. But you must look at the mileage, not the age. because bryant started so young, he's probably played enough minutes to amount to a players that much older. Especially when you factor in how many deep playoff runs he's had since being with the lakers.

The effects of age hits people/players at different times. I've seen some people say james looks like he's starting to show his age and he's about 28. Then you have some players that play as if father time will never find them like jordan and parrish. I just don't put much stock in age as much as what I actually see on the court. I'm sure if doc rivers and popovich wanted, they could play duncan and garnett full minutes and they'd get their normal production. But at what cost? Fatigue and the possibility of retireing earlier.

Okay, we're still talking about the same thing for the most part. Kobe has both mileage and age. Either way, they both have a huge effect, and all players that have alot of mileage are at a certain age anyway. You're not arguing much here. Fact is Kobe has declined for both reasons, and his injuries are the result of both mileage and age. Seriously, the dude doesn't even practice anymore. You really think we'll ever see the Kobe from 2001-2009 again?

And if Duncan and KG were playing 40 mpg again, they'd probably be done with their season by game #30 at the latest. How does that not show that age/mileage has alot to do with their declines? I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

[97 bulls]

I don't believe I ever said the team had ZERO motivation, so I'm not overblowing things. And yes, I'm sure they go into every game planning to win, but that doesn't mean there motivation is the same. Good chance they just don't care as much when they don't win. Good chance they don't prepare as well anymore. You're acknowledging that teams aren't set at the same motivation levels every year, so I don't see what there is to dispute. And even a minor drop in motivation can have a huge effect on a season since the difference between a W and L in a given game isn't that big on average.



Okay, we're still talking about the same thing for the most part. Kobe has both mileage and age. Either way, they both have a huge effect, and all players that have alot of mileage are at a certain age anyway. You're not arguing much here. Fact is Kobe has declined for both reasons, and his injuries are the result of both mileage and age. Seriously, the dude doesn't even practice anymore. You really think we'll ever see the Kobe from 2001-2009 again?

And if Duncan and KG were playing 40 mpg again, they'd probably be done with their season by game #30 at the latest. How does that not show that age/mileage has alot to do with their declines? I'm not sure what you're arguing here.
The point I was making is that duncan for example is 34/35 years old. He's still producing at the same rate on a per minutes basis. This means his ability is still there. But the question is will his body hold up? and I do think his defensive dominance has suffered. Anyways, Parrishs body did. He still played at an extremely high level regardless of age. So I don't see why age should be considered. Then after parrish, the rest of the celtics weren't old.

I still maintain they should've done better.

[Fade-away]

I'm a fan of the 90's Bulls, and a big fan of MJ. I'm not a fan of the current Bulls though.

same here

i don't really support a team

[AlphaWolf24]

Originally Posted by Collie

I'm a fan of the 90's Bulls, and a big fan of MJ. I'm not a fan of the current Bulls though.




same here

i don't really support a team



:roll: keep em coming