can we bury this Jordan 8 ring myth?

[Duderonomy]

The 1994 team wasn't gonna beat the Knicks,Pacers, and rockets even with Mj. The 1995 team even had #45 in the playoffs and the magic still won in 6. The 1995 team was the weakest of the 90s Jordan bulls teams and he was a little rusty but still I don't think playing the whole season would of made them the favorite.

[The Iron Fist]

The 1994 team wasn't gonna beat the Knicks,Pacers, and rockets even with Mj. The 1995 team even had #45 in the playoffs and the magic still won in 6. The 1995 team was the weakest of the 90s Jordan bulls teams and he was a little rusty but still I don't think playing the whole season would of made them the favorite.
It never had any legs to stand on.

If Kareems teammates in the 70s weren't injured, he'd have all the rings for the decade.



See how stupid that sounds?


The "if" game is hilarious though.

[bwink23]

It never had any legs to stand on.

If Kareems teammates in the 70s weren't injured, he'd have all the rings for the decade.



See how stupid that sounds?


The "if" game is hilarious though.


It isn't hilarious when the man won 6 rings and never lost in the Finals......:rolleyes:

[Deuce Bigalow]

It isn't hilarious when the man won 6 rings and never lost in the Finals......:rolleyes:
How many times did he lose in the 1st round and conference finals?

[talkingconch]

Always expect bwink in a thread where you're not complimenting MJ.

anyway, I think he wins 1 of those 2 years.

[DuMa]

discussion could go either way. dumb thread.

[jb220]

Almost as pathetic as the Bill Russell 8 FMVP bullshi

[bwink23]

How many times did he lose in the 1st round and conference finals?

How many years did he play as the franchise player on a lottery team?? :rolleyes:

[Deuce Bigalow]

How many years did he play as the franchise player on a lottery team?? :rolleyes:
He was lucky that winning 30 games was enough to make the playoffs :oldlol:

[Deuce Bigalow]

answer my question jocker

[DonDadda59]

Why is that so far-fetched? The Bulls w/o Jordan did extremely well against the Knicks and Jordan always had their number. This is the same team that pushed Hou to 7. '94 Bulls with Jordan playing the whole season/postseason win the championship pretty easily IMO.


The 1995 team even had #45 in the playoffs and the magic still won in 6.

And 45 =/= 23. He only played a small # of games and you can clearly see his production was no where near the level it had been in the decade. He was away from the sport for nearly 2 years and it showed, especially in the playoffs where he uncharacteristically choked in key moments.

Now what happened in the next season against the same Orlando team when Jordan got his sea legs back and had played a full season?

Exactly.

[SuperPippen]

He might have won those rings. He might not have. We have no way of knowing.

People should really quit acting like there is a definitive answer.

[The Iron Fist]

It isn't hilarious when the man won 6 rings and never lost in the Finals......:rolleyes:
Its even more hilarious that he played 9 other seasons and didn't win shit.


I guess because Rocky Marciano was 49 - 0 in the ring, hes the greatest fighter ever!

[L.Kizzle]

Why is that so far-fetched? The Bulls w/o Jordan did extremely well against the Knicks and Jordan always had their number. This is the same team that pushed Hou to 7. '94 Bulls with Jordan playing the whole season/postseason win the championship pretty easily IMO.



And 45 =/= 23. He only played a small # of games and you can clearly see his production was no where near the level it had been in the decade. He was away from the sport for nearly 2 years and it showed, especially in the playoffs where he uncharacteristically choked in key moments.

Now what happened in the next season against the same Orlando team when Jordan got his sea legs back and had played a full season?

Exactly.
They won because they had Dennis Rodman, not cause MJ got better?

[game3524]

The Bulls team was already showing signs of running out of gas in 1993. I highly doubt they would have won a 4th straight title, eventually teams run out of gas.

That doesn't mean they couldn't have won in 1995 though.........

[bwink23]

He was lucky that winning 30 games was enough to make the playoffs :oldlol:

The team was lucky he played the last 18 games to get them there.....:rolleyes:

[bwink23]

Its even more hilarious that he played 9 other seasons and didn't win shit.


I guess because Rocky Marciano was 49 - 0 in the ring, hes the greatest fighter ever!

Houston won their rings right in the middle of the Bulls Dynasty.

Let's not pretend them winning 2 more is not in the realm of possibility...:rolleyes:

[The Iron Fist]

They won because they had Dennis Rodman, not cause MJ got better?


Its disgusting how people ignore the contributions of the Worm like he was just some scrub. He was the defensive anchor and hustle champion.

[The Iron Fist]

Houston won their rings right in the middle of the Bulls Dynasty.

Let's not pretend them winning 2 more is not in the realm of possibility...:rolleyes:
and lets not pretend the Rockets weren't owning the Bulls in matchups before he retired.

Lets pretend that Jordan won rings in the 80s, against tougher teams.

[BarberSchool]

1993 MJ was the greatest basketball peak in the hiostory of the game. If his father's death, gambling issues and everything else didn't take him away from the game, I firmly believe that Jordan's Bulls would have gotten rings in both 1994 over Hakeem, and in 1995 again.

A minimum 8-peat.

If you don't believe me, peep the prophecy that was foretold in 1992:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xks1ai_saturday-night-live-bob-swerski-s-super-fans_fun

[bwink23]

Its disgusting how people ignore the contributions of the Worm like he was just some scrub. He was the defensive anchor and hustle champion.

I'ts disgusting how you overrate the Worm....nobody even wanted him. The Bulls needs rebounding and defense, so they took a chance on him.

They did just fine while he was getting kicked out of games and lengthy suspensions....


They won 72 games DESPITE Dennis, not because of him.

[bwink23]

and lets not pretend the Rockets weren't owning the Bulls in matchups before he retired.

Lets pretend that Jordan won rings in the 80s, against tougher teams.


Playoffs is a different animal....they often played the Rockets on long west coast road trips.

Let's not pretend the Bulls didn't knock the Cavs out of the playoffs one year in the late 80's where they lost ALL 6 games to them that year......:rolleyes:

[The Iron Fist]

I'ts disgusting how you overrate the Worm....nobody even wanted him. The Bulls needs rebounding and defense, so they took a chance on him.

They did just fine while he was getting kicked out of games and lengthy suspensions....


They won 72 games DESPITE Dennis, not because of him.

So why didn't they win 80 games when he wasn't on the team?

[The Iron Fist]

Playoffs is a different animal....they often played the Rockets on long west coast road trips.

Let's not pretend the Bulls didn't knock the Cavs out of the playoffs one year in the late 80's where they lost ALL 6 games to them that year......:rolleyes:


Playoffs is a different animal, and the Bulls in 94 and 95 had no answer for Hakeem and Co.

[L.Kizzle]

I'ts disgusting how you overrate the Worm....nobody even wanted him. The Bulls needs rebounding and defense, so they took a chance on him.

They did just fine while he was getting kicked out of games and lengthy suspensions....


They won 72 games DESPITE Dennis, not because of him.
So the Bulls win 69-70 games without the Rodman pickup.

:facepalm

[bwink23]

So why didn't they win 80 games when he wasn't on the team?


They won 67 with Pip, Grant, and Armstrong in 1992...

:coleman:

[bwink23]

Playoffs is a different animal, and the Bulls in 94 and 95 had no answer for Hakeem and Co.


Like i said...they lost all 6 games to the Cavs, but knocked them out...

Playoffs is different animal.
:coleman:

[The Iron Fist]

They won 67 with Pip, Grant, and Armstrong in 1992...

:coleman:
But thats not 80.

You stated they won 72 despite Rodman which leads one to believe they should have won more without him.


But they didn't.

[BarberSchool]

Playoffs is a different animal, and the Bulls in 94 and 95 had no answer for Hakeem and Co.:biggums: Are you really using box scores from 1994 and 1995 to justify your idiocy ? :roll:

[bwink23]

So the Bulls win 69-70 games without the Rodman pickup.

:facepalm


They would do it with Horace Grant.....:rolleyes:

Let's not pretend the Bulls weren't 38-9 without Dennis...

[The Iron Fist]

Like i said...they lost all 6 games to the Cavs, but knocked them out...

Playoffs is different animal.
:coleman:


Sure is. Which is why Jordan didn't want to see the beast known as Hakeem in the finals. I mean, you do know they won as a 6th seed right?

Meaning,

they did turn it on when it mattered most.

[bwink23]

But thats not 80.

You stated they won 72 despite Rodman which leads one to believe they should have won more without him.


But they didn't.

They did....Rodman missed 18 games that year....but still won 72 games, DESPITE Dennis's absence....:biggums:

[ThaRegul8r]

Almost as pathetic as the Bill Russell 8 FMVP bullshi

As someone who knows more about Bill Russell's career than anyone on these boards, had the Finals MVP existed for the entirety of Russell's career, he would have won a minimum of seven.

[L.Kizzle]

They would do it with Horace Grant.....:rolleyes:

Let's not pretend the Bulls weren't 38-9 without Dennis...
Let's not pretend they were a 55 win team the season after Jordan retired the first time (57 the season before.)

[bwink23]

Sure is. Which is why Jordan didn't want to see the beast known as Hakeem in the finals. I mean, you do know they won as a 6th seed right?

Meaning,

they did turn it on when it mattered most.


Jordan would love to seen Hakeem in the Finals....personal issues needed to be dealt with. I'm sure Hakeem was the furthest thing from his mind.
:coleman:

[bwink23]

Let's not pretend they were a 55 win team the season after Jordan retired the first time (57 the season before.)


So WITH Jordan....let's not pretend they couldn't have won 70 games that year....:facepalm

And....no Dennis....:no:

[L.Kizzle]

They did....Rodman missed 18 games that year....but still won 72 games, DESPITE Dennis's absence....:biggums:
So if Rodman plays those 18 games are they +72 or +72, since his presence didn't seem to matter?

[The Iron Fist]

They did....Rodman missed 18 games that year....but still won 72 games, DESPITE Dennis's absence....:biggums:
and again,

if he wouldn't have been there at all,

they win 80 games, right?

[gilalizard]

Burnout drove him from the game.

So why do people think that same burnout wouldn't of affected him if he'd chosen to stay in?

It's potentially the greatest strategic move ever for someone's pro sports legacy. Opt-out for a new challenge when you're burned out, letting one of your biggest rivals cap a couple when you're not there or rusty from returning. Use the failure from getting beat when you're rusty to re-motivate yourself. Come back and win-out again. And always be able to say you never lost in the Finals.

Dunno if that was the thought process. If so, even more kudos for him being so strategic-minded. If not, the results are still the same and he instinctively chose a brilliant path.

[L.Kizzle]

So WITH Jordan....let's not pretend they couldn't have won 70 games that year....:facepalm

And....no Dennis....:no:
But with Jordan they won 57 the season before, so they improve 13+ games with MJ?

[bwink23]

So if Rodman plays those 18 games are they +72 or +72, since his presence didn't seem to matter?


They were 15-3 without him....translates to 68 wins....certainly could've have done it, and certainly could have won the chip without him.
:coleman:

[The Iron Fist]

They were 15-3 without him....translates to 68 wins....certainly could've have done it, and certainly could have won the chip without him.
:coleman:
Do they get 80 wins without him at all?

Yes or no.

[bwink23]

and again,

if he wouldn't have been there at all,

they win 80 games, right?


No they don't win 80 games....but his impact wasn't nearly as felt as you try to paint it out to be....

:coleman:

[dude77]

I always liked to think they would've swept through all 8 .. that team looked like it just wasn't to be denied ..

but no one knows how destiny might've been changed had he stayed .. maybe they would've won in 94 and/or 95 but lost a couple from 96-98 .. 3 peat is awful hard .. 8 peat is just crazy

[chazzy]

They won 72 games DESPITE Dennis
What a joke. This is how you separate Jordan apostles from Bulls fans.

[bwink23]

What a joke. This is how you separate Jordan apostles from Bulls fans.


The Bulls won 15 of 18 without Dennis. Don't you think if his impact was HUGE, 70 wins wouldn't have been possible missing that many games??

Common Sense...look it up

[L.Kizzle]

The Bulls won 15 of 18 without Dennis. Don't you think if his impact was HUGE, 70 wins wouldn't have been possible missing that many games??

Common Sense...look it up
What about the Bulls winning 55 games in 94 with no Jordan and 57 in 93 with Jordan. Explain that?

[chazzy]

The Bulls won 15 of 18 without Dennis. Don't you think if his impact was HUGE, 70 wins wouldn't have been possible missing that many games??

Common Sense...look it up
You said they won despite him, as if he's a net negative to the team or something

[bwink23]

You said they won despite him, as if he's a net negative to the team or something


They did....they won despite him missing 18 games that year...:confusedshrug:

In other words, his foolishness threatened their 70-win season. Thanks to the overall strength of the team, they managed to keep it alive without him.

WHAT?? :confusedshrug:

[97 bulls]

Playoffs is a different animal, and the Bulls in 94 and 95 had no answer for Hakeem and Co.
The bulls were 2-2 vs the rockets in 94 and 95. One of the games bulls lost, pippen didn't play in. And they lost that one by 7. Olajuwan had 3 great offensive games but he did have 8, 7, and 5 TOs in three of the games. And was atrocious in the fourth game.

[97 bulls]

They did....they won despite him missing 18 games that year...:confusedshrug:

In other words, his foolishness threatened their 70-win season. Thanks to the overall strength of the team, they managed to keep it alive without him.

WHAT?? :confusedshrug:
Its also clear that the Bulls don't beat the Sonics without Rodman. George Karl stated that Rodman alone won two of the Bulls four wins on his own.

[97 bulls]

What about the Bulls winning 55 games in 94 with no Jordan and 57 in 93 with Jordan. Explain that?
The Bulls had a super deep and talented team. They also managed to have one of the top records in the league in 98 with pippen missing damn near half the season.

[OldSchoolBBall]

The 1994 team wasn't gonna beat the Knicks,Pacers, and rockets even with Mj. The 1995 team even had #45 in the playoffs and the magic still won in 6. The 1995 team was the weakest of the 90s Jordan bulls teams and he was a little rusty but still I don't think playing the whole season would of made them the favorite.

Err, they easily win the title in 1994. They had the more talented, experienced, and better-coached team and the best player at his peak. 1995 is an open question, particularly if Grant leaves. If he doesn't, I put the Bulls at 80% odds or winning; if he does, and is not replaced by a good player, I put them at 20-30%.

[ThaRegul8r]

Its also clear that the Bulls don't beat the Sonics without Rodman. George Karl stated that Rodman alone won two of the Bulls four wins on his own.

Which is why it's ridiculous when people attempt to minimize Rodman's contribution to the team. And since I'm an impartial observer who was watching basketball at the time, I also recall that people were saying Rodman was Finals MVP:

[QUOTE][I]With about 8 million people ready to jump all at once from the ledge after the Seattle SuperSonics pushed the Chicago Bulls further than anybody thought possible, [B]it wasn

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

what myth? MJ and Pippen have 6 rings. That's all there is to know.

[SlayerEnraged]

We have no way of knowing exactly what would happen but his fg% and game was becoming more and more jump shot oriented. Was around peak fg% in 90 and 91 then 92 it went down a little and some more in 93. I think the trend would continue and that the 96-2003 Mj would have been more wore out and less effective.

[guy]

The 1994 team wasn't gonna beat the Knicks,Pacers, and rockets even with Mj. The 1995 team even had #45 in the playoffs and the magic still won in 6. The 1995 team was the weakest of the 90s Jordan bulls teams and he was a little rusty but still I don't think playing the whole season would of made them the favorite.

Umm, why exactly couldn't they have won in 1994?

Good chance the 1995 team doesn't win with such a weak inside presence. With that said, had Jordan been there and the Bulls were building there team with championships in mind, its doubtful that the Bulls would've been the team they were. They probably either resign Grant, or replace him with someone at least good enough. People don't realize that after the 1994 season when a Jordan comeback was not in sight at all, they were pretty much in rebuild mode and weren't really thinking about winning titles. Scottie Pippen almost got traded for a younger Shawn Kemp and they were looking to rebuild the team around Kemp and Kukoc.

[cteach111]

if a player comes along and actually wins 8 rings, do you think what the Bulls could have potentially won matters? Nope.

Results are the only thing that matters and unfortunately for Jordan, he took 1 1/2 years off.

[AMISTILLILL]

This bwink guy isn't arguing anything that's not at least realistic to consider. The truth is Jordan could have won those rings, absolutely... the fact of the matter is we'll never, ever know. People playing the revisionist history game and pretending like Jordan wasn't fully capable of plowing his way through the eastern conference match-ups likely have their own agenda to perpetuate (see: guy with Lakers avatar who probably just wants to prop up Kobe).

At the end of the day, trying to figure this out is pointless. There are just as many proponents of the 8-peat theory as there are doubters. Agree to disagree.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Shaq 9 ring myth...
Could have had 9 rings if he stayed with Kobe.
You see? "what ifs" are really really easy.

[bwink23]

This bwink guy isn't arguing anything that's not at least realistic to consider. The truth is Jordan could have won those rings, absolutely... the fact of the matter is we'll never, ever know. People playing the revisionist history game and pretending like Jordan wasn't fully capable of plowing his way through the eastern conference match-ups likely have their own agenda to perpetuate (see: guy with Lakers avatar who probably just wants to prop up Kobe).

At the end of the day, trying to figure this out is pointless. There are just as many proponents of the 8-peat theory as there are doubters. Agree to disagree.


It just not a terrible coincidence that the Rockets won 2 rings sandwiched between 2 Bulls mini-dynasties during the years Jordan wasn't playing or rusty?

Did Jordan ever lose in 6 Finals appearances??

Did the Bulls win 55 games in his absence in 1994?

Winning 8 straight and being the most hardcore NBA dynasty in history most certainly is a plausible scenario.

[AMISTILLILL]

Shaq 9 ring myth...
Could have had 9 rings if he stayed with Kobe.
You see? "what ifs" are really really easy.

Because that's a super realistic comparison, right? Three rings in three years vs. six rings with a two year gap in the middle.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Because that's a super realistic comparison, right? Three rings in three years vs. six rings with a two year gap in the middle.
Shaq won again in Miami, and don't forget Kobe's 2 rings a few years later? What if Shaq was still there and Kobe just entering his prime...MY GOODNESS!! they would have WON TEN IN A ROW!!! Its obvious, right!?

see, its that easy.

[bwink23]

Shaq won again in Miami, and don't forget Kobe's 2 rings a few years later? What if Shaq was still there and Kobe just entering his prime...MY GOODNESS!! they would have WON TEN IN A ROW!!! Its obvious, right!?

see, its that easy.


Not even close to the same thing....:facepalm

Shaq and Kobe lost together twice after winning 3 rings, and Shaq was EXITING his prime. In fact, they lost twice in row in 2004 and 2005, Kobe WAS prime by then. At that points they were DONE with each other.

The situations weren't even remotely the same....:facepalm

[AMISTILLILL]

Shaq won again in Miami, and don't forget Kobe's 2 rings a few years later? What if Shaq was still there and Kobe just entering his prime...MY GOODNESS!! they would have WON TEN IN A ROW!!! Its obvious, right!?

see, its that easy.

You're trolling, I get it... but you can't possibly think the two situations are remotely comparable.

You're talking about an eight year stretch of league-wide dominance (and that's not conjecture... they've got the hardware to prove it) with only two second round exits. The 2003-2004 Lakers, with the tandem of Kobe/Shaq, lost in the Finals... something this Bulls core you're drawing comparisons to never did. Kobe winning two rings five years later with a different cast..? Shaq winning one on a completely different team? Do you realize how absurd this sounds?

The Bulls situation is far more realistic than what you're proposing, and that goes without saying.

[Leviathon1121]

What myth? How often do we honestly see people claiming that Jordan should have 8 rings? I haven't seen it in forever, and bet it is quite rare. But clearly this needed a thread. :rolleyes:

[97 bulls]

What myth? How often do we honestly see people claiming that Jordan should have 8 rings? I haven't seen it in forever, and bet it is quite rare. But clearly this needed a thread. :rolleyes:
To be fair, most people do believe that had jordan not retired, the Bulls win 8 titles. Winning in 94 and 99

[SleepyCorpse]

I think its just as likely he ends up with less then 6 , than with 8 if he never retired.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

To be fair, most people do believe that had jordan not retired, the Bulls win 8 titles. Winning in 94 and 99
no.
most believe Pippen and Jordan won 6 titles and anything else is mere speculation.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

ACTUALLY....
If MJ never took those years off, Pippen would have blown out his knee and MJ would never win 3 more rings (because we know MJ never won without Pippen).
see...speculation is fun!

[97 bulls]

You laker fans are incredible. If I had a nickel for every time a laker fan has uttered the word "if" in defense of the lakers , id be a rich man

[guy]

ACTUALLY....
If MJ never took those years off, Pippen would have blown out his knee and MJ would never win 3 more rings (because we know MJ never won without Pippen).
see...speculation is fun!


:oldlol: Why are Laker fans so mad about this? Yes, speculation is fun. Its a message board. Its a common thing to do around here. If you don't want to speculate, why are you even wasting your time on this board or at least this topic? No one is actually giving Jordan CREDIT for winning more then 6 titles cause fact is he didn't.

If someone wanted to argue that Shaq would've won 9 titles staying on the Lakers, they can go ahead and do that. Of course someone would probably argue that they hadn't won the previous 2 years already, they probably never get Odom, Gasol, or Bynum without the Shaq trade, and that Shaq was on a pretty much a shell of himself a few years after. So its a far-fetched argument. The only argument against the Bulls is maybe they would've gotten injured or another team would've just been better and with those being the only reasons, its really not far-fetched to speculate.

[The Iron Fist]

This bwink guy isn't arguing anything that's not at least realistic to consider. The truth is Jordan could have won those rings, absolutely... the fact of the matter is we'll never, ever know. People playing the revisionist history game and pretending like Jordan wasn't fully capable of plowing his way through the eastern conference match-ups likely have their own agenda to perpetuate (see: guy with Lakers avatar who probably just wants to prop up Kobe).

At the end of the day, trying to figure this out is pointless. There are just as many proponents of the 8-peat theory as there are doubters. Agree to disagree.
So then surely he would have won in years 85 to 90 right? I mean, seeing as how he won in 91 to 93 and 96 to 98,

its not impossible to say he couldn't have won those other years.

All he had to do was plow his way through eastern conference matchups. :hammerhead:

[The Iron Fist]

Not even close to the same thing....:facepalm

Shaq and Kobe lost together twice after winning 3 rings, and Shaq was EXITING his prime. In fact, they lost twice in row in 2004 and 2005, Kobe WAS prime by then. At that points they were DONE with each other.

The situations weren't even remotely the same....:facepalm
Actually it is the same things. Both scenarios revolve around "if".

"If", Shaq had relinquished being "the man" to Kobe in 03 and the Laker game plan was tailored for Kobes strengths instead of Shaq,

the Lakers would be gunning for 12 straight right now,

"IF" Shaq continued to stay in shape and follow Kobe.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

:oldlol: Why are Laker fans so mad about this?
not mad...its just silly speculation...and some folks act like its a fact that MJ would have won two more.
Imagine if Andrew Toney didn't get injured!

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

You laker fans are incredible. If I had a nickel for every time a laker fan has uttered the word "if" in defense of the lakers , id be a rich manso its now OK for the MJ fans to utter "if"??? oh the hypocrisy!

[Deltron3030]

Should have won 8, could have won 10 if they didn't break up the bulls that last season he played. He was still solid on the Wizards.

Nonetheless, he is the goat. Doesn't really matter if shoulda or coulda.

[cteach111]

not mad...its just silly speculation...and some folks act like its a fact that MJ would have won two more.
Imagine if Andrew Toney didn't get injured!

it is silly.

only thing that matters is what you got, not what you could have got.

[BlueandGold]

:lol at all these people playing the speculation game. Shaq's what if in LA and Jordan's what if he didn't retire are essentially the same type of logical fallacy that Laker and Bulls fans are arguing about (i'm both)

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

it is silly.

only thing that matters is what you got, not what you could have got.
exactly my point.

[AMISTILLILL]

So then surely he would have won in years 85 to 90 right? I mean, seeing as how he won in 91 to 93 and 96 to 98,

its not impossible to say he couldn't have won those other years.

All he had to do was plow his way through eastern conference matchups. :hammerhead:

That's like saying if Durant/Westbrook end up with two rings before they retire, they obviously should have won their first few years together. What about logic and realistic presumption do you and the other LA fan boy not understand? You're comparing the most ludicrous things to something that isn't even that monumental of a stretch. Just give it up.

[guy]

not mad...its just silly speculation...and some folks act like its a fact that MJ would have won two more.
Imagine if Andrew Toney didn't get injured!

They act like its a great possibility, which it is. If they just wrote it off as 100% fact, then they wouldn't give Hakeem any credit for his 2 titles. Its not silly speculation at all because its really only asking if 1 thing didn't change unless your stance is that all speculation is silly and if thats the case, you're stance is stupid cause this is a freaking basketball message board.

With your Shaq example, barring a whole whirlwind of other things happening, they most likely don't win anything more because of Shaq's decline, him eating up the cap, and the simple fact that they already didn't win the previous 2 years. Had they won in 03 and/or at least 04, that speculation would be more worthwhile. Jordan won 3 straight before he retired and another 3 straight once he started playing full seasons and the Bulls started building towards a championship again. If the Bulls lost in 93 and/or had they been knocked out in 96 especially by the Rockets, no one would talk about this.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

They act like its a great possibility, which it is. If they just wrote it off as 100% fact, then they wouldn't give Hakeem any credit for his 2 titles. Its not silly speculation at all because its really only asking if 1 thing didn't change unless your stance is that all speculation is silly and if thats the case, you're stance is stupid cause this is a freaking basketball message board. No. like I said before, speculation is fun.
If you can change 1 thing for the Bulls, and say it would result in 2 more championships, then I can change one thing for the Lakers (Shaq stays) and say it results in 4 more championships. They are both silly, imo.
AND its not just one thing you are changing with the Bulls. You are also assuming 100% health. You are also assuming NO OTHER TEAM makes a move to put them over the top. Again, if you like to speculate, its fun... but to suggest that they would "LIKELY" win 2 more is absurd. You have no idea what could happen.

[bwink23]

No. like I said before, speculation is fun.
If you can change 1 thing for the Bulls, and say it would result in 2 more championships, then I can change one thing for the Lakers (Shaq stays) and say it results in 4 more championships. They are both silly, imo.
AND its not just one thing you are changing with the Bulls. You are also assuming 100% health. You are also assuming NO OTHER TEAM makes a move to put them over the top. Again, if you like to speculate, its fun... but to suggest that they would "LIKELY" win 2 more is absurd. You have no idea what could happen.


More likely than the Lakers winning 10 rings if Shaq stays...:rolleyes:

They lost the last 2 years he was there.....:facepalm

Jordan wasn't even playing....:facepalm

[AMISTILLILL]

No. like I said before, speculation is fun.
If you can change 1 thing for the Bulls, and say it would result in 2 more championships, then I can change one thing for the Lakers (Shaq stays) and say it results in 4 more championships. They are both silly, imo.
AND its not just one thing you are changing with the Bulls. You are also assuming 100% health. You are also assuming NO OTHER TEAM makes a move to put them over the top. Again, if you like to speculate, its fun... but to suggest that they would "LIKELY" win 2 more is absurd. You have no idea what could happen.

You're truly a remarkable specimen.

[97 bulls]

You're truly a remarkable specimen.
Lol

[gengiskhan]

He was lucky that winning 30 games was enough to make the playoffs :oldlol:

disguisting trash kobe FAILED to make it to PO despite in his prime peak :roll:

Rapiest also FAILED to win a series after going up 3-1 against Sun:roll:

suck on that kobe ball sack licker. :coleman:

[97 bulls]

so its now OK for the MJ fans to utter "if"??? oh the hypocrisy!
You're the one that's saying we shouldn't use the word "if". But I've seen you constantly include "if" in your argument.

Aren't you one of those laker fans that feel "if" worthy wasnt playing on a sprained ankle, "if"the lakers, still had kareem and cooper they would've beaten the bulls in 91?

Or that the bulls don't win 6 titles "if" they played in the 80s, and thus are overrated?


How bout when you've stated that "if" the bulls played in the 80s, they don't win 70+ games?

[bwink23]

You're the one that's saying we shouldn't use the word "if". But I've seen you constantly include "if" in your argument.

Aren't you one of those laker fans that feel "if" worthy wasnt playing on a sprained ankle, "if"the lakers, still had kareem and cooper they would've beaten the bulls in 91?

Or that the bulls don't win 6 titles "if" they played in the 80s, and thus are overrated?




How bout when you've stated that "if" the bulls played in the 80s, they don't win 70+ games?



ETHERED


http://illmaterial.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ether-e1296908676217.gif

[guy]

No. like I said before, speculation is fun.
If you can change 1 thing for the Bulls, and say it would result in 2 more championships, then I can change one thing for the Lakers (Shaq stays) and say it results in 4 more championships. They are both silly, imo.
AND its not just one thing you are changing with the Bulls. You are also assuming 100% health. You are also assuming NO OTHER TEAM makes a move to put them over the top. Again, if you like to speculate, its fun... but to suggest that they would "LIKELY" win 2 more is absurd. You have no idea what could happen.

People say the Bulls would win 2 more championships have valid reasons for thinking that i.e they won the previous and the next 3 and in these years they would still be relatively young and on the top of their game.

If you want to say Shaq would've won 4 more championships had he stayed, give valid reasons. You don't have any, that's why its silly, while the Bulls argument is not.

Lets face it, you're a bitter Laker fan thats sick of hearing about Jordan. If this was about what if Len Bias and Reggie Lewis didn't die, Sabonis came over when he was healthy, Magic never contracted HIV, etc., you wouldn't give a shit and act all bent out of shape about this topic.

[97 bulls]

People say the Bulls would win 2 more championships have valid reasons for thinking that i.e they won the previous and the next 3 and in these years they would still be relatively young and on the top of their game.

If you want to say Shaq would've won 4 more championships had he stayed, give valid reasons. You don't have any, that's why its silly, while the Bulls argument is not.

Lets face it, you're a bitter Laker fan thats sick of hearing about Jordan. If this was about what if Len Bias and Reggie Lewis didn't die, Sabonis came over when he was healthy, Magic never contracted HIV, etc., you wouldn't give a shit and act all bent out of shape about this topic.
Exactly

[ShaqAttack3234]

Great chance they win in '94, they'd at the very least come out of the East and have the more talented team in the finals match up, but how they would've matched up with Houston would've been interesting.

I wouldn't bet on them winning in '95 unless Horace Grant had stayed like OldSchoolBBall suggested.



And 45 =/= 23. He only played a small # of games and you can clearly see his production was no where near the level it had been in the decade.

Jordan was off in some ways, but he was also more athletic than he was during the 3peat, and for the most part, played really well in the '95 playoffs and by the level he was playing at in the '95 playoffs, he looked better than any player in the league except for Hakeem at that time.

His numbers in the '95 playoffs(32/7/5, 48 FG%/56 TS%) were better than any of his 2nd 3peat runs, though it was in 10 games rather than the 18, 19 and 21 games they played in the '96-'98 playoffs.


Now what happened in the next season against the same Orlando team when Jordan got his sea legs back and had played a full season?.

Eh, the main difference to me was that the Bulls had a weak frontcourt in '95, and Horace Grant killed them Chicago that series. He was arguably Orlando's MVP during that series.

Then in '96, Chicago obviously had Rodman who was huge in that series, and Orlando essentially didn't have Grant who only gave them 0 points and 1 rebound in game 1 and didn't play the rest of the series. As well as injuries to Nick Anderson and Brian Shaw later in the series.

Regardless, Jordan's play did keep Chicago competitive in '95 vs a more talented Orlando team, which was impressive in itself.



They won 72 games DESPITE Dennis, not because of him.

:oldlol: As others have pointed out, this is an unbelievably stupid statement. Rodman had an excellent playoff run in '96. Not only during the finals as others have pointed out, but he was phenomenal in the Orlando series and huge in the NY series. I suggest you watch that playoff run again, if you're honest with yourself, you'll see Rodman's impact all over most of the games.

[Gifted Mind]

Stopped reading after the 1st 2 pages. Could be the least intellectual discussion I've ever read.

[tpols]

Great chance they win in '94, they'd at the very least come out of the East and have the more talented team in the finals match up, but how they would've matched up with Houston would've been interesting.
.
But who knows if they would've lost interest after winng 4.. or 5 in a row.

Lets face it jordan couldn't keep his thirst up for 12+ years like Kobe.:confusedshrug:

[gengiskhan]

But who knows if they would've lost interest after winng 4.. or 5 in a row.

Lets face it jordan couldn't keep his thirst up for 12+ years like Kobe.:confusedshrug:


Dude. for 12 yrs, MJ was so GOAT, nobody was even close. I mean 5 MVPs despite they were deliberately overlooking him for MVP award.

than, 6 FMVPs. :biggums:

Kobe in his 15+ yrs has 1 consolidation MVP & past 3 yrs have been outdone by Lebron, wade & now Durant clearly.

Kobe has no real accolades for himself, MJ was tired of accolades, he was that GOAT.

He was clearly Bored of being GOAT. :coleman:

[LockoutOver11]

Actually it is the same things. Both scenarios revolve around "if".

"If", Shaq had relinquished being "the man" to Kobe in 03 and the Laker game plan was tailored for Kobes strengths instead of Shaq,

the Lakers would be gunning for 12 straight right now,

"IF" Shaq continued to stay in shape and follow Kobe.

haha sike!!,,, its was tried,, and called the 2004 finals...

[monkeypox]

I notice the people who give Jordan the two extra rings in the middle usually don't ever take away Hakeems 2 rings when they discuss the Dream.

[eliteballer]

Sure...they lost in 95

and even if they won in 94 those two extra seasons on Jordans legs means nothing is guaranteed in 97 and 98

[OldSchoolBBall]

Jordan was off in some ways, but he was also more athletic than he was during the 3peat, and for the most part, played really well in the '95 playoffs and by the level he was playing at in the '95 playoffs, he looked better than any player in the league except for Hakeem at that time.

His numbers in the '95 playoffs(32/7/5, 48 FG%/56 TS%) were better than any of his 2nd 3peat runs, though it was in 10 games rather than the 18, 19 and 21 games they played in the '96-'98 playoffs.



Eh, the main difference to me was that the Bulls had a weak frontcourt in '95, and Horace Grant killed them Chicago that series. He was arguably Orlando's MVP during that series.

Then in '96, Chicago obviously had Rodman who was huge in that series, and Orlando essentially didn't have Grant who only gave them 0 points and 1 rebound in game 1 and didn't play the rest of the series. As well as injuries to Nick Anderson and Brian Shaw later in the series.

Regardless, Jordan's play did keep Chicago competitive in '95 vs a more talented Orlando team, which was impressive in itself.

Eh, you need to look past the numbers here. Jordan's hallmark was his ability to close out games, and his decision-making down the stretch of games (especially big games). For various reasons (lack of conditioning due to having been away from the game for 21 months, lack of time with his new teammates etc.) he made uncharacteristic errors down the stretch of several games that postseason, and simply didn't step up in the way we know he ALWAYS did (win or lose) in playoff games. Fatigue, mis-timing due to not being game sharp etc. were clearly affecting him. Jordan could always put up numbers, especially in the first halves or 3rd quarters - it's what he did in the 4th and down the stretch of games that made him who he was. And he wasn't THAT player in '95 despite the production. No way in hell does either '93 or '96 Jordan play the way #45 did down the stretch of a few of those games. And that would have made the difference in the series.

[ShaqAttack3234]

But who knows if they would've lost interest after winng 4.. or 5 in a row.

I wasn't stating what would've happened after, because I have no idea, I was just commenting on their chances in '94 and '95 based on their roster and probable opponent.


Eh, you need to look past the numbers here. Jordan's hallmark was his ability to close out games, and his decision-making down the stretch of games (especially big games). For various reasons (lack of conditioning due to having been away from the game for 21 months, lack of time with his new teammates etc.) he made uncharacteristic errors down the stretch of several games that postseason, and simply didn't step up in the way we know he ALWAYS did (win or lose) in playoff games. Fatigue, mis-timing due to not being game sharp etc. were clearly affecting him. Jordan could always put up numbers, especially in the first halves or 3rd quarters - it's what he did in the 4th and down the stretch of games that made him who he was. And he wasn't THAT player in '95 despite the production. No way in hell does either '93 or '96 Jordan play the way #45 did down the stretch of a few of those games. And that would have made the difference in the series.

I'm not saying it had no impact on him, which is why I said in my previous post that he was off in some ways. But he also seemed more athletic, imo than any version of Jordan post-'95.

I agree that some of those mistakes were uncharacteristic, but I don't think we can assume that he'd be as good as he was through 3 quarters, while also adding the superior 4th quarter play. While it's not impossible by any stretch, it's also no guarantee. Obviously what happens through 3 quarters also dictates how much has to be done in the 4th. And while common sense tells us that the lay off would have a lot to do with fatigue, you could also argue that having a weaker roster as he did in '95 also had something to do with it.

I don't have much trouble seeing '95 Jordan with a full season beating Orlando because the '95 series was winnable anyway, but Chicago not having Grant and Orlando having Grant was an enormous difference, imo. It was a difference all year for Chicago and why their record wasn't close to '95, but it's magnified in a series against Orlando where Grant has such a great series.

[Kblaze8855]

Jordan was the best player in the east playoffs in 95 and was better than he was in at least 2 title runs. The problem was not him and nobody I talked to at the time acted like it was.

He didnt close out games like he did in his prime when they won in 96. He didnt need to. If he played like he did in 95 in the 96 finals we would have wiped the floor with the sonics. Jordan lost in his prime when he didnt have the best team and did the same in 95.

We flat out got tougher inside in 96. But Jordan wasnt just powering us to playoff wins in some way he couldnt in 95. If he had the 5-19, 5-14, 7-23, and 6-19 games in 95 that he had in the 96 playoffs guys would be pretending it was because he wasnt himself.

He had a couple off games in the 95 run(literally..like...2) but that wasnt unusual. And the idea that he was too tired to come through but he never was outside 95? Am I the only one who remembers him missing easy shots in the 96 playoffs and people talking about tired legs? When he and Scottie would both sit out and the Bulls would go on runs in 96? Happened in the finals several times. I remember MJ coming up short trying to lead a comeback in one of the games we were trying to knock out the Sonics. We hit a gang of threes and MJ didnt step up to close the gap when we got to like...down 3.

Shit like that happened 96-98 quite a few times but it happens in 95 and its because he was out a while? It wasnt because he wasnt still Jordan. He was. He just didnt have what people need to win. The team was not that good that year. Good...but not tough, no frontcourt worth talking about, and we didnt have the defense of the next few years.

Give the Bulls grant and in the process take him from the Magic....we win. Horace was going hard at the Bulls. He put up what I think were the best numbers of his playoff career series wise. He was giving us 25/15 games. 20/12 games. Making jumpers, tipping out offensive rebounds, and all. He wanted that win bad and he went and got it. He was at least as good as Penny that series. I remember clearly talking about that with all my bandwaggon Magic fan friends who were propping up Penny for beating Jordan.

He gave more to the Magic that series and the lack of him took more from the Bulls than any problem we are saying MJs comeback rust caused.

The idea that the 95 loss was on him always bothered me. The failure wasnt his to me. It was the teams. The Magic had Shaq when he was still Shaq, Penny, and 3 others on a roughly all star level talent wise(Scott and Anderson were both 20ppg players before Penny and Shaq took over and Horace was on top of his game and an all star in 94).

The Magic were LOADED and hungry. And the Bulls were less talented and far less complete without that usual frontcourt toughess Grant took and Rodman had not replaced.

The Bulls were not supposed to win that series.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

People say the Bulls would win 2 more championships have valid reasons for thinking that i.e they won the previous and the next 3 and in these years they would still be relatively young and on the top of their game.

If you want to say Shaq would've won 4 more championships had he stayed, give valid reasons. You don't have any, that's why its silly, while the Bulls argument is not.

Lets face it, you're a bitter Laker fan thats sick of hearing about Jordan. If this was about what if Len Bias and Reggie Lewis didn't die, Sabonis came over when he was healthy, Magic never contracted HIV, etc., you wouldn't give a shit and act all bent out of shape about this topic.
Ha ha!
Thats the most juvenile reasoning I have ever seen on ISH...and thats saying something.
As for Shaq winning 4 more? Hey, he won one more, then if he stayed, Kobe won two more...it is therefore HIGHLY LIKELY that together they would have won AT LEAST 4 together, esp since Kobe was entering his prime.
You see, that's just as realistic...or should I say unrealistic because it is speculation.
Since you are a little slow, I will explain it again: only MJ ******gers are actually claiming LIKELIHOOD. No one will bring up Bias, Sabonis, Lewis, etc and claim likelihood. Sure, they will say the Celtics would have been better in the 90s. Or Portland MAY have won a championship. But only MJ ******gers want to ignore the many other variables that go into winning.

Now that you have been schooled, go back to your room and study.

[Flamboyant]

^^great post by Kblaze. I was going to type something similar to the first 2 paragraphs (comparing 95 to 96), but it's more valuable when a true Bulls fan mentions it. It's funny how some pretend that MJ wasn't there in 95, when he did put up great numbers, and had one of his finest career games soon after he was back, dropping the double nickel at MSG.

Back to the original question, 94' is something that we will never know, but I believe that they'd at least make the NBA finals with MJ on the team. But in 95' he was there, and he didn't win. No "what if's" about that year.

[Owl]

Great chance they win in '94, they'd at the very least come out of the East and have the more talented team in the finals match up, but how they would've matched up with Houston would've been interesting.

I wouldn't bet on them winning in '95 unless Horace Grant had stayed like OldSchoolBBall suggested.



Jordan was off in some ways, but he was also more athletic than he was during the 3peat, and for the most part, played really well in the '95 playoffs and by the level he was playing at in the '95 playoffs, he looked better than any player in the league except for Hakeem at that time.

His numbers in the '95 playoffs(32/7/5, 48 FG%/56 TS%) were better than any of his 2nd 3peat runs, though it was in 10 games rather than the 18, 19 and 21 games they played in the '96-'98 playoffs.



Eh, the main difference to me was that the Bulls had a weak frontcourt in '95, and Horace Grant killed them Chicago that series. He was arguably Orlando's MVP during that series.

Then in '96, Chicago obviously had Rodman who was huge in that series, and Orlando essentially didn't have Grant who only gave them 0 points and 1 rebound in game 1 and didn't play the rest of the series. As well as injuries to Nick Anderson and Brian Shaw later in the series.

Regardless, Jordan's play did keep Chicago competitive in '95 vs a more talented Orlando team, which was impressive in itself.



:oldlol: As others have pointed out, this is an unbelievably stupid statement. Rodman had an excellent playoff run in '96. Not only during the finals as others have pointed out, but he was phenomenal in the Orlando series and huge in the NY series. I suggest you watch that playoff run again, if you're honest with yourself, you'll see Rodman's impact all over most of the games.
Agree with a lot of this. '94 team (with full strength Jordan) is better than '95 (with full strength Jordan) because of the loss of Grant. 94 with full strength MJ I'm basically sure wins a title. '95 I'm don't know.

But NO Jordan was not better in '95 playoffs than he was in later he put up almost as many turnovers in half as many total minutes as he played in later title runs. In so doing he was a little worse than he was in any of the other runs.

[Kblaze8855]

That wasnt the first time he put up 4 turnovers a game inthe playoffs. Wasnt the second time either...

[Owl]

That wasnt the first time he put up 4 turnovers a game inthe playoffs. Wasnt the second time either...
It wasn't but he was the only time he did it when substantially past his athletic prime. And his turnover % was higher than those 2 years prior years. And the comparison was being made with later years when he wasn't turning the ball over that much.

He was good in '95. The loss wasn't "on him" (tbh no one player is ever wholly responsible for their teams performance and I dislike those who imply it is) indeed he was as good as could be expected, significantly better than he had been in the regular season.

He was better in every one of his title runs than he was in '95 though, as is to be expected.

[Kblaze8855]

Nah. He started showing signs of slowing down in 97 and 98 to me. 96 he was shitty(by his standards) in the finals but that was a head scratcher. He wasnt getting pestered into bad shots he just...missed shots he usually made.

But whatever the reason...he wasnt on top of his game when it mattered most in 96. He did eat the Magic up in a couple games and that felt good to watch.

But so did this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY2he-p4PTE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOMXC9E9-Mw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BztuspM7TNE

MJ was the truth eve in 95 and I would take him as he was then...over anyone in the league now.

He had the same talent, will to win, and was more athletic than he was in the second 3peat. We just didnt win. And it was not hit fault.

[Owl]

Nah. He started showing signs of slowing down in 97 and 98 to me. 96 he was shitty(by his standards) in the finals but that was a head scratcher. He wasnt getting pestered into bad shots he just...missed shots he usually made.

But whatever the reason...he wasnt on top of his game when it mattered most in 96. He did eat the Magic up in a couple games and that felt good to watch.

But so did this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY2he-p4PTE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOMXC9E9-Mw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BztuspM7TNE

MJ was the truth eve in 95 and I would take him as he was then...over anyone in the league now.

He had the same talent, will to win, and was more athletic than he was in the second 3peat. We just didnt win. And it was not hit fault.
Maybe more athletic (though there were a lot of reports of him being in "baseball shape" rather than basketball shape). But he was rusty. That Nick Anderson steal (infamous, where Mike goes past Anderson completely loses track of where his man is pauses and allows Anderson to sneak from behind him and steal the ball and the Magic to get fast break dunk) and his end of game pass behind Pippen is indicative of the kind of sloppiness you saw a little of from MJ that year that you didn't see in later years. If you don't want to put that wholly on MJ and say it's playing with a new team and him joining so late in the season and whatnot, that's fine a lot of it was circumstances.

It's not that he wasn't great, he just wasn't quite as great as he usually was. And again this is not to say he was responsible for the Bulls not winning the title.

[Kblaze8855]

Jordan made sloppy plays here and there like everyone else. He had games with 26% shooting and 5 turnovers or 9/25 and 7 turnovers in the playoffs outside of 95. We just dont call attention to them because there isnt the "He wasnt fresh..." story to talk about.

The worst/most sloppy/mistake prone ball I saw him play in the playoffs after he first retired was against the sonics. We just happened to win anyway.

Bull have Horace and the Magic dont have him doing 20/10 for them its just another series MJ was the best player in. be nothing to talk about because we would have won.

I understand you arent exactly saying they lost because of Jordan...but a lot of people seem to think thats the case. And to me...he just played too well to make that claim.

[Da_Realist]

Jordan made sloppy plays here and there like everyone else. He had games with 26% shooting and 5 turnovers or 9/25 and 7 turnovers in the playoffs outside of 95. We just dont call attention to them because there isnt the "He wasnt fresh..." story to talk about.

The worst/most sloppy/mistake prone ball I saw him play in the playoffs after he first retired was against the sonics. We just happened to win anyway.

Bull have Horace and the Magic dont have him doing 20/10 for them its just another series MJ was the best player in. be nothing to talk about because we would have won.

I understand you arent exactly saying they lost because of Jordan...but a lot of people seem to think thats the case. And to me...he just played too well to make that claim.

MJ admitted he was tired at the end of games due to lack of conditioning and worked hard all summer to make sure he could finish games. Even in the games where he played well, he was fading going into the last part of the 4th quarter. One of the games you posted earlier he had 40 points with 31 coming before halftime. It's not like MJ to have that type of game and watch Orlando outscore his team by 10 points in the 4th while he only scored 9 for the whole second half. He was tired. And I know he was tired in 97 and 98 but he could manage it. (98 ECF Game 7 comes to mind when he kept driving to the hole despite fatigue so that he could get easy points at the free throw line). Once that fatigue hit him in 95, he didn't have any in the reserve to help him manage it. He was done. 17 games was not enough games to get him to the point where he could at least manage the fatigue. Game 1 and Game 6 were games they probably would have won had he had his legs under him. That's 2 key games that went Orlando's way.

Also, I don't think Chicago's chemistry was as good with MJ playing only 17 games heading into the playoffs like it was in the full seasons. I know the PF spot was a huge hole, but when a team plays together for a while they can figure out how to better hide their deficiencies. Chicago was really sort of playing off the cuff throughout the playoffs. Also, there were plenty of times when it was remarked that several of MJ's new teammates were sort of standing around watching him. And I can only imagine how hard it must have been to deal with his fiery competitiveness in such a short period of time after not having dealt with it beforehand.

Chicago should have won Games 1 and 6. If MJ played a full season that year, developed good chemistry with his teammates and could play at full strength through the end of 4 quarters, they would have taken at least one of those games. If every other game is the same, then that extra win pushes the series to a deciding Game 7. I wouldn't bet against MJ in that situation. There's a very good possibility Chicago makes it to the Finals that year even with Horace Grant playing out of his mind.

[bizil]

I think MJ and the Bulls had a great shot to win eight rings. They might not have won four in a row, but I wouldn't have put it past them to have come back that following year to win one. What about in '98 when they completed their second three peat. I think they had a two year window to win one more. If the Bulls chose to reload can keep it going, I feel confident they could have won one more. But once that Shaq-Kobe train or the Spurs got going, it could have got interesting. MJ was still the best player in the L at 35 years of age. So u have to keep that in mind. The key would be for the Bulls front office to make moves to have made the moves necessary.

[Myth]

If Jordan never retired in 1993, I think Jordan could have had a championship in 1994 and/or 1995, but I don't think that means he would automatically still win in 96-98. It would be real easy for his teammates to get over confident, because it would take an insane amount of focus to win 8 championships in a row. I think Jordan leaving and then coming back meant 3 things: (1) His focus got rejuvenated; (2) Much of the Bulls team would not have been revamped (revamping was a good thing); (3) Those original teammates who were still around also were rejuvenated.

[guy]

Ha ha!
Thats the most juvenile reasoning I have ever seen on ISH...and thats saying something.
As for Shaq winning 4 more? Hey, he won one more, then if he stayed, Kobe won two more...it is therefore HIGHLY LIKELY that together they would have won AT LEAST 4 together, esp since Kobe was entering his prime.
You see, that's just as realistic...or should I say unrealistic because it is speculation.
Since you are a little slow, I will explain it again: only MJ ******gers are actually claiming LIKELIHOOD. No one will bring up Bias, Sabonis, Lewis, etc and claim likelihood. Sure, they will say the Celtics would have been better in the 90s. Or Portland MAY have won a championship. But only MJ ******gers want to ignore the many other variables that go into winning.

Now that you have been schooled, go back to your room and study.

The difference is the only argument really against the Bulls in 94 and 95 would be the potential for injury, although this core never depended on injury prone players like someone like Dwyane Wade or Manu Ginobili, or that another team would be better, which neither you or anyone else has even attempted to make a convincing argument for. Considering they would've still been relatively young and they would've been able to keep somewhat of the same team together, there really isn't any significant enough obstacle in their way that really stands out. It would be stupid for you to expect everyone that brings this up in the Bulls favor to always preface their opinion with "IF THEY ARE HEALTHY", because thats obviously the assumption and not a far-fetched one considering they were a relatively durable group unlike a championship team like the Spurs for example.

On the other hand, your argument for the Lakers ignores a ton of things such as that team had already stopped winning years before they broke up, Shaq only had about 2 years left as an elite player, it would've been incredibly hard to get other supporting players such as Gasol or Odom because of the cap Shaq would eat, and they wouldn't have had a high enough pick to get someone like Bynum.

Its stupid to say the speculation for both is on equal footing. For the same reason it would be stupid to actually speculate something like "What if Luol Deng was healthy and played in the 2009 playoffs?" cause clearly that Bulls team probably doesn't do much either way. I'm not going to do what you're doing and say "If the Lakers kept Shaq they would've won more championships, but the Bulls might've as well in 09 if Luol Deng was healthy, its all speculation anyway."

Who cares if people think its likely? Thats what they believe, so what? Why are you getting all bent out of shape about it? And by the way, its not just Jordan fans. Alot of non-Jordan fans believe the same thing. I've heard Kenny Smith, who actually played for the Rockets, say they probably wouldn't have won if Jordan stayed around. Charles Barkley, who lost to the Bulls in 1990, 1991, and 1993 and then lost to the Rockets in 1994 and 1995 and then started playing for the Rockets in 1997 said the same thing. This isn't just something Jordan fans believe. I've heard plenty of former players and non-biased sportwriters claim the same thing.

You didn't school anybody. You're being a hater, and everyone knows that. In fact, you're the most pathetic kind of hater on a message board by being that poster who apparently thinks the topic is stupid but still decides to participate just to complain about how stupid of a topic it is. Why are you wasting your time then?

[NumberSix]

The 1994 team wasn't gonna beat the Knicks,Pacers, and rockets even with Mj. The 1995 team even had #45 in the playoffs and the magic still won in 6. The 1995 team was the weakest of the 90s Jordan bulls teams and he was a little rusty but still I don't think playing the whole season would of made them the favorite.
The 1994 team DID beat the Knicks. The only reason New York "won" was bad calls. Throw Prime MJ who didn't retire into the mix and I'm supposed to now believe that they lose?

[Blzrfn]

You laker fans are incredible. If I had a nickel for every time a laker fan has uttered the word "if" in defense of the lakers , id be a rich man

Yeah, tell me about it.

I have a lot of nice "what ifs" for Laker fans, too. Ya wanna hear some? Here are some examples:

1. What if the Rockets don't destroy their team with drugs after the 86 Finals, and Sampson doesn't get hurt?

2. What if the Blazers and Kings didn't choke in 2000 and 02 (Well, Sac-town had some help from the Zebras)?

3. In the 84 draft, what if the Cavs lose a few more games (Dallas had their first rounder that year), and Patrick Ewing came out? You would have had Ewing and Hakeem on Portland and Houston, and, quite possibly, MJ on the Mavericks. In other words, the Lakers are screwed.

4. What if the Kareem coin toss in 69 goes the Sun's way?

5. What if Ted Stepien wasn't a moron?

Ya see how fun that is? And, there are many more. That is an example of how lucky the Lakers have been the last 42 years.

[Lord Leoshes]

The 1994 team wasn't gonna beat the Knicks,Pacers, and rockets even with Mj. The 1995 team even had #45 in the playoffs and the magic still won in 6. The 1995 team was the weakest of the 90s Jordan bulls teams and he was a little rusty but still I don't think playing the whole season would of made them the favorite.


The Suns were better then those Rockets & got beat the year before.
The only reason Douchebag & the Bulls dont have 8 strait championships is cause of The Douchebag not playing 94, & being out of NBA game shape in 95.

Anyone who says other wise was not watching at the time.

[BarberSchool]

The 1994 team DID beat the Knicks. The only reason New York "won" was bad calls. Throw Prime MJ who didn't retire into the mix and I'm supposed to now believe that they lose?Exactly.

Orlando with Shaq and Penny (and subsequently Houston) were the only feasable threats to a "no rust" MJ on full Bulls Squads in 1994 or 1995. Knicks were always gonna be victims.

And would Horace have left with no-rust-Michael still there for sure ? Doubtful.

[BarberSchool]

The Suns were better then those Rockets & got beat the year before.
The only reason Douchebag & the Bulls dont have 8 strait championships is cause of The Douchebag not playing 94, & being out of NBA game shape in 95.

Anyone who says other wise was not watching at the time.Bingo.
Why do you call Mike douchebag ? A legit reason like how he treated Julius Erving and Bill Cosby ? Or something else ?

[tmacattack33]

If Jordan never retired in 1993, I think Jordan could have had a championship in 1994 and/or 1995, but I don't think that means he would automatically still win in 96-98. It would be real easy for his teammates to get over confident, because it would take an insane amount of focus to win 8 championships in a row. I think Jordan leaving and then coming back meant 3 things: (1) His focus got rejuvenated; (2) Much of the Bulls team would not have been revamped (revamping was a good thing); (3) Those original teammates who were still around also were rejuvenated.


Good post, I agree with most of this.

[Lord Leoshes]

Bingo.
Why do you call Mike douchebag ? A legit reason like how he treated Julius Erving and Bill Cosby ? Or something else ?


Cause i started as a LAL fan, till my home town got its own team in the Heat, & have hated Jordan ever since.
Obviously cause he would kick the crap out of my Heat constantly.
Yes i hated him, but was not blind to the fact that he was, & is the greatest of all times.

[boojitede]

Which is why it's ridiculous when people attempt to minimize Rodman's contribution to the team. And since I'm an impartial observer who was watching basketball at the time, I also recall that people were saying Rodman was Finals MVP:








Stans, fanboys and people with agendas deny this and have erased this from their memories (or blocked it out as it was happening) since they don't recall anything that doesn't fit into their agenda.

rodman really did deserve the finals mvp. mj was ass in that series. but lets not act like the bulls didnt win the first 3 games and get bored.

[Legends66NBA7]

Let's not pretend the Bulls weren't 38-9 without Dennis...

You yourself said the playoffs are a different beast.

Do they win in the playoffs with no Dennis Rodman ?

[bwink23]

You yourself said the playoffs are a different beast.

Do they win in the playoffs with no Dennis Rodman ?


They could have won it with Horace Grant or Bison Dele....handily.

[97 bulls]

They could have won it with Horace Grant or Bison Dele....handily.
That wasn't the question. Could they have won without rodman. Again without a suitable replacement.

[bwink23]

That wasn't the question. Could they have won without rodman. Again without a suitable replacement.


They didn't win without Horace Grant either.....:facepalm

[97 bulls]

They didn't win without Horace Grant either.....:facepalm
They also weren't as dominant.

[bwink23]

They also weren't as dominant.


They also were younger and less experienced.

[97 bulls]

They also were younger and less experienced.
Wtf?

[97 bulls]

They could have won it with Horace Grant or Bison Dele....handily.
I do wish the bulls could've kept dele and had them for the complete 97 seaason. He was a very good C/PF. They would've won 70 games easily in 97 and possibly 66/68 games in 98 had they had him.
I hate krause