Clyde Drexler or Scottie Pippen?

[oolalaa]

Peak and career, Drexler or Pippen? :confusedshrug:

I think most of you will say Scottie Pippen but, to me, it's not that clear cut....

[bwink23]

Peak and career, Drexler or Pippen? :confusedshrug:

I think most of you will say Scottie Pippen but, to me, it's not that clear cut....


It really depends on the team goals and makeup....if you want more offense, go with Drexler....if you want more defense, go with Pippen.

[oolalaa]

It really depends on the team goals and makeup....if you want more offense, go with Drexler....if you want more defense, go with Pippen.

In a vacuum, who do you start a team with?

[bwink23]

In a vacuum, who do you start a team with?


Tough call. probably Drexler. He was more NBA-ready out of college than Scottie Pippen was.

[Clippersfan86]

Drexler. Pippen is obviously the better option but he's not a tried and true 1a option like Drexler was. So while I do believe he could do it no problem.. Drexler DID do it.

[Round Mound]

Drexler was a Better Scorer at Total and Rebounder for his Position

As a Defender and Creator-Passer Pippen

[NumberSix]

6 rings

[oolalaa]

6 rings

How many would Clyde have won, in place of Pippen, on all those championship teams?

I say 6.

[pierce2008mvp]

I'll give Drexler the edge as he was able to led his team to the finals twice as the hands down best player on his team.

[NugzHeat3]

Looking at their career, you'd want to side with Pippen.

Would you rather be the man for several years on a highly talented yet often perceived as an underachieving team, the best player on two runner up squads and finally win a championship as the second best player or be the second banana for six championships as well as a couple of successful years as the man proving you could be successful as the best player as well?

Safe to say the majority would side with Pippen in that case. I could actually see Pippen being pretty damn successful on those Blazer teams since they were pretty uptempo and did a lot of damage in transition which is where Pippen thrived (half-court scoring would still be questionable). The Western conference in the late 80s-early 90s was exactly like that for the most part. He won't see that type of physical, brutal play that could rattle him like the Pistons and Knicks tended to play. That said, I'm not sure if he ever becomes the same player either since Jordan helped him quite a bit in that regard.

Peak is very close though. Comparing 1992 Drexler vs 1994 Pippen, I'd break it down like this. For the record, I think Pippen in the first half of the 1996 season was at his best but he had several injuries around the All-Star break if I remember correctly so 1994 is his best year top to bottom.

Advantages for Drexler:

- Definitely a better scorer. Elite first step for dribble penetration, great finisher, great in the post and a passable enough perimeter game. He had a few weaknesses such as his inability to go left which made him a bit predictable, not taking full advantage of his size in the post and had a tendency to rush shots. Often, he'd shoot immediately without getting a feel of the defender and didn't use contact to create space as much as I think he should've. That said, Pippen had a myriad of weaknesses in his scoring game if you critique it on a similar level. Best put, his halfcourt game was worse than Clyde's.

- Better court vision and passing ability. Pippen was no slouch though.

- Better offensive rebounder. Great instinct and nose for the ball. He'd get a couple of putbacks pretty much every game.

Advantages for Pippen:

- Miles better defensively and a game changer unlike Drexler. Scottie's edge in versatility is huge here as well.

- More of a leader going by how much praise he got by his teammates especially the second three peat years and I believe didn't coast as much.

They're about even in the open court with a possible edge to Drexler but if there is one, it's negligible.

I don't see either guy as much of a dominant player with an ability to impose their will on the game (i.e, clutch play) but Drexler still has the edge mainly because he was a much better scorer.

Their perception at the time was about equal. 1992 Drexler was pretty much the consensus best player after Jordan and 1994 Pippen was considered the best non-center for the most part. Pippen in 1996 actually got votes for best in the league for his superb play early in the season. Personally, I don't agree with any of those. I don't think Drexler was better than Malone that year or Pippen in 1996 was playing at a best in the league level.

Who I'd go with? Clyde by a little since his edge in offense is enough for me. It's not a big gap though.

[StateOfMind12]

I'm not sure if Pippen would be the player he is today if it weren't for Jordan so I'm not sure if that hurts him or not. If you know anything about Pippen and Jordan's Bulls, you would know that Jordan was a large reason why Pippen was such a great player since Jordan constantly pushed him to become a great player and reach his max potential.

Drexler developed into being a great player on his own though so if we were talking about who I would rather draft first as rookies, I would take Drexler in this scenario.

I think with how their careers turned out though, Pippen had a better one and I also believe Pippen was better in their prime.

Peak - Drexler
Prime - Pippen
Career - Pippen


Drexler. Pippen is obviously the better option but he's not a tried and true 1a option like Drexler was. So while I do believe he could do it no problem.. Drexler DID do it.
I hope you aren't suggesting that Drexler was 1b with Hakeem in 1995 because Hakeem was quite clearly the #1 option and it's not even close.

[97 bulls]

Drexler was a Better Scorer at Total and Rebounder for his Position

As a Defender and Creator-Passer Pippen
What made Drexler the better scorer? Forget the stats. Was Drexler a better jumpshooter, slasher, dribbler, post game, and threepoint shooter than Pippen?

Would Drexler still be the same player if he was put in the triangle offense and taken out of that uptempo system the blazers ran back in the day?

[NumberSix]

How many would Clyde have won, in place of Pippen, on all those championship teams?

I say 6.
Yeah, Chicago was in desperate need of a SG. :hammerhead:

[Smoke117]

Whatever the "perception" may have been...Clyde Drexler was not even close to the 2nd best player in the league in 1992.

[NumberSix]

Whatever the "perception" may have been...Clyde Drexler was not even close to the 2nd best player in the league in 1992.
Just like how KD is nowhere near the 2nd best right now. It's just storyline and perception. No f--king chance on earth KD is more valuable than Dwight Howard.

I don't care how bad the supporting cast is, I don't see any team with Dwight Howard having a 20 win season.

[97 bulls]

Whatever the "perception" may have been...Clyde Drexler was not even close to the 2nd best player in the league in 1992.
He wasn't even the second best player on the court in 92 during the finals. Pippen outplayed him badly in that fourth quarter of game 6

[oolalaa]

Looking at their career, you'd want to side with Pippen.

Would you rather be the man for several years on a highly talented yet often perceived as an underachieving team, the best player on two runner up squads and finally win a championship as the second best player or be the second banana for six championships as well as a couple of successful years as the man proving you could be successful as the best player as well?

Safe to say the majority would side with Pippen in that case. I could actually see Pippen being pretty damn successful on those Blazer teams since they were pretty uptempo and did a lot of damage in transition which is where Pippen thrived (half-court scoring would still be questionable). The Western conference in the late 80s-early 90s was exactly like that for the most part. He won't see that type of physical, brutal play that could rattle him like the Pistons and Knicks tended to play. That said, I'm not sure if he ever becomes the same player either since Jordan helped him quite a bit in that regard.

Peak is very close though. Comparing 1992 Drexler vs 1994 Pippen, I'd break it down like this. For the record, I think Pippen in the first half of the 1996 season was at his best but he had several injuries around the All-Star break if I remember correctly so 1994 is his best year top to bottom.

Advantages for Drexler:

- Definitely a better scorer. Elite first step for dribble penetration, great finisher, great in the post and a passable enough perimeter game. He had a few weaknesses such as his inability to go left which made him a bit predictable, not taking full advantage of his size in the post and had a tendency to rush shots. Often, he'd shoot immediately without getting a feel of the defender and didn't use contact to create space as much as I think he should've. That said, Pippen had a myriad of weaknesses in his scoring game if you critique it on a similar level. Best put, his halfcourt game was worse than Clyde's.

- Better court vision and passing ability. Pippen was no slouch though.

- Better offensive rebounder. Great instinct and nose for the ball. He'd get a couple of putbacks pretty much every game.

Advantages for Pippen:

- Miles better defensively and a game changer unlike Drexler. Scottie's edge in versatility is huge here as well.

- More of a leader going by how much praise he got by his teammates especially the second three peat years and I believe didn't coast as much.

They're about even in the open court with a possible edge to Drexler but if there is one, it's negligible.

I don't see either guy as much of a dominant player with an ability to impose their will on the game (i.e, clutch play) but Drexler still has the edge mainly because he was a much better scorer.

Their perception at the time was about equal. 1992 Drexler was pretty much the consensus best player after Jordan and 1994 Pippen was considered the best non-center for the most part. Pippen in 1996 actually got votes for best in the league for his superb play early in the season. Personally, I don't agree with any of those. I don't think Drexler was better than Malone that year or Pippen in 1996 was playing at a best in the league level.

Who I'd go with? Clyde by a little since his edge in offense is enough for me. It's not a big gap though.

Great post. I cant really add anything to it.

I'll just say that....It's very close for me. I'm a little too young to have seen them both live in their primes (I was born in '85) but having watched a good chunk of their games in retrospect (I've probably seen half of all Bulls games form their championship runs and a good amount of early 90s Portland & mid 90s Houston action), I think the Bulls still win 6 rings with Drexler in place of Pippen at SF.

I'm someone who rates offense and scoring very highly (probably higher than most) so I'm leaning towards Clyde. Pippen just wasn't a good half court offensive player. I think you need to be to lead a team deep into the playoffs.

[nycelt84]

Whatever the "perception" may have been...Clyde Drexler was not even close to the 2nd best player in the league in 1992.

Then who was?

[oolalaa]

Yeah, Chicago was in desperate need of a SG. :hammerhead:

He was a small forward coming out of college. He had the size and length to play the position. He'd be 95% as effective.

[Smoke117]

Then who was?

David Robinson.

[DirtySanchez]

Great great great question.....got to think about this one.

[NugzHeat3]

Great post. I cant really add anything to it.

I'll just say that....It's very close for me. I'm a little too young to have seen them both live in their primes (I was born in '85) but having watched a good chunk of their games in retrospect (I've probably seen half of all Bulls games form their championship runs and a good amount of early 90s Portland & mid 90s Houston action), I think the Bulls still win 6 rings with Drexler in place of Pippen at SF.

I'm someone who rates offense and scoring very highly (probably higher than most) so I'm leaning towards Clyde. Pippen just wasn't a good half court offensive player. I think you need to be to lead a team deep into the playoffs.
Thanks and this was a pretty nice comparison.

I'd say I value offense and scoring a lot for perimeter players as well but Pippen is probably the best defensive perimeter player I've seen so it does make that closer.

I'm just an year older by the way but I got into basketball pretty early and watched the majority of the 90s which is more than enough to really compare these players.
Then who was?
Both David Robinson and Karl Malone were better.

I would've added Hakeem and Barkley as well since they're better as talents but not quite since they had down years due to wanting out and lots of internal issues.

[Smoke117]

Thanks and this was a pretty nice comparison.

I'd say I value offense and scoring a lot for perimeter players as well but Pippen is probably the best defensive perimeter player I've seen so it does make that closer.

I'm just an year older by the way but I got into basketball pretty early and watched the majority of the 90s which is more than enough to really compare these players.
Both David Robinson and Karl Malone were better.

I would've added Hakeem and Barkley as well since they're better as talents but not quite since they had down years due to wanting out and lots of internal issues.

Patrick Ewing was better too. Frankly I think Pippen was better by 1992 too and agree with 97 bulls that the Bulls had the two best players on the court in the Finals in 92. Either way, it's laughable that Drexler was considered the 2nd best player in the league after Jordan.

[MasterDurant24]

Then who was?
David Robinson was better than Drexler, and you could say Barkley too.

[NumberSix]

He was a small forward coming out of college. He had the size and length to play the position. He'd be 95% as effective.
6 rings

[oolalaa]

Thanks and this was a pretty nice comparison.

I'd say I value offense and scoring a lot for perimeter players as well but Pippen is probably the best defensive perimeter player I've seen so it does make that closer.

I'm just an year older by the way but I got into basketball pretty early and watched the majority of the 90s which is more than enough to really compare these players.
Both David Robinson and Karl Malone were better.

I would've added Hakeem and Barkley as well since they're better as talents but not quite since they had down years due to wanting out and lots of internal issues.

I have a few more up my sleeve. Might do an Isiah/Frazier one in a couple days :D


And, you're right, Pippen probably is the best perimiter defender of all time. I've always though that Jordan, at his peak and when he was locked in, was the most destructive perimiter guy ever on that end, but he didn't have the versatility or consistency of Pip.

I'll throw Bobby Jones into the ring, too. One of the most underrated defenders, as well as players, ever.

[Round Mound]

What made Drexler the better scorer? Forget the stats. Was Drexler a better jumpshooter, slasher, dribbler, post game, and threepoint shooter than Pippen?

Yes.

Would Drexler still be the same player if he was put in the triangle offense and taken out of that uptempo system the blazers ran back in the day

Young Drexler could Play in Any Style.

[Xiao Yao You]

Glide

[bizil]

I gotta go with Drexler! Alpha dog AND great all around player all in one. Clyde was Pippen's equal in both rebounding and passing. Pip's defense though is better than Clyde's. I think Clyde catches some heat because of his awkward jump shot and dribbling with his head down. But Clyde was a great, great player who was arguably the 3rd GOAT SG for years until Kobe came around. Wade appears to likely pass Clyde by. But Clyde had great longevity being a force. Even in his later years, he was an All Star caliber SG and retired at 35 still close to the top of his game.

[97 bulls]

I gotta go with Drexler! Alpha dog AND great all around player all in one. Clyde was Pippen's equal in both rebounding and passing. Pip's defense though is better than Clyde's. I think Clyde catches some heat because of his awkward jump shot and dribbling with his head down. But Clyde was a great, great player who was arguably the 3rd GOAT SG for years until Kobe came around. Wade appears to likely pass Clyde by. But Clyde had great longevity being a force. Even in his later years, he was an All Star caliber SG and retired at 35 still close to the top of his game.
This is a real head scratcher. It seems to me that all the things you have held against Pippen should be applied to Drexler but aren't.

You say Pippen wasnt an alpha dog because he didnt beat or do enough to beat the Knicks in 94. Why not apply the same logic to Drexler? It was no secret that from 89 to 91 the Blazers were considered the most talented team in basketball. And yet the Blazers were underachivers. They sure couldve used Drexlers alpha dog scoring to win at least one championship.

Ive seen you post that Pippen didnt lead a team to a championship. Well neither did Drexler. And Pippens team was considered overachievers.

And Drexler had what? 11 years to lead a team to a championship. With 4 of those years having no worse than a top three team in the league.

I just gotta ask what gives? Are you just going off stats or results?

[97 bulls]

What made Drexler the better scorer? Forget the stats. Was Drexler a better jumpshooter, slasher, dribbler, post game, and threepoint shooter than Pippen?

Yes.

Would Drexler still be the same player if he was put in the triangle offense and taken out of that uptempo system the blazers ran back in the day

Young Drexler could Play in Any Style.
Young old whatever, Drexler was never or could never do what Pippen did for that Bulls dynasty. You wanna know how the Bulls would've faired with Drexler in place of Pippen? Look no further than the Miami Heat

[bizil]

This is a real head scratcher. It seems to me that all the things you have held against Pippen should be applied to Drexler but aren't.

You say Pippen wasnt an alpha dog because he didnt beat or do enough to beat the Knicks in 94. Why not apply the same logic to Drexler? It was no secret that from 89 to 91 the Blazers were considered the most talented team in basketball. And yet the Blazers were underachivers. They sure couldve used Drexlers alpha dog scoring to win at least one championship.

Ive seen you post that Pippen didnt lead a team to a championship. Well neither did Drexler. And Pippens team was considered overachievers.

And Drexler had what? 11 years to lead a team to a championship. With 4 of those years having no worse than a top three team in the league.

I just gotta ask what gives? Are you just going off stats or results?

From 89 to 91 the Blazers had crazy depth on their team. They made the Finals in 90 and 92. In my book, they lost to the better team in both cases. U have to give Clyde credit for at least getting those teams to the finals. Clyde played in the golden era of the NBA. In my book, the Blazers accounted for themselves very well. The Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, and Bulls were just simply on another level at one time or another than other teams from the 80's into the 90's.

All four teams won multiple titles. And if they weren't winning rings, most often they were in the Finals. As great as Clyde was, he wasn't on the level of MJ, Isiah, Bird, and Magic. U are talking about the GOAT PG, SG, and SF. And the 3rd GOAT PG. All four were loaded with multiple HOF type players in each case. Drexler's best teammates were Porter, Kersey, and Duckworth. NOT ON THE LEVEL OF THE OTHER TEAMS! That right there should show u how great Clyde was. He was the only superstar or HOF type guy on the squad.

I come to the conclusion that Drexler was better due to the scoring. In my book, Clyde was clearly a better number one option guy than Pip. In terms of perimeter number one options, I feel MJ, Bird, and Nique were the top three for most of that era. Drexler to me wasn't quite on that level, but on the next tier. Passing and boards u can call a tie. Defense goes to Pip clearly. In the end, give me Clyde who was also a great all around player as well.

Now in terms of GOAT status, or career resume, that could very well go to Pippen due to all he achieved. But prime and peak value wise give me Drexler. He was right with MJ revolutionizing the SG spot at the same time. They brought Dr.J caliber athletic ability and takeover shit and combined with all around games that had NEVER been before from such freakish athletes. I give Pip credit for doing the same thing at the SF, but he didn't have alpha dog gene like Doc, MJ, or Drexler.

[97 bulls]

From 89 to 91 the Blazers had crazy depth on their team. They made the Finals in 90 and 92. In my book, they lost to the better team in both cases. U have to give Clyde credit for at least getting those teams to the finals. Clyde played in the golden era of the NBA. In my book, the Blazers accounted for themselves very well. The Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, and Bulls were just simply on another level at one time or another than other teams from the 80's into the 90's.

All four teams won multiple titles. And if they weren't winning rings, most often they were in the Finals. As great as Clyde was, he wasn't on the level of MJ, Isiah, Bird, and Magic. U are talking about the GOAT PG, SG, and SF. And the 3rd GOAT PG. All four were loaded with multiple HOF type players in each case. Drexler's best teammates were Porter, Kersey, and Duckworth. NOT ON THE LEVEL OF THE OTHER TEAMS! That right there should show u how great Clyde was. He was the only superstar or HOF type guy on the squad.

I come to the conclusion that Drexler was better due to the scoring. In my book, Clyde was clearly a better number one option guy than Pip. In terms of perimeter number one options, I feel MJ, Bird, and Nique were the top three for most of that era. Drexler to me wasn't quite on that level, but on the next tier. Passing and boards u can call a tie. Defense goes to Pip clearly. In the end, give me Clyde who was also a great all around player as well.

Now in terms of GOAT status, or career resume, that could very well go to Pippen due to all he achieved. But prime and peak value wise give me Drexler. He was right with MJ revolutionizing the SG spot at the same time. They brought Dr.J caliber athletic ability and takeover shit and combined with all around games that had NEVER been before from such freakish athletes. I give Pip credit for doing the same thing at the SF, but he didn't have alpha dog gene like Doc, MJ, or Drexler.
So basically, its ok that Drexler lost to teams that were better than his even though he was favored and had the better talent. But when Pippen lost, he didnt do enough? Because Drexler was the better scorer? And it was in your opinion the golden age of basketball. Wow.

[bizil]

Young old whatever, Drexler was never or could never do what Pippen did for that Bulls dynasty. You wanna know how the Bulls would've faired with Drexler in place of Pippen? Look no further than the Miami Heat

Drexler was just as good of a passer and rebounder than Pippen. The only thing was the defensive part of the floor. The Bulls would have won six rings with Clyde there instead of Pippen. But at the same time, Pippen allowed the Bulls to dominate on defense. And Pip was a very good scorer. So on certain teams that already have an alpha dog type perimeter player, Pip might be the better fit. Or a team that has a marginal to average PG, u can take Pippen. Even though Clyde can pass just as good, Pippen actually had PG type handles. But in terms of who I feel is the better player give me Drexler.

It's like drafting, sometimes u draft the best available player and sometimes u draft for need. Pip fills a lot of holes so in certain situations, it merits him being taken over an alpha dog type. He's that great of a player. But I ALWAYS put a premium on the most explosive scorers who are also great all around players. I mean Tony Gwynn hit for as good an average of anybody. But give me Ted Williams, Barry Bonds, or Babe Ruth who can hit for .360 and up AND slug the shit outta the ball in ways Gwynn never could.

[bizil]

So basically, its ok that Drexler lost to teams that were better than his even though he was favored and had the better talent. But when Pippen lost, he didnt do enough? Because Drexler was the better scorer? And it was in your opinion the golden age of basketball. Wow.

The 80's and 90's was indeed the golden era of bball in my book. What era do you consider to be the golden era? The ABA-NBA merger and expansion teams like Dallas for example adding tremendous depth to the L. U had very good to great depth at virtually EVERY position. Something u CAN'T say today. Drexler and the Blazers WEREN'T favored against the Bad Boys or the Bulls. U really overrated the Blazers talent. From one to twelve they had an array of size, explosive athletes, and shooters. But THE BLAZERS ONLY FEATURED ONE HOFer in the late 80's to early 90's:

Lakers- Magic, Kareem, Worthy
Pistons- Isiah, Dumars, Rodman
Bulls- Jordan and Pippen
Celtics- Bird, McHale, Parish, Walton, DJ

From 86 on, this is what Clyde had to deal with. I realize when the 90's dawned that Boston was on its way out. But u gotta realize the Blazers were making noise in the late 80's already as a threat. The Lakers eventually lost Kareem, but they were still a threat as evidenced by them making the 90-91 Finals. And the Blazers making the finals in 90 and 92 is still a great feat. He just got beat by better teams. The Bulls and Pistons were both favored over the Blazers. They were the defending champs. And Isiah and MJ were better players than Clyde. Pippen, Rodman, and Aguirre was better than Kersey. Dumars was better than Porter. At this point, Horace Grant was just as good and probably better than Buck Williams. And to top it off, Laimbeer was better than Kevin Duckworth.

[97 bulls]

Drexler was just as good of a passer and rebounder than Pippen. The only thing was the defensive part of the floor. The Bulls would have won six rings with Clyde there instead of Pippen. But at the same time, Pippen allowed the Bulls to dominate on defense. And Pip was a very good scorer. So on certain teams that already have an alpha dog type perimeter player, Pip might be the better fit. Or a team that has a marginal to average PG, u can take Pippen. Even though Clyde can pass just as good, Pippen actually had PG type handles. But in terms of who I feel is the better player give me Drexler.

It's like drafting, sometimes u draft the best available player and sometimes u draft for need. Pip fills a lot of holes so in certain situations, it merits him being taken over an alpha dog type. He's that great of a player. But I ALWAYS put a premium on the most explosive scorers who are also great all around players. I mean Tony Gwynn hit for as good an average of anybody. But give me Ted Williams, Barry Bonds, or Babe Ruth who can hit for .360 and up AND slug the shit outta the ball in ways Gwynn never could.
Again, the bottom line is results. If Pippen did a better job leading his team seeing as how his team overachieved, and Drexlers teams underachieved, why is drexler better as a franchise player. According to you, Drexler met all requiremnts for alpha dog type scorers. Great scorer, more than enough talent. Why youre forgiving him is beyond me.

At some point it just becomes stubborn. Its one thing to feel a certain way, but its another to not be willing to rethink a position even when your plan backfires. Drexler losing all those years shows you dont really need to be an alpha dog scorer to lead a team. Who was the alpha dog on the pistons? Sure they had scorers but not guys that were 25-28 ppg scorers. Or the lakers. Magic wasnt what you would consider an alpha dog scorer. Then in 92, Drexler got owned by pippen himself in the fourth quartr of game six. All these facts sitting right in your face and you still refuse to relent.

Even saying drexler and jordan couldve won championships together. No they couldnt, they were too similar. They were great passers but not legit PGs. Could drexler dominate a game without scoring? Jordan could but his ego would never allow him to not be the first option.

Again, i cant stress enough. Are we trying to decipher what brings wins? Or stats. There is a difference.

[NumberSix]

Young old whatever, Drexler was never or could never do what Pippen did for that Bulls dynasty. You wanna know how the Bulls would've faired with Drexler in place of Pippen? Look no further than the Miami Heat
Whatever that even means. :confusedshrug:

The Heat have only been together 2 seasons and 100% success rate of reaching the finals. What an abysmal failure. :facepalm

[ShaqAttack3234]

Looking at their career, you'd want to side with Pippen.

Would you rather be the man for several years on a highly talented yet often perceived as an underachieving team, the best player on two runner up squads and finally win a championship as the second best player or be the second banana for six championships as well as a couple of successful years as the man proving you could be successful as the best player as well?

Safe to say the majority would side with Pippen in that case. I could actually see Pippen being pretty damn successful on those Blazer teams since they were pretty uptempo and did a lot of damage in transition which is where Pippen thrived (half-court scoring would still be questionable). The Western conference in the late 80s-early 90s was exactly like that for the most part. He won't see that type of physical, brutal play that could rattle him like the Pistons and Knicks tended to play. That said, I'm not sure if he ever becomes the same player either since Jordan helped him quite a bit in that regard.

Peak is very close though. Comparing 1992 Drexler vs 1994 Pippen, I'd break it down like this. For the record, I think Pippen in the first half of the 1996 season was at his best but he had several injuries around the All-Star break if I remember correctly so 1994 is his best year top to bottom.

Advantages for Drexler:

- Definitely a better scorer. Elite first step for dribble penetration, great finisher, great in the post and a passable enough perimeter game. He had a few weaknesses such as his inability to go left which made him a bit predictable, not taking full advantage of his size in the post and had a tendency to rush shots. Often, he'd shoot immediately without getting a feel of the defender and didn't use contact to create space as much as I think he should've. That said, Pippen had a myriad of weaknesses in his scoring game if you critique it on a similar level. Best put, his halfcourt game was worse than Clyde's.

- Better court vision and passing ability. Pippen was no slouch though.

- Better offensive rebounder. Great instinct and nose for the ball. He'd get a couple of putbacks pretty much every game.

Advantages for Pippen:

- Miles better defensively and a game changer unlike Drexler. Scottie's edge in versatility is huge here as well.

- More of a leader going by how much praise he got by his teammates especially the second three peat years and I believe didn't coast as much.

They're about even in the open court with a possible edge to Drexler but if there is one, it's negligible.

I don't see either guy as much of a dominant player with an ability to impose their will on the game (i.e, clutch play) but Drexler still has the edge mainly because he was a much better scorer.

Their perception at the time was about equal. 1992 Drexler was pretty much the consensus best player after Jordan and 1994 Pippen was considered the best non-center for the most part. Pippen in 1996 actually got votes for best in the league for his superb play early in the season. Personally, I don't agree with any of those. I don't think Drexler was better than Malone that year or Pippen in 1996 was playing at a best in the league level.

Who I'd go with? Clyde by a little since his edge in offense is enough for me. It's not a big gap though.

Great post, covered just about everything.

They are close, I also don't agree with Drexler being the second best player in '92, even though that seemed to be the opinion of many. Clyde had his best season, but I'd probably take Ewing, Malone and Robinson. And I actually don't think Pippen was THAT far behind by '92 either. He had become a capable outside shooter, had grown into his point forward role, and had probably his best playoff run. He only struggled in the Knicks series, but I'm not sure Drexler is going to do all that well vs those Knicks either. Pippen was a beast in closeout games during that run, and averaged 21/8/7/2/1, 51% for the season and the Bulls were not the up tempo team Portland was. I could also see Pippen thriving in the Blazers transition game because like Drexler, he was one of the great open court players I've seen. That's the earliest I've read some calling Pippen the second best player in the game, though apparently it was more or less Bulls fans. Pippen's game wasn't as complete as '94-'96 yet, but he was also the second best player in the '92 finals.

I'd also agree that Pippen was probably playing the best ball of his career up until about February in the '95-'96 season when he was clearly affected by injuries most notably the ankle injury. But I also wouldn't say he was the second best player in the league like many were by that point. Doug Collins actually called him the best player in the game.

But I'd also side with '94 as his peak due to the injuries in late '96. He had become without question the best perimeter defender and his role changed a bit, he assumed more of a scoring role and less of the point forward role of the MJ era. But it's amazing what Pippen accomplished with this team, they don't look like a 55 win team and clearly overachieved. Their record with Pippen was 51-21 and 44-16 with Pippen and Grant both playing. Phil said they had to rely on running the triangle as well as possible that year with less talent on the team, and Pippen deserves a lot of the credit for that.

Drexler did generally have the advantages you listed. He was the better offensive rebounder, and maybe the best I can remember as a guard. But Pippen was also very good, and was getting the total rebounds of a PF at one point averaging 9 per game in '94 while playing with an 11 rpg PF on a very good rebounding team.

Drexler was also the better pure passer, but wasn't in as much of the facilitator role as Pippen, and playmaking becomes closer because I'd rather have Pippen's ball handling.

Pippen's defense is a big advantage over almost any perimeter player and the main thing that put him among the best players in the game. His help defense was phenomenal, and he did have the versatility to guard multiple positions with success, both guards and forwards, so he was pretty much always contributing at that end. I'd also say that Pippen was a much smarter player player than Drexler.

I think they both have some similar strengths and weaknesses a scorers. Drexler was better, but wasn't without his flaws. A lot of his points came in transition, and while he was a pretty good outside shooter, he wasn't what I'd call great. He had the spin move, but questionable handles and wasn't the most creative scorer off the dribble much like Pippen. Drexler was one of the best guards in the post, but Pippen developed a solid post game as well. He had the jump hook and bank shot.

It's pretty close between '92-'97 Pippen and '88-'92 Drexler and '94 Pippen vs '92 Drexler. I wouldn't consider Drexler that much more of a 1st option type player either. Those Blazer teams were loaded, and had more talent than any team in the league at one point, particularly '91 when they were upset by the Lakers. It wasn't a case of Drexler really carrying a team, Porter was often coming up big for them with clutch shots and was sometimes the Blazers best player in certain series.

Clyde is the guy to go with if you need more scoring and he'll help you out all around as well. But I'm not that comfortable with either having to carry a big scoring load in the playoffs, both are more suited to balanced offenses or 2nd option roles, imo. If they are in second option roles, I'd go with Pippen for his all around game, since he'll still give you 20 ppg or so, and Drexler probably isn't scoring much more than that in a second option role anyway, certainly not on some of the more halfcourt teams that Pippen played on. In fairness, Drexler did a great job as a second option on the '95 Rockets.

[97 bulls]

The 80's and 90's was indeed the golden era of bball in my book. What era do you consider to be the golden era? The ABA-NBA merger and expansion teams like Dallas for example adding tremendous depth to the L. U had very good to great depth at virtually EVERY position. Something u CAN'T say today. Drexler and the Blazers WEREN'T favored against the Bad Boys or the Bulls. U really overrated the Blazers talent. From one to twelve they had an array of size, explosive athletes, and shooters. But THE BLAZERS ONLY FEATURED ONE HOFer in the late 80's to early 90's:

Lakers- Magic, Kareem, Worthy
Pistons- Isiah, Dumars, Rodman
Bulls- Jordan and Pippen
Celtics- Bird, McHale, Parish, Walton, DJ

From 86 on, this is what Clyde had to deal with. I realize when the 90's dawned that Boston was on its way out. But u gotta realize the Blazers were making noise in the late 80's already as a threat. The Lakers eventually lost Kareem, but they were still a threat as evidenced by them making the 90-91 Finals. And the Blazers making the finals in 90 and 92 is still a great feat. He just got beat by better teams. The Bulls and Pistons were both favored over the Blazers. They were the defending champs. And Isiah and MJ were better players than Clyde. Pippen, Rodman, and Aguirre was better than Kersey. Dumars was better than Porter. At this point, Horace Grant was just as good and probably better than Buck Williams. And to top it off, Laimbeer was better than Kevin Duckworth.
The bulls were favored to beat the blazers. But not the lakers. And the blazers and pistons were really a toss up. Id give a slight edge to the pistons. But the blazers were considered to have the most talent in the league. And for some reason, you just cant see that im using your reasong against you. What difference does it make if drexler lost to teams that weere better than him and pippen lost to a team that was beetter than him? NEITHER DID ENOUGH TO WIN OBVIOUSLY. I just cant stress enough that you just cant see this double standard

[bizil]

Again, the bottom line is results. If Pippen did a better job leading his team seeing as how his team overachieved, and Drexlers teams underachieved, why is drexler better as a franchise player. According to you, Drexler met all requiremnts for alpha dog type scorers. Great scorer, more than enough talent. Why youre forgiving him is beyond me.

At some point it just becomes stubborn. Its one thing to feel a certain way, but its another to not be willing to rethink a position even when your plan backfires. Drexler losing all those years shows you dont really need to be an alpha dog scorer to lead a team. Who was the alpha dog on the pistons? Sure they had scorers but not guys that were 25-28 ppg scorers. Or the lakers. Magic wasnt what you would consider an alpha dog scorer. Then in 92, Drexler got owned by pippen himself in the fourth quartr of game six. All these facts sitting right in your face and you still refuse to relent.

Even saying drexler and jordan couldve won championships together. No they couldnt, they were too similar. They were great passers but not legit PGs. Could drexler dominate a game without scoring? Jordan could but his ego would never allow him to not be the first option.

Again, i cant stress enough. Are we trying to decipher what brings wins? Or stats. There is a difference.

U are insane if u don't think Clyde and MJ wouldn't have won rings together. That's a ridiculous statement to make. Clyde could dominate a game without scoring. Are u aware of Clyde's passing and rebounding numbers? He's amongst the greatest passers and rebounders of all time at the SG. In one season, Clyde has put up 8 rebounds AND 8 assists! U can't name 10 other SG's EVER who have put up those kind of board and assist numbers in the same year. And Clyde was a very good defender ALWAYS in the top five-six in steals every year. He's not on Pip's level on defense, but I would put Clyde above average on defense. What's are u talking about MJ's ego wouldn't allow it? MJ could play the PG position better than damn near anybody in the L except for Magic, Isiah, Stockton, KJ, or a Tim Hardaway type at the time. Plus MJ could guard smaller PG's AND put the scoring pressure on them in ways that would give them nightmares.

Secondly, the Bulls ran the triangle offense. EVERYBODY KNOWS U DON"T NEED A TRUE OR GREAT PG TO RUN THE TRIANGLE! The Bulls won titles with Paxson, BJ, or Ron Harper in the so called PG role. Fast break wise, Pippen would run it. Drexler was EASILY capable of running a great fast break and facilitating offense. Pippen even said himself that he loved Clyde's game because they did similar things. What are those things? They are being 6'7, able to be great rebounders and passers, and able to create on the fast break . Those are Pip's words not mine!

[97 bulls]

Whatever that even means. :confusedshrug:

The Heat have only been together 2 seasons and 100% success rate of reaching the finals. What an abysmal failure. :facepalm
Theyre not failures. But the notion that you can replace pippen with drexler and net the same results is just not true. Jordan and drexlers styles are just too similar.

[97 bulls]

U are insane if u don't think Clyde and MJ wouldn't have won rings together. That's a ridiculous statement to make. Clyde could dominate a game without scoring. Are u aware of Clyde's passing and rebounding numbers? He's amongst the greatest passers and rebounders of all time at the SG. In one season, Clyde has put up 8 rebounds AND 8 assists! U can't name 10 other SG's EVER who have put up those kind of board and assist numbers in the same year. And Clyde was a very good defender ALWAYS in the top five-six in steals every year. He's not on Pip's level on defense, but I would put Clyde above average on defense. What's are u talking about MJ's ego wouldn't allow it? MJ could play the PG position better than damn near anybody in the L except for Magic, Isiah, Stockton, KJ, or a Tim Hardaway type at the time. Plus MJ could guard smaller PG's AND put the scoring pressure on them in ways that would give them nightmares.

Secondly, the Bulls ran the triangle offense. EVERYBODY KNOWS U DON"T NEED A TRUE OR GREAT PG TO RUN THE TRIANGLE! The Bulls won titles with Paxson, BJ, or Ron Harper in the so called PG role. Fast break wise, Pippen would run it. Drexler was EASILY capable of running a great fast break and facilitating offense. Pippen even said himself that he loved Clyde's game because they did similar things. What are those things? They are being 6'7, able to be great rebounders and passers, and able to create on the fast break . Those are Pip's words not mine!
Jordan nor drexler are the type of players that could effectively do what pippen did and succeed. How bout another example the 04 dreamteam. By far the most talented team in the olympics and failed to even make the medal round. And no the triangle doesnt call for what would be a traditional PG. But you sure as hell need someone that knows the offense, and knows where to put eveyone. Not saying they couldnt do it but i doubt they could run that triangle over the course of a season and playoffs.

And you didnt respond to the rest of my post. Your so big on alpha dogs, when the pistons and lakers played the blazers, the clear best scorer on the court was drexler. Why wasnt he able to win? Neither the lakers or pistons best players were alpha dog scorers. Id eveen go so far as to say that the blazer had more scorers than the pistons.

[bizil]

The bulls were favored to beat the blazers. But not the lakers. And the blazers and pistons were really a toss up. Id give a slight edge to the pistons. But the blazers were considered to have the most talent in the league. And for some reason, you just cant see that im using your reasong against you. What difference does it make if drexler lost to teams that weere better than him and pippen lost to a team that was beetter than him? NEITHER DID ENOUGH TO WIN OBVIOUSLY. I just cant stress enough that you just cant see this double standard

But as I said earlier when it came to the Lakers, u had two HOFers in Magic and Worthy. U also had good role players in Divac, Perkins, B Scott still, etc. Magic was the 2nd or third best player in the L still. Magic was the MVP for crying out loud the year before. And Pistons and Bulls were still favored to beat the Blazers flat out. There is no double standard in my book, I would rather have Clyde as a number one option over Pippen AND Clyde was a great all around player on top of it. Clyde was clearly a better number one option than Pippen ever was.

And by the way, PG's like Magic and Isiah are EASILY ALPHA DOG MATERIAL. However, they are PG's so they fufill PG duties first. But when the game is on the line or if they need to go off scoring, they could do it better than Pippen EVER could. They have more stage presence and mentality to do it. The same goes for PG's like Frazier, Tiny, Big O, Paul, Nash, and D Will. And by the way, Magic and Isiah BOTH have higher career scoring averages than Pippen WHILE playing the PG position. LOL Anybody who knows the game know Isiah could turn into Iverson in an instant and takeover a game. And everybody knows Magic at the drop of a hat can turn into a scoring marvel playing damn near any position and go off. He's bigger than PG's, SG's, SF's and just as big as the PF's. And he had the handles and craftiness to get where he needed to go at will. U throw in a 90% free throw shooter and epic post game....

[97 bulls]

Great post, covered just about everything.

They are close, I also don't agree with Drexler being the second best player in '92, even though that seemed to be the opinion of many. Clyde had his best season, but I'd probably take Ewing, Malone and Robinson. And I actually don't think Pippen was THAT far behind by '92 either. He had become a capable outside shooter, had grown into his point forward role, and had probably his best playoff run. He only struggled in the Knicks series, but I'm not sure Drexler is going to do all that well vs those Knicks either. Pippen was a beast in closeout games during that run, and averaged 21/8/7/2/1, 51% for the season and the Bulls were not the up tempo team Portland was. I could also see Pippen thriving in the Blazers transition game because like Drexler, he was one of the great open court players I've seen. That's the earliest I've read some calling Pippen the second best player in the game, though apparently it was more or less Bulls fans. Pippen's game wasn't as complete as '94-'96 yet, but he was also the second best player in the '92 finals.

I'd also agree that Pippen was probably playing the best ball of his career up until about February in the '95-'96 season when he was clearly affected by injuries most notably the ankle injury. But I also wouldn't say he was the second best player in the league like many were by that point. Doug Collins actually called him the best player in the game.

But I'd also side with '94 as his peak due to the injuries in late '96. He had become without question the best perimeter defender and his role changed a bit, he assumed more of a scoring role and less of the point forward role of the MJ era. But it's amazing what Pippen accomplished with this team, they don't look like a 55 win team and clearly overachieved. Their record with Pippen was 51-21 and 44-16 with Pippen and Grant both playing. Phil said they had to rely on running the triangle as well as possible that year with less talent on the team, and Pippen deserves a lot of the credit for that.

Drexler did generally have the advantages you listed. He was the better offensive rebounder, and maybe the best I can remember as a guard. But Pippen was also very good, and was getting the total rebounds of a PF at one point averaging 9 per game in '94 while playing with an 11 rpg PF on a very good rebounding team.

Drexler was also the better pure passer, but wasn't in as much of the facilitator role as Pippen, and playmaking becomes closer because I'd rather have Pippen's ball handling.

Pippen's defense is a big advantage over almost any perimeter player and the main thing that put him among the best players in the game. His help defense was phenomenal, and he did have the versatility to guard multiple positions with success, both guards and forwards, so he was pretty much always contributing at that end. I'd also say that Pippen was a much smarter player player than Drexler.

I think they both have some similar strengths and weaknesses a scorers. Drexler was better, but wasn't without his flaws. A lot of his points came in transition, and while he was a pretty good outside shooter, he wasn't what I'd call great. He had the spin move, but questionable handles and wasn't the most creative scorer off the dribble much like Pippen. Drexler was one of the best guards in the post, but Pippen developed a solid post game as well. He had the jump hook and bank shot.

It's pretty close between '92-'97 Pippen and '88-'92 Drexler and '94 Pippen vs '92 Drexler. I wouldn't consider Drexler that much more of a 1st option type player either. Those Blazer teams were loaded, and had more talent than any team in the league at one point, particularly '91 when they were upset by the Lakers. It wasn't a case of Drexler really carrying a team, Porter was often coming up big for them with clutch shots and was sometimes the Blazers best player in certain series.

Clyde is the guy to go with if you need more scoring and he'll help you out all around as well. But I'm not that comfortable with either having to carry a big scoring load in the playoffs, both are more suited to balanced offenses or 2nd option roles, imo. If they are in second option roles, I'd go with Pippen for his all around game, since he'll still give you 20 ppg or so, and Drexler probably isn't scoring much more than that in a second option role anyway, certainly not on some of the more halfcourt teams that Pippen played on. In fairness, Drexler did a great job as a second option on the '95 Rockets.
Great post shaq. The only thing i take exception to is the notion that drexler was a better passer than pipppen. Pippen is the alltime leader in assists for forwards if i remember correct. He also had the highest assist per in the triangle with 7. The one year he kinda played in an uptempo system in portland he avg six assist per game. And that was with him sharing the pg duties with damon stoudemire. He led the dreamteam in assists and they had magiic johnson. And he piloted an offense that won six championships.

[97 bulls]

But as I said earlier when it came to the Lakers, u had two HOFers in Magic and Worthy. U also had good role players in Divac, Perkins, B Scott still, etc. Magic was the 2nd or third best player in the L still. Magic was the MVP for crying out loud the year before. And Pistons and Bulls were still favored to beat the Blazers flat out. There is no double standard in my book, I would rather have Clyde as a number one option over Pippen AND Clyde was a great all around player on top of it. Clyde was clearly a better number one option than Pippen ever was.

And by the way, PG's like Magic and Isiah are EASILY ALPHA DOG MATERIAL. However, they are PG's so they fufill PG duties first. But when the game is on the line or if they need to go off scoring, they could do it better than Pippen EVER could. They have more stage presence and mentality to do it. The same goes for PG's like Frazier, Tiny, Big O, Paul, Nash, and D Will. And by the way, Magic and Isiah BOTH have higher career scoring averages than Pippen WHILE playing the PG position. LOL Anybody who knows the game know Isiah could turn into Iverson in an instant and takeover a game. And everybody knows Magic at the drop of a hat can turn into a scoring marvel playing damn near any position and go off. He's bigger than PG's, SG's, SF's and just as big as the PF's. And he had the handles and craftiness to get where he needed to go at will. U throw in a 90% free throw shooter and epic post game....
Lets be serious. Pippen was a PG. Plain and simple. The only difference is and im sure your not accounting for this, magic and thomas played in an uptempo system and neither had to share the ball with a player like michael jordan. And then factor in that magic, and thomas retired early. Where as pippen shouldve retired probably three to four years before he did.

And pippen also could go off and drop 30. But remember and again i know your not accounting for this, pippen played in a different era from magic and thomas. I know ive told you, its not really fair to try to compare stats between the 80s an mid 90s cuz the game was so different. The 80s teams took on avg about 3-400 more shots than the teams in the 90s. And even still magic, pippen and thomas all avg basically the same ppg about 19-20.

[The Genius]

Whatever the "perception" may have been...Clyde Drexler was not even close to the 2nd best player in the league in 1992.

I don't recall him ever being called that. I did read a few things back then that had him as arguably the 2nd best SG but that's it.

[Smoke117]

Frankly as scorers Drexler and Pippen have very similar skill sets. Drexler really doesn't do anything better than Pippen. Both of their main strengths are in the open court. The difference is that Drexler actually played in an up tempo system and Pippen played in the triangle offense.

[Teanett]

pippen.
easy.
clyde was never as good as 94-96 pippen.
NEVER!

[LEFT4DEAD]

Pippen is getting really really overrated on this forum, and the sad part of it is that people who are overrating him have not even watched him play.

[nycelt84]

He wasn't even the second best player on the court in 92 during the finals. Pippen outplayed him badly in that fourth quarter of game 6

Being outplayed in 1 4th quarter of a game doesn't change the fact that someone was better than you all year.

[Teanett]

Pippen is getting really really overrated on this forum, and the sad part of it is that people who are overrating him have not even watched him play.

i've watched his whole career.
michael and scottie practically won every year together from 91-98.
let that sink in for a bit.
he's not overrated.

[LEFT4DEAD]

He is overrated all right. He was great at his role and that's being 2nd fiddle to MJ. He was one of the greatest team players I have ever seen playing. But Glide was simply better individual player than him.

[Teanett]

He is overrated all right. He was great at his role and that's being 2nd fiddle to MJ. He was one of the greatest team players I have ever seen playing. But Glide was simply better individual player than him.
it's a team sport.
there's only two guys who were there with michael to win all those rings. phil and scottie. all others were replacable parts.

if you ask who wins one on one, that's a different question. i cant answer that.
but... if you'd have a game of five pippens vs five drexlers, i'd chose the pippens in a heartbeat.

[LEFT4DEAD]

it's a team sport.
there's only two guys who were there with michael to win all those rings. phil and scottie. all others were replacable parts.

if you ask who wins one on one, that's a different question. i cant answer that.
but... if you'd have a game of five pippens vs five drexlers, i'd chose the pippens in a heartbeat.
So it goes to what was OP actually asking!? Was he comparing them as individuals or team players because as individuals its Glive without discussion, and as team players, its Pippen without doubt.

[Horatio33]

Drexler couldn't dribble looking up, had a below average jumper.

[97 bulls]

Being outplayed in 1 4th quarter of a game doesn't change the fact that someone was better than you all year.
This is true. But doesnt apply here

[t-rex]

I'll give Drexler the edge as he was able to led his team to the finals twice as the hands down best player on his team.

In fairness, the only time Pippen had as the best player on his team, the Bulls did very well.

MJ's first year of retirement, (1994) the Bulls were 55-27. They were one terribly bad call away from being in the ECF.

[t-rex]

Its funny how Pippen's 6 Titles are knocked because he played with Jordan.

But Drexler's only titles came because he played with Olajuwan.

[97 bulls]

Pippen is getting really really overrated on this forum, and the sad part of it is that people who are overrating him have not even watched him play.
Comming from someone thats watched him, hes not overrated. Im still trying to figure out how drexler is better than pippen. Too much emphasis is put on scoring. Especially when they were put in the same situation, pippen faired better.

I think it comes down to this. This isnt a question of who the better scorer is. Its a question of who is gonna be able to lead your team. Ive watched pippen do it for two years, and drexler do it for eleven or twelve. Pippen did more with less. Who cares how he got it done, as long as it got done.

I honestly believe some people would be moore impressed with a stat line of 33/7/4 along with solid defense but with an L at the end of the game, than a statline of 24/8/7 with excellent defense and a win.

[t-rex]

Drexler’s best consecutive 4-year stretch as a scorer.

1986-87 21.7
1987-88 27.0
1988-89 27.2
1989-90 23.3



Pippen’s best consecutive 4-year stretch as a scorer.

1993-94 22.0
1994-95 21.4
1995-96 19.4
1996-97 20.2


Scoring is Drexler’s strength over Pippen. However this just isn’t big enough of an edge considering that Pippen is vastly superior defensively. In fact the numbers are closer than I would have initially thought.

Plus, Drexler was without question the first option with the Trailblazers; Pippen was the second option with the Bulls, save for the 1994 season. And that year he was as good a scorer as Drexler was in 1990 and 1987 anyway.

Pippen is the better player. When I first read the thread title I thought Drexler for sure. But with a littler bit of research, it is clear, Pippen is the better choice.


If I were a GM, I would make that trade to get Pippen.

[oolalaa]

Comming from someone thats watched him, hes not overrated. Im still trying to figure out how drexler is better than pippen. Too much emphasis is put on scoring. Especially when they were put in the same situation, pippen faired better.

I think it comes down to this. This isnt a question of who the better scorer is. Its a question of who is gonna be able to lead your team. Ive watched pippen do it for two years, and drexler do it for eleven or twelve. Pippen did more with less. Who cares how he got it done, as long as it got done.

I honestly believe some people would be moore impressed with a stat line of 33/7/4 along with solid defense but with an L at the end of the game, than a statline of 24/8/7 with excellent defense and a win.

What are you talking about? That's just not true. Drexler led the Trailblazers to the finals TWICE. How many times did Pippen do that? He lost in the 2nd round with a very good team, in 7 games, in '94 and then begged Jordan to come back in '95.

It's a coin flip between the 2 for me. Drexler was a better scorer, Pippen was better defensively. That's the only real difference between them. I value offense more than defense (I get the feeling you're the other way around. Remember, Pip may have been the best free safety in NBA history, but he wasn't a defensive anchor), so if I had to choose, I would go with Clyde.

[Bigsmoke]

Pippen

[Bigsmoke]

I'll give Drexler the edge as he was able to led his team to the finals twice as the hands down best player on his team.

that team was deep as ****

it wasnt like Drexler dragged them to the Finals

[97 bulls]

What are you talking about? That's just not true. Drexler led the Trailblazers to the finals TWICE. How many times did Pippen do that? He lost in the 2nd round with a very good team, in 7 games, in '94 and then begged Jordan to come back in '95.

It's a coin flip between the 2 for me. Drexler was a better scorer, Pippen was better defensively. That's the only real difference between them. I value offense more than defense (I get the feeling you're the other way around. Remember, Pip may have been the best free safety in NBA history, but he wasn't a defensive anchor), so if I had to choose, I would go with Clyde.
What i meant was that Pippen did more with less. No one thought theyd do much past being a .500 ball club when jordan retired. They go out and win 55 games with Pippen as the leader.

The blazers were considered the best team in the league by some as far as talent. They lost to the lakers in 91 when they were favored.

Sure the Blazers went farther, but they were supposed to do that. The Bulls werent supposed to do what they did. And to be honest if pippen didnt miss ten games in 94, the bulls probably finish no worse than top three record wise and Pippen wins the MVP.

Pippen was absolutely a defensive anchor. Who was the defensive anchor of that 95 Bulls team that ranked second in the league in defense? Will Perdue? There really isnt no one that ive spoken that will say looking back that Pippen didnt deserve the dpoy award over Mutombo. Unless theyre a Pippen hater.

[oolalaa]

What i meant was that Pippen did more with less. No one thought theyd do much past being a .500 ball club when jordan retired. They go out and win 55 games with Pippen as the leader.

The blazers were considered the best team in the league by some as far as talent. They lost to the lakers in 91 when they were favored.

Sure the Blazers went farther, but they were supposed to do that. The Bulls werent supposed to do what they did. And to be honest if pippen didnt miss ten games in 94, the bulls probably finish no worse than top three record wise and Pippen wins the MVP.

Pippen was absolutely a defensive anchor. Who was the defensive anchor of that 95 Bulls team that ranked second in the league in defense? Will Perdue? There really isnt no one that ive spoken that will say looking back that Pippen didnt deserve the dpoy award over Mutombo. Unless theyre a Pippen hater.

That's a truly hilarious argument. So, because Chicago didn't suck in 1994 like people thought they would, that makes Pippen better than Drexler? Pippen had a very good team around him in '94, in case you've forgotten.

And Portland were supposed to do what, exactly, make the finals every single year? Why was that then? Do you think Drexler had something to do with it?

Please stop pretending that those early 90s Trailblazer teams were stacked to the rafters. In 3 years, Drexler led Portland to 2 finals and a WCF with no All-NBA teammate (Aside from Buck Williams' defensive selections). Think about that.

Between '90 and '92 he had series of 26/8/6/2 vs Detroit, 25/6/8/2 vs Seattle, 26/9/9 vs L.A and a 31/8/7/2/2 against Phoenix.

He lost to an underdog Laker team in the '91 western conference finals because L.A had MAGIC ****ING JOHNSON (i.e The 2nd greatest player in NBA history. To me at least). He didn't feel like losing that series, and when Magic Johnson didn't feel like losing, he rarely did! :oldlol:


Oh, and Pippen was NOT a defensive anchor, simply because he wasn't a paint protector or shot blocker. Those players always bring more defensive value to a team than 'roamers'.

[ShaqAttack3234]

That's a truly hilarious argument. So, because Chicago didn't suck in 1994 like people thought they would, that makes Pippen better than Drexler? Pippen had a very good team around him in '94, in case you've forgotten.

And Portland were supposed to do what, exactly, make the finals every single year? Why was that then? Do you think Drexler had something to do with it?

Please stop pretending that those early 90s Trailblazer teams were stacked to the rafters. In 3 years, Drexler led Portland to 2 finals and a WCF with no All-NBA teammate (Aside from Buck Williams' defensive selections). Think about that.

Between '90 and '92 he had series of 26/8/6/2 vs Detroit, 25/6/8/2 vs Seattle, 26/9/9 vs L.A and a 31/8/7/2/2 against Phoenix.

He lost to an underdog Laker team in the '91 western conference finals because L.A had MAGIC ****ING JOHNSON (i.e The 2nd greatest player in NBA history. To me at least). He didn't feel like losing that series, and when Magic Johnson didn't feel like losing, he rarely did! :oldlol:


Oh, and Pippen was NOT a defensive anchor, simply because he wasn't a paint protector or shot blocker. Those players always bring more defensive value to a team than 'roamers'.

It's revisionist history to suggest Portland wasn't incredibly stacked in those years.

Drexler and Kersey were 28, Porter was 27, Buck Williams was 30, Duckworth was 26, Cliff Robinson was 24 and Ainge was 31. Name another team from '91 that was as talented as the 63-19 Blazers.

SG Clyde Drexler- An all-time great open court player, capable outside shooter, elite post up guard, an elite rebounding guard(probably the best offensive rebounding guard) and one of the best passers ever at the SG position.
Awards- All-NBA second team, 6th in MVP voting and all-star in '91. 5-time all-nba, 10-time all-star, all-nba first team in '92 and 2nd in MVP voting in '92.
Statss- 21.5 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 6 apg, 2.8 TO, 1.8 spg, 48.2 FG%, 56.3 TS%, 34.8 mpg

PG Terry Porter- Excellent shooter, solid playmaker, good pick and roll player, a solid defender for his position and capable of playing off the ball like a 2 guard. The best comparison I've heard is the Chauncey Billups of the early 90's.
Awards- all-star and 9th in MVP voting in '91 and a 2-time all-star overall.
Stats- 17 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 8 apg, 2.3 TO, 2 spg, 51.5 FG%, 63.2 TS%, 32.9 mpg

SF Jerome Kersey- A big and athletic forward ideal for the Blazers running game. He was also a solid rebounder. Not the best shooter, though he hit some mid-range shots. He averaged 21/8 in the '90 playoffs and 18/7 in the '91 playoffs.

Stats- 14.8 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 3.1 apg, 1.4 spg, 1 bpg, 2 TO, 47.8 FG%, 52.6 TS%, 32.3 mpg

PF Buck Williams- One of the best defensive players at the time, a strong rebounder and a capable inside scorer.
Awards- All-defensive 1st team in '91, all-nba 2nd in team in 1983, 5 all-nba defensive teams, 1982 rookie of the year, 3-time all-star
Stats- 11.7 ppg, 9.4 rpg, 1.2 apg, 1.7 TO, 60.2 FG%, 63.9 TS%, 32.3 mpg

C Kevin Duckworth- One of the more skilled offensive big men with a very good post game, great size and a good touch around the rim and on short jumpers.

Awards- all-star in '91, 2-time all-star overall and 1988 NBA most improved player

Stats-15.8 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 1.1 apg, 2.3 TO, 48.1 FG%, 52.5 TS%, 31 mpg

Forward Clifford Robinson- Versatile player at 6'10" who at different points played all 3 frontcourt positions. Excellent defender who fit into the Blazers transition game and he could shoot for a big man. Averaged 15.5 ppg on 50% shooting in the 11 games he started that year and 2 years later, he averaged 19 ppg in the first season he played 30 mpg in.

Awards- 1993 Sixth Man Of The Year, 1994 all-star, 2-time all-defensive second team

Stats- 11.7 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 1.8 apg, 1.6 TO, 1 spg, 46.3 FG%, 50.7 TS%, 23.7 mpg

Guard Danny Ainge- Excellent shooter, solid passer and a good leader who always played hard. Brought championship experience with him. He was coming off an 18/4/6 season in Sacramento.

Awards- 1988 all-star

Stats- 11.1 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 3.6 apg, 1.3 TO, 47.2 FG%, 57.4 TS%, 21.4 mpg


And if Pippen's '94 team was "very good" then what the hell were those Portland teams of the early 90's? Drexler STILL had a more talented team in '94 when he lost in the first round than Pippen did. It was the second year in a row he lost in the first round with a team more talented than Pippen's '94 Bulls, certainly his '95 Bulls pre-Jordan return. The '94 Blazers had Cliff Robinson(leading them at 20 ppg and a very good defender), Rod Strickland(if only Pippen had a guy who could create like this on the '94 Bulls), Terry Porter(not even starting full time and he still had more scoring ability than any of Pippen's '94 teammates), Buck Williams and Harvey Grant

Pippen's '94 team couldn't have been expected to do much more than they did. Horace Grant was a very good PF who defended well, rebounded well, finished very well, made mid-range jumpers and passed well. But he wasn't a 2nd option or a guy who created his shot well because he was never much of a post player. Just a finisher offensively. BJ Armstrong was a good shooter, but maybe slightly beyond role player level except in an increased role out of necessity. Toni Kukoc was a talented player, but a rookie and still learning the triangle with some less than impressive results. Steve Kerr was a shooter, nothing more, and Pete Myers was a defensive specialist who couldn't provide scoring as the starting 2 guard. Both are role players who did 1 thing, yet played extended minutes. The center position was not good with Bill Cartwright's corpse for half the season and as the starter, Longley for 27 games and Bill Wennington.

It wasn't a scrub team, but a team that should've won in the low 40's, maybe less considering the time Pippen and Grant missed.

And the '95 team? That team didn't even have Grant anymore and a HUGE hole at PF. The fact that Pippen had that team over .500(34-31 and 34-29 in the games Pippen played) before MJ returned is proof of how great he was in the mid 90's.

The team was Pippen, Toni Kukoc(at PF!), BJ Armstrong, Steve Kerr, Will Perdue, old Ron Harper post-knee injuries, Luc Longley and Pete Myers.

The reason the team lost to Orlando even with MJ back and playing at a very high level was their PF position, Horace Grant KILLED them.

Pippen was leading that team in points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks.

[Teanett]

pippen

[magnax1]

The 94 teams record is a bit decieving. Pippen made a big leap that year (He averaged another 5 ppg, 1 more steal, and nearly 2 more rebounds per 36 in 94 then 93) but the 93 team really didn't give a full effort. I don't know why, but pretty much the whole team took the year off, and Jordan tried to pick up the slack. The opposite was true in 94 when everyone was told that they wouldn't even make the playoffs without Jordan. I think Phil Jackson even said something like that (though I'm not entirely certain if he believed it) Then they added Toni Kukoc and Steve Kerr in 94, both of whom were big pieces on that team.
Despite all of that, their offense dropped from 2nd in the league in 93, to 14th in 94. The team record doesn't really do the drop off justice. I'm not taking anything away from Pippen, but I doubt that team wins 55 under most circumstances.

[L.Kizzle]

that team was deep as ****

it wasnt like Drexler dragged them to the Finals
Deep, it's not like he had a perennial All-Star on his team. Early Blazers team surrounding Clyde was slightly better than the mid 90's Rockets team surrounding Dream.

Only difference is Clyde << Olajuwon.

[Smoke117]

Deep, it's not like he had a perennial All-Star on his team. Early Blazers team surrounding Clyde was slightly better than the mid 90's Rockets team surrounding Dream.

Only difference is Clyde << Olajuwon.

Wow what a joke. That 1990 Blazer team had three players average 20 or so points in the playoffs, all five starters average over 13 points. Hakeem and Vernon Maxwell were the only players to average over 13 points in the 94 playoffs and Maxwell was taking as many shots as points he was putting up.

[L.Kizzle]

Wow what a joke. That 1990 Blazer team had three players average 20 or so points in the playoffs, all five starters average over 13 points. Hakeem and Vernon Maxwell were the only players to average over 13 points in the 94 playoffs and Maxwell was taking as many shots as points he was putting up.
What does that mean, Maxwell, Thorpe and Smith were around 17 ppg players.

And 1990 NBA was slightly different from 1994 NBA. League average dropped about 6+ points. 1990 Portland averaged 114 ppg and 1994 Rockets 101.

[Smoke117]

What does that mean, Maxwell, Thorpe and Smith were around 17 ppg players.

And 1990 NBA was slightly different from 1994 NBA. League average dropped about 6+ points. 1990 Portland averaged 114 ppg and 1994 Rockets 101.


And 1992? The league changes so much in two seasons? The Blazers were clearly a much better and deeper team overall overall. Clyde Drexler is a 50 greatest player, but in the 40s, Hakeem Olajuwon is a top 10 player of all time who carried his team. Clyde Drexler didn't carry those Blazer teams to the finals. They had a lot of talent.

[ShaqAttack3234]

The 94 teams record is a bit decieving. Pippen made a big leap that year (He averaged another 5 ppg, 1 more steal, and nearly 2 more rebounds per 36 in 94 then 93) but the 93 team really didn't give a full effort. I don't know why, but pretty much the whole team took the year off, and Jordan tried to pick up the slack. The opposite was true in 94 when everyone was told that they wouldn't even make the playoffs without Jordan. I think Phil Jackson even said something like that (though I'm not entirely certain if he believed it) Then they added Toni Kukoc and Steve Kerr in 94, both of whom were big pieces on that team.
Despite all of that, their offense dropped from 2nd in the league in 93, to 14th in 94. The team record doesn't really do the drop off justice. I'm not taking anything away from Pippen, but I doubt that team wins 55 under most circumstances.

Good post, mostly agree. Pippen did sort of go to that next level in '94, but I wouldn't use statistics since he had already averaged 21/8/7, 51% in '92. And in general, the slight dropoff from '93 to '94 in regular season wins is misleading for the reasons you mention and shouldn't be used to discredit Jordan. That wasn't my point when bringing up the Bulls 55 win season in '94. It was more to credit Pippen for leading a team to more wins than you'd think and nearly beating the Knicks.

You're right that you can't really expect 55 wins from them, and the fact that they only outscored opponents by 3.1 ppg backs that up, in comparison, the '93 Bulls outscored opponents by 6.3 ppg, and the '95 team that only won 47 games outscored opponents by 4.8 ppg.


Deep, it's not like he had a perennial All-Star on his team. Early Blazers team surrounding Clyde was slightly better than the mid 90's Rockets team surrounding Dream.

Only difference is Clyde << Olajuwon.

Nobody was calling Hakeem's Rockets the most talented team in the league, and he definitely didn't have scorers as capable as Porter or Duckworth. His best players were Otis Thorpe(more of a finisher who ran the floor well for a PF), Robert Horry(never a great scorer, though a good transition player, athletic and a solid shooter back then), Mad Max(a streaky chucker) and Kenny Smith(who became not much more than a shooter in that offense).

I can't say Clyde was unfortunate in anyway, or needed more help. he had more talent supporting him than anyone can expect.

The Rockets got to where they were largely because they were completely build around Hakeem and truly relied on him at both ends. His amazing defense made them one of the best at that end, and their 4 out/1 in offense was predicated on the ball going into Hakeem on the post and him scoring, or getting double and finding the shooters.

[bizil]

Nobody is saying Clyde DIDN'T have very good supporting casts. That Portland team was tremendous, if they weren't they wouldn't have made the Finals twice in 90 and 92. But in comparison to the epic teams were used to in that mid 80's to early 90's span, it wasn't on that level. We are talking for starters about three of the greatest teams of all time in those Celtics, Lakers, and Pistons era teams. All three of those teams had incarnations listed in the top 10 NBA teams of all time list that was listed in 1996. Then of course the Bulls came along. That was the standard of that era. Clyde's Blazer teams weren't on that level. Those teams had multiple HOFers, the Blazers didn't bottom line, point blank, case closed!

For example man for man, the Pacers had a deeper team than the Heat. But the Heat had two HOFers on their team to offset the depth the Pacers had. So at times, u can't always point to depth. Clyde was running into guys who were better players in MJ, Magic, and Isiah in the Finals or Western Finals. I mean were are talking the GOAT, GOAT PG, and the 3rd GOAT PG and arguably best little man of all time. And in all three cases they were flanked by other HOFers, not just All Stars. Porter, Duckworth, Ainge, Williams, and Kersey were never even close to HOF status. **** All Star, HOF level talent is another level. And Clyde was the only guy with that type of talent. So if anything, I give Clyde MAJOR credit for getting the Blazers as far as they came to begin with!

[ShaqAttack3234]

Nobody is saying Clyde DIDN'T have very good supporting casts. That Portland team was tremendous, if they weren't they wouldn't have made the Finals twice in 90 and 92. But in comparison to the epic teams were used to in that mid 80's to early 90's span, it wasn't on that level. We are talking for starters about three of the greatest teams of all time in those Celtics, Lakers, and Pistons era teams. All three of those teams had incarnations listed in the top 10 NBA teams of all time list that was listed in 1996. Then of course the Bulls came along. That was the standard of that era. Clyde's Blazer teams weren't on that level. Those teams had multiple HOFers, the Blazers didn't bottom line, point blank, case closed!

For example man for man, the Pacers had a deeper team than the Heat. But the Heat had two HOFers on their team to offset the depth the Pacers had. So at times, u can't always point to depth. Clyde was running into guys who were better players in MJ, Magic, and Isiah in the Finals or Western Finals. I mean were are talking the GOAT, GOAT PG, and the 3rd GOAT PG and arguably best little man of all time. And in all three cases they were flanked by other HOFers, not just All Stars. Porter, Duckworth, Ainge, Williams, and Kersey were never even close to HOF status. **** All Star, HOF level talent is another level. And Clyde was the only guy with that type of talent. So if anything, I give Clyde MAJOR credit for getting the Blazers as far as they came to begin with!

The Pacers/Heat analogy to me isn't really accurate because Indiana looked so inexperienced, whether it was Hibbert playing so passively vs Joel Anthony or all of the mistakes Paul George was making, which started to get embarrassing, and even with their depth, they didn't have the caliber of players Portland did for example.

I wouldn't argue with the Lakers having more talent in the 80's, but when LA beat Portland in '91, Portland was considered the more talented team despite LA having a very talented team.

And Portland's teams were more talented than the early 90's Bulls. The Bulls were obviously better, though.

I wouldn't say Isiah was a flat out better player by '90 than Drexler, both were in the same tier to me, lower top 10/just outside the top 10. Not enough to make a difference, but I don't take issue with Portland losing to them because Detroit had a ridiculous amount of depth and talent. Literally 5 legitimate scoring options in Isiah, Dumars, Vinnie, Aguirre and Edwards, and they'd go to whoever had the hot hand, plus other qualitie player in Rodman, Laimbeer(who was also a scoring threat) and Salley. Plus they were the league's best defensive team and a phenomenal rebounding team. Clyde had his best series of the 90's run too in that series. But look at what happened getting there, Porter was often their MVP in the earlier rounds, particularly the 2nd round series vs the Spurs that went to 7. And in the first 3 rounds, Drexler didn't lead the team in scoring in any of those series. it was Kersey and Porter 1 and 2 in the 1st round, Porter and Kersey in that order in the semifinals and Kersey in the WCF.

But I don't take issue you with bringing up the competition, from '90-'92, they accomplished a respectable amount. However, they were underachievers in '93 and '94, But I take issue with people saying "Clyde didn't have this or that", statements such as those are unbelievable to me.

[bizil]

The Pacers/Heat analogy to me isn't really accurate because Indiana looked so inexperienced, whether it was Hibbert playing so passively vs Joel Anthony or all of the mistakes Paul George was making, which started to get embarrassing, and even with their depth, they didn't have the caliber of players Portland did for example.

I wouldn't argue with the Lakers having more talent in the 80's, but when LA beat Portland in '91, Portland was considered the more talented team despite LA having a very talented team.

And Portland's teams were more talented than the early 90's Bulls. The Bulls were obviously better, though.

I wouldn't say Isiah was a flat out better player by '90 than Drexler, both were in the same tier to me, lower top 10/just outside the top 10. Not enough to make a difference, but I don't take issue with Portland losing to them because Detroit had a ridiculous amount of depth and talent. Literally 5 legitimate scoring options in Isiah, Dumars, Vinnie, Aguirre and Edwards, and they'd go to whoever had the hot hand, plus other qualitie player in Rodman, Laimbeer(who was also a scoring threat) and Salley. Plus they were the league's best defensive team and a phenomenal rebounding team. Clyde had his best series of the 90's run too in that series. But look at what happened getting there, Porter was often their MVP in the earlier rounds, particularly the 2nd round series vs the Spurs that went to 7. And in the first 3 rounds, Drexler didn't lead the team in scoring in any of those series. it was Kersey and Porter 1 and 2 in the 1st round, Porter and Kersey in that order in the semifinals and Kersey in the WCF.

But I don't take issue you with bringing up the competition, from '90-'92, they accomplished a respectable amount. However, they were underachievers in '93 and '94,

In 91, The Lakers still had Magic, who was still the top 2 or 3 player in the L. So even though those Lakers weren't as deep man for man, they still had Magic and Worthy. As I said before, depth can be overrated at times.

I realize the Pacers were inexperienced. But the bottom line is they STILL had more depth man for man than than the Heat did. It doesn't matter what experience they have if I'm simply pointing out they had more depth than the Heat. Other on this site keep pointing out that Clyde had such great depth on his team. But at times, depth is overrated. I actually think we both agree on that point.

In 93'-'94, the Blazers may have underachieved, but how is that Clyde's fault, He was still in his prime, if anything it was the surrounding talent that could have underacheived. U can't blame Glide for that, he's NEVER been labeled that kind of guy.

Isiah was still Isiah when they met the Blazers. Any decline in numbers was due to Dumars becoming an All Star type player who could take the heat off Zeke scoring, passing, and even defensively. U also of course still had Vinnie Johnson as well. I've always felt Isiah was better than Drexler and in my book was fourth best perimeter player in the world during that era behind MJ, Magic, and Bird. Then u had guys like Clyde, Nique, etc. I never felt it was a huge gap, but enough of one to clearly notice.

And u are right about Drexler not leading his team in scoring in some instances. But the discussion here is Clyde vs. Pippen. I feel Clyde was an alpha dog type guy, but I never put him on the level of his perimeter peers like MJ, Nique, Bird, and King to begin with in that sense. He was in that next tier of great scorers to me. But given Clyde's great all around game AND scoring capabilities, I would take him over Pippen in terms of who is the better player. But on certain teams, would I take Pip over Clyde, of course I would! Pip was so great, it comes down to what u need.

[ShaqAttack3234]

In 91, The Lakers still had Magic, who was still the top 2 or 3 player in the L. So even though those Lakers weren't as deep man for man, they still had Magic and Worthy. As I said before, depth can be overrated at times.

I know the Lakers were a great team in '91. They emphasized a slowed down defensive-minded game and had great post players. Magic was deadly, Worthy was great in the post, and both Divac and Perkins could both post up. That was a very effective offense for them because it doesn't get more reliable than good post players, much less 4 of them. And outside of the frontcourt players mentioned, AC Green and Mychal Thompson provided excellent frontcourt depth. Byron Scott was still a good 2 guard at both ends and shooter, and Sedale Threatt was a scorer off the bench with his trademark turnover. So they had 5-6 scoring options themselves as well as role players and defenders and great size.

So I'm not saying they were a slouch, I like both teams and have watched many of their games including their WCF. I'm just repeating that Portland was considered the favorite and most talented team which was mentioned during the season. They had an unbelievable regular season. Went 63-19, outscored opponents by 8.7 ppg, started off 11-0, 19-1 and 27-3 and had an additional 16 game winning streak.


I realize the Pacers were inexperienced. But the bottom line is they STILL had more depth man for man than than the Heat did. It doesn't matter what experience they have if I'm simply pointing out they had more depth than the Heat. Other on this site keep pointing out that Clyde had such great depth on his team. But at times, depth is overrated. I actually think we both agree on that point.

Well, it depends on what kind of depth. Depth like the Bad Boy Pistons, or even a non-champion like the 2000 Blazers can be potent. But Indiana had the depth, but not necessarily more talent than Miami, even without Bosh.


In 93'-'94, the Blazers may have underachieved, but how is that Clyde's fault, He was still in his prime, if anything it was the surrounding talent that could have underacheived. U can't blame Glide for that, he's NEVER been labeled that kind of guy.

When you're the leader of the team, you ultimately get the credit for them winning, and the blame when they underachieved. I don't know how much Clyde had to do with them underachieving, his '93 season was plagued by injuries, but he also had subpar years after '92 until the trade to Houston when he seemed rejuvenated, was playing phenomenal ball, dropping 30-40 and triple doubles again.


Isiah was still Isiah when they met the Blazers. Any decline in numbers was due to Dumars becoming an All Star type player who could take the heat off Zeke scoring, passing, and even defensively. U also of course still had Vinnie Johnson as well. I've always felt Isiah was better than Drexler and in my book was fourth best perimeter player in the world during that era behind MJ, Magic, and Bird. Then u had guys like Clyde, Nique, etc. I never felt it was a huge gap, but enough of one to clearly notice.

I never meant to imply that Isiah had declined, I understand that the numbers were due to Detroit's unbelievable depth and 5 scoring options, as I mentioned, they didn't rely on the same 1 or 2 guys to carry them every night, they rode the hot hand, and obviously feeding Aguirre in the mid-post/low post area, Edwards in the low post, alternating ball handling roles with Dumars and letting the Microwave Vinnie Johnson get his reduced Isiah's numbers. As well as Detroit's dramatic shift in style from a run and gun team to rhe ultimate slown down team that changed the sport.

But speaking of '90. In the top 5 we have MJ, Magic, Ewing, Barkley and Hakeem followed by Robinson and Malone just outside that group, as well as Bird and KJ. And around that point Stockton, Isiah, Drexler and Nique are entering the picture. So same tier, imo.


And u are right about Drexler not leading his team in scoring in some instances. But the discussion here is Clyde vs. Pippen. I feel Clyde was an alpha dog type guy, but I never put him on the level of his perimeter peers like MJ, Nique, Bird, and King to begin with in that sense. He was in that next tier of great scorers to me. But given Clyde's great all around game AND scoring capabilities, I would take him over Pippen in terms of who is the better player. But on certain teams, would I take Pip over Clyde, of course I would! Pip was so great, it comes down to what u need.

I don't have an issue with any of this, or your opinion in general. I respect your opinion and these things are subjective. I appreciate Clyde's all around game, particularly his rebounding and passing which are right there among the best ever at his position, and acknowledged that he was a better scorer than Pippen. I'd probably take Pippen, though, simply because I think his defense was such a game changer, his basketball IQ is an advantage, and I prefer both as 2nd options, or guys on teams with a lot of offensive talent, and would prefer Pippen in that role. I don't think Pippen is incapable of being the man either, just not in the traditional sense of scoring 25-30 ppg.

[ralph_i_el]

Just like how KD is nowhere near the 2nd best right now. It's just storyline and perception. No f--king chance on earth KD is more valuable than Dwight Howard.

I don't care how bad the supporting cast is, I don't see any team with Dwight Howard having a 20 win season.

dwight was still on a losing team as a rookie.
Durant is at least as valuable as Howard. Howard is not the #1 option on a championship team.

[bizil]

I know the Lakers were a great team in '91. They emphasized a slowed down defensive-minded game and had great post players. Magic was deadly, Worthy was great in the post, and both Divac and Perkins could both post up. That was a very effective offense for them because it doesn't get more reliable than good post players, much less 4 of them. And outside of the frontcourt players mentioned, AC Green and Mychal Thompson provided excellent frontcourt depth. Byron Scott was still a good 2 guard at both ends and shooter, and Sedale Threatt was a scorer off the bench with his trademark turnover. So they had 5-6 scoring options themselves as well as role players and defenders and great size.

So I'm not saying they were a slouch, I like both teams and have watched many of their games including their WCF. I'm just repeating that Portland was considered the favorite and most talented team which was mentioned during the season. They had an unbelievable regular season. Went 63-19, outscored opponents by 8.7 ppg, started off 11-0, 19-1 and 27-3 and had an additional 16 game winning streak.



Well, it depends on what kind of depth. Depth like the Bad Boy Pistons, or even a non-champion like the 2000 Blazers can be potent. But Indiana had the depth, but not necessarily more talent than Miami, even without Bosh.



When you're the leader of the team, you ultimately get the credit for them winning, and the blame when they underachieved. I don't know how much Clyde had to do with them underachieving, his '93 season was plagued by injuries, but he also had subpar years after '92 until the trade to Houston when he seemed rejuvenated, was playing phenomenal ball, dropping 30-40 and triple doubles again.



I never meant to imply that Isiah had declined, I understand that the numbers were due to Detroit's unbelievable depth and 5 scoring options, as I mentioned, they didn't rely on the same 1 or 2 guys to carry them every night, they rode the hot hand, and obviously feeding Aguirre in the mid-post/low post area, Edwards in the low post, alternating ball handling roles with Dumars and letting the Microwave Vinnie Johnson get his reduced Isiah's numbers. As well as Detroit's dramatic shift in style from a run and gun team to rhe ultimate slown down team that changed the sport.

But speaking of '90. In the top 5 we have MJ, Magic, Ewing, Barkley and Hakeem followed by Robinson and Malone just outside that group, as well as Bird and KJ. And around that point Stockton, Isiah, Drexler and Nique are entering the picture. So same tier, imo.



I don't have an issue with any of this, or your opinion in general. I respect your opinion and these things are subjective. I appreciate Clyde's all around game, particularly his rebounding and passing which are right there among the best ever at his position, and acknowledged that he was a better scorer than Pippen. I'd probably take Pippen, though, simply because I think his defense was such a game changer, his basketball IQ is an advantage, and I prefer both as 2nd options, or guys on teams with a lot of offensive talent, and would prefer Pippen in that role. I don't think Pippen is incapable of being the man either, just not in the traditional sense of scoring 25-30 ppg.


Great post! I agree that u could win a title with Pippen being your best player without him scoring 25-30 points a night. For example, a team that was setup like the 2004 Pistons. Or let's say its a team that featured one of Pippen's peers as the leading scorer. But Pip would still be the best player on the team. That could be done as well. All of these guys that we debate about are usually great players. Pip of course was a great, great player who in the fundamental skill standpoint on both sides of the ball is a complete as any SF of all time. And he was a freakish athlete on top of it. It was something never seen before until Pippen came around. It was like combining elements of Havlicek and Dr.J all rolled into one.

[oolalaa]

Nobody is saying Clyde DIDN'T have very good supporting casts. That Portland team was tremendous, if they weren't they wouldn't have made the Finals twice in 90 and 92. But in comparison to the epic teams were used to in that mid 80's to early 90's span, it wasn't on that level. We are talking for starters about three of the greatest teams of all time in those Celtics, Lakers, and Pistons era teams. All three of those teams had incarnations listed in the top 10 NBA teams of all time list that was listed in 1996. Then of course the Bulls came along. That was the standard of that era. Clyde's Blazer teams weren't on that level. Those teams had multiple HOFers, the Blazers didn't bottom line, point blank, case closed!

For example man for man, the Pacers had a deeper team than the Heat. But the Heat had two HOFers on their team to offset the depth the Pacers had. So at times, u can't always point to depth. Clyde was running into guys who were better players in MJ, Magic, and Isiah in the Finals or Western Finals. I mean were are talking the GOAT, GOAT PG, and the 3rd GOAT PG and arguably best little man of all time. And in all three cases they were flanked by other HOFers, not just All Stars. Porter, Duckworth, Ainge, Williams, and Kersey were never even close to HOF status. **** All Star, HOF level talent is another level. And Clyde was the only guy with that type of talent. So if anything, I give Clyde MAJOR credit for getting the Blazers as far as they came to begin with!


In 91, The Lakers still had Magic, who was still the top 2 or 3 player in the L. So even though those Lakers weren't as deep man for man, they still had Magic and Worthy. As I said before, depth can be overrated at times.

I realize the Pacers were inexperienced. But the bottom line is they STILL had more depth man for man than than the Heat did. It doesn't matter what experience they have if I'm simply pointing out they had more depth than the Heat. Other on this site keep pointing out that Clyde had such great depth on his team. But at times, depth is overrated. I actually think we both agree on that point.

In 93'-'94, the Blazers may have underachieved, but how is that Clyde's fault, He was still in his prime, if anything it was the surrounding talent that could have underacheived. U can't blame Glide for that, he's NEVER been labeled that kind of guy.

Isiah was still Isiah when they met the Blazers. Any decline in numbers was due to Dumars becoming an All Star type player who could take the heat off Zeke scoring, passing, and even defensively. U also of course still had Vinnie Johnson as well. I've always felt Isiah was better than Drexler and in my book was fourth best perimeter player in the world during that era behind MJ, Magic, and Bird. Then u had guys like Clyde, Nique, etc. I never felt it was a huge gap, but enough of one to clearly notice.

And u are right about Drexler not leading his team in scoring in some instances. But the discussion here is Clyde vs. Pippen. I feel Clyde was an alpha dog type guy, but I never put him on the level of his perimeter peers like MJ, Nique, Bird, and King to begin with in that sense. He was in that next tier of great scorers to me. But given Clyde's great all around game AND scoring capabilities, I would take him over Pippen in terms of who is the better player. But on certain teams, would I take Pip over Clyde, of course I would! Pip was so great, it comes down to what u need.

I was going to respond to shaqattack but now, with these two excellent posts, there is no need! :cheers: You took most of what I was going to say right out of my mouth (So to speak). I've highlighted all the main points.


I'll just add something....

From 1970, here is a list of all the players who have led their teams to multiple finals appearances without an All-NBA teammate:

Larry Bird, thrice ('84, '85 & '86)
Hakeem Olajuwon, twice ('86 & '94)
Isiah Thomas, twice ('88 & '89)
Magic Johnson, twice ('88 & '89)
Clyde Drexler, twice ('90 & '92)
Tim Duncan, 4 times ('99, '03, '05 & '07)
Jason Kidd, twice ('02 & '03)
Dirk Nowitzki, twice ('06 & '11)


Aside from Kidd (Who had the good fortune of playing on a team with a great defence in a weak conference) that is a truly phenomenal list.


I agree with you on Isiah, bizil. The box score never did do justice to his value on those late 80s Pistons teams. One of the best leaders in NBA history.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I was going to respond to shaqattack but now, with these two excellent posts, there is no need! :cheers: You took most of what I was going to say right out of my mouth (So to speak). I've highlighted all the main points.


I'll just add something....

From 1970, here is a list of all the players who have led their teams to multiple finals appearances without an All-NBA teammate:

Larry Bird, thrice ('84, '85 & '86)
Hakeem Olajuwon, twice ('86 & '94)
Isiah Thomas, twice ('88 & '89)
Magic Johnson, twice ('88 & '89)
Clyde Drexler, twice ('90 & '92)
Tim Duncan, 4 times ('99, '03, '05 & '07)
Jason Kidd, twice ('02 & '03)
Chancey Billups, twice ('04 & '05)
Dirk Nowitzki, twice ('06 & '11)


Aside form Kidd and Billups (Who had the good fortune of playing on teams with great defences in weak conferences) that is a truly phenomenal list.


I agree with you on Isiah, bizil. The box score never did just justice to his value on those late 80s Piston teams. One of the best leaders in NBA history.

The list isn't quite accurate, Ben Wallace was all-nba team in '04 and '05, and Billups wasn't leading that piston team(certainly not in '04, though he was debatable with Ben by '05). Though Ben ironically led Detroit to the finals as the only all-nba player.

I don't think the statistic itself means much because it says nothing about the rest of their rotation. It's not more of a feat itself than leading a team with an all-nba teammate because they may have more overall help. Some of the guys you listed did compared to players who won with all-nba teammates. Doug Collins said in '89 that Detroit's bench would qualify for the playoffs.

And to show why this is deceptive, some of the players you listed didn't even make the all-nba team themselves such as Chauncey in '04 and '05 and Isiah in '88 and '89

[bizil]

I was going to respond to shaqattack but now, with these two excellent posts, there is no need! :cheers: You took most of what I was going to say right out of my mouth (So to speak). I've highlighted all the main points.


I'll just add something....

From 1970, here is a list of all the players who have led their teams to multiple finals appearances without an All-NBA teammate:

Larry Bird, thrice ('84, '85 & '86)
Hakeem Olajuwon, twice ('86 & '94)
Isiah Thomas, twice ('88 & '89)
Magic Johnson, twice ('88 & '89)
Clyde Drexler, twice ('90 & '92)
Tim Duncan, 4 times ('99, '03, '05 & '07)
Jason Kidd, twice ('02 & '03)
Chancey Billups, twice ('04 & '05)
Dirk Nowitzki, twice ('06 & '11)


Aside from Kidd and Billups (Who had the good fortune of playing on teams with great defences in weak conferences) that is a truly phenomenal list.


I agree with you on Isiah, bizil. The box score never did do justice to his value on those late 80s Pistons teams. One of the best leaders in NBA history.

Great post! I think what Clyde did for the Blazers was awesome and he got them as far as they could really go. Clyde had very good, even underrated type teammates. But none of those teammates were HOF caliber type guys. The Pistons were loaded back in the day and were a defensive juggernaut. But what made them unique was the fact that they had more than enough scoring to complement it. A scary, scary combination. But the teams were so deep with talent back then. The Sixers, Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, and Bulls won all the rings in the 80's and 90's because they had multiple HOFers on all of those teams. And aside from those guys, u had All Stars or All Star caliber talent in guys like Toney, Cheeks, Bobby Jones, Nixon, Ainge, Aguirre, Laimbeer, and Horace Grant on top of it. Guys like Aguirre and Toney even seemed destined for HOF type status when u looked at their primes. But injuries and other factors took them off that track.

[305Baller]

too tough to call right now... ill think about it

[oolalaa]

The list isn't quite accurate, Ben Wallace was all-nba team in '04 and '05, and Billups wasn't leading that piston team(certainly not in '04, though he was debatable with Ben by '05). Though Ben ironically led Detroit to the finals as the only all-nba player.

I don't think the statistic itself means much because it says nothing about the rest of their rotation. It's not more of a feat itself than leading a team with an all-nba teammate because they may have more overall help. Some of the guys you listed did compared to players who won with all-nba teammates.

Wow, It didn't even cross my mind that Big Ben made it to an All-NBA team! I methodically checked every team from 1970 until Kidd's Nets and then did the rest of the 00s by memory. It obviously failed me.


The bolded harps back to bizils point about depth. Depth can be overrated. Give me early 00s Kobe or '82 to '86 Kareem and 3 role players over 4 good/very good, but not All-NBA calibar players, anyday.

History has proven that you need 2 stars to win a championship. It's very hard to win with just one.

[magnax1]

Comparing teams by how many Hall of famers, or even all stars they have is really not accurate. Any way you look at it, those Blazer teams were stacked compared to their competition. Just look at the Bulls they faced which were really Jordan, Pippen, Grant and an assortment of shooters and a couple capable centers, and then the Blazers who had something like 7 guys on the squad that had seasons around 20 ppg within a few seasons of 92, and most of them were more then capable of still doing it if they were on another team. That's not really a great way to look at talent either, but they didn't really have any defensive holes, they were a good rebounding team, and their only real flaw was that they weren't an ideal halfcourt team and didn't have an ideal first option.

[ShaqAttack3234]

The bolded harps back to bizils point about depth. Depth can be overrated. Give me early 00s Kobe or '82 to '85 Kareem and 3 role players over 4 good/very good, but not All-NBA calibar players, anyday.

I disagree in some cases. '82 and '85 Kareem wasn't a second option, btw. Especially '82, by '85, it was debatable who the better player was, but '82 was clearly Kareem.

As far as early 00's Kobe? Well, the '01 and '02 Lakers when Kobe became a true elite player didn't even have a 3rd guy who could create their own shot, so you get one advantage, but another disadvantage. It didn't matter in '01, but they nearly lost to Sacramento in '02, a team with more talent than them and 7 players averaging double figures, a remarkable feat for the 00's. Isiah definitely had more help than Shaq when he won, which is why he had to produce less. The Pistons were stacked. '00 Lakers are obviously a different situation as Kobe was really good, but not yet among the top 5 players in the game, and that team obviously had some clear holes and not near the talent/help Isiah's Pistons or Drexler's Blazers had.


History has proven that you need 2 stars to win a championship. It's very hard to win with just one.

Except, the Pistons didn't function as a team with 1 star carrying the load, neither did Portland. Despite the second star, both MJ and Shaq had to carry bigger loads than Drexler and Isiah because those guys had much more options.

Take the first 3peat for example. Outside of MJ/Pippen, you had Grant, very solid defender and rebounder and a strong finisher, but that's what he was offensively, a finisher. Not a guy you could go to. Then they had Paxson, an almost automatic spot up shooter, but also not a guy who would create, and Bill Cartwright, who actually was their 3rd scoring option, but a flawed player himself who didn't pass very well and was methodical and needed room to operate.

Second 3peat Bulls had Rodman, in addition to Kukoc. But MJ/Pippen/Kukoc were the only 3 who could score. On those loaded Piston and Blazer teams you had around 5 guys as I listed who you could go to for a basket and it took quite a bit of pressure off Isiah for example their ride the hot hand approach.

[magnax1]

Yeah, I definitely disagree with the depth is over rated statement. The Heat these past two years have been proof enough of that. They've had 2 of the 5 best (at the very least), and 3 of the 15 best players in the world, and lost to a team with 1 all star and another 8 guys who just do one or two things very well. Now this year they've barely beaten a team without one super star in the conference finals.
Talent is just wins out. You can easily win with a team of 5 borderline all stars like the 04 Pistons (who won over two of the 10 best players in the league) or 89/90 Pistons. Under most circumstances there are two all stars, but that's just because it'd be unusual to have a 60+ win NBA champion caliber taem with just 1 all star.

[97 bulls]

Nobody is saying Clyde DIDN'T have very good supporting casts. That Portland team was tremendous, if they weren't they wouldn't have made the Finals twice in 90 and 92. But in comparison to the epic teams were used to in that mid 80's to early 90's span, it wasn't on that level. We are talking for starters about three of the greatest teams of all time in those Celtics, Lakers, and Pistons era teams. All three of those teams had incarnations listed in the top 10 NBA teams of all time list that was listed in 1996. Then of course the Bulls came along. That was the standard of that era. Clyde's Blazer teams weren't on that level. Those teams had multiple HOFers, the Blazers didn't bottom line, point blank, case closed!

For example man for man, the Pacers had a deeper team than the Heat. But the Heat had two HOFers on their team to offset the depth the Pacers had. So at times, u can't always point to depth. Clyde was running into guys who were better players in MJ, Magic, and Isiah in the Finals or Western Finals. I mean were are talking the GOAT, GOAT PG, and the 3rd GOAT PG and arguably best little man of all time. And in all three cases they were flanked by other HOFers, not just All Stars. Porter, Duckworth, Ainge, Williams, and Kersey were never even close to HOF status. **** All Star, HOF level talent is another level. And Clyde was the only guy with that type of talent. So if anything, I give Clyde MAJOR credit for getting the Blazers as far as they came to begin with!
I thought the Heat were head and shoulders above the Pacers even without Bosh. The only advantage the Pacers had was at center and im not that big on Hibbert. He plays alot smaller than his size. So thats a bad example.

What you still just wont see is the simple fact that you let a player like Drexler off the hook cuz in your opinion he lost to better teams. Thats fine. Id argue that regardless of hofers the Blazers had the better team between them and the Lakers in 91 and lost. But never the less, id assume that you feel drexler could do no more than he did offensively.

But why do you keep saying the Bulls needed Pippen to do more against a knick team that was clearly better than the Bulls? As if Pippen didnt do enough. Did he shoot bad? Sure 42% if i remember correct. But he avg 23 overall. And 25 if you take out that one game where he only scored 13. And thats against two great defenses in the Cavs and Knicks.

And i cant stress enough. Drexler only avg 20 ppg in the series his favored Blazers lost to the Lakers in 91, Pippen avg 21 vs a Knicks team thats considered one of the best ever defensively. And lets not forget Drexler didnt have to worry about running the Blazers half court sets Porter did that. Drexler didnt or wasnt asked to play defense the way Pippen did. Why did Drexler do all he could, but not Pippen according to you?

[bizil]

I thought the Heat were head and shoulders above the Pacers even without Bosh. The only advantage the Pacers had was at center and im not that big on Hibbert. He plays alot smaller than his size. So thats a bad example.

What you still just wont see is the simple fact that you let a player like Drexler off the hook cuz in your opinion he lost to better teams. Thats fine. Id argue that regardless of hofers the Blazers had the better team between them and the Lakers in 91 and lost. But never the less, id assume that you feel drexler could do no more than he did offensively.

But why do you keep saying the Bulls needed Pippen to do more against a knick team that was clearly better than the Bulls? As if Pippen didnt do enough. Did he shoot bad? Sure 42% if i remember correct. But he avg 23 overall. And 25 if you take out that one game where he only scored 13. And thats against two great defenses in the Cavs and Knicks.

And i cant stress enough. Drexler only avg 20 ppg in the series his favored Blazers lost to the Lakers in 91, Pippen avg 21 vs a Knicks team thats considered one of the best ever defensively. And lets not forget Drexler didnt have to worry about running the Blazers half court sets Porter did that. Drexler didnt or wasnt asked to play defense the way Pippen did. Why did Drexler do all he could, but not Pippen according to you?

For one I was talking about 1-12 that the Pacers had more talent. If u are listing the top ten players between both teams u go:

Bron
Wade
Granger
West
Hibbert
George
Hill
Collison
Barbosa
Tyler

A blind man can see that even if u add Bosh that the Heat would only have 3 of the top 10 players between both teams. But u have some of the best players of all time in Bron and Wade. So that can supercede teams that have more individual talent 1-12 on a roster.

In terms of Clyde vs. Pip, Ive stated several times why I prefer Clyde over Pip. Clyde had more scoring help on his teams than Pippen did in '94. Thats why I said Pippen needed to score the rock more. He was the superstar on that team. Clyde had All Stars in Porter and Duckworth. He had underrated guys like Kersey. And he had a great to guy have off the bench in Ainge. So Clyde didn't have as much pressure to score as Pippen.

I always said the Blazers had an excellent team. Which is evidenced by what they acheived. But many of u need to realize they had head on collisions with some of the greatest players (top 20 and up caliber) and teams of all time period. And for ANY of u to deny that fact are delusional. They did what they could do and did great!

[NBASTATMAN]

Peak and career, Drexler or Pippen? :confusedshrug:

I think most of you will say Scottie Pippen but, to me, it's not that clear cut....


I wonder how great Drexler would have become if he got to go against Mj in practice every day.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Talent is just wins out. You can easily win with a team of 5 borderline all stars like the 04 Pistons (who won over two of the 10 best players in the league) or 89/90 Pistons. Under most circumstances there are two all stars, but that's just because it'd be unusual to have a 60+ win NBA champion caliber taem with just 1 all star.

And I'll take it one step further. The '04 Pistons didn't even really have 5 borderline all-stars. Prince was certainly not at that level yet, but played his role well and was huge in the LA series. Billups actually wasn't really a borderline all-star to me yet either. Solid guard by that point, but I definitely wasn't thinking of him deserving to be on the all-star team in February '04, and even through the first 3 rounds of the playoffs, Rip had been their best offensive player, while Chauncey hadn't played that well. He had the great finals series. So to me Ben, Sheed and Rip were the all-star caliber players by that point.

But it worked because they had a team that belongs in the discussion for greatest defense after the Sheed trade. Everyone was comfortable with their role and capable in it. Chauncey had become a solid starter, and Prince was a solid role player, and they had a great bench with legitimate NBA players on it including Corliss Williamson, Mehmet Okur, Lindsey Hunter and Elden Campbell.

They were stacked, and the depth advantage and how balanced of a team they were was a big reason why they beat LA. Outside of Shaq and Kobe, Malone's injury left them with nobody because Payton was just terrible in the playoffs.

That's how Detroit beat LA convincingly despite LA the 3rd and 4th best players in the league that year, and Detroit having no clear top 10 players(though I'd say Ben was a top 10 player that particular year because of what a strange year it was).


For one I was talking about 1-12 that the Pacers had more talent. If u are listing the top ten players between both teams u go:

Bron
Wade
Granger
West
Hibbert
George
Hill
Collison
Barbosa
Tyler

A blind man can see that even if u add Bosh that the Heat would only have 3 of the top 10 players between both teams. But u have some of the best players of all time in Bron and Wade. So that can supercede teams that have more individual talent 1-12 on a roster

I don't think the Pacers had 7-8 players better than Chalmers. And Indiana actually could've won that series, but inexperienced showed. Lebron and Wade's individual dominance was a big factor, but so was idiotic mistakes like Paul George constantly losing the ball with unforced turnovers.

[97 bulls]

I wonder how great Drexler would have become if he got to go against Mj in practice every day.
Why are you guys not getting this when it slaps you right in the face. Jordan and Pippen complimented each others game to a T. Jordan was the engine Pippen was the transmission. Drexlers not a PG. Jordan and Drexler together would be the equal to James and Wade. And I guarantee you those two will not even come close to six championships. Theyre games are just too similar. Think about the O4 dreamteam. Amazing talent but it didnt compliment each other.

You cant put together a bunch of talented players with no chemistry and expect them to win. And lets face it. Winning is all that matters. But i suspect that some people would be more satified with a tem full of players that put up gaudy stats but lose in the playoffs. Losers think that way.