What if Magic didnt retire in 1991?

[pauk]

The reason Magic retired was because of lack of knowledge about HIV, not just from his side, but from everybody else, especially in the league at that time.... Magic said himself that if he knew what he (and everybody else) found out later he would have stayed.... you can read more about that here: http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-08-03/magic-johnson-says-he-should-not-have-retired-because-of-hiv

He came back in 1996, 32 years old, dropping 15-7-6 of the bench as a Forward with limited minutes, per minute he was as efficient as much of his prime career.... [I]"The other time I came back, I got a cut, and I saw the fear. So I said I don

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I gotta say, Mikey was lucky as sh!t he didn't have to go through a healthy Lakers team...nevermind a healthy Lakers team w/ Kareem. :oldlol:

Bulls-Lakers matchups would've been INSANE.

[pauk]

I gotta say, Mikey was lucky as sh!t he didn't have to go through a healthy Lakers team...nevermind a healthy Lakers team w/ Kareem. :oldlol:

Bulls-Lakers matchups would've been INSANE.

That Magic/Laker team in 1991 was good enough to be a pest for Jordan/Bulls, Magic could have perhaps got another key player he could showtime with sometime there and ruined Jordans plans somewhat.... who knows...

[Budadiiii]

Nobody knows, you moron.

Is this your contribution to this forum? Pointless hypotheticals?

Worst poster on this site by FAR.

[Trentknicks]

Then Kobe never blocks Lebron in the ASG and your dignity, what's left of it, remains intact.

[miller-time]

I wonder how this would have effected the '96 draft. I mean Magic would have been nearing the end of his career at that point but it still might have changed everything. He would have been about 36 in his 16th season but there is no reason to think he couldn't have hung around that long.

[Budadiiii]

I wonder how this would have effected the '96 draft. I mean Magic would have been nearing the end of his career at that point but it still might have changed everything.
The timeline would be altered significantly. Way too much uncertainty to even speculate.

Stupid topic by a stupid poster.

[pauk]

Nobody knows, you moron.

Is this your contribution to this forum? Pointless hypotheticals?

Worst poster on this site by FAR.

Sorry, maybe i should instead contribute with random insults, lack of bball knowledge and abnormality like you and hence be such an excessively colossal poster like you.... now stop derailing basketball threads and go back discussing Lebrons deformed feet....

[SamuraiSWISH]

I gotta say, Mikey was lucky as sh!t he didn't have to go through a healthy Lakers team...nevermind a healthy Lakers team w/ Kareem.
Oh, c'mon. We barely lost to them in game 1, and then SHIT on them in a backdoor sweep. Old, decrepit Kareem wouldn't have made all that big of a difference 1991. By 1992? Are you serious? The Lakers were done. MJ out Magic'ed Magic in the '91 Finals. 31 ppg and 11 apg. Nuts.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Oh, c'mon. We barely lost to them in game 1, and then SHIT on them in a backdoor sweep. Old, decrepit Kareem wouldn't have made all that big of a difference 1991. By 1992? Are you serious? The Lakers were done. MJ out Magic'ed Magic in the '91 Finals. 31 ppg and 11 apg. Nuts.

Scott and Worthy weren't 100%, though. Each missed a game in the Finals, iirc. Had Scott not ****ed up his ankle in the series prior, who knows? I do know that w/ Coop and Kareem, the Lakers would have fared better. A lot better, actually.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Scott and Worthy weren't 100%, though. Each missed a game in the Finals, iirc. Had Scott not ****ed up his ankle in the series prior, who knows? I do know that w/ Coop and Kareem, the Lakers would have fared better. A lot better, actually.
Possible case with Worthy. With Scott? He was going to do shit with PEAK Mike? Dude would get shit on just like he did in the '91 Finals. They would have faired better, but old ass Kareem or healthy Worthy probably pushes the series to 6, off chance of 7. I don't think they beat the '91 Bulls. That defense was swarming, and ridiculous.

[Sarcastic]

:lol @ this subliminal Lebron thread.

Pauk imagining ways to take Jordan down a notch so his loverboy can be GOAT.

[pauk]

Oh, c'mon. We barely lost to them in game 1, and then SHIT on them in a backdoor sweep. Old, decrepit Kareem wouldn't have made all that big of a difference 1991. By 1992? Are you serious? The Lakers were done. MJ out Magic'ed Magic in the '91 Finals. 31 ppg and 11 apg. Nuts.

I dont think the 1991 championship answers that question entirely. The Bulls were peaking, the Lakers were recovering from losing Jabbar etc. and still got to the Finals, i am not even sure if Bulls would have won in just 5 games had Worthy and Scott not fallen injured in game three and out for the final 2 games leaving Magic with rookies Elden Campbell and Tony Smith to challenge the Bulls, just saying.... Magic was still at his best, nothing Pippen/Jordan did on him defensively stopped him from getting his... considering that and how good the Lakers still were (perhaps Magic/Lakers would have recieved another great player/players to fit their puzzle) i believe Magic/Lakers could have indeed bothered Jordan/Bulls later on.... hm...

[pauk]

:lol @ this subliminal Lebron thread.

Pauk imagining ways to take Jordan down a notch so his loverboy can be GOAT.

:facepalm

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Possible case with Worthy. With Scott? He was going to do shit with PEAK Mike? Dude would get shit on just like he did in the '91 Finals. They would have faired better, but old ass Kareem or healthy Worthy probably pushes the series to 6, off chance of 7. I don't think they beat the '91 Bulls. That defense was swarming, and ridiculous.

They probably still lose. A healthy '91 Lakers team w/ '88 or '89 Kareem would be interesting, tho.

[97 bulls]

Why are these "what ifs" always and only applied to the Bulls. I debated this topic with another poster. Why do people always act as if the great teams of the 80s battled each other year in and out with both teams 100% healthy, and in their prime?

Ive said this before. None of the great teams of the 80s played another with both at their best. But this is never acknowledged.

What if Moses Malone played on the 80s Sixers vs the Lakers?

What if the Lakers had a prime Worthy in 83?

What if the Celtics had a fully healthy Mchale and Walton in 87?

What if the Celtics had to play the Lakers in 86?

What if Isaiah Thomas doesnt get hurt in 88?

What if Magic and Scott had been healthy in 89?

What if Pippen didnt have that migrane in 90?

Just like the Bulls in 91 the great teams of the 80s beat a VERSION of each other.

[deja vu]

They didn't have Kareem anymore, so even if it's prime Magic they would still lose to the Bulls.

[bizil]

As of Magic's retirement in 91, I think MJ, Magic, and Chuck were the top three players in the NBA. So Magic was still at the top his game in his early 30's. I was surprised as hell when the Lakers got to the Finals in '91. And that was mainly due to Magic. I think the key is IF Magic plays until Shaq and Kobe show up. His game was built to age great. And he could always move off the PG and move to SF-point forward. Magic I think would have gotten 2 more rings minimum if he plays until 40. I think he loved the game too much and would have played that long if we knew more about HIV then. And his numbers would have been INSANE. U are talking around 25,000 points and 15,000 assists kind of numbers. I would so far to say his resume would make him arguably the GOAT. Yes even up against MJ. MJ would have been considered the better player flat out peak value wise. But Magic's resume would have been SICK!!!

So Magic might have to bite the bullet in terms of rings and rack up numbers. But once Shaq and Kobe show up (Shaq was a free agent ANYWAY and West would have found a way to get Kobe ANYWAY) Magic I feel would have ended his career with possibly 2 titles. I think Magic, Shaq, and Kobe would have trumped MJ in the Bulls at least once and maybe twice.

[iamgine]

[QUOTE=pauk]The reason Magic retired was because of lack of knowledge about HIV, not just from his side, but from everybody else, especially in the league at that time.... Magic said himself that if he knew what he (and everybody else) found out later he would have stayed.... you can read more about that here: http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-08-03/magic-johnson-says-he-should-not-have-retired-because-of-hiv

He came back in 1996, 32 years old, dropping 15-7-6 of the bench as a Forward with limited minutes, per minute he was as efficient as much of his prime career.... [I]"The other time I came back, I got a cut, and I saw the fear. So I said I don

[Sarcastic]

:facepalm


Where is your hypothetical of Harden not leaving the Thunder and Westbrook not getting hurt, then beating the Heat? :confusedshrug:


Oh that's right. It doesn't exist.


:facepalm

[coin24]

What if LeQuit didn't leave the cavs, would there still be all these "long time heat fans"??

Also, what if LeBron wasn't a famous bball player, would Pauk still be into men?

[OldSchoolBBall]

I dont think the 1991 championship answers that question entirely. The Bulls were peaking, the Lakers were recovering from losing Jabbar etc. and still got to the Finals, i am not even sure if Bulls would have won in just 5 games had Worthy and Scott not fallen injured in game three and out for the final 2 games leaving Magic with rookies Elden Campbell and Tony Smith to challenge the Bulls,

Err, Worthy and Scott only missed game 5. You know, when the Bulls were already up 3-1. They each played substantial minutes in game 4. They didn't miss 2 games apiece.

Nothing changes the outcome of that series. 6 games at best for LA even with everyone healthy. The '91 Bulls were a team of destiny.

[97 bulls]

And lets not act as if the Lakers had chopped liver at Center. Both Vlade Divac and Sam Perkins were damn good centers and gave the Lakers more than than the center tandem of Jabaar and Thompson of the back to back Lakers

[ProfessorMurder]

[QUOTE=pauk]He came back in 1996, 32 years old, dropping 15-7-6 of the bench as a Forward with limited minutes, per minute he was as efficient as much of his prime career.... [I]"The other time I came back, I got a cut, and I saw the fear. So I said I don

[Rooster]

Err, Worthy and Scott only missed game 5. You know, when the Bulls were already up 3-1. They each played substantial minutes in game 4. They didn't miss 2 games apiece.

Nothing changes the outcome of that series. 6 games at best for LA even with everyone healthy. The '91 Bulls were a team of destiny.

Worthy was hurt during the Blazers series so he is not healthy per se. Scott was bothered by wrist injury. It's hard to tell how the series went if both of those guys are in full health. Lakers relied on them heavily on offense.

[Rooster]

And lets not act as if the Lakers had chopped liver at Center. Both Vlade Divac and Sam Perkins were damn good centers and gave the Lakers more than than the center tandem of Jabaar and Thompson of the back to back Lakers

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

I bet you were looking at their numbers then their presence.:rolleyes:

[97 bulls]

Worthy was hurt during the Blazers series so he is not healthy per se. Scott was bothered by wrist injury. It's hard to tell how the series went if both of those guys are in full health. Lakers relied on them heavily on offense.
Jordan was playing on a bad foot.

[no pun intended]

25 year contracttttttt weheheeheheheheh do whatever he wants yo

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

It would be downright scary for the Bulls had Detroit and LA not regressed with old-age and injuries. Peak Magic, Worthy and Scott w/ Kareem in '87 - 88; Isiah, Rodman, Vinny and Dumars in '88 - 89. :eek:

[aj1987]

What if LeQuit didn't leave the cavs, would there still be all these "long time heat fans"??

Also, what if LeBron wasn't a famous bball player, would Pauk still be into men?
What is Rapebe was stuck with the Hornets or got traded in 2007, when he demanded it? Would you still be a Lakers fan?

Also, what is Kobe wasn't a famous bball player, would you still be into men?


Can't believe that I'm sticking up for pauk!

:facepalm

[coin24]

What is Rapebe was stuck with the Hornets or got traded in 2007, when he demanded it? Would you still be a Lakers fan?

Also, what is Kobe wasn't a famous bball player, would you still be into men?


Can't believe that I'm sticking up for pauk!

:facepalm

Is that you pauk:lol

[aj1987]

Is that you pauk:lol
White text.

[Bandito]

OP is getting bullied. I feel bad for him :sad:

[guy]

I dont think the 1991 championship answers that question entirely. The Bulls were peaking, the Lakers were recovering from losing Jabbar etc. and still got to the Finals, i am not even sure if Bulls would have won in just 5 games had Worthy and Scott not fallen injured in game three and out for the final 2 games leaving Magic with rookies Elden Campbell and Tony Smith to challenge the Bulls, just saying.... Magic was still at his best, nothing Pippen/Jordan did on him defensively stopped him from getting his... considering that and how good the Lakers still were (perhaps Magic/Lakers would have recieved another great player/players to fit their puzzle) i believe Magic/Lakers could have indeed bothered Jordan/Bulls later on.... hm...

Bulls had a double digit lead in the 2nd half once Worthy and Scott went down. So more than likely, the Bulls are up 3-1 after game 4 even if Worthy and Scott don't go down, with 3 chances to close the series out, 2 chances at home. That series was over.

[Legends66NBA7]

Where is your hypothetical of Harden not leaving the Thunder and Westbrook not getting hurt, then beating the Heat? :confusedshrug:


Oh that's right. It doesn't exist.


:facepalm

You're open to make a thread about it if it makes you feel better.

[Sarcastic]

You're open to make a thread about it if it makes you feel better.


I don't make agenda threads. Sorry.

:violin:

[Legends66NBA7]

I don't make agenda threads. Sorry.

:violin:

Whatever.

[EllEffEll]

I so wanted to see a healthy Laker team be able to go up against the MJ led Bulls in 1991, but if I am being honest, you would have to have turned the clock back about 4 years to get the Lakers at their peak. The peak Showtime Lakers against the 90's Bull would have been epic. The 1991 Lakers were not really the peak Showtime Lakers. Magic was slowing down already, and was beginning to show his age.

As for not retiring, it is a shame that he did because he was still a great player and fun to watch. My opinion is that the Lakers with Magic (if he didn't retire at the time he did), may have made some noise, but I honestly think the days of that noise being the popping of champagne in mid to late June were behind them.

The Showtime Lakers were the team of the 80's, and the Bulls were the team of the 90's. Two all time dynasties that were simply not destined to collide when both were at or near their greatest potential. Such is life.

[97 bulls]

Bulls had a double digit lead in the 2nd half once Worthy and Scott went down. So more than likely, the Bulls are up 3-1 after game 4 even if Worthy and Scott don't go down, with 3 chances to close the series out, 2 chances at home. That series was over.
This is so true. The Bulls had that series well in hand by the time Worthy and Scott went down. People act as if the series went to seven games.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I so wanted to see a healthy Laker team be able to go up against the MJ led Bulls in 1991, but if I am being honest, you would have to have turned the clock back about 4 years to get the Lakers at their peak. The peak Showtime Lakers against the 90's Bull would have been epic. The 1991 Lakers were not really the peak Showtime Lakers. Magic was slowing down already, and was beginning to show his age.

As for not retiring, it is a shame that he did because he was still a great player and fun to watch. My opinion is that the Lakers with Magic (if he didn't retire at the time he did), may have made some noise, but I honestly think the days of that noise being the popping of champagne in mid to late June were behind them.

The Showtime Lakers were the team of the 80's, and the Bulls were the team of the 90's. Two all time dynasties that were simply not destined to collide when both were at or near their greatest potential. Such is life.

Good post :cheers:

Ain't nobody stopping BOTH Kareem and Magic. During Showtime's peak? Forget about it.

[97 bulls]

Good post :cheers:

Ain't nobody stopping BOTH Kareem and Magic. During Showtime's peak? Forget about it.
Oh please. The Lakers had the good fortune of finding themselves in arguably the worst conference the league has ever had. And by the time that Laker team peaked, Jabaar was old.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Oh please. The Lakers had the good fortune of finding themselves in arguably the worst conference the league has ever had. And by the time that Laker team peaked, Jabaar was old.

If we're being honest here...

Chicago didn't go through anyone noteworthy in '91. The old, depleted and injury-riddled Pistons?

Showtime would have ran, ran and ran... WITH Jabbar closing in on 40; guy was still very productive even in his later stages.

[Vienceslav]

The course of Jordans career would have been unchanged for the most part.
I don't know if it's a typo on your part or you really thought Magic was 32 in 96(then of course it would have been another story), but if you realize his real age then no.
I know you like Lebron so let's use him as an example here, Jordan's career would be affected the same way as Lebron's would have been if Kobe retired in 2011, other than shared media spotlight nothing much in a way of awards and championships.

[97 bulls]

If we're being honest here...

Chicago didn't go through anyone noteworthy in '91. The old, depleted and injury-riddled Pistons?

Showtime would have ran, ran and ran... WITH Jabbar closing in on 40; guy was still very productive even in his later stages.
And what noteworthy team did the Lakers beat in 87? Hell they should've lost in 88 had Isaiah Thomas not went down.

[SamuraiSWISH]

If we're being honest here...

Chicago didn't go through anyone noteworthy in '91. The old, depleted and injury-riddled Pistons?

Showtime would have ran, ran and ran... WITH Jabbar closing in on 40; guy was still very productive even in his later stages.
The hell? The '91 Sixers were pretty good. As were the Pistons. Defending champs. Far from as old and depleted as you're making them sound. This recent Showtime Laker fandom of yours is pretty interesting though. Kareem was old as balls, almost a non factor. He wouldn't be able to run with them young legs.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

And what noteworthy team did the Lakers beat in 87? Hell they should've lost in 88 had Isaiah Thomas not went down.

I already addressed this; the '91 Bulls themselves didn't face anybody that could hang. DET were old and Isiah wasn't anywhere near 100%; the guy was HURT half that season (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1118974/index.htm). Meanwhile, the '88 Lakers went up against Dallas and Utah. Malone/Stockton/Eaton - Aguirre/Harper/Blackman/Perkins/Schrempf. Damn good squads who, on average, combined for more wins than the teams Chicago went through to reach the Finals.

Kareem? In '87 and '88 despite being visibly old (39 - 40 y/o) was still giving you solid production. Still an impactful player. Showtime was still showtime. Just saying.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Worthy was hurt during the Blazers series so he is not healthy per se. Scott was bothered by wrist injury. It's hard to tell how the series went if both of those guys are in full health. Lakers relied on them heavily on offense.

It's really not hard to tell if you know basketball. That Bulls team wasn't going to be denied. Jordan had a knee sprain that entire series as well - should we just start counting up everyone's injuries now? Fact remains that those two did not miss 2 games apiece, which is what was said.

[97 bulls]

I already addressed this; the '91 Bulls themselves didn't face anybody that could hang. DET were old and Isiah wasn't anywhere near 100%; the guy was HURT half that season (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1118974/index.htm). Meanwhile, the '88 Lakers went up against Dallas and Utah. Malone/Stockton/Eaton - Aguirre/Harper/Blackman/Perkins/Schrempf. Damn good squads who, on average, combined for more wins than the teams Chicago went through to reach the Finals.

Kareem? In '87 and '88 despite being visibly old (39 - 40 y/o) was still giving you solid production. Still an impactful player. Showtime was still showtime. Just saying.
Lol and how many times have you been told. The PISTONS WERENT OLD. I mean honestly, the only real "old" players on the Pistons that really was a part of that core was Bill Laimbeer and James Edwards. Laimbeer was a thug during the repeat and a thug in 91. But by the same token Rodman was much better and so was John Salley. If I remember correct the avg age of the core group of players was 29.

But since were talking about players being injured, how about Kevin Mchales fractured foot in 87 and Thomas injuring his foot vs the Lakers in 88. Why do those championships have more credibility?

[97 bulls]

It's really not hard to tell if you know basketball. That Bulls team wasn't going to be denied. Jordan had a knee sprain that entire series as well - should we just start counting up everyone's injuries now? Fact remains that those two did not miss 2 games apiece, which is what was said.
Not to mention Jordan played with an injured big toe. It was so bad that he tried changing shoes in an effort to get more comfortable. If I remember correct, they even cut the insole to accommodate the swelling.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Lol and how many times have you been told. The PISTONS WERENT OLD. I mean honestly, the only real "old" players on the Pistons that really was a part of that core was Bill Laimbeer and James Edwards. Laimbeer was a thug during the repeat and a thug in 91. But by the same token Rodman was much better and so was John Salley. If I remember correct the avg age of the core group of players was 29.

No response for those teams LA faced? Huh? :confusedshrug:

BTW, Vinny Johnson was 34. So THREE of Detroit's [important] players were elder statesmen and their BEST player, Isiah Thomas, was battling through an injury. Doesn't sound very formidable. At least not a team that could have beaten Chicago.


But since were talking about players being injured, how about Kevin Mchales fractured foot in 87 and Thomas injuring his foot vs the Lakers in 88. Why do those championships have more credibility?

So you concede that Chicago didn't really face anybody in '91? That their competition was older, depleted and not what they once were?

[97 bulls]

No response for those teams LA faced? Huh? :confusedshrug:

BTW, Vinny Johnson was 34. So THREE of Detroit's [important] players were elder statesmen and their BEST player, Isiah Thomas, was battling through an injury. Doesn't sound very formidable. At least not a team that could have beaten Chicago.



So you concede that Chicago didn't really face anybody in '91? That their competition was older, depleted and not what they once were?
Vinny Johnson, Bill Laimbeer, and James Edwards while very good could not be the sole reason for being swept by the Bulls. I mean, they won the previous year. They fell off that bad in one year? Come on

And im not conceding anything. My point is injuries are a part of the game. The 87 and 88 Lakers also beat injured teams. Hell all teams have to endure injuries over the course of a long season. Why do you not question the Lakers credibility?

[305Baller]

The world trade centers would not have been targeted.
Butter would be found to be low in cholesterol.
The NSA would not exist.

Gore would have won.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Vinny Johnson, Bill Laimbeer, and James Edwards while very good could not be the sole reason for being swept by the Bulls. I mean, they won the previous year. They fell off that bad in one year? Come on


AND Isiah's injury... Reigning championship teams 'falling off' isn't unheard of. It happens all the time. In ALL sports. lol


Why do you not question the Lakers credibility?

Because initially I was discussing The Bulls' competition. Not the Lakers'. My original statement had more to do w/ Showtime giving MJ and Chicago fits.

[SamuraiSWISH]

When on earth did the '91 Pistons, and '91 Lakers start to be considered non factor opponents? As if they were weak opposition? This is total news to me. If they looked weak it's because the Bulls finally claimed the throne, and stomped any competition out in dominating fashion.

[Young X]

97 Bulls is right, everybody talks about the Bulls facing old, injured competition to discredit the Bulls but there's no talk about the Lakers facing 3 40 win teams and then facing an injured Celtics team in the finals. Be consistent.

Why are these standards only applied to those Bulls teams? Notice how it's mostly Laker fans saying this? Bet they don't want to talk about the Celtics key injuries in 2009 and 2010 tho.

[97 bulls]

AND Isiah's injury... Reigning championship teams 'falling off' isn't unheard of. It happens all the time. In ALL sports. lol



Because initially I was discussing The Bulls' competition. Not the Lakers'. My original statement had more to do w/ Showtime giving MJ and Chicago fits.

AND Isiah's injury... Reigning championship teams 'falling off' isn't unheard of. It happens all the time. In ALL sports. lol
Teams dont fall off that much. I mean, they were swept.

[juju151111]

AND Isiah's injury... Reigning championship teams 'falling off' isn't unheard of. It happens all the time. In ALL sports. lol



Because initially I was discussing The Bulls' competition. Not the Lakers'. My original statement had more to do w/ Showtime giving MJ and Chicago fits.
Didn't the 84 Celtics beat Magic and Kareem? Then took them to 6 games with most of their players injured in 87. The 92,96, and 97 bulls have a good chance at beating those Showtime Lakers.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

When on earth did the '91 Pistons, and '91 Lakers start to be considered non factor opponents? As if they were weak opposition? This is total news to me. If they looked weak it's because the Bulls finally claimed the throne, and stomped any competition out in dominating fashion.

We're talking about who the Bulls went through in the East. The '91 Lakers weren't a 'non-factor'. Neither were the Pistons, it's just both teams weren't at full strength nor showed their full capabilities.

Chicago in '92 and '93 were better teams that faced much better competition, imo.


Didn't the 84 Celtics beat Magic and Kareem? Then took them to 6 games with most of their players injured in 87.

Yep. The 80's Celtics were legendary.


The 92,96, and 97 bulls have a good chance at beating those Showtime Lakers.

Absolutely - and vice versa.

[97 bulls]

97 Bulls is right, everybody talks about the Bulls facing old, injured competition to discredit the Bulls but there's no talk about the Lakers facing 3 40 win teams and then facing an injured Celtics team in the finals. Be consistent.

Why are these standards only applied to those Bulls teams? Notice how it's mostly Laker fans saying this? Bet they don't want to talk about the Celtics key injuries in 2009 and 2010 tho.
But they do bring up Bynums injury in 08. Its a clear double standard

[SamuraiSWISH]

We're talking about who the Bulls went through in the East. The '91 Lakers weren't a 'non-factor'. Neither were were the Pistons, it's just both temas weren't at their full strengths or capabilities.

Chicago in '92 and '93 were better teams that faced much better competition, imo.
There was nagging injuries, yes, as there is for any team that deep into the season. This isn't like we're talking about the 2013 Bulls, were they are missing multiple top five pieces entirely, including their absolute best player.

Their best players were still on the floor, so there is absolutely no excuses.

The Bulls were better teams by then, yes. I think you're underrating the '91 Sixers honestly. And even underrating the '91 Pistons.

I take the '91 Pistons on championship experience alone, over the '92 Knicks and '92 Cavaliers. They knew HOW to beat the Bulls.

1993 is when they faced the absolute toughest competition. Even from the 1st round forward it was quality competition.

[97 bulls]

There was nagging injuries, yes, as there is for any team that deep into the season. This isn't like we're talking about the 2013 Bulls, were they are missing multiple top five pieces entirely, including their absolute best player.

Their best players were still on the floor, so there is absolutely no excuses.

The Bulls were better teams by then, yes. I think you're underrating the '91 Sixers honestly. And even underrating the '91 Pistons.

I take the '91 Pistons on championship experience alone, over the '92 Knicks and '92 Cavaliers. They knew HOW to beat the Bulls.

1993 is when they faced the absolute toughest competition. Even from the 1st round forward it was quality competition.
In order for the Bulls Championships to have credibility, they have to beat 100% healthy teams with five hofers, from the first round on. They all must have either Magic or Bird on them. Every team mustve won no less than 60 games, and it must be in a six team league.

[97 bulls]

There was nagging injuries, yes, as there is for any team that deep into the season. This isn't like we're talking about the 2013 Bulls, were they are missing multiple top five pieces entirely, including their absolute best player.

Their best players were still on the floor, so there is absolutely no excuses.

The Bulls were better teams by then, yes. I think you're underrating the '91 Sixers honestly. And even underrating the '91 Pistons.

I take the '91 Pistons on championship experience alone, over the '92 Knicks and '92 Cavaliers. They knew HOW to beat the Bulls.

1993 is when they faced the absolute toughest competition. Even from the 1st round forward it was quality competition.
Something must be said for the fact that the Lakers and Pistons could only win ONE GAME against the Bulls in 91. And that was on a last second three point shot by Sam Perkins. And mind you, that wasnt the best Bulls team

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

There was nagging injuries, yes, as there is for any team that deep into the season. This isn't like we're talking about the 2013 Bulls, were they are missing multiple top five pieces entirely, including their absolute best player.

Of course. But they're still to be accounted for.

A healthy Showtime Lakers vs a healthy '91 Bulls would have been a dream matchup. Either team could have won.

That's really all I'm saying.


The Bulls were better teams by then, yes. I think you're underrating the '91 Sixers honestly. And even underrating the '91 Pistons.

I take the '91 Pistons on championship experience alone, over the '92 Knicks and '92 Cavaliers. They knew HOW to beat the Bulls.

That's absurd and you know that. Those '92 and '93 Knicks were ****ing murder. The '91 Pistons, who were NOT the same team they were a year prior, would have been out-classed and toughed by Riley's Knicks.

NY in 6 games MAX.

Nah. I don't think I'm underrating the Sixers. They won just 44 games. Barkley carried them practically the entire year. Nobody seriously thought they would give Chicago trouble, nevermind pull off an upset.


1993 is when they faced the absolute toughest competition. Even from the 1st round forward it was quality competition.

Agreed.

[SamuraiSWISH]

In order for the Bulls Championships to have credibility, they have to beat 100% healthy teams with five hofers, from the first round on. They all must have either Magic or Bird on them. Every team mustve won no less than 60 games, and it must be in a six team league.
Oh. Is that because of the bitterness of us winning 6 rings in 8 years, dominating an entire decade? Is this the stipulation due to resentment because we were just that great? The only times we didn't bring home gold when our best player was on hiatus taking swings at curveballs, while mourning his deceased father?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

The Bulls and MJ get far and away the most love on ISH. Chillout bros. :oldlol:

[juju151111]

In order for the Bulls Championships to have credibility, they have to beat 100% healthy teams with five hofers, from the first round on. They all must have either Magic or Bird on them. Every team mustve won no less than 60 games, and it must be in a six team league.
Exactly, and Bird or Magic never faced the best bulls teams either.

[Nevaeh]

I so wanted to see a healthy Laker team be able to go up against the MJ led Bulls in 1991, but if I am being honest, you would have to have turned the clock back about 4 years to get the Lakers at their peak. The peak Showtime Lakers against the 90's Bull would have been epic. The 1991 Lakers were not really the peak Showtime Lakers. Magic was slowing down already, and was beginning to show his age.

As for not retiring, it is a shame that he did because he was still a great player and fun to watch. My opinion is that the Lakers with Magic (if he didn't retire at the time he did), may have made some noise, but I honestly think the days of that noise being the popping of champagne in mid to late June were behind them.

The Showtime Lakers were the team of the 80's, and the Bulls were the team of the 90's. Two all time dynasties that were simply not destined to collide when both were at or near their greatest potential. Such is life.


Yeah, that's basically the cycle of the game and always have been. You still see peeps posting about how epic things would be with a prime Wilt going up against kareem, for example. And I'm sure Spurs fans are doing "what ifs" after this past year's Finals.

In the case of the 91 Bulls, however, they weren't facing a washed up Laker team at all. It was the Lakers who were facing a hungry, focused prime MJ (with a peaking Pip) who was fed up with the stigma of being a high flying loser year after year, and him hearing how he could never measure up to "team player" Magic.

The "what if" game is always fun to play in the context of sports though. I sometimes wonder how things would be had Buster Douglas not knocked out Mike Tyson back in the day, or if Ali was never banned from Pro Boxing during his prime.

[Kiddlovesnets]

Hes not gonna outshine Jordan, he lost to Jordan's Bulls in 1991 anyway. But he definitely could've led the Lakers to more finals trips, potential victims are Blazers, Suns and Rockets.

[Champ]

The Celtics also had a lot of potential in the 90-91 season and were the best team in the league up until mid-January, when they lost Bird for a month, and then McHale for another month after that.

They were 29-5 before the injury bug bit them, and had a nice mix of young players and vets, with good depth.

[TheBigVeto]

He would've been owned by Bobby Hurley on regular basis.

[KG215]

Possible case with Worthy. With Scott? He was going to do shit with PEAK Mike? Dude would get shit on just like he did in the '91 Finals. They would have faired better, but old ass Kareem or healthy Worthy probably pushes the series to 6, off chance of 7. I don't think they beat the '91 Bulls. That defense was swarming, and ridiculous.
Well, except for game 3 where it took Jordan going coast to coast in the final seconds and making a pull-up jumper over Divac just to force OT. I mean that was just the GOAT doing his thing, and he dominated OT and they won the game, but they were really damn close to going down 1-2 in that series with games 4 and 5 still in LA.

[305Baller]

Well, except for game 3 where it took Jordan going coast to coast in the final seconds and making a pull-up jumper over Divac just to force OT. I mean that was just the GOAT doing his thing, and he dominated OT and they won the game, but they were really damn close to going down 1-2 in that series with games 4 and 5 still in LA.

GAME 3 "AIR" Highlights (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyRu2xH8fMc)

[KG215]

GAME 3 "AIR" Highlights (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyRu2xH8fMc)
I didn't say anything at first because I couldn't remember if it was the same game, but Marv Albert mentioning he was just 2/8 from the floor at one point in the second half reminded me. I think they may have even fallen behind by double digits at one point late in the 3rd quarter or early 4th. I know there was one game where they were behind by around 15 or 16 in the second half and the Lakers looked like they were cruising to a win before the Bulls came back and won. Don't know if it was game 3, but if it was, and Jordan hadn't hit the clutch shot to force OT and then taken over in OT, what happens the rest of the series?

And could you imagine if ISH were around then? Jordan going something 2-for-8 or 2-for-9 in the second half of a Finals game while his team fell behind 1-2 in the series? The place would explode over something like that.

[Smoke117]

[QUOTE=pauk]The reason Magic retired was because of lack of knowledge about HIV, not just from his side, but from everybody else, especially in the league at that time.... Magic said himself that if he knew what he (and everybody else) found out later he would have stayed.... you can read more about that here: http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-08-03/magic-johnson-says-he-should-not-have-retired-because-of-hiv

He came back in 1996, 32 years old, dropping 15-7-6 of the bench as a Forward with limited minutes, per minute he was as efficient as much of his prime career.... [I]"The other time I came back, I got a cut, and I saw the fear. So I said I don

[Element]

97 Bulls is right, everybody talks about the Bulls facing old, injured competition to discredit the Bulls but there's no talk about the Lakers facing 3 40 win teams and then facing an injured Celtics team in the finals. Be consistent.

Why are these standards only applied to those Bulls teams? Notice how it's mostly Laker fans saying this? Bet they don't want to talk about the Celtics key injuries in 2009 and 2010 tho.

Oh dont worry about us LA fans lol

Its not like Bynum and Ariza were injured in 08
Or 2010, Kobe playing with a torn ligament on his right (!) index fingerand a knee that had to get drained multiple times throughout the PO, or Bynum again being injured

Rasheed Wallace came up bigger in game 7 than Scrubkins did throughout his collective Finals minutes

Who cares about 09? Its like saying what if Kobe wasnt injured in the 03 playoffs? 4-peat? It didnt happen, LA had Bostons number all year and hypotheticals are useless. What if Duncan wasnt injured in 00? Does LA ever form a dynasty? Noone cares