Do you think MJ would've won a championship if

[Mr Exlax]

Pip and Ho Grant were never on his team? Let's say lesser caliber players were subbed in for them. Do you think MJ would've been able to overcome those odds?

[Trollsmasher]

MJ does not even have a winning record without Pip.

No, he would've continued to be a career loser.

[poido123]

Pip and Ho Grant were never on his team? Let's say lesser caliber players were subbed in for them. Do you think MJ would've been able to overcome those odds?

I have no idea.

I would say he could be successful with any other star, but Pippen and Grant really complimented him well.

Without sounding like one of the Jordan stans, Pippen's career development and ability came from under jordan's wing. So it would be fair to say, any player that played with jordan would grow into a winning mentality like Jordan had.

So the answer would be maybe.

[Fresh Kid]

i would say at least 3 rings he would have without them two.

[97 bulls]

Pip and Ho Grant were never on his team? Let's say lesser caliber players were subbed in for them. Do you think MJ would've been able to overcome those odds?
It depends on how much "lesser". He did have Orlando Woolridge and Charles Oakley. And couldn't do much then.

But he definitely couldve won in a different situation

[Mr Exlax]

See the thing about Pip, to me, is that he had potential though. He was a hight draft pick so I mean, he had to have some kind of talent already. I'm not gonna give all the credit to MJ, but I will agree that MJ did play a huge part in his success. Grant, I mean he was already good or solid when they got him. I just like to look at things from a different angle.

[Mr Exlax]

It depends on how much "lesser". He did have Orlando Woolridge and Charles Oakley. And couldn't do much then.

But he definitely couldve won in a different situation

He was a good enough player to win a championship, his team was just losing to a better team. That's what I think about those times before the Bulls started winning.

[fpliii]

Who are you replacing them with in this hypothetical? If they're not of similar quality/fit, probably not very many. If you just take them off the team and replace them with scrub players, probably zero rings.

[fpliii]

It depends on how much "lesser". He did have Orlando Woolridge and Charles Oakley. And couldn't do much then.

But he definitely couldve won in a different situation

He might win once eventually with those guys.

[Mr Exlax]

Who are you replacing them with in this hypothetical? If they're not of similar quality/fit, probably not very many. If you just take them off the team and replace them with scrub players, probably zero rings.

I'll just say any decent role player. Not a scrub, but somebody that could at least be a starter on most teams.

[fpliii]

I'll just say any decent role player. Not a scrub, but somebody that could at least be a starter on most teams.

Give me an example though, say through the first threepeat.

He might actually win during the second threepeat in 96, 97 anyway though since Grant was gone and Scottie wasn't HUGE (they'd also still get Rodman, and Kukoc). Probably not 98.

[Mr Exlax]

Give me an example though, say through the first threepeat.

He might actually win during the second threepeat in 96, 97 anyway though since Grant was gone and Scottie wasn't HUGE (they'd also still get Rodman, and Kukoc). Probably not 98.

Let's say.......Terrance Jones for Grant and Chandler Parsons for Pip. What ya think?

[fpliii]

Let's say.......Terrance Jones for Grant and Chandler Parsons for Pip. What ya think?

Probably no rings during the first threepeat then. I think he wins in 96, 97 anyway though.

[Mr Exlax]

Probably no rings during the first threepeat then. I think he wins in 96, 97 anyway though.

Damn and I thought i was being generous with Chandler Parsons in the mix lol.

[I<3NBA]

Let's say.......Terrance Jones for Grant and Chandler Parsons for Pip. What ya think?
those are terrible replacements, esp Parson for Pippen. are you high?

[Mr Exlax]

those are terrible replacements, esp Parson for Pippen. are you high?

What do you mean? I'm not gonna throw out the same caliber of players. That goes against the question I'm asking.

[fpliii]

Damn and I thought i was being generous with Chandler Parsons in the mix lol.

I mean Pippen was a great ball-handling wing and playmaker, and the GOAT non-big defender lol. Grant was one of the best wing defenders in the 90s. If you take them off, not only does MJ have to assume Pip's ball-handling/playmaking duties, but he's gonna have unrealistic defensive responsibilities.

The hypothetical of Woolridge and Oakley staying makes life much, much easier for MJ.

[97 bulls]

Probably no rings during the first threepeat then. I think he wins in 96, 97 anyway though.
Wow. This is just disrespectful.

In your opinion, would the showtime Lakers have won championships with Parsons replacing Worthy?

[97 bulls]

Give me an example though, say through the first threepeat.

He might actually win during the second threepeat in 96, 97 anyway though since Grant was gone and Scottie wasn't HUGE (they'd also still get Rodman, and Kukoc). Probably not 98.
Wasnt Huge? He was the Bulls second best scorer and best defender. And he ran the offense.

[fpliii]

Wow. This is just disrespectful.

In your opinion, would the showtime Lakers have won championships with Parsons replacing Worthy?

It's not disrespectful at all, I don't think he gets past the Pistons or Knicks during the first threepeat without those guys if you replace them with scrubs.

The Lakers won rings in 80, 82, 85, 87, 88, right? Worthy wasn't there in 80, 82. I think they win in 85 without him as well, maybe 87 (though unlikely). Not in 88.

[fpliii]

Wasnt Huge? He was the Bulls second best scorer and best defender. And he ran the offense.

Not huge as far as the team was concerned. Sure it would hurt, but I think that 97 team was just too deep. Scottie was a top 5-10 player in the league at that point, but I don't think they were going to lose that year (or 96) if you take any one player off except MJ (possibly him as well, if you replace him with someone great).

[Legends66NBA7]

It's not disrespectful at all, I don't think he gets past the Pistons or Knicks during the first threepeat without those guys if you replace them with scrubs.

The Lakers won rings in 80, 82, 85, 87, 88, right? Worthy wasn't there in 80, 82. I think they win in 85 without him as well, maybe 87 (though unlikely). Not in 88.

The Lakers still had Wilkes, Nixon, and McAdoo later on for those early-mid Laker teams. Those Laker teams were loaded.

[97 bulls]

It's not disrespectful at all, I don't think he gets past the Pistons or Knicks during the first threepeat without those guys if you replace them with scrubs.

The Lakers won rings in 80, 82, 85, 87, 88, right? Worthy wasn't there in 80, 82. I think they win in 85 without him as well, maybe 87 (though unlikely). Not in 88.
Lol typical Laker fan. So Worthys worth to the Lakers was higher than Pippen to the Bulls. Or once again. Scottie Pippens role is disrespected.

[97 bulls]

The Lakers still had Wilkes, Nixon, and McAdoo later on for those early-mid Laker teams. Those Laker teams were loaded.
Yep. But heres the kicker. Ask him whod win between the 90s Bulls and 89s Lakers and hed say the Lakers due to more depth.

[fpliii]

Lol typical Laker fan. So Worthys worth to the Lakers was higher than Pippen to the Bulls. Or once again. Scottie Pippens role is disrespected.

I'm not disrespecting Pippen, the 96, 97 teams were more stacked than the late 80s Lakers. I think Scottie is a top 15-20 player all-time in terms of impact.

Also, how did you get this disrespectful idea anyway? I said without Scottie, the Bulls don't win any of the first threepeat rings.

[fpliii]

Yep. But heres the kicker. Ask him whod win between the 90s Bulls and 89s Lakers and hed say the Lakers due to more depth.

No. I'd take 80 Lakers over any Bulls team due to Kareem, and I think 80, 85 would be close to 96, 97 Bulls.

lol I don't know where you're getting this idea that I'm a homer.

[Mr Exlax]

I'm not disrespecting Pippen, the 96, 97 teams were more stacked than the late 80s Lakers. I think Scottie is a top 15-20 player all-time in terms of impact.

Also, how did you get this disrespectful idea anyway? I said without Scottie, the Bulls don't win any of the first threepeat rings.


Yeah i've been kinda stuck at where the disrespect happened. I guess because you said Pip wasn't that huge in the second repeat. I feel he was. Even though they were deep, Kukok coudn't do everything that Pip could. You might've just been looking at scoring though. I didn't take it as any disrespect at all.

[97 bulls]

It's not disrespectful at all, I don't think he gets past the Pistons or Knicks during the first threepeat without those guys if you replace them with scrubs.

The Lakers won rings in 80, 82, 85, 87, 88, right? Worthy wasn't there in 80, 82. I think they win in 85 without him as well, maybe 87 (though unlikely). Not in 88.
You obviously have forgot what Scottie Pippen did to Mark Jackson and the Pacers. As well as John Stockton and the Jazz in 98. Chandler Parsons jump shot and 15 ppg aint replacing that.

[fpliii]

Yeah i've been kinda stuck at where the disrespect happened. I guess because you said Pip wasn't that huge in the second repeat. I feel he was. Even though they were deep, Kukok coudn't do everything that Pip could. You might've just been looking at scoring though. I didn't take it as any disrespect at all.

In 98 he definitely was important, possibly in 97 as well. But those 96, 97 teams were so deep, that even if they struggle, they'd have a shot.

[fpliii]

You obviously have forgot what Scottie Pippen did to Mark Jackson and the Pacers. As well as John Stockton and the Jazz in 98. Chandler Parsons jump shot and 15 ppg aint replacing that.

I said they probably would not win in 98, reread my posts. I said the only years out of the six in which they would likely win are 96, 97, due to the depth of the team.

[97 bulls]

Yeah i've been kinda stuck at where the disrespect happened. I guess because you said Pip wasn't that huge in the second repeat. I feel he was. Even though they were deep, Kukok coudn't do everything that Pip could. You might've just been looking at scoring though. I didn't take it as any disrespect at all.
Its because the implication is that Parsons worth would be as high as Pippens. Thats nonsense

[97 bulls]

In 98 he definitely was important, possibly in 97 as well. But those 96, 97 teams were so deep, that even if they struggle, they'd have a shot.
I agree the Bulls were extremely deep. Unlike the other teams, they were still very successful without their best player in 94 (Jordan) as well as missing Pippen for half the season in 98.

But they weren't so good that you could take their best players and relace them with any solid player and they still win.

[Mr Exlax]

Its because the implication is that Parsons worth would be as high as Pippens. Thats nonsense

As high as Pips in the second 3peat though right? Cause he did say they'd lose in the first 3

[hateraid]

Who are you replacing them with in this hypothetical? If they're not of similar quality/fit, probably not very many. If you just take them off the team and replace them with scrub players, probably zero rings.

For the sake of argument, let's say a prime Mo Willaims, Andsorn Varejo, and Drew Gooden
:oldlol:

[jlip]

Possibly "a" championship but most likely not multiple or a dynasty. A lot depends on how "lesser caliber" we're speaking of though. For instance if Pippen is replaced by say a Josh Smith caliber player, and Grant is replaced by a Deandre Jordan caliber player I can't see more than 1 or 2 titles max coming from that.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Replace them w/ players like Mike Conley and Kenneth Fared and I think MJ still gets multiple rings.

Nobody is winning with scrubs.


For the sake of argument, let's say a prime Mo Willaims, Andsorn Varejo, and Drew Gooden
:oldlol:

None. On the flipside, I don't think LeBron wins many w/ Pippen and Grant. Pip and Bron's games are too similar, imo.

[97 bulls]

As high as Pips in the second 3peat though right? Cause he did say they'd lose in the first 3
Yes. That comparison is just nonsense. Even in 96 and 97.

Scottie Pippen finished top 5 in the MVP voting and second in DPOY in 96. How many players can boast that claim? In the same season no less. Some feel he wouldve won MVP in 96 had he not been injured. Even Jordan said he deserved MVP. He also led the league in defensive rating.

In 97, He avg 20/7/6 and made the all nba defense team and all NBA team. I just dont see hiw Chandler Parsons would be even remotely considered a viable candidate. I wouldn't take Parsons over Kukoc.

[fpliii]

Yes. That comparison is just nonsense. Even in 96 and 97.

Scottie Pippen finished top 5 in the MVP voting and second in DPOY in 96. How many players can boast that claim? In the same season no less. Some feel he wouldve won MVP in 96 had he not been injured. Even Jordan said he deserved MVP. He also led the league in defensive rating.

In 97, He avg 20/7/6 and made the all nba defense team and all NBA team. I just dont see hiw Chandler Parsons would be even remotely considered a viable candidate. I wouldn't take Parsons over Kukoc.

I wasn't slighting Pip or saying that Parsons is anything close to him or Kukoc (he's not), I'm saying the team itself had enough depth that it could still win in 96, 97 without them.

[Flash31]

Pip and Ho Grant were never on his team? Let's say lesser caliber players were subbed in for them. Do you think MJ would've been able to overcome those odds?


DET said No and proved it so.

Orl wouldve beat them more than once,If the Bulls somehow got past Det they wouldve lost to the LAL.IND wouldve beat them.Utah would have definitely beat them if they got that far.

No he wouldnt have,he was putting up 37 pts a game and losing to Det in the playoffs.Even with Pippen DET still gave him a hard time.
The Jazz nearly took them to 7,the Pacers were a hard matchup,Shaq and Penny would have destroyed the Bulls,the Knicks would have beaten them.
Milwaukee beats them.Instead of Payton being somewhat contained he goes off.


Pippen on of the goat defenders and one of the most versatile sf subbed in for someone less,yeah not a good idea.

MJ from 85-89,shows IT WOULDNT HAPPEN.

[97 bulls]

I wasn't slighting Pip or saying that Parsons is anything close to him or Kukoc (he's not), I'm saying the team itself had enough depth that it could still win in 96, 97 without them.
Point taken. I just disagree. Pippens role was too important. I think we agree that the Bulls could've won with a lesser player, but not that much less. Thats my point. I feel the Bulls could've won in 96 and 97 with Mitch Richmond or Latrell Sprewell, in place of Jordan. But not on a level of winning 72 and 69 games. More like 58-62 wins. But they couldn't win with any SG. Fir instance, that Bulls team probably doesnt win with Hersey Hawkins replacing Jordan.

They also could've won with say Derrick Mckey or Danny Manning. Or Paul George today. But not on the same level

[fpliii]

Point taken. I just disagree. Pippens role was too important. I think we agree that the Bulls could've won with a lesser player, but not that much less. Thats my point. I feel the Bulls could've won in 96 and 97 with Mitch Richmond or Latrell Sprewell, in place of Jordan. But not on a level of winning 72 and 69 games. More like 58-62 wins. But they couldn't win with any SG. Fir instance, that Bulls team probably doesnt win with Hersey Hawkins replacing Jordan.

They also could've won with say Derrick Mckey or Danny Manning. Or Paul George today. But not on the same level

That's fine by me, I agree for the most part.

[Soundwave]

No one wins with scrubs, but the Bulls front office had a pretty easy job, all they had to do was get a solid no.2 option and no.3 guy who was decent on the boards and they would have won a couple of titles (maybe not 6 but a few).

The Pistons weren't going to keep winning forever, and unless the Bulls are completely incompetent, Jordan was so much better than anyone else in the 1990s, they just needed to find him a solid no.2 to at least win 2-3 titles total IMO.

[SamuraiSWISH]

No one wins with scrubs, but the Bulls front office had a pretty easy job, all they had to do was get a solid no.2 option and no.3 guy who was decent on the boards and they would have won a couple of titles (maybe not 6 but a few).

The Pistons weren't going to keep winning forever, and unless the Bulls are completely incompetent, Jordan was so much better than anyone else in the 1990s, they just needed to find him a solid no.2 to at least win 2-3 titles total IMO.
Pretty much this ...

I know for a fact MJ isn't losing to the 2011 Mavericks playing along side prime D-Wade and Chris Bosh.

He would've been effective off catch and shoots, post game, slashing off the ball instead of drifting on the perimeter letting 80 year old Jason Kidd and Shawn Marion put him in a straight jacket.

[Mr Exlax]

No one wins with scrubs, but the Bulls front office had a pretty easy job, all they had to do was get a solid no.2 option and no.3 guy who was decent on the boards and they would have won a couple of titles (maybe not 6 but a few).

The Pistons weren't going to keep winning forever, and unless the Bulls are completely incompetent, Jordan was so much better than anyone else in the 1990s, they just needed to find him a solid no.2 to at least win 2-3 titles total IMO.

What changed though? What was it about Pip and Grant and whomever else they got that helped Chicago get over the hump or was it more the other teams had just gotten older?

[SamuraiSWISH]

What changed though? What was it about Pip and Grant and whomever else they got that helped Chicago get over the hump or was it more the other teams had just gotten older?
A combo of MJ getting better, more team oriented, playing off the ball efficiently and potently. Pip's growth, maturation, and toughness developing. And the Bulls finally got over them mental hurdle of the Pistons, and stopped playing into their hands. Phil Jackson was key in setting a non emotional, objective tone the team didn't have under Collins. Who as a coach was over emotional and cracked under pressure.

[NumberSix]

There no possible way of knowing one way or the other.

[Mr Exlax]

There no possible way of knowing one way or the other.


True. I was just asking for the sake of some good discussion.

[jzek]

He won't win 6 but he'll win at least 2.

[juju151111]

Point taken. I just disagree. Pippens role was too important. I think we agree that the Bulls could've won with a lesser player, but not that much less. Thats my point. I feel the Bulls could've won in 96 and 97 with Mitch Richmond or Latrell Sprewell, in place of Jordan. But not on a level of winning 72 and 69 games. More like 58-62 wins. But they couldn't win with any SG. Fir instance, that Bulls team probably doesnt win with Hersey Hawkins replacing Jordan.

They also could've won with say Derrick Mckey or Danny Manning. Or Paul George today. But not on the same level
For them to win Sprewell would have to duplicate Mj performance against the Jazz in 97. I don't think he can. Don't see them beating the jazz actually.

[knicksman]

the problem with jordan is not teammates but his communication skills. He doesnt know how to communicate to teammates so he was a one man show. Thats why he has ridiculous stats early in his career coz he was trying to win alone. But the guy wants to win at the start. Compare that to lebron who knows how to win but stats are more important. Thats why he had to join wade coz hes becoming the laughing stock of the league. Racking up mvps without the rings to show for it. Lebron knows his mentality cant win so he needs superior teammates to win while continue to statpad..

And lets not act like jordan had superior teammates than magic, bird, kobe or shaq. He has lesser teammates so how much less would you want it to be.

[Round Mound]

I mean Pippen was a great ball-handling wing and playmaker, and the GOAT non-big defender lol. Grant was one of the best wing defenders in the 90s. If you take them off, not only does MJ have to assume Pip's ball-handling/playmaking duties, but he's gonna have unrealistic defensive responsibilities.

The hypothetical of Woolridge and Oakley staying makes life much, much easier for MJ.

:applause:

The Answer is: NONE

[KyleKong]

No. Pippen is so underrated for his defense its really quite sad.

[SamuraiSWISH]

No. Pippen is so underrated for his defense its really quite sad.
:biggums:

Who the hell underrates Pippen defensively?

[guy]

It depends on how much "lesser". He did have Orlando Woolridge and Charles Oakley. And couldn't do much then.

But he definitely couldve won in a different situation

The three of them only played together for 18 regular season games and 1 playoff. That really says alot :rolleyes:

[Sarcastic]

He probably wins 7 if he had a sidekick with some testicular fortitude, since Pippen basically cowered in fear of the Pistons in 1990.

[guy]

Scottie Pippen > Glen Rice. Horace Grant > Grant Long. I'd say Jordan with those two instead in place of Pippen and Grant still wins multiple titles possibly even 6. Remember, there's no Grant Long for the second three-peat, it would still be Rodman.