Mitch Richmond in place of Michael Jordan in 1989

[3ball]

One thing we do know - for the Bulls to get past the 1st Round against 57-win Cleveland and their #2 defense, they needed every ounce of Jordan's 40 PPG, 8 APG, and 60% TS in that series, PLUS the series walk-off game winner ("the shot")... Without ALL of that, Bulls don't win shit.

So with Mitch instead of MJ, the Bulls lose to Cleveland in the 1st Round in 1989..

Oh wait, actually the bulls miss the playoffs with mitch and are a NOTHING TEAM...

In 1989, the only help Mitch would have is 2nd year Pippen at 14 PPG.. Mitch simply registers a losing record with that team[/B] - his career high stats are literally half of Jordan's from any year, let alone 1989.. Not making the playoffs and having a losing record with Richmond would have meant permanent purgatory for the franchise.... idk, like the Kings or some shit...

But Jordan simply led that team to perhaps the greatest overachievement of all time in 1989, which propelled the team to greatness... i.e. Look how poorly Lebron's 2007 run compares to Jordan's 1989 run - no comparison (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=361889).

One thing new fans should know - in previous eras, teams stuck together and developed into great teams - the Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Bulls, Portland, and Jazz all stayed together for many years and developed into great teams through superior chemistry - the only team today that has stayed together like that is the Spurs... That's why you have less truly great teams today than their used to be - there are less teams who are good based on pure basketball and team chemistry - of course, pure basketball has a long history of beating talent.

All you guys saying Mitch could get even 1 ring with the Bulls have a slight mental retardation in understanding how this scenario would work.

[nnn123]

Did you really have to make a response to a thread that was fckin retarded to begin with? Really?

[24-Inch_Chrome]

There was already a thread that looked at this.

Why the **** would you start another thread instead of adding this as a reply?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

There was already a thread that looked at this.

Why the **** would you start another thread instead of adding this as a reply?

Massive attention whore/loser that has nothing better to do. Let him spam though; mods will probably delete this topic soon.

[3ball]

There was already a thread that looked at this.

Why the **** would you start another thread instead of adding this as a reply?
this thread asks a completely new question - how would prime mitch do on the Bulls in 1989?

completely different topic.

but i think this topic puts the other one in proper perspective.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

this thread asks a completely new question - how would prime mitch do on the Bulls in 1989?

completely different topic.

but i think this topic puts the other one in proper perspective.

It's 100% unnecessary, plus it's all a part of your Jordan stan agenda.

Whatever credibility you may have had is gone, all it's been of late is unnecessary spam threads.

[Ariza4three]

Bulls = 55-27 without MJ. Come hold this L

[3ball]

It's 100% unnecessary, plus it's all a part of your Jordan stan agenda.

Whatever credibility you may have had is gone, all it's been of late is unnecessary spam threads.


if threads are being made asking whether mitch could replace mj for 1991-1998, then why not 1989?

why does mitch only get to reap the spoils of a championship-level team and reduce them to the conference finals?

why shouldn't mitch have to hit "the shot" against Cleveland in critical 1989, and build his team up to get past the Bad Boys?

oh wait... i know... because he CAN'T come close to doing any of these things... the Bulls never make the playoffs in the 80's with Mitch...
.