Was there ANY point during any of the Bulls' 6 Finals series where..

'98 finals when Pippen had back issues. I think seeing the job Rodman did on Malone with Pippen sitting a lot or unable to perform 100% solidified Rodman's (well deserved) reputation as an all-time elite man defender.

Regarding 98', since it is being mentioned a lot, keep in mind Pippen got hurt late in the series. They had taken a 3-1 series lead before Pippen started having issues (Pippen had a legendary defensive series until his back problems). So any vulnerability based on Pippen's health was only after they already had a 3-1 lead (which meant the Bulls were 7-3 in the Finals against Utah at that point). What were the odds the Jazz would win 3 straight to take the series? I was not really worried after Game 4.

They were losing very late in game 6, game 7 would've been in Utah, not sure if Pippen could even play.

And then you-know-what happens.

Was super relieved after that, I think my neighbours heard me yelling like crazy when MJ hit the shot over Russell to ice it.

I couldn't believe it.

do people think the bulls beat the lakers with (older) kareem and healthy scott/worthy? just curious.

[QUOTE=mehyaM24]do people think the bulls beat the lakers with (older) kareem and healthy scott/worthy? just curious.[/QUOTE]

The additions of Perkins + Divac honestly made up for the player that Kareem was late in his career.

Lakers were a good team. Bulls just wrecked them.

Jordan wasn't 100% in the 91 Finals either.

Worthy played well in the first three games on the series ... Chicago was still up 2-1 and really IMO all the momentum was going their way by then.

1993 Ecf

92 and 93

The Bulls were def underdogs according to the media in some series. Some of the Knicks series, the Pacers, the Finals vs Lakers and Jazz, Orlando series, the Hornets (when Mj came back I believe).

As a fan i was weary of some teams that's for sure. There's been times during series in which I lost all hope.

But GOAT gonna GOAT.

[QUOTE=coolhandsteve]You thought/said to yourself, "IDK if they can pull this one off"? Or where the media said that?[/QUOTE]


They were down big (maybe 15) in the 4th against the Blazers in Game 6. Game 7 was in Portland. Jackson pulled Jordan out and looked like he was conceding the game.

Then the Bulls bench went on a run getting it down to maybe 5. Then Jordan came back in and finished off the comeback.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]The additions of Perkins + Divac honestly made up for the player that Kareem was late in his career.[/quote]

for 87 and 88 kareem? i dont think so. the lakers chemistry with cap was just TOO good. perkins was a big disappointment in LA imo, and divac, for the most part, always under-achieved with the lakeshow(NVE/Jones/Peeler/Campbell/Magic etc)

i believe the 88 and 89 lakers with healthy magic thrash chicago in 5-6 games. the bulls never played an offense like the lakers.

[QUOTE=tontoz]They were down big (maybe 15) in the 4th against the Blazers in Game 6. Game 7 was in Portland. Jackson pulled Jordan out and looked like he was conceding the game.

Then the Bulls bench went on a run getting it down to maybe 5. Then Jordan came back in and finished off the comeback.[/QUOTE]

game 7 was NOT in portland. idiot.

[QUOTE=mehyaM24]for 87 and 88 kareem? i dont think so. the lakers chemistry with cap was just TOO good. perkins was a big disappointment with LA imo, and divac, for the most part, always under-achieved with the lakeshow(NVE/Jones/Peeler/Campbell/Magic etc)

i believe the 88 and 89 lakers with healthy magic thrash chicago in 5-6 games. the bulls never played an offense like the lakers.[/QUOTE]

If the Pistons gave the Lakers problems, the Bulls who eventually became better than the Pistons would too.

Defence > offence in a 7 game playoff series, we've seen that over and over again.

Divac averaged 18.2 ppg/8 rpg and Perkins averaged 16.6 and 7 rpg in the 1991 Finals, by that time they more than replaced Kareem's production.

Perkins was great for LA in 91, not sure what you're talking about.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]If the Pistons gave the Lakers problems, the Bulls who eventually became better than the Lakers would too.

Defence > offence in a 7 game playoff series, we've seen that over and over again.

Divac averaged 18.2 ppg/8 rpg and Perkins averaged 16.6 and 7 rpg in the 1991 Finals, by that time they more than replaced Kareem's production.

Perkins was great for LA in 91, not sure what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]

its more than just stats. perkins also shot 40% in the finals, missing key looks from magic. vlade's defense was very poor and basically let BOTH jordan and pippen waltz in the lane AT WILL (also remember hearing a radio broadcast from stu lantz and chick hearn, via youtube, where they criticied vlade's defense saying he wasn't playing any).

unlike most people here, ive watched the series. neither of them could replace the chemistry and intangibles kareem provided.

4/5 of the games in the 91 finals were close. a healthy scott/worthy(missed each a game) and 88 - 89 kareem would be great.

[QUOTE=coolhandsteve]You thought/said to yourself, "IDK if they can pull this one off"?[/QUOTE]

- 1993 ECF, down 0 - 2 to the Knicks who were near undefeated @ home.

- 1997 NBA Finals game 5, Flu Game. Bleak road ahead.

- 1998 ECF, Bulls were looking old, and out of gas.

- 1998 NBA Finals, game 6 w/ Pippen all but done.

But, GOAT gonna stay GOATING

[QUOTE=Soundwave]They were losing very late in game 6, game 7 would've been in Utah, not sure if Pippen could even play.

And then you-know-what happens.

Was super relieved after that, I think my neighbours heard me yelling like crazy when MJ hit the shot over Russell to ice it.

I couldn't believe it.[/QUOTE]

All true but even then it was a close game. It wasn't as if they were down significantly in Game 6. What made it tough is Utah would have to win 3 straight. Even by Game 6, they would have had to hold onto a small lead and then win again in Game 7. That is always unlikely, although it was possible given the circumstances. I can see how some might have been worried, though, given those circumstances. I just felt the odds were in the Bulls favor due to needing only 1 win.

[QUOTE]do people think the bulls beat the lakers with (older) kareem and healthy scott/worthy? just curious.[/QUOTE]

Do you mean 1987-1989 KAJ or KAJ when he was old but still elite? If you mean post-elite KAJ I think the Bulls would still win. The Lakers were not great that year. The Blazers had the league's best record and were expected to make the Finals. They did so in the previous year and then started the following year 19-1. A lot of championship teams back then, and this is still true although to a lesser degree today (since teams can make progress more quickly via free agency versus having to do so gradually via the draft and small trades), had come close before finally winning. Portland and Chicago were two teams that fit that bill in 1991.

[QUOTE]They were down big (maybe 15) in the 4th against the Blazers in Game 6. Game 7 was in Portland. Jackson pulled Jordan out and looked like he was conceding the game. [/QUOTE]

Yeah it was 15--but Game 7 would have been in Chicago. Jackson was not conceding, though. He was doing what he usually did: pull one of Jordan or Pippen and leave the other in with the bench unit while the other rested. He kept MJ on the bench longer than usual because the unit was playing so well and he didn't want to interrupt it but it wasn't because he thought they were done.

[QUOTE]The Bulls were def underdogs according to the media in some series. Some of the Knicks series, the Pacers, the Finals vs Lakers and Jazz, Orlando series, the Hornets (when Mj came back I believe).
[/QUOTE]

:coleman:

The Bulls were the favorites in every Knicks series except 94', in which the Knicks were small favorites (in 93' the Knicks had HCA but they had won only 3 more games--60 versus 57--and lacked the championship pedigree the Bulls had and the Bulls were coming off sweeping the East's third best team, the 54 win Cavs, in the ECSF.), the Pacers series, the 96' Orlando series and the 95' Charlotte series. Even in 95' a lot of people thought the Bulls would beat the Magic. After all, the Bulls had closed the season 21-6 and were 13-4 with MJ. They were comparable to the Magic in terms of record for the final third of the season. Plus there was the "GOAT gonna GOAT" factor. The Bulls in the previous year with Horace Grant were one phantom foul call away from the ECF and, as most observers felt, the Finals. So you lose Grant but add the GOAT (MJ had 32/7/5 on 48% in the 95' playoffs--better numbers than in any of the subsequent 3 playoff runs) it was logical to assume the team would perform better in the playoffs. A lot of people made that assumption.

Their problem was they got demolished on the boards since they lacked a PF to rebound. If they played the Pacers in the ECSF they likely would have won. Orlando just matched up well with Chicago and had the personnel in Shaq and ironically Grant himself to badly expose the Bulls' lack of a rebounder or interior defender. This is why the Bulls were desperate enough to gamble on the then-toxic Rodman the following year.