[QUOTE=97 bulls]lol the bulls were never in danger of loosing to sonics. be serious.[/QUOTE]
I was pointing out that they didn't dominate them. Keep up.
Printable View
[QUOTE=97 bulls]lol the bulls were never in danger of loosing to sonics. be serious.[/QUOTE]
I was pointing out that they didn't dominate them. Keep up.
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]I was pointing out that they didn't dominate them. Keep up.[/QUOTE]
wow, its amazing how the bulls are held to such a standard. they win the finals 4-2 and loose a few games during the season but still win 72 and people still complain.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]wow, its amazing how the bulls are held to such a standard. they win the finals 4-2 and loose a few games during the season but still win 72 and people still complain.[/QUOTE]
You said that the Bulls "dominated" the Sonics in the Finals, I was only correcting you. Don't get so defensive.
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]I was pointing out that they didn't dominate them. Keep up.[/QUOTE]
i just checked, and the bulls beat the sonics by 17, 22, and 12 in 3 of the 4 games they won. they dominated the sonics. you need to stick to your "80s is best" rant.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]i just checked, and the bulls beat the sonics by 17, 22, and 12 in 3 of the 4 games they won. they dominated the sonics. you need to stick to your "80s is best" rant.[/QUOTE]
And you are just going to ignore the other 3 games? Ok.
1996 NBA Finals:
Bulls: 93 PPG
Sonics: 89.2 PPG
Bulls in 6 games won by an average of 3.8 PPG and the Sonics did get two victories by the way. I'm sorry but that doesn't qualify as "Dominated"
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]And you are just going to ignore the other 3 games? Ok.
1996 NBA Finals:
Bulls: 93 PPG
Sonics: 89.2 PPG
Bulls in 6 games won by an average of 3.8 PPG and the Sonics did get two victories by the way. I'm sorry but that doesn't qualify as "Dominated"[/QUOTE]
lol then you are probably the only person that feels that seattle wasnt dominated by chicago. and you dont factor wins like that. you cant factor in the 2 wins by seattle as wins for chicago. which is what your trying to do. now if the bulls won those four games by an average of 3 pts and seattle still won their 2 by 10 id agree. but thats not the case.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]lol then you are probably the only person that feels that seattle wasnt dominated by chicago. and you dont factor wins like that. you cant factor in the 2 wins by seattle as wins for chicago. which is what your trying to do. now if the bulls won those four games by an average of 3 pts and seattle still won their 2 by 10 id agree. but thats not the case.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I see. You're trying to ignore Seattle's two victories and focus on the Bulls four wins. ok.
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]Oh, I see. You're trying to ignore Seattle's two victories and focusing on the Bulls four wins. ok.[/QUOTE]
no im not. but you cant combine them mathematically. to be honest, that chicago seattle series was terrible. only 1 game was close and in the 2 seattle wins, it seemed like the bulls were really disinterested sometimes.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]no im not. but you cant combine them mathematically. to be honest, that chicago seattle series was terrible. only 1 game was close and in the 2 seattle wins,[B] it seemed like the bulls were really disinterested sometimes.[/B][/QUOTE]
Doesn't matter. Sonics won game four by 21 and game five by 11. Bulls won 3 games by blowouts. Sonics both victories were blowouts. And one game was pretty close in which the Bulls won. Put all these games together and it's not a "dominating" performance by the Bulls. So I don't understand why you say the Bulls dominated. I guess it's how one defines "dominance."
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]Doesn't matter. Sonics won game four by 21 and game five by 11. Bulls won 3 games by blowouts. Sonics both victories were blowouts. And one game was pretty close in which the Bulls won. Put all these games together and it's not a "dominating" performance by the Bulls. So I don't understand why you say the Bulls dominated. I guess it's how one defines "dominance."[/QUOTE]
i guess i look at it like this. the bulls doubled them in wins and i feel that after they won the first 3 games, they let up. some say it was because they wanted to win their championship in chicago. some say that seattle was never really competition for the bulls and chicago knew this. i agree with the later.
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]Oh, I see. You're trying to ignore Seattle's two victories and focus on the Bulls four wins. ok.[/QUOTE]
Bulls did dominate in the games they won, however the series as a whole wasn't total domination. That had a lot to do with how MJ played, he was terrible [i]from his standards[/i] in that series. His jumper wasn't falling and he was missing lay ups etc. I do give credit to Gary Payton for playing his heart out but MJ not having a good series had more to do with him not finding his touch than Payton's defense. Scottie, on the other hand, wasn't all that great either. He shot 35% from the field, but as he didn't find his shooting touch, his playmaking ability was there. Bulls never really performed the way they did against the Magic in the '96 ECF where they did DOMINATE. Won 4-0 and the series was never really a contest.
[QUOTE=AirJordan23]Bulls did dominate in the games they won, however the series as a whole wasn't total domination. That had a lot to do with how MJ played, he was terrible [i]from his standards[/i] in that series. His jumper wasn't falling and he was missing lay ups etc. I do give credit to Gary Payton for playing his heart out but MJ not having a good series had more to do with him not finding his touch than Payton's defense. Scottie, on the other hand, wasn't all that great either. He shot 35% from the field, but as he didn't find his shooting touch, his playmaking ability was there. Bulls never really performed the way they did against the Magic in the '96 ECF where they did DOMINATE. Won 4-0 and the series was never really a contest.[/QUOTE]
Thank You. That's all I was trying to point out.
Scottie Pippen thinks [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9SZyCkkqR0"]96 Bulls better than 92 Bulls [/URL]
[QUOTE=Da_Realist]Scottie Pippen thinks [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9SZyCkkqR0"]96 Bulls better than 92 Bulls [/URL][/QUOTE]
My sentiments exactly. Pippen was better, so was the bench, I think rodman was an upgrade from grant due to the toughness he brought. And kukoc was essentially a 20 ppg scorer off the bench. And I honestly feel jordan was better too. Maybe not the athlete he was earlier. But the skills and especially the team play was alot higher, as well as the fact that he was still arguably the best athlete in the game.
Bumping this thread. Really nice read.
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't MJ say the '93 Bulls were the best team out of the six championship teams?[/QUOTE]
You're right though this quote is from after they beat Seattle in 1996 so it doesn't include the next two championship teams.
[QUOTE]
Michael Jordan allowed that, of the teams he has played on, the third championship team was the best. But he said that "this team is the most amazing because I never played with Dennis (Rodman), I never played with (Luc) Longley and some of the others for a full year. For us to blend this sucessfully was truly amazing."
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-06-17/sports/9606170160_1_bulls-boston-celtics-teams-fame-coach-jack-ramsay[/url]
More on Jordan's perspective. This is also from 1996 but before they won the championship.
[QUOTE]No comparison: While many comparisons are being drawn between the old Lakers and the Bulls, Michael Jordan was asked to compare this year's version of the Bulls with the three championship sqauds. "It's a different-type team than the championship teams," he said. "The championship teams were very confident when they stepped out on the court. With this team, there's confidence there, but there's still some uncertainty.
[b]"When we won championships, it was with three teams that had been together for so long. Everyone knew certain roles that they could fulfill. But this team has always had to patch up holes, creating some uncertainty. That's the main difference."[/b][/QUOTE] [url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-04-17/sports/9604170251_1_bulls-center-luc-longley-lakers-nba-finals[/url]
Another really nice read on the matter.
[QUOTE] The Best Of The Bulls
December 13, 1995|By Sam Smith, Tribune Pro Basketball Writer.
.....
After all, the Bulls--at least the Bulls of 1991-93--are known championship teams, which is what this Bulls team is trying to become.
As good? Better? Not even in the arena?
Let the debate begin.
"Well," says Pippen, trying to be diplomatic, "we were more youthful then, younger legs."
No Bulls team, not even the best one--the one that won a championship in 1992 after a 67-win season--has started off as successfully as this one, although that one was close at 15-3.
The Bulls are 16-2 going into Wednesday's game with Orlando, while the 1991 and 1993 championship teams both were 12-6 at this point.
But that doesn't mean much, because the last 15 or 20 games, assuming the team makes the Finals, are the ones that count the most.
Can this team reach the Finals? On talent, the possibility seems there with Michael Jordan, Dennis Rodman and Pippen all being past All-Stars and perhaps first-team All-NBA players this season. But there are weaknesses, notably the players' unfamiliarity with one another, the loss of defensive guru John Bach, the uncertainty of how Jordan will perform in the playoffs after his play last season and the lack of a definitive rotation.
Because optimism about this Bulls team is so high, perhaps it's best to compare it to the best, the 1992 championship team that ripped through the regular season, stumbled briefly against the Knicks in the second round of the playoffs but then rallied for that inspiring Game 6 victory to reach the Finals against Portland.
It was a team that exhibited the best of Jordan, both as dominant force and as unselfish a teammate as he ever was, thus allowing both Horace Grant and Scottie Pippen to average more points that season than in any other they played with Jordan.
That team also had Bill Cartwright in his last relatively healthy season, B.J. Armstrong pushing hard for the starting job, with John Paxson still solid and with big front-line backups in Will Perdue, Scott Williams, Cliff Levingston and Stacey King.
"Those teams were bigger physically inside," said coach Phil Jackson. "Williams, King and Perdue could all play center and power forward, and Horace could also play small forward. Opposing teams couldn't match the power we could throw at them. That team got more out of its defense and the power of Michael to make individual plays."
Jordan still can make those plays, but not on as regular a basis.
"In his early years, when we first won the championships," noted Bulls assistant Tex Winter, "Michael had more interest in making the spectacular plays, the sensational drives to the basket, getting himself in uncompromising positions and bailing himself out, like a high trapeze artist.
"Now he's a little different. He's learned to conserve a lot of energy and settle for the outside shot, which has allowed him to develop a tremendous outside shot. We're posting him more as opposed to him taking people on the drive. But he's still got that same competitive spirit and desire to win and willingness to take the big plays on his shoulder in crucial times."
But Jordan still has to show, especially after the 1995 playoffs, he has the ability to finish big games like he used to in 1992. Pippen, meanwhile, has surpassed that level. Pippen had his first breakthrough year in 1992, averaging 21 points, 7.7 rebounds and 7.0 assists. But he's so much more confident and comfortable now that he's even more frightening.
"There's at least a standoff at shooting guard and small forward between then and now," said Paxson.
One of the principal differences will be on display Wednesday when Rodman plays against Grant. Even with Rodman, the Bulls still will have to figure out how to double-team Shaquille O'Neal and guard everyone else come playoff time.
Rodman probably neutralizes Grant, rebounding more and scoring less, but Rodman at 34 isn't the great one-on-one defender anymore, and Grant was pivotal in the Bulls' switching defensive patterns.
And without Bach, the defense naturally suffers. It's not unlike when Buddy Ryan left the Bears: The defensive statistics were similar, but the fire and aggressiveness were never there again.
Although Cartwright averaged about eight points in 1992, his presence inside was indisputable.
And, having Jordan chase point guards around remains a poor option, and Ron Harper doesn't complement Jordan's ability to draw double teams the way Paxson and Armstrong--and Craig Hodges--did with their outside and long-distance shooting.
There's more firepower off the bench (Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Bill Wennington) but lots of inexperience, too (Dickey Simpkins and Jason Caffey).
No, this Bulls team wouldn't beat the 1992 version. But no one else did, either. This team just has to be good enough to beat everyone else now, which is not as much of a test in an expansion era than it was four years ago.
[/QUOTE] [url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-12-13/sports/9512130192_1_bulls-scottie-pippen-playing[/url]
1st 3peat Jordan was better. 2nd 3peat TEAM was better.
These two articles are from a Chicago Tribune writer claiming the 1992 team was the best.
[QUOTE]
Best Bulls Team Ever? A Vote For The '92 Squad
June 30, 1996|By Melissa Isaacson.
Is it safe to come out yet? Safe to suggest what surely amounts to blasphemy in these parts? Two weeks would seem to be enough time and space between the greatest feat in the all-time history of the sports world and beyond, and a simple observation.
But then, only hate mail will tell.
Really, it's just a reminder that as the 1996 world champion Bulls are committed to the archives, it's worth another look back.
The images aren't quite grainy yet, although they do have a certain nostalgic quality, which is a little scary since we're still talking about this decade. Nevertheless, the "old" Bulls championship teams, already in danger of being forgotten, are not merely deserving of our attention but of a secure place in our memories as well.
Before John Paxson must spell his name for a restaurant reservation, let us never forget the greatest Bulls team ever, the one that won their second straight title in 1992.
The first championship had given those Bulls their arrogance, that veil of invincibility that every great team possesses. It also painted them for the first time as a target, and their veneer that season was every bit as tough as the '96 group, which intimidated many teams by their very presence.
Like the current team, the '92 Bulls seemingly secured each victory by halftime. There was a cohesion and fluidity we have not seen since.
In transition, there were no better, no more powerful closers in Bulls uniforms. And the originators of Johnny Bach's "Doberman Defense" were every bit as lethal as the quick-pick artists of today.
All of that, however, can be debated forever. The shame of it would be if, in the frenzy of enthusiasm over the current champs, the "old" ones were overlooked.
If in watching Michael Jordan today and appreciating the total team player he has become, we somehow forgot the bravado of that cocky 29-year-old, who took on every challenge as his own and always stood up to it.
Always remember the player who hit a record six first-half three-pointers in Game 1 of the NBA Finals, then shrugged as if to say even he did not know where it was coming from.
Remember a lean, strong and healthy Scottie Pippen, who could make his 26-year-old legs go wherever they wanted, when sprained ankles were his biggest concern and seemed a rather harmless one.
Remember Horace Grant as he was in his happiest days as a Bull, when accepting his role was carried out with a certain joy that showed in his all-out pursuits in the team's full-court press; when his few offensive opportunities, like a fast-break slam, were expressed in unbridled power.
Remember the stoicism of Bill Cartwright, the last Bull since Jordan to get away with staring down an official, who in that '92 season roamed the Stadium lanes like a jungle cat.
And Paxson, who threw his battered body around like no one since Jerry Sloan and who probably still owns the sweetest jumper going.
Those Bulls had a bench too easy to forget. But it was only for the scoring ability of B.J. Armstrong, the three-point punch of Craig Hodges, the grit of Scott Williams, the infectious enthusiasm of Cliff Levingston, the durability of Will Perdue and the hunger of Bobby Hansen, who ignited the title-clinching rally, that ensured a second straight championship.
It's too easy to forget the magic of a building leveled for a parking lot. Opponents hated the dank, tiny dressing room, complained about the cold showers and rodents, and feared what the place represented in those years.
The '96 Bulls tried halfheartedly to re-create the scoring-table line dance of '92, the spontaneous on-court party that erupted when the team was beckoned back to the floor long after they had left. But you can't go back. You can only remember.
And it would be a shame if we didn't.
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-06-30/sports/9606300157_1_bulls-scottie-pippen-jungle-cat[/url]
[QUOTE] Fans Affixing Best-ever Label To Wrong Bulls
January 14, 1996|By Melissa Isaacson.
Time always has a funny way of altering our perceptions. The good times were great, the not-so-good times awful. That brief walk to school was a 5-mile hike and our favorite sports teams become the greatest of all time.
But somehow that cycle has been reversed with the current Bulls.
Forget the championship teams of the past, even the 1991-92 team, a nucleus of athletes in the prime of splendid careers dominating a league that wanted nothing more each night than to put them in their place.
No, this team, right now, picking its way past the refuse of the present NBA with no clear challenge in sight except the standings, which shows only the Orlando Magic sticking close, has to be the greatest NBA team ever. Look at the record, after all. So what if they have yet to reach even the halfway point of the season?
Can they win 70 games? Forget 70; can they win 79? It's conceivable, you know.
The screwy part is that maybe they will. You look at the schedule and see too many Raptors and Grizzlies and Sixers and Bucks. Too many teams struggling to stay at .500 and happy to be there. But compare these Bulls to the '91-92 edition, indeed one of the greatest NBA teams and surely the greatest Bulls team of all time.
It is as much an insult to that team as it is inaccurate to even try.
"We had more balance and bigger bodies in the post," said Bulls coach Phil Jackson of his second championship team.
Much like this year's team, that team had a tendency, especially early in the season as it was finding its identity and was without Bill Cartwright and John Paxson because of injuries, to toy with opponents. But more often than not, victories were a foregone conclusion by halftime, 18-2 starts a common occurrence. Defense was more pressure-oriented and more intimidating, and as a result, led to many more easy baskets.
Paxson was a tireless and much underrated one-on-one defender, not as quick to make steals but every bit the defensive presence Ron Harper is, and an obviously better shooter.
Few big men were ever asked to do more defensively or covered the court more effectively than Horace Grant, and Cartwright was ever the immovable force in the lane if somehow the press was broken. By comparison, Dennis Rodman, though a tremendous defender in his prime and surely still capable, seems more willing to wander now, intent to secure rebounding position. And Luc Longley, who will never get the benefit of the doubt from officials the way Cartwright did, can't afford to knock anyone down, even if so inclined.[/QUOTE] [url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-01-14/sports/9601140124_1_bulls-coach-phil-jackson-randy-brown-defense[/url]
Jordan compares the 1993 team to the 1998 team and again mentions how the earlier team spent more time together making it more reliable.
[QUOTE]Facing the Jazz again this season, the Bulls see similarities to their matchup against the Suns. They are shooting for a third straight championship, they are without home-court advantage and they are facing a talented opponent. There are contrasts, too.
"The '93 team was totally different. We had a team together seven or eight years," Jordan said.
"We went basically from bottom and got to the top. This team is built on three specialties (Jordan, Pippen and Rodman) and everyone else complements that. We haven't been together as long but yet we've had this much success," he said.
"This is different. The reliability is not quite the same, although it's good now. You can't compare it to the '93 team." [/QUOTE]
[url]http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1998/06/04/oth_230175.shtml[/url]
Great finds, NugzHeat :applause:
I used to think the 92 team was the best, but the 2nd threepeat teams were deeper and seemed to execute better. Jordan was better in the 1st threepeat(thought not THAT much better than the 96 version) but Pippen was better in the 2nd threepeat.
The first 3 peat ahd to go through tougher competition; '91 Lakers, Bad Boy Pistons, '93 Suns, Knicks, etc. The league was watered down by the time of the 2nd 3-peat. But the team [I]was[/I] more complete.
Jordan himself said the first three-peat Bulls were better than the second three-peat Bulls. People saying otherwise are trying to revise history. I watched basketball as it was happening, and I know what was being said.
[QUOTE=BIZARRO]:no: To say the '97 Bulls would beat the '91 Bulls is a HUUUUGGEE stretch IMO. We'll never know, but I would take the '91 team all the way.
[B]It must be remembered just how hungry the '91 team was. They were killers, and in addition '91 MJ would just hound and maul '97 MJ.
[/B]
Once again, we'll never know, but I would have no problem with people putting the '91 team first overall. But definitely ahead of '97 IMO.[/QUOTE]
This is an interesting thread, but just like Real Life, it's gonna come down to the officiating. If the Refs just let these guys PLAY, then 91 Bulls got this easy. 91 MJ makes 97 MJ look like he's moving in slow motion. But if the Refs start giving the 97 Bulls "Veteran Calls" during the game, then I could see 97 Bulls winning a couple of games.
[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Jordan himself said the first three-peat Bulls were better than the second three-peat Bulls. People saying otherwise are trying to revise history. I watched basketball as it was happening, and I know what was being said.[/QUOTE]
Scottie Pippen said the second threepeat was better. I honestly dont see what the first threepeat Bulls did that would imply that they were better than the second.
[QUOTE=Nevaeh]This is an interesting thread, but just like Real Life, it's gonna come down to the officiating. If the Refs just let these guys PLAY, then 91 Bulls got this easy. 91 MJ makes 97 MJ look like he's moving in slow motion. But if the Refs start giving the 97 Bulls "Veteran Calls" during the game, then I could see 97 Bulls winning a couple of games.[/QUOTE]
How do you figure? Jordan in an interview stated that he was 5% off from his prime in 97. But he was definately stronger than he was in his first threepeat. Combine that with the fact that Pippen was better, and the second threepeat team had a much better bench and defense, i dont see how the first threepeat Bulls beat the second
[QUOTE=Nevaeh]This is an interesting thread, but just like Real Life, it's gonna come down to the officiating. If the Refs just let these guys PLAY, then 91 Bulls got this easy. [B]91 MJ makes 97 MJ look like he's moving in slow motion.[/B] But if the Refs start giving the 97 Bulls "Veteran Calls" during the game, then I could see 97 Bulls winning a couple of games.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. '91 Jordan was so freakishly quick both with and without the ball, all the while looking like he isn't even trying.
Speaking of making it look easy, do ya'll emember the one handed, double pump runners off one leg? :oldlol: He never really did those during the 2nd threepeat.
the second three peat cuz it had steve kerr
[IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gboldrlkU_o/TQ2nvTaVFBI/AAAAAAAAAB8/6jj48YB1ob8/s1600/stevekerr.jpg[/IMG]
I think the 1991 team was really good and the most underrated of the bunch. I know there's no way to really quantify this but I don't think there was any team ever hungrier than that bunch even though it needs to be said you don't win three straight on two separate occasions without showing any hunger and just half assing it.
That team really took off post All-Star break because beating Detroit a game before the break lifted the monkey off their back and gave them a lot of confidence. Phil said that was really the turning point of the season for them since they hadn't won @ Detroit before. Pippen and Grant probably benefited the most. After the All-Star break, their record was 44-9 (playoffs included). I would also imagine they became more accustomed to the triangle since it takes awhile to learn such an intricate offense and properly get used to it.
For my money, that's the best Jordan ever played though I'm not as familiar with his 1990 self which quite a few people think was his peak. His game is as complete as really anyone you can imagine and far more dominant than any other perimeter player I've seen. His athleticism in regards to explosion, quickness and speed is there, he wasn't ball dominant at all this year, did a great job moving without the ball, scoring within the flow of the offense and had mastered the approach of knowing when to take over and step into that 6th gear when really needed to. Defensively, he was again excellent both in regards to man and team defense. Pippen and Grant had really matured too and made improvements all around. Together, all three made the Bulls full court press deadly and they got a good bit of offense as a result of forcing turnovers with their traps, jumping into passing lanes, pressuring ball handlers forcing them to questionable decisions and that could also result in teams having less time to get into their offensive set which would force them to scramble and get a tougher, lower % shot up. I remember they really used the press against Detroit and had a lot of success. They also made it tough for LA with their defense in the half-court with excellent rotations off double teams since they doubled LA quite a bit in the post where they had an edge due to size.
They also got contributions from the others with Paxson really relieving the pressure off the double and triple teams on Jordan like game 5 in the finals, Armstrong would pick up the slack with Paxson on the bench, Cartwright would serve as a big post presence and this is probably his best year in the first three peat.
They totally stomped through everyone in the playoffs and the two games they lost were on two GW threes by Hersey Hawkins and Sam Perkins. Larry Bird said they were the best team he had ever seen. They deserve more respect than they get. I've seen them ranked as the worst of the 6 and I can't agree with that.
[QUOTE=Da_Realist]Great finds, NugzHeat :applause:[/QUOTE]
Da Realist, which team do you believe to be better defensively? I know you explained it earlier in this thread but you didn't really go in detail although I think you prefer the first three peat team due to better athleticism allowing them to do more.
I think the first three peat team has an edge with Jordan being a better defender more stamina, more athleticism to cover ground quicker helping him rotate and recover and he also had the ability to cover PGs that were really bothering Paxson and BJ like Mark Price in the 1992 ECF or switching over KJ in the finals. Although, he did do a fine job on Strickland in 1997.
Grant is better than Rodman in regards to how vital he was to their pressure defense often double teaming, trapping well forcing a deflection or a steal and recovering on time. I would also say he was the much more consistent defender overall. I must say this though, since this thread is about these two going head to head, Rodman would utterly outclass Grant like he did in the first game of the 1996 ECF. Totally beating him on the boards, to the spots and making him a non factor.
Second three peat has an edge on the perimeter since Ron Harper is a major upgrade over Pax and BJ. He also gives them the option of shuffling match ups at no expense like they did in the 1996 and 1998 ECF. I also think second three peat is also better at guarding Cs due to Rodman's presence who would switch on to the Cs. I was very impressed by his job on Shaq denying him good position by forcing him away from the basket. Very strong legs and low center of gravity. He also bothered Zo quite a bit getting into his head mentally. I don't think they have this option in the first three peat. I do think Cartwright is more effective than either Longley or Wennington though.
I also think their pressure defense might've been as good despite not being as athletic and being older due to Harper and Randy Brown's presence. Harper's size was definitely a factor and Brown could make an impact off the bench as he was really good at pressuring the ball. This is just an example but it's recent since I watched the entire Orlando vs Chicago 1996 series recently and their press in the second half of game 2 is really impressive and effective and helps them disrupt Orlando's offense and get back into the game (reversed an 18 pt lead I think). [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaslgUIErC0&feature=plcp[/url]
Another edge for the first three peat team is that they did have John Bach who was a great defensive assistant coach.
:confusedshrug:
Ok so in youre opinion NugzHeat, pit the 91 Bulls vs the 97 Bulls. Who has the edge?
As far as im concerned, the 97 version is just better. There always gonna be a special place in my heart for the 91 Bulls. Similar to your first love. But thats due to that emotional attachment. They answered every question. How theyd do vs bigs, they could win ugly, with offense, defense, size, go small, run, offense in the halfcourt, full court press, they just had no weakness. They even had a scoring big in the post in Brian Williams.
They proved in 94 that they could still be competitive without Jordan when thy won 55 games before the expansion of 96 which people love to try to the second threepeat teams played in a weak era due to expansion, they proved in 98 that they could be a top team without Pippen.
But mainly its their bench. Kukoc, Kerr, Williams, and Caffey would be the equal to Bargnani, Korver, Nene, and Bass today as far as talent and status in the league.
I never liked the 1st threepeat Bulls bench. I hated stacy king. Perdue, S. Williams, and levingston were nothing more than journeymen bench players. They contributed obviously, but they proved throughout their career that they were never anything more than bench players. Kukoc and Williams were very good borderline all star typer players. And at worst starter caliber players. Comming off the bench.
Regardless of what you guys feel about the differences between the threepeat Jordans, the change wasnt that big enough to use that as an indicator.
The second threepeat team was much better.
[QUOTE=NugzHeat3]Da Realist, which team do you believe to be better defensively? I know you explained it earlier in this thread but you didn't really go in detail although I think you prefer the first three peat team due to better athleticism allowing them to do more.
I think the first three peat team has an edge with Jordan being a better defender more stamina, more athleticism to cover ground quicker helping him rotate and recover and he also had the ability to cover PGs that were really bothering Paxson and BJ like Mark Price in the 1992 ECF or switching over KJ in the finals. Although, he did do a fine job on Strickland in 1997.
Grant is better than Rodman in regards to how vital he was to their pressure defense often double teaming, trapping well forcing a deflection or a steal and recovering on time. I would also say he was the much more consistent defender overall. I must say this though, since this thread is about these two going head to head, Rodman would utterly outclass Grant like he did in the first game of the 1996 ECF. Totally beating him on the boards, to the spots and making him a non factor.
Second three peat has an edge on the perimeter since Ron Harper is a major upgrade over Pax and BJ. He also gives them the option of shuffling match ups at no expense like they did in the 1996 and 1998 ECF. I also think second three peat is also better at guarding Cs due to Rodman's presence who would switch on to the Cs. I was very impressed by his job on Shaq denying him good position by forcing him away from the basket. Very strong legs and low center of gravity. He also bothered Zo quite a bit getting into his head mentally. I don't think they have this option in the first three peat. I do think Cartwright is more effective than either Longley or Wennington though.
I also think their pressure defense might've been as good despite not being as athletic and being older due to Harper and Randy Brown's presence. Harper's size was definitely a factor and Brown could make an impact off the bench as he was really good at pressuring the ball. This is just an example but it's recent since I watched the entire Orlando vs Chicago 1996 series recently and their press in the second half of game 2 is really impressive and effective and helps them disrupt Orlando's offense and get back into the game (reversed an 18 pt lead I think). [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaslgUIErC0&feature=plcp[/url]
Another edge for the first three peat team is that they did have John Bach who was a great defensive assistant coach.
:confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]
I don't think I can definitively say which version was best defensively. They both have advantages in different areas that you just explained in beautiful detail. I'm not sure they lost much when Johnny Bach left...at least it didn't manifest itself on the court. Not to say he wasn't instrumental -- he helped create the defensive culture, but that culture was largely self-sustaining by the time he left.
I do think the early 90's team gets underrated. The numbers don't favor them vis-
[QUOTE=NugzHeat3]Bumping this thread. Really nice read.
You're right though this quote is from after they beat Seattle in 1996 so it doesn't include the next two championship teams.
[url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-06-17/sports/9606170160_1_bulls-boston-celtics-teams-fame-coach-jack-ramsay[/url]
More on Jordan's perspective. This is also from 1996 but before they won the championship.
[url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-04-17/sports/9604170251_1_bulls-center-luc-longley-lakers-nba-finals[/url]
Another really nice read on the matter.
[url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-12-13/sports/9512130192_1_bulls-scottie-pippen-playing[/url][/QUOTE]
yeah, didn't the 1996 bulls answer all these questions by winning 72 games & the championship??
BJ Armstrong was a two way player? Wha? BJ Armstrong was a HORRIBLE DEFENSIVE PLAYER.
I[QUOTE=Smoke117]BJ Armstrong was a two way player? Wha? BJ Armstrong was a HORRIBLE DEFENSIVE PLAYER.[/QUOTE]
I emphatically agree. Armstrong was at best an ok defender, and couldn't create his own shot. He also said paxson could take it to the hole. I like DaRealist but he really butchered that post by overrating the first threepeat Bulls bench.
interesting thread, I'll have to read through this
fwiw though I have the 92, 96, 97 squads in my top 10 teams all-time
[QUOTE=Da_Realist]I don't think I can definitively say which version was best defensively. They both have advantages in different areas that you just explained in beautiful detail. I'm not sure they lost much when Johnny Bach left...at least it didn't manifest itself on the court. Not to say he wasn't instrumental -- he helped create the defensive culture, but that culture was largely self-sustaining by the time he left.
I do think the early 90's team gets underrated. The numbers don't favor them vis-
The first 3 peat Bulls bench was deeper, but the second 3 peat bench was more top heavy with Kukoc.
And lets not forget Kukoc always seemed to underperformed in the postseason. My rankings...
1. 96
2. 92
3. 97
4. 93/91
5. 91/93
6. 98
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]The first 3 peat Bulls bench was deeper, but the second 3 peat bench was more top heavy with Kukoc.
And lets not forget Kukoc always seemed to underperformed in the postseason. My rankings...
1. 96
2. 92
3. 97
4. 93/91
5. 91/93
6. 98[/QUOTE]
How are the first threepeat team deeper? Caffey, Kerr, Brown, and Wennington are on par with Levingston, King, Perdue, and Paxson. And that's not including Kukoc and Williams.
This would create a paradox because Michael Jordan can not lose in the Finals.
2nd Three peat had Dennis Rodman, but 1st three peat had an even bigger beast of MJ. Discounting MJ, Id go with the 2nd team.
Comparing the whole threepeat feels weird to me, but 96 was very clearly the best team to me for a couple reasons.
The first and most apparent being Dennis Rodman was a huge upgrade over Grant. I've heard some others argue otherwise, but I don't know how you make that case. First off all, Rodman was by far the best rebounder in the league and quite clearly the best rebounder ever, one of the 5 best defenders ever (though he wasn't quite that good at that point), and a fantastic passer. Rodman basically gave everyone else on the team the ability to make rebounding a secondary priority and look to make an impact on the game elsewhere, which strengthened the team as a whole
The second is that Pippen was at his peak in 96, and 97, which really did make a large difference. He was a smarter, and more fundamentally sound player while having what seemed to me like a better mentality.
Secondly, the depth on the 96 team was great. Toni Kukoc, who was basically an all star was coming off the bench, Steve Kerr was probably the best spotup shooter ever and Ron Harper was a fantastic do it all sort of guard, who also played very good defense and often times took on Jordan's matchup so that he could save some energy for offense.
Really the only spot that the 1st threepeat beats the 2nd is Jordan, and really Jordan is what made those first threepeat teams champions. They weren't extremely stacked by any stretch of the imagination, as it was really Jordan, Pippen a good (though not [I]that[/I] good) PF in Grant, and some alright role players. Jordan had to average around 35 ppg in the first threepeat for the teams to make it out with a championship, and then play at an all time elite level for his position at every other aspect of the game. He was not even capable of doing that by 96, but they were still a clearly more dominant team.
[QUOTE=magnax1]Comparing the whole threepeat feels weird to me, but 96 was very clearly the best team to me for a couple reasons.
The first and most apparent being Dennis Rodman was a huge upgrade over Grant. I've heard some others argue otherwise, but I don't know how you make that case. First off all, Rodman was by far the best rebounder in the league and quite clearly the best rebounder ever, one of the 5 best defenders ever (though he wasn't quite that good at that point), and a fantastic passer. Rodman basically gave everyone else on the team the ability to make rebounding a secondary priority and look to make an impact on the game elsewhere, which strengthened the team as a whole
The second is that Pippen was at his peak in 96, and 97, which really did make a large difference. He was a smarter, and more fundamentally sound player while having what seemed to me like a better mentality.
Secondly, the depth on the 96 team was great. Toni Kukoc, who was basically an all star was coming off the bench, Steve Kerr was probably the best spotup shooter ever and Ron Harper was a fantastic do it all sort of guard, who also played very good defense and often times took on Jordan's matchup so that he could save some energy for offense.
[B]Really, the only spot that the 1st threepeat beats the 2nd is Jordan,[/B] and really Jordan is what made those first threepeat teams champions. They weren't extremely stacked by any stretch of the imagination, as it was really Jordan, Pippen a good (though not [I]that[/I] good) PF in Grant, and some alright role players. Jordan had to average around 35 ppg in the first threepeat for the teams to make it out with a championship, and then play at an all time elite level for his position at every other aspect of the game. He was not even capable of doing that by 96, but they were still a clearly more dominant team.[/QUOTE]
This is why people pick the first threepeat.
I honestly would chose 2nd threepeat jordan over the first for this reason. In an interview posted in this thread with john Bach, he said Jordan was used in the post more, and he was more cerebral. He didn't feel the need to be flashy anymore. He knew how to conserve energy, and he was part of the team. And they all complimented each other so well.
Especially the energy/stamina aspect of Jordans game. Make no mistaake, Jordan ran out of gas during the 1st threepeat too. He was clearly tired in game 6 vs Portland. And he said he ran out of gas in 93 vs the Suns in game 5.
Id trade a little athhleticism for wits anyday
[QUOTE=97 bulls]This is why people pick the first threepeat.
[B]I honestly would chose 2nd threepeat jordan over the first[/B] for this reason. In an interview posted in this thread with john Bach, he said Jordan was used in the post more, and he was more cerebral. He didn't feel the need to be flashy anymore. He knew how to conserve energy, and he was part of the team. And they all complimented each other so well.
Especially the energy/stamina aspect of Jordans game. Make no mistaake, Jordan ran out of gas during the 1st threepeat too. He was clearly tired in game 6 vs Portland. And he said he ran out of gas in 93 vs the Suns in game 5.
Id trade a little athhleticism for wits anyday[/QUOTE]
:biggums: