There is one reason why Michael Jordan is the greatest of all-time

[QUOTE=alexandreben]No one is never failed to deliver, growing up with ESPN will get you that thought... don't forget MJ failed in 1995, the Bulls was killed by Magic; even Russell lost twice, one to Bob Petit and the other one to Wilt, don't you forget that dude, MJ is not God and certainly he is not the greatest player of all time, he definitely is in the discusion of the GOAT joining Wilt, Russell and KAJ.[/QUOTE]

Captain obvious here. Obviously we all know that MJ did not win a championship until his 7th year in the league. And that in his first year back from retirement they lost once (Orlando). But that was not the true MJ. He was rusty and severely lacking in pieces. What is implicit within my post is that MJ [B][I]never[/I][/B] failed [B]WHEN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO WIN IT ALL.[/B]

When MJ had a few pieces.... when everyone picked MJ's team as having a good shot at winning it all - they won it all.

The guy never once failed to deliver [I]when expected to win. [/I]

...

[QUOTE=Collie]To be fair, Cartwright and Bison Dele, even Luc to some extent, were pretty [B]serviceable[/B].[/QUOTE]

What does that even mean?!? Sounds like you're a Sociology major.

[QUOTE=AK47DR91]I would say 70% of the Bulls success was because of Jordan. Th other 30% goes to Pippen, supporting cast and coaching staff.

You'll think that Pippen, Phil and the supporting cast would have been beaten Ewing, Barkley, Malone, Stockton, etc without Jordan?

In fact, I believe the Knicks took out the Bulls in '94 when MJ was playing minor league baseball..[/QUOTE]

SMH at this. Without Mr. "70%" the shift between the Knicks-Bulls in 94' versus 93' was a play or two here and there. Google Hue Hollins...Plus, since MJ retired at the last possible minute the Bulls had to replace him with a D-League scrub who was out the NBA for the previous 2 seasons. Imagine that team with a legit NBA starter; hell even a legit NBA 7th man at SG!

[QUOTE]The amount of Jordan hyperbolizing on this board has gotten out of hand. [/QUOTE]

He is now to basketball fans what Reagan is to conservative Republicans: not a historical figure like he should be but a demigod with a panpoly of myths surrounding him. Even things Jordan/Reagan did are things "X would never do" (i.e. amnesty for illegals in 86', having 5 losing seasons); things they did not do are things they "did" (compromise, win with scrubs, etc.).

[QUOTE]With exception to Pippen, Rodman and Kukoc the rest of Jordan's teammates were scrubs.[/QUOTE]

And? The same could be said about any elite team from the 90's. MJ's team was 2 games from the 1 seed without him and 51-21 when Pippen played (#2 in the league behind Seattle!). Enough said.

I don't see how Kobe is relevant to this thread but, while Kobe has no top 20 of all-time teammate like Jordan did, Kobe's team as a whole is more stacked than Jordan's. He has no Pippen but more options overall. Plus, his current team is more stacked relative to the L than Jordan's best teams.

Regarding MJ never having an elite center, and? You don't need that when you have the two best perimeter players of the era on the same team!

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]SMH at this. Without Mr. "70%" the shift between the Knicks-Bulls in 94' versus 93' was a play or two here and there. Google Hue Hollins...Plus, since MJ retired at the last possible minute the Bulls had to replace him with a D-League scrub who was out the NBA for the previous 2 seasons. Imagine that team with a legit NBA starter; hell even a legit NBA 7th man at SG!



He is now to basketball fans what Reagan is to conservative Republicans: not a historical figure like he should be but a demigod with a panpoly of myths surrounding him. Even things Jordan/Reagan did are things "X would never do" (i.e. amnesty for illegals in 86', having 5 losing seasons); things they did not do are things they "did" (compromise, win with scrubs, etc.).



And? The same could be said about any elite team from the 90's. MJ's team was 2 games from the 1 seed without him and 51-21 when Pippen played (#2 in the league behind Seattle!). Enough said.[/QUOTE]


Irrelevant. That 94 team had already added both Kerr and Kukoc, and the 93 team had coasted a bit during the regular season after the Olympics for both Pippen and Jordan.

Put Jordan on that 94 team coming off a championship, with Grant, Pippe, And ADDING Kerr and Kukoc, and we are talking 70 wins or so.

[QUOTE=Soothsayer]Irrelevant. That 94 team had already added both Kerr and Kukoc, and the 93 team had coasted a bit during the regular season after the Olympics for both Pippen and Jordan.[/QUOTE]

That is irrelevant. 55 wins. Even if we accept that with Jordan they would win 70 the fact is they remained an elite team without him. How can this be? They were scrubs, right? :roll:

Kerr averaged something like 3 points a game against the Knicks and was Orlando's 12th man the previous year. Kukoc played only 18 minutes a game and put up 9/4/3 in the playoffs. Is the argument that adding these players equals Mr. "70%"? That is strange...

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]That is irrelevant. 55 wins. Even if we accept that with Jordan they would win 70 the fact is they remained an elite team without him. How can this be? They were scrubs, right? :roll:

Kerr averaged something like 3 points a game against the Knicks and was Orlando's 12th man the previous year. Kukoc played only 18 minutes a game in the playoffs. Is the argument that adding these players equals Mr. "70%"? That is strange...[/QUOTE]


No, it's not irrelevant at all. 92, before the olympics, same team won 67, pretty much maxed out. 93 team coasted through the regular season. Added Kerr (GOAT 3PT shooter whom Jordan set up many a time), and Kukoc (soft, but very versatile), and both players thrived in the bulls system with Jordan.

If MJ never retired, no Pete Myers, but they keep grant, pippen, and add Kerr and Kukoc, you are looking at 70+ wins and another ring. Easy.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]That is irrelevant. 55 wins. Even if we accept that with Jordan they would win 70 the fact is they remained an elite team without him. How can this be? They were scrubs, right? :roll:

Kerr averaged something like 3 points a game against the Knicks and was Orlando's 12th man the previous year. Kukoc played only 18 minutes a game and put up 9/4/3 in the playoffs. Is the argument that adding these players equals Mr. "70%"? That is strange...[/QUOTE]

Scrubs? I never said that. They were a championship team with good pieces and players who knew their roles to perfection. They were a 2nd round team with a very talented, but questionable leader in Pippen

[QUOTE=Dbrog]SMH :hammerhead:

Yes, his team was filled with people who should be 3rd string or in the D-League. The amount of Jordan hyperbolizing on this board has gotten out of hand. Pippen + kukoc < Pau + Bynum? :no: :banghead:[/QUOTE]


thing is people reinvent pippens greatness like crazy. its so retarded to me, and kukoc's legacy is crazy overrated also.

back then pippen was not considered a top 5-10 player, only after the fact does he get on these all time top 50 lists with a bunch of idiots reinventing the 80's. Pau would be equivalent to a Karl Malone back then, considering Pau is a top 3 PF iin this league today. Bynum could easily be a top 3 Center in the league today also. Pippen was barely arguably in the top 5, and only the D whores put him on that lvl, but he just wasn't one of those top players until the year where MJ was hurt and he started to carry them but that happened sort of late, and definitely not throughout his career. kukoc was just a good player, never a superstar, and its just dumb how twisted their greatness has been exaggerated in hindsight.

its a joke to me people try to downplay MJ while hyping Pippen/Kukoc. i swear only the biggest retards will do that, because if you actually watched bball back then and have a half decent memory of it, MJ was on a completely different lvl than everyone else. Pippen wasn't close to Magic, bird, or MJ lvls, and he wasn't even on the tier right below them, altho i'm not saying he wasn't really good in his own right. just not the all time great superstar a lot of idiots and D whores have reinvented him in hindsight :rolleyes:

i mean players like malone, payton, duncan, the admiral, etc. were all easily better than pippen. so yeah relatively speaking kobe has a way better supporting cast than MJ did. MJ just made everyone around him better, and once they became that triangle machine the PJ's system carried them a lot too. but player for player superstar talent wasn't there for MJ like it is for Kobe today period.

[QUOTE=RazorBaLade]Kobe never had someone who can take over a game by himself like Jordan did when he wasn't playing great. Kobe knows that its all on him, we saw what happens when Pau is trusted to make a clutch play (not counting the putback layup, but I mean if he even choked that..) Good bigs are great to have but having someone that can create his own offense is greater. I mean Pippen would be top 50 on the list of the biggest hater of all time, gasol at this point is not top 50 on the list of biggest laker fan.[/QUOTE]


you're an idiot. for the affect Pau has had since joining the lakers, and the amount of easy baskets and rebs they really shouldn't be getting if they didn't have Pau or even Bynum(let alone odom), saying what you just said is completely retarded.

and its not like there is room for other chuckers on that team with kobe there :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=RazorBaLade]Jordan and Shaq would have collapsed before 3 years. Kobe on Bulls have a better chance at 6 rings than Jordan and Shaq have at 3. Jordans ego is bigger than Kobe's. Shaq started flipping out when Kobe was being praised as the NEXT michael jordan, can you imagine how he'd be if announcers were telling him he's the 2nd option? And prime jordan WOULD want to be the 1st option.[/QUOTE]

please stfu. you have no clue wtf you're talking about.

[QUOTE=R.I.P.]Haha Jordan and Shaq could have been hilarious. The insane worker Jordan with fatty Shaq.

Jordan: It

[QUOTE=guy]Although I don't think Lebron is completely to blame, LOL @ everyone that prematurely tried to say Lebron was better then Jordan was through this stage of their careers.[/QUOTE]


lebron is a better physical specimen but athletically they're very arguable. MJ just had the will of fire. OP's right, its what separates him from almost everyone else, even the old timers that people pretend are GOAT.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]SMH at this. Without Mr. "70%" the shift between the Knicks-Bulls in 94' versus 93' was a play or two here and there. Google Hue Hollins...Plus, since MJ retired at the last possible minute the Bulls had to replace him with a D-League scrub who was out the NBA for the previous 2 seasons. Imagine that team with a legit NBA starter; hell even a legit NBA 7th man at SG!



He is now to basketball fans what Reagan is to conservative Republicans: not a historical figure like he should be but a demigod with a panpoly of myths surrounding him. Even things Jordan/Reagan did are things "X would never do" (i.e. amnesty for illegals in 86', having 5 losing seasons); things they did not do are things they "did" (compromise, win with scrubs, etc.).



And? The same could be said about any elite team from the 90's. MJ's team was 2 games from the 1 seed without him and 51-21 when Pippen played (#2 in the league behind Seattle!). Enough said.

I don't see how Kobe is relevant to this thread but, while Kobe has no top 20 of all-time teammate like Jordan did, Kobe's team as a whole is more stacked than Jordan's. He has no Pippen but more options overall. Plus, his current team is more stacked relative to the L than Jordan's best teams.

Regarding MJ never having an elite center, and? You don't need that when you have the two best perimeter players of the era on the same team![/QUOTE]


hope you're not saying pippen was the 2nd best perimeter player of the 80's?

[QUOTE=TheTruth11][SIZE="4"]His mind. [/SIZE]

His mind which lead to relentless determination and will to win. Heart! He had it.... and you can't teach it.

Lebron will go down as one of the greatest of all time. But thus far, I have not seen this quality from him. Put MJ on the Cavs and they win that series. Or atleast take the Celts to a game 7.

Kobe is close but Kobe failed to show up a few times as well when they should have won it all. MJ never failed to deliver. The most fierce and ferocious competitor the game has ever known with the possible exception of one Bill Russell.[/QUOTE]

Actually, he abandoned his team to go play baseball.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]That is irrelevant. 55 wins. Even if we accept that with Jordan they would win 70 the fact is they remained an elite team without him. How can this be? They were scrubs, right? :roll:

Kerr averaged something like 3 points a game against the Knicks and was Orlando's 12th man the previous year. Kukoc played only 18 minutes a game and put up 9/4/3 in the playoffs. Is the argument that adding these players equals Mr. "70%"? That is strange...[/QUOTE]


it was because they had that swagger with MJ leading them, and knew the triangle. they were a GREAT team. but you put ANY of them on any other team as individuals and their stock would plummet.

talking more the kerr's, paxson's, longley's, wenningtons, etc. even horace is pretty overrated since he was just an above average role player. not star at all. only in hindsight and D whores as usual love to reinvent the past. they'll probably do it with Artest 10 years from now too putting him on the 50 greatest of alltime. bet.

I would have loved to see this forum after Jordan got SWEPT by the Celtics, TWICE.


"Michael Jordan is a mental midget, he'll never be a champion!!!"

:roll:

[QUOTE=bdreason]I would have loved to see this forum after Jordan got SWEPT by the Celtics, TWICE.


"Michael Jordan is a mental midget, he'll never be a champion!!!"

:roll:[/QUOTE]

Did anyone criticize Durant for losing to the Lakers, who weren't as good as those multiple champion Celtics? Yeah, but that's because he had a bad series, but the criticism was few and far between, and because it was only his 3rd year.

Now think about Jordan's 86 and 87 Bulls, who had nobody as good as Westbrook as a 2nd star (Druggy Woolridge was probably the closest they had to a 2nd star) getting swept by the Celtics, BUT he averaged about 40 ppg against one of the best teams in NBA history, including breaking the NBA record for playoff points. That's a 2nd and 3rd year Jordan, mind you.

The only thing you'll be reading is how he'd be the future GOAT (And oh, he was a huge underdog against those Piston teams, but still managed to take them 6 and 7 games, with freaking Sam Vincent as their second best scorer) - the same team that SWEPT the Lakers in the Finals)

MJ always won when he was expected to. Always.

[QUOTE=RazorBaLade]kobe never had the team Mj had. MJ had everything u could want thats why hes the greatest... Kobes been the closest and Lebron is not even close yet imo[/QUOTE]

:roll:

[QUOTE=bdreason]I would have loved to see this forum after Jordan got SWEPT by the Celtics, TWICE.


"Michael Jordan is a mental midget, he'll never be a champion!!!"

:roll:[/QUOTE]

Big difference. Celts were one of, if not the best team in the league at the time and were highly favored over Jordan's Bulls, who were not exactly "stacked" at the time.

Jordan NEVER lost as a favorite in the playoffs.

[QUOTE=RazorBaLade]kobe never had the team Mj had. MJ had everything u could want thats why hes the greatest... Kobes been the closest and Lebron is not even close yet imo[/QUOTE]
must be a kobe fan.

Shit I just realized , it's close to the NBA championship and new threads of how great Kobe is compared to Jordan was will come out of the woodwork.

Jasper - stay out of MJ Kobe threads till October .....

One of the thing that stands out to me about Jordan is he won against teams with obviously more talented supporting casts. How often does that happen? Rick Barry did it, and I don't really know of another. Walton did too now that I think of it, and probably one or two other I forgot. The point is it doesn't happen often. Barely ever.

[QUOTE=AK47DR91]I think everybody is overrating Jordan's supporting cast. Aside from Pippen, the rest were role players and this includes Rodman. Rodman was a role player, a great one in rebounding and defending!

The thing is, they knew how to play their role.

I would say 70% of the Bulls success was because of Jordan. Th other 30% goes to Pippen, supporting cast and coaching staff.

You'll think that Pippen, Phil and the supporting cast would have been beaten Ewing, Barkley, Malone, Stockton, etc without Jordan?

In fact, I believe the Knicks took out the Bulls in '94 when MJ was playing minor league baseball.

Jordan from 1986-1998 is/was the greatest player of all-times. He didn't win any championships in the late 80's but his greatness was already there.
He dropped 63 on Bird and the Celtics at the old Boston Garden. His team lost but his greatness was there.

Jordan's talented supporting cast only added championship to his greatness. They didn't make him great because he was already great.[/QUOTE]


Actually Jordan's supporting cast is probably the most [B][U]UNDERRATED IN NBA HISTORY.[/U][/B]


Below is some factual info in regard to Jordan's supporting cast that I posted in another thread a few days ago.


Jordan and the Bulls won the title in 1993.

The Bulls won 57 games that year.

Before the 1994 season, Jordan retired. This is gives us a real good "apples to apples" comparison as to just how good Jordan's supporting cast really was.

The following year without Jordan (1994), the Bulls with Pippen, Grant etc. won 55 games and still advanced to the second round of the playoffs. There was only a 2 game difference between the Bulls in 1993 vs 1994 even without the remarkable Jordan.


Here is a look at how Bulls (without Jordan) faired in 1994 against the compeition that included some HOF all time great players.




Here are the records of some notable teams in 1994.


Houston Rockets 58-24- Hakeem Olajuwon is in the prime of his career. He is voted MVP and Defensive Player of the Year. He is regarded as the best player in the world. He is MVP of the NBA finals.



New York Knicks 57-25- Patrick Ewing is in the prime of his career. So is John Starks. Pat Riley is the head coach. Yet they are only 2 games better than the Jordanless Bulls.



Phoenix Suns 56-26- Charles Barkley is in the prime of his career. He was MVP of the league last year.



San Antonio Spurs 55-27-David Robinson is in the prime of his career. He leads the NBA in scoring at 29.8 points per game. Rodman is at his peak too. He leads the NBA in rebounding at 17.3 per contest.



*******Chicago Bulls 55-27- No Jordan, no problem. With Pippen, Grant and Head coach Phil Jackson the Bulls have no problem hanging with the NBA

[QUOTE=t-rex]Actually Jordan's supporting cast is probably the most [B][U]UNDERRATED IN NBA HISTORY.[/U][/B]


Below is some factual info in regard to Jordan's supporting cast that I posted in another thread a few days ago.


Jordan and the Bulls won the title in 1993.

The Bulls won 57 games that year.

Before the 1994 season, Jordan retired. This is gives us a real good "apples to apples" comparison as to just how good Jordan's supporting cast really was.

The following year without Jordan (1994), the Bulls with Pippen, Grant etc. won 55 games and still advanced to the second round of the playoffs. There was only a 2 game difference between the Bulls in 1993 vs 1994 even without the remarkable Jordan.


Here is a look at how Bulls (without Jordan) faired in 1994 against the compeition that included some HOF all time great players.




Here are the records of some notable teams in 1994.


Houston Rockets 58-24- Hakeem Olajuwon is in the prime of his career. He is voted MVP and Defensive Player of the Year. He is regarded as the best player in the world. He is MVP of the NBA finals.



New York Knicks 57-25- Patrick Ewing is in the prime of his career. So is John Starks. Pat Riley is the head coach. Yet they are only 2 games better than the Jordanless Bulls.



Phoenix Suns 56-26- Charles Barkley is in the prime of his career. He was MVP of the league last year.



San Antonio Spurs 55-27-David Robinson is in the prime of his career. He leads the NBA in scoring at 29.8 points per game. Rodman is at his peak too. He leads the NBA in rebounding at 17.3 per contest.



*******Chicago Bulls 55-27- No Jordan, no problem. With Pippen, Grant and Head coach Phil Jackson the Bulls have no problem hanging with the NBA

[QUOTE=Soothsayer]Irrelevant. That 94 team had already added both Kerr and Kukoc, and the 93 team had coasted a bit during the regular season after the Olympics for both Pippen and Jordan. The previous season, the same team had won 67 games.

Put Jordan on that 94 team coming off a championship, with Grant, Pippen, And ADDING Kerr and Kukoc, and we are talking 70 wins or so.[/QUOTE]

IRRELEVANT? Kerr replaced Paxson, and Kukoc replaced Jordan...and the results were nearly identical. The Bulls won a title in '93, and were within a couple of points of beating a team in a game seven, that would lose a close game seven to the Rockets in the 94 Finals.

I can't think of ONE team that had more talent than the the Bulls in their six titles. And MJ's 95 Bulls were beaten by a Magic team that would get swept by the Rockets.

Look, if MJ is going to get the credit for the six rings, then he should get the blame for playing on FIVE losing teams in his career, too.

[QUOTE=jlauber]
I can't think of ONE team that had more talent than the the Bulls in their six titles.[/QUOTE]

Then you're not thinking hard enough. These teams had equal or superior talent:

'91 Pistons
'92 Knicks, Blazers, Cavs
'93 Suns, Knicks, Cavs
'96 Magic, Sonics
'98 Pacers

Hell, even teams that went out early like the '97 Hawks (Blaylock/Laettner/Smith/Deke) and '98 Nets (Cassell/Seikaly/Gatling/Gill/Williams/Kittles) had a lot of talent.

[QUOTE=jlauber]IRRELEVANT? Kerr replaced Paxson, and Kukoc replaced Jordan...and the results were nearly identical. The Bulls won a title in '93, and were within a couple of points of beating a team in a game seven, that would lose a close game seven to the Rockets in the 94 Finals.

I can't think of ONE team that had more talent than the the Bulls in their six titles. And MJ's 95 Bulls were beaten by a Magic team that would get swept by the Rockets.

Look, if MJ is going to get the credit for the six rings, then he should get the blame for playing on FIVE losing teams in his career, too.[/QUOTE]


Kukoc didn't replace Jordan. Pete Myers did. The bulls added the GOAT 3PT shooter in Kerr, and a versatile, albeit soft big man in Kukoc. Keeping Grant for rebounding and defending PF and the occasional center, and keeping Pippen to help defend the perimeter...and with MJ younger than in 96....yeah, you are talking an EPIC year in terms of wins....IF the Bulls decide not to coast through the regular season like they did in 93.

I'm guessing both Pip and Jordan would have rested some in the offseason, vs. 92 with the Olympics. So 94, adding Kerr, Kukoc, to a championship team ALREADY capable of 67 wins....yeah, you are looking at a good possibility of 70 wins.

[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]Then you're not thinking hard enough. These teams had equal or superior talent:

'91 Pistons
'92 Knicks, Blazers, Cavs
'93 Suns, Knicks, Cavs
'96 Magic, Sonics
'98 Pacers

Hell, even teams that went out early like the '97 Hawks (Blaylock/Laettner/Smith/Deke) and '98 Nets (Cassell/Seikaly/Gatling/Gill/Williams/Kittles) had a lot of talent.[/QUOTE]

Oh sure...if you take MJ out of the picture. Of course, you could say the same thing for Shaq on his Laker title teams, or Kobe on his titles team, or Magic on his Laker teams, or Russell on his.

There is not ONE team on your list that any more talent...PERIOD.

[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]Then you're not thinking hard enough. These teams had equal or superior talent:

'91 Pistons
'92 Knicks, Blazers, Cavs
'93 Suns, Knicks, Cavs
'96 Magic, Sonics
'98 Pacers

Hell, even teams that went out early like the '97 Hawks (Blaylock/Laettner/Smith/Deke) and '98 Nets (Cassell/Seikaly/Gatling/Gill/Williams/Kittles) had a lot of talent.[/QUOTE]


No doubt man. Many of the teams Jordan faced had superior talent to what he had for a supporting cast. Jordan was often the difference, and WHAT a difference. :cheers:

[QUOTE=Soothsayer][B]Kukoc didn't replace Jordan. Pete Myers did[/B]. The bulls added the GOAT 3PT shooter in Kerr, and a versatile, albeit soft big man in Kukoc. Keeping Grant for rebounding and defending PF and the occasional center, and keeping Pippen to help defend the perimeter...and with MJ younger than in 96....yeah, you are talking an EPIC year in terms of wins....IF the Bulls decide not to coast through the regular season like they did in 93.

I'm guessing both Pip and Jordan would have rested some in the offseason, vs. 92 with the Olympics. So 94, adding Kerr, Kukoc, to a championship team ALREADY capable of 67 wins....yeah, you are looking at a good possibility of 70 wins.[/QUOTE]

THAT explains why the Bulls had nearly the same record in '94. I always felt that Myers was a HOFer too.

[QUOTE=jlauber]THAT explains why the Bulls had nearly the same record in '94. I always felt that Myers was a HOFer too.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it's pretty obvious why the 93-94 team had nearly an identical record to the 92-93 team. Once again, that 94 team had already added both Kerr and Kukoc to a championship team, and the 93 team had coasted during the regular season after the Olympics for both Pippen and Jordan. The previous season, the [B]same team[/B] had won 67 games.

Put Jordan on that 94 team coming off a championship, with Grant, Pippen, And ADDING Kerr and Kukoc, and we are talking 70 wins or so, vs. 55 without him.

[QUOTE=Soothsayer]Actually, it's pretty obvious why the 93-94 team had nearly an identical record to the 92-93 team. Once again, that 94 team had already added both Kerr and Kukoc to a championship team, and the 93 team had coasted during the regular season after the Olympics for both Pippen and Jordan. The previous season, the [B]same team[/B] had won 67 games.

[B]Put Jordan on that 94 team coming off a championship, with Grant, Pippen, And ADDING Kerr and Kukoc, and we are talking 70 wins or so, vs. 55 without him[/B].[/QUOTE]

I am not disputing that MJ's presence would PROBABLY have led to another championship. BUT, the FACT remains that the Bulls were a LOADED team, withOUT him.

Jordan never carried a GOOD team to a title. Hell, he played on FIVE losers in his career. How come Kareem, D. Robinson, Bird, and Wilt, could take last-place teams to instant contenders...but Jordan could not?

[QUOTE=Alhazred]Roundball is going to chew you out when he reads that. Just thought I should warn you now.[/QUOTE]


Roundball compared Gasol to Marion ... That is funnnnyyyy:roll:

[QUOTE=jlauber]I am not disputing that MJ's presence would PROBABLY have led to another championship. BUT, the FACT remains that the Bulls were a LOADED team, withOUT him.

Jordan never carried a GOOD team to a title. Hell, he played on FIVE losers in his career. How come Kareem, D. Robinson, Bird, and Wilt, could take last-place teams to instant contenders...but Jordan could not?[/QUOTE]

The Bulls that Jordan had led and helped create were a championship, battle tested squad, with a nice squad in 93-94. But to say that they were only 2 game worse "without Jordan" is silly, considering Jordan already led the same squad that won 57 games in 1993 to 67 wins the previous year.

Plus, once again, the bulls added both Kerr and Kukoc who contributed a combined 50 minutes per night in the 93-94 season. Add Jordan to that, and you are looking at 70 or so wins in 93-94 vs. 55 without him.

Other than that, Jordan's career can stand on it's own and nothing really needs to be said to defend it.

[QUOTE=t-rex]Actually Jordan's supporting cast is probably the most [B][U]UNDERRATED IN NBA HISTORY.[/U][/B]


Below is some factual info in regard to Jordan's supporting cast that I posted in another thread a few days ago.


Jordan and the Bulls won the title in 1993.

The Bulls won 57 games that year.

Before the 1994 season, Jordan retired. This is gives us a real good "apples to apples" comparison as to just how good Jordan's supporting cast really was.

The following year without Jordan (1994), the Bulls with Pippen, Grant etc. won 55 games and still advanced to the second round of the playoffs. There was only a 2 game difference between the Bulls in 1993 vs 1994 even without the remarkable Jordan.


Here is a look at how Bulls (without Jordan) faired in 1994 against the compeition that included some HOF all time great players.




Here are the records of some notable teams in 1994.


Houston Rockets 58-24- Hakeem Olajuwon is in the prime of his career. He is voted MVP and Defensive Player of the Year. He is regarded as the best player in the world. He is MVP of the NBA finals.



New York Knicks 57-25- Patrick Ewing is in the prime of his career. So is John Starks. Pat Riley is the head coach. Yet they are only 2 games better than the Jordanless Bulls.



Phoenix Suns 56-26- Charles Barkley is in the prime of his career. He was MVP of the league last year.



San Antonio Spurs 55-27-David Robinson is in the prime of his career. He leads the NBA in scoring at 29.8 points per game. Rodman is at his peak too. He leads the NBA in rebounding at 17.3 per contest.



*******Chicago Bulls 55-27- No Jordan, no problem. With Pippen, Grant and Head coach Phil Jackson the Bulls have no problem hanging with the NBA

[QUOTE=Soothsayer]The Bulls that Jordan had led and [B]helped[/B] create were a championship, battle tested squad, with a nice squad in 93-94. But to say that they were only 2 game worse "without Jordan" is silly, considering Jordan already led the same squad that won 57 games in 1993 to 67 wins the previous year.

Plus, once again, the bulls added both Kerr and Kukoc who contributed a combined 50 minutes per night in the 93-94 season. Add Jordan to that, and you are looking at 70 or so wins in 93-94 vs. 55 without him.

Other than that, Jordan's career can stand on it's own and nothing really needs to be said to defend it.[/QUOTE]

Finally, we are getting somewhere. Jordan HELPED, and HAD help. He was NO miracle worker. Was he a great player? Of course he was...top-5 in MY book. BUT, the fact that he went 1-9 in his first three playoff appearances (ok...him, and his TEAM)...and struggled for his first six seasons...and did not win a title without Pippen and a supporting cast of Grant, Paxson, Cartwright...and later with Pippen, Rodman, Kerr, Kukoc, and Harper...tells me all I need to know. He led great rosters to titles. BUT, he never led good, or average, or mediocre rosters anywhere close to a title.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I am not disputing that MJ's presence would PROBABLY have led to another championship. BUT, the FACT remains that the Bulls were a LOADED team, withOUT him.

Jordan never carried a GOOD team to a title. Hell, he played on FIVE losers in his career. How come Kareem, D. Robinson, Bird, and Wilt, could take last-place teams to instant contenders...but Jordan could not?[/QUOTE]


dROB did not take a last place team to instant contender.. They added drob, cummings and some other piece that season... The others showed their true worth.. Maybe Bird, wilt, and Kareem should all have a case over MJ... Considering they all won titles as the main man as well...

[QUOTE=jlauber]Finally, we are getting somewhere. Jordan HELPED, and HAD help. He was NO miracle worker. Was he a great player? Of course he was...top-5 in MY book. BUT, the fact that he went 1-9 in his first three playoff appearances (ok...him, and his TEAM)...and struggled for his first six seasons...and did not win a title without Pippen and a supporting cast of Grant, Paxson, Cartwright...and later with Pippen, Rodman, Kerr, Kukoc, and Harper...tells me all I need to know. He led great rosters to titles. BUT, he never led good, or average, or mediocre rosters anywhere close to a title.[/QUOTE]

"Jordan had help". That's simply a platitude, a truism for every player who every played organized basketball. Ergo, pointless statement.

Jordan did as much to contribute to his teams' success as anyone ever has, and he did it year after year.

1-9 irrelevant considering he joined a horrid 27 win bulls team and was facing a vastly superior team in the Celts and Bucks. Jordan's early bulls team were not exactly stacked. Meanwhile, Bird was playing with multiple HOFers, as was Magic. So once again, really pointless.

Jordan simply LED teams to more titles than Bird, Magic, and all his contemporaries. Hence Magic's admonition, "There's Michael...and then there's the rest of us."

[QUOTE=jlauber]Finally, we are getting somewhere. Jordan HELPED, and HAD help. He was NO miracle worker. Was he a great player? Of course he was...top-5 in MY book. BUT, the fact that he went 1-9 in his first three playoff appearances (ok...him, and his TEAM)...and struggled for his first six seasons...and did not win a title without Pippen and a supporting cast of Grant, Paxson, Cartwright...and later with Pippen, Rodman, Kerr, Kukoc, and Harper...tells me all I need to know. He led great rosters to titles. BUT, he never led good, or average, or mediocre rosters anywhere close to a title.[/QUOTE]

Before Jordan won his first ring over Magic and the Lakers in 91, nobody was going gaga over the talent on the Bulls. You would never hear anybody proclaim, "Wow, look at all the talent the bulls have, amazing Jordan can't win with them!". The consensus was that Jordan had an up-and-coming Pippen, and then some nice ROLE PLAYERS, whom Jordan eventually led to a ring in 91. After that, the rest is history. :cheers:

:oldlol: at MJ fans pulling numbers out of MJ's rear. 70 wins? Maybe it would have been 80! It happened only once in NBA history yet a 55 win team that won 57 the year before would certainly win 70 in 94'? MJ fans keep talking about 67 wins in 92'. Put that into context. Bulls win totals from 1990-1994: 55, 61, 67, 57, and 55. Yet 67 is the sacred number? Teams vary their win totals by year. The Cavs won 66 last year; 61 this year. The Lakers won 65 last year; 57 this year.

[QUOTE]Actually Jordan's supporting cast is probably the most UNDERRATED IN NBA HISTORY.


Below is some factual info in regard to Jordan's supporting cast that I posted in another thread a few days ago.


Jordan and the Bulls won the title in 1993.

The Bulls won 57 games that year.

Before the 1994 season, Jordan retired. This is gives us a real good "apples to apples" comparison as to just how good Jordan's supporting cast really was.

The following year without Jordan (1994), the Bulls with Pippen, Grant etc. won 55 games and still advanced to the second round of the playoffs. There was only a 2 game difference between the Bulls in 1993 vs 1994 even without the remarkable Jordan.


Here is a look at how Bulls (without Jordan) faired in 1994 against the compeition that included some HOF all time great players.




Here are the records of some notable teams in 1994.


Houston Rockets 58-24- Hakeem Olajuwon is in the prime of his career. He is voted MVP and Defensive Player of the Year. He is regarded as the best player in the world. He is MVP of the NBA finals.



New York Knicks 57-25- Patrick Ewing is in the prime of his career. So is John Starks. Pat Riley is the head coach. Yet they are only 2 games better than the Jordanless Bulls.



Phoenix Suns 56-26- Charles Barkley is in the prime of his career. He was MVP of the league last year.



San Antonio Spurs 55-27-David Robinson is in the prime of his career. He leads the NBA in scoring at 29.8 points per game. Rodman is at his peak too. He leads the NBA in rebounding at 17.3 per contest.



*******Chicago Bulls 55-27- No Jordan, no problem. With Pippen, Grant and Head coach Phil Jackson the Bulls have no problem hanging with the NBA’s elite. Remarkably they finish tied with the Spurs despite a career year by Robinson and Rodman. And they are just 3 games behind the Rockets who won the NBA title with Olajuwon who was MVP and DPY. So, is Scotty Pippen still a nobody?******** Jordan's supporting cast won just 2 less games without him when comparing the Bulls of 1993 to the Bulls of 1994.


Utah Jazz- 53-29- Two all time great players are in the prime of their careers for this team. This includes Karl Malone who is often regarded as the greatest Power Forward in NBA history. Stockton led the NBA in assists that year with 12.6 per game. Yet they finished 2 games behind the Bulls (minus Michael Jordan).



Orlando Magic-50-32- Shaq was not quite in his prime yet. But the Magic were just one year away from a NBA finals appearance. With Shaq, Dennis Scott and Penny Hardaway, they were 5 games worse than the Bulls playing without Jordan.




The more you research this, the better Jordan’s supporting cast gets. I don’t see how the issue of star players carrying otherwise bad teams to the NBA finals is even debatable.


The fact is Jordan's supporting cast was a 55 win team without him. Jordan's supporting cast alone ranked was easily among the best teams in the NBA.

Can we say the same for Kobe's Lakers?

Would this year's Cavs win 55 games without Lebron.


The Bulls were legit NBA title contenders without Jordan. This is indisputable evidence as to how strong Jordan's supporting cast truly was. And it provides further evidence that the notion of one great player carrying his team to a championship is largely a myth. Even when we take an accurate look at the supporting cast of the great Michael Jordan.



The thread with more info can be found here.


[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=174444[/url][/QUOTE]

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Keep in mind this was with MJ retiring at the last possible minute and the Bulls being forced to replace him with a D-League scrub. Imagine that team with a legit starting SG, not the worst starting SG in the league who could not make a NBA roster in the previous two seasons...

The Kukoc and Kerr hype is hilarious. Every team adds role players in a given year. I guess Channing Frye is why the Suns went from 9th to 3rd in the West this year? :lol Rookie Kukoc averaged 9/4/3 in 18 minutes a game in the playoffs and Kerr averaged 3.5 points a game in the playoffs. These mostly offset losing the alleged GOAT?

[QUOTE]1-9 irrelevant considering he joined a horrid 27 win bulls team and was facing a vastly superior team in the Celts and Bucks. [/QUOTE]

Yeah--and he lifted a 27 win team to only 38 wins. This is easily the least impact any GOAT caliber player had on his team. Why? The "clear GOAT" had the least impact, even though he joined the #12 scorer in the league? :oldlol: at invoking his superior opponents. Maybe MJ should have led them to winning records in 85' and 87' and gotten a decent seed? (I'll give him a break for 86')