Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Lol hardly stopped? Heres how Jordan's father felt about Pippens job on Magic.

[url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-06-06/sports/9102200317_1_scottie-pippen-magic-johnson-bulls[/url]

You are the ONLY person who feels Pippen didnt stop Magic.[/QUOTE]

Now try watching the game and quit trying to rewrite history...Pippen did a good job, but this put the clamps down/stopped Magic is comical

Pippen D was great in the sense that he made Magic work in the back court, due to a bigger body

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRQ7v942W7o"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRQ7v942W7o[/URL]

26:15 Magic gets by Pippen, Grant comes over to alter layup

28:23 Magic posts up Pip spins inside, would have layup, great rotation by Grant again, forces Magic to pass

28:54 Magic goes by Pip who reaches, Jordan steps up and takes charge

I could keep going, but like I said, Pippen did a great job, but acting like Magic struggled because of Pippen is a myth, hell Jordan didn't let Magic score either in the first quarter, but he picked up two ticky tack fouls

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]:oldlol: Nice Try :facepalm :rolleyes:

Barkley Never Said What You Say About Pippen. Bull. He Actually Said Jordan Was Lucky to Play With Pippen in His Prime, as Well as Grant and Rodman!. Jordan had 2 All Stars Back Him Up In Their Primes and His Prime His Whole Career.

Pippen Became an All Star in 1990 In Case You Forgot and He Helped Jordan Win a Ring by Guarding Drexler and Magic the Best. out of those 1st Two Rings.

He Was the Best Defender in the Bulls by Far and The Best Perimeter Defender in the League.

He Had More Responsabilities than Jordan because He Was the Point-Forward Under a Trinagle that Diminished His Stats. He Had To Do More Stuff than Just Score. Create and Be the Best Defender in the Team is Something That Usually is Given to 2 Different Players, Yet Pippen Had No Problem With That and Did Both Jobs at a Great Level ( Not to Mention, Rebound, Score, Team Defend etc)

He Had To Create (Something Jordan finally Accepted since Phil Was Trying to Make Jordan Understand This and Finally It Happened), Be the 2nd Lead Scorer, Be The 2nd Lead Rebounder, Be The Best Defender, Be The Best Team Defender and Play as a Teamate More than a Star.

Pippen`s 1991 Stats while Being the Best Individual Defender For Those Play-Offs and Finals (Defensive Rating Agrees): 20.8 PPG (45.3% FG), 9.4 RPG, 6.6 APG, 2.4 SPG and 1.0 BPG.

If Those are Not All Star Level Stats Then What Are? [/B][/QUOTE]

battle of the bold text

[QUOTE] These people fail to point out that Jordan from the beginning established a winning culture and expectation in the organization with his level of play and competitiveness.* [/QUOTE]
The Bulls hadnt won a playoff game the first few years of Jordans career. How did he establish a winning culture by himself?


[QUOTE]They bring up Scottie Pippen but fail to point out that Jordan was greatly instrumental in the development of Scottie Pippen, who entered the league as a DIV II raw college player. Now you can say Pippen would've ended up like that anyway or someone else would've done what Jordan did and help bring out his potential. But the fact is it was Jordan who did that, a DIV II college player succeeding the way Pippen did is extremely rare,*[/QUOTE]
Again I think the disagreement isnt so much Jordans role in Pippens development. Its the notion that Pippen was "MADE" by Jordan. That without him, (Jordan) Pippen ends up being nothing more than a Tayshaun Prince or Gerald Wallace. But fail to look at the fact that Jordans and Pippens game are just totally different. Pippen has a PG mentality and likes to get others involved, as well as score. Jordan has a scorers mentality. But he can set up teammates. I do feel Jordan and Pippen playing each other in pracyice helped BOTH players games. Not just Pippens. Amd the Horace Grant thing is just wrong.

[QUOTE]They bring up Phil Jackson, but then fail to point out that Phil had zero head coaching experience before he got to Chicago and only 2 years as an assistant. He had less experience after the first championhip then Erik Spoelstra did.*
[/QUOTE]Phil Jackson won two championships as head coach of the Albany Patroons. And most people feel helped mold Jordan into a team player.

[QUOTE]They bring up Dennis Rodman in the 2nd three-peat, but then fail to point out that despite leading the league in rebounds for years, NO team wanted to touch him cause of his attitude. Only the Bulls felt they had the leadership to contain him, and Jordan was obviously a huge part of that leadership
[/QUOTE] Jack Haley gets credit for keeping Rodman under control in 96. He kicked the camerman in 97 which cost him 25 games. And to my recolection wasnt much of a problem in 98. I think Jackson should get most of the credit for Rodman staying under control during their run. For no other reason than that they let him be him.


[QUOTE]And then they bring up all these role players like BJ Armstrong, John Paxson, Bill Cartwright, Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Ron Harper, etc. and act like they were special players when the reality is that role players are clearly interchangeable. They aren't players that dramatically change a team. They have skillsets who's utilization is mostly a function of how star players and coaches use them.*[/QUOTE]
They werent any different than any other role player on any other championship team. I do feel Kukoc couldve made a few Allstar games if he were in a different situation. He did avg 19/7/5 in 99. He shot 42%, but the league avg was roughly 43%.

[QUOTE]Now, people look back and think they were just these stacked rosters cause of players like this, when the reality is there were a number of players like this in the league, but they are mostly forgotten because they weren't as successful cause they didn't get to play on championship teams. I guess people will most likely say the same thing in 10-20 years about players like Udonis Haslem, Joel Anthony, Mario Chalmers, Norris Cole, etc if the Heat win a bunch of titles even though now most people say the Heat suck outside of the big 3.[/QUOTE]
Id take Steve Kerr, Ron Harper, Toni Kukoc, Brian Williams, and Bill Wennington over alot of championship teams role players any day. The fact is these guys have been very successful outside of Chicago. Ron Harper was a 20 pt scorer and won two more championships with the Lakers. I remember Phil Jackson begged him no stay another season during their run with the Lakers. Steve Kerr is the career leader in three point shooting percentage and has two extra rings with the Spurs in which he played an integral role. Brian Williams was a dman good center with the Pistons who retired at 29. Kukoc was one of the best players in Europe. Lets not act like the Bulls FO found a bunch of bums on the street and Jordan molded them into this well oiled machine.

And as much as you hate to admit, the Bulls were extremely successful without Jordan. Why you overlook that is puzzling.

[QUOTE=Calabis]Now try watching the game and quit trying to rewrite history...Pippen did a good job, but this put the clamps down/stopped Magic is comical

Pippen D was great in the sense that he made Magic work in the back court, due to a bigger body

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRQ7v942W7o"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRQ7v942W7o[/URL]

26:15 Magic gets by Pippen, Grant comes over to alter layup

28:23 Magic posts up Pip spins inside, would have layup, great rotation by Grant again, forces Magic to pass

28:54 Magic goes by Pip who reaches, Jordan steps up and takes charge

I could keep going, but like I said, Pippen did a great job, but acting like Magic struggled because of Pippen is a myth, hell Jordan didn't let Magic score either in the first quarter, but he picked up two ticky tack fouls[/QUOTE]
Its not a myth. Pippen intentionally sent Magic toward help. Not to mention guys are still gonna get loose. I honestly dont think you know what youre talking about.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]The Bulls hadnt won a playoff game the first few years of Jordans career. How did he establish a winning culture by himself?



Again I think the disagreement isnt so much Jordans role in Pippens development. Its the notion that Pippen was "MADE" by Jordan. That without him, (Jordan) Pippen ends up being nothing more than a Tayshaun Prince or Gerald Wallace. But fail to look at the fact that Jordans and Pippens game are just totally different. Pippen has a PG mentality and likes to get others involved, as well as score. Jordan has a scorers mentality. But he can set up teammates. I do feel Jordan and Pippen playing each other in pracyice helped BOTH players games. Not just Pippens. Amd the Horace Grant thing is just wrong.

Phil Jackson won two championships as head coach of the Albany Patroons. And most people feel helped mold Jordan into a team player.

Jack Haley gets credit for keeping Rodman under control in 96. He kicked the camerman in 97 which cost him 25 games. And to my recolection wasnt much of a problem in 98. I think Jackson should get most of the credit for Rodman staying under control during their run. For no other reason than that they let him be him.



They werent any different than any other role player on any other championship team. I do feel Kukoc couldve made a few Allstar games if he were in a different situation. He did avg 19/7/5 in 99. He shot 42%, but the league avg was roughly 43%.


Id take Steve Kerr, Ron Harper, Toni Kukoc, Brian Williams, and Bill Wennington over alot of championship teams role players any day. The fact is these guys have been very successful outside of Chicago. Ron Harper was a 20 pt scorer and won two more championships with the Lakers. I remember Phil Jackson begged him no stay another season during their run with the Lakers. Steve Kerr is the career leader in three point shooting percentage and has two extra rings with the Spurs in which he played an integral role. Brian Williams was a dman good center with the Pistons who retired at 29. Kukoc was one of the best players in Europe. Lets not act like the Bulls FO found a bunch of bums on the street and Jordan molded them into this well oiled machine.

And as much as you hate to admit, the Bulls were extremely successful without Jordan. Why you overlook that is puzzling.[/QUOTE]

97Bulls schooling one and all little puppies & big trolls

I've scanned through pretty much all the posts so far....

[B]Facts are still facts.[/B]

[B]1990 season[/B]: Pippen was All-star reserve

[B]1991 season[/B]: Pippen was just a good player. Not even an all-star RESERVE calibre.

1992 season: Is the Pippens truest break through season.

[B]Some here mentioned. 1991 is the real Pippen "coming of age" "break out" year just looking at the 1991 finals performance.[/B]

[COLOR="Red"]Nothing is further from the truth btw.[/COLOR]

[B][COLOR="Navy"][SIZE="3"]1992 is the Pippen's real true break out season.
1992 is when Pippen suddenly became a dominant force on both ends of the court.
1992 is when Pippen immediately rose to Top 5 players in the NBA.
1992 is when Pippen became "all-star STARTER" from being a NON-allstar previous year.
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]
1992 Pippen >> 1991 Pippen.

until then.

[B][COLOR="DarkRed"][SIZE="3"]1991 Michael Jordan ([U]31.2 ppg, 11.4 apg[/U]) won the Ring by himself & helped other "Jordanaires (pippen & co btw 1987-1991)" collect the FIRST ring.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]

1992 -1998: Jordan-Pippen combo won rings.

This is the Truth.

[B]When Bold is not enough[/B]






[COLOR="Orange"]Colors[/COLOR]!

[QUOTE=Rubio2Gasol][B]When Bold is not enough[/B]






[COLOR="Orange"]Colors[/COLOR]![/QUOTE]

:roll:

[QUOTE=97 bulls]The Bulls hadnt won a playoff game the first few years of Jordans career. How did he establish a winning culture by himself?[/QUOTE]

They didn't even make the playoffs the previous 3 seasons, and their previous history's peaks were mediocre teams making the playoffs with no transcedent superstar to take them over the top. A transcedent talent with that fiery competitiveness completely changes expectations i.e. the culture. Those years of first round knockouts were disappointments. They wouldn't have been considered disappointments if they had someone like Reggie Miller instead. Even to this day that culture change is felt with the Bulls being considered disappointments every year since Jordan left, especially before Rose was drafted.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Again I think the disagreement isnt so much Jordans role in Pippens development. Its the notion that Pippen was "MADE" by Jordan. That without him, (Jordan) Pippen ends up being nothing more than a Tayshaun Prince or Gerald Wallace. But fail to look at the fact that Jordans and Pippens game are just totally different. Pippen has a PG mentality and likes to get others involved, as well as score. Jordan has a scorers mentality. But he can set up teammates. I do feel Jordan and Pippen playing each other in pracyice helped BOTH players games. Not just Pippens. Amd the Horace Grant thing is just wrong.[/QUOTE]

Well I never said Jordan "MADE" Pippen. The potential and the desire has to be there, which Pippen had. If that wasn't relevant, then Jordan could've done that to any average joe. And I did say that that doesn't mean Pippen wouldn't have been a good or great player anyway. Its just stupid when people use Pippen in a way to discredit Jordan, when people don't understand that it goes hand in hand because of Jordan's impact on Pippen's development. Doesn't make sense to me.

And Jordan was an established superstar before Pippen was even a Bull. He would've been a HOFer anyway and still one of the greatest players. Of course, Pippen helped Jordan become a better player, its probably impossible for that not to happen. Its just not even close to the same extent.

Why is what I said about Horace Grant wrong? So you think if Grant was playing on the Sacramento Kings not making the playoffs, it wouldn't have made a difference in his development? Whatever the case, Grant's not even close to the same level of Pippen, so I probably shouldn't have included him here. I probably should've included him with the interchangeable role players. Shit, they probably had a better version of him in Charles Oakley anyway.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Phil Jackson won two championships as head coach of the Albany Patroons. And most people feel helped mold Jordan into a team player. [/QUOTE]

Really? CBA championships matter now? Thats better then actual NBA head coaching experience? I never said Phil didn't help Jordan.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Jack Haley gets credit for keeping Rodman under control in 96. He kicked the camerman in 97 which cost him 25 games. And to my recolection wasnt much of a problem in 98. I think Jackson should get most of the credit for Rodman staying under control during their run. For no other reason than that they let him be him. [/QUOTE]

I don't think you understood my post, unless you think the Bulls were the only team in the league comfortable bringing him in because they were the only team with Jack Haley. I'm only talking about the actual decision to bring him in. I never said Jordan deserved all the credit, just that he was a big reason why they were the only team comfortable bringing him in. There's a reason why they were able to trade for Rodman with just freaking Will Perdue. Again, people also use Rodman to discredit Jordan, but people don't seem to understand that Jordan was one of the biggest reasons why they were the only team comfortable bringing him in. Doesn't make sense to me.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
They werent any different than any other role player on any other championship team. I do feel Kukoc couldve made a few Allstar games if he were in a different situation. He did avg 19/7/5 in 99. He shot 42%, but the league avg was roughly 43%. [/QUOTE]

Actually, they weren't any different then any role player in general. They could probably find similar role players to assume those roles on almost every other team.

I've had this discussion with you about Toni Kukoc and I disagreed with it. Maybe he's not your average role player thats as easily replaceable, but he definitely wasn't this special star player you make him out to be.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Id take Steve Kerr, Ron Harper, Toni Kukoc, Brian Williams, and Bill Wennington over alot of championship teams role players any day. The fact is these guys have been very successful outside of Chicago. Ron Harper was a 20 pt scorer and won two more championships with the Lakers. I remember Phil Jackson begged him no stay another season during their run with the Lakers. Steve Kerr is the career leader in three point shooting percentage and has two extra rings with the Spurs in which he played an integral role. Brian Williams was a dman good center with the Pistons who retired at 29. Kukoc was one of the best players in Europe. Lets not act like the Bulls FO found a bunch of bums on the street and Jordan molded them into this well oiled machine. [/QUOTE]

And you would take alot of other championship role players over them as well, and even role role players that didn't win any championships. Thats not really saying much. There isn't a significant difference between role players. Thats why they are role players.

Ron Harper was not a 20 ppg scorer in Chicago. Injuries caused his decline before he even came to Chicago. Replace him with someone like Doug Christie, Derek Harper, Doc Rivers, Nate McMillan, Craig Ehlo, or many more and there probably wouldn't be such a huge difference.

No doubt Steve Kerr was a great 3-point shooter. But he wasn't exactly filling a role that someone like Tim Legler, BJ Armstrong, Brent Price, Dale Ellis, Tracy Murray, Hubert Davis and others couldn't have filled at the time.

I really don't understand why you constantly bring up Brian Williams when he only played 9 games for the Bulls and then 19 games in the playoffs in less than 20 mpg.

Toni Kukoc being one of the best players from Europe didn't really mean much back then. Actually, it doesn't really mean much even now since the style of play is different.

I never said they were a bunch of bums on the street. I said they were mostly average role players that you can find on almost every team.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
And as much as you hate to admit, the Bulls were extremely successful without Jordan. Why you overlook that is puzzling.[/QUOTE]

I don't overlook that. In fact, I addressed that later in my post. Did you read it? As I said, it should be considered more of a positive reflection on Jordan actually. The whole "record without star player dictating their value" comparison is so ridiculously stupid. Don't get me wrong, sometimes it does mean something, but alot times it doesn't. It should be more of a case by case basis. You think its a coincidence that many times the teams that see the biggest drop off without their star player are teams who's star players leadership abilities were questionable in the first place i.e. David Robinson, Charles Barkley, Vince Carter, Lebron James (before last year), Dwight Howard while on the other hand many times teams that still do well and don't see as much of a drop off are those who's star players are considered great leaders i.e. Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Derrick Rose currently? I don't know what it is. Maybe in those cases, its cause those players don't add much to the team other then actual production on the court, and don't really lead before and after games framing the locker room culture and expectations a certain way. Of course, I'm not saying this always the case. Bird and Magic had injuries or retirements at times and there teams had big drop-offs, and the same thing just happened with CP3, and I wouldn't question their leadership skills. All I'm saying is it doesn't necessarily mean much, and its not like when teams do well without their star player, they would've played the exact same way had that player never even existed in the first place.

guy just murked this entire thread. He's right about literally EVERYTHING.

Im in thr process of replying Guy. Hang on

This thread is basically OP screaming "PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME!"

*[QUOTE]They didn't even make the playoffs the previous 3 seasons, and their previous history's peaks were mediocre teams making the playoffs with no transcedent superstar to take them over the top. A transcedent talent with that fiery competitiveness completely changes expectations i.e. the culture. Those years of first round knockouts were disappointments. They wouldn't have been considered disappointments if they had someone like Reggie Miller instead. Even to this day that culture change is felt with the Bulls being considered disappointments every year since Jordan left, especially before Rose was drafted.*[/QUOTE]
What the Bulls were doing in the mid 80s should not be seen as "establishing a winning culture". One of those years they werent even 500 and made the playoffs. That culture your refering to was established by Jackson, Jordan, and Pippen. They dont win in 91 without those three.



[QUOTE]Jordan was an established superstar before Pippen was even a Bull. He would've been a HOFer anyway and still one of the greatest players. Of course, Pippen helped Jordan become a better player, its probably impossible for that not to happen. Its just not even close to the same extent.[/QUOTE]
Jordan was seen as a selfish ball hog before Jackson and Pippen came. Obviously he wouldve made the Hall of Fame regardless. But hes probably looked at as another George Gervin. Pippen wouldve been a Hofer as well, but probably along the line of James Worthy.


[QUOTE]Why is what I said about Horace Grant wrong?[/QUOTE]
Its wrong in my opinion because of the kind of player Grant was. Hes always been a banger. What did Jordan teach him? How to be tough? Come on. Your assumptions are almost insulting. As if Grant was a little kid and Jordan was his Daddy.

[QUOTE]Really? CBA championships matter now? Thats better then actual NBA head coaching experience? I never said Phil didn't help Jordan.*[/QUOTE]
I believe you stated Jackson had "NO" coaching experience. Not only did he have experience, but he won. And he was an assistant under Doug Collins. The fact is he was obviously ready.


[QUOTE]Ron Harper was not a 20 ppg scorer in Chicago. Injuries caused his decline before he even came to Chicago. Replace him with someone like Doug Christie, Derek Harper, Doc Rivers, Nate McMillan, Craig Ehlo, or many more and there probably wouldn't be such a huge difference.[/QUOTE]
Harper was REDUCED to that role because 1. he had a hard time picking up the offense in 95, the 2. unlike the Cavs and Clippers, the Bulls offense wasnt condusive to Harpers strengths which was transition. If he could avg 11 ppg at 35 years old in 99, why couldnt he avg 15-17 if he were three years younger and played in an offense where they pushed the ball in transition?

[QUOTE]I really don't understand why you constantly bring up Brian Williams when he only played 9 games for the Bulls and then 19 games in the playoffs in less than 20 mpg.*[/QUOTE]Because Williams was a 26 year old 6'11 center capable of avg 17/9 on 50% shooting. Something the Bulls never had. He didnt play much in the first round, but he avg 9/5 on 50% shooting the rest of the playoffs. In limited minutes mind you.

[QUOTE]I don't overlook that. In fact, I addressed that later in my post. Did you read it? As I said, it should be considered more of a positive reflection on Jordan actually. The whole "record without star player dictating their value" comparison is so ridiculously stupid. Don't get me wrong, sometimes it does mean something, but alot times it doesn't. It should be more of a case by case basis. You think its a coincidence that many times the teams that see the biggest drop off without their star player are teams who's star players leadership abilities were questionable in the first place i.e. David Robinson, Charles Barkley, Vince Carter, Lebron James (before last year), Dwight Howard while on the other hand many times teams that still do well and don't see as much of a drop off are those who's star players are considered great leaders i.e. Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Derrick Rose currently? I don't know what it is. Maybe in those cases, its cause those players don't add much to the team other then actual production on the court, and don't really lead before and after games framing the locker room culture and expectations a certain way. Of course, I'm not saying this always the case. Bird and Magic had injuries or retirements at times and there teams had big drop-offs, and the same thing just happened with CP3, and I wouldn't question their leadership skills. All I'm saying is it doesn't necessarily mean much, and its not like when teams do well without their star player, they would've played the exact same way had that player never even existed in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Then take it on a case by case basis. The fact is people always saw the Bulls as Jordan and his Jordanaiers. I cant tell you how many time I heard how bad the Bulls would be without Jordan. Well we saw how good The Bulls could be. And yet you still want to argue what we were able to see. The Bulls without Jordan were still a championship contending team. These are the facts Guy. Why do we have to debate something we actually got to see?

OP:

[IMG]http://i.qkme.me/3571m2.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=97 bulls]*
What the Bulls were doing in the mid 80s should not be seen as "establishing a winning culture". One of those years they werent even 500 and made the playoffs. That culture your refering to was established by Jackson, Jordan, and Pippen. They dont win in 91 without those three.
[/QUOTE]

Obviously they didn't just go from a lottery team to championship or bust right when Jordan came, but the expectation for the Bulls ultimately changed because of Jordan. Right away he was seen as a player that could ultimately lead them to a title as the cornerstone, mainly because of his talent and attitude. It was something the organization had never came close to having before. That's a culture change.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Jordan was seen as a selfish ball hog before Jackson and Pippen came. Obviously he wouldve made the Hall of Fame regardless. But hes probably looked at as another George Gervin. Pippen wouldve been a Hofer as well, but probably along the line of James Worthy.
[/QUOTE]

Wow. George Gervin? George Gervin was a one-dimensional unmotivated coke addict that didn't do much else but score. Jordan was one of the greatest all around players while also being a better scorer then Gervin ever was with a competitiveness and work ethic that almost no one in history has matched, and definitely not someone like George Gervin.

At worst, Jordan is looked at as someone like Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Kobe Bryant before his 4th title or Lebron James before he won his title. Of course thats assuming that Jordan never gets to play under a good enough coach and with good enough teammates to eventually win it all, which more likely than not wouldn't happen.

Its statements like this that are incredibly stupid and why I say people tend to really overstate "help".

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Its wrong in my opinion because of the kind of player Grant was. Hes always been a banger. What did Jordan teach him? How to be tough? Come on. Your assumptions are almost insulting. As if Grant was a little kid and Jordan was his Daddy. [/QUOTE]

So if he started his career playing with the Sacramento Kings and not making the playoffs it wouldn't have made a difference?

Whatever the case, it doesn't really matter. Grant wasn't some unique player that couldn't be replaced by someone else. Bangers were all over the league at the time. As I said, they probably had a better banger player before Grant that they felt okay giving up because of Grant.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
I believe you stated Jackson had "NO" coaching experience. Not only did he have experience, but he won. And he was an assistant under Doug Collins. The fact is he was obviously ready.
[/QUOTE]

I was obviously talking about NBA head coaching experience. If you think there's no difference, then thats a joke.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Harper was REDUCED to that role because 1. he had a hard time picking up the offense in 95, the 2. unlike the Cavs and Clippers, the Bulls offense wasnt condusive to Harpers strengths which was transition. If he could avg 11 ppg at 35 years old in 99, why couldnt he avg 15-17 if he were three years younger and played in an offense where they pushed the ball in transition?
[/QUOTE]

A player doesn't go from 20 ppg in 38 mpg to 7 ppg in 20 mpg cause of style of play, especially when they clearly could've used his scoring in 95 before Jordan came back. He clearly declined. And he averaged 11 ppg in 99 cause they were a horrible team. The year before he averaged 9 ppg in 98 on a good team.

Anyway, even if you think he was still capable of being a 20 ppg scorer, which is ridiculous, it doesn't change what I said. The role he played could've been played by everyone I mentioned.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Because Williams was a 26 year old 6'11 center capable of avg 17/9 on 50% shooting. Something the Bulls never had. He didnt play much in the first round, but he avg 9/5 on 50% shooting the rest of the playoffs. In limited minutes mind you. [/QUOTE]

Regardless, he didn't contribute much. Its just odd to me that you constantly bring him up when he barely had a part in the overall dynasty.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Then take it on a case by case basis. The fact is people always saw the Bulls as Jordan and his Jordanaiers. I cant tell you how many time I heard how bad the Bulls would be without Jordan. Well we saw how good The Bulls could be. And yet you still want to argue what we were able to see. The Bulls without Jordan were still a championship contending team. These are the facts Guy. Why do we have to debate something we actually got to see?[/QUOTE]

I think my post went completely over your head. Like I said, its not like when a team plays without their star player, its like they never played with that star player at all as if he never existed. Much of their success in 94 was due to the experience they gained while playing with him, significant experience that they probably don't have if he never played on that team in the first place.

[QUOTE=guy]Obviously they didn't just go from a lottery team to championship or bust right when Jordan came, but the expectation for the Bulls ultimately changed because of Jordan. Right away he was seen as a player that could ultimately lead them to a title as the cornerstone, mainly because of his talent and attitude. It was something the organization had never came close to having before. That's a culture change.



Wow. George Gervin? George Gervin was a one-dimensional unmotivated coke addict that didn't do much else but score. Jordan was one of the greatest all around players while also being a better scorer then Gervin ever was with a competitiveness and work ethic that almost no one in history has matched, and definitely not someone like George Gervin.

At worst, Jordan is looked at as someone like Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Kobe Bryant before his 4th title or Lebron James before he won his title. Of course thats assuming that Jordan never gets to play under a good enough coach and with good enough teammates to eventually win it all, which more likely than not wouldn't happen.

Its statements like this that are incredibly stupid and why I say people tend to really overstate "help".



So if he started his career playing with the Sacramento Kings and not making the playoffs it wouldn't have made a difference?

Whatever the case, it doesn't really matter. Grant wasn't some unique player that couldn't be replaced by someone else. Bangers were all over the league at the time. As I said, they probably had a better banger player before Grant that they felt okay giving up because of Grant.



I was obviously talking about NBA head coaching experience. If you think there's no difference, then thats a joke.



A player doesn't go from 20 ppg in 38 mpg to 7 ppg in 20 mpg cause of style of play, especially when they clearly could've used his scoring in 95 before Jordan came back. He clearly declined. And he averaged 11 ppg in 99 cause they were a horrible team. The year before he averaged 9 ppg in 98 on a good team.

Anyway, even if you think he was still capable of being a 20 ppg scorer, which is ridiculous, it doesn't change what I said. The role he played could've been played by everyone I mentioned.



Regardless, he didn't contribute much. Its just odd to me that you constantly bring him up when he barely had a part in the overall dynasty.



I think my post went completely over your head. Like I said, its not like when a team plays without their star player, its like they never played with that star player at all as if he never existed. Much of their success in 94 was due to the experience they gained while playing with him, significant experience that they probably don't have if he never played on that team in the first place.[/QUOTE]
I think youre giving wayyyyyy too much credit to Jordan for the Bulls success, The talent of the players, and the coach. Thats were we disagree. Obviously Jordan played huge role in the Bulls winning. But the fact is (and this is what you simply wont admit), From watching the Bulls from 94-98, THEY ALL WERE REPLACEABLE. They obviously dont win as much, or set the NBA record for wins, etc, but that team was talented enough to win more than one. championship if they had a suitable replacement for Jordan as we saw in 94, or Pippen as we saw in the first almost 40 games, and obviously the other players were replaceable.

You seem to feel you could put any good player around Jordan and hes gonna automatically win. Id like to ask you this.... Why didnt the Bulls win pre Pippen and Jackson when they had a good young scoring swingman in Orlando Wooldridge (who could be his Pippen), a good young big in Charles Oakley (who couldve been his Rodman or Grant), and a good young coach in Doug Collins. Even without being championship contenders. They only won 11 more games when Jordan was added. And stayed in playoff contention the year he broke his ankle and only played in 18 games. Again I think far too much credit is given to Jordan for the Bulls success. Basketball is a team sport. If your interest is winning, then this wouldnt be much of a conversation.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]I think youre giving wayyyyyy too much credit to Jordan for the Bulls success, The talent of the players, and the coach. Thats were we disagree. Obviously Jordan played huge role in the Bulls winning. But the fact is (and this is what you simply wont admit), From watching the Bulls from 94-98, THEY ALL WERE REPLACEABLE. They obviously dont win as much, or set the NBA record for wins, etc, but that team was talented enough to win more than one. championship if they had a suitable replacement for Jordan as we saw in 94, or Pippen as we saw in the first almost 40 games, and obviously the other players were replaceable.
[/QUOTE]

I don't think I am. Thats not even my intention. I'm just pointing out that the things some people use to discredit or downplay what Jordan did is a little ridiculous because of the fact that he had a large hand in all that.

And as I said, aside from Pippen, who's development Jordan had a huge impact on, and Rodman, who's arrival to the only team that would take him was largely due to Jordan's presence, the Bulls weren't that talented in the sense that you couldn't find players like them littered across the league. Thats my point.

I'm not downplaying the coach. I brought him up because people on here act like Jordan's only way of winning was with Phil as his coach. I'm not saying any idiot could coach that team to a championship. But are we really supposed to believe that other well respected coaches at the time like Pat Riley, Chuck Daly, Larry Brown, Greg Popovich, Rick Adelman, George Karl, Jerry Sloan, Lenny Wilkens couldn't coach those teams to some championships? I don't know, I just think its highly doubtful.

Sure, you can say maybe everyone was replaceable in the timeframe you mentioned. But not to the same extent. You could replace Steve Kerr with like 15-30 players and still win 3 titles, while you could probably only replace Jordan with Hakeem and still win 3 titles. Thats always been my point. Everyone who works at Walmart is probably replaceable but replacing the CEO is alot harder then replacing the manager at one of their stores correct?

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
You seem to feel you could put any good player around Jordan and hes gonna automatically win. Id like to ask you this.... Why didnt the Bulls win pre Pippen and Jackson when they had a good young scoring swingman in Orlando Wooldridge (who could be his Pippen), a good young big in Charles Oakley (who couldve been his Rodman or Grant), and a good young coach in Doug Collins. Even without being championship contenders. They only won 11 more games when Jordan was added. And stayed in playoff contention the year he broke his ankle and only played in 18 games. Again I think far too much credit is given to Jordan for the Bulls success. Basketball is a team sport. If your interest is winning, then this wouldnt be much of a conversation.[/QUOTE]

No I never felt that way. I said when you have someone like Jordan as opposed to lesser players, its not as hard to find the right formula to win a championship i.e. find good enough players, good enough coaches, the right playing style, establish continuity, etc.

Orlando Woolridge was a cokehead who only played with Jordan in his first 2 seasons, one which Jordan missed almost the entirety of. Charles Oakley only played with Jordan for 3 seasons, from 86-88, one which Jordan missed almost the entirety of. All 3 only played the 86 season together, which Jordan missed almost the entirety of. Its a relatively small sample size and on top of that, Jordan himself was still growing as a player and a leader. This is a horrible example you've brought up. Jesus, its not like I said the Bulls became championship contenders right when they got Jordan. If Jordan actually got to play with those 2 together for much longer and as a better and more mature player as was the case with Pippen and Grant, its highly doubtful that they would've just remained 30-40 win teams losing in the first round every year.

And if you're implying that Jordan would've never been able to win a championship with Oakley like he did with Grant, let me ask, what exactly did Grant provide to the Bulls that Oakley was severely lacking? There's literally about nothing.

The Bulls under Doug Collins improved every single year for each of those 3 years. In the third season they reached the ECF with second year inexperienced Pippen and Grant as their 2nd and 3rd best players. For whatever reason they replaced Collins, but its really not far-fetched at all to think if they kept Collins around and Jordan, Pippen, and Grant all got better and more mature that they would've won titles anyway. Maybe not as many, maybe just as much, either way I don't think anyone would've actually bet that they had reached their ceiling under Collins.

In the current NBA, you could literally switch every team's best player with the Heat for Lebron James while also making minor switches for positional differences and about half of those teams would remain or become title contenders and probably most of them would be considered the favorites. It really wasn't that much different with Jordan in his time. Thats another reason why I say the "help" is greatly overstated.

OP lame as f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]ck

[QUOTE]I don't think I am. Thats not even my intention. I'm just pointing out that the things some people use to discredit or downplay what Jordan did is a little ridiculous because of the fact that he had a large hand in all that.[/QUOTE]
Thats because people put Jordan on this pedestal as if he was this god that created all things basketball. Like you. You credit Jordan with far to many things.


[QUOTE]And as I said, aside from Pippen, who's development Jordan had a huge impact on, and Rodman, who's arrival to the only team that would take him was largely due to Jordan's presence, the Bulls weren't that talented in the sense that you couldn't find players like them littered across the league. Thats my point.[/QUOTE]
This is my point. Its no secret Jordan helped Pippen. But Pippen was gonna be Pippen regardless. His skillset was totally different from Jordan as was their mentality. And their leadership qualities. In fact, the thing Id credit Jordan with the most his one on one scoring, the biggest thing you and others like you like to penalize Pippen for. Jordan didnt instill Pippens work ethic (we know this because Pippen went from the towel manager of a small college to the number 5 pick in the NBA draft), his ability to run an offense (we know this because Pippen played PG in college), his help defense, his leadership qualities (their leadership qualities were totally different), and sure as hell not a winning attitude seeing as how neither were winning championships in the NBA right away. They grew together.


[QUOTE]I'm not downplaying the coach. I brought him up because people on here act like Jordan's only way of winning was with Phil as his coach. I'm not saying any idiot could coach that team to a championship. But are we really supposed to believe that other well respected coaches at the time like Pat Riley, Chuck Daly, Larry Brown, Greg Popovich, Rick Adelman, George Karl, Jerry Sloan, Lenny Wilkens couldn't coach those teams to some championships? I don't now, I just think its highly doubtful.[/QUOTE]
You just named some of the greatest coaches of alltime. This isnt saying much.

[QUOTE]Orlando Woolridge was a cokehead who only played with Jordan in his first 2 seasons, one which Jordan missed almost the entirety of. Charles Oakley only played with Jordan for 3 seasons, from 86-88, one which Jordan missed almost the entirety of. All 3 only played the 86 season together, which Jordan missed almost the entirety of. Its a relatively small sample size and on top of that, Jordan himself was still growing as a player and a leader. This is a horrible example you've brought up. Jesus, its not like I said the Bulls became championship contenders right when they got Jordan. If Jordan actually got to play with those 2 together for much longer and as a better and more mature player as was the case with Pippen and Grant, its highly doubtful that they would've just remained 30-40 win teams losing in the first round every year.*[/QUOTE]
Half the NBA was strung out on cocaine in the 80s. Obviously if they continued to play together they improve. But not to the point of winning a championship. Besides, this all stems from youre winning culture comment.


As far as the role players. I dont think theyre a dime a dozen. Remember, Kerr is the alltime leader in 3pt percentage in NBA history. And he and Pax hit some huge shots during the Bulls run. Now compare that with Kyle Korver. He couldnt hit the ocean if he were in a boat in 2011. Kukoc wasnt just a sixthman, he was at the least arguably the best sixthman in the league at the time. The Bulls also had a Hofer assistant coach in Tex Winter. The Bulls were much more than Jordan and some good players.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Its not a myth. Pippen intentionally sent Magic toward help. Not to mention guys are still gonna get loose. [B]I honestly dont think you know what youre talking about[/B].[/QUOTE]

:roll: says the guy who who compares Pippen to Magic, Bird and Jordan.

You said he shut him down, and get out of here with that sent him to help bullshit, he did a great job in the backcourt, but he kept reaching/gambling, at which time Magic would penetrate or spin off him. Fortunate for him there was great help defense by Grant and Jordan on the plays I listed.

According to you Pippen is a combination of three of the TOP 10 players of all time:facepalm The way you talk about the guy, I swear he did more than lead a team to the second round of the playoffs and a 34-31 record the following year.

Pippen is a great player, but the lengths you go are incredible. I personally disagree with the OP, but after reading your posts, I swear Pip was GOAT.

[QUOTE=Calabis]:roll: says the guy who who compares Pippen to Magic, Bird and Jordan.

You said he shut him down, and get out of here with that sent him to help bullshit, he did a great job in the backcourt, but he kept reaching/gambling, at which time Magic would penetrate or spin off him. Fortunate for him there was great help defense by Grant and Jordan on the plays I listed.

According to you Pippen is a combination of three of the TOP 10 players of all time:facepalm The way you talk about the guy, I swear he did more than lead a team to the second round of the playoffs and a 34-31 record the following year.

Pippen is a great player, but the lengths you go are incredible. I personally disagree with the OP, but after reading your posts, I swear Pip was GOAT.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]According to you Pippen is a combination of three of the TOP 10 players of all time[/QUOTE]
At some point you need to let it go. You're gonna believe what you wanna believe. It takes a real female to go out of their way to twist my word. And and a true bitch to continue to do it after I tell you my stance.

The fact is he was turning him to help intentionally. Any moron (besides you) can see it. He knew he could over commit because Magic would turn into help. It was really thing of beauty. And Magic fell for it hook line and sinker. Pippens main job was to not allow Magic to pick the Bulls apart by hitting open cutters and shooters and deter the fastbreak on the perimeter. Then turn him to help (baseline) in the post.

i like how Jordan would give assists to himself and score every point himself.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]At some point you need to let it go. You're gonna believe what you wanna believe. It takes a real female to go out of their way to twist my word. And and a true bitch to continue to do it after I tell you my stance.

The fact is he was turning him to help intentionally. Any moron (besides you) can see it. He knew he could over commit because Magic would turn into help. It was really thing of beauty. And Magic fell for it hook line and sinker. [B]Pippens main job was to not allow Magic to pick the Bulls apart by hitting open cutters and shooters[/B] and deter the fastbreak on the perimeter. Then turn him to help (baseline) in the post.[/QUOTE]

Bitch and a Moron:roll: dude really, your getting mad on the internet? Please tell me how the fvck did he turn him to help, when he's near the three point line and he's standing there watching Magic drive the lane while Jordan takes a charge? Do you even know what the fvck you are talking about? The Other play he reaches and gives up the lane, he's chasing Magic, if not for Grant playing great help defense coming off his man to alter the layup its a easy two. Let's not forget his horrible offensive performance that game

And his main job was to body him up in the back court, so by the time the Lakers set up their offense, they were well into the shot clock. As far as Pippen not letting him pick the Bulls apart...last time I checked 8 assists at halftime isn't to shabby.

Maybe you need to watch the game, I don't see some legendary performance by your hero...what I do see is Grant playing great help D throughout the game, Paxson shooting the ball very well at the right time and Jordan knocking down 13 shoots in a row.

Tell me again how the Bulls won 55 games after he retired and were one bad call away from advancing to the ECF to face Indy????

NO ONE wins titles by themselves. Get a grip. The closest someone has ever come to that is 1999-2000 Shaq and 1994-1995 Hakeem.

Pippen is one of the best defenders of all time and a nice passer, rebounder, and a good enough scorer. For comparison, after Jordan retired Pippen led the Bulls to 55 wins and past the first round, while prime Wade and prime Kobe could not led their teams past the first round in the multiple changes they had.

Get a grip.

Hey, remember when Jordan came back from retirement in 95 and beat the Rockets in the finals because Jordan's just that awesome?

Also remember those awesome Wizards championships he won? Goddamn Jordan's awesome.

[QUOTE=Calabis]Bitch and a Moron:roll: dude really, your getting mad on the internet? Please tell me how the **** did he turn him to help, when he's near the three point line and he's standing there watching Magic drive the lane while Jordan takes a charge? Do you even know what the fvck you are talking about? The Other play he reaches and gives up the lane, he's chasing Magic, if not for Grant playing great help defense coming off his man to alter the layup its a easy two. Let's not forget his horrible offensive performance that game

And his main job was to body him up in the back court, so by the time the Lakers set up their offense, they were well into the shot clock. As far as Pippen not letting him pick the Bulls apart...last time I checked 8 assists at halftime isn't to shabby.

Maybe you need to watch the game, I don't see some legendary performance by your hero...what I do see is Grant playing great help D throughout the game, Paxson shooting the ball very well at the right time and Jordan knocking down 13 shoots in a row.[/QUOTE]
I never get mad bro. But you are acting like a female. I state something, you blow it way out of proportion, I put my statement into context and yet you still take it and run with it. Like a female youre only hearing what you wanna hear.
[QUOTE]
As far as Pippen not letting him pick the Bulls apart...last time I checked 8 assists at halftime isn't to shabby[/QUOTE]Magic had 10 assists for the game bro.The fact is the one game that Pip defended Magic, he had his lowest assist total, shot his lowest percentage (31%), and the Lakers only scored 86 pts. Pippen did a great job on Magic

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Thats because people put Jordan on this pedestal as if he was this god that created all things basketball. Like you. You credit Jordan with far to many things.
[/QUOTE]

No I'm not. I get the feeling you are taking my opinions to the extreme. You seem to think that I'm giving Jordan 100% credit for everything positive that happened with the Bulls and giving Pippen, Grant, Phil, Rodman, etc 0% credit for anything. Thats not what I'm saying. All I'm saying is for almost every contributing factor to the Bulls' success during those 15 years, Jordan directly or indirectly had some kind of hand in it, however minimal it may have been. Its literally impossible for that not to occur. And I don't say that about just Jordan, but many all-time greats in general. Thats why I say its extremely stupid to take two great players and compare the teams they had throughout their career and just automatically come to the conclusion that one was luckier then the other. Its not as simple as that.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
This is my point. Its no secret Jordan helped Pippen. But Pippen was gonna be Pippen regardless. His skillset was totally different from Jordan as was their mentality. And their leadership qualities. In fact, the thing Id credit Jordan with the most his one on one scoring, the biggest thing you and others like you like to penalize Pippen for. Jordan didnt instill Pippens work ethic (we know this because Pippen went from the towel manager of a small college to the number 5 pick in the NBA draft), his ability to run an offense (we know this because Pippen played PG in college), his help defense, his leadership qualities (their leadership qualities were totally different), and sure as hell not a winning attitude seeing as how neither were winning championships in the NBA right away. They grew together.
[/QUOTE]

Its highly doubtful Pippen would've been exactly who he was without Jordan, and its really being way too overconfident to say he would've been that way regardless as you've put it.

I get the feeling that your being sensitive and you think that when I say Jordan should deserve alot of credit for his role in the development of Pippen instead of having his accomplishments lessened due to playing with such a great player, that I'm saying Pippen's greatness should be diminished. I'm not at all. When I judge a player, it doesn't really matter who helped in his development, because that would be stupid since pretty much no one in life gets to success without people teaching them along the way. Diminishing Pippen for that would be just as stupid as diminishing Jordan cause he was helped by Dean Smith in his development. All I'm saying is its pretty stupid to diminish Jordan by mentioning his help with comments like if Barkley, Ewing, Drexler, etc had Pippen, then they would've beaten Jordan and won more rings too.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
You just named some of the greatest coaches of alltime. This isnt saying much.
[/QUOTE]

I just named what was like 1/3 of the league at one point :oldlol: It actually does say a lot. It says that its stupid to suggest that Phil Jackson was the only coach that could've ever coached Jordan to a title, which people on here do constantly.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Half the NBA was strung out on cocaine in the 80s. Obviously if they continued to play together they improve. But not to the point of winning a championship. Besides, this all stems from youre winning culture comment.
[/QUOTE]

Why do you say they couldn't have won a championship? Why do you even come to that conclusion? I see no reason why it wouldn't have been possible assuming everyone was healthy, specifically Orlando. Its thinking like this that is flawed to me. Just because something didn't happen, doesn't mean it was so highly unlikely that it wouldn't have happened given more time.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
As far as the role players. I dont think theyre a dime a dozen. Remember, Kerr is the alltime leader in 3pt percentage in NBA history. And he and Pax hit some huge shots during the Bulls run. Now compare that with Kyle Korver. He couldnt hit the ocean if he were in a boat in 2011. Kukoc wasnt just a sixthman, he was at the least arguably the best sixthman in the league at the time. The Bulls also had a Hofer assistant coach in Tex Winter. The Bulls were much more than Jordan and some good players.[/QUOTE]

So are you suggesting that the Bulls needed the all-time leader in 3pt % in NBA history to win all 3 of those titles? It HAD to be the all-time leader? Nobody else could've filled that role? Thats ridiculous to suggest. Yes, Steve Kerr isn't a dime a dozen in the sense that there's no greater 3pt % in NBA history. He was a dime a dozen in the role he played, because there's always been plenty of knockdown shooters in the league. Replacing a career 45% 3pt shooter who's role was to only take 2-3 per game with a career 42% 3pt shooter like Kyle Korver who you mentioned, would not have changed much, if anything.

Role players hit big shots on every championship team and even on other teams as well.

Yes, Toni Kukoc actually was the 6th man of the year, which means he was an above average role player and at the very least the 146th best player in the league :oldlol: Sorry, its always funny to me when people point to things like the 6MOY award and one of the best players from overseas, like that really means alot especially back then.

Close this retarded thread... :facepalm

or ban the OP.

Hey remember when Jordan won a championship in his rookie year and also won FMVP?

*[QUOTE]All I'm saying is for almost every contributing factor to the Bulls' success during those 15 years, Jordan directly or indirectly had some kind of hand in it, however minimal it may have been.[/QUOTE]
Its post like this that I vehemently disagree with. Jordan didnt teach Jackson and Winter their coaching philosophy. In fact, he tried to fight it at first. Jackson had to beg him to get Paxson the ball cuz he was open. He didnt teach Pax how to shoot. He didnt teach Cartwright and Grant how to defend the post. He didnt give Pippen his talent and work ethic. We're talking about huge reasons as to why the Bulls won. Jordans biggest influence on the Bulls was the confidence hed give to to his teammates and coach in knowing that they had the best player in the world on their side.


[QUOTE]Its highly doubtful Pippen would've been exactly who he was without Jordan, and its really being way too overconfident to say he would've been that way regardless as you've put it.*
[/QUOTE]
Again whats doubtful about it? They didnt even have the same mindset. They really didnt even have the same skillset. The way they approached the game was in stark contrast of each other. Pippen didnt try to be Jordan the year he retired. He ran the Bulls in his own way.



[QUOTE]Why do you say they couldn't have won a championship? Why do you even come to that conclusion? I see no reason why it wouldn't have been possible assuming everyone was healthy, specifically Orlando. Its thinking like this that is flawed to me. Just because something didn't happen, doesn't mean it was so highly unlikely that it wouldn't have happened given more time.*[/QUOTE]
Because they were nowhere near contending. Unlike when Pippen and Grant came. You knew they had something going because they were going deep into the playoffs at a young age.


[QUOTE]So are you suggesting that the Bulls needed the all-time leader in 3pt % in NBA history to win all 3 of those titles? It HAD to be the all-time leader? Nobody else could've filled that role? Thats ridiculous to suggest. Yes, Steve Kerr isn't a dime a dozen in the sense that there's no greater 3pt % in NBA history. He was a dime a dozen in the role he played, because there's always been plenty of knockdown shooters in the league. Replacing a career 45% 3pt shooter who's role was to only take 2-3 per game with a career 42% 3pt shooter like Kyle Korver who you mentioned, would not have changed much, if anything.*[/QUOTE]
No. And I see your point. My point is that were not talking about an avg three point shooter. PAX and Kerr were lights out and clutch. Korver missed alot of wide open threes.


[QUOTE]Yes, Toni Kukoc actually was the 6th man of the year, which means he was an above average role player and at the very least the 146th best player in the league**Sorry, its always funny to me when people point to things like the 6MOY award and one of the best players from overseas, like that really means alot especially back then.
[/QUOTE]
I gotta admit I got a chuckle out of this paragraph. However. Kukoc was much better than you give him credit for. And what was wrong with the Europen players back then? You do remember why they began to allow NBA players to start playing in the Olympics right? Because European teams started kicking our ass. Kukoc was more than capable of being a starter on an NBA team. Hell he avg 19/7/5 in his lone opportunity to be the man in the NBA. Some or even more most American players would kill to havd a statline like that for a season. Another classic example of you feeling what happened didnt really happen.

That Bulls Roster was legit. Grant was already a great defenders at PF. Paxson was as good a shooter as anyone in the league. Pippen was already an all star and one of the best defender in the league.
Hakeem had a good cast as well. Shaq had a good cast as well. Duncan had a good cast. Sometimes a good all around cast is better than a top heavy team with no depth.
Nobody in this league has won a ring by themselves. Some just did it with weaker rosters.

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]Winning rings is like a 3 legged stool. You gotta have these 3 legs to win a championship:

* Talent
* System/Coaching
* Injuries

If any one of those legs breaks, the stool falls. You do not get to pass Go, you do not get to collect $200... you do not get a championship.

It makes no sense to say one leg is more important than the other, because if any leg breaks, that stool won't bear weight.

***********************************

You can see examples of this in any season. Probably [I]every[/I] season.

2010 - Kendrick Perkins breaks his knee in the Finals, the Celtics lose.
Now it could be debated whether the Celtics were going to win that series, but did anyone think they were going to win without Perk?

2011 - the Heat have a monster so-called Big 3 lineup... but lose to Dallas's smoother system. Spoelstra, in my opinion, didn't have a system in place, and he wasn't a strong enough coach to keep the motivation level high enough to finish.

88-89 Bulls had a great lineup, but they didn't have Phil Jackson. System/coaching cost them against the Pistons. Doug Collins, in my opinion, couldn't control his team.... and in 90, PJ was there but it took a full year to get rampaging egos to run his system.

The '71 Lakers also had a monster, so-called Big 3 lineup, with Baylor, West, and Chamberlain.... But Baylor & West both missed the entire playoffs, drawing DNP - injury.... and lost to Kareem's Bucks.

90s Shaq-Penny Magic got destroyed by injuries.

*********************

All three factors are out of the control of any individual player, no matter how great he is.

Using rings as a measurement of individual greatness is absurd.[/QUOTE]

That's been true for the 40+ years I've been watching hoops and it's still true today.

Of the three legs in the Bulls chair, there's no question in my mind, the most important for the 1991 championship was the second leg.
That ring was won by Phil Jackson & Tex Winter.

I severely doubt that any other coach could have won a championship with Michael Jordan on his team that year and that is still Phil Jackson's greatest accomplishment.

I disagree with the OP.

I'm actually kinda embarrassed, since he's normally on point.

Having said that..

The overrating of Pip continues (to be fair, it is to counter the underrating of Pip).

The OP would've been correct if he stated that nobody's won a ring with less help. That can actually be debatable that can go either way. But MJ does have the distinction to have won with the worst front court of all time. No true dominant big man or all star front court.

[QUOTE=andgar923]I disagree with the OP.

I'm actually kinda embarrassed, since he's normally on point.

Having said that..

The overrating of Pip continues (to be fair, it is to counter the underrating of Pip).

The OP would've been correct if he stated that nobody's won a ring with less help. That can actually be debatable that can go either way. But MJ does have the distinction to have won with the worst front court of all time. No true dominant big man or all star front court.[/QUOTE]

False.
DJ's Sonics squad had Jack Sikma who was a solid center but nowhere near top of the league.... and nothing else. Lonnie Shelton & Johnnie Johnson was what they had, Paul Silas was anciently old in '79 but played solid D.

Rick Barry's Warriors for certain, and most probably Dirk's Mavs had less help. And while both Barry & Dirk were forwards, their front courts were not better than what was on the '91 Bulls.
That's 3 teams without even looking into it very hard. There's probably more.

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]False.
DJ's Sonics squad had Jack Sikma who was a solid center but nowhere near top of the league.... and nothing else. Lonnie Shelton & Johnnie Johnson was what they had, Paul Silas was anciently old in '79 but played solid D.

Rick Barry's Warriors for certain, and most probably Dirk's Mavs had less help. And while both Barry & Dirk were forwards, their front courts were not better than what was on the '91 Bulls.
That's 3 teams without even looking into it very hard. There's probably more.[/QUOTE]
I'd be a fool if I tried to comment on the Sonics and Warriors since I honestly can't say how they matched up against their peers at the time.

Dirk IS a 7 footer that caused tons of mismatch problems, but also had a very good front court [I]considering their competition[/I] (Haywood and Chandler). Seriously, who did they play aside from perhaps Gasol and Bynum that were any threat in the front court? Dirk is equivalent to a HOF center impact wise, you have both Tyson and Haywood averaging a block per game and changing even more shots than that.

Considering the Bulls' competition they were basically a joke for the most part offensively. One can argue that they were good enough defensively, but their defense was anchored by their back court. Aside from Grant and Rodman they didn't have much defense in the front court. I can go down the list of forwards and centers and even then, they got lit up. It wasn't like they were a great presence at either end. Rodman and Grant were both tough, but neither was a force that altered shots in the paint. Nobody came down the lane fearing a Rodman or Grant block.

[QUOTE=andgar923]I'd be a fool if I tried to comment on the Sonics and Warriors since I honestly can't say how they matched up against their peers at the time.

Dirk IS a 7 footer that caused tons of mismatch problems, but also had a very good front court [I]considering their competition[/I] (Haywood and Chandler). Seriously, who did they play aside from perhaps Gasol and Bynum that were any threat in the front court? Dirk is equivalent to a HOF center impact wise, you have both Tyson and Haywood averaging a block per game and changing even more shots than that.

Considering the Bulls' competition they were basically a joke for the most part offensively. One can argue that they were good enough defensively, but their defense was anchored by their back court. Aside from Grant and Rodman they didn't have much defense in the front court. I can go down the list of forwards and centers and even then, they got lit up. It wasn't like they were a great presence at either end. Rodman and Grant were both tough, but neither was a force that altered shots in the paint. Nobody came down the lane fearing a Rodman or Grant block.[/QUOTE]
This is ridiculous. Theres three front court positions in the NBA. The 96-98 Bulls have Hall of Famers at TWO of those positions. WTF?

The 91-93 Bulls had Grant who was an excellent defender and double double machine. And while Longley and Cartwright werent great, they were more than serviceable.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]This is ridiculous. Theres three front court positions in the NBA. The 96-98 Bulls have Hall of Famers at TWO of those positions. WTF?

The 91-93 Bulls had Grant who was an excellent defender and double double machine. And while Longley and Cartwright werent great, they were more than serviceable.[/QUOTE]

Do you not know how to read?

How did they compare vs their counterparts?

You wanna go through the list of match ups they faced? if you compare them to the top teams or teams they faced in the post season they're shit.

No strong presence in the middle, Mj and Pip were basically their best shot blockers. Their only threat offensively was MJ, it wasn't Luc, Bill, Rodman, Grant, none of them.

[QUOTE=SpecialQue]Hey remember when Jordan won a championship in his rookie year and also won FMVP?[/QUOTE]
I remember that Jordan was so good, he won back to back FMVPs with the Wizards.

[QUOTE=andgar923]Do you not know how to read?

How did they compare vs their counterparts?

You wanna go through the list of match ups they faced? if you compare them to the top teams or teams they faced in the post season they're shit.

No strong presence in the middle, Mj and Pip were basically their best shot blockers. Their only threat offensively was MJ, it wasn't Luc, Bill, Rodman, Grant, none of them.[/QUOTE]
So the games in which Rodman gave Shaq, Mourning, Kemp, Malone fits is just a myth right? Id say overall they matched up fine vs their competition. Which frontcourt was better than the Bulls?

[QUOTE=97 bulls]So the games in which Rodman gave Shaq, Mourning, Kemp, Malone fits is just a myth right? Id say overall they matched up fine vs their competition. Which frontcourt was better than the Bulls?[/QUOTE]
Giving them fits is different than dominating a la Shaq. Shaq wasn't even a great defensive beast, but teams still didn't challenge him when he was in the paint.

Hell the pacers with the Davis in the front court were better.

The bulls did enough to sneak by, let us not pretend the opponents were getting the clamps put on them and that teams were scrambling to double luc or grant.