Better floor leader: Jordan or Magic?

[QUOTE=wakencdukest]It doesn't matter which era was tougher to play in or any other nonsense. The Question is: who was the better floor leader? Magic's job was to control the offense and get the ball to the the players in the best position to score. Which he did. He was also a great motivator, he directed the offense like a coach out on the floor. Jordan's job was to score. Jordan was a great player, but he played within a system just like everyone else on the floor. A system designed to get him the ball in certain spots so he could score. Magic was clearly a better floor leader.[/QUOTE]
Great post

[QUOTE=DatAsh]I still fail to see how that would increase his rebounds from 8 to 10.[/QUOTE]

[B]Jordan could get 2 offensive "weak side" rebound put backs easily.

When all the opposition focus is on Kareem & Worthy being boxed out.

MJ was always a terrific weak side rebounder[/B].

& throughout Bulls era, Opponents outrebounded CHI particularly NYK & MIA & IND cuz lack of quality front court rebounder.

Pure rebounder Rodman's recruitment finally helped Bulls at PF position. But No center, No real rebounding SF positin hurt bulls more often then not.

throughout Bulls era, MJ & Pippen overcompensated for rebounds.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]I could easiky se Jordan avg 33/8/10 if he played a Role similar to James. Meaning a pseudo PG[/QUOTE]

So you think Jordan playing in Lebron's role would average more assist than Lebron himself, despite Lebron being the better passer?

[QUOTE=DatAsh]So you think Jordan playing in Lebron's role would average more assist than Lebron himself, despite Lebron being the better passer?[/QUOTE]
If he played with Jabaar and Worthy yes.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Neither Jordan nor Rodman ever said anything suggesting the Bulls era was weaker than any other. I know Rodman said you couldn't compare the 96 Bulls to the great teams of the 80s ONLY BECAUSE THEY HADNT WON ANYTHING YET.

Neither the Lakers nor Pistons were old at the time they were destroyed by the Bulls. What do you consider old? For the Lakers, Magic was 30 one year removed from being MVP, and.was runner-up in 91. He put up basically the same stats. Worthy was 28 or 29 the same as Scott. The same holds true for the Pistons. I guess you could say Laimbeer was old. But he was in his 30s when the Pistons won. Not to mention his game was predicated on strength and jumpshooting. So Id like to ask you, who was old on those teams?[/QUOTE]

Really?
Come on man. Where was Cooper? Where was McAdoo? Where was Kareem? RETIRED, THAT'S WHERE. [B]That means they got old.[/B]

Where was Rambis? Where was Coach Pat Riley?
No matter what you might want to believe, that wasn't Showtime Lakers.

I'm not going over this again bro. I have bias like anyone; but I sure don't have 97Bulls as a name or an avi that has just 1 goal in life. I ain't wasting anymore time on this when it's already got like 40 threads on ISH alone.

[QUOTE=wakencdukest]It doesn't matter which era was tougher to play in or any other nonsense. The Question is: who was the better floor leader? Magic's job was to control the offense and get the ball to the the players in the best position to score. Which he did. He was also a great motivator, he directed the offense like a coach out on the floor. Jordan's job was to score. Jordan was a great player, but he played within a system just like everyone else on the floor. A system designed to get him the ball in certain spots so he could score. Magic was clearly a better floor leader.[/QUOTE]
great post.

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]Really?
Come on man. Where was Cooper? Where was McAdoo? Where was Kareem? RETIRED, THAT'S WHERE. [B]That means they got old.[/B]

Where was Rambis? Where was Coach Pat Riley?
No matter what you might want to believe, that wasn't Showtime Lakers.

I'm not going over this again bro. I have bias like anyone; but I sure don't have 97Bulls as a name or an avi that has just 1 goal in life. I ain't wasting anymore time on this when it's already got like 40 threads on ISH alone.[/QUOTE]
And the Celtics never beat the Lakers at full strength, the Lakers beat the Sixers without Moses Malone, weve been through this. The Celtics beat teams that were barely or under .500. The Lakers played in perhaps the worst conference the NBA has ever seen. We could punch holes in any teams opposition.

Lol we all have a bias. But that bias becomes an agenda when the circumstances are taken into account. And dont forget. YOU BROUGHT THIS UP. And like usual, when I catch it, I confront it and then people like you who have that agenda tuck tail and run. Because you dont want the truth.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]And the Celtics never beat the Lakers at full strength, the Lakers beat the Sixers without Moses Malone, weve been through this. The Celtics beat teams that were barely or under .500. The Lakers played in perhaps the worst conference the NBA has ever seen. We could punch holes in any teams opposition.

Lol we all have a bias. But that bias becomes an agenda when the circumstances are taken into account. And dont forget. YOU BROUGHT THIS UP. And like usual, when I catch it, I confront it and then people like you who have that agenda tuck tail and run. Because you dont want the truth.[/QUOTE]
No, actually ghengiskhan brought it up, and you butted in.

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]Really?
Come on man. Where was Cooper? Where was McAdoo? Where was Kareem? RETIRED, THAT'S WHERE. [B]That means they got old.[/B]

Where was Rambis? Where was Coach Pat Riley?
No matter what you might want to believe, that wasn't Showtime Lakers.

I'm not going over this again bro. I have bias like anyone; but I sure don't have 97Bulls as a name or an avi that has just 1 goal in life. I ain't wasting anymore time on this when it's already got like 40 threads on ISH alone.[/QUOTE]

It's not that much the old age, it's the mileage of a team that reaches to the NBA Finals year after year after year and rests way less than the average. The Lakers from 1982 to 1989 missed the Finals only once. In 1990, they were at least as good as in 1991, and they still lost to the Suns. Add this to the fact that players like Kareem and McAdoo were definitely old and Magic, though almost 31 in 1991, was already in his 12th season, and this makes the team way older than its players' ages show. By contrast, among the 1991-98 Bulls, I can only recall one player who played all these 8 years with the team, Pippen, and even he, by 1998, wasn't the same player he was in the first half of the 90's.
Of course, the 1991 Lakers weren't the Showtime Lakers for the reasons you mentioned, unless we also call the 1990 Bulls or the 1995 Bulls "prime Bulls".

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]No, actually ghengiskhan brought it up, and you butted in.[/QUOTE]
No. You brought it up. Ghengis stated that Jordan was a better leader because he led his team to a better finals record than Magic. You then replied with that same drivel about how Jordan's Bulls in the 80s couldn't beat the Celtics (cuz thats what youre getting at). As if that was a fair assesment. Logical people know the Bulls in the mid 80s werent any good. Which again shows your agenda. How can you on one hand knock the Bulls for not beating the Celtics in 86 and 87 when he didnt have sufficient help because Pippen, Grant, Cartwright, Jackson etc werent there, But then knock their beating the Lakers because Kareem and Coop werent there? You dont see how hypocritical that is? You cant even go a sentence without contradicting yourself.

[QUOTE=Psileas]It's not that much the old age, it's the mileage of a team that reaches to the NBA Finals year after year after year and rests way less than the average. The Lakers from 1982 to 1989 missed the Finals only once. In 1990, they were at least as good as in 1991, and they still lost to the Suns. Add this to the fact that players like Kareem and McAdoo were definitely old and Magic, though almost 31 in 1991, was already in his 12th season, and this makes the team way older than its players' ages show. By contrast, among the 1991-98 Bulls, I can only recall one player who played all these 8 years with the team, Pippen, and even he, by 1998, wasn't the same player he was in the first half of the 90's.
Of course, the 1991 Lakers weren't the Showtime Lakers for the reasons you mentioned, unless we also call the 1990 Bulls or the 1995 Bulls "prime Bulls".[/QUOTE]
And then I could come back with the fact that the Lakers never really had a serious rival in the west during the 80s. The Celtics did have to battle the Sixers, then the Bucks, then the Pistons.

The Lakers played a lot of great teams in the West.

The defending champion Sonics in1980
Gervin/Gilmore Spurs
Hakeem/Sampson Rockets
Stockton/Malone Jazz
Drexler Blazers
Blackman/Aguirre Mavs who were just as good as those Bucks
Early 80's Suns who fielded 50+ win teams year after year

Then they had to play all those other teams in the Finals..

[QUOTE=eliteballer]The Lakers played a lot of great teams in the West.

The defending champion Sonics in1980
Gervin/Gilmore Spurs
Hakeem/Sampson Rockets
Stockton/Malone Jazz
Drexler Blazers
Blackman/Aguirre Mavs who were just as good as those Bucks
Early 80's Suns who fielded 50+ win teams year after year

Then they had to play all those other teams in the Finals..[/QUOTE]
Good point. Still from top to bottom the West wasnt very good. I just dont feel they rsn out of gas. The core of that team didnt have the miles on them after Magic. Just like the core of the Bulls after Pippen

[QUOTE=97 bulls]No. You brought it up. Ghengis stated that Jordan was a better leader because he led his team to a better finals record than Magic. You then replied with that same drivel about how Jordan's Bulls in the 80s couldn't beat the Celtics (cuz thats what youre getting at). As if that was a fair assesment. Logical people know the Bulls in the mid 80s werent any good. Which again shows your agenda. How can you on one hand knock the Bulls for not beating the Celtics in 86 and 87 when he didnt have sufficient help because Pippen, Grant, Cartwright, Jackson etc werent there, But then knock their beating the Lakers because Kareem and Coop werent there? You dont see how hypocritical that is? You cant even go a sentence without contradicting yourself.[/QUOTE]

OK. Since you are fairly intelligent poster on this website (although dreadful as far as agenda) I'll try and get you to have SOME kind of understanding about a different point of view. Although as daRegul8er often comments, it seems that trying to do this is truly a broken reed.

It has nothing to do with the fact that Jordan got beat over and over in the 80s. His teams were poor.

I don't think that Jordan's 1991 (or 98 either) Bulls team could have beaten the Showtime Lakers of the early 80s.
Nor could they have beaten the 1983 Sixers.
Nor could they have beaten the 89 Pistons.
Nor could they have beaten the Celtics of at least a couple years in through there, '86 being only the most obvious.

In my opinion, Mike was 6-0 because he didn't play ANY TEAM OF THAT QUALITY IN THE FINALS. Is that plain enough?

Magic Johnson without a doubt. No if, ands, or buts.

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]
In my opinion, Mike was 6-0 because he didn't play ANY TEAM OF THAT QUALITY IN THE FINALS. Is that plain enough?[/QUOTE]

**Edit, I read that wrong

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]OK. Since you are fairly intelligent poster on this website (although dreadful as far as agenda) I'll try and get you to have SOME kind of understanding about a different point of view. Although as daRegul8er often comments, it seems that trying to do this is truly a broken reed.

It has nothing to do with the fact that Jordan got beat over and over in the 80s. His teams were poor.

I don't think that Jordan's 1991 (or 98 either) Bulls team could have beaten the Showtime Lakers of the early 80s.
Nor could they have beaten the 1983 Sixers.
Nor could they have beaten the 89 Pistons.
Nor could they have beaten the Celtics of at least a couple years in through there, '86 being only the most obvious.

In my opinion, Mike was 6-0 because he didn't play ANY TEAM OF THAT QUALITY IN THE FINALS. Is that plain enough?[/QUOTE]
Thats fair. I disagree obviously but its fair as its your opinion. My only reply to this has always been..... The 87 Lakers, the 86 Celtics, the 83 Sixers, and the 89 Pistons, NEVER PLAYED EACH OTHER. They played a variation of their best team. Just like the Bulls did vs the Lakers and Pistons. Talk to a Celtics fan about them losing to the Lakers in 87 and theyll say the Celtics were hurt (Walton and Mchale). The Sixers fans say the Lakers beat them in 80 cuz they didnt have Moses Malone. The Lakers team the Celtics beat werent all time greats. The Pistons beat the Lakers without Magic and Scott. The Lakers were well on their way to losing to the Pistons before Thomas went down with that sprained ankle. Why hold the Bulls to a different standard? They beat a variation of the Lakers and Pistons. And that 91 team was by no means their best team. Again for emphasis, why hold the Bulls to a standard you dont hold the other teams to?

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]OK. Since you are fairly intelligent poster on this website (although dreadful as far as agenda) I'll try and get you to have SOME kind of understanding about a different point of view. Although as daRegul8er often comments, it seems that trying to do this is truly a broken reed.

It has nothing to do with the fact that Jordan got beat over and over in the 80s. His teams were poor.

I don't think that Jordan's 1991 (or 98 either) Bulls team could have beaten the Showtime Lakers of the early 80s.
Nor could they have beaten the 1983 Sixers.
Nor could they have beaten the 89 Pistons.
Nor could they have beaten the Celtics of at least a couple years in through there, '86 being only the most obvious.

In my opinion, Mike was 6-0 because he didn't play ANY TEAM OF THAT QUALITY IN THE FINALS. Is that plain enough?[/QUOTE]

Jordan's first three-peat Bulls would have DESTROYED the '89 or '90 Pistons. Get real - Jordan almost beat those teams practically singlehandedly. Now you're giving him '091-'93 Pippen/Grant et al.?

[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]Jordan's first three-peat Bulls would have DESTROYED the '89 or '90 Pistons. Get real - Jordan almost beat those teams practically singlehandedly. Now you're giving him '091-'93 Pippen/Grant et al.?[/QUOTE]

maybe they would have; I don't think the '91 team would have.