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

[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]

:roll:

[QUOTE=andgar923]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.[/QUOTE]
So the Pacers is the only team you feel that was better than the Bulls where the frontcourt is concerned?

How did Jordan manage to rack up all those assists by himself?

[QUOTE=97 bulls]*
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. [/QUOTE]

Wow man, I didn't mean he raised them as children and was the first to put a basketball in their hand.

As I said, role players don't matter much. There's not much of a difference between their actual abilities. The greater the superstars they're supporting though, the easier it makes on them.

I've said multiple times now that that Jordan helping develop Pippen wouldn't have mattered much if Pippen didn't have the potential and work ethic in the first place. You keep glossing over that and like I said, taking what I said to the extreme.

Phil and Tex's coaching philosophy doesn't matter much if Jordan doesn't eventually buy in the first place. Shit, even when fighting it they still made it to game 7 of the ECF.

Like I said, he had a hand in almost every major contributing factor to their success, as in heightening the expectations of the organizations, helping in the development of Pippen, making things easier on his average role player teammates, buying into Phil's philosophy despite his lack of experience, helping the organization feel comfortable bringing in Rodman, etc. Thats not saying something extreme like he taught John Paxson how to shoot like you to think.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
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]

Yes. And that is HUGE yet you seem to downplay it. Ask John Starks, Charles Oakley, Pat Riley, Dan Majerle, Kevin Johnson, Paul Westphal, Terry Porter, Jerome Kersey, Rick Adelman, John Stockton, Jeff Hornacek, and Jerry Sloan if they felt anywhere near as confident cause I doubt it.

And if you really believe what you said right there, you're not really disagreeing with me.


[QUOTE=97 bulls]
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]

They didn't have the same skillset? They both did pretty much everything except Jordan was a significantly better scorer. When Pippen was playing his absolute best, people would say it was like watching two Jordans out there. Throw in the many people, including Pippen himself, that say Jordan was huge in his development and Pippen probably wouldn't be as good as he was without him, and I think its highly doubtful that he would've been the same player. That doesn't mean he wouldn't have been good, just not as great as he was.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
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]

:oldlol: This is the type of stupid comments I'm talking about They weren't making it deep in the playoffs cause of Pippen and Grant. They were making it deep in the playoffs mainly cause Jordan was a better, more mature, and experienced player and leader that was at or near his peak. As a result they were doing better in the RS and got to avoid tougher competition in earlier rounds and they were just a better team overall. Thats mainly why they were making it deep, not cause Pippen and Grant were these hugely impactful players that soon like they were later on. Its not far-fetched at all that if it was 86 Woolridge and Oakley in their place that it would've been any different.

I don't think Oakley in Grant's place makes a difference. In fact, I think Oakley was a little better. Woolridge in Pippen's place of course makes a difference. If he doesn't clean up his act like he didn't, I highly doubt they can win it all. But if he does, they still wouldn't be as good with him instead of Pippen, but its not far-fetched that they could've won it all. That trio would've still been one of the best trios in the league in the early 90s.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
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]

So what exactly are you saying? You do think that if it was Korver in their place that they would've won less then 6 titles? Cause thats laughable.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
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.[/QUOTE]

All I'm saying is technically thats what the 6th man means. I think he was better clearly then the 146th best player in the league and capable of starting.

Umm, European players weren't doing shit to the NBA in the 90s.

You don't seem to understand that stats on the absolute worst team in the league doesn't really mean much. Of course his numbers were going to go up. When the Bulls lost Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman, they lost about 50 ppg/25 rpg/10 apg. Of course when they don't end up getting anyone better, that next best player is going to make up a big chunk of that, but it doesn't really say much when you are the absolute worst team in the league. Its one thing if he was putting up superstar numbers, or if he was putting up those numbers on a good team. But he wasn't. It doesn't say much. Tell me someone who put up those type of numbers on the worst team in the league and still made the ASG?

It is hilarious how one of the 5 greatest players of all-time actually is overrated. :roll: Just see this thread and the one claiming Jordan could be a solid player at age 50.

[QUOTE]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]

That is ridiculous. Jordan always had great forwards--when he was winning.

Jordan made Pippen a top 5 draft pick; Jordan is the reason Chicago traded for Pippen. Please. Only Jordan fans utter such nonsense. If Jordan is so great at player development why has he been a joke as a GM/owner? Why doesn't he "mint" another HOFer? He hasn't because he can't.

People act as if Doug Collins didn't exist. Collins went out of his way to develop Pippen and Grant. You know, being the coach...Sure Jordan helped Pippen (and as Jordan himself noted, Pippen helped make Jordan better) but that happens all the time with teammates. Only in Jordan's case is it hyped to a ridiculous degree, but that seems to be the case with all things Jordan.

[QUOTE]Fact 2:In 1991, Scottie Pippen was NOT even good enough to secure all-star 2nd team spot. let alone becoming all-star starter from the East in 1991.[/QUOTE]

Fact: After the 1991 season Pippen was part of first four players picked for the Dream Team.

Fact: Pippen posted near triple double stats in the 1991 NBA Finals. He averaged 21/9/7/2/1.

The real question is why so many absurdities surround Jordan. It only happens with him and Wilt. If Jordan is the "clear GOAT" why not let him stand on his record? It should suffice. Why the need for all these myths to prop him up?

[QUOTE=guy]Wow man, I didn't mean he raised them as children and was the first to put a basketball in their hand.

As I said, role players don't matter much. There's not much of a difference between their actual abilities. The greater the superstars they're supporting though, the easier it makes on them.

I've said multiple times now that that Jordan helping develop Pippen wouldn't have mattered much if Pippen didn't have the potential and work ethic in the first place. You keep glossing over that and like I said, taking what I said to the extreme.

Phil and Tex's coaching philosophy doesn't matter much if Jordan doesn't eventually buy in the first place. Shit, even when fighting it they still made it to game 7 of the ECF.

Like I said, he had a hand in almost every major contributing factor to their success, as in heightening the expectations of the organizations, helping in the development of Pippen, making things easier on his average role player teammates, buying into Phil's philosophy despite his lack of experience, helping the organization feel comfortable bringing in Rodman, etc. Thats not saying something extreme like he taught John Paxson how to shoot like you to think.



Yes. And that is HUGE yet you seem to downplay it. Ask John Starks, Charles Oakley, Pat Riley, Dan Majerle, Kevin Johnson, Paul Westphal, Terry Porter, Jerome Kersey, Rick Adelman, John Stockton, Jeff Hornacek, and Jerry Sloan if they felt anywhere near as confident cause I doubt it.

And if you really believe what you said right there, you're not really disagreeing with me.




They didn't have the same skillset? They both did pretty much everything except Jordan was a significantly better scorer. When Pippen was playing his absolute best, people would say it was like watching two Jordans out there. Throw in the many people, including Pippen himself, that say Jordan was huge in his development and Pippen probably wouldn't be as good as he was without him, and I think its highly doubtful that he would've been the same player. That doesn't mean he wouldn't have been good, just not as great as he was.



:oldlol: This is the type of stupid comments I'm talking about They weren't making it deep in the playoffs cause of Pippen and Grant. They were making it deep in the playoffs mainly cause Jordan was a better, more mature, and experienced player and leader that was at or near his peak. As a result they were doing better in the RS and got to avoid tougher competition in earlier rounds and they were just a better team overall. Thats mainly why they were making it deep, not cause Pippen and Grant were these hugely impactful players that soon like they were later on. Its not far-fetched at all that if it was 86 Woolridge and Oakley in their place that it would've been any different.

I don't think Oakley in Grant's place makes a difference. In fact, I think Oakley was a little better. Woolridge in Pippen's place of course makes a difference. If he doesn't clean up his act like he didn't, I highly doubt they can win it all. But if he does, they still wouldn't be as good with him instead of Pippen, but its not far-fetched that they could've won it all. That trio would've still been one of the best trios in the league in the early 90s.



So what exactly are you saying? You do think that if it was Korver in their place that they would've won less then 6 titles? Cause thats laughable.



All I'm saying is technically thats what the 6th man means. I think he was better clearly then the 146th best player in the league and capable of starting.

Umm, European players weren't doing shit to the NBA in the 90s.

You don't seem to understand that stats on the absolute worst team in the league doesn't really mean much. Of course his numbers were going to go up. When the Bulls lost Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman, they lost about 50 ppg/25 rpg/10 apg. Of course when they don't end up getting anyone better, that next best player is going to make up a big chunk of that, but it doesn't really say much when you are the absolute worst team in the league. Its one thing if he was putting up superstar numbers, or if he was putting up those numbers on a good team. But he wasn't. It doesn't say much. Tell me someone who put up those type of numbers on the worst team in the league and still made the ASG?[/QUOTE]
All Im saying is the Bulls had great players outside of Jordan. The notion that these players were what they were because of Jordan is idiotic. Especially when they were successful without him.

As far as Kukoc, he did hover around 13/4/4 in a limited role for a championship team as a third option. His per 36 min numbers were 17/5/5 on those same championship teams. Id say his stats in 99 were legit. And woulve been better had he had better players around him. But Im sure the facts dont matter cuz according to you, what we saw isnt really what we saw

As far as role players impact. I see it like this. If youre gonna get blame for losses, you should get credit for wins. For instance, take prime Jordan and put him on those mid 80s squads. Do they win championships? If not why not?

Why does Jordan get a pass but the role players get held accountable for losing to the Pistons in the late 80s if role players dont matter?

[url]http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1991.htm[/url]

G1
CHICAGO MN FG-FGA FT-FTA 0R DR RB AS PF ST TO BL PTS
Pippen 41 7-19 5-7 2 5 7 5 5 1 3 0 19
Grant 40 3-8 0-0 3 7 10 1 1 2 1 0 6
Cartwright 34 3-8 0-0 0 4 4 2 4 0 0 1 6
Paxson 30 3-7 0-0 1 3 4 2 2 2 0 0 6
Jordan 40 14-24 7-9 2 6 8 12 5 3 4 0 36
Levingston 20 1-2 0-0 1 1 2 1 0 2 1 1 2
Hodges 13 2-5 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4
Perdue 12 2-2 2-2 0 4 4 0 2 0 0 1 6
Team
TOTALS 35-75 14-18 9 30 45 23 19 10 10 3 91

Is this the same team ?

G2
CHICAGO MN FG-FGA FT-FTA 0R DR RB AS PF ST TO BL PTS
Pippen 44 8-16 4-4 1 4 5 10 4 1 5 0 20
Grant 40 10-13 0-0 3 2 5 1 1 2 1 0 20
Cartwright 24 6-9 0-0 1 4 5 1 1 2 2 0 12
Paxson 25 8-8 0-0 0 0 0 6 2 1 0 0 16
Jordan 36 15-18 3-4 1 6 7 13 4 2 4 1 33
Levingston 22 0-2 0-0 0 1 1 2 4 2 0 0 0
Williams 15 1-1 0-0 1 2 3 0 2 0 0 0 2
Hodges 11 1-6 0-0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2
Perdue 11 1-3 0-0 3 4 7 1 0 0 1 0 2
Armstrong 7 0-2 0-0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
King 3 0-3 0-0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
Hopson 2 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Team
TOTALS 50-81 7-8 11 25 45 35 20 10 14 1 107

[QUOTE]The real question is why so many absurdities surround Jordan. It only happens with him and Wilt. If Jordan is the "clear GOAT" why not let him stand on his record? It should suffice. Why the need for all these myths to prop him up?[/QUOTE]
Exactly. You dont see any other fan of a player go out of their way to attack their favorite players teammates. You dont see Bird fans attacking Mchale, Parrish, and Co. Or Magic fans going after Worthy and Jabaar. Its just dumb

[QUOTE=97 bulls]All Im saying is the Bulls had great players outside of Jordan. The notion that these players were what they were because of Jordan is idiotic. Especially when they were successful without him. [/QUOTE]

They had 2 great players outside of Jordan, Pippen, who Jordan was instrumental in his development, and Rodman, who Jordan was instrumental in his arrival, and Rodman was only there for half the championship. Everyone else was basically average in that they were very replaceable. Its funny that you keep arguing with me about this when the Bulls ACTUALLY DID replace everyone outside of Jordan and Pippen.

The notion that these players were what they were 100% because of Jordan isn't something that I said. But go ahead and keep on overexaggerating what I said.

And go ahead and keep thinking to your self that when a team plays without their superstar they are playing as if that superstar never existed on their team in the first place.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
As far as Kukoc, he did hover around 13/4/4 in a limited role for a championship team as a third option. His per 36 min numbers were 17/5/5 on those same championship teams. Id say his stats in 99 were legit. And woulve been better had he had better players around him. But Im sure the facts dont matter cuz according to you, what we saw isnt really what we saw
[/QUOTE]

What is this BULLSHIT of me saying what we saw isn't really what we saw? Did I say he didn't put up those numbers? All I did was the point out the context surrounding it. Do stats just dictate everything and context doesn't matter? You're acting like he did what James Harden is doing this year. No, its not even close to that.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
As far as role players impact. I see it like this. If youre gonna get blame for losses, you should get credit for wins. For instance, take prime Jordan and put him on those mid 80s squads. Do they win championships? If not why not?

Why does Jordan get a pass but the role players get held accountable for losing to the Pistons in the late 80s if role players dont matter?[/QUOTE]

Probably not cause his teammates weren't as good. When did I ever say they were as good? They'd be better then they were though.

This isn't about credit. We're not talking about credit because superstars and role players aren't held accountable to the same extent. There's obviously more expected of the superstar. If the Bulls lost a game and Michael Jordan and John Paxson both had only 8 points, I wouldn't say both players deserve equal blame.

From the beginning, all I've said was its stupid to compare two superstars' teams and come to the conclusion that the one that had the better teams must've just been luckier then the other. Its incredibly stupid. It ignores the the fact there is a ripple effect. To ignore this is incredibly simple-minded.

[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]

Bro

I wanted to make a STATEMENT!

In 1991, MJ won his "FIRST" ring [B]without[/B] all-star great Pippen because frankly, pippen had ZERO offensive resposibilty hence as a primary ball handler , MJ had the 11.4 APG.

Pippen was overcredited, overrated to undermine MJs supreme 1991 NBA Finals performance. 1991 pippen was never at 1992 Pippens level.

With even laughable front court. MJ won it on his own as 1991 Pistons got too old & too slow.

[QUOTE]And go ahead and keep thinking to your self that when a team plays without their superstar they are playing as if that superstar never existed on their team in the first place.*[/QUOTE]
I think you put too much stock in Jordans spirit willing the Bulls to the season they had even though he wasnt there.


[QUOTE]What is this BULLSHIT of me saying what we saw isn't really what we saw? Did I say he didn't put up those numbers? All I did was the point out the context surrounding it. Do stats just dictate everything and context doesn't matter? You're acting like he did what James Harden is doing this year. No, its not even close to that.*
[/QUOTE]
Ok. But you also stated you feel he only put up those numbers because he was on a bad team. When his per 36min stats show that he was more than capable of being a 18/6/6 player. A championship team no less. Explain that away.




[QUOTE]They had 2 great players outside of Jordan, Pippen, who Jordan was instrumental in his development, and Rodman, who Jordan was instrumental in his arrival, and Rodman*
[/QUOTE]
Lol you still cant allow players to stand on their own merit.



[QUOTE]Everyone else was basically average in that they were very replaceable. Its funny that you keep arguing with me about this when the Bulls ACTUALLY DID replace everyone outside of Jordan and Pippen.*[/QUOTE]
Lol I feel THEY ALL WERE REPLACEABLE. With a caveat that they wouldnt win as much or as many championships.


[QUOTE]This isn't about credit. We're not talking about credit because superstars and role players aren't held accountable to the same extent. There's obviously more expected of the superstar. If the Bulls lost a game and Michael Jordan and John Paxson both had only 8 points, I wouldn't say both players deserve equal blame.*
[/QUOTE]
Sure we are talking about credit. Heres the problem. And I stated this before. When a team wins a championship, the best player gets all the credit. When they lose, its cuz they didnt have enough help. Ive seen you post this very same sentiment. And its dumb. For instance, the 2011 Mavs. If I didnt watch that series, Id think Dirk played by himself. Hes held as a savior. Even though he really didnt shoot all that well in the finals. And all the Mavs shot light out throughout the earlier rounds. Not just Dirk. But countless time Ive read Dirks fans argue about hiw he didnt have any help or sufficient help during his career. That same idiotic rule is applied for Jordan. The Bulls win, He gets all the credit. They lose, its cuz his supporting cast wasnt good enough. Kobe Bryant fans are the same way.


[QUOTE]From the beginning, all I've said was its stupid to compare two superstars' teams and come to the conclusion that the one that had the better teams must've just been luckier then the other. Its incredibly stupid. It ignores the the fact there is a ripple effect. To ignore this is incredibly simple-minded.[/QUOTE]
Then what is it then? If not luck of the draw? How often can a player handpick their roster?

Interesting, i was unaware that pippen didn't even make the all-star team or an all-nba team that year.

There's a fair amount of people who believe Jordan made Pippen into an all-star. I don't agree with the point in that extent but he definitely had a role in shaping Pippen's development. It's also quite amusing that unlike any pair of players who have won that many championships together Pippen never won a single FMVP and only 3 1st team all-nba rosters.

[QUOTE=gengiskhan]Bro

I wanted to make a STATEMENT!

In 1991, MJ won his "FIRST" ring [B]without[/B] all-star great Pippen because frankly, pippen had ZERO offensive resposibilty hence as a primary ball handler , MJ had the 11.4 APG.

Pippen was overcredited, overrated to undermine MJs supreme 1991 NBA Finals performance. 1991 pippen was never at 1992 Pippens level.

With even laughable front court. MJ won it on his own as 1991 Pistons got too old & too slow.[/QUOTE]
You cant be this friggn dumb Ghengis. Pippen avgd almost a triple double. Grant avg 17/9. Paxson shot lightsout. How can you possibly take the stance?

If you feel the Pistons were old then you cant count.

[QUOTE=BlueandGold]There's a fair amount of people who believe Jordan made Pippen into an all-star. I don't agree with the point in that extent but he definitely had a role in shaping Pippen's development. It's also quite amusing that unlike any pair of players who have won that many championships together Pippen never won a single FMVP and only 3 1st team all-nba rosters.[/QUOTE]
He didnt deserve a FMVP. Maybe in 98. But his hurting his back really killed that. Rodman deserved the FMVP in 96

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Exactly. You dont see any other fan of a player go out of their way to attack their favorite players teammates. You dont see Bird fans attacking Mchale, Parrish, and Co. Or Magic fans going after Worthy and Jabaar. Its just dumb[/QUOTE]

I see it a lot more with Kobe fans than I do Jordan fans. There's really only 4ish guys that do this for Jordan and the Bulls.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]You cant be this friggn dumb Ghengis. Pippen avgd almost a triple double. Grant avg 17/9. Paxson shot lightsout. How can you possibly take the stance?

If you feel the Pistons were old then you cant count.[/QUOTE]

Like I said. many still dont get it.

1991 LAL defense was plain average, 21 ppg as 2nd fiddle might look good but was just above average.

2000 Kobe with MJ, as 2nd fiddle will ave 26 ppg as 2nd scoring option easily against 1991 LAL defense.

Lemme put it this way. 1992 Pippen against 1991 LAL defense would've average 25+PPG as 2nd fiddle with triple double.

1991 Pippen was clearly underdeveloped although he performed better than 1990 Pippen in Post-season. 1991 Pippen was no way close to 1992 Pippen that played against well oiled, run-&-gun team like 1992 PORTLAND which has inside presence too.

many still dont get it.

A reason why I still consider 1991 MJ WON a ring by himself with help from supporting cast.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]I think you put too much stock in Jordans spirit willing the Bulls to the season they had even though he wasnt there.
[/QUOTE]

Whether I do or not, you seem to think that it had zero effect, which is absolutely stupid.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Ok. But you also stated you feel he only put up those numbers because he was on a bad team. When his per 36min stats show that he was more than capable of being a 18/6/6 player. A championship team no less. Explain that away.
[/QUOTE]

Wow, are you an idiot? Putting up 18/6/6 per 36 min on a championship team is not the same as ACTUALLY putting up 18/6/6 on a championship team. There's a reason WHY he wasn't playing 36 mpg. Wow, I cannot believe you really thought this was a good point.

Yes, I do think he put up those numbers only cause he was on a bad team. There's plenty of players in history that put up good stats on bad teams but probably weren't capable of doing it on better teams. The reason being if they were on better teams they wouldn't get as many minutes, as many shots, as many touches, etc. When they do get more of that because there's not better players on the team, that also means the team isn't as good. Its not very difficult logic.


[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Lol you still cant allow players to stand on their own merit.
[/QUOTE]

I guess you just completely glossed over my previous post where I said Jordan helping Pippen doesn't take anything away from Pippen.

Once again, me saying it shouldn't take anything away from Jordan doesn't mean I'm saying it should diminish Pippen.

So for like the 3rd time, do you get that?

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Lol I feel THEY ALL WERE REPLACEABLE. With a caveat that they wouldnt win as much or as many championships. [/QUOTE]

They wouldn't win as much? No other combination of teammates around Jordan could've won as much or more? You're so sure of that? So you're basically saying Jordan had the most perfect roster around him possible. Do you understand that with over +400 players in the league every year, that that would be like a 1 in a billion chance of happening?

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Sure we are talking about credit. Heres the problem. And I stated this before. When a team wins a championship, the best player gets all the credit. When they lose, its cuz they didnt have enough help. Ive seen you post this very same sentiment. And its dumb. For instance, the 2011 Mavs. If I didnt watch that series, Id think Dirk played by himself. Hes held as a savior. Even though he really didnt shoot all that well in the finals. And all the Mavs shot light out throughout the earlier rounds. Not just Dirk. But countless time Ive read Dirks fans argue about hiw he didnt have any help or sufficient help during his career. That same idiotic rule is applied for Jordan. The Bulls win, He gets all the credit. They lose, its cuz his supporting cast wasnt good enough. Kobe Bryant fans are the same way.[/QUOTE]

No, we're not really talking about credit. Because I'm not comparing Jordan to role players. I'm comparing Jordan to other superstars. In fact, alot more superstars got the excuse of their teammates not playing well alot more then Jordan.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Then what is it then? If not luck of the draw? How often can a player handpick their roster?[/QUOTE]

Wow, obviously I've addressed why I think its stupid to say its luck, but I guess I've been talking to a wall this whole time.

I'll try one more time to help you understand by asking you this question. Do you think its a coincidence that the players that are considered the greatest ever happened to also be considered to have the most help and greatest teammates and coaches ever?

[QUOTE]Whether I do or not, you seem to think that it had zero effect, which is absolutely stupid.*[/QUOTE]
No. Jordan most definitely had an effect. I disagree with the assumption that Jordan and only Jordan couldve helped his teammates. Remember this all stems from what you and others like you feel about how well the Bulls played WITHOUT Jordan. The thought is that they wouldn't have been as good, as successful, if Jordans holy spirit hadn't been in them. teammates help other teammates, as well as coaches. How do you know Pippen couldnt have evolved into the player that people felt he was seeing as how he was a top 5 pick from a little known small college. That says a hell of a lot about how scouts saw Pippen. And dont forget Grant was a lottery pick as well. Jordan mentored Pippen. And in time even learned from him as well. Something he makes known. But Im sure you dont care to acknowledge.



[QUOTE]Wow, are you an idiot? Putting up 18/6/6 per 36 min on a championship team is not the same as ACTUALLY putting up 18/6/6 on a championship team. There's a reason WHY he wasn't playing 36 mpg. Wow, I cannot believe you really thought this was a good point.[/QUOTE]
The problem is you can't count. If he could put up 14/4/4 in a limited role, why couldn't or wouldnt he improve statitically with more playing time? And you gotta remember, that team wasnt built to his strengths. He catered and limited his game to Jordan Pippen and Rodman. The fact is he was a good player. Id say along the lines of a Rudy Gay or Luol Deng if he were in a different situation. Not as far as skillset mind you, but status.


[QUOTE]I guess you just completely glossed over my previous post where I said Jordan helping Pippen doesn't take anything away from Pippen.*Once again, me saying it shouldn't take anything away from Jordan doesn't mean I'm saying it should diminish Pippen.*[/QUOT
Thats what youre saying. But your context states something totally different.



[QUOTE]They wouldn't win as much? No other combination of teammates around Jordan could've won more? You're so sure of that? So you're basically saying Jordan had the most perfect roster around him possible. Do you understand that with over +400 players in the league every year, that that would be like a 1 in a billion chance of happening?*[/QUOTE]
It would depend. I don't thing if you put lesser role players around Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman or Jordan, Pippen, Grant, theyd win as much. Case and point the 11 Heat vs the 12 Heat. Adding Battier, and Chalmers evolving really helped.


[QUOTE]Do you think its a coincidence that the players that are considered the greatest ever happened to also be considered to have the most help and greatest teammates and coaches ever?[/QUOTE]
Nope. That's what seperates the alltime greats from each other.

Jordan sucks at baseball

[IMG]http://gameunderrepair.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/michael-jordan-baseball-cover-si.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=97 bulls]So the Pacers is the only team you feel that was better than the Bulls where the frontcourt is concerned?[/QUOTE]

You didn't read my post did you?

[QUOTE=97 bulls]No. Jordan most definitely had an effect. I disagree with the assumption that Jordan and only Jordan couldve helped his teammates. Remember this all stems from what you and others like you feel about how well the Bulls played WITHOUT Jordan. The thought is that they wouldn't have been as good, as successful, if Jordans holy spirit hadn't been in them. teammates help other teammates, as well as coaches. [/QUOTE]

I never said Jordan was the only one that could've helped his teammates, in fact I said that superstars in general help their teammates. I said he was the one that helped those specific teammates and that there's not that many players they could've played with to gain that much experience by the time 94 came around. That team went to two straight ECF and then three straight Finals. If it was anyone else at the time in Jordan's place, its highly doubtful they are that experienced, and if its no one in Jordan's place, its pretty much a certainty that they aren't that experienced. And experience makes teams better. I've explained this numerous times and now even more thoroughly, so you can drop all that holy spirit bullshit as if what I'm saying isn't understandable. You just continue to make yourself look like a bigger idiot by overdramatizing my position.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
How do you know Pippen couldnt have evolved into the player that people felt he was seeing as how he was a top 5 pick from a little known small college. That says a hell of a lot about how scouts saw Pippen. And dont forget Grant was a lottery pick as well. Jordan mentored Pippen. And in time even learned from him as well. Something he makes known. But Im sure you dont care to acknowledge.[/QUOTE]

I've said numerous times now that Pippen could've still been good or great. But with so many writers, coaches, players, and Pippen himself saying so much how much Jordan helped Pippen, more accounts of this then I've heard between another set of players, and coupled with the fact that he probably gained more valuable experience playing with Jordan then he would've playing with lesser players, I just don't think he would've been as great.

By the way, you're right he was a top 5 pick from a small DIV II college. And Scottie Pippen is the only draft pick in NBA HISTORY to come from that school. The likelihood that someone like that would make the NBA was already as small as it was, so the likelihood that he would end up being an all-time great was probably even smaller. So yes, I would think part of the reason he succeeded so much came from who he learned from.

I did acknowledge that Jordan learned from Pippen. I just think its obviously not close to the same extent given what he was before he even met Pippen.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
The problem is you can't count. If he could put up 14/4/4 in a limited role, why couldn't or wouldnt he improve statitically with more playing time? And you gotta remember, that team wasnt built to his strengths. He catered and limited his game to Jordan Pippen and Rodman. The fact is he was a good player. Id say along the lines of a Rudy Gay or Luol Deng if he were in a different situation. Not as far as skillset mind you, but status. [/QUOTE]

You pointed to him putting up 18/6/6 per 36 min on a good team to counter my belief that he could only average 18/6/6 on a bad team. Are you really dumb enough to not see how completely flawed that counterargument is?

He's in a more limited role with less playing time because a good team requires better players for the bigger roles and more minutes. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!? :banghead:

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Thats what youre saying. But your context states something totally different.
[/QUOTE]

No it doesn't. Its your thinking that thinks giving someone credit instead of diminishing them for something automatically means you're diminishing someone else.

I even said that diminishing Pippen for who he learned from means you can diminish anyone for the same reason, including Jordan.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
It would depend. I don't thing if you put lesser role players around Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman or Jordan, Pippen, Grant, theyd win as much. Case and point the 11 Heat vs the 12 Heat. Adding Battier, and Chalmers evolving really helped.[/QUOTE]

No it doesn't depend. Do some Math. It would literally be at least a 1 in a billion chance that Jordan got the absolute perfect combination of teammates. And the fact that they made moves every season and he was still getting the perfect combination of teammates would be like a 1 in a zillion chance of happening. I think you're not comprehending again.

Sure, if you put lesser role players around them they would be worse. But as I said, role players are average and not hard to find.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Nope. That's what seperates the alltime greats from each other.[/QUOTE]

Wow, so what are you saying? That the only difference between Group A (Jordan, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, Kobe, Lebron) and Group B (Malone, Barkley, West, Oscar, KG, Dirk, Robinson, Ewing, Drexler, Kidd, AI, Nique, Nash) is that Group A had better teammates? You can't be serious.

[QUOTE]I never said Jordan was the only one that could've helped his teammates, in fact I said that superstars in general help their teammates. I said he was the one that helped those specific teammates and that there's not that many players they could've played with to gain that much experience by the time 94 came around. That team went to two straight ECF and then three straight Finals. If it was anyone else at the time in Jordan's place, its highly doubtful they are that experienced, and if its no one in Jordan's place, its pretty much a certainty that they aren't that experienced. And experience makes teams better.[/QUOTE]
But Jordan didnt do that alone Guy. They did that together. You keep trying to paint this picture of Jordan winning 50-60 games and bow out in multiple seven game series too the Pistons and Celtics before Pippen and Grant joined. When thats just not the case. Youre argument would be valid if Jordan was at that stage in his career before Pippen and Grant showed up. He wasnt. And barely making .500 and then getting swept in the first round is no indication theyd be the dynasty of the 90s.


[QUOTE]I've said numerous times now that Pippen could've still been good or great. But with so many writers, coaches, players, and Pippen himself saying so much how much Jordan helped Pippen, more accounts of this then I've heard between another set of players, and coupled with the fact that he probably gained more valuable experience playing with Jordan then he would've playing with lesser players, I just don't think he would've been as great.
[/QUOTE]
What those writers, coaches, etc meant was Jordan mentored Pippen. I agree. But that doesnt mean Pippen couldve developed just the same in another situation. He had the twk most importnt things to make that happen. Talent and Determination/ Work Ethic. Again you paint thus picture of Jordan being a savy seasoned championship decorated vet. When the truth is he was learning on the fly as well.


[QUOTE]You pointed to him putting up 18/6/6 per 36 min on a good team to counter my belief that he could only average 18/6/6 on a bad team. Are you really dumb enough to not see how completely flawed that counterargument is?*
[/QUOTE] He was on roughly the same pace. Why you cant comprehend that is beyond me



[QUOTE]He's in a more limited role with less playing time because a good team requires better players for the bigger roles and more minutes. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!?*[/QUOTE]
He played Behind Pippen and Rodman. Most fans see Pippen being top 5-8 SF alltime. and Rodmans probably top 15. Just in case you cant figure it out, Theres only 8 SFs that most fans would take to start over Pippen AT THE MOST. 15 for Rodman. Youre point is worthless.


[QUOTE]Wow, so what are you saying? That the only difference between Group A (Jordan, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, Kobe, Lebron) and Group B (Malone, Barkley, West, Oscar, KG, Dirk, Robinson, Ewing, Drexler, Kidd, AI, Nique, Nash) is that Group A had better teammates? You can't be serious.
[/QUOTE]Yes thats exactly whay Im saying. Do you think its a coincidence that the players in Group A had at least two Hall of Fame teammates and Group B in most case had 1 at the most.

Your problem Guy is you have a primitive mindset.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]But Jordan didnt do that alone Guy. They did that together.
[/QUOTE]

And I never said they didn't. In fact, you can apply what I've said about Jordan to basically every player in the league, including Jordan's teammates. All players make it either easier or harder for whoever their teammates are in comparison to other players. The reason I emphasize Jordan over everyone else though is cause he was clearly the most irreplaceable of them all. In 88 or 89, you could replace Pippen, Grant and or any other role player with countless different players and you would probably get around the same success, while with Jordan there were at most only a few players in the league you could replace him with and get the same success. From 90-93, you couldn't replace them as easily due to the already built in cohesion and chemistry they had, especially Pippen who was clearly far more irreplaceable then he was before due to his improvement into a superstar, but clearly Jordan was still by far the most irreplaceable of them all.

I'm not pointing out anything wrong or degrading. I'm just pointing out a fact. In no business is everyone equally valuable. Sports is no different. You can keep bringing up your cliche theme of it being a team sport, which is absolutely true, but it being a team sport doesn't mean every member of the team is of the same value.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
You keep trying to paint this picture of Jordan winning 50-60 games and bow out in multiple seven game series too the Pistons and Celtics before Pippen and Grant joined. When thats just not the case. Youre argument would be valid if Jordan was at that stage in his career before Pippen and Grant showed up. He wasnt. And barely making .500 and then getting swept in the first round is no indication theyd be the dynasty of the 90s. [/QUOTE]

There's also no indication that they wouldn't be a dynasty. There's this stupid hypothesis people continuously bring up that since Jordan didn't get to a +.500 record and get out of the first round without Pippen, that means he would've never been able to without Pippen. Its incredibly stupid. Jordan only getting to that point once Pippen and Grant came along is a coincidence, not cause Pippen and Grant at the time were these huge impact players that made the difference. You're making it seem like those losing seasons Jordan had lasted like a decade. It was a relatively small sample size of 3 seasons, all 3 of them with a different coach, significantly different rosters throughout, 1 of which he didn't play much in, and in the 2 he played fully in had a different best teammate. The biggest reasons they improved were because of Jordan's continous improvement, development, maturity as a player and leader and continuity from having the same coach for once, relatively the same core of players, etc. It wasn't cause of Pippen and Grant who weren't even playing half the game on average.

The improvement of the Bulls and Jordan from 85-87 to 88-89 isn't much different then the improvement of the Cavs and Lebron from 04-05 to 06-08 and the Thunder and Durant from 08-09 to 10-11. The Cavs and the Thunder not doing well and then having that improvement like they did has way more to do with their superstars improving and maturing then who was put around them. Saying the Bulls improved that much cause of the arrival of Pippen and Grant would be like saying the Cavs only improved cause of the arrival of Larry Hughes and the Thunder only improved cause of the arrival of James Harden and Serge Ibaka. Its stupid.

You're right, they weren't winning 50 games and going deep into they playoffs before they got Pippen and Grant, but as I said, that was more of a coincidence then actually the cause of the result. Jordan was at that point of his career, just as Lebron and Durant were, where it didn't really matter that much who was around them, more then likely they were going to lead their team to at least around 50 wins and give their team a good chance of winning a round or two and possibly going deep in the playoffs.


[QUOTE=97 bulls]
What those writers, coaches, etc meant was Jordan mentored Pippen. I agree. But that doesnt mean Pippen couldve developed just the same in another situation. He had the twk most importnt things to make that happen. Talent and Determination/ Work Ethic. Again you paint thus picture of Jordan being a savy seasoned championship decorated vet. When the truth is he was learning on the fly as well. [/QUOTE]

Yes, he was learning on the fly, but you don't have to not be learning as well to have a significant impact mentoring someone.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
He was on roughly the same pace. Why you cant comprehend that is beyond me [/QUOTE]

Being on the same per minute pace isn't the same as actually doing it. You're ignoring that you can't just look at the per 36 min stats and assume thats exactly what he'd average cause of fatigue and the strategy would change. You can say the same about plenty of players in history.

In fact, this isn't hard to check:

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=kukocto01&match=combined&year_min=1996&year_max=1998&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=&opp_id=&is_playoffs=N&round_is_ec1=Y&round_is_ecs=Y&round_is_ecf=Y&round_is_wc1=Y&round_is_wcs=Y&round_is_wcf=Y&round_is_fin=Y&game_num_type=&game_num_min=&game_num_max=&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos_is_G=&pos_is_GF=&pos_is_F=&pos_is_FG=&pos_is_FC=&pos_is_C=&pos_is_CF=&c1stat=mp&c1comp=gt&c1val=36&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=pts[/url]

Do the math and in games where he played more then 36 minutes from 96-98 he averaged 13/4/4.


[QUOTE=97 bulls]
He played Behind Pippen and Rodman. Most fans see Pippen being top 5-8 SF alltime. and Rodmans probably top 15. Just in case you cant figure it out, Theres only 8 SFs that most fans would take to start over Pippen AT THE MOST. 15 for Rodman. Youre point is worthless.[/QUOTE]

I never said he couldn't start for a good team. In fact, he did. I said no team that is aiming to be good is going to depend on him that much i.e. expect him to take 15-17 shots per game, lead them in rebounds, lead them in assists, have a large defensive role, etc.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Yes thats exactly whay Im saying. Do you think its a coincidence that the players in Group A had at least two Hall of Fame teammates and Group B in most case had 1 at the most.

Your problem Guy is you have a primitive mindset.[/QUOTE]

Do you even know what primitive means? Because you're the one with this ancient, simple, dumbass mindset that superstars are just lucky to be on the right team and there's no such thing as a ripple effect that is greatly caused by that superstar. This is the more common, flawed thinking that people have here, not what I've laid out.

You really think there's no difference between those two groups? First of all, many of those Hall of Fame teammates probably would not be in the HOF if it wasn't for the team success they experienced with one of those top 10 players of all-time I mentioned, so thats not very relevant.

Second of all, you have to be an idiot if you think there isn't a difference between the two groups. Take their teammates out of it so the team success doesn't cloud any judgment. What puts Barkley on Jordan's level? Nash on Magic's? Nique on Bird's? Dirk on Duncan's? Drexler on Kobe's? Ewing on Hakeem's? Robinson on Shaq's? KG on Lebron's? You can't see a clear difference between them?

I love how MJ fans act as if Pippen magically wound up being a fluke top 5 pick from a small school--and MJ is so great he managed to convince Seattle to draft Pippen so Chicago could trade for him! :bowdown:

[B][U]Reality check: 1987 draft[/U][/B]

1) D. Robinson
5) Pippen
6) Kenny Smith
7) Kevin Johnson
10) Horace Grant
11) Reggie Miller
12) Mugsy Bogues
18) Mark Jackson
22) Reggie Lewis

So to recap: Pippen was drafted ahead of 5 all-stars, two other good players in Bogues and Smith and was drafted ahead of HOF'er in Miller and two HOF caliber players in Johnson and Lewis. Yet it was all Mike! :bowdown:

Only Jordan fans would seriously act as if a top 5 pick winding up being an elite player is a shock. You don't necessarily expect a HOF'er with a top 5 pick, but it certainly is possible and you certainly are hoping to acquire an all-star player with such a high pick.

Look at other players during those years who were picked around the 5th pick.

1984: Barkley (5th)
1988: Mitch Richmond (5th)
1989: Glen Rice (4th)

Only MJ fans would act as if a team spent a top 5 pick, and another team traded for that player, to get a role player. :roll:

Watch what was said when he was drafted yourself. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qchnEgRqb4k[/url]

[B][U]NBA & ABA Year-by-Year Playoff Leaders and Records for Defensive Rating[/U]

Year Lg Player DRtg Tm
2012 NBA Josh Smith 93.20 ATL
2011 NBA Dwight Howard 95.73 ORL
2010 NBA Dwight Howard 92.98 ORL
2009 NBA Dwight Howard 98.35 ORL
2008 NBA Tim Duncan 98.51 SAS
2007 NBA Jason Kidd 94.63 NJN
2006 NBA Alonzo Mourning 95.13 MIA
2005 NBA Ben Wallace 93.48 DET
2004 NBA Ben Wallace 83.91 DET
2003 NBA Ben Wallace 90.51 DET
2002 NBA Ben Wallace 86.41 DET
2001 NBA David Robinson* 92.42 SAS
2000 NBA David Robinson* 84.01 SAS
1999 NBA David Robinson* 87.33 SAS
1998 NBA David Robinson* 93.42 SAS
1997 NBA Alonzo Mourning 94.64 MIA
[COLOR="red"][SIZE="3"]1996 NBA Scottie Pippen* 96.07 CHI [/SIZE][/COLOR]
1995 NBA David Robinson* 97.53 SAS
1994 NBA Patrick Ewing* 94.34 NYK
1993 NBA Hakeem Olajuwon* 96.56 HOU
1992 NBA Dennis Rodman* 99.35 DET
[SIZE="5"][COLOR="red"][U]1991 NBA Scottie Pippen* 99.52 CHI[/U][/COLOR][/SIZE]
1990 NBA Bill Laimbeer 96.32 DET
1989 NBA Dennis Rodman* 99.38 DET
1988 NBA Bill Laimbeer 99.51 DET
1987 NBA Hakeem Olajuwon* 102.24 HOU
1986 NBA Bill Walton* 100.62 BOS
1985 NBA Ralph Sampson* 97.16 HOU
1984 NBA Buck Williams 99.41 NJN
1983 NBA Moses Malone* 95.76 PHI
1982 NBA Larry Bird* 94.21 BOS
1981 NBA Truck Robinson 94.51 PHO
1980 NBA Larry Bird* 95.93 BOS
1979 NBA Gar Heard 90.53 PHO
1978 NBA Caldwell Jones 93.56 PHI
1977 NBA Bill Walton* 89.53 POR
1976 NBA Elvin Hayes* 88.11 WSB
ABA Mike Gale 100.65 SAA
1975 NBA George Johnson 87.05 GSW
ABA Artis Gilmore* 95.43 KEN
1974 NBA Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 89.90 MIL
ABA Wendell Ladner 88.92 NYA

The Only Modern SF To Ever Lead the League In Defensive Rating: The Rest Are All Big Men:

[U]Defensive Rating[/U]

1990-91 NBA 101.7 (8)
1991-92 NBA 102.2 (8)
1993-94 NBA 96.9 (7)
[SIZE="3"][COLOR="Red"]1994-95 NBA 98.3 (1)[/COLOR][/SIZE]
1995-96 NBA 100.7 (10)

[U][COLOR="DarkRed"]With Jordan Out a Constant Top 7-4 Best Player in the Game[/COLOR][/U]

[U]Player Efficiency Rating[/U]

[COLOR="Red"]1993-94 NBA 23.2 (4)
1994-95 NBA 22.6 (7)[/COLOR] [/B]

How is this thread 10 pages? Pippen put up 22/9/6/3/1 on 50% from the field during the playoffs while being the best defensive player on the team.

Guess Kobe won TWO rings by himself because those numbers are far superior to anything Gasol has ever posted in the playoffs. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=Doranku]How is this thread 10 pages? Pippen put up 22/9/6/3/1 on 50% from the field during the playoffs while being the best defensive player on the team.

Guess Kobe won TWO rings by himself because those numbers are far superior to anything Gasol has ever posted in the playoffs. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Pippen was not better than Jordan defensively in 1991. 1993 is the first year you can say he has a case as being MJ's [i]equal[/i]. And no, those numbers aren't "far superior" to Gasol's - Gasol averaged 18.3 pts/10.8 reb/2.0 blk/58% FG in the 2009 postseason, which is very comparable. In 2010 he posted 20/11/4/2 on 54% FG. Again, equal if not better by the numbers.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]I love how MJ fans act as if Pippen magically wound up being a fluke top 5 pick from a small school--and MJ is so great he managed to convince Seattle to draft Pippen so Chicago could trade for him! :bowdown:

[B][U]Reality check: 1987 draft[/U][/B]

1) D. Robinson
5) Pippen
6) Kenny Smith
7) Kevin Johnson
10) Horace Grant
11) Reggie Miller
12) Mugsy Bogues
18) Mark Jackson
22) Reggie Lewis

So to recap: Pippen was drafted ahead of 5 all-stars, two other good players in Bogues and Smith and was drafted ahead of HOF'er in Miller and two HOF caliber players in Johnson and Lewis. Yet it was all Mike! :bowdown:

Only Jordan fans would seriously act as if a top 5 pick winding up being an elite player is a shock. You don't necessarily expect a HOF'er with a top 5 pick, but it certainly is possible and you certainly are hoping to acquire an all-star player with such a high pick.

Look at other players during those years who were picked around the 5th pick.

1984: Barkley (5th)
1988: Mitch Richmond (5th)
1989: Glen Rice (4th)

Only MJ fans would act as if a team spent a top 5 pick, and another team traded for that player, to get a role player. :roll:

Watch what was said when he was drafted yourself. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qchnEgRqb4k[/url][/QUOTE]
Great post. I cant stress enough that the commentators were penciling him at PG. He said he wanted to eventually be a PG. He had those skills already. People were comparing him to Dennis Rodman. But more polished offensively. The proof is right there. What Jordan did for Pippen i.e. mentoring him showing him some offensive moves, techniques couldve been done by any veteran. And as Rock says why was Jordan only able to develop Pippen? What about the other draft picks the Bulls had? Why didnt he help someone on the Wizards?

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]I love how MJ fans act as if Pippen magically wound up being a fluke top 5 pick from a small school--and MJ is so great he managed to convince Seattle to draft Pippen so Chicago could trade for him! :bowdown:

[B][U]Reality check: 1987 draft[/U][/B]

1) D. Robinson
5) Pippen
6) Kenny Smith
7) Kevin Johnson
10) Horace Grant
11) Reggie Miller
12) Mugsy Bogues
18) Mark Jackson
22) Reggie Lewis

So to recap: Pippen was drafted ahead of 5 all-stars, two other good players in Bogues and Smith and was drafted ahead of HOF'er in Miller and two HOF caliber players in Johnson and Lewis. [B]Yet it was all Mike![/B] :bowdown:

Only Jordan fans would seriously act as if a top 5 pick winding up being an elite player is a shock. You don't necessarily expect a HOF'er with a top 5 pick, but it certainly is possible and you certainly are hoping to acquire an all-star player with such a high pick.

Look at other players during those years who were picked around the 5th pick.

1984: Barkley (5th)
1988: Mitch Richmond (5th)
1989: Glen Rice (4th)

Only MJ fans would act as if a team spent a top 5 pick, and another team traded for that player, to get a role player. :roll:

Watch what was said when he was drafted yourself. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qchnEgRqb4k[/url][/QUOTE]

Only one person in this 10 page thread has alluded to anything close to this. Maybe you need to change your stance to MJ FAN, instead of FANS. Roundball Rocks crusade against basically one or two fans on this entire site continues!

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Great post. I cant stress enough that the commentators were penciling him at PG. He said he wanted to eventually be a PG. He had those skills already. People were comparing him to Dennis Rodman. But more polished offensively. The proof is right there. What Jordan did for Pippen i.e. mentoring him showing him some offensive moves, techniques couldve been done by any veteran. And as Rock says why was Jordan only able to develop Pippen? What about the other draft picks the Bulls had? Why didnt he help someone on the Wizards?[/QUOTE]

He tried, Kwame Brown for example couldn't handle it. I think Pippen was one of the few that had the mental toughness to handle MJ's competitiveness on a day to day basis. They began feeding and learning from one another while they went at each other in practices.

You claiming that what Pippen got from getting to go at Jordan and learn from him every day in practices is something he could have gotten from any veteran is completely laughable though. Seriously, like I said earlier, it is statements like that that make you as bad as the OP.

[QUOTE=Leviathon1121]He tried, Kwame Brown for example couldn't handle it. I think Pippen was one of the few that had the mental toughness to handle MJ's competitiveness on a day to day basis. They began feeding and learning from one another while they went at each other in practices.

You claiming that what Pippen got from getting to go at Jordan and learn from him every day in practices is something he could have gotten from any veteran is completely laughable though. Seriously, like I said earlier, it is statements like that that make you as bad as the OP.[/QUOTE]
This is fair Leviathon. I do feel having to defend Jordan daily made Pippen evolve from what people considered a great man defender to greatest perimeter defender ever. Great post.

[URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7724453&postcount=103"]How scouts and GMs viewed Pippen before he was drafted[/URL]

We wouldn't be mentioning Pip's name today if it wasn't for MJ, plain and simple.

So he was drafted 5th, so what?

There's been plenty of players drafted just as highly and higher that turned out to be shit. Go look at Pip's rookie and even 2nd year numbers

:oldlol:

[QUOTE=andgar923]We wouldn't be mentioning Pip's name today if it wasn't for MJ, plain and simple.

So he was drafted 5th, so what?

There's been plenty of players drafted just as highly and higher that turned out to be shit. Go look at Pip's rookie and even 2nd year numbers

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Scouts were alreasy predicting what he would become before he set foot in the League. Dennis Rodman defense, with a more polished offense, and PG skills in a 6'8 body similar to Magic Johnson.

Sometimes the truth hurts.[/QUOTE]

And we saw those numbers as a rookie and 2nd year player. Gotcha!

You'd have an excellent argument if he came in ripping it, basically playing that way from get go

[QUOTE=andgar923]And we saw those numbers as a rookie and 2nd year player. Gotcha!

You'd have an excellent argument if he came in ripping it, basically playing that way from get go

[QUOTE=97 bulls]This an excerpt from the articles jlip posted


The Bulls have purposely tried not to rush Pippen's development, though through last weekend he had played an average of 21.5 minutes in Chicago's first nine games. His scoring average was 8.6, and*he was showing some good defensive moves,*averaging nearly two steals per game. (Last season's leader, Alvin Robertson of San Antonio, averaged 3.2.) Pippen has spent most of his time subbing for Brad Sellers, who may be the league's first 7-foot small forward, but coach Doug Collins has also used Pippen,*who did it all at the University of Central Arkansas, at both guard spots.


And this one
Jerry Krause, the Bulls vice-president for basketball operations, says Pippen is "not afraid of anybody in the NBA because he doesn't know who most of these guys are." In fact, when*Krause complimented Pippen on the defensive job he had just done in one of last spring's college all-star games, Pippen seemed blas�. "I guess guys who play on national TV get a lot of publicity," he says. "I was expecting more from them."

But were supposed to believe some fool on the internet.[/QUOTE]

Stats don't lie, game films don't lie.

Krause once said Stacey King was the future.

He wouldn't be shit without MJ, plain and simple.

Get mad

[QUOTE=andgar923]Stats don't lie, game films don't lie.

Krause once said Stacey King was the future.

He wouldn't be shit without MJ, plain and simple.

Get mad[/QUOTE]
Lol Krause never said such. You sound worse than some of the Kobe trolls.