Jordan himself said the first three-peat Bulls were better than the second three-peat Bulls. People saying otherwise are trying to revise history. I watched basketball as it was happening, and I know what was being said.
Printable View
Jordan himself said the first three-peat Bulls were better than the second three-peat Bulls. People saying otherwise are trying to revise history. I watched basketball as it was happening, and I know what was being said.
[QUOTE=BIZARRO]:no: To say the '97 Bulls would beat the '91 Bulls is a HUUUUGGEE stretch IMO. We'll never know, but I would take the '91 team all the way.
[B]It must be remembered just how hungry the '91 team was. They were killers, and in addition '91 MJ would just hound and maul '97 MJ.
[/B]
Once again, we'll never know, but I would have no problem with people putting the '91 team first overall. But definitely ahead of '97 IMO.[/QUOTE]
This is an interesting thread, but just like Real Life, it's gonna come down to the officiating. If the Refs just let these guys PLAY, then 91 Bulls got this easy. 91 MJ makes 97 MJ look like he's moving in slow motion. But if the Refs start giving the 97 Bulls "Veteran Calls" during the game, then I could see 97 Bulls winning a couple of games.
[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Jordan himself said the first three-peat Bulls were better than the second three-peat Bulls. People saying otherwise are trying to revise history. I watched basketball as it was happening, and I know what was being said.[/QUOTE]
Scottie Pippen said the second threepeat was better. I honestly dont see what the first threepeat Bulls did that would imply that they were better than the second.
[QUOTE=Nevaeh]This is an interesting thread, but just like Real Life, it's gonna come down to the officiating. If the Refs just let these guys PLAY, then 91 Bulls got this easy. 91 MJ makes 97 MJ look like he's moving in slow motion. But if the Refs start giving the 97 Bulls "Veteran Calls" during the game, then I could see 97 Bulls winning a couple of games.[/QUOTE]
How do you figure? Jordan in an interview stated that he was 5% off from his prime in 97. But he was definately stronger than he was in his first threepeat. Combine that with the fact that Pippen was better, and the second threepeat team had a much better bench and defense, i dont see how the first threepeat Bulls beat the second
[QUOTE=Nevaeh]This is an interesting thread, but just like Real Life, it's gonna come down to the officiating. If the Refs just let these guys PLAY, then 91 Bulls got this easy. [B]91 MJ makes 97 MJ look like he's moving in slow motion.[/B] But if the Refs start giving the 97 Bulls "Veteran Calls" during the game, then I could see 97 Bulls winning a couple of games.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. '91 Jordan was so freakishly quick both with and without the ball, all the while looking like he isn't even trying.
Speaking of making it look easy, do ya'll emember the one handed, double pump runners off one leg? :oldlol: He never really did those during the 2nd threepeat.
the second three peat cuz it had steve kerr
[IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gboldrlkU_o/TQ2nvTaVFBI/AAAAAAAAAB8/6jj48YB1ob8/s1600/stevekerr.jpg[/IMG]
I think the 1991 team was really good and the most underrated of the bunch. I know there's no way to really quantify this but I don't think there was any team ever hungrier than that bunch even though it needs to be said you don't win three straight on two separate occasions without showing any hunger and just half assing it.
That team really took off post All-Star break because beating Detroit a game before the break lifted the monkey off their back and gave them a lot of confidence. Phil said that was really the turning point of the season for them since they hadn't won @ Detroit before. Pippen and Grant probably benefited the most. After the All-Star break, their record was 44-9 (playoffs included). I would also imagine they became more accustomed to the triangle since it takes awhile to learn such an intricate offense and properly get used to it.
For my money, that's the best Jordan ever played though I'm not as familiar with his 1990 self which quite a few people think was his peak. His game is as complete as really anyone you can imagine and far more dominant than any other perimeter player I've seen. His athleticism in regards to explosion, quickness and speed is there, he wasn't ball dominant at all this year, did a great job moving without the ball, scoring within the flow of the offense and had mastered the approach of knowing when to take over and step into that 6th gear when really needed to. Defensively, he was again excellent both in regards to man and team defense. Pippen and Grant had really matured too and made improvements all around. Together, all three made the Bulls full court press deadly and they got a good bit of offense as a result of forcing turnovers with their traps, jumping into passing lanes, pressuring ball handlers forcing them to questionable decisions and that could also result in teams having less time to get into their offensive set which would force them to scramble and get a tougher, lower % shot up. I remember they really used the press against Detroit and had a lot of success. They also made it tough for LA with their defense in the half-court with excellent rotations off double teams since they doubled LA quite a bit in the post where they had an edge due to size.
They also got contributions from the others with Paxson really relieving the pressure off the double and triple teams on Jordan like game 5 in the finals, Armstrong would pick up the slack with Paxson on the bench, Cartwright would serve as a big post presence and this is probably his best year in the first three peat.
They totally stomped through everyone in the playoffs and the two games they lost were on two GW threes by Hersey Hawkins and Sam Perkins. Larry Bird said they were the best team he had ever seen. They deserve more respect than they get. I've seen them ranked as the worst of the 6 and I can't agree with that.
[QUOTE=Da_Realist]Great finds, NugzHeat :applause:[/QUOTE]
Da Realist, which team do you believe to be better defensively? I know you explained it earlier in this thread but you didn't really go in detail although I think you prefer the first three peat team due to better athleticism allowing them to do more.
I think the first three peat team has an edge with Jordan being a better defender more stamina, more athleticism to cover ground quicker helping him rotate and recover and he also had the ability to cover PGs that were really bothering Paxson and BJ like Mark Price in the 1992 ECF or switching over KJ in the finals. Although, he did do a fine job on Strickland in 1997.
Grant is better than Rodman in regards to how vital he was to their pressure defense often double teaming, trapping well forcing a deflection or a steal and recovering on time. I would also say he was the much more consistent defender overall. I must say this though, since this thread is about these two going head to head, Rodman would utterly outclass Grant like he did in the first game of the 1996 ECF. Totally beating him on the boards, to the spots and making him a non factor.
Second three peat has an edge on the perimeter since Ron Harper is a major upgrade over Pax and BJ. He also gives them the option of shuffling match ups at no expense like they did in the 1996 and 1998 ECF. I also think second three peat is also better at guarding Cs due to Rodman's presence who would switch on to the Cs. I was very impressed by his job on Shaq denying him good position by forcing him away from the basket. Very strong legs and low center of gravity. He also bothered Zo quite a bit getting into his head mentally. I don't think they have this option in the first three peat. I do think Cartwright is more effective than either Longley or Wennington though.
I also think their pressure defense might've been as good despite not being as athletic and being older due to Harper and Randy Brown's presence. Harper's size was definitely a factor and Brown could make an impact off the bench as he was really good at pressuring the ball. This is just an example but it's recent since I watched the entire Orlando vs Chicago 1996 series recently and their press in the second half of game 2 is really impressive and effective and helps them disrupt Orlando's offense and get back into the game (reversed an 18 pt lead I think). [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaslgUIErC0&feature=plcp[/url]
Another edge for the first three peat team is that they did have John Bach who was a great defensive assistant coach.
:confusedshrug:
Ok so in youre opinion NugzHeat, pit the 91 Bulls vs the 97 Bulls. Who has the edge?
As far as im concerned, the 97 version is just better. There always gonna be a special place in my heart for the 91 Bulls. Similar to your first love. But thats due to that emotional attachment. They answered every question. How theyd do vs bigs, they could win ugly, with offense, defense, size, go small, run, offense in the halfcourt, full court press, they just had no weakness. They even had a scoring big in the post in Brian Williams.
They proved in 94 that they could still be competitive without Jordan when thy won 55 games before the expansion of 96 which people love to try to the second threepeat teams played in a weak era due to expansion, they proved in 98 that they could be a top team without Pippen.
But mainly its their bench. Kukoc, Kerr, Williams, and Caffey would be the equal to Bargnani, Korver, Nene, and Bass today as far as talent and status in the league.
I never liked the 1st threepeat Bulls bench. I hated stacy king. Perdue, S. Williams, and levingston were nothing more than journeymen bench players. They contributed obviously, but they proved throughout their career that they were never anything more than bench players. Kukoc and Williams were very good borderline all star typer players. And at worst starter caliber players. Comming off the bench.
Regardless of what you guys feel about the differences between the threepeat Jordans, the change wasnt that big enough to use that as an indicator.
The second threepeat team was much better.
[QUOTE=NugzHeat3]Da Realist, which team do you believe to be better defensively? I know you explained it earlier in this thread but you didn't really go in detail although I think you prefer the first three peat team due to better athleticism allowing them to do more.
I think the first three peat team has an edge with Jordan being a better defender more stamina, more athleticism to cover ground quicker helping him rotate and recover and he also had the ability to cover PGs that were really bothering Paxson and BJ like Mark Price in the 1992 ECF or switching over KJ in the finals. Although, he did do a fine job on Strickland in 1997.
Grant is better than Rodman in regards to how vital he was to their pressure defense often double teaming, trapping well forcing a deflection or a steal and recovering on time. I would also say he was the much more consistent defender overall. I must say this though, since this thread is about these two going head to head, Rodman would utterly outclass Grant like he did in the first game of the 1996 ECF. Totally beating him on the boards, to the spots and making him a non factor.
Second three peat has an edge on the perimeter since Ron Harper is a major upgrade over Pax and BJ. He also gives them the option of shuffling match ups at no expense like they did in the 1996 and 1998 ECF. I also think second three peat is also better at guarding Cs due to Rodman's presence who would switch on to the Cs. I was very impressed by his job on Shaq denying him good position by forcing him away from the basket. Very strong legs and low center of gravity. He also bothered Zo quite a bit getting into his head mentally. I don't think they have this option in the first three peat. I do think Cartwright is more effective than either Longley or Wennington though.
I also think their pressure defense might've been as good despite not being as athletic and being older due to Harper and Randy Brown's presence. Harper's size was definitely a factor and Brown could make an impact off the bench as he was really good at pressuring the ball. This is just an example but it's recent since I watched the entire Orlando vs Chicago 1996 series recently and their press in the second half of game 2 is really impressive and effective and helps them disrupt Orlando's offense and get back into the game (reversed an 18 pt lead I think). [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaslgUIErC0&feature=plcp[/url]
Another edge for the first three peat team is that they did have John Bach who was a great defensive assistant coach.
:confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]
I don't think I can definitively say which version was best defensively. They both have advantages in different areas that you just explained in beautiful detail. I'm not sure they lost much when Johnny Bach left...at least it didn't manifest itself on the court. Not to say he wasn't instrumental -- he helped create the defensive culture, but that culture was largely self-sustaining by the time he left.
I do think the early 90's team gets underrated. The numbers don't favor them vis-
[QUOTE=NugzHeat3]Bumping this thread. Really nice read.
You're right though this quote is from after they beat Seattle in 1996 so it doesn't include the next two championship teams.
[url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-06-17/sports/9606170160_1_bulls-boston-celtics-teams-fame-coach-jack-ramsay[/url]
More on Jordan's perspective. This is also from 1996 but before they won the championship.
[url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-04-17/sports/9604170251_1_bulls-center-luc-longley-lakers-nba-finals[/url]
Another really nice read on the matter.
[url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-12-13/sports/9512130192_1_bulls-scottie-pippen-playing[/url][/QUOTE]
yeah, didn't the 1996 bulls answer all these questions by winning 72 games & the championship??
BJ Armstrong was a two way player? Wha? BJ Armstrong was a HORRIBLE DEFENSIVE PLAYER.
I[QUOTE=Smoke117]BJ Armstrong was a two way player? Wha? BJ Armstrong was a HORRIBLE DEFENSIVE PLAYER.[/QUOTE]
I emphatically agree. Armstrong was at best an ok defender, and couldn't create his own shot. He also said paxson could take it to the hole. I like DaRealist but he really butchered that post by overrating the first threepeat Bulls bench.
interesting thread, I'll have to read through this
fwiw though I have the 92, 96, 97 squads in my top 10 teams all-time
[QUOTE=Da_Realist]I don't think I can definitively say which version was best defensively. They both have advantages in different areas that you just explained in beautiful detail. I'm not sure they lost much when Johnny Bach left...at least it didn't manifest itself on the court. Not to say he wasn't instrumental -- he helped create the defensive culture, but that culture was largely self-sustaining by the time he left.
I do think the early 90's team gets underrated. The numbers don't favor them vis-
The first 3 peat Bulls bench was deeper, but the second 3 peat bench was more top heavy with Kukoc.
And lets not forget Kukoc always seemed to underperformed in the postseason. My rankings...
1. 96
2. 92
3. 97
4. 93/91
5. 91/93
6. 98