Printable View
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]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[/QUOTE]
How are the first threepeat team deeper? Caffey, Kerr, Brown, and Wennington are on par with Levingston, King, Perdue, and Paxson. And that's not including Kukoc and Williams.
This would create a paradox because Michael Jordan can not lose in the Finals.
2nd Three peat had Dennis Rodman, but 1st three peat had an even bigger beast of MJ. Discounting MJ, Id go with the 2nd team.
Comparing the whole threepeat feels weird to me, but 96 was very clearly the best team to me for a couple reasons.
The first and most apparent being Dennis Rodman was a huge upgrade over Grant. I've heard some others argue otherwise, but I don't know how you make that case. First off all, Rodman was by far the best rebounder in the league and quite clearly the best rebounder ever, one of the 5 best defenders ever (though he wasn't quite that good at that point), and a fantastic passer. Rodman basically gave everyone else on the team the ability to make rebounding a secondary priority and look to make an impact on the game elsewhere, which strengthened the team as a whole
The second is that Pippen was at his peak in 96, and 97, which really did make a large difference. He was a smarter, and more fundamentally sound player while having what seemed to me like a better mentality.
Secondly, the depth on the 96 team was great. Toni Kukoc, who was basically an all star was coming off the bench, Steve Kerr was probably the best spotup shooter ever and Ron Harper was a fantastic do it all sort of guard, who also played very good defense and often times took on Jordan's matchup so that he could save some energy for offense.
Really the only spot that the 1st threepeat beats the 2nd is Jordan, and really Jordan is what made those first threepeat teams champions. They weren't extremely stacked by any stretch of the imagination, as it was really Jordan, Pippen a good (though not [I]that[/I] good) PF in Grant, and some alright role players. Jordan had to average around 35 ppg in the first threepeat for the teams to make it out with a championship, and then play at an all time elite level for his position at every other aspect of the game. He was not even capable of doing that by 96, but they were still a clearly more dominant team.
[QUOTE=magnax1]Comparing the whole threepeat feels weird to me, but 96 was very clearly the best team to me for a couple reasons.
The first and most apparent being Dennis Rodman was a huge upgrade over Grant. I've heard some others argue otherwise, but I don't know how you make that case. First off all, Rodman was by far the best rebounder in the league and quite clearly the best rebounder ever, one of the 5 best defenders ever (though he wasn't quite that good at that point), and a fantastic passer. Rodman basically gave everyone else on the team the ability to make rebounding a secondary priority and look to make an impact on the game elsewhere, which strengthened the team as a whole
The second is that Pippen was at his peak in 96, and 97, which really did make a large difference. He was a smarter, and more fundamentally sound player while having what seemed to me like a better mentality.
Secondly, the depth on the 96 team was great. Toni Kukoc, who was basically an all star was coming off the bench, Steve Kerr was probably the best spotup shooter ever and Ron Harper was a fantastic do it all sort of guard, who also played very good defense and often times took on Jordan's matchup so that he could save some energy for offense.
[B]Really, the only spot that the 1st threepeat beats the 2nd is Jordan,[/B] and really Jordan is what made those first threepeat teams champions. They weren't extremely stacked by any stretch of the imagination, as it was really Jordan, Pippen a good (though not [I]that[/I] good) PF in Grant, and some alright role players. Jordan had to average around 35 ppg in the first threepeat for the teams to make it out with a championship, and then play at an all time elite level for his position at every other aspect of the game. He was not even capable of doing that by 96, but they were still a clearly more dominant team.[/QUOTE]
This is why people pick the first threepeat.
I honestly would chose 2nd threepeat jordan over the first for this reason. In an interview posted in this thread with john Bach, he said Jordan was used in the post more, and he was more cerebral. He didn't feel the need to be flashy anymore. He knew how to conserve energy, and he was part of the team. And they all complimented each other so well.
Especially the energy/stamina aspect of Jordans game. Make no mistaake, Jordan ran out of gas during the 1st threepeat too. He was clearly tired in game 6 vs Portland. And he said he ran out of gas in 93 vs the Suns in game 5.
Id trade a little athhleticism for wits anyday
[QUOTE=97 bulls]This is why people pick the first threepeat.
[B]I honestly would chose 2nd threepeat jordan over the first[/B] for this reason. In an interview posted in this thread with john Bach, he said Jordan was used in the post more, and he was more cerebral. He didn't feel the need to be flashy anymore. He knew how to conserve energy, and he was part of the team. And they all complimented each other so well.
Especially the energy/stamina aspect of Jordans game. Make no mistaake, Jordan ran out of gas during the 1st threepeat too. He was clearly tired in game 6 vs Portland. And he said he ran out of gas in 93 vs the Suns in game 5.
Id trade a little athhleticism for wits anyday[/QUOTE]
:biggums:
97 bulls, to answer your question, I'm not sure who'd win. When I feel teams are usually close, I have a hard time predicting and all I can say is it can go either way.
Also, you were getting on Da Realist for making a biased post. Your handle is 97 bulls. Come on man. You don't see the irony in that?
Also, you said Pippen and Jordan were the only two way players on the first three peat team. Horace Grant was definitely a two way player. He couldn
1st 3peat bulls of course.. You have prime MJ and after Mike left them, 3 Bulls players makes the all star BJ, Scottie and Grant..
While the 2nd 3peat turn Mike into wanna be Kobe.. Still great and the best in the league but still not like when he was in his prime.. This team is just full of veteran players who fit perfectly in the triangle offense but still not better than 1st 3peat who were young and athletic..
[QUOTE=NugzHeat3]97 bulls, to answer your question, I'm not sure who'd win. When I feel teams are usually close, I have a hard time predicting and all I can say is it can go either way.
Also, you were getting on Da Realist for making a biased post. Your handle is 97 bulls. Come on man. You don't see the irony in that?
Also, you said Pippen and Jordan were the only two way players on the first three peat team. Horace Grant was definitely a two way player. He couldn
[QUOTE=I LUV KOBE]1st 3peat bulls of course.. You have prime MJ and after Mike left them, 3 Bulls players makes the all star BJ, Scottie and Grant..
While the 2nd 3peat turn Mike into wanna be Kobe.. Still great and the best in the league but still not like when he was in his prime.. This team is just full of veteran players who fit perfectly in the triangle offense but still not better than 1st 3peat who were young and athletic..[/QUOTE]
Lol what are you talking about? Rodman made all star games, kukoc was the best player in eurpoe and an olympian when he joined the Bulls. And was the best sixthman in the league. And they were just as athletic if not more than the first threepeat bulls. The only difference was they were older. But throughout history, veteran teams almost always win out over younger teams. Even more talented younger teams.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]His bias also shows when he says the first threepeats bench was better by saying they contributed and hit big shots etc. Well shit so did the second threepeats bench. [/QUOTE]
You're a keyboard warrior so I try not to get into long discussions with you, but...
Where did I say FTP bench was better? I said they should get some credit and I pointed out the differences. In fact, earlier in the thread I said
[QUOTE=Da_Realist]The bench may be the only real advantage the S3P Bulls might have had over the F3P version. [/QUOTE]
:facepalm
[QUOTE=Da_Realist]You're a keyboard warrior so I try not to get into long discussions with you, but...
Where did I say FTP bench was better? I said they should get some credit and I pointed out the differences. In fact, earlier in the thread I said
:facepalm[/QUOTE]
Nice job taking a snippet of my reply to youre post. I reread your post twice and still came away feeling that you feel the first threepeats bench was better. And thats your opinion. But they werent versitle two way players. And if they were, so was the second threepeats bench players.
I dont know what a keyboard warrior is. This is a forum made to state opinions. If you dont want people to reply or question yours then dont post them.
[QUOTE=NugzHeat3]97 bulls, to answer your question, I'm not sure who'd win. When I feel teams are usually close, I have a hard time predicting and all I can say is it can go either way.
Also, you were getting on Da Realist for making a biased post. Your handle is 97 bulls. Come on man. You don't see the irony in that?
Also, you said Pippen and Jordan were the only two way players on the first three peat team. Horace Grant was definitely a two way player. He couldn
Jordan and Pippen were better during the 1st 3 peat, but the 2nd 3 peat actually had a good 6th man and better overall defense.
@Da Realist
What do you think of the match-up between FTP MJ vs STP MJ? Who could give more problems to the other team? I'd really like to hear your thoughts on this. Thnx :rockon:
back on topic.
Personally I do think that the 2nd Three Peat team was better, prolly cause of STP Pip(better player IMO), Worm and the bench.
[QUOTE=Da_Realist]I think "two-way" confused some people. I didn't mean BJ was this great defensive player. Or that Scott Williams could average 30 points. They were who they were on both ends. BJ wasn't such a liability that he needed to be taken out of a close game and subbed for someone else. Scott Williams didn't need to be switched out with Stacy King because one was great offensively and the other was great defensively. Sometimes being average or serviceable on both ends is better than being a superstar on one end and a liability on the other. 97Bulls, I said [I]sometimes[/I]. Overall, I would still give the edge to the STP bench. However, STP team needed that advantage more than FTP team.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. I do think your overrating th liability thing though. All teams have that problem. Even more, i rarely ever remember phil jackson ever subbing defense for offense like that aside from the 98 finals. His finishers were normally, jordan pippen rodman kukoc and longley. Now you had situational lineups, but as i said, all teams have that.
The first threepeat Bulls i guess didnt really have to sub out player like that, but that was more because they had no choice. Scott Wialliams, Stacy King, Cliff Levingston, and will Perdue were for all intents and purposes the same type of player. 6'9-6'11 hustler/dirty work players. They didnt post up, or had great jumpers orand anything like that. They scored off dump offs and offensive rebounds. Paxson, Armstrong, and Tucker were the same player too. 6'2 lightsout jumpshooters. They werent gonna put the ball on the floor, or lock a guy down on defense or run the offense like a traditional PG. If armsrtong was your starter and was getting lit up by the PG were you gonna be able to go to pax?
Its why Jordan was depended on so much. They had no ther choice after Pippen.
Its why the second threepeat team was so much better. They could win with Jordan having off nights. And win in different ways. The players all brought their own special dynamic that made them har to play against