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

Im in thr process of replying Guy. Hang on

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

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



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


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

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


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

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

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

OP:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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



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



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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get a grip.

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

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