Why did the bulls still win 55 games without jordan?

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Because far too many posters act as if the Bulls were Jordan and a bunch of mediocre players. If posters would stop trying so hard to belittle his teammates, then this wouldn't come up.

Think about it. How many teams have been that successful without their best player? And no legitimate replacement for him.[/QUOTE]

People recognize the 1992 and 1996 Bulls as two of the most dominant teams to ever play....in any sport. TEAMS.

Without Jordan, those Bulls would be your ordinary run-in-the-mill playoff squad. With Jordan, as Swish eloquently put it, they're breaking records and winning championships.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
Think about it. How many teams have been that successful without their best player? And no legitimate replacement for him.[/QUOTE]
What's so successful about winning 55 games and losing in the 2nd round?

A bunch of decent role players, Kukoc off the bench, and a peak Scottie Pippen TOTALLY motivated by the naysayers thinking they'd miss the playoffs with the GOAT achieved the un-thinkable?

No one ever said MJ played with total scrubs like he was doing pre 1990.

Certain factions: Kobe stans, and LeBron stans make it out to sound like the '94 Bulls won a championship w/o Jordan. They lose Horace Grant the next season (Pippen's Scottie Pippen) and before Jordan came back they were STRUGGLING to maintain a .500 record.

Was '94 Horace Grant worth 13 wins from the Bulls being barely .500 without him?

Jesus, Yao Ming and Ron Artest went to the second round and lost in 7 games too. Chris Paul took the Hornets to the second round and lost. So CP3 = Pippen in your book?

[QUOTE=Audio One]And can anyone find me evidence of Wilt quitting in a game like Jordan did against Cleveland inApparently, his tea? Game 5, Doug Collins complained that Mike was ball-hogging, so he mails it in that game, look it up. Always hear how Pippen quit on a play, how Kobe quit in a half, and how Wilt chokes, but this ****** quits on an entire GAME! :roll:[/QUOTE]
If I remember correct, there was a playoff game that Wilt reportedly faked an injury and said he couldn't play. Apparently, his team was losing. Wilt took himself out. His team rallied together and got back in the game. The Chamberlain wanted to come back in. Even Bill Russell publicly called him out on it. As well as his coach

[QUOTE=tragicbronson]1993 Knicks Bulls series game 5 was rigged.[/QUOTE]

Even if its rigged, if MJ play that series, they would've won just like the next season. LOL

Do you think they would still lost if MJ play that time?

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMighTy]People recognize the 1992 and 1996 Bulls as two of the most dominant teams to ever play....in any sport. TEAMS.

Without Jordan, those Bulls would be your ordinary run-in-the-mill playoff squad. With Jordan, as Swish eloquently put it, they're breaking records and winning championships.[/QUOTE]
I concur. I just don't get the constant bashing Jordan's teammates have to endure by his fans.

If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, and only go by what some of these posters say, I'd be led to believe the Bulls were at best a 500 team that would barely make the playoffs without Jordan. That's just not the case. And we don't have to speculate, WE SAW IT UNFOLD.

[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH]What's so successful about winning 55 games and losing in the 2nd round?

A bunch of decent role players, Kukoc off the bench, and a peak Scottie Pippen TOTALLY motivated by the naysayers thinking they'd miss the playoffs with the GOAT achieved the un-thinkable?

No one ever said MJ played with total scrubs like he was doing pre 1990.

Certain factions: Kobe stans, and LeBron stans make it out to sound like the '94 Bulls won a championship w/o Jordan.[B]They lose Horace Grant the next season (Pippen's Scottie Pippen) and before Jordan came back they were STRUGGLING to maintain a .500 record. [/B]

Was '94 Horace Grant worth 13 wins from the Bulls being barely .500 without him?

Jesus, Yao Ming and Ron Artest went to the second round and lost in 7 games too. Chris Paul took the Hornets to the second round and lost. So CP3 = Pippen in your book?[/QUOTE]
But they didn't just lose Grant Swoosh. They lost Williams, King, Cartwright, and Grant. Then factor that Longley was hurt most of the year. They literally lost their whole interior defense.

They had Greg Foster, Dickey Simpkins, Larry Krystowiak, and Corie Blount as their bigman rotation.

I mean consider this. The 95 Bulls with Jordan won at a pace that extrapolated over a regular season would've netted 63 games. And got eliminated in the second round in six games.

The 94 Bulls won 55 games with Scotte Pippen missing ten. Then got eliminated in the second round in seven games.

That team was just great.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]If I remember correct, there was a playoff game that Wilt reportedly faked an injury and said he couldn't play. Apparently, his team was losing. Wilt took himself out. His team rallied together and got back in the game. The Chamberlain wanted to come back in. Even Bill Russell publicly called him out on it. As well as his coach[/QUOTE]

Game 7 of the '69 Finals, yes Chamberlain was pulled for his knee, so he could rest it. Wilt wanted to come back in, yet Butch Van Brenda refused to let him back in. It's well known that Van Brenda cost LA the title that year with the move, as he was subsequently FIRED after that series.

And Russell's comment can be taken either way. The relationship between those two was strained at an all-time high by that point, and of course they wouldn't speak for YEARS afterwards.[U] He did of course admit he was wrong [/U]in the interview with Costas and Chamberlain sitting right next to him almost 30 years later

Because Lebron sucks.

It was a shitty season. Winning 5 more games than Golden State Warriors isn't much of an achievement. :confusedshrug:

The reason why is because u had an HOF coach, an HOFer in Pippen, an All Star PF in Grant, a great offensive scheme, and great defense. Kukoc also added a lot too. Pippen could fill so many holes for your team that it made life easier. From there u had an array of shooters and defenders who knew their roles. So 55 wins wasn't really a shock to me. But I didn't expect them to win a title without MJ. MJ put them over the top.

And the Bulls NEVER had truly great depth on their teams. They were very top heavy with two superstars who could do it all on both sides of the rock. Then they had HOF support in Rodman or All-Star level or close to All Star kind of help in Grant and Kukoc. Pretty much all the teams the Bulls beat for rings had more talent depth on their rosters with the exception of the Jazz. Sonics, Suns, Lakers, and Blazers all had more depth than the Bulls.

[QUOTE=c5terror]Even if its rigged, if MJ play that series, they would've won just like the next season. LOL

Do you think they would still lost if MJ play that time?[/QUOTE]

MJ played in that series :lol

[QUOTE=Audio One]Game 7 of the '69 Finals, yes Chamberlain pulled for his knee, so he could rest it. Wilt wanted to come back in, yet Butch Van Brenda refused to let him back in. It's well known that Van Brenda cost LA the title that year with the move, as he was subsequently FIRED after that series.

And Russell's comment can be taken either way. The relationship between those two was strained at an all-time high by that point, and of course they wouldn't speak for YEARS afterwards.[U] He did of course admit he was wrong [/U]in the interview with Costas and Chamberlain sitting right next to him almost 30 years later[/QUOTE]
He wasn't pulled. He took himself out. Many people also believed Wilt took himself out because he didn't want to shoulder the blame for another Laker loss.

I do believe he took himself out to save face. So yes Wilt had his moment as well.

[QUOTE=bizil]The reason why is because u had an HOF coach, an HOFer in Pippen, an All Star PF in Grant, a great offensive scheme, and great defense. Kukoc also added a lot too. Pippen could fill so many holes for your team that it made life easier. From there u had an array of shooters and defenders who knew their roles. So 55 wins wasn't really a shock to me. But I didn't expect them to win a title without MJ. MJ put them over the top.

And the Bulls NEVER had truly great depth on their teams. They were very top heavy with two superstars who could do it all on both sides of the rock. Then they had HOF support in Rodman or All-Star level or close to All Star kind of help in Grant and Kukoc. Pretty much all the teams the Bulls beat for rings had more talent depth on their rosters with the exception of the Jazz. Sonics, Suns, Lakers, and Blazers all had more depth than the Bulls.[/QUOTE]
What's youre definition off depth? What do you call it when a team can lose key players and not miss a beat? Is this about scoring again? Cuz if so, I agree the Bulls didn't have six guys capable of scoring 20 pts. But what they did have is four guys that could dominate games.

Ive asked this earlier, how many teams have been able to lose their best player (and not replace them) and still be a great team?

And how many games did the Bulls win without MJ the following year? What was their win% when MJ came back?

MJ didn't make his teammates better, but with his first full season back they won a record of 72 games in the regular season.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]If I remember correct, there was a playoff game that Wilt reportedly faked an injury and said he couldn't play. Apparently, his team was losing. Wilt took himself out. His team rallied together and got back in the game. The Chamberlain wanted to come back in. Even Bill Russell publicly called him out on it. As well as his coach[/QUOTE]

You obviously didn't do any research, did you?

The Lakers trailed by 17 points early in the 4th quarter. And in a span of a little over four minutes, the Lakers had cut that 17 point deficit down to seven points, when Chamberlain came up lame, and with a litte less than six minutes still remaining. He came out for a couple of minutes, asked to go back in, was denied, and his replacement, Mel Counts blew chunks on the floor in the last two minutes, in a two point loss. His coach quit shortly thereafter because he knew he was going to be fired. Oh, and even that idiotic Van Breda Kolff admitted that Wilt had been injured.

BTW, Chamberlain shredded that same knee early in the next season, and had to have major knee surgery.

As for the Russell comment, he later apologized. BTW, Russell didn't do jacks**t in the that last quarter, and was nowhere to be found. Chamberlain outrebounded Russell in the fourth quarter, 7-2, (and two rebounds came on consecutive plays after he injured his leg)...all while playing five minutes left.

Now, I ask you...if Wilt were really faking that injury because he feared he was going to lose again, why would he wait until his team had mounted a furious rally, and with plenty of time still remaining, and with the Celtics running on fumes at the time? If he were truly going to "fake" an injury at any point in that game, it would have been late in the third period, and when he picked up his fifth personal foul, and with his team losing by 15 points. Instead, early in the 4th quarter, he got Russell to commit his fifth foul, (and of course, Russell went into hiding the rest of the game), and his defense and rebounding sparked that explosive comeback. It makes ZERO sense.


[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain[/url]

[QUOTE]
Game 7 featured a surreal scene: in anticipation of a Lakers win, Lakers owner Jack Kent Cooke had put up thousands of balloons in the rafters of the Forum in Los Angeles. This display of arrogance motivated the Celtics and angered Jerry West.[79] In that match, Chamberlain experienced his second Game 7 debacle. The Lakers trailed 91–76 after three quarters. But powered by a limping Jerry West, who played with a deep thigh bruise after Game 5, the Lakers mounted a comeback; but then Chamberlain twisted his knee after a rebound and had to be replaced by Mel Counts. With three minutes to go, and West and Counts hitting clutch baskets, the Lakers trailed 103–102. But when the Celtics tightened up their defense, the Lakers committed costly turnovers and lost the game 108–106, despite a triple-double from West, who had 42 points, 13 rebounds and 12 assists. West became the only player in NBA history to be named Finals MVP despite being on the losing team.

After the game, the key question was why Chamberlain had stayed out the final six minutes. At the time of his final substitution, he had scored 18 points (hitting 7 of his 8 shots) and grabbed 27 rebounds, significantly better than the 10 points of Mel Counts on 4-of-13 shooting.[79] To justify a late minute sub, either Chamberlain's injury had to be grave, or Van Breda Kolff's trust in Counts absolute. Among others, Bill Russell didn't believe Chamberlain's injury was grave, and openly accused him of being a malingerer: "Any injury short of a broken leg or a broken back is not enough."[79] Ironically, Van Breda Kolff came to Chamberlain's defense, insisting the often-maligned Lakers center hardly was able to move in the end.[79] He himself was perceived as "pig-headed" for benching Chamberlain, and soon resigned as Lakers coach.[79] Cherry comments that according to some journalists, that Game 7 "destroyed two careers: Wilt's because he wouldn't take over and Van Breda Kolff because he wouldn't give in".[[/QUOTE]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Russell[/url]

[QUOTE]For most of his career, Russell was close friends with his perennial opponent Wilt Chamberlain. Chamberlain often invited Russell over for Thanksgiving dinner, and at Russell's place, conversation mostly concerned Russell's electric trains.[86] However, the close relationship ended after Game 7 of the 1969 NBA Finals, during which Chamberlain injured his knee with six minutes left and left the game. During a conversation with students, a reporter—unknown to Russell— heard Russell describe Chamberlain as a malingerer and accuse him of "copping out" of the game when it seemed that the Lakers would lose.[87] Chamberlain was livid with Russell and saw him as a backstabber.[87] Chamberlain's knee was injured so badly that he could not play the entire offseason and he ruptured it the next season. [B]The two men did not talk to each other for over 20 years until Russell met with Chamberlain personally and apologized.[/B][88] When Chamberlain died in 1999, Chamberlain's nephew said that Russell was the second person he was told to call.[6] At the eulogy, Russell stated that he did not consider Chamberlain his rival and that the pair would "be friends through eternity[/QUOTE]