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

[QUOTE=Calabis]Bitch and a Moron:roll: dude really, your getting mad on the internet? Please tell me how the **** 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.[/QUOTE]
I never get mad bro. But you are acting like a female. I state something, you blow it way out of proportion, I put my statement into context and yet you still take it and run with it. Like a female youre only hearing what you wanna hear.
[QUOTE]
As far as Pippen not letting him pick the Bulls apart...last time I checked 8 assists at halftime isn't to shabby[/QUOTE]Magic had 10 assists for the game bro.The fact is the one game that Pip defended Magic, he had his lowest assist total, shot his lowest percentage (31%), and the Lakers only scored 86 pts. Pippen did a great job on Magic

[QUOTE=97 bulls]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]

No I'm not. I get the feeling you are taking my opinions to the extreme. You seem to think that I'm giving Jordan 100% credit for everything positive that happened with the Bulls and giving Pippen, Grant, Phil, Rodman, etc 0% credit for anything. Thats not what I'm saying. All I'm saying is for almost every contributing factor to the Bulls' success during those 15 years, Jordan directly or indirectly had some kind of hand in it, however minimal it may have been. Its literally impossible for that not to occur. And I don't say that about just Jordan, but many all-time greats in general. Thats why I say its extremely stupid to take two great players and compare the teams they had throughout their career and just automatically come to the conclusion that one was luckier then the other. Its not as simple as that.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
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]

Its highly doubtful Pippen would've been exactly who he was without Jordan, and its really being way too overconfident to say he would've been that way regardless as you've put it.

I get the feeling that your being sensitive and you think that when I say Jordan should deserve alot of credit for his role in the development of Pippen instead of having his accomplishments lessened due to playing with such a great player, that I'm saying Pippen's greatness should be diminished. I'm not at all. When I judge a player, it doesn't really matter who helped in his development, because that would be stupid since pretty much no one in life gets to success without people teaching them along the way. Diminishing Pippen for that would be just as stupid as diminishing Jordan cause he was helped by Dean Smith in his development. All I'm saying is its pretty stupid to diminish Jordan by mentioning his help with comments like if Barkley, Ewing, Drexler, etc had Pippen, then they would've beaten Jordan and won more rings too.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
You just named some of the greatest coaches of alltime. This isnt saying much.
[/QUOTE]

I just named what was like 1/3 of the league at one point :oldlol: It actually does say a lot. It says that its stupid to suggest that Phil Jackson was the only coach that could've ever coached Jordan to a title, which people on here do constantly.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Why do you say they couldn't have won a championship? Why do you even come to that conclusion? I see no reason why it wouldn't have been possible assuming everyone was healthy, specifically Orlando. Its thinking like this that is flawed to me. Just because something didn't happen, doesn't mean it was so highly unlikely that it wouldn't have happened given more time.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
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]

So are you suggesting that the Bulls needed the all-time leader in 3pt % in NBA history to win all 3 of those titles? It HAD to be the all-time leader? Nobody else could've filled that role? Thats ridiculous to suggest. Yes, Steve Kerr isn't a dime a dozen in the sense that there's no greater 3pt % in NBA history. He was a dime a dozen in the role he played, because there's always been plenty of knockdown shooters in the league. Replacing a career 45% 3pt shooter who's role was to only take 2-3 per game with a career 42% 3pt shooter like Kyle Korver who you mentioned, would not have changed much, if anything.

Role players hit big shots on every championship team and even on other teams as well.

Yes, Toni Kukoc actually was the 6th man of the year, which means he was an above average role player and at the very least the 146th best player in the league :oldlol: Sorry, its always funny to me when people point to things like the 6MOY award and one of the best players from overseas, like that really means alot especially back then.

Close this retarded thread... :facepalm

or ban the OP.

Hey remember when Jordan won a championship in his rookie year and also won FMVP?

*[QUOTE]All I'm saying is for almost every contributing factor to the Bulls' success during those 15 years, Jordan directly or indirectly had some kind of hand in it, however minimal it may have been.[/QUOTE]
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. 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]Its highly doubtful Pippen would've been exactly who he was without Jordan, and its really being way too overconfident to say he would've been that way regardless as you've put it.*
[/QUOTE]
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]Why do you say they couldn't have won a championship? Why do you even come to that conclusion? I see no reason why it wouldn't have been possible assuming everyone was healthy, specifically Orlando. Its thinking like this that is flawed to me. Just because something didn't happen, doesn't mean it was so highly unlikely that it wouldn't have happened given more time.*[/QUOTE]
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]So are you suggesting that the Bulls needed the all-time leader in 3pt % in NBA history to win all 3 of those titles? It HAD to be the all-time leader? Nobody else could've filled that role? Thats ridiculous to suggest. Yes, Steve Kerr isn't a dime a dozen in the sense that there's no greater 3pt % in NBA history. He was a dime a dozen in the role he played, because there's always been plenty of knockdown shooters in the league. Replacing a career 45% 3pt shooter who's role was to only take 2-3 per game with a career 42% 3pt shooter like Kyle Korver who you mentioned, would not have changed much, if anything.*[/QUOTE]
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]Yes, Toni Kukoc actually was the 6th man of the year, which means he was an above average role player and at the very least the 146th best player in the league**Sorry, its always funny to me when people point to things like the 6MOY award and one of the best players from overseas, like that really means alot especially back then.
[/QUOTE]
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.

That Bulls Roster was legit. Grant was already a great defenders at PF. Paxson was as good a shooter as anyone in the league. Pippen was already an all star and one of the best defender in the league.
Hakeem had a good cast as well. Shaq had a good cast as well. Duncan had a good cast. Sometimes a good all around cast is better than a top heavy team with no depth.
Nobody in this league has won a ring by themselves. Some just did it with weaker rosters.

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]Winning rings is like a 3 legged stool. You gotta have these 3 legs to win a championship:

* Talent
* System/Coaching
* Injuries

If any one of those legs breaks, the stool falls. You do not get to pass Go, you do not get to collect $200... you do not get a championship.

It makes no sense to say one leg is more important than the other, because if any leg breaks, that stool won't bear weight.

***********************************

You can see examples of this in any season. Probably [I]every[/I] season.

2010 - Kendrick Perkins breaks his knee in the Finals, the Celtics lose.
Now it could be debated whether the Celtics were going to win that series, but did anyone think they were going to win without Perk?

2011 - the Heat have a monster so-called Big 3 lineup... but lose to Dallas's smoother system. Spoelstra, in my opinion, didn't have a system in place, and he wasn't a strong enough coach to keep the motivation level high enough to finish.

88-89 Bulls had a great lineup, but they didn't have Phil Jackson. System/coaching cost them against the Pistons. Doug Collins, in my opinion, couldn't control his team.... and in 90, PJ was there but it took a full year to get rampaging egos to run his system.

The '71 Lakers also had a monster, so-called Big 3 lineup, with Baylor, West, and Chamberlain.... But Baylor & West both missed the entire playoffs, drawing DNP - injury.... and lost to Kareem's Bucks.

90s Shaq-Penny Magic got destroyed by injuries.

*********************

All three factors are out of the control of any individual player, no matter how great he is.

Using rings as a measurement of individual greatness is absurd.[/QUOTE]

That's been true for the 40+ years I've been watching hoops and it's still true today.

Of the three legs in the Bulls chair, there's no question in my mind, the most important for the 1991 championship was the second leg.
That ring was won by Phil Jackson & Tex Winter.

I severely doubt that any other coach could have won a championship with Michael Jordan on his team that year and that is still Phil Jackson's greatest accomplishment.

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=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]

False.
DJ's Sonics squad had Jack Sikma who was a solid center but nowhere near top of the league.... and nothing else. Lonnie Shelton & Johnnie Johnson was what they had, Paul Silas was anciently old in '79 but played solid D.

Rick Barry's Warriors for certain, and most probably Dirk's Mavs had less help. And while both Barry & Dirk were forwards, their front courts were not better than what was on the '91 Bulls.
That's 3 teams without even looking into it very hard. There's probably more.

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]False.
DJ's Sonics squad had Jack Sikma who was a solid center but nowhere near top of the league.... and nothing else. Lonnie Shelton & Johnnie Johnson was what they had, Paul Silas was anciently old in '79 but played solid D.

Rick Barry's Warriors for certain, and most probably Dirk's Mavs had less help. And while both Barry & Dirk were forwards, their front courts were not better than what was on the '91 Bulls.
That's 3 teams without even looking into it very hard. There's probably more.[/QUOTE]
I'd be a fool if I tried to comment on the Sonics and Warriors since I honestly can't say how they matched up against their peers at the time.

Dirk IS a 7 footer that caused tons of mismatch problems, but also had a very good front court [I]considering their competition[/I] (Haywood and Chandler). Seriously, who did they play aside from perhaps Gasol and Bynum that were any threat in the front court? Dirk is equivalent to a HOF center impact wise, you have both Tyson and Haywood averaging a block per game and changing even more shots than that.

Considering the Bulls' competition they were basically a joke for the most part offensively. One can argue that they were good enough defensively, but their defense was anchored by their back court. Aside from Grant and Rodman they didn't have much defense in the front court. I can go down the list of forwards and centers and even then, they got lit up. It wasn't like they were a great presence at either end. Rodman and Grant were both tough, but neither was a force that altered shots in the paint. Nobody came down the lane fearing a Rodman or Grant block.

[QUOTE=andgar923]I'd be a fool if I tried to comment on the Sonics and Warriors since I honestly can't say how they matched up against their peers at the time.

Dirk IS a 7 footer that caused tons of mismatch problems, but also had a very good front court [I]considering their competition[/I] (Haywood and Chandler). Seriously, who did they play aside from perhaps Gasol and Bynum that were any threat in the front court? Dirk is equivalent to a HOF center impact wise, you have both Tyson and Haywood averaging a block per game and changing even more shots than that.

Considering the Bulls' competition they were basically a joke for the most part offensively. One can argue that they were good enough defensively, but their defense was anchored by their back court. Aside from Grant and Rodman they didn't have much defense in the front court. I can go down the list of forwards and centers and even then, they got lit up. It wasn't like they were a great presence at either end. Rodman and Grant were both tough, but neither was a force that altered shots in the paint. Nobody came down the lane fearing a Rodman or Grant block.[/QUOTE]
This is ridiculous. Theres three front court positions in the NBA. The 96-98 Bulls have Hall of Famers at TWO of those positions. WTF?

The 91-93 Bulls had Grant who was an excellent defender and double double machine. And while Longley and Cartwright werent great, they were more than serviceable.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]This is ridiculous. Theres three front court positions in the NBA. The 96-98 Bulls have Hall of Famers at TWO of those positions. WTF?

The 91-93 Bulls had Grant who was an excellent defender and double double machine. And while Longley and Cartwright werent great, they were more than serviceable.[/QUOTE]

Do you not know how to read?

How did they compare vs their counterparts?

You wanna go through the list of match ups they faced? if you compare them to the top teams or teams they faced in the post season they're shit.

No strong presence in the middle, Mj and Pip were basically their best shot blockers. Their only threat offensively was MJ, it wasn't Luc, Bill, Rodman, Grant, none of them.

[QUOTE=SpecialQue]Hey remember when Jordan won a championship in his rookie year and also won FMVP?[/QUOTE]
I remember that Jordan was so good, he won back to back FMVPs with the Wizards.

[QUOTE=andgar923]Do you not know how to read?

How did they compare vs their counterparts?

You wanna go through the list of match ups they faced? if you compare them to the top teams or teams they faced in the post season they're shit.

No strong presence in the middle, Mj and Pip were basically their best shot blockers. Their only threat offensively was MJ, it wasn't Luc, Bill, Rodman, Grant, none of them.[/QUOTE]
So the games in which Rodman gave Shaq, Mourning, Kemp, Malone fits is just a myth right? Id say overall they matched up fine vs their competition. Which frontcourt was better than the Bulls?

[QUOTE=97 bulls]So the games in which Rodman gave Shaq, Mourning, Kemp, Malone fits is just a myth right? Id say overall they matched up fine vs their competition. Which frontcourt was better than the Bulls?[/QUOTE]
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.