Printable View
[B]Bulls First 3 Peat[/B] '91-'93
C - Bill Cartwright
PF - Horace Grant
SF - Scottie Pippen
SG - Michael Jordan
PG - John Paxson
BENCH
B.J. Armstrong
Stacey King
Will Perdue
[B]Bulls Second 3 Peat[/B]: '96-'98
C - Luc Longley
PF - Dennis Rodman
SF - Scottie Pippen
SG - Michael Jordan
PG - Ron Harper
BENCH
Toni Kukoc
Steve Kerr
Bill Wennington
I get alot of mixed answers when I ask this question. Who would win in a 7 game series?
1st three peat team would win. Put the best of each three-peat (1992 and 1996) against each other and I think 1992 takes it in 6, possibly 7.
Depends. Of course the 2nd 3 peat team had deeper roster and Pippen was improved player even more.
I like to say the '96 or '97 team because I don't think full court zone press would be as effective against big guards like Harp & MJ. Also point forwards like Pip & Kukoc who could bring the ball up & handle it well. As great and physically strong Horace was, he was not Dennis Rodman, period. And as great as MJ was the first 3 peat, I think the MJ/Pip duo was that much better in the late 90s. But it would definitely be interesting match. :applause:
I'd go with 2nd
1st 3 peat because Jordan and Pippen were much better. But the 2nd 3 peat had a better surrounding cast.
Man, now that's a pretty tough question right there. I personally I would pick the first 3 Peat.
I'll start with the bench first because I think with Kukoc alone, the late '90s bench was much better than the first 3 peat.
Then with the starting lineup I think that Cartwright and Longley are both below average centers so i guess neither team has the advantage here.
I also, think at the PG position the late '90s have a better mix with the Harper and Kerr combination. The late '90s have a slight edge at defense with Harper but Kerr and Paxson could both flame threes. Also, Harper was much tougher then BJ.
At the PF position, Rodman was better at rebounding than Grant and their defense were both really good. But I think that having MJ and Pippen at their athletic primes who were both very good at rebounding for the positions they played compensates for it.
At the SF position with Pippen I think that his shooting game was a little more polished for the second three-peat but the younger Pippen played better defense, was more athletic and very good at grabbing boards. Passing wise, I think it's a tie. Overall, I think that Pippen was slightly better during the first three-peat.
Now at the SG position.....In the early '90s there was almost nothing that MJ couldn't do. He could shoot jumpers really well, drive into the lane and finish better than any guard that I've ever seen. He played better defense and was still very good at passing. He also had more stamina to be able to play more minutes.
Even though the late '90s win in most categories, I think that the younger Pippen and the magnitude of MJ's prime beats the late '90s. In the games, it wouldn't take very long for the team to devise the offensive gameplan. With MJ and Pippen getting most of the points, there wouldn't need to be that much ball distribution unless there's a wide open Paxson or easy dunks. For the late '90s, I think that the older Jordan would have a much tougher time scoring with a younger Jordan hounding him (and Pippen could help if younger MJ got into foul trouble). I also think that the older Pippen would have a harder time scoring. With this, I don't think Kukoc would be enough.
After looking at it as a whole, I could be wrong and the real X factor is the older, wiser Phil Jackson.
I believe the 1st 3Peat (F3P) Bulls were better than the 2nd 3Peat
(S3P) Bulls.
First, the F3P Bulls were younger. The S3P Bulls couldn't keep up with
those young guys. F3P Michael was better, more efficient and could
raise his game even higher if he wanted to (he could have broken 70 in
game 1 of the 92 Finals, for example). S3P MJ couldn't have done that.
F3P Pippen and S3P Pippen basically cancel each other out. However
Grant was more versatile than Dennis Rodman. Dennis Rodman was a great
rebounder but he was 35-37 years old when he played for the Bulls. He
was a much better player in Detroit than he was in Chicago.
Rodman averaged 5.2 pts, 2.8 asts, 15.3 rebs, 0.6 stls, 0.3 blks, 2.0
tov on 45 fg% in F3P.
Grant averaged 13.4 pts, 2.5 asts, 9.3 rebs, 1.2 stls, 1.3 blks, 1.3
tov on 54 fg% in S3P.
Grant averaged more points, more steals, more blocks, less turnovers
and he shot a LOT better from the field.
This doesn't take into account the havoc Grant created on the floor
defensively (full court and half court) and it also doesn't measure
the distractions, suspensions and drama Rodman brought to the table
every year he was in Chicago. Rodman missed an average of 15 games per
season during the S3P, Grant only missed an average of 3 games during the F3P.
S3P Ron Harper was a real advantage defensively over F3P John Paxson
but John's advantage was his sharpshooting and clutchness. Ron gets
the edge here, but John's defensive deficiency would be cancelled out
because of the extra versatility of a young MJ and Pippen (full court
defense, half court defense, more spring and more stamina) that S3P MJ
and Pip could not provide. In other words, the S3P Bulls needed Ron
Harper's 6-6 frame and defensive ability because MJ was too old to
chase down younger guys defensively and still have super-human
efficiency. With that said, S3P MJ still wasn't as efficient as the
F3P version.
The bench may be the only real advantage the S3P Bulls might have had
over the F3P version. However, the starters for the F3P team was just
plain better and more versatile than the starters for the S3P team.
They were younger, could play full-court defense or half-court
defense. MJ was holding down guards from Isiah Thomas to Clyde Drexler
while still shooting over 50% from the field. Horace was putting up
numbers without getting suspended every 5th game. John Paxson was a
dependable shooter in the clutch to take pressure off of double and
triple teams on MJ -- and when he lost a step, BJ Armstrong stepped
in.
Toni Kucoc was a spark for S3P offensively, but he was a huge
liability on defense. Soft as tissue paper. And fragile emotionally
too. If he didn't start, he'd sulk. The rest of the bench was full of
old stiffs like John Salley, James Edwards and Robert Parish. The
young Bulls had guys like BJ Armstrong, Cliff Levingston, Craig Hodges
and Scott Williams that would provide a real spark. Especially in the
91 and 92 playoffs.
The S3P Bulls had to pace themselves because of age. MJ, Scottie,
Harper and Rodman were all advanced in age and couldn't put out max
effort 48 min/game. They had trouble with young, athletic teams like
the Sonics and Lakers. They were smart enough to pick and choose when
to go all out and still win championships. The S3P Bulls was a great
team but they wouldn't have been able to pick and choose against the
F3P Bulls. MJ had the same heart and hunger but he had young legs and
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6og_pOVi2w"]stamina that amazed even other NBA stars[/URL].
As great as MJ was, he was known to get a little tired if he had to
carry too much of the load for too long in the S3P. He was good enough
to withstand it and lead his team because no one was good enough to
outlast him even at 90%. But we're talking about F3P MJ. That guy
never got tired. He was a machine.
It would be close but ultimately I choose F3P Bulls.
Awesome breakdown, Da Realist. I agree wholeheartedly.
...
Really close...
1. 96 Bulls
2. 92 Bulls
3. 97 Bulls
4. 91 Bulls
5. 93 Bulls
6. 98 Bulls
Could go either way...But the 96 Bulls were the best
[QUOTE=Glove_20]Really close...
1. 96 Bulls
2. 92 Bulls
3. 97 Bulls
4. 91 Bulls
5. 93 Bulls
6. 98 Bulls
Could go either way...But the 96 Bulls were the best[/QUOTE]
I almost completely agree with that order, although i think i put the '98 Bulls just slightly ahead of the '93 Bulls.
I think the 2nd Bulls 3pt had a better team.
It's just like with Kobe now. Kobe who isnt athletic anymore, is now winning more than ever b4 ( barring the Shaq years) beccause he has learned how to win. Learned to trust his teammates ( unless their is a big game 10-29 cough cough).
MJ in his 2nd peat learned how to be a winner 72-10 69-13 62-20 ( scottie injured for most of the year). MJ started trusting his teammates more also. Dennis Rodman was such a beast on the boards.
[QUOTE=Glove_20]Really close...
1. 96 Bulls
2. 92 Bulls
3. 97 Bulls
4. 91 Bulls
5. 93 Bulls
6. 98 Bulls
Could go either way...But the 96 Bulls were the best[/QUOTE]
Perfect list.
[QUOTE=lilojmayo]I think the 2nd Bulls 3pt had a better team.
It's just like with Kobe now. Kobe who isnt athletic anymore, is now winning more than ever b4 ( barring the Shaq years) beccause he has learned how to win. Learned to trust his teammates ( unless their is a big game 10-29 cough cough).
MJ in his 2nd peat learned how to be a winner 72-10 69-13 62-20 ( scottie injured for most of the year). MJ started trusting his teammates more also. Dennis Rodman was such a beast on the boards.[/QUOTE]
You're completely wrong. How the hell did MJ only learn how to win in the 2nd three-peat? That first three-peat had nothing to do with MJ trusting his teammates more? I hope you are not implying that Jordan's mindset in the first three-peat is about the same as Kobe's mindset when he played with Shaq.
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]Perfect list.[/QUOTE]
: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.
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.
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=guy]You're completely wrong. How the hell did MJ only learn how to win in the 2nd three-peat? That first three-peat had nothing to do with MJ trusting his teammates more? I hope you are not implying that Jordan's mindset in the first three-peat is about the same as Kobe's mindset when he played with Shaq.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, seriously. The Bulls had 62 wins, 67 wins, and 57 wins in a tougher league than '96-'98, and the only reason they didn't win 60+ in '93 was because of the Dream Team the previous Summer.
[QUOTE=lilojmayo]
It's just like with Kobe now. Kobe who isnt athletic anymore, .[/QUOTE]
Kobe right now is more athletic then OJ Mayo is...
[QUOTE=Younggrease]Kobe right now is more athletic then OJ Mayo is...[/QUOTE]
OJ Mayo 41 inch vertical 11.04 sec in lane agility end discussion.
[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]Awesome breakdown, Da Realist. I agree wholeheartedly.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, OldSchool.
I thought about this some more this morning and realized I missed something...
[QUOTE=Da_Realist]F3P Pippen and S3P Pippen basically cancel each other out.[/QUOTE]
I think the quoted statement is both true and unfair. It's [U]true[/U] in that, from a pure productivity point of view, the two versions cancel each other out. It's [U]unfair[/U] because I didn't mention that Scottie was a different player in the S3P than he was in the F3P.
Pippen in the F3P was younger, more versatile, quicker and had more hops, but he was insecure, a little soft and wasn't comfortable with being in Jordan's shadow. Pippen and Grant formed a bond because they were both the "anti-Jordan". Regular guys that felt unappreciated within the glare of all-things-Michael. Pippen sometimes would sulk when he didn't get the attention he deserved.
(I thought about this last night as I was watching the 92 series against the Cavs. In game 4, with the Bulls up 2-1, Scottie scored 13 points in the first half and NOTHING in the second. He just looked uninterested. The Bulls eventually lost the game, but I wondered what happened to Scottie and found [URL="http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1003856/2/index.htm"]this article from SI archives[/URL] that sort of underlines what I just wrote above...
[B][I]Still, not all of the Bulls' struggles over the last month can be explained away. Jackson was surprised that Chicago lost its confidence and poise at times, a malady that has hurt the Trail Blazers in the past. And it is no small matter when an All-Star like Pippen is still somewhat baffled by his role in the half-court offense months after it should have become clear. After his desultory second-half performance (three shots, zero points) in Game 4 of the Cleveland series, Pippen said, "I just didn't get the opportunities. I guess there were other guys out on the court that were more important." To which a perplexed Jackson replied, "I don't know why Scottie took so few shots. He's got to look for shots. They don't necessarily come to him."[/I][/B]
In the F3P, Scottie was still defining himself. He could be thrown off his game by physicality as late as 92 (vs Knicks).
As Scottie became a better player, he received more attention and started to understand the negative effects of being in the media's glare. He started to understand why Jordan acted and was treated so differently. And he started to bond more with him. Now, Horace Grant starts to see this and wonders why "his friend" is bonding so well with "him". Grant and Pippen start to become more distant because he thinks Pippen is becoming a "star" and began to act like it. Grant wanted things to be "fair" and "equal", but Pippen understood that as a fairytale.
So 93 was a tense year. I read somewhere that MJ said he felt like he and Grant couldn't play on the same team anymore after that year. Jordan soon retired and left Pippen to be the man and deal with all the media scrutiny by himself. During the time he was gone, Pippen finally understood MJ more than ever.
By 96, Pippen was a different player. Having experienced some difficult career challenges, Pippen became a tougher player. He felt confident enough in his abilities to take control of the team from time to time, direct the triangle to perfection and assign defensive rotations. He no longer needed to be patted on the back. And due to his experience as both a "sidekick" and "the man", he could relate to both MJ and the rest of the team. [I]Pippen became the glue that held everything together.[/I] Everyone appreciated him from MJ to Phil Jackson to the 12th man.
Gone was the player that could be rattled with physical play. Pippen regularly put his body on the line for the good of the team. Hurting his back on a series winning layup against the Bullets, being a rock in the 97 playoffs, bodying up Mark Jackson in the 98 ECF and playing hurt in Game 6 vs Utah in the 98 Finals. I don't think F3P Pippen does that.
So, in terms of production, both versions are similar but everything else -- maturity, strength, intelligence, confidence -- favors the S3P Pippen.
You could say MJ was a smarter, more mature, even more intelligent player in the S3P as well, but MJ's production in the F3P trumps all. He wasn't so much smarter or more mature or intelligent that it trumps what he could do on the court during the F3P.
I feel better now because I felt like I short-changed Pippen a little bit. I still think the F3P Bulls outlast the S3P Bulls. I wouldn't bet against the S3P Bulls somehow finding a way...but I wouldn't put my money on them. I'm just glad they didn't have to play each other because no one else in the league could beat them and I enjoyed every minute of it. :D
i believe that the second 3peat bulls are better. if you guys really look at it, jordan didnt do much different quality wise as far as the 1st and 2nd teams. you guys are fascinated with the acrobatic moves that jordan made. and thats really the only difference. i believe thw 2nd bulls were better in all aspects other than id probably give a slight edge to 1st 3peat jordan. but does 91-93 jordan trump a slightly inferior version of himself, a far superior pippen, and a far superior (and its not even close) bench? i dont think so.
[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]Yeah, seriously. The Bulls had 62 wins, 67 wins, and 57 wins in a tougher league than '96-'98, and the only reason they didn't win 60+ in '93 was because of the Dream Team the previous Summer.[/QUOTE]
Not to be a b*tch, but they only won 61 games in '91. And if you're comparing win totals from the first three peat to the second, it's not even close. I'll agree that the league was tougher for the first three peat, but 61, 67, and 57 is not close to 72, 69, and 62.
I don't have much of a point here, except to say that the record compiled over the second three peat is incredible, and will probably never be beaten. To me, that counts for a lot.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]i believe that the second 3peat bulls are better. if you guys really look at it, jordan didnt do much different quality wise as far as the 1st and 2nd teams. you guys are fascinated with the acrobatic moves that jordan made. and thats really the only difference. i believe thw 2nd bulls were better in all aspects other than id probably give a slight edge to 1st 3peat jordan. but does 91-93 jordan trump a slightly inferior version of himself, a far superior pippen, and a far superior (and its not even close) bench? i dont think so.[/QUOTE]
Jordan was [I]significantly[/I] better during the first three-peat (age 28-30) than the second (age 33-35). Second three-peat Jordan was about 85-90% of first three-peat Jordan from an overall impact standpoint. The main differences were offensive efficiency, playmaking, defensive effort/ability due to extra athleticism/stamina, and the ability to raise his game higher on command more readily than during the second three-peat.
[QUOTE=Stacey King]Not to be a b*tch, but they only won 61 games in '91. And if you're comparing win totals from the first three peat to the second, it's not even close. I'll agree that the league was tougher for the first three peat, but 61, 67, and 57 is not close to 72, 69, and 62.
I don't have much of a point here, except to say that the record compiled over the second three peat is incredible, and will probably never be beaten. To me, that counts for a lot.[/QUOTE]
The point was that, minus the Dream Team experience, they likely have records of 61 wins (corrected), 67 wins, and, say, 62 wins during the first three-peat. In a stronger league. I'm not using regular season records to determine which team was better, it was in response to the implication that Jordan somehow "learned how to win" only during the second three-peat that someone else posted.
[QUOTE=lilojmayo]I think the 2nd Bulls 3pt had a better team.
It's just like with Kobe now. Kobe who isnt athletic anymore, is now winning more than ever b4 ( barring the Shaq years) beccause he has learned how to win. Learned to trust his teammates ( unless their is a big game 10-29 cough cough).
MJ in his 2nd peat learned how to be a winner 72-10 69-13 62-20 ( scottie injured for most of the year). MJ started trusting his teammates more also. Dennis Rodman was such a beast on the boards.[/QUOTE]
Are you saying MJ wasn't a winner before the 2nd 3-peat? What's your definition of a winner? The dude won 3 rings in a league that was slightly better than the one from 96-98. The competition in the late 90s was a bit watered down. However, the league being weaker shouldn't be taken into account when comparing the 2 3-peat teams. The 2nd 3-peat dominated the league, whether it was weaker or not isn't the point.
This is a great topic and its something thats hypothetical so you can't really have an argument. Here's my breakdown. MJ was slightly a better player in the early 90s. He was more explosive, could flatout take over, dominate games and had the speed and the quickness. Not saying late 90s MJ couldn't but not as efficiently or dramatically, IMO. MJ also had his greatest season IMO during the 1st 3-peat. And that season would be '91 where he redefined the word domination. Mid-late 90s MJ was still great and the best player in the league but he had lost a step compared to the early 90s. But, as he aged various parts of his game improved like his shooting, IQ etc.
The 2nd 3-peat Scottie was probably better than the 1st one considering he was a better teammate and knew his role to perfection. Remember the incident in the '94 playoffs against the NYK where Pippen got furious because PJax wanted Kukoc to take the last shot. I don't think Pippen was matured enough in the 1st 3-peat. He was a better athlete though and probably a better defender. His shooting also improved in the mid-90s.
Grant and Rodman would be a key match up here. Rodman was an amazing rebounder and an incredible post-defender who wasn't really known for his offense. However, Grant was also known for his rebounding and defense. Grant was a better offensive player than Dennis. I think they both cancel each other out.
Ron Harper wins the PG battle, IMO. He was a much better defender than Paxson who was really known for hitting the big shot (see Game 6, 93 NBA finals). Ron Harper also has a legit advantage in size. Harper could score when you needed him to. If this was a prime Harper before the knee injury............
The 2nd 3-peat Bulls has a better bench with Toni Kukoc being the main reason. He won 6th man of the year in 96 to really show that. He was a great offensive player who could spread the floor. Decent shooter who could hit the 3 ball well. Very versatile and a great passer. They also had Steve Kerr, one of the greatest 3 point shooters of all-time. Since its hypothetical, I can't decide but taking into account matchups, I think the 2nd 3-peat team wins by just taking into account the match-ups, though.
About what team being better year-by-year, I can't really decide. I'll say the '98 Bulls were the worst of them all, most of it having to do with the core getting up there in age. The '96 Bulls probably take the cake.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't MJ say the '93 Bulls were the best team out of the six championship teams?
[QUOTE=AirJordan23]Since its hypothetical, I can't decide but taking into account matchups, I think the 2nd 3-peat team wins by just taking into account the match-ups, though. [/QUOTE]
I'm not singling you out here, but this is where most comparisons go wrong. You can't go by matchups when comparing teams because it doesn't take into account what each team will take away from the other or how a team/player could raise his game above his average. Just cause a player averages 30 ppg during the regular season doesn't mean he'll do it in every fantasy situation. Matchups are a good basis, but doesn't tell the whole story.
I remember in 91, most people picked the Lakers to beat the Bulls because of "matchups". But those same "matchups" didn't account for Jordan averaging 31.2 pts, 6.6 rebs and 11.4 asts on an ungodly 61 fg%. In fact, going just by matchups, Chicago should have lost to LA in 91, New York in 92, Portland in 92, Phoenix in 92 and maybe even New York in 93. Not to mention the Cavs in both 88 and 89.
To get back to the topic...Young, athletic, smart teams gave the Bulls the most problems during their 2nd threepeat. The F3P Bulls fit that description perfectly. S3P Jordan would have a harder time maintaining his usual dominance throughout this mythical series than F3P Jordan would. And F3P Jordan had a better ability to raise his game (11 apg in 91 Finals and 41 ppg in 93 Finals, for example) than S3P Jordan could.
And I think you underrate what Horace Grant gave to the team those 3 years. He was more productive, more efficient and less of a headache than Rodman was. That "matchup" is not a wash. Grant wins that hands down. Jordan was so dominant in the F3P that people forget the Bulls had a pretty good team built around him.
[QUOTE=Da_Realist]I'm not singling you out here, but this is where most comparisons go wrong. You can't go by matchups when comparing teams because it doesn't take into account what each team will take away from the other or how a team/player could raise his game above his average. Just cause a player averages 30 ppg during the regular season doesn't mean he'll do it in every fantasy situation. Matchups are a good basis, but doesn't tell the whole story.
I remember in 91, most people picked the Lakers to beat the Bulls because of "matchups". But those same "matchups" didn't account for Jordan averaging 31.2 pts, 6.6 rebs and 11.4 asts on an ungodly 61 fg%. In fact, going just by matchups, Chicago should have lost to LA in 91, New York in 92, Portland in 92, Phoenix in 92 and maybe even New York in 93. Not to mention the Cavs in both 88 and 89.
To get back to the topic...Young, athletic, smart teams gave the Bulls the most problems during their 2nd threepeat. The F3P Bulls fit that description perfectly. S3P Jordan would have a harder time maintaining his usual dominance throughout this mythical series than F3P Jordan would. And F3P Jordan had a better ability to raise his game (11 apg in 91 Finals and 41 ppg in 93 Finals, for example) than S3P Jordan could.
And I think you underrate what Horace Grant gave to the team those 3 years. He was more productive, more efficient and less of a headache than Rodman was. That "matchup" is not a wash. Grant wins that hands down. Jordan was so dominant in the F3P that people forget the Bulls had a pretty good team build around him.[/QUOTE]
Yes, you're right. I never said that the first 3-peat would've lost, but I was just taking into account the match ups. There's no doubt in my mind that the 1st 3-peat Bulls couldn't win. It would depend on a lot of factors though. Like you said, the 1st 3-peat Bulls had a younger, more athletic, more explosive MJ and Pippen. Those 2 could play a significant amount of minutes without showing signs of fatigue.
I'm sorry for not remembering what Grant could do. I started watching basketball in '94/95 when Grant played for the Magic. I've only watched a few tapes of the 1st 3-peat Bulls. So, I might be wrong about the Grant/Rodman comparison. You're right about production. On the 1st 3-peat Bulls, Grant was the 3rd option on offense and he showed us he could be a 2nd option on a winning team in 93-94 when he averaged 15/10 if I'm not mistaken. Actually, thinking about it, you're right. I just looked at the stats. Grant has a major edge on the offensive end (in scoring and FG%) and Rodman was more turnover prone than Horace. But, I don't think Grant had the defensive impact that Rodman did. Rodman's the type of player who would instantly solve your interior defense/rebounding problems. Not that Grant wouldn't but not as well as Rodman. Rodman was more of a headcase though and MJ and Pip had to keep him in control. I believe Grant as a two-way/all-around player is >> Rodman as a two way player.
[QUOTE=AirJordan23]Yes, you're right. I never said that the first 3-peat would've lost, but I was just taking into account the match ups. There's no doubt in my mind that the 1st 3-peat Bulls couldn't win. It would depend on a lot of factors though. Like you said, the 1st 3-peat Bulls had a younger, more athletic, more explosive MJ and Pippen. Those 2 could play a significant amount of minutes without showing signs of fatigue.
I'm sorry for not remembering what Grant could do. I started watching basketball in '94/95 when Grant played for the Magic. I've only watched a few tapes of the 1st 3-peat Bulls. So, I might be wrong about the Grant/Rodman comparison. You're right about production. On the 1st 3-peat Bulls, Grant was the 3rd option on offense and he showed us he could be a 2nd option on a winning team in 93-94 when he averaged 15/10 if I'm not mistaken. Actually, thinking about it, you're right. I just looked at the stats. Grant has a major edge on the offensive end (in scoring and FG%) and Rodman was more turnover prone than Horace. But, I don't think Grant had the defensive impact that Rodman did. Rodman's the type of player who would instantly solve your interior defense/rebounding problems. Not that Grant wouldn't but not as well as Rodman. Rodman was more of a headcase though and MJ and Pip had to keep him in control. I believe Grant as a two-way/all-around player is >> Rodman as a two way player.[/QUOTE]
No problem. Like I said, I wasn't singling you out. I just thought that was a perfect opportunity to say something that I've wanted to say for a while but I could never work it into a post.
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't MJ say the '93 Bulls were the best team out of the six championship teams?[/QUOTE]
He may have. 93 was surely my favorite of the Bulls teams to watch. Overcoming a 2-0 deficit to beat a hungry Knicks team and then beating what I consider the most talented opponent the Bulls ever faced (Phoenix) makes me partial to that team. I wouldn't bet against them being the best Bulls team of all, considering how Pippen grew from the Dream Team experience and was no longer as fragile as he was before.
Over the long haul (regular season + playoffs), 92 would be my pick but if it only came down to a 7 game series 93 may very well be the best.
It's really tough picking between 92, 93 and 97. I think 91 and 96 are a half-step behind with 98 bringing up the rear. It's no coincidence that the 3 teams I favor are all defending champs with more experience and better chemistry than the first-timers (91 and 96). 98 is last because of age.
[QUOTE=Da_Realist]I'm not singling you out here, but this is where most comparisons go wrong. You can't go by matchups when comparing teams because it doesn't take into account what each team will take away from the other or how a team/player could raise his game above his average. Just cause a player averages 30 ppg during the regular season doesn't mean he'll do it in every fantasy situation. Matchups are a good basis, but doesn't tell the whole story.
I remember in 91, most people picked the Lakers to beat the Bulls because of "matchups". But those same "matchups" didn't account for Jordan averaging 31.2 pts, 6.6 rebs and 11.4 asts on an ungodly 61 fg%. In fact, going just by matchups, Chicago should have lost to LA in 91, New York in 92, Portland in 92, Phoenix in 92 and maybe even New York in 93. Not to mention the Cavs in both 88 and 89.
To get back to the topic...Young, athletic, smart teams gave the Bulls the most problems during their 2nd threepeat. The F3P Bulls fit that description perfectly. S3P Jordan would have a harder time maintaining his usual dominance throughout this mythical series than F3P Jordan would. And F3P Jordan had a better ability to raise his game (11 apg in 91 Finals and 41 ppg in 93 Finals, for example) than S3P Jordan could.
And I think you underrate what Horace Grant gave to the team those 3 years. He was more productive, more efficient and less of a headache than Rodman was. That "matchup" is not a wash. Grant wins that hands down. Jordan was so dominant in the F3P that people forget the Bulls had a pretty good team built around him.[/QUOTE]
i honestly dont remember any team giving the 96-98 bulls problems. the closest they came to being beat was against the pacers in 98. and they were as old as the bulls. and the league wasnt watered down during the second 3peat. the teams the 97 bulls beat for example, were just as good if not better than the early 90s teams.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]i honestly dont remember any team giving the 96-98 bulls problems. the closest they came to being beat was against the pacers in 98. and they were as old as the bulls. and the league wasn't watered down during the second 3peat. the teams the 97 bulls beat for example, were just as good if not better than the early 90s teams.[/QUOTE]
Denver, Toronto, LA Lakers, Seattle all gave the Bulls headaches because of their youth.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]i honestly dont remember any team giving the 96-98 bulls problems. the closest they came to being beat was against the pacers in 98. and they were as old as the bulls. and the league wasnt watered down during the second 3peat. the teams the 97 bulls beat for example, were just as good if not better than the early 90s teams.[/QUOTE]
The '97 Jazz and '98 Pacers gave Bulls the most trouble during the 2nd 3peat. I'll actually agree with you, 1st 3peat Bulls were involved in more 'tough' series'. The '92 run in particular was brutal. Knicks took 'em to 7 games in the ECS. The ECF against the Cavaliers was a grueling 6 game series. Blazers took 'em to 6 as well. In '93 it was Knicks and Suns, both took 'em to 6. In comparison to the 2nd 3peat, where the only time the Bulls looked in any real trouble of losing a series was '97 Jazz and '98 Pacers. None of the other series' were tied after 4 games, compared to 4 such series' in the 1st 3peat. But I'll also say the 1st 3peat team faced tougher competition. IMO Portland, Phx and both Knicks teams were better than any team the Bulls faced during the 2nd 3peat.
[QUOTE=Da_Realist]Denver, Toronto, LA Lakers, Seattle all gave the Bulls headaches because of their youth.[/QUOTE]
lol ok youre talking about the few teams that beat the bulls. i dont think that a few losses constitutes problems. from 96-98 they were 8-2 vs tor, they were 3-3 vs lakers so i guess ill give you that one. they were 5-1 vs den and even though sea wasnt a young team they dominated them in the finals. so let this argument go.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]lol ok youre talking about the few teams that beat the bulls. i dont think that a few losses constitutes problems. from 96-98 they were 8-2 vs tor, they were 3-3 vs lakers so i guess ill give you that one. they were 5-1 vs den and even though sea wasnt a young team they dominated them in the finals. so let this argument go.[/QUOTE]
Da_Realist has a point. I wouldn't say The Bulls dominated the Sonics in the Finals. The Sonics won both game 4 & 5 by 10+ points and the Bulls only won game 2 by four points. Not to mention BOTH MJ and Pippen had their worst Finals performances of their career.
MJ shot 41.5% while Pippen shot 34.3%.
Bulls were 1-1 vs the Sonics in '96.
Bulls were 2-0 vs the Sonics in '97. (one of those games went to OT)
Bulls weree 1-1 vs the Sonics in '98.
Sonics definitely gave the Bulls some trouble.
[QUOTE=Indian guy]The '97 Jazz and '98 Pacers gave Bulls the most trouble during the 2nd 3peat. I'll actually agree with you, 1st 3peat Bulls were involved in more 'tough' series'. The '92 run in particular was brutal. Knicks took 'em to 7 games in the ECS. The ECF against the Cavaliers was a grueling 6 game series. Blazers took 'em to 6 as well. In '93 it was Knicks and Suns, both took 'em to 6. In comparison to the 2nd 3peat, where the only time the Bulls looked in any real trouble of losing a series was '97 Jazz and '98 Pacers. None of the other series' were tied after 4 games, compared to 4 such series' in the 1st 3peat. But I'll also say the 1st 3peat team faced tougher competition. IMO Portland, Phx and both Knicks teams were better than any team the Bulls faced during the 2nd 3peat.[/QUOTE]
i never really believed the bulls were in trouble in the 97 finals. and i believe the 96sonics were just as good as the 92 blazers and the 97 heat with zo, hardaway, brown, mashburn, marjle, ike austin and kurt thomas, were. better than the knicks. not to mention they didnt have to play a pretty good knicks team in 97. and that the jazz were the defensive equals of the suns.
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]Da_Realist has a point. I wouldn't say The Bulls dominated the Sonics in the Finals. The Sonics won both game 4 & 5 by 10+ points and the Bulls only won game 2 by four points. Not to mention BOTH MJ and Pippen had their worst Finals performances of their career.
MJ shot 41.5% while Pippen shot 34.3%.
Bulls were 1-1 vs the Sonics in '96.
Bulls were 2-0 vs the Sonics in '97. (one of those games went to OT)
Bulls weree 1-1 vs the Sonics in '98.
Sonics definitely gave the Bulls some trouble.[/QUOTE]
lol the bulls were never in danger of loosing to sonics. be serious.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]lol ok youre talking about the few teams that beat the bulls. i dont think that a few losses constitutes problems. from 96-98 they were 8-2 vs tor, they were 3-3 vs lakers so i guess ill give you that one. they were 5-1 vs den and even though sea wasnt a young team they dominated them in the finals. so let this argument go.[/QUOTE]
But why did the Bulls lose to Denver in the first place? Youth and athleticism. Toronto gave Chicago problems and MJ struggled against them. Why? Same thing. These teams didn't have the talent to consistently beat the Bulls. LAL and Seattle did, which is why the Bulls had a harder time with these teams.
The F3P Bulls were young, athletic and was a lot better than either of these teams I mentioned. That's why I say they would have given the 96-98 Bulls some real problems.
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]Da_Realist has a point. I wouldn't say The Bulls dominated the Sonics in the Finals. The Sonics won both game 4 & 5 by 10+ points and the Bulls only won game 2 by four points. Not to mention BOTH MJ and Pippen had their worst Finals performances of their career.
MJ shot 41.5% while Pippen shot 34.3%.
Bulls were 1-1 vs the Sonics in '96.
Bulls were 2-0 vs the Sonics in '97. (one of those games went to OT)
Bulls weree 1-1 vs the Sonics in '98.
Sonics definitely gave the Bulls some trouble.[/QUOTE]
on a side note the sonics were a great team and the 96 finals was more of a defensive struggle as opposed to an offenive exibition.
[QUOTE=Da_Realist]But why did the Bulls lose to Denver in the first place? Youth and athleticism. Toronto gave Chicago problems and MJ struggled against them. Why? Same thing. These teams didn't have the talent to consistently beat the Bulls. LAL and Seattle did, which is why the Bulls had a harder time with these teams.
The F3P Bulls were young, athletic and was a lot better than either of these teams I mentioned. That's why I say they would have given the 96-98 Bulls some real problems.[/QUOTE]
but neither tor or denver consistantly beat the bulls. they won 80% of their games against those 2 teams. thats great in any sport. im pretty sure that the 91-93 bulls lost to young teams too.