Was there ANY point during any of the Bulls' 6 Finals series where..

You thought/said to yourself, "IDK if they can pull this one off"? Or where the media said that?

Nope. As my great grandpa observed during game 6 in their 1997 final series vs the Jazz: "He who has Michael Jordan wins the ball game."

Goat.

1991 Lakers were favorites to win. Was too young to remember, though.

1998 Jazz were also favorites. After they won game 1 there were some serious doubters. I believed, doe.

:bowdown: YAHWEH

During the finals? No. The Lakers were considered favorites going into the Finals in 91' (odd since the Lakers were in the Finals via upsetting the favored Blazers and Chicago had the better record and steamrolled through the East, including a sweep of the Pistons in the ECF) and Utah in 98'. In the Finals, though, they were never seriously at risk like they were in the 92' ECSF, 93' ECF and 98' ECF.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]During the finals? No. The Lakers were considered favorites going into the Finals in 91' (odd since the Lakers were in the Finals via upsetting the favored Blazers and Chicago had the better record and steamrolled through the East, including a sweep of the Pistons in the ECF) and Utah in 98'. In the Finals, though, they were never seriously at risk like they were in the 92' ECSF, 93' ECF and 98' ECF.[/QUOTE]

This. In the Finals, no. But over the course of those respective seasons, hell yes.

'98 Jazz. I wasn't sure if they could pull that one out. It looked fairly dire by game 6.

Lakers were finished after game 3, probably really even after that game 2 monster run punctuated by the famous right to left hand layup.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]'98 Jazz. I wasn't sure if they could pull that one out. It looked fairly dire by game 6.

Lakers were finished after game 3, probably really even after that game 2 monster run punctuated by the famous right to left hand layup.[/QUOTE]
? The Bulls were up 3-2 going into game 6... they had two more chances to win the title.

[QUOTE=kshutts1]? The Bulls were up 3-2 going into game 6... they had two more chances to win the title.[/QUOTE]

Both games in Utah, with Utah up in game 6 late and Scottie Pippen barely able to play.

The finals no, but the road to the finals were pretty scary esp Indy in 98 :mad:

perhaps the first championship. at that point, MJ had a lot of doubters.

but after the 3peat, no one doubted the Bulls with MJ in the finals.

I had doubts during the 1991 postseason, because it was the first one. Going into the Detroit series and especially after game 1 of the Finals against the Lakers. And then late in game 3 when it looked like L.A. would go up 2-1.

1993 vs. Knicks when they were down 2-0 without HCA.

I actually didn't see the game 7 against Indiana 1998 when it happened, but I'm sure I would have doubts during the game that they would win. They were even behind by 3 midway in the 4th quarter.

In the finals against Utah, it looked like they had it after game 3, winning 96-54. But in game 6? Pippen's back was greatly diminishing his play, Rodman really didn't play all that well throughout the postseason, Jordan looking exhausted and ice cold in the 2nd half (he missed 13 of 17 shots before the final 40 seconds)...there was definitely doubts there. Utah had HCA, it's always tough to win a game 7 on the road.

Chicago got some breaks during that game too. That obviously blown shot clock call on Howard Eisley which took away 3 pts from Utah, the shot that Ron Harper got credit for where it looked like he was a fraction too late on the shot clock. Utah was up 2 with a minute left and had the ball, Stockton got open and took a 3 and it was just a little short. If he makes that shot, it's hard to see them coming back from 5 within a minute.

98 road was hard.


Indy series was as tough as they come. Ref letting Reggie to push off Mike, that was a touch pill to swallow.


And when you lose Game 1 in the Finals, its always tough. Sure we tied it up and destroyed them in Game 3 but not being able to close at home was concerning at the time. They had momentum for the next two games. And like some posters have said, Scottie wasn't fully healthy, Rodman was struggling, and we were losing late in the game and Stockton made a HUGE shot with less than a minute to go in Game 6.

[QUOTE=I<3NBA]perhaps the first championship. at that point, MJ had a lot of doubters.
[B]
but after the 3peat, no one doubted the Bulls with MJ in the finals.[/B][/QUOTE]

A lot of people in fact did. In 98' the Jazz were favorites. It was a very logical position to take. They had dismantled the Lakers in a 4-0 sweep in the WCF. Keep in mind this was when the Lakers had four all-stars (Kobe was voted in but he was already a productive player by this point). Unfortunately for them, only Shaq showed up for the WCF. Meanwhile, the Bulls had barely escaped a 7 game ECF against the Pacers. Given that the 97' Finals was so competitive and the Bulls had declined while the Jazz remained stable it was expected by most that the Jazz would win. The reason they didn't was largely because the Jazz's #1 offense was held in check, including the legendary Game 3 where Utah was held to 54 points. No one could have predicted that type of defensive dominance entering the series.

In 91' the Bulls were unproven, which created some doubts, but they had their best postseason run that year (15-2). Only 96' comes close (15-3 after the Bulls started to slack off in the Finals after going up 3-0). People always mention the 92' team as the best team of the first three-peat--and arguably the best Bulls team ever. Yes, they did go 67-15 but in the playoffs they lost 3 games in the ECSF and 2 games each in the ECF and Finals--and were headed to a Game 7 in the Finals before a legendary fourth quarter comeback with Pippen and four reserve players (they were down 17 with 13 minutes to go and 15 heading into the final quarter). If that didn't happen--and how often does a bench plus one starter erase that kind of 4th quarter lead in a playoff game--there was going to be a Game 7.

Dem 93 Knicks.

'98 finals when Pippen had back issues. I think seeing the job Rodman did on Malone with Pippen sitting a lot or unable to perform 100% solidified Rodman's (well deserved) reputation as an all-time elite man defender.

Regarding 98', since it is being mentioned a lot, keep in mind Pippen got hurt late in the series. They had taken a 3-1 series lead before Pippen started having issues (Pippen had a legendary defensive series until his back problems). So any vulnerability based on Pippen's health was only after they already had a 3-1 lead (which meant the Bulls were 7-3 in the Finals against Utah at that point). What were the odds the Jazz would win 3 straight to take the series? I was not really worried after Game 4.

They were losing very late in game 6, game 7 would've been in Utah, not sure if Pippen could even play.

And then you-know-what happens.

Was super relieved after that, I think my neighbours heard me yelling like crazy when MJ hit the shot over Russell to ice it.

I couldn't believe it.

do people think the bulls beat the lakers with (older) kareem and healthy scott/worthy? just curious.

[QUOTE=mehyaM24]do people think the bulls beat the lakers with (older) kareem and healthy scott/worthy? just curious.[/QUOTE]

The additions of Perkins + Divac honestly made up for the player that Kareem was late in his career.

Lakers were a good team. Bulls just wrecked them.

Jordan wasn't 100% in the 91 Finals either.

Worthy played well in the first three games on the series ... Chicago was still up 2-1 and really IMO all the momentum was going their way by then.

1993 Ecf

92 and 93

The Bulls were def underdogs according to the media in some series. Some of the Knicks series, the Pacers, the Finals vs Lakers and Jazz, Orlando series, the Hornets (when Mj came back I believe).

As a fan i was weary of some teams that's for sure. There's been times during series in which I lost all hope.

But GOAT gonna GOAT.

[QUOTE=coolhandsteve]You thought/said to yourself, "IDK if they can pull this one off"? Or where the media said that?[/QUOTE]


They were down big (maybe 15) in the 4th against the Blazers in Game 6. Game 7 was in Portland. Jackson pulled Jordan out and looked like he was conceding the game.

Then the Bulls bench went on a run getting it down to maybe 5. Then Jordan came back in and finished off the comeback.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]The additions of Perkins + Divac honestly made up for the player that Kareem was late in his career.[/quote]

for 87 and 88 kareem? i dont think so. the lakers chemistry with cap was just TOO good. perkins was a big disappointment in LA imo, and divac, for the most part, always under-achieved with the lakeshow(NVE/Jones/Peeler/Campbell/Magic etc)

i believe the 88 and 89 lakers with healthy magic thrash chicago in 5-6 games. the bulls never played an offense like the lakers.

[QUOTE=tontoz]They were down big (maybe 15) in the 4th against the Blazers in Game 6. Game 7 was in Portland. Jackson pulled Jordan out and looked like he was conceding the game.

Then the Bulls bench went on a run getting it down to maybe 5. Then Jordan came back in and finished off the comeback.[/QUOTE]

game 7 was NOT in portland. idiot.

[QUOTE=mehyaM24]for 87 and 88 kareem? i dont think so. the lakers chemistry with cap was just TOO good. perkins was a big disappointment with LA imo, and divac, for the most part, always under-achieved with the lakeshow(NVE/Jones/Peeler/Campbell/Magic etc)

i believe the 88 and 89 lakers with healthy magic thrash chicago in 5-6 games. the bulls never played an offense like the lakers.[/QUOTE]

If the Pistons gave the Lakers problems, the Bulls who eventually became better than the Pistons would too.

Defence > offence in a 7 game playoff series, we've seen that over and over again.

Divac averaged 18.2 ppg/8 rpg and Perkins averaged 16.6 and 7 rpg in the 1991 Finals, by that time they more than replaced Kareem's production.

Perkins was great for LA in 91, not sure what you're talking about.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]If the Pistons gave the Lakers problems, the Bulls who eventually became better than the Lakers would too.

Defence > offence in a 7 game playoff series, we've seen that over and over again.

Divac averaged 18.2 ppg/8 rpg and Perkins averaged 16.6 and 7 rpg in the 1991 Finals, by that time they more than replaced Kareem's production.

Perkins was great for LA in 91, not sure what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]

its more than just stats. perkins also shot 40% in the finals, missing key looks from magic. vlade's defense was very poor and basically let BOTH jordan and pippen waltz in the lane AT WILL (also remember hearing a radio broadcast from stu lantz and chick hearn, via youtube, where they criticied vlade's defense saying he wasn't playing any).

unlike most people here, ive watched the series. neither of them could replace the chemistry and intangibles kareem provided.

4/5 of the games in the 91 finals were close. a healthy scott/worthy(missed each a game) and 88 - 89 kareem would be great.

[QUOTE=coolhandsteve]You thought/said to yourself, "IDK if they can pull this one off"?[/QUOTE]

- 1993 ECF, down 0 - 2 to the Knicks who were near undefeated @ home.

- 1997 NBA Finals game 5, Flu Game. Bleak road ahead.

- 1998 ECF, Bulls were looking old, and out of gas.

- 1998 NBA Finals, game 6 w/ Pippen all but done.

But, GOAT gonna stay GOATING

[QUOTE=Soundwave]They were losing very late in game 6, game 7 would've been in Utah, not sure if Pippen could even play.

And then you-know-what happens.

Was super relieved after that, I think my neighbours heard me yelling like crazy when MJ hit the shot over Russell to ice it.

I couldn't believe it.[/QUOTE]

All true but even then it was a close game. It wasn't as if they were down significantly in Game 6. What made it tough is Utah would have to win 3 straight. Even by Game 6, they would have had to hold onto a small lead and then win again in Game 7. That is always unlikely, although it was possible given the circumstances. I can see how some might have been worried, though, given those circumstances. I just felt the odds were in the Bulls favor due to needing only 1 win.

[QUOTE]do people think the bulls beat the lakers with (older) kareem and healthy scott/worthy? just curious.[/QUOTE]

Do you mean 1987-1989 KAJ or KAJ when he was old but still elite? If you mean post-elite KAJ I think the Bulls would still win. The Lakers were not great that year. The Blazers had the league's best record and were expected to make the Finals. They did so in the previous year and then started the following year 19-1. A lot of championship teams back then, and this is still true although to a lesser degree today (since teams can make progress more quickly via free agency versus having to do so gradually via the draft and small trades), had come close before finally winning. Portland and Chicago were two teams that fit that bill in 1991.

[QUOTE]They were down big (maybe 15) in the 4th against the Blazers in Game 6. Game 7 was in Portland. Jackson pulled Jordan out and looked like he was conceding the game. [/QUOTE]

Yeah it was 15--but Game 7 would have been in Chicago. Jackson was not conceding, though. He was doing what he usually did: pull one of Jordan or Pippen and leave the other in with the bench unit while the other rested. He kept MJ on the bench longer than usual because the unit was playing so well and he didn't want to interrupt it but it wasn't because he thought they were done.

[QUOTE]The Bulls were def underdogs according to the media in some series. Some of the Knicks series, the Pacers, the Finals vs Lakers and Jazz, Orlando series, the Hornets (when Mj came back I believe).
[/QUOTE]

:coleman:

The Bulls were the favorites in every Knicks series except 94', in which the Knicks were small favorites (in 93' the Knicks had HCA but they had won only 3 more games--60 versus 57--and lacked the championship pedigree the Bulls had and the Bulls were coming off sweeping the East's third best team, the 54 win Cavs, in the ECSF.), the Pacers series, the 96' Orlando series and the 95' Charlotte series. Even in 95' a lot of people thought the Bulls would beat the Magic. After all, the Bulls had closed the season 21-6 and were 13-4 with MJ. They were comparable to the Magic in terms of record for the final third of the season. Plus there was the "GOAT gonna GOAT" factor. The Bulls in the previous year with Horace Grant were one phantom foul call away from the ECF and, as most observers felt, the Finals. So you lose Grant but add the GOAT (MJ had 32/7/5 on 48% in the 95' playoffs--better numbers than in any of the subsequent 3 playoff runs) it was logical to assume the team would perform better in the playoffs. A lot of people made that assumption.

Their problem was they got demolished on the boards since they lacked a PF to rebound. If they played the Pacers in the ECSF they likely would have won. Orlando just matched up well with Chicago and had the personnel in Shaq and ironically Grant himself to badly expose the Bulls' lack of a rebounder or interior defender. This is why the Bulls were desperate enough to gamble on the then-toxic Rodman the following year.

1998. I still have newspaper clippings from that series where the media was saying the Bulls were the underdogs.

MJ had other plans.

1998 [QUOTE=Soundwave]Both games in Utah, with Utah up in game 6 late and Scottie Pippen barely able to play.[/QUOTE]
during game 6 the Bulls looked like they were done. Rodman tried everything against Malone but Antoine Carr looked like a Malone twin and the bulls had no second Rodman. a great game with a terrible end for the Jazz.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]


Do you mean 1987-1989 KAJ or KAJ when he was old but still elite? If you mean post-elite KAJ I think the Bulls would still win. The Lakers were not great that year. The Blazers had the league's best record and were expected to make the Finals. They did so in the previous year and then started the following year 19-1. A lot of championship teams back then, and this is still true although to a lesser degree today (since teams can make progress more quickly via free agency versus having to do so gradually via the draft and small trades), had come close before finally winning. Portland and Chicago were two teams that fit that bill in 1991.[/quote]

yup. old, but still elite kareem, via 87-89.

i think the bulls STILL beat the lakers without kareem and healthy scott/worthy in 7 games.

with kareem those years? not a chance. cap is the GOAT bigman.

The teams that scared me during the Bulls run were

The '93 Knicks

The '93 Suns (mega hype as the team of destiny and all that BS)

The '95 Magic.

The '96 Magic.

The '98 Pacers.

The '98 Jazz.

'92 Blazers was kinda iffy. Everyone and their grandma was trying to push that narrative that Clyde was basically as good as Jordan and was going to show it in the Finals. That pretty much went out the window before half time of game 1 :oldlol:

Winning in that threepeat year is always f*cking hard, there's a reason why so many teams fail at it.

[quote][B]The Bulls were the favorites in every Knicks series except 94'[/B][/quote]

^someone that watched 90s ball. with their CORE still intact, from 91-on, they were favored in every series they played in. '98 was shaky for the bulls because pippen played on a bad back, but going into the playoffs, they were very much favored.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]The teams that scared me during the Bulls run were

The '93 Knicks

The '93 Suns (mega hype as the team of destiny and all that BS)

The '95 Magic.

The '96 Magic.

The '98 Pacers.

The '98 Jazz.[/quote]
Co-sign.

I was more frightened by the '98 Jazz because of how they unexpectedly gave us a fight in 1997. If MJ doesn't take over in Utah w/ the Flu / Food Poisoning we lose that game. I was nervous.

We decimated the '98 Jazz prior to game 5 taking things easy, and before Pippen's injury. Things only got real for me in that series during game 6 when Pippen was nonexistent.

[quote=Soundwave]'92 Blazers was kinda iffy. Everyone and their grandma was trying to push that narrative that Clyde was basically as good as Jordan and was going to show it in the Finals. That pretty much went out the window before half time of game 1 :oldlol:[/quote]
35 in 15 minutes on him? Out shooting the 3 ball that Clyde spoke, and considered himself better at? Missing half the second quarter putting up 6x 3's in a half in a total blow out? Yea. MJ squashed that lunacy within the first half.

[quote=Soundwave]Winning in that threepeat year is always f*cking hard, there's a reason why so many teams fail at it.[/QUOTE]
Yup. It requires things beyond the physical (LeBron) or skill (Kobe) to accomplish.

Knicks had a lot of hype in '93. When they went up 2-0 in the series, everyone wrote Chicago off.

To be honest I thought that was it too, I remember coming back from the grocery store with my parents and watching tail end of the '93 ECF thinking "well ... that's it, guess there won't be a threepeat".

People started to hype a Knicks-Suns Finals.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
Even in 95' a lot of people thought the Bulls would beat the Magic. After all, the Bulls had closed the season 21-6 and were 13-4 with MJ. They were comparable to the Magic in terms of record for the final third of the season. Plus there was the "GOAT gonna GOAT" factor. The Bulls in the previous year with Horace Grant were one phantom foul call away from the ECF and, as most observers felt, the Finals. So you lose Grant but add the GOAT (MJ had 32/7/5 on 48% in the 95' playoffs--better numbers than in any of the subsequent 3 playoff runs) it was logical to assume the team would perform better in the playoffs. A lot of people made that assumption.

Their problem was they got demolished on the boards since they lacked a PF to rebound. If they played the Pacers in the ECSF they likely would have won. Orlando just matched up well with Chicago and had the personnel in Shaq and ironically Grant himself to badly expose the Bulls' lack of a rebounder or interior defender. This is why the Bulls were desperate enough to gamble on the then-toxic Rodman the following year.[/QUOTE]

I agree.

Much is made of Jordan being rusty from baseball, and not enough about their weakness at the 4 spot. Grant provided rebounding and interior defense. You didn't get that from Kukoc. You got offense from him.

Jordan shot poorly during the 17 games of the regular season, but he picked it up during the postseason. People often forget how athletic and explosive Jordan still was in the 95' playoffs.

He is said to have not been in "basketball shape" as he fatigued in games. That might have been true, but he also didn't have an extra 65 regular season games on his legs. He fatigued in other games in future postseasons. It happens, especially when you are in your mid 30s.

Jordan made some key turnovers late in games 1 and 6. It definitely cost them game 1. With a solid player at the 4 spot, perhaps the games wouldn't have been so close that they were in that position, or maybe Jordan could conserve a bit of energy.

Team was way too stacked for that. Sure, maybe some of the media called them the "underdogs" but that's only so Jordan would be far more overrated when they won.

[QUOTE=L.A. Jazz]1998
during game 6 the Bulls looked like they were done. Rodman tried everything against Malone but Antoine Carr looked like a Malone twin and the bulls had no second Rodman. a great game with a terrible end for the Jazz.[/QUOTE]

absolutely. i think the bulls would have taken care of utah pretty quick had pippen played healthy. for the first 4 games or so, pippen was actually the favorite for FMVP. his defense in that series was THAT good.

[url]http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635114/What-about-Pippen-for-NBA-Finals-MVP.html?pg=all[/url]