Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789
Results 121 to 127 of 127

Thread: Bulls First 3 Peat vs Bulls Second 3 Peat

  1. #121
    NBA Superstar 97 bulls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    14,045

    Default Re: Bulls First 3 Peat vs Bulls Second 3 Peat

    Quote Originally Posted by eliteballer
    96 Jordan was 32 at the beginning of the season with 8 years of NBA ball on his legs, checkout these dunks:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu-9-c2sUoY

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1mcuyoOWB8&t=6m18s

    He wasn't as athletic as before but he was stronger, better footwork, and a stronger fadeaway.
    I agree. And this was all ive been saying

  2. #122
    NBA Legend kuniva_dAMiGhTy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    16,182

    Default Re: Bulls First 3 Peat vs Bulls Second 3 Peat

    Quote Originally Posted by 97 bulls
    How much of his performance can be directly attributed to the teams he played ability to play defense an style?
    What about his performances being directly attributed....to being a better player? Yes, the Lakers and Suns defenses weren't the best - did they not make up for it offensively though? Those two teams ALONE were better than any team Jordan's second threepeat Bulls faced on offense.

    It's a simple question, 97. And dude, please don't give me series' with a 3-game sample size...against an 8th seed. We're talking about stacked Lakers, Blazers and Suns teams. Powerhouses. I'll ask you again: replace '91-93 with '96-98 MJ, everything stays the same, would STP be as consistently dominant?

    He shot 47% vs the knicks in 92.
    How is that bad though? Their defensive rating was the exact same as the '92 Blazers, and Jordan shot 52% in that series.

    The '96 Knicks, who were less talented than the '93 and '92 versions, held their opponents to about the same number of points per possession as the '92 Blazers and '92 Knicks (this isn't to say they were as good; still very effective though), and Jordan shot 44% against them.



    Mike didn't just save his good shooting series' vs bad defenses, 97. Far from actually.

  3. #123
    NBA Superstar 97 bulls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    14,045

    Default Re: Bulls First 3 Peat vs Bulls Second 3 Peat

    Quote Originally Posted by kuniva_dAMiGhTy
    What about his performances being directly attributed....to being a better player? Yes, the Lakers and Suns defenses weren't the best - did they not make up for it offensively though? Those two teams ALONE were better than any team Jordan's second threepeat Bulls faced on offense.

    It's a simple question, 97. And dude, please don't give me series' with a 3-game sample size...against an 8th seed. We're talking about stacked Lakers, Blazers and Suns teams. Powerhouses. I'll ask you again: replace '91-93 with '96-98 MJ, everything stays the same, would STP be as consistently dominant?



    How is that bad though? Their defensive rating was the exact same as the '92 Blazers, and Jordan shot 52% in that series.

    The '96 Knicks, who were less talented than the '93 and '92 versions, held their opponents to about the same number of points per possession as the '92 Blazers and '92 Knicks (this isn't to say they were as good; still very effective though), and Jordan shot 44% against them.



    Mike didn't just save his good shooting series' vs bad defenses, 97. Far from actually.
    I used washington as an example of how he faired vs a team that wasnt much on defense. Which is my point. Jordan FTP stats were gaudy. But why? Off cousr he was great. But why did he play so bad offensive vs the knicks? The only team that would be considered to be on par defensively to the Heat in 97, the the Sonics, the Jazz, and Pacers. And thats your point isnt it? If he was still great or as great he wouldnt have shot such a bad %. Even though granted i believe he shot 47% against Utah in 97. My rebutal is that whne he played against aa team similar to a mid 90s team in the knicks he shot just as bad if not worse.

    And I fail to see how the suns or lakers being better than the bullets helps your argument. Were referring to these teams defensively that it. Not them as a whole.

    And to answer your qustion, yes I absolutely feel mid 90s Jordan would been able to replace early 90s Jordan and that team not miss a beat. The proof is that they beat the knicks in 92 in spite of Jordan shooting 40%. And they barely lost to the knicks in seven games without Jordan. When he did play against sub par defenses he was right on par with early 90s Jordan. And I know you feel the knicks of 94 were as good as 92 or 93, but I disagree. The Knicks were much deeper in 94.

    Like i stated earlier, jordan wasnt that much different. And the stats show it

  4. #124
    NBA sixth man of the year
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    7,141

    Default Re: Bulls First 3 Peat vs Bulls Second 3 Peat

    Quote Originally Posted by 97 bulls
    He shot 47% vs the knicks in 92.
    No, he shot 48% (47.7% rounds to 48%, not down to 47%). And even that was really due to one poor shooting game. Here's how he shot in each game:

    12-23 (52%)
    12-24 (50%)
    12-24 (50%)
    12-26 (46%)
    11-23 (48%)
    9-25 (36%)
    15-29 (52%)

  5. #125
    NBA Superstar 97 bulls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    14,045

    Default Re: Bulls First 3 Peat vs Bulls Second 3 Peat

    Quote Originally Posted by OldSchoolBBall
    No, he shot 48% (47.7% rounds to 48%, not down to 47%). And even that was really due to one poor shooting game. Here's how he shot in each game:

    12-23 (52%)
    12-24 (50%)
    12-24 (50%)
    12-26 (46%)
    11-23 (48%)
    9-25 (36%)
    15-29 (52%)
    Lol ok. Remember this post. Cuz im gonna use it against you soon.

  6. #126
    NBA Legend kuniva_dAMiGhTy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    16,182

    Default Re: Bulls First 3 Peat vs Bulls Second 3 Peat

    Quote Originally Posted by 97 bulls
    I used washington as an example of how he faired vs a team that wasnt much on defense.

    And I fail to see how the suns or lakers being better than the bullets helps your argument. Were referring to these teams defensively that it. Not them as a whole.
    That series only went 3 games and the Bullets were a freaking 8th seed, man.

    Second threepeat Jordan preserved himself by shooting jumpshots. Why you ask? The answer to that is the very same reason he wouldn't be able to carry FTP's offense without losing some effectiveness.

    Again, STP shot 44% against a less talented '96 Knick team. They allowed the same points per possession as the '92 Blazers and '92 Knicks - and FTP tore those defenses up. Why do you think that is?

    Which is my point. Jordan FTP stats were gaudy. But why? Off cousr he was great. But why did he play so bad offensive vs the knicks?
    Of all the teams Chicago faced in the playoffs, '92 New York and Portland were among the best defenses Jordan took on - and he murked them. Unless you think shooting 48% is inept? I'm not really sure why you're ignoring that MJ played with a f*cked up wrist for the majority of that '93 series (extended through the month of May: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...hefferon-bench).

    We'll never agree, so this is my last post on the topic.

    Was FTP that much better than STP? No. As a matter of fact, STP was more skilled. The difference is, FTP was consistently effective and stronger against the elite defenses.
    Last edited by kuniva_dAMiGhTy; 07-09-2012 at 02:47 PM.

  7. #127
    NBA Superstar 97 bulls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    14,045

    Default Re: Bulls First 3 Peat vs Bulls Second 3 Peat

    Quote Originally Posted by kuniva_dAMiGhTy
    That series only went 3 games and the Bullets were a freaking 8th seed, man.
    For same reason you just can seem to grasp that im not comparing the Bullets and lakers,blazer/suns as a team overall. IM COMPARING THEIR DEFENSIVE ABILITY ONLY


    Second threepeat Jordan preserved himself by shooting jumpshots. Why you ask? The answer to that is the very same reason he wouldn't be able to carry FTP's offense without losing some effectiveness.
    Let me guess, stamina right? And you keep posting this even though Ive given you three documented instances in which fatigue from Jordan cost the Bulls a game during the FTP. Game 5 of 93, games 6 of 92, and Jordans reluctance to join the Dreamteam due to his wanting to be able to recuperate.


    Again, STP shot 44% against a less talented '96 Knick team. They allowed the same points per possession as the '92 Blazers and '92 Knicks - and FTP tore those defenses up. Why do you think that is?
    Because as Ive stated earlier, the mid 90s teams just didnt run. Especially the Knicks. They exclusively and intentionly slowed the games down and preached halfcourt defense. Even more than the knicks in 92. And whats with this infatuation witht the 92 knicks? They won 50 games and were a 4th seed.


    Of all the teams Chicago faced in the playoffs, '92 New York and Portland were among the best defenses Jordan took on - and he murked them. Unless you think shooting 48% is inept? I'm not really sure why you're ignoring that MJ played with a f*cked up wrist for the majority of that '93 series (extended through the month of May: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...hefferon-bench).
    Then perhaps youd like to explain why the hand only effected him against the knicks. Cuz he abused Phoenix. Not to mention its also well documented that he played with torn ligaments in his shooting hand the whole season of 98 and kept the Bulls at thetop of the East while Pippen was hurt. But you havnt cut him any slack.

    We'll never agree, so this is my last post on the topic.

    Was FTP that much better than STP? No. As a matter of fact, STP was more skilled. The difference is, FTP was consistently effective and stronger against the elite defenses.
    The last paragraph of you post is all ive been saying. This began when you said the 92 Bulls were the best team in your opinion. When I asked why, you said because FTP Jordan was better. I disagreed but added that even if he was better, the difference isnt that big to overcome the sheer dominance the rest of the STP Bulls would have over the FTP Bulls.

    And, as you stated, he was probably more skilled and had a slightly better jumpshot during the second threepeat. Add that with the fact he was stronger and Id say that more than makes up for any lost athleticism. Sure his stats werent as gaudy but how much of that can be directly attributed to the teams he played ability to play defense, the style of the league (no fast break), and him not having to be superhuman due the Bulls personnel.

    And dont get me wrong. Sometimes Jordan just played bad. I dont have a reasonreal for everything. And surethe he lostdidnt some athleticismof due to age. But not enough to tilt a FTP/STP matchup to the FTP side

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •