dream over longely (however u spell it) rodman ova horry pippin ova elie MJ ova clyde harper ova smith sorry rockets loose 4-1
i dont see MJ letting the bulls lose. if hakeem dominated, MJ would dominate more. thats all there is to it.
But that was the year Michael came back so it dosen't count because he was out for over a year and didin't play that full year. That's the excuse everybody gives for that Magic series. But if he is so danm good then it shoulden't matter right? The truth of the matter is for those 2 years Hakeem was the greatest and even if Jordan never retiered (the 1st time) Hakeem would have still lead the Rockets to those titles.
The 95 Rockets could beat the 96 Bulls. COULD being the keyword here, but in all likelyhood the Bulls would win. 97 and 98 Bulls would win hands down.
If you're gonna make a point at least don't contradict yourself. You said MJ can't win without a 2nd or 3rd all-star (quoting Grant), yet you say he's not good. You also say the Bulls can't beat the Rockets despite having MJ and 2 other all-stars and decent scrubs when we all know the 95 Rockets is all Hakeem and Clyde. Also, MJ is not the greatest player EVER for no reason.
Sam and David should have started an "OT vs Grant" thread. I mean come on, Grant didn't even play for the Bulls during 96-98. Also, you guys are missing a crucial point there. Horace Grant's real strength was not his inside game, although he's a very good rebounder. Grant was a running forward in his prime. He outran almost every PF in the league. Phil Jackson loved to use him in transition offense, which he mentioned many times in his several books. I'm not saying OT couldn't catch up with Grant. This should be open to disscusion. OK, back to the topic: 95 Rockets vs 96-98 Bulls. Kenny - Ron Harper Drexler - MJ Elie - Pippen Horry - Rodman Dream - Lonely Dream would kill Lonely in both ends, no doubt about it. Horry's outside shooting would draw Rodman out of the paint. But still Rodman would get his 15 boards per game. Bulls' perimeter D was a nightmare to the opponent, especially in the 3rd and 4th quarter. These two teams never met in the playoffs.... but I doubt Kenny and Drexler could bring to ball up and deliver to Dream effectively if they played in the "real season'. If Jackson put Pippen or MJ on Kenny......the Rockets would be in trouble. On the other side, the Rox's perimeter D wasn't anything special. They tunneled the driver to Dream but I guess MJ would get lots of calls. On the bench, each team has a very good offensive player, Cassell and Kukoc (Bulls had the crazy Williams but it's another story). I would give Bulls' bench slight edge. When it comes to coaching, there were two great motivators. However, Phil Jackson had hundreds of ways to get MJ the ball. Rudy's gameplan was more predictable and he relied on the players' experience more. Bulls would have the advantage in clutch time. And the Bulls would have homecourt advantage if we pick the best season records of both teams. Stein would love to see Jordan win. My pick is Bulls in 6.
This is the best post in this thread IMHO. It was clear that the Rockets matched up extremely well with the Bulls in the same way that the Sonics always matched up well with the Rockets. I would have to take the Rocks for two reasons. Great role players and Hakeem's defense. Cassell, Horry, Elie, and Smith were just all in sync at that time. They were as much in a comfort zone as Hakeem was. Second reason would be Hakeem's defensive ability. The Bulls faced some good offensive centers in their runs (Ewing, Smits, Shaq) but they never faced someone like Hakeem who was so quick to the ball, basically like a soccer goalie in the way he protected the basket. In the reg season games they played against the Bulls, Dream basically would shut down the lane to Pippen and Jordan drives and then they just became a jump shooting team. Plus, Jordan doesn't get the phantom foul calls driving the lane on Hakeem after he'd recently won the MVP award.
How Did God Play into this??!! For those posters who actually had the guts to question Jordan's greatness and accomplishments with Pipp at his side, way to go!! Now you are proving that you are delirious! Jordan is in a class by himself, not Hakeem as much as I loved him, not Shaq and not a whole bunch or great players would measure up to MJ. There are the 50 Greats, and then there are the "Elite Greats", and those are a few and far in between, and here are some of those: 1) MJ 2) Wilt Cham 3) Kareem 4) West 5) Bird 6) Magic Those are the ones that everybody I think would agree on, even though I have a feeling I will be told otherwise!
-Learn how to read. First of all, it is not a fact to say MJ is the Greatest player EVER. That's an opinion, one influenced greatly by media coverage. Secondly, if you learned how to read, you'd see that I said Horace Grant was an all-star caliber player indeed, but not a clearly better player than Thorpe. That's what the argument was about. Both were all-star caliber talents, but not superstars. -The FACT of the matter is that Michael Jordan did not win 1 ring without a 2nd superstar at his side. That's not a diss on Jordan in any way, it's simply stating an undeniable fact. It's just hard for any guard to influence a game in as many ways as a big man can. I'd take Shaquille O'Neal or Magic Johnson in a heartbeat over MJ because they can influence a game more. Not one question about it in my mind. I don't care how many times MJ highlights are shown on TV, how much media hype he gets, etc. -Over the last 2 decades the only 2 teams to win a title without a 2nd superstar are the 94 rocks and 03 spurs, 2 teams led by dominant big men. I do not see why the "MJ is god" crew can't simply provide some evidence suggesting that MJ could have been as successful without such a badass team around him of 1 superstar (Pip) and 1 all-star (Grant or Rodman). Let's hear some reasons rather than just "MJ was God or would have done whatever it took". That's simply idolization and fantasy, not reality. If SA does not hand Rodman to Chicago for Perdue in one of the most lopsided trades ever, the Bulls probably would have won 3 titles, not 6 and the MJ is god theory wouldn't have been nearly as prevalent. The real reason the 95 Bulls got thumped by the Magic is the lack of interior presence, not this lame BS that MJ wasn't in game shape. If you think the 95 Bulls with their pitiful interior presence could have contained Hakeem, you need to get a clue really. That team had no Rodman and no Grant and was murdered by Shaq in the playoffs. As for IOrange, the Bulls perimeter D would obviously be compromised by the amount of support they'd have to give down low to contain Hakeem, as happened to all teams against Houston when Hakeem was tearing it up. Also, Horry was the best post-entry passer on the team in 95 and Clyde set up Hakeem as well. Kenny Smith split time with Cassell at PG, the team hardly relied on Kenny to do anything other than spot up and drain outside jumpers. That's one of the main reasons Houston matched up so well with Chicago: Chicago's perimeter D WAS it's greatest strength with MJ and Pippen. That's great when you're playing Clyde, KJ, Magic Johnson, and Stockton in the playoffs, but what good is that when you have a Center down low like Hakeem who the offense is run-thru? The way to beat Houston was with a great interior D like SEA had, not a great perimeter D which is pretty much useless against an offense where the ball is dumped down to the big man every play. -After coaching Shaq, even Phil Jackson admitted the Bulls were pretty much an exception to the rule that you have to have a dominant big man to win a title. They were extremely fortunate to not have to face Shaq or Hakeem at their peaks in the Finals given the frontline Chicago had. I personally feel the recent Lakers as well would have beaten the Bulls due to the huge mismatch in the middle. What good is great perimeter D when Shaq is ramming it down perdue's throat every play and you have to triple team, leaving Horry, Fox, Kobe, etc wide open?
Cato, Very good analysis. But as I remember Bulls killed Magic at 96 playoffs. Do you think adding Rodman was the only reason for them to beat Shaq and Penny? From my observation, MJ was far from being in game shape at 95 playoff. He had no elevation at all. The media tried to BS saying the 'Old' MJ was back. But every Bulls fan knew at that time that MJ wasn't himself even wearing his 23 jersey. As for Bulls' D, what they were trying to do was not to deny the entry pass. Their 3/4 press D was able to trap the opponent PG at the midcourt and stop the ball movement. Yes, Horry is a very good entry passer and Rudy used him to feed Dream the ball. But when Bulls play their best D, I doubt Horry would even catch the ball at his spot comfortably. The best example was the Bulls-Pacers series.
Bulls in 5? The Jazz took them to 6 both times. You're saying the Rockets would fare worse than the Jazz? I seriosly doubt it. Read the last line... Read the last line: "P.S. - READ the last line Drexlerfan22...." Is that supposed to mean something?
This whole Grant/Thorpe thing is just incredible... NO Dave, here's him: Player A = Dunks all the time and scores more points = better or equal player. Player B = Dunks when he can, but since he doesn't have the strength of player A, sometimes resorts to a decent jumper he's developed = worse or equal player. Get it? Yes, we all watched. He was stronger, so was able to score in close more. That's how he got his points. Therefore, he never even tried to develop Grant's jumper because he didn't need it. And no, no one even insinuated that he was the best post player ever, they said he was a better post player than Grant. That is what we're talking about, right? The deal is that you are not listening to what anyone is saying. Is Grant maybe the more skilled player? Sure, probably. Was he as effective? OT is right about even on that front. We're talking effectiveness, not skills. So who cares if Grant was more versatile (as several have said before)? "You are biased, I am not." Good God, do you practice being arrogant or does it come naturally? Whether they're Rockets fans or not, they are making points that you haven't yet dispelled because you're too busy talking to yourself. When I talk about Jordan, I admit that I hate the guy, but I make points, and repond to others' points that oppose mine. What, is the unbiased person always right? We could just get some guy in Sri Lanka who's never heard of basketball to pick between OT and Grant; would he be right because he's unbiased? It's about knowledge and making points, not predisposition.
That's the difference. I prefer "skilled." I don't like brute force players that are put in the postion to score. Leave that to your "star" players. OT "dunked" all the time? Ok, yeah right..." Guess that's why he was traded with 36 games into the 94-95 season? Wake up man. The guy was defensive player with *limited* all-round offensive "skills." With an emphasis on *limited all-around offense* and *limited skills*. What you call "effective" I called "limited" offensive player." Did you even watch him play one-on-one? He sucked. He was an opportunistic player (missed shots, had a decent jump hook) and rebound put backs. His strength was his power and rebounding. Nevertheless, I was glad we traded him. Drexler gave us that missing "skilled" player that we desperately needed. OT could have come off the bench. But I would have rather have Carl Herrera or Horry at the PF. Not OT. He was an offensive liability in 94-95. That's why he was traded. We needed another go-to guy. Your definition of "better" is just different. Oh well. Grant was more incorporated within the offense (triangle) of the 91-93 Bulls and gave the team tredmedous value in many ways; inside/outside, mid-range jumper, passing, ft, defense, running the floor, and rebounds. He did this all with 50% shooting, as well (even though he took outside/inside shots). This "versatility" to me is not overlooked. You can call OT's game "better" all you want. I will never buy it! For someone that admires Drexler, I can't believe you don't understand this? He was the poster child for "versatile!" As far as the "effective" part. Yes. OT was "effective." Both players were. But I disagree with "better." Sorry...
