Cowboys fans are often heard saying they would have won 4 in a row if Jerry Jones doesn't fire Jimmy Johnson. Bulls fans (and other) say they could have had 8 in a row if MJ didn't retire for the 1994 season. Which fan has the better and more valid/believable statement?
Good thread. Obviously Cowboys, no matter how much you might hate them. The MJ argument is moot since the Magic beat the Bulls with MJ in the 95 ECF.
The rockets would have won at least 2 more championships if NBA refs actually called illegal defense against the Sonics. That's the most legit beef of the 3. When the rockets of that era didn't have to face the Sonics illegal d, they won their series.
Then what would happen against the 72-10 Bulls? I've erased that Sonics series from my memory but I still have nightmares of Stockton's shot. That's still the series that aaaaarghhhh can't even think of it! ***** UTAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You could say the same thing about the Celtics and Minnesota, the Lakers and the Grizzlies. That's sports man.
I see what you did there... You made a poll which requires all the haters in Houston to choose a Cowboys option because as we all know, the Rockets would have beaten the Bulls in ANY Finals appearance, not just those two years that MJ was gone, but any other Bulls title years too. So there! Anyway, I blame the Cowboys' missed title more on injuries than on Switzer. They were just too banged up that 3rd year, and by the time the playoffs rolled around, they were hobbled and short-handed, and just couldn't pull it off.
Saying all the Bulls needed to do was win the championship in 94 & 95 had Jordan not retired is flawed. Can't just assume the 96-98 championships are a given since the basketball universe has changed. If Jordan never retired would the Bulls have gone on to win 5 more championship from 94-98? Unlikely. There would have been other changes in Chicago and with teams challenging the Bulls. Would Rodman have come over, would Pippen have skipped out, etc.
Neither one, 1. Dallas did not have a better team than San Francisco in 94 (I seriously do not see a different outcome with Jimmy). San Francisco's defense talent wise was insane (with addition of Deion and drafted Bryant Young). 3 defensive backs to pro bowl (Sanders - HOF; Hanks and McDonald had some very good NFL careers with multiple pro bowl appearances) with Eric Davis on the opposite side of the field. They had two monster defensive tackles, rookie Bryant Young (in his time, in the NFL may have been arguably best run stopping tackle in the league) and a great pass rusher in Dana Stubblefield. One of the better line backing corps in the league with Ken Norton Jr, Rickey Jackson, and Gary Plummer. Why is this important to mention, the 49ers finally found a defensive matchup that could simultaneously slow down Emmitt and Dallas's passing attack. Steve Young was playing outstanding that year. I think they would've beaten the Cowboys earlier with Montana (I'm going there, I'll explain in another post) Dallas was practically the same team in 94, as they were in 93. They had most of the same players, offensive production was up to 25.9 ppg. Outside of points (dropped from 2nd -14.3 to 3rd - 15.5), 94 Cowboys actually had a better defense statistically than 93 across the board, and even being first in (least) yards allowed, while they were 10th in (least) yards. Jimmy Johnson was a good coach, but wouldn't equate him to being a Bill Belichick type coach. You could even look down in Miami as an example, if the talent was not there, his teams were going to be as good as the talent on the field. Two more responses are coming on this thread involving the AFC opponents (especially Buffalo) and Montana?????. 2. The Bulls winning in 94 would've been a toss up, they would've gotten back to the Finals, really the Knicks were the only team they had to get past. Even at that, the Knicks barely beat the Bulls (and even guided by a Hue Hollins call) in a 7 game series. The Knicks weren't going to beat MJ team in the playoffs. The Pacers would've put up a decent fight, but they wouldn't beaten the Bulls, either. There aren't any other teams in the East that year, who would've upset the Bulls without a serious injury, even with a serious injury to Pippen or even Jordan. The Rockets series would've interesting, because it would've been Chicago's toughest matchup in their entire championship run, while at the same time Chicago would've been alot of tougher than the Knicks; Suns; Magic and Jazz. It would be a seven game series, and toss up to who wins. Honestly, the Bulls were mentally stronger (credit that Phil and Michael) than both the Knicks and Magic, also their perimeter defense was greater as well. I cannot believe I'm going to actually give this next person some credit, but the Bulls having Phil Jackson is better than the Knicks having Riley or the Magic having Brian Hill. Phil is actually one of the all time best at making in-series adjustments on opponents. Playoff matchups are a different animal from a select few regular season matchups. Everyone points to Maxwell being a great defender against Jordan, even suggesting that he could shut him down. He could play well against him, but like how some posters make Ralph Sampson out to be some god at power forward. He could not shut MJ down, maybe for one game, but his numbers were pretty consistent against Maxwell, like Joe Dumars. He could give him tough time, but he couldn't shut MJ down, much less slow him down, consistently. Chicago would not have too many answers for Olajuwon, he'd have a great series against them. It's a tough series to judge. In 1995, it's simple, the Bulls would not have won a title, especially without Horace Grant, they were too thin on the front line, to beat a team, like Orlando, that's the same team who would've ended their season, anyway. Most of all, MJ would've had more wear and tear. I'm surprised more players do not try that. Retire for 1 or 2 seasons and come back.
Since we are talking what ifs. Honestly, I think if Montana doesn't go down with an injury in the 1990 Title Game. 49ers would've had another one or two Super Bowls, and in the process even beaten the Cowboys a couple of times. Montana's trademark was winning big games, like Bart Starr and Tom Brady. I'll admit they're not perfect, but they just do not make as many mistakes as inferior QBs do. More in the area of costly, turnovers. More or less comparing him to Steve Young who put up great passing numbers in the regular season, yet rarely beat a slightly better team especially on the road. Young often kept losing to the same teams, Cowboys, Packers, and one lone loss to Falcons. I've seen a few of those games, that's one of the main difference between Young and Montana, is the art of winning a close game. I'm think about NFC Divisional Playoffs in 98, Atlanta just screwed up on running the clock, but the Niners are left with about 30 something seconds of the field and only down by two, Young completes a 23 yard pass but throws a horrible interception (a Brett Favre type interception, where like no receivers are near the ball). Montana did not make those types of mistakes very often. I think the whole Montana vs. Young argument is worse than Brady vs. Manning ones, it's never going to be unanimous and their playing styles are somewhat. There are even some who believe Young was much more talented passer and gifted athlete than Montana (which is actually plausible)...but he couldn't win like Montana. Next thing, Buffalo was so embarrassing to watch in 3 consecutive Super Bowls. I often think that another AFC team could've done a better job the Redskins and Cowboys. Mostly, pointing to the Chiefs, Steelers, and Oilers. It was like Bills defense was made out of cheese slices that was being melted over stove. Let me point that out, some more. Out of those 4 Super Bowl appearances, their defense was above average at best (and that was only in 2 seasons - 90/92) and at worst slightly below average. Bills defensive rankings: 1990: 7th (passing yards allowed); 6th (passing touchdowns allowed); 18th (First Downs Allowed); 15th (Rushing Yards Allowed); 16th (Rushing Touchdowns allowed); 8th (overall yards allowed) and 6th (Yards per carry) ... they were pretty good that season on defense. 1991: 21th (passing yards allowed); 1st (passing touchdowns allowed); 28th (First Downs Allowed); 24th (Rushing Yards Allowed); 24th (Rushing Touchdowns allowed); 27th (overall yards allowed) and 15th (Yards per carry). 1992: 12th (passing yards allowed); 13th (passing touchdowns allowed) 16th (First Downs Allowed); 2nd (Rushing Yards Allowed); 6th (Rushing Touchdowns allowed); 12th (overall yards allowed) and 1st (Yards per carry). 1993: 24th (passing yards allowed); 14th (passing touchdowns allowed) 26th (First Downs Allowed); 21st (Rushing Yards Allowed); 5th (Rushing Touchdowns allowed); 12th (overall yards allowed) and 14th (Yards per carry). I'm going to focus on 92 and 93. Compare these rankings to the Chiefs; Oilers; and Steelers. My main point is I do not think the AFC was as bad as they made it out to be at that point, it was mediocre in the 80s, I agree. I might be given these teams too much credit, but I think they all could do better than Buffalo's 52-17; 30-13; and 37-24. For the fact, those teams presented a better matchup, especially defensively against Dallas. For Oilers on offense, having all those receiving threats (Jeffries; Slaughter; Givins; and Duncan), while Gary Brown and Lorenzo White were both good running backs (White was another receiving threat). Yes, they had a better receiving core than the Bills, I said it. I know alot older Houston fans have a bad taste in their mouth, when they realized how talented these teams were and how they never won anything of significance. One point is, that all 3 of those teams had a premier corner back on their roster, Rod Woodson; Dale Carter; and Cris Dishman. Moreover, all 3 teams had a pretty good overall secondary. The Oilers sported a nice strong safety in Bubba McDowell and underrated free safety Marcus Robertson. In the Chiefs' case, they probably had what at the time was the best CB tandem in the league (Carter and Lewis) along with nice strong safety in Kevin Ross. For Steelers, it was simple, they had Woodson, along with a good pair of safeties with Lake (5x pro bowler) and Perry, along with DJ Johnson (decent career CB). At defensive line and LB, I thought the Oilers' best asset on defense was their ability to stop the run, and what I called the best defensive line in the league at that time. I know Cowboy fans and people who are stuck on Dallas being the best at everything, "Oh, they weren't as good as Dallas, because they never won any big games." William Fuller; Ray Childress; Sean Jones; Lee Williams; and Glenn Montgomery were a better defensive line (without question) than Tony Tolbert; Tony Casillas; Russell Maryland; Leon Lett; and Charles Haley. The Oilers had over 50 sacks two season in a row and had 45 in 91. Most of all, the Oilers line could take task of stopping Emmitt, while getting Aikman without necessarily using too many linebackers as pass rushers. Arguably outside of early 90s Eagles and mid 90s Packers, the Oilers had one of the best defensive lines of decade (at least top 5). As far as Pittsburgh, goes it was their ferocious linebackers in the 3-4 (Greg Lloyd; Kevin Greene; Levon Kirkland, briefly Hardy Nickerson, and Chad Brown).They weren't known for letting backs run wild on them, and could also more times than not get good pressure on the QBs, while having a sturdy defensive line. In Pittsburgh case, they lost a Super Bowl because of the Quarterback's fatal mistakes (3 ints and some very inaccurate passes) and still only lost by 10 against the same Cowboys. It was one team, during the Cowboys entire playoff run that didn't steamroll through or really dominant offensively. They held Emmitt to 49 yards, while holding the entire Dallas offense to 254 total. Also, look what teams were their division at the time, the Jets; the Colts; and the Patriots, all 3 of those teams were probably going through some of their worst years in franchise history. The AFC Central and AFC West at the time, might have arguably have been two toughest divisions in the league. I do not feel sorry for Buffalo, being the only team to lose 4 Super Bowls in row, in an embarrassing fashion. I thought they had some flukey wins in the playoffs to begin with, benefited from an easier schedule, spotted home-field often, and I never saw them as dominant team. I see them in the same way I saw Eagles, a really good team who consistently makes the playoffs, not great squad.
Seriously plutoblue11, thanks for the above write-ups. For fans like me that were kinda young back then and lived in a different country and didn't get to watch the games consistently, the stuff you wrote was enlightening. Thanks man.
