Phil Jackson

[houheffna]

Three years? With the main guys in their late 30s? No, would not have happened. The West was much better but the Spurs would have given the Bulls serious problems, and by the next year, you are talking Shaq and Kobe, The Sacramento Kings...too much talent...young talent.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

Three years? With the main guys in their late 30s? No, would not have happened. The West was much better but the Spurs would have given the Bulls serious problems, and by the next year, you are talking Shaq and Kobe, The Sacramento Kings...too much talent...young talent.

Thats fine and all but the bulls were in the east and you can't tell me that they couldn't have made the finals 2 out of the next 3 yrs. They just had much better talent than anyone else in the east. And what late 30yrs guys are you talking about? Rodman is the only one in his late 30's. MJ and Harper were 34 and Pip was 32 in their last yr here. Barkley was also 34, they would have all been 37 at the end of the run. They weren't spring chickens but you are still talking about 3 top 50 players and all were still very effective in their last years here and wouldn't have had a nose dive decline like you are insisting. I don't think anyone could guarntee rings because they weren't that dominant anymore but they would have easily been finals teams, espically in the east.

 

[??? ??????]

Miami and Indiana both would have given the Bulls difficulty in 1999. (Remember, Bulls in, means Knicks out, and Heat probably advance. Heat just had so much difficulty with the Knicks for some reason).

I think it would be similar to the East now, with 3 equal teams, with the Bulls being first among equals.

San Antonio still would have been a lot to handle, and in 2000, a prime Shaq was beastly.

 

[dunkside.com]

Diddy1122 wrote:

Secondly, I remember the WCF in 95 & Hakeem was ridiculous. And you're making it out to sound like no one on the team was trying but Rodman. Gimme a break! Robinson was the MVP for cryin' out loud! You're telling me Worm was trying harder than anyone else?

NO.

I am saying that he wasn't a liability. I'm saying that he was made a scapegoat for that series even though he played well. The reason the Spurs lost the series was that Robinson couldn't handle Hakeem. Yeah, he was the MVP. He was the face of the franchise. This is why the loss falls even more on him. He should have taken the blame, not Rodman.

dougthonus wrote:

During contract negotiations for Jackson's final year with the Bulls, when the topic of a potential extension past the 1997–98 season came up, Krause reportedly told Jackson, "I don't care if you go 82-and-0, you're f****** gone."

This was what it was. I thought that was simply amazing.

I am not disputing the fact that Krause lost his marbles and went on a power trip.
I am not saying he did a good job during his entire tenure.
I'm just saying he should get his props for building 2 dynasties. Or at least for helping build 2 dynasties. And after you give the man his props you can push him off a cliff for breaking the team that might have won 1 or 2 more titles.

And in the end, this one rests on Reinsdorf too. Had JR cared about winning he'd have done anything to keep Jordan, which meant keeping Jackson, which meant firing Krause. And for things like these the Bulls were #4 on Hollinger's franchise ranking behind the Spurs.


houheffna wrote:

Three years? With the main guys in their late 30s? No, would not have happened. The West was much better but the Spurs would have given the Bulls serious problems, and by the next year, you are talking Shaq and Kobe, The Sacramento Kings...too much talent...young talent.

look, it doesn't even matter if they would have won another title or not.
the truth is they had a decent chance to advance from the east, and once in the finals, you never know (remember '95 when the magic were heavy favorites yet they were swept by the rockets).
the thing is the bulls had to try. keep jordan and jackson and try to build something around them. you're at least in contention for another year or two.

i am the one who said that you should recognize krause's merits, but i also say he should have been fired before jordan and jackson were let go. and, just for trying to break the dynasty, he should have gotten his kneecaps broken too.

 

[houheffna]

Thats fine and all but the bulls were in the east and you can't tell me that they couldn't have made the finals 2 out of the next 3 yrs. They just had much better talent than anyone else in the east. And what late 30yrs guys are you talking about? Rodman is the only one in his late 30's. MJ and Harper were 34 and Pip was 32 in their last yr here. Barkley was also 34, they would have all been 37 at the end of the run. They weren't spring chickens but you are still talking about 3 top 50 players and all were still very effective in their last years here and wouldn't have had a nose dive decline like you are insisting. I don't think anyone could guarntee rings because they weren't that dominant anymore but they would have easily been finals teams, espically in the east.

MJ was 35 when the Bulls won their 6th championship. Look at the Celtics to see what happened when a team was kept together far too long. There is no precedence where a 36 and up franchise player wins championships.

 

[dougthonus]

houheffna wrote:

Let's not pretend that Phil was Mahatma Ghandhi. Many in the media said that his attitude changed over time also. That relationship died out over so many years and I heard that both sides were to blame for that. They used to talk about that a lot on the Score and I believe in the book you are talking about. That is why I asked.

You're missing the point, it doesn't matter if Phil was the biggest jerk in the world and called Jerry Krause, fat Jerry everytime he saw him in the halls and made pig sounds every time he Jerry walked by.

Phil was one of the three keys to keeping the team together to build a championship run. Krause didn't value that. Krause, as the guy who runs the organization, let his personal feelings stop a championship run for his team.

Jordan, Jackson, and Pippen were guys who could simply go elsewhere and do their things, their job wasn't to run the team.

While everyone may have been "equally at fault" from a personal level for the relationship failing, Krause is the only one who's job description is built around putting those differences aside and making it work. His whole purpose in his job is to put together a team that won championship, and he basically said, he didn't care how good the Bulls were he wanted to break up the team.

 

[Kush77]

Shakes wrote:

Kush77 wrote:

Michael Jordan wasn't falling off that much. He led the league in scoring in 98 at about 28.6 or so. His first year with the Wiz he averaged 22 but that was three years later. He probably would have averaged 26 or 27ppg.

It's not so much volume but efficiency that was falling off. His age meant he was becoming mainly a jump shooter, and without a 3 point shot you're never going to be that efficient like that.

And while Pippen didn't have a good year with Houston, he was good with Portland in 1999-2000. So Pippen wasn't done. Pippen did poorly in Houston more because of the system rather than a decline. Pippen played his whole career in a system that revolved around a guard and ball movement when the triangle was put in. Then he goes to the Rockets when the offense revolves around two post players in Olajuwon and Barkley.

Pippen with Portland was still nowhere near Pippen with the Bulls.

Now Rodman was older than all of them so he could have declined a bit. But his season in 97/98 was better than 96/97 so who knows. The man was in great shape.

Declined a bit? He played a grand total of 35 more games after the 98 season, and his performance in those games had the "drop off a cliff" aspect that Bulls fans know from Ben Wallace in his second year here. He was done.

So I think the Bulls handle the Spurs with no problems. Jordan and Harper would have manhandled Mario Elie and Avery Johnson. And Pippen would eat Sean Elliot alive.

Robinson was by no means a young man at that time. But Duncan would have been a handful. But the Bulls were able to handle good centers before.

Duncan and Robinson together would have been hard to handle with the corpse of Rodman and our warm body center policy. In 99 Robinson was still a very, very good player, 16/10 with 2.4 blocks in only 32 minutes a game. And defensively, in the last 30 years the only team to give up fewer points per 100 was the 03-04 Spurs.

Obviously we'd have the advantage of Jordan/Pippen, but by '99 I think Duncan/Robinson vs our PF/C was a bigger difference than Jordan/Pippen vs their SG/SF.

So David Robinson's 16/10 we should fear, but MJ averaging 26ppg should be worrisome? Jordan didn't shoot well from 3's in 1998 anyway, so that wouldn't be a concern. The only reason Jordan shot a high % from 3 those few years was that the NBA moved the 3-point line up to 22 feet. Before the 1997/98 season the league moved it back to 23'9. Then MJ, who was never a great 3 point shooter, only shot about 27% in 97/98.

Pippen was good with Portland in 1999-2000, I watched a lot of their games and all the playoffs that year. He averaged 12.5ppg, 6rebs and 5 ast. shot 45% and made the all-defensive 2nd team. Again, playing with MJ, Rodman and Phil in 1999 (as opposed to the Rockets) I don't think we'd see that much of a drop. Plus Pippen didn't need to score on that Portland team. Pippen was a guy who never had to get his shots to make an impact. so while he averaged only 12.5 he had Rasheed Wallace, Steve Smith, Detfef Schempf, Damon Stoudemire, Ardvydas Sabonis and Brian Grant who could score. Pippen didn't need to average 18ppg.

As for Rodman playing only 35 games, that's a misleading number making it seem like he was a "corpse." The 99 year was a lockout as you know, and Dennis didn't join the Lakers right away. There was that whole courtship thing and it was dragging out. He didn't join the Lakers until the 15th game of the year, one month into the lockout-shortened season. Then once he was with LA he clashed with Kurt Rambis and eventually got released. He still averaged 11.2 boards in 28 min per game.

Then with Dallas, which was more of Cuban trying to sell tickets because the Mavs were still a laughing stock at that time, Rodman still averaged 14.3 boards in 12 games. Then I believe he made comments about Cuban and got released. Plus that team was bad and I don't think Rodman took it seriously. So if Rodman played with MJ and Phil in 1999 he would have been more focused and would have been productive. Just like when he was averaging about 12 boards in those 35 games he played post-dynasty.

Duncan would be tough, but the Bulls overwhelming advantage in the backcourt, and at the SF would make up for it. The Bulls would have beaten the Spurs in 6, just like everyone else, except the Lakers in 91.

 

[dunkside.com]

houheffna wrote:

MJ was 35 when the Bulls won their 6th championship. Look at the Celtics to see what happened when a team was kept together far too long. There is no precedence where a 36 and up franchise player wins championships.

read above. it didn't matter. they should have tried.
yeah, "there is no precedence where a 36 and up franchise player wins championships".
but there was no player like jordan before.
before him no (nearly) 39 year old scored 50+ points in an nba game.

again: give krause credit for what he did well, but criticize him for his mistakes. he was not all good, but not all bad either.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

Thats fine and all but the bulls were in the east and you can't tell me that they couldn't have made the finals 2 out of the next 3 yrs. They just had much better talent than anyone else in the east. And what late 30yrs guys are you talking about? Rodman is the only one in his late 30's. MJ and Harper were 34 and Pip was 32 in their last yr here. Barkley was also 34, they would have all been 37 at the end of the run. They weren't spring chickens but you are still talking about 3 top 50 players and all were still very effective in their last years here and wouldn't have had a nose dive decline like you are insisting. I don't think anyone could guarntee rings because they weren't that dominant anymore but they would have easily been finals teams, espically in the east.

MJ was 35 when the Bulls won their 6th championship. Look at the Celtics to see what happened when a team was kept together far too long. There is no precedence where a 36 and up franchise player wins championships.

Your missing the point that a 39 yr old MJ, played all 82 games and made the allstar team. I think a 36 yr old MJ would have been fine. Plus you forget just how weak the east was those years.

 

[houheffna]

Is there any doubt that Robinson is a top 50 player? Is there any doubt that Duncan is one of the top 2 or 3 PF ever? I love the Bulls but I love the NBA too. And to say that a bunch of grumpy old men like Jordan and Barkley could win more championships is a bit too much. I agree with retaining Phil, but from his track record, how long would he stay around to rebuild? Jordan was becoming limited in his game on both sides of the court. I saw him push as hard as he could, to win that last championship. I knock Krause all of the time but to think Jordan would have won championships until he was 40 as the lead guy is way over the line. Jordan is human, and he showed while with the Wizards. He could have averaged 2 pts a game and been an allstar. Pippen was no longer playing at an elite level either. Pippen was no longer top 20 in the league, let alone top 10, their bodies were wearing down. And bringing in an overweight, tired Barkley and asking him to guard Duncan is just not acceptable. The level of difference between the Bulls and the Spurs on the frontcourt outweighs any other matchup difficulties. And how many times in NBA history has a team had as huge an advantage in the frontcourt and lost? This isn't college basketball. For example, if Malone had Olajuwon or even Robinson in their prime years, I don't know if the Bulls beat the Jazz, especially in 1998. They NEVER faced a frontcourt that good.

Many believe that the Celtics, Lakers and that '83 76ers team would have beaten the Bulls teams of the 1990's, they have a legitimate argument, I feel. Parrish, McHale and Bird were great players and the Bulls faced nothing like them in the playoffs during their run. Those players in their prime? '85, '86? Sure, they could have beaten the Bulls in a best of seven, but the late 1980's version of the Celtics? No, hell no. Can't be on the same floor as the Bulls. That is my point, same with the Lakers and the 76ers, and the same with the Spurs. Duncan was a beast and Robinson was a rare franchise player at the center position. Again, I love the Bulls but Jordan was not Spiderman and his Amazing Friends, his body was breaking down also.

 

[Kush77]

houheffna wrote:

Is there any doubt that Robinson is a top 50 player? Is there any doubt that Duncan is one of the top 2 or 3 PF ever? I love the Bulls but I love the NBA too. And to say that a bunch of grumpy old men like Jordan and Barkley could win more championships is a bit too much. I agree with retaining Phil, but from his track record, how long would he stay around to rebuild? Jordan was becoming limited in his game on both sides of the court. I saw him push as hard as he could, to win that last championship. I knock Krause all of the time but to think Jordan would have won championships until he was 40 as the lead guy is way over the line. Jordan is human, and he showed while with the Wizards. He could have averaged 2 pts a game and been an allstar. Pippen was no longer playing at an elite level either. Pippen was no longer top 20 in the league, let alone top 10, their bodies were wearing down. And bringing in an overweight, tired Barkley and asking him to guard Duncan is just not acceptable. The level of difference between the Bulls and the Spurs on the frontcourt outweighs any other matchup difficulties. And how many times in NBA history has a team had as huge an advantage in the frontcourt and lost? This isn't college basketball. For example, if Malone had Olajuwon or even Robinson in their prime years, I don't know if the Bulls beat the Jazz, especially in 1998. They NEVER faced a frontcourt that good.

Many believe that the Celtics, Lakers and that '83 76ers team would have beaten the Bulls teams of the 1990's, they have a legitimate argument, I feel. Parrish, McHale and Bird were great players and the Bulls faced nothing like them in the playoffs during their run. Those players in their prime? '85, '86? Sure, they could have beaten the Bulls in a best of seven, but the late 1980's version of the Celtics? No, hell no. Can't be on the same floor as the Bulls. That is my point, same with the Lakers and the 76ers, and the same with the Spurs. Duncan was a beast and Robinson was a rare franchise player at the center position. Again, I love the Bulls but Jordan was not Spiderman and his Amazing Friends, his body was breaking down also.

How was Jordan breaking down in 1998? He played all 82 games? He was yet to be injured so how can you assume he was going to be injured in 1999? He was hurt both years with the Wiz, but he was 39 and 40 years old.

The 1999 Spurs were not that great of a team. Duncan was great, and I thought he should of been MVP that year, not Karl Malone. But if that Bulls team came back in 1999 they would have handled the Spurs.

Not saying Jordan would have won the title in 2000 or 2001. But they had enough to win in 1999.

The Bulls beat teams with quality big men before. David Robinson wasn't young either. He was in the same draft with Scottie Pippen. No one is saying Robinson isn't a top 50 player all-time, but he wasn't a top 10 or 15 player in 1999.

Avery Johnson and Mario Elie vs Ron Harper and Michael Jordan. Not even close
Scottie Pippen vs Sean Elliot, not even close.

David robinson vs Luc Longley, Spurs got them there. But so did every other team in the East with a center like Ewing, Shaq, Mourning or even Rik Smits.

Tim Duncan vs Rodman. Obviously Duncan, but Duncan would still have to deal with Rodman keeping him off the boards. And there could be games where Dennis forces Duncan into a bad shooting night.

People seem to forget that Roman was great in 97/98. After a god-awful start in which Jordan called him out publicly, Rodman turned it around and played some of the best ball in his three years with the Bulls. It was an absolute joke that his didn't make the all-defensive 1st or 2nd team. He was playing center at one point when Longley was hurt.

The Bulls beat the 1999 Spurs. I'm not declaring anything beyond that.

As for the 18 Celtics or 83 76ers, 87 Lakers, I'll take the 1996 Bulls vs all of them. That was the greatest team ever. Greatest defensive team ever.

 

[houheffna]

I don't think the Bulls were a greater defensive team then the Bad Boys in the late 1980's or the Spurs from this decade for that matter. I think that is a lot of homer talk personally.

The Bad Boys were better defensively than those Bulls teams because of what they were allowed to do.

I don't know if the second group of championship teams were as good as the first. But I will say that the 1983 76ers were the best team ever. Period, no questions asked here, so we will have to agree to disagree on that.

I know I get vilified for some responses that I give. I believe Jordan is the greatest player for example. I still believe we are watching Jordan incarnate in Kobe and that in some parts of his game, he is better than Jordan. I think that Jordan and Pippen were a great sports duo, but I just don't think they had the greatest team. I can understand why some would argue that they are the best. I just disagree.

 

[Kush77]

houheffna wrote:

I don't think the Bulls were a greater defensive team then the Bad Boys in the late 1980's or the Spurs from this decade for that matter. I think that is a lot of homer talk personally.

The Bad Boys were better defensively than those Bulls teams because of what they were allowed to do.

I don't know if the second group of championship teams were as good as the first. But I will say that the 1983 76ers were the best team ever. Period, no questions asked here, so we will have to agree to disagree on that.

I know I get vilified for some responses that I give. I believe Jordan is the greatest player for example. I still believe we are watching Jordan incarnate in Kobe and that in some parts of his game, he is better than Jordan. I think that Jordan and Pippen were a great sports duo, but I just don't think they had the greatest team. I can understand why some would argue that they are the best. I just disagree.

We can agree to disagree.

I just don't want to be called a homer here. When I say Jordan is the greatest player, the 1995-96 Bulls are the greatest team, and the Bulls would beat the 1999 Spurs, I feel I have very legit arguments to back all those points up. So we can disagree, just don't accuse me of being a home with that.

While I say "I'm a Bulls homer" on my podcast, but in this instance, there's no homerism.

The 1996 Bulls were the greatest defensive team ever. If there was an all-time all-defensive team, Pippen, Jordan and Rodman could be on the list along with Bill Russell and whoever you'd think could be at the point (Gary Payton?).

This team in the 1998 NBA Finals held the Jazz to 54 points! My god. A team with two of the greatest players of all-time and a hall of fame coach that ran their pick & roll to perfection. They held them to 54 points on basketball's biggest stage. I know it's only 1 game, but that how good this team was defensively. Ron Harper was pretty good on defense too. Luc Longley, not the greatest, but was good enough being surrounded by everyone else.

I'll take my chances with the 1996 Chicago Bulls over any team in the history of this league. Who stops Jordan and Pippen? Then throw in Toni Kukoc. A 6'11 lefty who handles the ball like a PG, can shot and post.

And while MJ wasn't in his prime in 1996, he was still a better player than anyone on any of the other teams (86 Celtics, 83 76ers). And Scottie Pippen was in his PRIME in 1996. The man was a force.

 

[TheStig]

"Don't ever underestimate the heart of a champion" Rudy T

End of story, I can't believe that anyone can argue that the dynasty bulls wouldn't make it out of the weak east. With junk teams like the knicks, pacers and 76ers coming out of the east, a healthy bulls team and everyone continued being healthy after they left, would have easily come out of the east.

 

[Kush77]

TheStig wrote:

"Don't ever underestimate the heart of a champion" Rudy T

End of story, I can't believe that anyone can argue that the dynasty bulls wouldn't make it out of the weak east. With junk teams like the knicks, pacers and 76ers coming out of the east, a healthy bulls team and everyone continued being healthy after they left, would have easily come out of the east.

Your talking about making out of the East for 99, 00 and 01. I don't know.

The Bulls win the title in 1999. I have no doubt there.

But as for winning the East in 2000 or 2001, I would think the Bulls would need some extra help at that point. The Bulls never had the benefit of a veteran jumping on board just for a shot at the ring. Kinda like Malone and Payton with the Lakers in 04, even though it didn't work in that case.

Maybe some veteran looking for a ring would have joined the Bulls. Who knows.

I think they win the title in 1999. Not as confident beyond that.

 

[houheffna]

Just remember, who the best player is does not mean his team wins. The best team wins , that is why I chose the team that I chose. Kobe is a great, great player. Its taken 7 years between championships, damn near the prime of his career passed. Lebron is the best arguably, nothing yet. Teams win. All the BG fans should check the '83 76ers out. Moses Malone was a real force, NONE of those Bulls teams could have swept any of those Lakers teams, NONE of them. Believe that.

 

[Kush77]

houheffna wrote:

Just remember, who the best player is does not mean his team wins. The best team wins , that is why I chose the team that I chose. Kobe is a great, great player. Its taken 7 years between championships, damn near the prime of his career passed. Lebron is the best arguably, nothing yet. Teams win. All the BG fans should check the '83 76ers out. Moses Malone was a real force, NONE of those Bulls teams could have swept any of those Lakers teams, NONE of them. Believe that.

The best team wins, and the 1995-1996 Chicago Bulls were the best team ever. 72-10 and when they lost, they barely lost. Like I said in this thread, with the exception of that game vs NY.

Three of the greatest defensive players ever at their positions that they would throw at the best players on Philly.

Jordan, Pippen and Kukoc to deal with on the defensive side. The 1996 Bulls beat the 1983 Sixers, sorry. We'll agree to disagree.

As for the 1983 NBA Finals, James Worthy missed the entire series with a broke leg. Bob McAdoo missed games 1 and 4, and Norm Nixon missed game 4.

Now the Sixers still would have won, but it wouldn't have been a sweep if the Lakers were healthy.

 

[dougthonus]

The Bulls may not have won in 1999. Who could say for sure?

However, the team had just won the past three titles, how could anyone say for sure that they couldn't?

 

[houheffna]

The Bulls would not have swept that team without those guys, Worthy was very young anyway. Luc Longley never had to face a Moses or Kareem in the finals...if he had, he would have had serious problems, and try putting Rodman on Kareem or Moses...good luck with that.

So I guess you think the '72 Dolphins are the greatest NFL team?

Sorry, but again, we will have to disagree. Pippen is at best the 4th best offensive player on the floor. Andrew Toney was huge offensively, he was Ben Gordon's best fourth quarter performances, except for a whole game...especially against the best teams. That team had no weaknesses at no position...and speaking of defense...ever heard of Bobby Jones? Came off the bench, better player than Kukoc. Who guards Moses? Who guards Dr. J? Jordan would have to play some defense against that team, something he was lax in doing in those years.

 

[JayJohnstone]

houheffna wrote:

...try putting Rodman on Kareem or Moses...good luck with that.

Sorry, but again, we will have to disagree. Pippen is at best the 4th best offensive player on the floor. Andrew Toney was huge offensively, he was Ben Gordon's best fourth quarter performances, except for a whole game...especially against the best teams. That team had no weaknesses at no position...and speaking of defense...ever heard of Bobby Jones? Came off the bench, better player than Kukoc. Who guards Moses? Who guards Dr. J? Jordan would have to play some defense against that team, something he was lax in doing in those years.

The Sixers were my team back in the day. I lived outside Philly until I moved to Chicago in the mid-80s. I think the 2nd 3peat Bulls would destroy that Sixers team. They match up beutifully.

Rodman, of course, could cover Moses Malone. Rodman had no troubles guarding Karl Malone who was bigger with more skills.

Pippen and MJ could guard Dr. J and Toney just fine.

You are right the Sixers had a lot of talent but Bulls would have 4 of the 5 best defenders in the series.

And I also can't agree that the Sixers had no weaknessess. They did start Marc Iavaroni.