houheffna wrote:
I am surprised that people think that if you look muscular, you are automatically stronger than someone who is not as defined. That is crazy to me. Some people just have strength...
it is not necessarily about who looks best wit their shirt off. Bird was bigger and taller than Pip and Bird was a better rebounder and twice the offensive player Pippen was. And lets not forget Pip was nowhere to be found in the clutch. Pippen wins a posedown, whoopty damn do...
Walton was a hell of a player, and he was a better player than any of the Bulls centers at that time, better than any Bulls center in Bulls history when healthy. Parrish would have eaten Longley/Wennington up.
I just heard it asked to Rick Barry (a superior SF by the way) who should be taken off the Top 50 list...first name out of his mouth...Scottie Pippen.
Every year it seems, Scottie talks about a new team that is talented enough to compete with the 1996 team and even break the record. Recently he said the Lakers have the talent to do it. He would have said the same thing about a team with 4 HOF players on it more than likely. On one hand people say that the Bulls won championships for one reason...Jordan. That is when you want to discredit Krause. Now its all about this being the greatest team known to mankind. I happen to disagree. I would take Garnett over Rodman any day as far as defense at the PF position. Rodman was at his best defensively as a SF in the late 1980's.
It will be interesting to see if you guys concede to the teams that are coming and saying they are better than the Bulls. I doubt it. We already see a SG who on the court is better skilled than Jordan, the greatest ever...now with the guys coming down the pike, the game evolves, it will be interesting to see how you guys feel about this team 10 years from now.
I believe that most of the championship teams after 1998 would have given the Bulls a very hard fight and against some of those teams its a toss up. A lot of these what ifs are fun but have to be resolved by someone who is not a homer. I don't expect a fair, objective resolution to that question on this forum.
To quote Ronald Reagan "there you go again" - Taking my statements out of context and twisting them to make a different argument.
No one said Bill Walton wasn't a great player. But injuries ruined his career. In 1986 Bill Walton was an okay player off the bench. He averaged 7.6 ppg. I'm sorry - does that blow your mind? And a 1986 Bill Walton isn't better than a 1996 Luc Longley because Walton was a shell of himself. It was 1986 NOT 1977.
Parrish would eat up Luc Longley and Bill Wennington. Wow, really? In related news the sky is blue.
I agree Scottie Pippen would come off the list of the 50 greatest players. But here's a newsflash - a lot of those guys come off the list including the unguardable Kevin McHale.
Guys who I would add to the list of 50 as of now - Kobe, Lebron, Wade, Duncan and Garnett for sure. Possibly Iverson but that one can be up for debate. And note that Shaq made the list midway through his 5th season, so Wade and LeBron would qualify.
But that was a Top 50 list for the 50th anniversary of the NBA, do we do 63 players since this is the 63rd year? Or is it 64?
I like Rick Barry, had the pleasure of interviewing him before the 2008 playoffs. I don't disagree with him about Pippen and the 50 list.
You say Kobe is more skilled than Jordan? How so? I agree that Kobe is a better long range shooter (which you said before and I have as well). But how do you come to more skilled than Jordan? Based on what? They seem pretty even to me, then it comes down to on-court achievements. There's nothing that Kobe doesn that makes me say - wow he's so much better than MJ. Except for the way he can just launch from about 27 feet like it's nothing.
When Scottie talks he talks of talent he means 1 through 12 on the roster. He even said that his 2000 Portland team was more "talented" then the 1996 Bulls. Talent, 1-12. I agree. 1-12 the Portland team was more talented. But that doesn't mean they automatically win a 7-game series. The 2000 Blazers were more talented than the 2000 Lakers but the Lakers won. Or the Blazers choked, however you want to look at it. When your third string PF is Jermaine O'Neal, you have a lot of talent.
Rodman had lots of best defensive years and a majority of them came at the PF position. When he was younger, yes he guarded SF and SG. But when he started grabbing 18 rebs a game he was playing PF and he won defensive player of the year at PF. He also won 7 straight rebounding titles all while playing PF. So I take him over Garnett. Rodman also guarded bigger players like Shaq and Alonzo Mourning. Did KG ever try to guard Shaq? Did he guard him at all in the 2004 WCF? I'm asking because I don't remember. I'll have to go on youtube.
"And lets not forget Pip was nowhere to be found in the clutch." What exactly does that have to do with being stronger than Larry Bird? I didn't say Pippen would win a posedown, I said he'd bench more. You can put your money on Larry Bird, Scottie Pippen was stronger.
I'm fully aware that a guy can be stronger without looking better with his shirt off. An Olympic weight lifter is stronger than Michael Phelps, I understand that. But we are talking about two guys who are similar height and weight. Scottie is stronger than Larry Bird. Anyone can see that.
You say you can't get an objective resolution here? Why? Because you're getting facts from me? Tell me one thing I've said that "homerism" I'm a Bulls homer but I back up my claims with thoughtful insight.
You're not the only guy on the board that was born in the 1970. I watched these same players that you did. I just think the 72-10 Bulls were the best team ever. Sorry my opinion isn't shaped by NBA films. (Not saying yours is I'm speaking in general) According to what you hear in the media and see on nice little videos Bill walton in 1986 was one of the greatest players ever. HE AVERAGED 7.6 PPG! If someone just watched the hype on TV and never looked at his stats, they would think Bill Walton was an all-star in 1986. He was a roll player that won 6th man because of hype and the great team he played on.
But we'll keep being the homers on the board and you can continue to play your roll of the contrarian. You do it well B)
