Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm using Embiid as an example, because I'm playing a video game at the moment with Jordan playing for Philly.
Embiid doesn't clog the lane, so Jordan remains a force in the paint- https://i.imgur.com/vB6euHm.gifv
It was amazing how the Bulls won all those championships without a dominant center or a true point guard.
I think Pippen was a great fit for Jordan. Pippen was willing to defend and run the offense than score. They complimented each other very well. I think one reason why the 2nd 3-peat teams were better was because they had Rodman instead of Grant. While Grant was more talented offensively, he also looked to score while Rodman just wanted to rebound and defend. Less offensive looks were taken away from Jordan and Pippen in the later scenario. The 2nd 3-peat teams were better, IMO, despite an older core.
Yeah no doubt, Jordan would still average over 30ppg even if he never slashed - and in fact he didn't slash too much during the 2nd 3-peat when compared to the 1980s and early90s.
That's actually why I enjoyed the first half of Jordan's career a lot more, his incredible slashing/dunking and his incredible shot-blocking (back2back seasons of 1.6bpg and 1.5bpg).
Plus he handled the ball a lot more, whereas Pippen became the playmaker more in the mid90s.
If Jordan was playing with a guy that clogged the lane, I'd be very disappointed, because the greatest thing I've ever seen in sport was Michael Jordan slashing to the basket.
The 2nd greatest thing I ever saw in sport was Michael Jordan posting up.
His 18-footer was only the 3rd greatest thing (and actually his 3-pointer was very entertaining too when he was on a roll, certainly a more entertaining shooting action than Curry).
So I'd hate for the slashing to be reduced by a center.
But Embiid is such a mobile and versatile center (and a partially perimeter center) that its clear he wouldn't get in the way of Jordan's slashing at all.
Shaq whereas, would slightly reduce Jordan's driving lanes (although Shaq was certainly mobile enough to get out of Jordan's way, he was a strictly post-up center so he'd get in the way most likely).
Shaq was most suited to the 1995-1998 version of Jordan.
Ewing may have been a better fit 1980s/early90s Jordan, because Ewing was happy to spot-up from mid-range, or Olajuwon because he also had the mid-range jumper and was a lot more mobile than Ewing.....but I'd prefer Olajuwon post-up a lot because of the 'dream shake' and other slick post moves.
It was amazing how the Bulls won all those championships without a dominant center or a true point guard.
I think Pippen was a great fit for Jordan. Pippen was willing to defend and run the offense than score. They complimented each other very well. I think one reason why the 2nd 3-peat teams were better was because they had Rodman instead of Grant. While Grant was more talented offensively, he also looked to score while Rodman just wanted to rebound and defend. Less offensive looks were taken away from Jordan and Pippen in the later scenario. The 2nd 3-peat teams were better, IMO, despite an older core.
Yeah I think Pippen was the best fit for Jordan, but its so weird to think of Jordan with a superstar center, such an outlandish scenario that I wish it happened.
And I found Jordan-Shaq entertaining in the all-star game.
Also even though Pippen helped Jordan win, I feel like Jordan's stats were reduced a lot by Pippen's presence.
Jordan had the 32.5ppg 8.0rpg 8.0apg season, and I think he could have done that more often if Pippen didn't gradually take the ball-handling role.
Jordan's passing and ability to get his teammates involved was getting better and better but just as that was reaching a peak, Pippen had arrived and was becoming a point forward which ate into Jordan's assist numbers in the 1st 3-peat, and really took away even more of Jordan's playmaking in the 2nd 3-peat (although that wasn't a bad thing, because Jordan was older and Pippen allowed Jordan to save energy).
It was amazing how the Bulls won all those championships without a dominant center or a true point guard.
I think Pippen was a great fit for Jordan. Pippen was willing to defend and run the offense than score. They complimented each other very well. I think one reason why the 2nd 3-peat teams were better was because they had Rodman instead of Grant. While Grant was more talented offensively, he also looked to score while Rodman just wanted to rebound and defend. Less offensive looks were taken away from Jordan and Pippen in the later scenario. The 2nd 3-peat teams were better, IMO, despite an older core.
The second three-peat team also had Kukoc who was a 20+-7-7 player on most average NBA teams plus Ron Harper whom wasn't at his prime but was still really good.
They also had Bison Dele for one of those Championships and he was a solid (or better) starting NBA center.
No offense to Paxson, BJ etc. but the 2nd threepeat teams were just better from spots 3-8.
Yes, Bison Dele's 9 games he played for the Bulls was the stuff of legend.
Also Robert Parish was big time.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or actually did follow their season closely.
It was the 19 playoff games, not the regular season.
The Bulls struggled with size against Utah and he provided some much needed depth against one of the best PF's to ever lace them up. A lot of people do not realize just how tight that series was with 4 of the 6 games settled by 5 points or less.
Played well enough to land a FAT contract with Detroit after the season.
^ He did not play like a "solid or better starting center" in the NBA Finals (even his rebounding production was minimal - 3.3rpg in 20mpg), not that Longley did either.
But I agree he provided "depth".
^ He did not play like a "solid or better starting center" in the NBA Finals (even his rebounding production was minimal - 3.3rpg in 20mpg), not that Longley did either.
But I agree he provided "depth".
He was playing alongside Rodman. But like I said, he showed enough to be a top free agent the year after. (He wasn't on the court that much so rpg is a tough metric.)
But I agree, we can quibble but I gave him as an example of the Bulls adding depth 3-8.
He sure as heck wasn't 3-5 (we can easily agree there I would think).
So we are really talking about an example of another bench guy the bulls scooped up for depth, like a #6-7 that may have helped them actually edge out Utah that year.
Good discussion, I appreciate your comments.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
