Do you consider Jordans Bulls a Super Team?

[ball_takes23]

The Bulls won 67 games in 1991-92. Jordan and Pippen played heavy minutes during their repeat season and then went directly to the ‘92 Olympics. The following year (1992-93) they eased back on the throttle to give Jordan and Pippen more rest. The end result was a 57 win season - 10 fewer wins than the previous year. They underachieved a little. The 1993-94 Bulls overachieved in Jordan’s absence by winning 55 games to everyone’s surprise and that’s why Ho Grant and BJ Armstrong were rewarded with All Star selections - not because they were legit All Stars. Neither one of them ever made another All Star appearance. The Bulls WERE NOT stacked. They had a bunch of new faces - Kukoc, Kerr, Harper, Meyers etc. The following year, those same Bulls fell back down to Earth and were 34-31 before Jordan came out of retirement and went 13-4 the rest of the regular season. They were basically a .500 team without Jordan.

This sharade of acting like the 93-94 Bulls were the same as the 94-95 Bulls is pretty funny.

The 1st 3-peat was so stacked that you remove a godlike player (MJ) and they still won 55 games. So stacked that teammates like Horace and BJ finally got their flowers and were picked to be all stars.

Horace was so impactful on winning that the year he leaves, he helps his new team to the finals. Dude was a beast and one hell of a defender.

The quality of the supporting cast matters a lot. I notice that LeBron/anti-Jordan fans are readily able to acknowledge this when assessing why the Lakers have been unsuccessful in recent years, but seem to turn off that part of their brain when assessing things like the 1994 Bulls.

It's amazing how fast they are to realize that context actually matters when you point out that the Bulls were a 34-31 team in 1995 without MJ. Or that the Lakers were only a .500 team in the games Lebron played in 2019. Or that AD was the one who took them from a lottery team to a champion in 2020.

[ScrantonBulls]

This sharade of acting like the 93-94 Bulls were the same as the 94-95 Bulls is pretty funny.

The 1st 3-peat was so stacked that you remove a godlike player (MJ) and they still won 55 games. So stacked that teammates like Horace and BJ finally got their flowers and were picked to be all stars.

Horace was so impactful on winning that the year he leaves, he helps his new team to the finals. Dude was a beast and one hell of a defender.

The quality of the supporting cast matters a lot. I notice that LeBron/anti-Jordan fans are readily able to acknowledge this when assessing why the Lakers have been unsuccessful in recent years, but seem to turn off that part of their brain when assessing things like the 1994 Bulls.

It's amazing how fast they are to realize that context actually matters when you point out that the Bulls were a 34-31 team in 1995 without MJ. Or that the Lakers were only a .500 team in the games Lebron played in 2019. Or that AD was the one who took them from a lottery team to a champion in 2020.

Surely ball_takes23 will have a nuanced and fair take on this topic about MJ. He won't ignore 93-94, or the fact that they lost Horace in 94-95 and gained Rodman in 95-96. Right ball_takes23?

[MavsDirk41]

When people cite BJ being an all star, they lose all credibility.

That was all Bulls dynasty popularity + pure fan vote at the time + the guy had a baby face and looked like a kid.

The guy who mentioned BJ Armstrong said the Bulls basically had 3 allstars during the first 3 peat because they had BJ. Some of the stuff on here lol

The guy said technically

When I argued with my ex she would say things like “so your basically saying” instead of just saying what I said to try to win arguments too

Point being guys like BJ Armstrong, Kyle Korver, Dana Barros, Chris Gatling, Jeff Teague, and Mo Williams making the all star team one time is more about team success that year or that player just having a career year then that player making a team a “superteam”

[MavsDirk41]

Yes of course it was.

The only team more super were the Durant Warriors

Believe you left off the Heatles but im sure that wasnt on purpose

[zimpy27]

Yes of course it was.

The only team more super were the Durant Warriors

Believe you left off the Heatles but im sure that wasnt on purpose

You think the Heatles were better than the Bulls? I think Durant Warriors were the greatest team ever assembled, next i had 96-98 Bulls, then 91-93 Bulls.

WOuld you put Heatles above both Bulls teams? I wasn't even sure if Heatles were better than some Lakers teams or Celtics teams in 3pt era.

[SportsGuru08]

No.

I believe super teams must have 3+ All Stars or All NBA players. Jordan only had Pippen (and Rodman for a bit).

Having Rodman for 3 chips is a bit?

Rodman was 34-37 years old. His best days were in Detroit.

[SportsGuru08]

This sharade of acting like the 93-94 Bulls were the same as the 94-95 Bulls is pretty funny.

The 1st 3-peat was so stacked that you remove a godlike player (MJ) and they still won 55 games. So stacked that teammates like Horace and BJ finally got their flowers and were picked to be all stars.

Horace was so impactful on winning that the year he leaves, he helps his new team to the finals. Dude was a beast and one hell of a defender.

The quality of the supporting cast matters a lot. I notice that LeBron/anti-Jordan fans are readily able to acknowledge this when assessing why the Lakers have been unsuccessful in recent years, but seem to turn off that part of their brain when assessing things like the 1994 Bulls.

It's amazing how fast they are to realize that context actually matters when you point out that the Bulls were a 34-31 team in 1995 without MJ. Or that the Lakers were only a .500 team in the games Lebron played in 2019. Or that AD was the one who took them from a lottery team to a champion in 2020.

I believe the '85-86 team was 20-44 during his absence.

[Iwasawitness]

This sharade of acting like the 93-94 Bulls were the same as the 94-95 Bulls is pretty funny.

The 1st 3-peat was so stacked that you remove a godlike player (MJ) and they still won 55 games. So stacked that teammates like Horace and BJ finally got their flowers and were picked to be all stars.

Horace was so impactful on winning that the year he leaves, he helps his new team to the finals. Dude was a beast and one hell of a defender.

The quality of the supporting cast matters a lot. I notice that LeBron/anti-Jordan fans are readily able to acknowledge this when assessing why the Lakers have been unsuccessful in recent years, but seem to turn off that part of their brain when assessing things like the 1994 Bulls.

It's amazing how fast they are to realize that context actually matters when you point out that the Bulls were a 34-31 team in 1995 without MJ. Or that the Lakers were only a .500 team in the games Lebron played in 2019. Or that AD was the one who took them from a lottery team to a champion in 2020.

For someone who claims context matters, there's quite a bit of it missing in your post.

[MavsDirk41]

Yes of course it was.

The only team more super were the Durant Warriors

Believe you left off the Heatles but im sure that wasnt on purpose

You think the Heatles were better than the Bulls? I think Durant Warriors were the greatest team ever assembled, next i had 96-98 Bulls, then 91-93 Bulls.

WOuld you put Heatles above both Bulls teams? I wasn't even sure if Heatles were better than some Lakers teams or Celtics teams in 3pt era.

The 96 and 97 Bulls are arguably the greatest team. The 98 Bulls were hanging by a thread. Pippen only played 44 games that year and his back went out again in the finals. Rodman was pretty much washed after that season. The was Jordans biggest carry job for their championship runs.

Durant Warriors are right there with them and then you have Shaq/Kobe Lakers with some of Magics Lakers and Birds Celtics. But the Heatles with Wade, James, Bosh, Allen, and Battier were a stacked team and won 66 games in 12/13. As far as the best its probably 96/97 Bulls or 17/18 Warriors.

[lessthanjake]

Believe you left off the Heatles but im sure that wasnt on purpose

You think the Heatles were better than the Bulls? I think Durant Warriors were the greatest team ever assembled, next i had 96-98 Bulls, then 91-93 Bulls.

WOuld you put Heatles above both Bulls teams? I wasn't even sure if Heatles were better than some Lakers teams or Celtics teams in 3pt era.

The 96 and 97 Bulls are arguably the greatest team. The 98 Bulls were hanging by a thread. Pippen only played 44 games that year and his back went out again in the finals. Rodman was pretty much washed after that season. The was Jordans biggest carry job for their championship runs.

I actually think 1993 might be an even bigger carry job. It feels weird to say that, given that the 1994 Bulls won 55 games, but the 1993 Bulls supporting cast had a weak year.

Notably, Pippen and Grant both had really down years that year. And they didn’t turn it on in the playoffs either. For reference, Pippen’s BPM in 1993 was +4.0, and his other BPMs from 1991-1998 ranged from +5.0 to +7.7. Pippen’s playoff BPM in 1993 was +2.0, and his other playoff BPMs from 1991-1998 ranged from +5.1 to +7.8. Horace Grant’s BPM in 1993 was +1.8. By way of contrast, it was +2.5 in 1991, +5.3 in 1992, and +4.0 in 1992. Grant wouldn’t have a BPM this low again until 1998. Grant’s playoff BPM was +3.3, which was lower than the +4.8 and +5.4 he put up in the surrounding years (though he only put up a +2.2 in the 1991 playoffs).

Meanwhile, a lot of the rest of the supporting cast was in real decline, or just bad. Cartwright was old and awful at that point. Stacey King wasn’t really better. Paxson had previously been a solid player, but was really declined and genuinely bad at this point (don’t be fooled by the game-winner in the Finals). Rodney McCray was only there that year and was very rough and out of the league after that. Similarly, Trent Tucker was there just that year and was out of the league after that season. Scott Williams wasn’t having a down year but he was a -2.6 career BPM guy. Similarly, Will Perdue wasn’t having a down year but just was always a negative player. BJ Armstrong was the only guy besides Jordan/Pippen/Grant that was actually a neutral player. The rest of the team basically ranged from pretty bad to catastrophically bad.

So basically, in 1993, the Bulls had Pippen and Grant both being far worse than their normal level, and the rest of the supporting cast being genuinely bad. This did manifest itself with the Bulls having a fairly-mortal regular season with 57 wins and 6.19 SRS. But they ultimately won the title. The fact that this was a massive carry job gets lost in time a bit, because the Bulls massively recharged their supporting cast in 1994 (bringing in Kukoc, Kerr, Longley, and Wennington), and people forget that Pippen and Grant both had a really off year in 1993 specifically. I would say the big caveat here is that the supporting cast did well against the Knicks, in a series that Jordan didn’t play great in. So it might be a stretch to call in a complete carry job from the start to finish.

[The4thHorseman]

Horace Grant made All Defensive in 1993, which was his first of 4 consecutive. Hard to consider that a down year.

[lessthanjake]

Horace Grant made All Defensive in 1993, which was his first of 4 consecutive. Hard to consider that a down year.

Do you actually think he was a better defender that year than prior years? Because I watched them and I don’t think that was the case at all. Even if we took all-defense voting super seriously (which we shouldn’t), he barely made it in 1993 (had the least votes of anyone who made it) and just missed the cut in 1992, with the difference basically just being that Buck Williams had fallen off as a player by 1993. But again, I don’t think Grant was a better defender at all in 1993.

[RoyceDa59]

The team with MJ, Scottie, Rodman and Kukoc was absolutely a super team, but mainly because MJ was that much better than everyone else, and Scottie was the best Robin in the league.

The league was also just much different back then, coming off heavy expansion, so the competition was thinned out.

I’d love to see how that team would stack up against the Shaq Kobe Lakers, Curry Durant Warriors or even the current OKC in a playoff series.

[Optms]

The team with MJ, Scottie, Rodman and Kukoc was absolutely a super team, but mainly because MJ was that much better than everyone else, and Scottie was the best Robin in the league.

The league was also just much different back then, coming off heavy expansion, so the competition was thinned out.

I’d love to see how that team would stack up against the Shaq Kobe Lakers, Curry Durant Warriors or even the current OKC in a playoff series.

I rank Stockton higher. The difference between the Bulls and other contenders was always Jordan. He was the X Factor.

[zimpy27]

Believe you left off the Heatles but im sure that wasnt on purpose

You think the Heatles were better than the Bulls? I think Durant Warriors were the greatest team ever assembled, next i had 96-98 Bulls, then 91-93 Bulls.

WOuld you put Heatles above both Bulls teams? I wasn't even sure if Heatles were better than some Lakers teams or Celtics teams in 3pt era.

The 96 and 97 Bulls are arguably the greatest team. The 98 Bulls were hanging by a thread. Pippen only played 44 games that year and his back went out again in the finals. Rodman was pretty much washed after that season. The was Jordans biggest carry job for their championship runs.

Durant Warriors are right there with them and then you have Shaq/Kobe Lakers with some of Magics Lakers and Birds Celtics. But the Heatles with Wade, James, Bosh, Allen, and Battier were a stacked team and won 66 games in 12/13. As far as the best its probably 96/97 Bulls or 17/18 Warriors.

Agreed and that's what I'm saying.

I guess I think the acquired vs drafted team is what people react differently too.

[NbaAllDay]

You think the Heatles were better than the Bulls? I think Durant Warriors were the greatest team ever assembled, next i had 96-98 Bulls, then 91-93 Bulls.

WOuld you put Heatles above both Bulls teams? I wasn't even sure if Heatles were better than some Lakers teams or Celtics teams in 3pt era.

The 96 and 97 Bulls are arguably the greatest team. The 98 Bulls were hanging by a thread. Pippen only played 44 games that year and his back went out again in the finals. Rodman was pretty much washed after that season. The was Jordans biggest carry job for their championship runs.

Durant Warriors are right there with them and then you have Shaq/Kobe Lakers with some of Magics Lakers and Birds Celtics. But the Heatles with Wade, James, Bosh, Allen, and Battier were a stacked team and won 66 games in 12/13. As far as the best its probably 96/97 Bulls or 17/18 Warriors.

Agreed and that's what I'm saying.

I guess I think the acquired vs drafted team is what people react differently too.

Correct. The acquired vs drafted teams is the part that seems to divide people, especially those who seem to have a narrative to create.

Super team gets throw around as an insult these days as if having a 'super team' is inherently unfair or a reason to dismiss their accomplishments. Or better yet, mock them for 'lack of success'. However if they team has drafted well it seemingly isn't an issue.

In reality, the 'aquired' superteams fail far more often than they succeed. The last decade of attempts should make that fairly clear. Top heavy teams with weak depth are generally a bad design, and its very hard to find top end talent that can equally compliment each other. The best example of that is GSW, however they already had a Champion level team, and added an MVP level player who is fairly portable due to their shooting ability.

In reality The Bulls were a very strong team. They were the best team everytime they won, a big part is due to MJ of course, but they also had a very strong core, players who complimented MJ in amazing ways and an all time great Coach.

The only year they were notably weaker was 98, and MJ was still at an ATG level. People do quickly forget that the league was weaker that year and that competition matters.

Anyhow, the superteam discussion is weird and is generally just used to fit a narrative which is extremely overused on this board.

[picko]

People with agendas will twist themselves in knots over this, but the reality is that all the dynasties in NBA history were 'super-teams' in the sense that talent is often heavily concentrated within a few teams. Most super-teams in NBA history have been created by smart GMs, notably guys like Auerbach, Krause, West who ran rings around their hapless peers. More recently, greater player agency has allowed player constructed super-teams to emerge, the most successful being the Heat and Warriors.

Jordan's championship teams were always vastly more talented than their competition. The same was true for Magic's Lakers, Bird's Celtics and Shaq/Kobe Lakers.

In 1995-96, the Bulls had the MVP (and another top 5 finish), the league's best two-way player, the league's best rebounder, three of the top defenders, arguably the best coach in league history and the league's 6th man of the year. And that's in an era where the league wasn't particularly deep from a talent standpoint after years of expansion.

The best player on the league's 2nd best team that season, the Supersonics, would have been the third best player on the 1995-96 Bulls. Quite simply, it was the most stacked team since the 1960s Celtics after accounting for league-wide talent. So pretending it wasn't a 'super-team' - likely because you are trying to elevate Jordan vs his peers - seems foolish.

[OdomFan]

No I do not. They factually were not a super team. Some times a team can be very good without being super. Neither the first or second 3 peat roster was super.

People saying Rodman isn't making a very good argument imo. As far as a big 3 goes. They were a great trio, but that doesn't make the team super.

[OdomFan]

Jordan's championship teams were always vastly more talented than their competition.

yet they were challenged quite a bit by the other great teams. Make it make sense. The Bulls won when they won, but they were far from soo much better than every other team the way you're describing. The 93 Finals went down to a game winning bucket for a reason against the Suns. As did both series against Utah in 97 and 98. The Sonics were far from a push over, and over in the east. The Knicks pushed them to a game 7, as did the Pacers, and the 97 Heat was a fun series as well.

[OdomFan]

The team with MJ, Scottie, Rodman and Kukoc was absolutely a super team, but mainly because MJ was that much better than everyone else, and Scottie was the best Robin in the league.

The league was also just much different back then, coming off heavy expansion, so the competition was thinned out.

I’d love to see how that team would stack up against the Shaq Kobe Lakers, Curry Durant Warriors or even the current OKC in a playoff series.

whys that? whats super about it? those guys were good at basketball, functioned well as a unit on the court, and played well within the triangle offense together. That shouldn't automatically sum up "Super team".

Super teams should be looked at as something extremely rare on a talent level. Something like the 2017 Warriors. A Warriors core that was already very good, but then they went out and got KD. Pissing off a lot of people. Thats what Super level should be.