Do you consider Jordans Bulls a Super Team?

[SportsGuru08]

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.

Using this logic, the 2001 Sixers were also a super team. Iverson was MVP, Larry Brown COY, Mutombo the DPOY and rebounding leader, and McKie the SMOY.

Except Brown won a championship with no Top 10 players, something Phil never did. Mutombo could actually score 10 points in an empty gym, unlike Rodman. And McKie was a much better defender than Kukoc.

And for the record, Scottie's play declined sharply after the All-star break and those struggles lasted the entire postseason.

[Wingy]

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.

Imagine installing Rodman as the best player on a team. Bet they’d rack up the wins.

By contrast, the team that started “super team” had Bosh as its 3rd option. A guy that dragged some truly wretched teams into the playoffs or cusp of them multiple times as an early-mid 20-something just starting his career.

[Shanghai Kid]

The 1998 Bulls for example were no super team. MJ at one point scored 45 of their 89 points in a finals game?

But, solid argument can be made that 1996 and 1997 Bulls were super teams.

1991-1993 Bulls were not considered a superteam in their time or any point in time. It would seem a bit of an agenda to suddenly label the first 3peat team a super team.

[LakerLegend]

No. As great of a rebounder as Rodman was, he was hands down one of the worst offensive players in the entire league. He averaged a whopping 5 ppg on 45% shooting his 3 years in Chicago, and that was almost entirely via put-backs or transition layups.

His TOV% all 3 years were some of the worst of his career as well despite his USG% being some of the lowest. He was still an impactful player due to his defense and rebounding, but offensively he was almost completely useless. The fact that the Bulls 3-Peated while essentially playing 4v5 offensively in the half-court is pretty remarkable actually.

Offense isn’t just raw points. It’s positioning for screens, offensive rebounds, facilitating ball movement. Rodman was brilliant in all these areas.

[PistolPeteJR]

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.

Where did I say he was at his peak in 96-98?
I’ll wait.

[SportsGuru08]

Having Rodman for 3 chips is a bit?

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

Where did I say he was at his peak in 96-98?
I’ll wait.

If you gonna use someone's name as a "He had THIS GUY as a teammate" sort of example, it makes your argument look less silly if that player wasn't a dinosaur at the time. But I don't expect much from people who also use Kerr and Paxson as "he had THIS GUY" examples.

[SportsGuru08]

No. As great of a rebounder as Rodman was, he was hands down one of the worst offensive players in the entire league. He averaged a whopping 5 ppg on 45% shooting his 3 years in Chicago, and that was almost entirely via put-backs or transition layups.

His TOV% all 3 years were some of the worst of his career as well despite his USG% being some of the lowest. He was still an impactful player due to his defense and rebounding, but offensively he was almost completely useless. The fact that the Bulls 3-Peated while essentially playing 4v5 offensively in the half-court is pretty remarkable actually.

Offense isn’t just raw points. It’s positioning for screens, offensive rebounds, facilitating ball movement. Rodman was brilliant in all these areas.

It also involves floor spacing, which Dennis didn't provide. And he averaged over 30 minutes a game. He was as much a detriment as a benefit.

[DimesandKnicks]

No. As great of a rebounder as Rodman was, he was hands down one of the worst offensive players in the entire league. He averaged a whopping 5 ppg on 45% shooting his 3 years in Chicago, and that was almost entirely via put-backs or transition layups.

His TOV% all 3 years were some of the worst of his career as well despite his USG% being some of the lowest. He was still an impactful player due to his defense and rebounding, but offensively he was almost completely useless. The fact that the Bulls 3-Peated while essentially playing 4v5 offensively in the half-court is pretty remarkable actually.

Offense isn’t just raw points. It’s positioning for screens, offensive rebounds, facilitating ball movement. Rodman was brilliant in all these areas.

It also involves floor spacing, which Dennis didn't provide. And he averaged over 30 minutes a game. He was as much a detriment as a benefit.

He got his team nearly six extra possessions a game

[DimesandKnicks]

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.

Using this logic, the 2001 Sixers were also a super team. Iverson was MVP, Larry Brown COY, Mutombo the DPOY and rebounding leader, and McKie the SMOY.

Except Brown won a championship with no Top 10 players, something Phil never did. Mutombo could actually score 10 points in an empty gym, unlike Rodman. And McKie was a much better defender than Kukoc.

And for the record, Scottie's play declined sharply after the All-star break and those struggles lasted the entire postseason.

If the sixers had another MVP caliber player/top five vote getter that’s absolutely a super team

[PistolPeteJR]

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

Where did I say he was at his peak in 96-98?
I’ll wait.

If you gonna use someone's name as a "He had THIS GUY as a teammate" sort of example, it makes your argument look less silly if that player wasn't a dinosaur at the time. But I don't expect much from people who also use Kerr and Paxson as "he had THIS GUY" examples.

That “dinosaur” was still a top-rebounding and top-defensive option. Care to claim otherwise? Back it up contextually and objectively.

[MarcusBrody]

The first three peat, definitely not.

The second threepeat, maybe. I'd say yes. I agree that there has to be a star addition, but I think Rodman counts. People are underrating him here. He had been in the top 15 in the MVP voting the previous 2 years and 3 out of the previous 4. Once he was top 10. He was in the top 5 for DPOY every year in the 90s before joining the Bulls and had won twice. He'd led the league in rebounding for 4 straight years before joining the Bulls.

So I think adding a Top 15 player to two Top 10 players is enough to count as a super team.

I also think it matters that the Bulls payroll was WAY higher than any other team in the league for a lot of the second 3peat. It was over twice as high as most teams in the league in 96/97 and 97/98. Jordan alone made more than most teams those years, but even removing Jordan, the rest of the Bulls made more than the majority of full NBA teams. Jordan and the Bulls sans Jordan both independently made more money than the Jazz - their finals opponent - in 1997 and it was pretty close to even between the non-Jordan Bulls and full Jazz team (Jordan still made more than either). That tips me a bit toward super team.

[SportsGuru08]

Where did I say he was at his peak in 96-98?
I’ll wait.

If you gonna use someone's name as a "He had THIS GUY as a teammate" sort of example, it makes your argument look less silly if that player wasn't a dinosaur at the time. But I don't expect much from people who also use Kerr and Paxson as "he had THIS GUY" examples.

That “dinosaur” was still a top-rebounding and top-defensive option. Care to claim otherwise? Back it up contextually and objectively.

'96 was his only season where he was good in both the regular season and playoffs. In '97, he averaged about half as many RPG in the postseason as he did the year before. In the '98 playoffs, his rebounding declined in every subsequent round.

Stop acting like he was a prime Wilt Chamberlain.

[SportsGuru08]

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.

Using this logic, the 2001 Sixers were also a super team. Iverson was MVP, Larry Brown COY, Mutombo the DPOY and rebounding leader, and McKie the SMOY.

Except Brown won a championship with no Top 10 players, something Phil never did. Mutombo could actually score 10 points in an empty gym, unlike Rodman. And McKie was a much better defender than Kukoc.

And for the record, Scottie's play declined sharply after the All-star break and those struggles lasted the entire postseason.

If the sixers had another MVP caliber player/top five vote getter that’s absolutely a super team

Pippen only played great up to the All Star break. Afterward, he stunk the rest of the regular season and playoffs. Basically for half a season he was a glorified Aaron McKie.

[SportsGuru08]

Offense isn’t just raw points. It’s positioning for screens, offensive rebounds, facilitating ball movement. Rodman was brilliant in all these areas.

It also involves floor spacing, which Dennis didn't provide. And he averaged over 30 minutes a game. He was as much a detriment as a benefit.

He got his team nearly six extra possessions a game

Anthony Mason could have easily filled the same role and it would have made no difference.

[NbaAllDay]

Using this logic, the 2001 Sixers were also a super team. Iverson was MVP, Larry Brown COY, Mutombo the DPOY and rebounding leader, and McKie the SMOY.

Except Brown won a championship with no Top 10 players, something Phil never did. Mutombo could actually score 10 points in an empty gym, unlike Rodman. And McKie was a much better defender than Kukoc.

And for the record, Scottie's play declined sharply after the All-star break and those struggles lasted the entire postseason.

If the sixers had another MVP caliber player/top five vote getter that’s absolutely a super team

Pippen only played great up to the All Star break. Afterward, he stunk the rest of the regular season and playoffs. Basically for half a season he was a glorified Aaron McKie.

Are we really going to underplay Pippen this much as to push a comparison between the 01 Sixers and 96 Bulls?

Let's also pretend that Iverson and MJ are even close to the same tier of player.

I don't care for the nonsense of labelling 'superteams', but it was pretty clear that the Bulls were the best teams in the years they won. Plenty of that is to do with MJ being the best player in the league, but they also had a very very strong team relative to the competition they were facing.

I get people like the diminish the Bulls teams to prop up MJ, but it can be true that the Bulls were the best team and MJ is a GOAT level player without having to take away from either.

[NbaAllDay]

It also involves floor spacing, which Dennis didn't provide. And he averaged over 30 minutes a game. He was as much a detriment as a benefit.

He got his team nearly six extra possessions a game

Anthony Mason could have easily filled the same role and it would have made no difference.

Wild statement. You are ignoring so much value that Rodman brought.

The floor spacing argument is also nonsense because it meant a lot less in the 90s with how teams were structured and the rules available. Almost every team had at least 2 pure defensive specialist players, however Rodman just did it on steroids, was extremely clever, added a lot of additional value through offensive boards, a great motor (able to set screen and hussle on Offense too)

Feels like an alternate motive you have by downplaying his ability.

[G35]

No. Jordan and Pippen were drafted and Rodman obtained via trade as a distressed asset that nobody wanted.

“super teams” are when stars collude to play with each other via FA or force trade to certain teams.

This right here. You can't draft a super team so Grant, Armstrong, Pippen do not count.

Rodman was damaged goods and the Spurs gave him away to any team that would take him. Also Rodman was not even playing all the games:

1996 - 57 games started
1997 - 54
1998 - 66

Once the Bulls broke up Rodman didn't do anything even after teaming up with Shaq and Kobe......

[xinxin]

Calling the 2nd 3-peat Bulls team as a “Superteam” does not diminish the greatness of Jordan ..


Or does it ?


He’s still the GOAT as far as I’m concerned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlexanderRight]

Ughh. Kukic averaged 10PPG on barely 40% shooting in the post season on that three peat. Rodman averaged 5/11 and was barely able to start half the games on the last two playoff runs. If that makes you a Superteam then sure, whatever helps y'all sleep I guess...

[DimesandKnicks]

Using this logic, the 2001 Sixers were also a super team. Iverson was MVP, Larry Brown COY, Mutombo the DPOY and rebounding leader, and McKie the SMOY.

Except Brown won a championship with no Top 10 players, something Phil never did. Mutombo could actually score 10 points in an empty gym, unlike Rodman. And McKie was a much better defender than Kukoc.

And for the record, Scottie's play declined sharply after the All-star break and those struggles lasted the entire postseason.

If the sixers had another MVP caliber player/top five vote getter that’s absolutely a super team

Pippen only played great up to the All Star break. Afterward, he stunk the rest of the regular season and playoffs. Basically for half a season he was a glorified Aaron McKie.

There's a thick line between "basically" and "actually".