RealGM

How successful would the early 90s Bulls have been if Jordan had been replaced with Sir Charles in his prime. Charles, although a power forward, was one of the most unique players in history and offered alot of what Jordan did. He rebounded like a big, but played like a small. Good ball-handler and passer who made plays for others and could score from the post or one-on-one.

Obviously, Barkley wasn't Jordan's match in a few areas. Namely, defense. He also wasn't as reliable a shooter as Jordan was, even though younger MJ wasn't always a three point marksman. The Bulls main calling card - their swarming and stifling defense - would certainly be hampered by replacing MJ with Barkley. Barkley was a capable defender, but admits himself that he didn't always give a full effort. He was however, capable of making big defensive plays. With Pippen and Grant to help him out both offensively and defensively, maybe his overall defense would have been better.

Basically, what sort of success do you think the first 3-peat Bulls would have had if they Barkley, rather than Jordan? There were some talks in the real early 90s about Barkley being the best player in the game - even over Jordan. That's certainly debatable - although Charles came within a whisker of the 1990 MVP award as well as winning in 1992.

He didn't play like a small, he played like a big. He made his living scoring and rebounding in the paint. Now, he did have excellent handles for a big man and liked to initiate the offense or go coast to coast but he was more like Shaq than like Michael (Shaq likes to think he can dribble too).

Oh, and his defense wasn't just bad, it was really really bad. He wasn't a capable defender, he not only didn't put in the effort, he never bothered to develop the instincts. He was one of the most extraordinary physical specimens to ever play and probably the greatest offensive PF of all time, a purely unstoppable force.

But while the Bulls would have still been a contender with Barkley, the defensive dropoff is large and MJ had a history of getting the last second breaks (often of creating them but also of Paxson, or Grant, or someone getting that one break that makes or breaks a series). The Jordan Bulls weren't just good, that would have gotten them 3 or 4 rings, maybe. They were a team of destiny (same goes for Russell's Celtics) and that is something you can't predict or expect even if the talents were equal.

bluestang302 wrote:How successful would the early 90s Bulls have been if Jordan had been replaced with Sir Charles in his prime. Charles, although a power forward, was one of the most unique players in history and offered alot of what Jordan did. He rebounded like a big, but played like a small. Good ball-handler and passer who made plays for others and could score from the post or one-on-one.

Obviously, Barkley wasn't Jordan's match in a few areas. Namely, defense. He also wasn't as reliable a shooter as Jordan was, even though younger MJ wasn't always a three point marksman. The Bulls main calling card - their swarming and stifling defense - would certainly be hampered by replacing MJ with Barkley. Barkley was a capable defender, but admits himself that he didn't always give a full effort. He was however, capable of making big defensive plays. With Pippen and Grant to help him out both offensively and defensively, maybe his overall defense would have been better.

Basically, what sort of success do you think the first 3-peat Bulls would have had if they Barkley, rather than Jordan? There were some talks in the real early 90s about Barkley being the best player in the game - even over Jordan. That's certainly debatable - although Charles came within a whisker of the 1990 MVP award as well as winning in 1992.

That talk really happened more in 1990, when Barkley was having that great MVP year, and even then it wasn't that serious. It's kind of like the Iverson-Kobe debates from earlier this decade.

Without Jordan, Pippen and Grant don't reach the heights that they reach. Pippen basically became "Hall of Famer Scottie Pippen" instead of "first round bust Scottie Pippen" because he guarded and trained with Jordan every day. If Pippen came up in the league with Barkley, the "Breakfast Club" would've meant a large stack of pancakes instead of lifting weights and doing drills at 6 in the morning.

Assuming Pippen and Grant develop as they would, the Bulls would still be a good team any given year, but no longer serious title contenders, let alone historically elite. Chuck would negatively impact the defense, and between him and Pippen, Grant and Rodman would be forced to join Kukoc on the bench. Unless you want to play Pippen out of position at PG or SG and Chuck at SF.

Barkley wasn't THAT bad, stop being a drama queen.

He was better comparitively than Boozer is now, and he's considered an average defender.

Barkley + Pippen would've won minimum two chips. I bet they would've had GREAT chemistry, workin the in and out game to perfection.

#1KnicksFan wrote:Barkley wasn't THAT bad, stop being a drama queen.

He was better comparitively than Boozer is now, and he's considered an average defender.

Barkley + Pippen would've won minimum two chips. I bet they would've had GREAT chemistry, workin the in and out game to perfection.

I didn't say he was that bad. I have him just outside the top 15 players of all time. Although Carlos Boozer is a legitimate all-star, he doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Chuck, except simply to note that they have the same initials.

I can't see Barkley/Pippen/Grant/Paxson/B.J. Armstrong/Cartwright or Barkley/Pippen/Rodman/Harper/Kukoc/Longley/Kerr winning two rings. Maybe one, but note that Barkley's 1993 Suns team that failed to win the championship was better than either of the teams I mentioned.

Also, keep in mind that Barkley and Pippen played together in Houston for a year and hated each other. They would definitely not had any chemistry, let alone great chemistry.

^ That's the dumbest rationale I've ever heard, and I wasn't talking to you...

You'd basically have to put Grant on the bench for a max of 20 minutes per game, cause in those days, you couldn't get away with playing a 6'9" PF extended minutes at center.

And who do you put at the 2? The backup options for the first two were Craig Hodges (deadly shooter but only 6'2", thus probably too small for the 2 full-time) or Dennis Hopson (who wasn't very good). In '92-'93, you've got Trent Tucker, Jo Jo English, Corey Williams or Darell Walker.

Of course, you could try to get away with a B.J./Paxson back court but that would get destroyed as well.

So basically, the back court of those teams goes from one of the best ever (simply by virtue of having M.J. in it) to one of the worst in the league at the time, while the front court goes from good (Grant/Cartwright) to great (Barkley/Cartwright).

Given that, it would've been tough to beat the Lakers even though Scottie did a great job defending Magic. Portland would've certainly beaten the crap out of us with a Drexler/Porter back court. But maybe we could've beat Phoenix since Barkley would now be on the Bulls... but if Jordan thus went to the Suns to replace Majerle, they would've beat us too.

#1KnicksFan wrote:^ That's the dumbest rationale I've ever heard, and I wasn't talking to you...

Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking on a message board, not sending a PM.

#1KnicksFan wrote:Barkley + Pippen would've won minimum two chips. I bet they would've had GREAT chemistry, workin the in and out game to perfection.

How was my perfectly appropriate rationale--that they had terrible chemistry in the one year the played together--dumb, especially considering the fact that your statement was just speculation? Ask any 1999 Rocket fan what they thought of Scottie Pippen and Charles Barkley.