And what happened to that leadership and spark when they met Horace Grant and Orlando in the playoffs? Jordan didn't elevate then, did he? No, he had to get Rodman and Grant had to get injured for him to advance past Orlando.AlexanderRight wrote:prophet_of_rage wrote:And you see the fatal glow in your approach. The fact that Lebron plays in a tougher league doesn't mean that MJ wouldn't be the same player in the league. It means that team success is likely to be worse the tougher the league you are in.
That's still a hypothetical. You're assuming a prime MJ with a legit supporting cast wouldn't win as much in today's era. You don't know that. Nobody does. Would he win 6? More than 6? Less than 6? More than Lebron? Who knows, there's too many variables. In his prime would he have beaten Pop/Duncan Spurs? Shaq/Kobe? Is Phil with MJ or Shaq/Kobe? Are Shaq/Kobe even as good without Phil? I doubt it. Would the Bulls have adapted to today's play style? This is all speculative, which is fun to entertain, but can't be seriously used as evidence for arguing a player being better than another because it's not really provable. Would MJ be threatened by 21 year old Paul George, DeFrozan, baby version Isiah Thomas, under drinking age Tatum and and Brown? I doubt that...prophet_of_rage wrote:You can pretend the Bulls weren't the 2017 Warriors but they were for their era. The 80s trams had broken up and the salary cap rules meant every team had two stars and a bunch of role players. Thanks to MJ and Pippen signing bad deals they were able to add at various times Rodman, Grant, Kukoc and Harper.
If the Bulls were like 17 GS, it's because MJ made them that monster team. It wasn't because they had such a flooded unfair advantage of talent. You just said it, every team had two stars like the Bulls so what exactly made the Bulls so demonstratively overloaded outside of MJ's greatness? Rodman was a cast off after his prime who was almost blackballed out the league. Even if he was this "unfair advantage" MJ had a dynasty without him and started by beating the team Rodman was on while he was in his actual prime, so it wasn't like MJ "needed him". Harper was a defense only guard averaging 7PPG. Kerr was a sharpshooter. Kurkoc was a good bench player. Were the Bulls the only team in the league with the "luxury" of a shooter and a good bench player? No, they weren't. Smartly constructed? Yes. Overly stacked ala 17 GS? Lol, no.prophet_of_rage wrote:The Bulls won 55 games with Pippen and Grant. Two All-Stars. You couldn't keep a team like that together today.
And what was that team doing after Pippen quit on them? 26-29 at the AS break, struggling to stay .500 just to go 13-4 after MJ came back to close out the season after they got the leadership and spark that they definitely needed. Grant was an All Star one time his whole life and it wasn't with MJ. MJ only had 1 All Star his whole career for only 6 seasons. That's a fact.But despite that, since when could you not keep a team with 2-3 All Stars today? Have you been living under a rock? They've been around almost every corner for the last 15 years.
Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app