Do you consider Jordans Bulls a Super Team?

[SkyBill40]

Somebody said BJ Armstrong

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 fact remains that Armstrong WAS an All-Star, albeit once, and was a solid shooter for that team. He's a career ~ 43% 3PFG, so leaving him open was most likely a mistake. What he looked like is completely irrelevant and is puzzling as to why you'd even mention it. But you mentioning about him being an AS as a bit of Bulls glazing at that time isn't likely to be that far off base.

[Iwasawitness]

He still won the rebounding title that year, his 7th consecutive. Either he wasn't a shell of his former self or it just shows how bad the league really was at the time.

He also still made first team all defense and even managed to get FMVP votes.

Not in 1998.

No, he did not. I think most people acknowledge he wasn't as good in 98 as he was in 96.

[durden_tyler]

He had the best supporting cast in the league in 1992+1996+1996. Whether that qualifies as a superteam I don’t know

Yup. You don’t know. Jordan was simply on another level that he elevated teammates because of his play/presence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Special_Puppy]

He had the best supporting cast in the league in 1992+1996+1996. Whether that qualifies as a superteam I don’t know

Yup. You don’t know. Jordan was simply on another level that he elevated teammates because of his play/presence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can't tell if you are trolling

[Wingy]

Somebody said BJ Armstrong

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 fact remains that Armstrong WAS an All-Star, albeit once, and was a solid shooter for that team. What he looked like is completely irrelevant and is puzzling as to why you'd even mention it. But you mentioning about him being an AS as a bit of Bulls glazing at that time isn't likely to be that far off base.

Because the only reason he made it was purely because of fan vote. His play and being a “solid shooter” wasn’t even close to warranting a berth. It’s not that complicated.

[SkyBill40]

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 fact remains that Armstrong WAS an All-Star, albeit once, and was a solid shooter for that team. What he looked like is completely irrelevant and is puzzling as to why you'd even mention it. But you mentioning about him being an AS as a bit of Bulls glazing at that time isn't likely to be that far off base.

Because the only reason he made it was purely because of fan vote. His play and being a “solid shooter” wasn’t even close to warranting a berth. It’s not that complicated.

Apparently you missed the line where I agreed with you for the most part. Slow down and take it all in next time before you get all ham and feel the need to immediately retort.

[ball_takes23]

The mental gymnastics to explain to explain how a team that won 55 games and almost made ECF when they replaced Jordan with Pete Myers is not actually a superteam are just so funny to me. Myers was selected in the 6th round of the draft, had done nothing in his NBA career until 1993, had spent the previous two seasons playing in Italy and ended up averaging 8 PPG on poor efficiency when he played for the Bulls in 1993/94. If any other modern star's team had been as good when he left and he was replaced by such a scrub everyone would say they were a superteam before he left.

So that same superteam was 34-31 before Jordan came back in March of 95.

It wasn't the same team, they lost Horace Grant for nothing.

so you are able to deduce context to see why 95 was not like 94 but completely blind to context when it comes to 94 vs 93?
4 of the top 7 in minutes played in 94 were not on the team in 93.

[DimesandKnicks]

Somebody said BJ Armstrong

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.

Context. Reading is fundamental…

[DimesandKnicks]

The fact remains that Armstrong WAS an All-Star, albeit once, and was a solid shooter for that team. What he looked like is completely irrelevant and is puzzling as to why you'd even mention it. But you mentioning about him being an AS as a bit of Bulls glazing at that time isn't likely to be that far off base.

Because the only reason he made it was purely because of fan vote. His play and being a “solid shooter” wasn’t even close to warranting a berth. It’s not that complicated.

Apparently you missed the line where I agreed with you for the most part. Slow down and take it all in next time before you get all ham and feel the need to immediately retort.

He also missed the part where I said “technically” to imply he wasn’t a genuine all-star.

[DimesandKnicks]

The 1st three peat Bulls absolutely not but the 2nd 3 peat absolutely were in comparison to the rest of the league (as opposed to like the KD warriors).

55 wins in 93-94

Are you joking? Winning 55 games is absolutely no indicator of a team being a "Super Team". They had just a really good coach and a solid supporting cast. That'd be like calling the 2019 Raptors a super team because they were able to win 59 games the year before Kawhi got there or that 60 win Atlata team a super team.

If you added Kawhi to the raptors without trading Derozan, you’d have a super team

[nikster]

55 wins in 93-94

Are you joking? Winning 55 games is absolutely no indicator of a team being a "Super Team". They had just a really good coach and a solid supporting cast. That'd be like calling the 2019 Raptors a super team because they were able to win 59 games the year before Kawhi got there or that 60 win Atlata team a super team.

If you added Kawhi to the raptors without trading Derozan, you’d have a super team

The Raptors lost Kawhi and Danny Green and went on to play at a 60 win pace the following year and had the #1 seed (highest win% in franchise history). And it's not like they were particularly healthy, Fred, Siakam, Lowry and Ibaka missed 12 to 18 games, Powell and Gasol missed 20 and 28 etc... The only real additions to the rotation were Rondae Hollis Jefferson and rookie terrance Davis, so pretty unimpactful.

I know super team is generally reserved for multiple stars, and some of the Raptors players got better after kawhi left, but they were pretty damn close to a super team

[OriginalRed]

55 wins in 93-94

Are you joking? Winning 55 games is absolutely no indicator of a team being a "Super Team". They had just a really good coach and a solid supporting cast. That'd be like calling the 2019 Raptors a super team because they were able to win 59 games the year before Kawhi got there or that 60 win Atlata team a super team.

Winning 55 teams after replacing Jordan with a scrub like Pete Myers is certainly an indicator of a super team.

Except they didn't just add Pete Myers but also Kerr, Kukoc, and Longley. That's not a super team that's just a team with a superstar, a great coach with a working system and a bunch of solid roleplayers. Adding Jordan and Rodman to a roster like that would make them a super team, which is why I said the 2nd three peat Bulls team was one and not the first because the first didn't have Rodman, Kukoc, or Kerr.

[jkvonny]

Somebody said BJ Armstrong

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.

True.

He was their baby faced fan favorite.

Good 3 pt shooter at times tho.

[MavsDirk41]

Somebody said BJ Armstrong

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

[xinxin]

No.

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

What about 4 HOFs?

MJ, Pippen, Rodman and Kukoc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lessthanjake]

Jordan’s Bulls were not a “superteam” because a “superteam” is a specific term that has a particular meaning that isn’t just “this team is really good.”

“Superteams” are commonly understood to be those that have at least three players that could be franchise players. The Bulls never had that. Jordan and Pippen both fit the bill, but guys like Rodman and Grant did not. Those guys would simply never be the #1 guy on a team. Arguably, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, since, for fit reasons, it may be as good or better to have two franchise-player type of guys and another guy that is a really good complementary piece, rather than having three franchise players. But that’s a discussion about whether the “superteam” model is the best way to go, which is a separate question. The Bulls were not a superteam, but their model of team building was still obviously very good.

Leaving aside the “superteam” question, I also think people need to really realize that the first-three-peat Bulls and second-three-peat Bulls did not have comparable supporting casts. The first-three-peat Bulls were basically just Jordan, Pippen, Grant, and a bunch of negative-impact guys. The second-three peat Bulls were Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, and also several genuinely positive-impact guys like Kukoc, Harper, and Kerr. As a result, the second-three-peat team was better than the first-three-peat team, even though Jordan himself wasn’t as good in the second-three-peat years and 1991-1993 Horace Grant was definitely better than 1996-1998 Dennis Rodman. The second-three-peat team was a genuinely deep team, while the first-three-peat team was much more top-heavy.

[OriginalRed]

They lost Michael Freaking Jordan in his prime for nothing and still managed to win 55 games.

You'd have a point if the only roster change was losing Jordan but it wasn't. They added several solid roleplayers including Kukoc (a future 6MOTY) and Kerr and got a much better Scottie Pippen year.

That 93-94 team had 3 all-stars that were all part of the 1st 3-peat. That's how good the supporting cast was on that first 3-peat.

No they most certainly did not. Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong were not stars. Making the all star team once in your entire career because your team won a bunch of games is no indicator of being a star. That's like saying Kyle Korver and Jeff Teague were star players cuz they made it once on that 60 win Atlanta team. Nobody in their right mind would call those guys star players. Pippen was the only true star Jordan had on his team during the 1st three peat, that's a fact.

Did you forgot the part about the Raptors trading back to back to back all-star DeMar DeRozan for Kawhi? Acting like they just got Kawhi for nothing a bit disingenuous, but ok.

Yes but your missing the point. Nobody was calling the 2019 Raptors a super team. Then they lose Kawhi the following year, add no one, and still managed to win 53 games in a shortened season. Did anyone call them a super team after that? No, that's my point. Just winning 50 or so games with a great coach and supporting cast doesn't automatically equate to being a super team. Ya'll throw around that term so easily nowadays.

[tsherkin]

I definitely consider the title Bulls a super team. And I think that people overfocus on this as a problem, because it's what is NECESSARY to contend for that long. It's impossible not to be a super team and still win like that.

[OriginalRed]

55 wins in 93-94

Are you joking? Winning 55 games is absolutely no indicator of a team being a "Super Team". They had just a really good coach and a solid supporting cast. That'd be like calling the 2019 Raptors a super team because they were able to win 59 games the year before Kawhi got there or that 60 win Atlata team a super team.

If you added Kawhi to the raptors without trading Derozan, you’d have a super team

Yes, but that wasn't the point I was making. I was more so referring to the number of games a team won. The Raptors won 53 games without Kawhi or Derozan in 2020 and yet nobody called the 2019 Raptors a super team is my point.

[durden_tyler]

He had the best supporting cast in the league in 1992+1996+1996. Whether that qualifies as a superteam I don’t know

Yup. You don’t know. Jordan was simply on another level that he elevated teammates because of his play/presence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can't tell if you are trolling

You are confusing me with LeBron nuthuggers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk