Replace Pippen to Michael Jordan on 2000 Portland blazers

[Soundwave]

97bulls --

Pippen isn't as good as Jordan.

That's not a knock on Pippen.

Even Scottie himself would be the first to admit he's not as good as Jordan.

Get over it already.

[97 bulls]

You have no idea what you're talking about once again.

The Blazers went into a slump after that late February game while LA went on a 19 game winning streak. But many did have the Blazers winning a title earlier in the season and they were widely considered the deepest and most talented team in the NBA. If you really want to argue that fact I can humiliate you very easily. It wouldn't have been a surprise if the Blazers had won the 2000 championship. That's for damn sure.

As far as the come back? Yeah, the role players did make some big plays, but Shaq and Kobe were the 2 biggest reasons for the comeback.



It's sad how a punk like you even tries arguing with me.

Rick Fox wasn't much of a factor on the 2000 team. He did play well on the 2001 and 2002 teams, and I've given him credit for that.

Brian Shaw? Pretty good defender and would occasionally throw those lobs to Shaq. Hit some big shots in that game 7, but on a game to game basis? He was not an impact player, and every team has a handful of players who are better than him."

Horry? A role player and a good team defender, solid passer, pretty good rebounder and a decent shooting threat(even though he didn't shoot particularly well that season, at least on 3s). I like Horry as a role player, but he's not a guy who you can really use to prop up a cast.

I give Ron Harper credit. He was arguably their 3rd most important player, particularly in the playoffs. But that tells you how unimpressive that team was outside Shaq and Kobe. Harper was a good role player, but shouldn't be your 3rd most important player. He was a good defender, made smart passes and knew the offense, but he wasn't a good shooter or offensive threat.

Glen Rice? Do I really need to pull up all of those quotes from Phil about Glen that season?

Where should I start regarding Rice in his 30's post-elbow surgery on the Lakers?

Hmmm, got benched late in some games for being a defensive liability, was a poor fit in the offense and was also benched at times for standing around when he didn't have the ball and completely disappeared for almost the entire playoffs.

He was the one 3 point shooter on that team that you had to respect, but even he only made one three per game. And the Lakers were one of the worst 3 point shooting teams in the league.

Glen was so important that the Lakers didn't even make him an offer after the season. Oh, and they missed him so much that they won 2 more titles without him.

The guy had declined A TON and was rapidly declining. Yet a clown like you is really going to claim he was as good as Steve Smith in 2000?

Get over it, the Lakers weren't that good outside of their duo. Do I need to show you the analysts praising Portland's depth and calling LA a 2 man team again?

Yes, they had a few solid role players, but 2 consistent scoring options. I might be able to call Rice one if not for the playoffs and his fast decline/poor fit in the offense.

I got news for you, role players like that aren't hard to find. Portland had a ton of different scoring options and almost always had a guy capable of exploiting a different mismatch.

Rice was an averaging starting small forward by 2000, nothing more. An average player who was a bad fit in the offense, and whose primary value to that particular team(being a capable 3 point shooter), is something every team has. How can you really hype that?

Rice avg 16 ppg in a little over 30 minutes in 99. You don't need to rehash the feud he had with phil jackson. Rice didn't like his role in the offense. He was relegated to being what was essentially a 3pt shooter. And he made it known he didn't like his role. And his moving on was a mutual break up. But he had a reputation for being a great scorer. And that reputation helped the lakers cuz teams didn't like to leave him. Which is why shaw and harper and horry were able to hit such big shots.

Id tend to agree with you as far as your break down on the rest of the team. But they were solid. They weren't 20 pt scorers, but with shaq and kobe, they didn't need to be. But they were great at doing what they were brought in to do. Play defense and hit open shots.

But as much as you want to disparage the lakers team, they were the favorite to win that series vs portland, and they had homecourt advantage. Winning 67 games. Portland had the depth, but the lakers were the better team.

[97 bulls]

97bulls --

Pippen isn't as good as Jordan.

That's not a knock on Pippen.

Even Scottie himself would be the first to admit he's not as good as Jordan.

Get over it already.

I never said he was. Maybe you should go back and reread my posts. I don't make threads trying prop pippen. But I sure aas hell am gonna set you guys straight when you start a bunch of nonsense.

[Da_Realist]

It's certainly legitimate to believe MJ would have killed Portland's chemistry with his heavy handed leadership on such a frail, quick-tempered and thin-skinned bunch of cry baby teammates but I think he would have made it work. Here's why...

1) Throughout his career, a team was never worse after MJ joined the team. Even those dreadful 19 win Wizards he joined at 50 years old after missing 6 years and playing through career threatening knee problems.

2) He loves a challenge...and the 2000 Lakers were as big as any. Shaq was the best player in the league, MJ Jr was coming into his prime and they were led by Phil Jackson himself. Nothing would have stroked MJ's competitive juices more than having the possibility of knocking off the Lakers.

3) He couldn't win without Pippen? Nobody was dumb enough to say that when he was in his prime but at age 36 there would have been some people throwing rocks at the throne. There would have been whispers about whether MJ could do it without Pippen and Phil Jackson. Yet another mental challenge he would have loved to overcome.

4) What better way to stick it to Jerry Krause and Jerry Reinsdorf than to win a title in Portland?

5) MJ Jr. The ultimate personal challenge. With the world watching. How could he get his team to win when the other team has a player so determined to replace him?

6) He's a winner. The Lakers were the golden team at that point. Portland had just enough talent to upset them and the world would have wanted to see if MJ could pull off one last miracle to end his career. He would have made it work.

Portland might have won or they might not have (you guys are forgetting that the Lakers would have been more focused with MJ on the other team and would have played better with fewer mental lapses)...but the bottom line is MJ wouldn't have fallen asleep at the wheel with a legitimate chance to win a title and answer so many questions to put a final bow on his career.

[Harison]

IMO even 40 yrs Jordan (healthy) instead of Pippen would had won with those Blazers.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Rice avg 16 ppg in a little over 30 minutes in 99. You don't need to rehash the feud he had with phil jackson. Rice didn't like his role in the offense. He was relegated to being what was essentially a 3pt shooter. And he made it known he didn't like his role. And his moving on was a mutual break up. But he had a reputation for being a great scorer. And that reputation helped the lakers cuz teams didn't like to leave him. Which is why shaw and harper and horry were able to hit such big shots.

I acknowledged that teams didn't want to leave him because he could obviously still hit open 3s, but how many good teams literally don't have at least one 3 point shooter who you didn't want to leave open?

My problem with Glen is that he didn't accept his role. That's always a problem when a role player won't accept his role. And at that stage of his career, Glen clearly should've been a role player. Certainly, 12/4/2, 41 FG% for the playoffs(and significantly worse after the 1st round) along with poor defense while being a poor fit and complaining about it makes my criticisms valid.

Id tend to agree with you as far as your break down on the rest of the team. But they were solid. They weren't 20 pt scorers, but with shaq and kobe, they didn't need to be. But they were great at doing what they were brought in to do. Play defense and hit open shots.

If you agree with my opinions of their games then don't accuse me of trying to diminish them. That really doesn't make sense if you agree with my assessments of those players. I do agree that most of them played defense and passed well, or at least Harper, Horry and Shaw.

As far as hit open shots? In general, that was a problem because 2 of their starters were guys who couldn't hit open shots consistently enough to make their man think twice about doubling Shaq or helping out on Kobe when he beat his man off the dribble. Granted, Harper brought positives to that team, but that was a flaw. Green was pretty much there for experience by that point.

But as much as you want to disparage the lakers team, they were the favorite to win that series vs portland, and they had homecourt advantage. Winning 67 games. Portland had the depth, but the lakers were the better team.

The Lakers winning 67 games is still a surprise to me, especially since they could've went for 69-13 if they wanted to. But it's one of the reasons why I can't believe Phil didn't win coach of the year.

The team starts off without Kobe for a month and ultimately goes 12-4 without him with one of the losses being a game that Shaq was suspended in. Which is not something you'd expect considering how many flaws they have on paper without Kobe and then there was no adjustment period when Kobe did return which is amazing for a team that had good chemistry and momentum. Then you consider that they had to learn the triangle offense, which they got better in as the season progressed and you consider all of that and 67 wins seems unlikely. They weren't a surprise championship team, they were always considered one of the teams with the best shot, but I expected more 55, maybe 60 wins at the most. And in hindsight, analyzing the season, I'd still say that's what seems more likely. It was talked about quite a bit that the Lakers had less talent than previous seasons.

I can't argue with them being the better team because they beat Portland, but Portland was more talented.

My word may not mean much, but I just had to look on the first page of a google news archive search to come up with these.

The Blazers have been almost universally stamped as the best, the deepest and the most talented team in the league.

- 10/31/99 St. Petersburg Times

The Trail Blazers are so good that Denver Nuggets veteran George McCloud said, "Their second team could make the playoffs." San Antonio Spurs Coach Gregg Popovich calls the Trail Blazers "the most talented team in the league," and Cleveland's Shawn Kemp added, "That team should be illegal."

- 2/18/00 Washington Post

We all know what the Portland Trail Blazers are. They went out and assembled one of the most talented, deepest, experienced teams ever put together and

The Portland Trail Blazers also have a 6-1 record but they bring much more than that to the Miami Arena. As Alonzo Mourning put it Monday: ``Across the board, they're probably the most talented team in the league.''

- 11/16/99 Palm Beach Post

They're called the most talented team in the league. The one that spent all that money. The one favored to win the NBA title.

11/6/99 Press-Telegram

[AlphaWolf24]

IMO even 40 yrs Jordan (healthy) instead of Pippen would had won with those Blazers.

Jordan stans proving how stupid of a fanbase they are......

one post at a time...