Bulls First 3 Peat vs Bulls Second 3 Peat

[1987_Lakers]

lol then you are probably the only person that feels that seattle wasnt dominated by chicago. and you dont factor wins like that. you cant factor in the 2 wins by seattle as wins for chicago. which is what your trying to do. now if the bulls won those four games by an average of 3 pts and seattle still won their 2 by 10 id agree. but thats not the case.

Oh, I see. You're trying to ignore Seattle's two victories and focus on the Bulls four wins. ok.

[97 bulls]

Oh, I see. You're trying to ignore Seattle's two victories and focusing on the Bulls four wins. ok.

no im not. but you cant combine them mathematically. to be honest, that chicago seattle series was terrible. only 1 game was close and in the 2 seattle wins, it seemed like the bulls were really disinterested sometimes.

[1987_Lakers]

no im not. but you cant combine them mathematically. to be honest, that chicago seattle series was terrible. only 1 game was close and in the 2 seattle wins, it seemed like the bulls were really disinterested sometimes.

Doesn't matter. Sonics won game four by 21 and game five by 11. Bulls won 3 games by blowouts. Sonics both victories were blowouts. And one game was pretty close in which the Bulls won. Put all these games together and it's not a "dominating" performance by the Bulls. So I don't understand why you say the Bulls dominated. I guess it's how one defines "dominance."

[97 bulls]

Doesn't matter. Sonics won game four by 21 and game five by 11. Bulls won 3 games by blowouts. Sonics both victories were blowouts. And one game was pretty close in which the Bulls won. Put all these games together and it's not a "dominating" performance by the Bulls. So I don't understand why you say the Bulls dominated. I guess it's how one defines "dominance."

i guess i look at it like this. the bulls doubled them in wins and i feel that after they won the first 3 games, they let up. some say it was because they wanted to win their championship in chicago. some say that seattle was never really competition for the bulls and chicago knew this. i agree with the later.

[AirJordan23]

Oh, I see. You're trying to ignore Seattle's two victories and focus on the Bulls four wins. ok.

Bulls did dominate in the games they won, however the series as a whole wasn't total domination. That had a lot to do with how MJ played, he was terrible from his standards in that series. His jumper wasn't falling and he was missing lay ups etc. I do give credit to Gary Payton for playing his heart out but MJ not having a good series had more to do with him not finding his touch than Payton's defense. Scottie, on the other hand, wasn't all that great either. He shot 35% from the field, but as he didn't find his shooting touch, his playmaking ability was there. Bulls never really performed the way they did against the Magic in the '96 ECF where they did DOMINATE. Won 4-0 and the series was never really a contest.

[1987_Lakers]

Bulls did dominate in the games they won, however the series as a whole wasn't total domination. That had a lot to do with how MJ played, he was terrible from his standards in that series. His jumper wasn't falling and he was missing lay ups etc. I do give credit to Gary Payton for playing his heart out but MJ not having a good series had more to do with him not finding his touch than Payton's defense. Scottie, on the other hand, wasn't all that great either. He shot 35% from the field, but as he didn't find his shooting touch, his playmaking ability was there. Bulls never really performed the way they did against the Magic in the '96 ECF where they did DOMINATE. Won 4-0 and the series was never really a contest.

Thank You. That's all I was trying to point out.

[Da_Realist]

Scottie Pippen thinks 96 Bulls better than 92 Bulls

[97 bulls]

Scottie Pippen thinks 96 Bulls better than 92 Bulls

My sentiments exactly. Pippen was better, so was the bench, I think rodman was an upgrade from grant due to the toughness he brought. And kukoc was essentially a 20 ppg scorer off the bench. And I honestly feel jordan was better too. Maybe not the athlete he was earlier. But the skills and especially the team play was alot higher, as well as the fact that he was still arguably the best athlete in the game.

[NugzHeat3]

Bumping this thread. Really nice read.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't MJ say the '93 Bulls were the best team out of the six championship teams?

You're right though this quote is from after they beat Seattle in 1996 so it doesn't include the next two championship teams.

Michael Jordan allowed that, of the teams he has played on, the third championship team was the best. But he said that "this team is the most amazing because I never played with Dennis (Rodman), I never played with (Luc) Longley and some of the others for a full year. For us to blend this sucessfully was truly amazing."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...ch-jack-ramsay

More on Jordan's perspective. This is also from 1996 but before they won the championship.

No comparison: While many comparisons are being drawn between the old Lakers and the Bulls, Michael Jordan was asked to compare this year's version of the Bulls with the three championship sqauds. "It's a different-type team than the championship teams," he said. "The championship teams were very confident when they stepped out on the court. With this team, there's confidence there, but there's still some uncertainty.
"When we won championships, it was with three teams that had been together for so long. Everyone knew certain roles that they could fulfill. But this team has always had to patch up holes, creating some uncertainty. That's the main difference."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...ers-nba-finals


Another really nice read on the matter.

The Best Of The Bulls
December 13, 1995|By Sam Smith, Tribune Pro Basketball Writer.

.....

After all, the Bulls--at least the Bulls of 1991-93--are known championship teams, which is what this Bulls team is trying to become.

As good? Better? Not even in the arena?

Let the debate begin.

"Well," says Pippen, trying to be diplomatic, "we were more youthful then, younger legs."

No Bulls team, not even the best one--the one that won a championship in 1992 after a 67-win season--has started off as successfully as this one, although that one was close at 15-3.

The Bulls are 16-2 going into Wednesday's game with Orlando, while the 1991 and 1993 championship teams both were 12-6 at this point.

But that doesn't mean much, because the last 15 or 20 games, assuming the team makes the Finals, are the ones that count the most.

Can this team reach the Finals? On talent, the possibility seems there with Michael Jordan, Dennis Rodman and Pippen all being past All-Stars and perhaps first-team All-NBA players this season. But there are weaknesses, notably the players' unfamiliarity with one another, the loss of defensive guru John Bach, the uncertainty of how Jordan will perform in the playoffs after his play last season and the lack of a definitive rotation.

Because optimism about this Bulls team is so high, perhaps it's best to compare it to the best, the 1992 championship team that ripped through the regular season, stumbled briefly against the Knicks in the second round of the playoffs but then rallied for that inspiring Game 6 victory to reach the Finals against Portland.

It was a team that exhibited the best of Jordan, both as dominant force and as unselfish a teammate as he ever was, thus allowing both Horace Grant and Scottie Pippen to average more points that season than in any other they played with Jordan.

That team also had Bill Cartwright in his last relatively healthy season, B.J. Armstrong pushing hard for the starting job, with John Paxson still solid and with big front-line backups in Will Perdue, Scott Williams, Cliff Levingston and Stacey King.

"Those teams were bigger physically inside," said coach Phil Jackson. "Williams, King and Perdue could all play center and power forward, and Horace could also play small forward. Opposing teams couldn't match the power we could throw at them. That team got more out of its defense and the power of Michael to make individual plays."

Jordan still can make those plays, but not on as regular a basis.
"In his early years, when we first won the championships," noted Bulls assistant Tex Winter, "Michael had more interest in making the spectacular plays, the sensational drives to the basket, getting himself in uncompromising positions and bailing himself out, like a high trapeze artist.

"Now he's a little different. He's learned to conserve a lot of energy and settle for the outside shot, which has allowed him to develop a tremendous outside shot. We're posting him more as opposed to him taking people on the drive. But he's still got that same competitive spirit and desire to win and willingness to take the big plays on his shoulder in crucial times."

But Jordan still has to show, especially after the 1995 playoffs, he has the ability to finish big games like he used to in 1992. Pippen, meanwhile, has surpassed that level. Pippen had his first breakthrough year in 1992, averaging 21 points, 7.7 rebounds and 7.0 assists. But he's so much more confident and comfortable now that he's even more frightening.

"There's at least a standoff at shooting guard and small forward between then and now," said Paxson.

One of the principal differences will be on display Wednesday when Rodman plays against Grant. Even with Rodman, the Bulls still will have to figure out how to double-team Shaquille O'Neal and guard everyone else come playoff time.

Rodman probably neutralizes Grant, rebounding more and scoring less, but Rodman at 34 isn't the great one-on-one defender anymore, and Grant was pivotal in the Bulls' switching defensive patterns.

And without Bach, the defense naturally suffers. It's not unlike when Buddy Ryan left the Bears: The defensive statistics were similar, but the fire and aggressiveness were never there again.

Although Cartwright averaged about eight points in 1992, his presence inside was indisputable.

And, having Jordan chase point guards around remains a poor option, and Ron Harper doesn't complement Jordan's ability to draw double teams the way Paxson and Armstrong--and Craig Hodges--did with their outside and long-distance shooting.

There's more firepower off the bench (Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Bill Wennington) but lots of inexperience, too (Dickey Simpkins and Jason Caffey).

No, this Bulls team wouldn't beat the 1992 version. But no one else did, either. This team just has to be good enough to beat everyone else now, which is not as much of a test in an expansion era than it was four years ago.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...pippen-playing

[NumberSix]

1st 3peat Jordan was better. 2nd 3peat TEAM was better.

[NugzHeat3]

These two articles are from a Chicago Tribune writer claiming the 1992 team was the best.

Best Bulls Team Ever? A Vote For The '92 Squad


June 30, 1996|By Melissa Isaacson.

Is it safe to come out yet? Safe to suggest what surely amounts to blasphemy in these parts? Two weeks would seem to be enough time and space between the greatest feat in the all-time history of the sports world and beyond, and a simple observation.

But then, only hate mail will tell.

Really, it's just a reminder that as the 1996 world champion Bulls are committed to the archives, it's worth another look back.

The images aren't quite grainy yet, although they do have a certain nostalgic quality, which is a little scary since we're still talking about this decade. Nevertheless, the "old" Bulls championship teams, already in danger of being forgotten, are not merely deserving of our attention but of a secure place in our memories as well.

Before John Paxson must spell his name for a restaurant reservation, let us never forget the greatest Bulls team ever, the one that won their second straight title in 1992.

The first championship had given those Bulls their arrogance, that veil of invincibility that every great team possesses. It also painted them for the first time as a target, and their veneer that season was every bit as tough as the '96 group, which intimidated many teams by their very presence.

Like the current team, the '92 Bulls seemingly secured each victory by halftime. There was a cohesion and fluidity we have not seen since.

In transition, there were no better, no more powerful closers in Bulls uniforms. And the originators of Johnny Bach's "Doberman Defense" were every bit as lethal as the quick-pick artists of today.

All of that, however, can be debated forever. The shame of it would be if, in the frenzy of enthusiasm over the current champs, the "old" ones were overlooked.

If in watching Michael Jordan today and appreciating the total team player he has become, we somehow forgot the bravado of that cocky 29-year-old, who took on every challenge as his own and always stood up to it.

Always remember the player who hit a record six first-half three-pointers in Game 1 of the NBA Finals, then shrugged as if to say even he did not know where it was coming from.

Remember a lean, strong and healthy Scottie Pippen, who could make his 26-year-old legs go wherever they wanted, when sprained ankles were his biggest concern and seemed a rather harmless one.

Remember Horace Grant as he was in his happiest days as a Bull, when accepting his role was carried out with a certain joy that showed in his all-out pursuits in the team's full-court press; when his few offensive opportunities, like a fast-break slam, were expressed in unbridled power.

Remember the stoicism of Bill Cartwright, the last Bull since Jordan to get away with staring down an official, who in that '92 season roamed the Stadium lanes like a jungle cat.

And Paxson, who threw his battered body around like no one since Jerry Sloan and who probably still owns the sweetest jumper going.

Those Bulls had a bench too easy to forget. But it was only for the scoring ability of B.J. Armstrong, the three-point punch of Craig Hodges, the grit of Scott Williams, the infectious enthusiasm of Cliff Levingston, the durability of Will Perdue and the hunger of Bobby Hansen, who ignited the title-clinching rally, that ensured a second straight championship.

It's too easy to forget the magic of a building leveled for a parking lot. Opponents hated the dank, tiny dressing room, complained about the cold showers and rodents, and feared what the place represented in those years.

The '96 Bulls tried halfheartedly to re-create the scoring-table line dance of '92, the spontaneous on-court party that erupted when the team was beckoned back to the floor long after they had left. But you can't go back. You can only remember.

And it would be a shame if we didn't.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...pen-jungle-cat

Fans Affixing Best-ever Label To Wrong Bulls

January 14, 1996|By Melissa Isaacson.

Time always has a funny way of altering our perceptions. The good times were great, the not-so-good times awful. That brief walk to school was a 5-mile hike and our favorite sports teams become the greatest of all time.
But somehow that cycle has been reversed with the current Bulls.

Forget the championship teams of the past, even the 1991-92 team, a nucleus of athletes in the prime of splendid careers dominating a league that wanted nothing more each night than to put them in their place.

No, this team, right now, picking its way past the refuse of the present NBA with no clear challenge in sight except the standings, which shows only the Orlando Magic sticking close, has to be the greatest NBA team ever. Look at the record, after all. So what if they have yet to reach even the halfway point of the season?

Can they win 70 games? Forget 70; can they win 79? It's conceivable, you know.

The screwy part is that maybe they will. You look at the schedule and see too many Raptors and Grizzlies and Sixers and Bucks. Too many teams struggling to stay at .500 and happy to be there. But compare these Bulls to the '91-92 edition, indeed one of the greatest NBA teams and surely the greatest Bulls team of all time.

It is as much an insult to that team as it is inaccurate to even try.

"We had more balance and bigger bodies in the post," said Bulls coach Phil Jackson of his second championship team.

Much like this year's team, that team had a tendency, especially early in the season as it was finding its identity and was without Bill Cartwright and John Paxson because of injuries, to toy with opponents. But more often than not, victories were a foregone conclusion by halftime, 18-2 starts a common occurrence. Defense was more pressure-oriented and more intimidating, and as a result, led to many more easy baskets.

Paxson was a tireless and much underrated one-on-one defender, not as quick to make steals but every bit the defensive presence Ron Harper is, and an obviously better shooter.

Few big men were ever asked to do more defensively or covered the court more effectively than Horace Grant, and Cartwright was ever the immovable force in the lane if somehow the press was broken. By comparison, Dennis Rodman, though a tremendous defender in his prime and surely still capable, seems more willing to wander now, intent to secure rebounding position. And Luc Longley, who will never get the benefit of the doubt from officials the way Cartwright did, can't afford to knock anyone down, even if so inclined.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...-brown-defense

Jordan compares the 1993 team to the 1998 team and again mentions how the earlier team spent more time together making it more reliable.

Facing the Jazz again this season, the Bulls see similarities to their matchup against the Suns. They are shooting for a third straight championship, they are without home-court advantage and they are facing a talented opponent. There are contrasts, too.

"The '93 team was totally different. We had a team together seven or eight years," Jordan said.
"We went basically from bottom and got to the top. This team is built on three specialties (Jordan, Pippen and Rodman) and everyone else complements that. We haven't been together as long but yet we've had this much success," he said.

"This is different. The reliability is not quite the same, although it's good now. You can't compare it to the '93 team."

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories...h_230175.shtml

[Da_Realist]

Great finds, NugzHeat

[eliteballer]

I used to think the 92 team was the best, but the 2nd threepeat teams were deeper and seemed to execute better. Jordan was better in the 1st threepeat(thought not THAT much better than the 96 version) but Pippen was better in the 2nd threepeat.

[JohnnySic]

The first 3 peat ahd to go through tougher competition; '91 Lakers, Bad Boy Pistons, '93 Suns, Knicks, etc. The league was watered down by the time of the 2nd 3-peat. But the team was more complete.

[ThaRegul8r]

Jordan himself said the first three-peat Bulls were better than the second three-peat Bulls. People saying otherwise are trying to revise history. I watched basketball as it was happening, and I know what was being said.