1994: MJ Never Left.... Rockets vs. Bulls... (Who Wins?)

[shatterkneesinc]

I know jordan is the goat
but cmon hakeem is the goat center
its the goat 2 vs goat 5
it could have gone either way but the way dream was playing those 2 years, abusing all time great centers with relative ease
you can tell akeem was a man on a mission
some you either never watched hakeem played to really know how godly he was during those 2 years

 

[mister friendly]

Originally Posted by AntBanks81

Yes sir MrFriendly I am...everyone who watched basketball back then knew the championship road went through Chicago

Yeah they may have won in 1999 but past that is very unlikely. Jordan would've turned 37,Pippen would;ve turned 34, Rodman would've turned 39 during 99-00 season. Without any infusion of youth on those Chicago Bull rosters, its highly unlikely they would've done much past 1999.

 

[cedric ceballos 1995 lakers]

Originally Posted by Do Be Doo

Originally Posted by Mister Friendly

AntBanks81 wrote:

---

all yall laughing and throwing stonefaces at my comment need to sit down and think....

'99 was a lockout shortened year..The Bulls were a veteran team that woulda thrived with a shorter season. They woulda beat the Spurs...be silly if you want to and say they wouldn't

'00-'02 Phil would not have been in LA to mesh that teat team together.

Bulls coulda/woulda won the next 4 as I said

STONEFACE YOURSELF

Are you saying the Bulls could've won the championship 99-02?????

The only thing Phil Jackson going to the Lakers prevented is the Spurs from having 6 championships by now.

word

NO TEAM was going to stop the Spurs in 99

In 2004 and 2008 the Spurs would have won the Chips thoses year.


How you got four hall of famers on a team and not win it all in 04 

 BUMS...

But that's for another time tho...

 
without phil going to the lakers the spurs defenitly get more titles for sure.

2004 ill give you,   hell maybe even 01 or 02,   2006 shoulda been the spurs year as well, if dirk doesn't hit that 3 point play to send game 7 against dallas to overtime san antonio wins the series and no way in hell do they have an epic choke job in the finals against miami even with the heat getting the d whistle treatment.

no way were the spurs winning in 2008 though.  that hornets 2nd round series wore them out and if they got to the finals boston woulda beat them imo.

 

[illfrozn]

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

1. Yes, regular season results do matter, but let's be for real, teams can struggle in the regular season and turn it on in the playoffs. Much like the 94/95 Rockets being the sixth seed. So, just because the Rockets beat the Bulls throughout the regular season, how can we instantly say that that will transpire to the playoffs?

First you say that playoffs are different from the regular season, then you pretty much explain which of the two teams benefits more from this argument (not the Bulls). If there's any team in history that lifted their performance in the playoffs as opposed to the regular season, it was those Rockets.. AND they beat the Bulls in the regular season as well.

2. In the Finals before MJ's retirement, he averaged 41 points per game. Think about how ridiculous that is. Olajuwon was not dropping that many points per game.


He wasn't dropping that many points per game, but he filled the stat sheet like no other player, two quadruple doubles, multiple 5 x 5 games.. And he always lifted his game in the playoffs. Hakeem averaged around 32-33 points in the three series combined where he played against Ewing, Robinson and Shaq. If he did this against those three, then averaging 41 points against the Bulls who had NO answer for him whatsoever doesn't seem like a complete fantasy.
1. My point is just that we can't weigh the regular season so much. The Rockets, for example, proved how important (not very) it really is when evaluating a team's potential for success in the playoffs.
2. The Finals in 93, not the first three-peat. It's mind-blowing to think of someone averaging that much per game in the playoffs, let alone the Finals. Hakeem couldn't dream of doing that ...

 

[tecnoman23]

Dude Hakeem was a beast.. that’s all there is to it. I am a Houstonian and remember watching the Rockets growing up. I knew Hakeem was great, but I never realized how great he was until I watched replays on NBA tv. He would kill other centers, he was an under size center that couldn’t be stopped. You can say Jordan was the best ever, but Hakeem was no punk and not far behind.

And I have faith that Mad Max would have done a great job (as great as can be expected) against Jordan.

Rockets in 6

 

[big sippin spendin cheese]

hakeem is overated. he's probably the best center from the 90's.

but he's not on mj's level.

he was done by the time mj was doin his second three-peat.

mj was a step above all these guys in the 90's

hakeem,malone,barkley,drexler,etc.

he did whatever it took to win a big game,offense,defense or anything in between.




and had any knick player besides ewing scored some points in game 7 they wouldnt have won that first title and all this talk would be irrelevant.




and that 94 knicks team was not better than that 92 knicks team

92 was a monster,had it not been for the all-time great chicago bulls, they would have won the chamionship

92 team was 2 deep at every position wit a few players to spare

 

[tecnoman23]

Originally Posted by BIG SIPPIN SPENDIN CHEESE

hakeem is overated. he's probably the best center from the 90's.

but he's not on mj's level.

Ur face is overrated... Hakeem is/was one of the best NBA player of all time. he wasn't a traditional to post-up type of center, but he certainly wasn't overrated, if anything he was underrated. People don't give him the recognition he deserves.


2× NBA champion (1994, '95)

2× NBA Finals MVP (1994, '95)

1× NBA MVP (1994)

2× Defensive Player of Year (1993, '94)

6× All-NBA First Team (1987, '88, '89,'93, '94, '97)

3× All-NBA Second Team ('86, '90, '96)

3× All-NBA Third Team (1991, '95, '99)

5× All-Defensive First Team ('87, '88,'90, '93, '94)

12× All-Star

Olympic gold medalist (1996)

One of the 4 players in NBA history to have ever recorded a quadruple-double.[sup][5][/sup]

Olajuwon ranks 8th all-time in steals and is the highestranked center

Most blocked shots,  3,830-Hakeem Olajuwon, Houston,

Not over rated

 

[hannsum]

LOL. one weakness of MJ is his assumption or that matter.

MJ isn't good at comparing and analyzing. See Kwame Brown, Darius Miles...

I don't take MJ seriously whether he thinks the Rockets would beat the Bulls or not.

Hakeem is good but MJ is MJ.

If rockets couldn't pass Utah Jazz, don't even bother beating the Bulls in 7.

 

[Retroballer]

hakeem is better than just Good

 

[xtapolapacetl]

1. My point is just that we can't weigh the regular season so much. The Rockets, for example, proved how important (not very) it really is when evaluating a team's potential for success in the playoffs.


Are you listening to yourself? You're arguing against the Rockets while simultaneously using those very same Rockets as an example to prove the argument you're trying to prove. Why don't you use the Bulls? Because you can't. The Bulls always had a great regular season to go along with their championships. You can't point out to an example where the Bulls themselves can support your argument.

The 94-95 Rockets had the best playoff success to regular season success ratio in league history.

They didn't have home court advantages in any of their 4 playoff series.
The four teams they beat in the playoffs had the four best records in the league.
Bottom line = Lowest seed champion ever.

So explain to me how you can use this argument in favor of the Bulls when it's clearly the Rockets that benefit most from the argument that the regular season and playoffs are different. The Rockets are the ones who have proven that they could win it all despite having a mediocre regular season while the Bulls never had a bad regular season in their 6 championships. So once again, please explain to me how the "playoffs are a different story" angle works in favor of the Bulls when it clearly works more in favor of the Rockets?

hakeem is overated. he's probably the best center from the 90's.

but he's not on mj's level.


LOL. He's overrated, but even you admit that he's probably (really though, there's no "probably" about it) the best center in the best era for centers in NBA history. So how can he be overrated when he dominated an era that was as stacked when it came to centers and big men in general as the 90s.

Hakeem isn't overrated. He's underrated. He's ALWAYS mentioned as being behind Wilt/Kareem/Russell/Shaq when people discuss all-time greatest centers, and some even put Moses Malone above him. But really, taking both ends of the court into consideration, Hakeem Olajuwon is the most complete center of all time with fewest weaknesses.

 

[big sippin spendin cheese]

lol i told myself i wasnt gonna argue on here, so im always one and done in posts.

so whoever goes after me wins by default.

 

[blackmambakb24]

bulls in 6!

 

[big sippin spendin cheese]

this is absolutely my last post in this thread.


i'm not saying he wasnt great,but so was malone and barkley,and isiah thomas,and a buncha other guys from that era.

malone,barkley,and isiah are always in the top 5 discussion for they respective positions. so to say hakeems on their level isnt a diss.

i gave him props in my post

i said he was probably the best center in the 90's

thats a huge compliment,because the 90's was the best era for centers.



i'm just sayin he's overrated when it comes to MJ.

he's not on MJ's level.

he's on that tier below MJ



i'd actually say he's 2 tiers below

1st tier.  MJ by himself

2nd tier.  magic and bird

3rd tier.  hakeem,malone,barkley,isiah and anyone else u wanna throw in from the 80's-90's era



the reason why i put magic and bird above the third tier guys is because they would find ways for their teams to win on the biggest stages.

these other guys did it too,but not like magic and bird.

and then you got MJ who was even greater than magic and bird.

so thats why i got hakeem two notches below jordan.


i just think that just like anybody else from that era if he woulda met MJ in a playoff series MJ woulda out performed him.


matter of fact i'd like somebody to pull up some stats and show me anybody who you can argue dominated MJ in a series.

and I know if MJ's team didnt win said series i can guarantee he put up the best stats of anybody in that series




so yea hakeem wouldnt be the dude to outplay MJ

 

[hannsum]

^LOL. We all know the level of greatness. don't need to repeat.

I know what you're trying to say but that tier thing doesn't work when it comes to a 7 game series. you act like this is some type of 1 on 1 match up.

you sound very young as well... def not clever with your analysis.

 

[hannsum]

^LOL. We all know the level of greatness. don't need to repeat.

I know what you're trying to say but that tier thing doesn't work when it comes to a 7 game series. you act like this is some type of 1 on 1 match up.

you sound very young as well... def not clever with your analysis.

 

[illfrozn]

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

1. My point is just that we can't weigh the regular season so much. The Rockets, for example, proved how important (not very) it really is when evaluating a team's potential for success in the playoffs.

Are you listening to yourself? You're arguing against the Rockets while simultaneously using those very same Rockets as an example to prove the argument you're trying to prove. Why don't you use the Bulls? Because you can't. The Bulls always had a great regular season to go along with their championships. You can't point out to an example where the Bulls themselves can support your argument.

The 94-95 Rockets had the best playoff success to regular season success ratio in league history.

They didn't have home court advantages in any of their 4 playoff series.
The four teams they beat in the playoffs had the four best records in the league.
Bottom line = Lowest seed champion ever.

So explain to me how you can use this argument in favor of the Bulls when it's clearly the Rockets that benefit most from the argument that the regular season and playoffs are different. The Rockets are the ones who have proven that they could win it all despite having a mediocre regular season while the Bulls never had a bad regular season in their 6 championships. So once again, please explain to me how the "playoffs are a different story" angle works in favor of the Bulls when it clearly works more in favor of the Rockets?

*Sigh.*

Ok ...

 

[bittersweet]

Originally Posted by Mister Friendly

Originally Posted by bittersweet

Originally Posted by CP1708

I think people really need to look into reality. 

Agreed that MJ was a freak in the finals and when that spotlight turned on. 

However, listen to some of you guys.  Woulda won in both 94 AND 95. 

You guys gon sit here and tell me that a team was gonna go out and win THIRTY TWO CONSECUTIVE PLAYOFF SERIES IN A DAMN ROW??????? 

They were going to play 8 straight years on less then 3 months rest, while most other teams in the league got anywhere from 4-5 EACH YEAR. 

Could the Bulls have gotten to 4 straight?  Sure, they could have.  Stretch it to 5?  Eh, maybe, but the chances would have gone down real fast, REAL fast. 

Bottom line is, the Bulls NEEDED that break.  No team is ever going to 8 straight finals, much less win all of em.  Not in the current state of the NBA.  Bqack in the 1 series a year era, yeah the Celts did it, but not when you have to play 4 series a year.  Not happening, ever, not in our lifetimes.  Bron, Wade, Bosh, and Amare could all sign with the Durant and theThunder and it still wouldn't happen. 

They could have done it, if they did it 3 years, then he retired, came back and won three more what does that tell you?

Bulls could have won those years he retired, then in '99. Easy.

This man is saying they wouldve won 9 straight championships.

If they won three championships, the man retired, then they won 3 more, what does that tell you?

Then '99 was the lockout year. 50 game season for a team that just won a championship.

If the dumb %#% Bulls management wouldn't have disbanded the Bulls, and MJ wouldn't have "retired", they could have 8, easy.

 

[queensfinest2002]

Bulls in 6 imo.

 

[memphisboi55]

rockets

 

[shatterkneesinc]

forget to mention
hakeem is the greatest defensive player in the history of the nba
no one can argue against that, its a fact
Jordan is the greatest basketball player ever to exist but Hakeem is no slouch
per position they are in the same tier, greatest 2 vs greatest 5
jordan can score better than dream but dream can D better than jordan
I know this is NT where everyone is a jordan fan but cmon give keem some credit
he is the most complete player I have ever seen played

 

[cedric ceballos 1995 lakers]

Originally Posted by bittersweet

Originally Posted by Mister Friendly

Originally Posted by bittersweet

Originally Posted by CP1708

I think people really need to look into reality. 

Agreed that MJ was a freak in the finals and when that spotlight turned on. 

However, listen to some of you guys.  Woulda won in both 94 AND 95. 

You guys gon sit here and tell me that a team was gonna go out and win THIRTY TWO CONSECUTIVE PLAYOFF SERIES IN A DAMN ROW??????? 

They were going to play 8 straight years on less then 3 months rest, while most other teams in the league got anywhere from 4-5 EACH YEAR. 

Could the Bulls have gotten to 4 straight?  Sure, they could have.  Stretch it to 5?  Eh, maybe, but the chances would have gone down real fast, REAL fast. 

Bottom line is, the Bulls NEEDED that break.  No team is ever going to 8 straight finals, much less win all of em.  Not in the current state of the NBA.  Bqack in the 1 series a year era, yeah the Celts did it, but not when you have to play 4 series a year.  Not happening, ever, not in our lifetimes.  Bron, Wade, Bosh, and Amare could all sign with the Durant and theThunder and it still wouldn't happen. 

They could have done it, if they did it 3 years, then he retired, came back and won three more what does that tell you?

Bulls could have won those years he retired, then in '99. Easy.

This man is saying they wouldve won 9 straight championships.

If they won three championships, the man retired, then they won 3 more, what does that tell you?

Then '99 was the lockout year. 50 game season for a team that just won a championship.

If the dumb %#% Bulls management wouldn't have disbanded the Bulls, and MJ wouldn't have "retired", they could have 8, easy.

phil coulda coached every single championship team in a row from 1991-04 or 05   had the bulls kept the team together to make another run in 1999  and then break the team up,  and if kobe and shaq didn't have their problems and were 100% focused, you can argue the Lakers win every title from 2000-04 or possibly even 05

 

[hella handsome]

Originally Posted by BIG SIPPIN SPENDIN CHEESE

hakeem is overated. he's probably the best center from the 90's.

that doesn't even make sense. MJ and Hakeem are two different players... Hakeem can't control the game like MJ does... thats not his position. Mike could bring the ball down and set the pace of the game. Hakeem had to rely of the guards to do it. thats like comparing Shaq to Lebron... its an invalid argument... 
and MJ greater than Magic? some of you guys make MJ sound like he could take any team and turn them into the Chicago bulls. MJ wouldn't be who he was without his team and his coach. yes, his drive and his hunger for the game made him great, but he wouldnt have been anything without Pippen and the rest of his supporting cast.  

 If my memory serves me correctly, Magic has 5 rings and a team that was far more superior than half the teams in the 90's. Jordan didn't win 6 rings, the BULLS won 6 rings. stop making him out to be invincible. he CAN lose... 

MJ and the Bulls were Magic and the Lakers "Showtime" 2.0. Just new and improved. They had no krypotnite though... Magic had Bird, there was nobody on MJ's level in the 90's. 

and even still after all that rambling I jsut did, i still feel as if the BULLS can take it. Mike is sitll the GOAT in my eyes, but some of you make me 

 with the pedestal you put MJ on by himself... 

 

[nycknicks105]

Bulls in 6

 

[hannsum]

well phil said bulls would've won 9 champs.

phil > you...no?

 

[antbanks81]

Lets not get into bashing Hakeem, he is a hall of famer....but he would not have two championship rings if MJ had not chose to chase fly balls. Mike blocked many a player from the Larry O'Brien. ANd to the person who said the Spurs were a lock in '99. PLease go review the Bulls second 3peat run. The Bulls were getting older but all of the core players played through '03. Mike retired and came back, Pip contributed to the Rockets and Blazers and Rodman played a few more years as well.

Its really that simple, The Bulls were not going to lose, Mike wasn't having that. Phil woulda figured something out to slow down Hakeem.

Even though there is no way it could ever be proven, I believe the Bulls coulda won nine straight. I mean Mike actually got bored with winning the first 3peat (along with losing his father playing a part)