<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Dre:</div><div class="quote_post">LOL The Mike after baseball was almost unguardable. If you ever watched a single Bulls game from 96 - 98 you would know this. Kobe is a good defender but he would NOT be able to stop the version of Michael Jordan.</div> So the Mike before baseball was guardable? To me, I agree with Charles saying that Michael was better before he retired the 1st time and came back. Regardless of the Bulls winning 72 games, as an individual player MJ was better before he retired the 1st time IMO. Just like Charles was saying that he was better when he was in Philadephia as an individual player before coming to Phoenix. It's just that his team was better, and Mike's team was already great, it just happened to be alot better with Rodman in the lineup as well.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting 30 standing ver:</div><div class="quote_post">So the Mike before baseball was guardable? To me, I agree with Charles saying that Michael was better before he retired the 1st time and came back. Regardless of the Bulls winning 72 games, as an individual player MJ was better before he retired the 1st time IMO. Just like Charles was saying that he was better when he was in Philadephia as an individual player before coming to Phoenix. It's just that his team was better, and Mike's team was already great, it just happened to be alot better with Rodman in the lineup as well.</div> I strongly disagree. Mike lost a little athleticism when he returned,but he made up for it with a stronger appreciation for the game,a stronger mind for the game and the wicked fadeaway which no-one could stop. He was more of a leader the second time around and even tho' he had lost of step he could/would drive on anyone. He was much stronger in his second career with the Bulls and his post game was on another level compared to what it was. He was alot better the second time around on many levels.
as MJ says in the Gatorade commercial "You Reach, I Teach" he may have lost a step or two but he more than made up for it with his basketball intelligence
I think the 99 Spurs would've had more chance against the '96-'98 Bulls... Altough those Laker teams were better than the Spurs, San Antonio had Duncan AND Robinson... As much as I like Rodman I don't think he could defend those two... True, Chicago would be much better on the perimeter, but hell, Duncan & Robinson would dominate the middle... On rebounds D-Rob& Timmy against Rodman just ain't fair... He would get little help from Luc Longley or Bill Wennington... I think that Spurs team would have a good chance against the Bulls... Just my 2cents...
The '98 Bulls seemed relatively vulnerable to me. They had to go 7 games against an opponent (Indiana) for the first time in however many years, and failed to win a single one at Market Square Arena. You could tell Jordan was wearing down that year more so than in the past due to Scottie Pippen's injury during that regular season, and they hadn't lost a Game 1 of the Finals since 1991. I think the '01 Lakers could very well have beaten them if they had homecourt.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Zen:</div><div class="quote_post">why not the 72-10 bulls instead? </div> Ya know, your right. That Bulls team would pull it off in 6, the 98 team in 7 just barely though. MJ and Pip was a bit younger then, this would've been the ultimate finals to determine who really was dominate during their era's.
Michael Jordan was always better than any type of Kobe, especially the Kobe at it's best. He would literally dominate more than Shaq would, which would result in the series ending in the Bull's favour in 6 games.
Bulls in 6 >The Laker's have to much talent to just win one game and would probably make it close in a few other's but MJ would have his way, he was to SMART for anyone the Lakers have. Remember that Rodman guarded Shaq when he was an arguably better player (more mobile but not as seasoned). The triangle was a better fit for the Bull's anyway.
