86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

[jjsmity]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

Maxwell was 6-8 and he could handle like a guard. That is serious versatility that the 86 team doesn't have.


Bird is entitled to his opinion but great players are not always the greatest judges of personnel.


Jerry Sichting? Granted, an excellent shooter but he couldn't defend or handle. I like Quinn Buckner better. A terrific physical defender. And I like Ainge coming off the bench more than I like him as a starter.
Bill Walton had an excellent year though, no argument from me.


Houston was a tough matchup for Los Angeles. Akeem made Kareem come out to guard him by the foul line and baseline. Ralph Sampson was too big for the Lakers to deal with. Some of their other guys played the series of their lives. It was more of a confluence of factors coming together than it was a great team.


Robert Parish had great length, but his lateral movement was slow. He wasn't particularly strong either. Bird couldn't roam against that Bulls triangle because of all the movement and unpredictability of that offense.


I agree again that Walton had an excellent year off the bench. Scott Wedman was a lockdown defender and a dead-eye shooter.


Tony Kukoc was 6-10 and could handle like a guard. Extremely versatile. True, an awful defender.
Steve Kerr was a tad better on defense than Sichting.
Don't be so quick to dismiss Wennington. He was a big guy who could nail jumpers.


Longley was 320 pounds and would make Parish shoot his jumpers under pressure. Plus, Parish choked in the clutch and wasn't trusted with the ball in the endgame. McHale versus Rodman would be a heck of a battle. Bird would have to work hard against Pippen but would do what he had to do.


Walton didn't really have to be stopped per se since he wasn't a dreadnaught scorer. He was a great team player who looked for the pass and made excellent defensive rotations. He would get putbacks and drop off passes to score.


Jordan would be making off ball cuts in the triangle and would be getting the ball in unpredictable places. In 86, he was just getting the ball up top and going one on one. The Bulls would play excellent defense and score on the run. No Celtic would be able to deal with the offense of Kukoc. The execution of the triangle would produce open shots.


Rebounding? Jordan and Pippen were serious board men. The triangle provides naturally good offensive rebounding position too.


The Celtics were excellent passers but they would be doing so under heavy pressure. Guys have to shake loose to receive passes and I don't see it happening against that swarming defense.

maxwell
yes good player, mchale in 86 much better, he took his place.


86 more versatile and Depp. please read my op under versatility.


its not just bird, its kc,mchale,red, and the others.


Sichting could shoot lights out, rugged defender ask [isiah thomas] could pass. Buckner was out of shape did not fit well in team. I think the move with ainge to starting was great, he fit in with his hustle and outside shooting so well, he added size compared to henderson, so johnson know got bigger at point. Ainge if future all star, he needs to start.



I agree boston did matchup better with there size. It was in part of the two towers and LA not being able to stop them, but the better team. Houston was playing well in playoffs though and akeem was insane. During the regular season houston was 1-4 against LA, playoofs 4-1. That is why I say they peaked at that time, olajuwan was playing great, they were a better team in the playoffs than regular season or their record showed..




I almost think it would help bird, the passing in it fits him to pick the passes off, none read the game better than bird, he was a step ahead of the other teams plays. he did not get steals and turnovers from being fast, but reading the game.


“Everybody just thinks that Larry Bird was this slow guy from French Lick... this was the smartest guy in the world of basketball! He was the quickest guy in the world of basketball because quickness is all about anticipation and being to the ball first, and he knew what was going to happen before anybody else did because he thought more about it, he thought better about it, he thought quicker about it and he dreamed the game. He knew what was going on in everybody's mind. He knew what was going on not only in his own mind, but in all his teammates' minds, he knew what was going on in the coach's mind, he knew what was going on in the referee's mind, he knew what was going on in the other team's mind. He would just keep thinking and thinking and the more he thought, the better he got.”
Bill walton nba at 50




kerr, he never won any award, averaged .8 steals and had a total of 0 blocks that year. From what i rember he was a liability. Sichting was a tough guy that would give and take a hit [watch 86 finals fight with 7'4 sampson] and was amazing at staying in front of his man. Isiah was great at tacking to basket, the c's i remember put Sichting instead of DJ on him in clutch end of game one time, because he could stay in front so well. I count those two as even trade off.



longley 265

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/longllu01.html

never any kind of defensive award or stat. Size is not everything [ I swear my wife told me so lol] He could fight for position to maybe keep parish away, but not much after that, he could not guard the many pick and rools parish did, or keep up with him up and down the court. Cheifs spin move and pump fakes would get him. Also parish had the high release on jummper, and walton called him best shoting center ever. Parish played well against kareem [above scoring average] one of the all time greats, what is longley going to do?.



one thing i see with mchale/rodman is foul trouble on rodman, rodman was 34 and only played 32 min a game, who would rebound when hes out?


I agree with walton, but given he would be faced with wennigton, the c's would use that and go to him.



I would say yes jordan would of course get his, kukoc would cause problems and extend the d, most likely he has wedman on him a good defender but only 6'7. But its not like the ball movement of the c's would not cause problems.


jordan would be against DJ, another good rebounded in playoffs in 96 and 86 4.9 jordan 4.2 johnson. Watch johnson in game 1 of finals, led boston in rebounds and finished finals with a 6.2 average.

pipen/bird. Bird was a better rebounder than pip no question best sf ever, save maybe baylor. pipen 6.4 rebounds in 96 bird 9.8 in 86.

But they would also have to fight parish/mchale and walton for those boards. They cant defend players like bird,ainge,wedman,sichting on permiter and fight the big guys for rebounds. Plus bird would out rebound pip. In fact pip only averaged 4.9 rebounds against larry [ post rebounding prime such as 86] in there careers.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=pippesc01

I think you overestimate bulls d and under c's offence.

[AlexBrady]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

The point is that the 84 team had McHale and Maxwell.


Sichting was slow afoot and lacked technique. Buckner was the true rugged defender. He wasn't out of shape.
Ainge wasn't that much bigger than Henderson to make a big difference.


Bird would steal and deflect passes but the triangle was too efficient and unpredictable to be flatlined.


Steals are not an accurate measure of defensive prowess. Kerr played sound position defense and was tougher and quicker than Sichting.


Basketball Reference isn't accurate with those weight listings. Do you actually believe that Moses Malone was 215 pounds too?


Longley was seriously underrated as a post up defender. He was strong and played sound position defense. The people who vote on defensive awards look at numbers to make their choices so its no surprise Longley was never honored for anything.


The 96 Bulls routinely locked up screen/rolls so that wouldn't be a viable strategy. Longley rarely left his feet so any fakes wouldn't be successful. Parish was a good shooter but not in the clutch. And it looks like Bill Walton forgot about Jerry Lucas who was a much better shooter than Parish.


Rodman wouldn't be in foul trouble. His positional post defense was phenomenal. He rarely took chances and his basketball IQ was at the genius level.


The Celtics' only power player was McHale so I don't foresee a massacre on the boards, even when Rodman is out.


Walton in 86 wasn't the same player he was in Portland. He couldn't make those tight spin moves anymore.


Only McHale was a true overwhelming force on the boards. Parish had long arms but didn't wear people down. Bird got rebounds on toughness and grit more than power. Walton depended more on slickness than strength. The Celtics still have the rebounding edge but Rodman narrows that gap.


I'm not overestimating the Bulls' defense. They were among the best defenses ever. Only behind some of Bill Russell's teams.

[jjsmity]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

The point is that the 84 team had McHale and Maxwell.


Sichting was slow afoot and lacked technique. Buckner was the true rugged defender. He wasn't out of shape.
Ainge wasn't that much bigger than Henderson to make a big difference.


Bird would steal and deflect passes but the triangle was too efficient and unpredictable to be flatlined.


Steals are not an accurate measure of defensive prowess. Kerr played sound position defense and was tougher and quicker than Sichting.


Basketball Reference isn't accurate with those weight listings. Do you actually believe that Moses Malone was 215 pounds too?


Longley was seriously underrated as a post up defender. He was strong and played sound position defense. The people who vote on defensive awards look at numbers to make their choices so its no surprise Longley was never honored for anything.


The 96 Bulls routinely locked up screen/rolls so that wouldn't be a viable strategy. Longley rarely left his feet so any fakes wouldn't be successful. Parish was a good shooter but not in the clutch. And it looks like Bill Walton forgot about Jerry Lucas who was a much better shooter than Parish.


Rodman wouldn't be in foul trouble. His positional post defense was phenomenal. He rarely took chances and his basketball IQ was at the genius level.


The Celtics' only power player was McHale so I don't foresee a massacre on the boards, even when Rodman is out.


Walton in 86 wasn't the same player he was in Portland. He couldn't make those tight spin moves anymore.


Only McHale was a true overwhelming force on the boards. Parish had long arms but didn't wear people down. Bird got rebounds on toughness and grit more than power. Walton depended more on slickness than strength. The Celtics still have the rebounding edge but Rodman narrows that gap.


I'm not overestimating the Bulls' defense. They were among the best defenses ever. Only behind some of Bill Russell's teams.

I chose walton and a improved mchale.



Sichting slow? compared to buckner? have you seen many 86 games?. also what lacked technique did he lack that buckner had?. Are you really trying to make the case buckner in 84 was better than sichting in 86?

buckner .427 points 4.1 points

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1985.html

jerry
.570 6.5

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1986.html

as far as speed and d i go with jerry, and would recommend watching 86 games.




yes ainge was not much bigger, but by him being in linup that moved johnson to point, so they got bigger at two spots and better.


triangle agreed.



I think you dont know who jerry was. anyone who has watched both, i find hard they would agree with you.



well true, they are weight when they start.



I think that is a nice way of saying hes no good. How come all your players are "Goo"D postion etc any other team some how they suck.



I feel you overate your own players and underrate others., because in your mind longley could do what moses,kareem,ewing,lambeir,rodman and all the other big men could not, stop parish. Also you never support with anything just your baseless stated opinions "The 96 Bulls routinely locked up screen/rolls so that wouldn't be a viable strategy" "Rodman wouldn't be in foul trouble. His positional post defense was phenomenal. He rarely took chances and his basketball IQ was at the genius level." etc.


between 87 and 88 mchale fouled out rodman in 3 out of 9 games in 24 min, 28 min and 18 minutes. One time on 1988-11-11 mchale fouled rodman out in 18 minutes. 3.3 career fouls 3.5 in playoffs against mchale mostly post prime after. Not to mention dennis is in only 32 min, who guards mchale after kukoc? assuming no foul trouble. Than walton who comes in for him.


you have forgotten about parish/walton/bird. There is a reason they led league by 5 boards a game. The fact you dont see that as problem makes me consider just not responding.



agreed, he was healthy, and the best center off bench ever, great low post scorer and efficient 56% that year from floor. Would be big advantage against bulls bench of kukoc and wennigton. Plus he was great rebounder/defender. Think about it, kukoc also played PF, so either he would have to guard low post against mchale/walton/parish. or his minutes would be sf only for pipen reducing his influence.



I do believe you have not watched c's play. Please go watch some games. Walton/parish/bird all were better rebounders than mchale per minute and all but walton in per game, put per minute yes. The point is who rebounds for bulls when rodman is out, and when in how does he guard mchale, stay out of fouls and rebound against the best frontline ever?.



agreed they were great team, that is why they won 72 and can be compared to the 86 c's.

[AlexBrady]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

Fair enough. I choose McHale and Maxwell.

Buckner didn't turn his head to ball watch and played screens tougher. Sichting was a ball watcher and had trouble with screens. The edge in offense goes to Sichting. Buckner has an ever more pronounced edge in defense. Neither was a speedster but give Buckner the edge in quickness.

I charted many of those Celtics games. I have a firm handle on those players' capabilities.

Longley was susceptible to players who turned and faced. Fortunately, Parish rarely faced up. He was a good positional post defender. I just call em how I see em. No bias here.

I didn't say Longley could "stop" Parish. I believe Longley could use his weight advantage to hold him up and make him shoot under pressure. None of the other big guys you listed weighed as much as Longley. Nor were those big guys good defenders.

The 96 Bulls did have the instincts and quickness to lock up screen/rolls. They even had the length to switch the screen/rolls and come out of it ok.

You use numbers in your posts but its all about how and why those numbers come to be.

Wennington would guard McHale and would be abused. Kukoc would also get killed by McHale.

Walton didn't have many designed scoring chances. He scored without needing the ball a lot. Putbacks and drop off passes.

I said that the Celtics still have the rebounding edge.

Walton wasn't a great low post scorer in 86. Never was really. More of a high post player even in his prime. Great team defender. Sky high basketball IQ.

Toni Kukoc more often played shooting guard or small forward. Rarely would he would play power forward.

Scottie Pippen could easily swing to a guard spot. He was a legit four position player.

The point is that McHale grabbed the power rebounds. The Bulls were susceptible to power tactics.

Again, I have charted many of those Celtics games.

For sure, the Celtics have the rebounding edge when Rodman is out. It's not the game-changing edge you want it to be though.

Rodman would use his expert techniques to contain McHale. Not stop, contain. He was almost impervious to fatigue and would do the job on the boards. He never used his basketball energy on offense anyway.

[jjsmity]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

Fair enough. I choose McHale and Maxwell.

Buckner didn't turn his head to ball watch and played screens tougher. Sichting was a ball watcher and had trouble with screens. The edge in offense goes to Sichting. Buckner has an ever more pronounced edge in defense. Neither was a speedster but give Buckner the edge in quickness.

I charted many of those Celtics games. I have a firm handle on those players' capabilities.

Longley was susceptible to players who turned and faced. Fortunately, Parish rarely faced up. He was a good positional post defender. I just call em how I see em. No bias here.

I didn't say Longley could "stop" Parish. I believe Longley could use his weight advantage to hold him up and make him shoot under pressure. None of the other big guys you listed weighed as much as Longley. Nor were those big guys good defenders.

The 96 Bulls did have the instincts and quickness to lock up screen/rolls. They even had the length to switch the screen/rolls and come out of it ok.

You use numbers in your posts but its all about how and why those numbers come to be.

Wennington would guard McHale and would be abused. Kukoc would also get killed by McHale.

Walton didn't have many designed scoring chances. He scored without needing the ball a lot. Putbacks and drop off passes.

I said that the Celtics still have the rebounding edge.

Walton wasn't a great low post scorer in 86. Never was really. More of a high post player even in his prime. Great team defender. Sky high basketball IQ.

Toni Kukoc more often played shooting guard or small forward. Rarely would he would play power forward.

Scottie Pippen could easily swing to a guard spot. He was a legit four position player.

The point is that McHale grabbed the power rebounds. The Bulls were susceptible to power tactics.

I have charted many of those Celtic games.

For sure, the Celtics have the rebounding edge when Rodman is out. It's not the game-changing edge you want it to be though.

Rodman would his expert techniques to contain McHale. Not stop, contain. He was almost impervious to fatigue and would do the job on the boards. He never used his basketball energy on offense anyway.

thanks for discussion.


not suprisgley i do disagree, i see jerry as faster and better at d, but neither was a star. I say we drop the remaining 84 vs 86 c's and focus on bulls c's. very minor disagreements here.



fair enough, i loved watching those games as well both years, 84 finals was boston fans favorite.


I am not saying parish would score 40, I just meant he would have good advantage, yes longley was big and could keep him away, I just feel parishes moves would be to much, parish as you know often faced and hit the jumper with his high release, often. You say his defence is not very good, so you must admit his offensive game is great, given hes top 50 all time and HOF.


I think if you look at that list you will find all defensive first team on them all. That is what i am having most trouble with understanding you. You seem to say longley [I watched him never anything considered good on d] had capabilities of the great centers of 80-90's. Size yes, speed no and size is not everything.


My numbers were just pointing out rodman does get in foul trouble against the top players as anyone would.


I can agree with walton, however he did have a good [not great in 86 ] low post game and could be used and was against matchups.


from what i remember he was often used at pf. May have to go watch tape, he was sure versatile and skilled enough to play 2-4.


I agree with pipen at 2, he could do so and c's would adjust, that would leave you with no pg or outside shooting. The c's if kukoc was in at sf pip at sg would use parish/walton/mchale/bird/johnson. That would put kukoc in post against mchale.



I feel if anything parish/bird/walton were power rebounders, mchale just because great reach.


to me they have rebounding edge when hes in, and large when hes out, i think bulls were 7th in league in 96, c's led league first and by 5 rebounds a game. Plus i see his 32 min even more limited having to guard mchale, not to mention energy used to guard him, he was 34 in 96.


just read this what do you think?

Dennis Rodman was an incredible rebounder, but by 1996 his best days as a defender were behind him. Bulls homers try to say that he was still great but it’s just not true. His days as a versatile blanket defender had been left behind in Detroit. Once he found he had a talent for rebounding, that’s all he concentrated on – to the extent of cheating off his man to go for the boards. When Rodman was with the Spurs, he was victimized time and again by Houston’s Robert Horry in the 1995 Western Conference Finals. Teammate Sean Elliott pointed out that Rodman kept trying for the rebound and just cut Horry loose to heave up threes.



good point, just read you last sentence.

[AlexBrady]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

Parish shot jumpers. He didn't face and attack his defender and the basket. He did his scoring in the first 40 minutes of a game and from then on was not trusted with the ball. I think his offensive game was good, not great. And I completely disagree with him being named a top 50 all time player.

Even those all defensive team listings are not to be trusted. The selectors use numbers to choose the players which has led to many absurd picks over the years.

Longley wasn't a sexy guy to pick for an all defensive team. He was slow and didn't block shots. He battled for prime position before his man could get the ball. Most NBA viewers only watch the ball and miss seeing guys like Longley do good work off camera.

The beauty of those Bulls teams was that they had a bunch of players who could fill any number of positions.

Parish, Bird, and Walton relied more on finesse than muscle. McHale was actually very strong. He had a strong butt, T-square shoulders, and powerful hands.

True, Rodman did not play his best with the Spurs but that's only because he was convinced that the team was not committed to winning the Title. More specifically, Rodman had little respect for David Robinson.

Indeed, Rodman put those shenanigans behind him and played inspired ball for the Bulls. He lost a bit of quickness but was otherwise a dominating defender.

I failed to mention Phil Jackson in any of my posts. I consider him the best in game coach of all time and believe he would make any adjustments necessary.

[jjsmity]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

in depth analysis

http://larrylegend.wordpress.com/2008/06/28/analysis-of-1985-86-celtics-vs-1995-96-bulls/

Boston on offence
defense
pg johnson jordan-

Johnson scored above average for career against jordan because jordan would leave to double, but johnson would not be able to create offence against all nba defender jordan.


sg ainge harper

ainge would be able to score no better or worse than average, harper [ no defense awards]would need to stay on him as outside shooter.

sf Bird Pipen

bird scored well and shot well against pipen even after prime years, but pipen would cause trouble being maybe top all time sf defender, but bird was bird. he would likely look for other mismatches rather than look to score alot.


pf Mchale Rodman

Rodman could contain but not stop mchale [argubley and still thought by some the greatest low post scorer ever] mchale career numbers are good vs rodman and caused foul trouble.

# rodman only averaged 32 min a game [34 years old] and would also likely face foul trouble leaving kukoc to come in at PF who would not be abel to stop any boston big man in post, or another rarely used big man like rookie dicky simpskins who would also find it very hard going.


c Parish Longley

longley could use size to keep parish away but this would be big mismatch boston would go to often.



bench
defense
walton Wennigton

another big mismatch, walton better in all aspects of the game.

jerry Kerr


jerry would be able to score at least his average against kerr if not better.

wedman Kukoc


wedman if guarded by kukoc would be able to score slightly above average given kukoc poor defense. If kukoc comes in for rodman at PF he would not be able to guard any boston gig man. I dont see phil jackson putting him in at PF at all.


# the bulls have no starting center or back up PF or C to stop the c's front line. Rodman would have all he can handle with mchale, bird is always a option, ainge could score normal and johnson if jordan doubles. Parish walton would be good go to guys.


Boston Defense

pg harper ainge

ainge underrated above average defender, was originally drafted and played under coach fitch only for defense. Harper would score his average or slightly less.


sg jordan johnson

Johnson a multiple all nba first team defender,said by many best ever at the guard position, yet hes up against jordan, no can stop jordan. jordan is always a go to option,but johnson maybe best ever to stop him. Jordan slightly reduced.


sf pipen mchale


mchale first team all defense with longest reach in nba history [ model at hall of fame]. He would cause pipen trouble but pipen would still be a threat. Pipen still a go to option but score less than his average.

pf rodman parish

rodman only threat would be offensive rebounds, parish has height advantage and great re bounder, rodman would get his average or slightly less.


c longley bird


bird best sf rebounder ever could keep longley off boards, if bulls go to post with size advantage, c's would be ok with that or switch parish on him.


kerr jerry

kerr would do no better or worse against jerry given hes a shooter.


kukoc wedman

kukoc would score his average, wedman former all nba defender but only 6'7.


wennigton walton

wennigtons got no game against maybe best defender in center history [when healthy].

conclusion
on offence the Celtics have many mismatches to work. The bulls two best players have first team all defense on them, and no other options. 4 out of 5 starters are better on boston in straight matchup [ainge,bird,mchale,parish] bench walton clear advantage jerry and wedman even.




rebounding


Celtics led league by 5 rebounds a game, bulls were 7th [ i think]. Rodman played only 32 min a game [34 years old] and he alone could not outrebound mchale/bird/parish/walton. When hes in game boston still has lead, when hes out it becomes large boston advantage with kukoc at pf or wennigton in. Also rodman would face foul trouble vs mchale, causing even less minutes.

[jjsmity]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

Parish shot jumpers. He didn't face and attack his defender and the basket. He did his scoring in the first 40 minutes of a game and from then on was not trusted with the ball. I think his offensive game was good, not great. And I completely disagree with him being named a top 50 all time player.

Even those all defensive team listings are not to be trusted. The selectors use numbers to choose the players which has led to many absurd picks over the years.

Longley wasn't a sexy guy to pick for an all defensive team. He was slow and didn't block shots. He battled for prime position before his man could get the ball. Most NBA viewers only watch the ball and miss seeing guys like Longley do good work off camera.

The beauty of those Bulls teams was that they had a bunch of players who could fill any number of positions.

Parish, Bird, and Walton relied more on finesse than muscle. McHale was actually very strong. He had a strong butt, T-square shoulders, and powerful hands.

True, Rodman did not play his best with the Spurs but that's only because he was convinced that the team was not committed to winning the Title. More specifically, Rodman had little respect for David Robinson.

Indeed, Rodman put those shenanigans behind him and played inspired ball for the Bulls. He lost a bit of quickness but was otherwise a dominating defender.

I failed to mention Phil Jackson in any of my posts. I consider him the best in game coach of all time and believe he would make any adjustments necessary.

ah i see what you mean by face up, but i still say longley cant stop parish/birds pick and pop, or rool. I do disagree on 50 best with you, of course i think he should be in, had he not played for boston, his numbers would be much higher.


I disagree on defensive awards, i think they know what they are doing, but i do think you do mention underrated parts of the game. Look at rodman, he never averaged 1 steal or block a game for his entire career, yet many first team all defense and deserved.


beauty of those Celtic teams was that they had a bunch of players who could fill any number of positions. Also the bulls had no pg or c or back up pf.


I agree with phil jackson, he was top 3 all time maybe first. K.C pretty damn good as well. I also consider bird/walton almost coaches on floor.

[AlexBrady]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

ah i see what you mean by face up, but i still say longley cant stop parish/birds pick and pop, or rool. I do disagree on 50 best with you, of course i think he should be in, had he not played for boston, his numbers would be much higher.


I disagree on defensive awards, i think they know what they are doing, but i do think you do mention underrated parts of the game. Look at rodman, he never averaged 1 steal or block a game for his entire career, yet many first team all defense and deserved.


beauty of those Celtic teams was that they had a bunch of players who could fill any number of positions. Also the bulls had no pg or c or back up pf.


I agree with phil jackson, he was top 3 all time maybe first. K.C pretty damn good as well. I also consider bird/walton almost coaches on floor.

Well, no one defender can stop a screen/roll. It takes five guys to do that. When teams played against Bird they usually went under the screen and dared him to shoot from the perimeter. Bird's shooting was streaky and this tactic kept him from dishing assists and getting to the foul line.

The triangle doesn't require a true ball-dominating point guard. The offense needs guys who make quick and snappy decisions with the ball. Ron Harper certainly qualifies there. Luc Longley was an adequate center and his bulk in the low post actually keyed some of the offensive sequences.

[Dice]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

Good discussion.

In the case of the 96 Bulls vs the 86 Celtics, I'm taking the Bulls in 7.

One of the problems the Bulls will face is defending that vaunted front court of Bird-McHale-Parish. Scottie will draw the assignment of containing Bird but the difficulty behind guarding Bird is not keeping him from scoring. Bird is one of the few player who can beat you in other ways. Although I feel he'll get his points, Scottie will be well tested to stopping Bird from doing the other things. However, I feel Scottie will be up to the challenge.

Rodman will be well tested against McHale. Outside of Olajuwon, McHale has the best low post moves I've seen in a big. During this period of his career, Rodman's lateral quickness was definitely not the same but he still played solid post defense. But with the decline of his quickness, Rodman was very effective against power low post players but had a harder time against finesse big-men. McHale would have given Rodman trouble.

Although Parish is light years ahead of Longely, Parish will not be called upon to carry the team on his back so the threat of Parish scoring 40 is highly in doubt. If Parish is needed to score against the Bulls, the Celtics are in trouble. So Longely basically plays his role in position defense and just deters Parish from getting easy buckets. Parish will get his routine 12-18 points and 9-15 rebounds. "When" will be the question. As AlexBrady stated, Parish has not been called on in the clutch for a reason.

In regards to the Celtics backcourt, the Bulls defense smothers them. Jordan and Harper are long and big and capable of covering lots of ground on the court. And to add, their defensive IQ are well above normal. If Johnson or Ainge is looking to get into the scoring column they will have to play off of their front court, which will get all of the touches.

The Celtics defensively will have their share of problems as well. Someone suggested that McHale would be guarding Pippen, which is strategically not a bad idea. McHale during that time in his career was laterally quick for a big man and would have bothered Pippen a little with his long arms. However, Scottie would get the best of him in the end. Using off ball movement, which McHale had trouble with quicker players, Pippen would have gotten his way.

Obviously the McHale switch on Pippen was to keep Bird from guarding Pippen. This in term gets Bird the easy assignment to guard Rodman. But what worries me about this match-up from a Celtics point of view is the rebounds. While Bird was an above average rebounder for his position, keeping Rodman off the offensive glass would be an issue. Rodman is probably the best rebounder in NBA history and you'll need length to contain his rebounding. I think McHale would be a better suited to protect the glass against Rodman but if he'd be too busy guarding Pippen on the perimeter.

Parish realizes that Longley is no offensive threat but just don't ignore him altogether. Make him work for his shots and don't give him open looks and Longely will be neutralized.

Backcourt wise, the Celtics have no answer for Jordan. Johnson is a heck of a defensive player but Jordan is too much for him. Celtics help defensive will have to be effective to stop him. Harper is in the same boat as Longely, he's effective if you ignore him

The bench matchup is the interesting part. Overall, I think the Celtics have the better bench but the Bulls have the best bench player of the two in Toni Kukoc. And the Celtics have no answer for Kukoc.

The coaches is where I think the significant differences are. This is not to say that KC is a bad coach but he's not as great as people thinks he is. He worked with a great team and I don't fault him on that at all. However, Phil to me is a master motivator without the screaming and yelling. Phil's motivation is more psychological. KC to me wasn't a great X's and O's coach but neither was Phil. However, Phil had the luxury of some great assistant coaches to handle majority of that part for him and he had the wisdom of letting those guys run that part of their strategy.

So in the end, it would be a great series but I give it to the Bulls in 7.

[jjsmity]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

Well, no one defender can stop a screen/roll. It takes five guys to do that. When teams played against Bird they usually went under the screen and dared him to shoot from the perimeter. Bird's shooting was streaky and this tactic kept him from dishing assists and getting to the foul line.

The triangle doesn't require a true ball-dominating point guard. The offense needs guys who make quick and snappy decisions with the ball. Ron Harper certainly qualifies there. Luc Longley was an adequate center and his bulk in the low post actually keyed some of the offensive sequences.

I usually did not see anyone leave bird open, unless it was miscommunication on screen and roll by d,especially in 86. Best pure shooter in nba that year, best 3 pt shooter as well.


with all your boasting of the big autralian, I am going to have to go rewatch some 96 playoff games vs some big men. Good discussions/disagreements thanks for posting.

Good discussion.

In the case of the 96 Bulls vs the 86 Celtics, I'm taking the Bulls in 7.

One of the problems the Bulls will face is defending that vaunted front court of Bird-McHale-Parish. Scottie will draw the assignment of containing Bird but the difficulty behind guarding Bird is not keeping him from scoring. Bird is one of the few player who can beat you in other ways. Although I feel he'll get his points, Scottie will be well tested to stopping Bird from doing the other things. However, I feel Scottie will be up to the challenge.

Rodman will be well tested against McHale. Outside of Olajuwon, McHale has the best low post moves I've seen in a big. During this period of his career, Rodman's lateral quickness was definitely not the same but he still played solid post defense. But with the decline of his quickness, Rodman was very effective against power low post players but had a harder time against finesse big-men. McHale would have given Rodman trouble.

Although Parish is light years ahead of Longely, Parish will not be called upon to carry the team on his back so the threat of Parish scoring 40 is highly in doubt. If Parish is needed to score against the Bulls, the Celtics are in trouble. So Longely basically plays his role in position defense and just deters Parish from getting easy buckets. Parish will get his routine 12-18 points and 9-15 rebounds. "When" will be the question. As AlexBrady stated, Parish has not been called on in the clutch for a reason.

In regards to the Celtics backcourt, the Bulls defense smothers them. Jordan and Harper are long and big and capable of covering lots of ground on the court. And to add, their defensive IQ are well above normal. If Johnson or Ainge is looking to get into the scoring column they will have to play off of their front court, which will get all of the touches.

The Celtics defensively will have their share of problems as well. Someone suggested that McHale would be guarding Pippen, which is strategically not a bad idea. McHale during that time in his career was laterally quick for a big man and would have bothered Pippen a little with his long arms. However, Scottie would get the best of him in the end. Using off ball movement, which McHale had trouble with quicker players, Pippen would have gotten his way.

Obviously the McHale switch on Pippen was to keep Bird from guarding Pippen. This in term gets Bird the easy assignment to guard Rodman. But what worries me about this match-up from a Celtics point of view is the rebounds. While Bird was an above average rebounder for his position, keeping Rodman off the offensive glass would be an issue. Rodman is probably the best rebounder in NBA history and you'll need length to contain his rebounding. I think McHale would be a better suited to protect the glass against Rodman but if he'd be too busy guarding Pippen on the perimeter.

Parish realizes that Longley is no offensive threat but just don't ignore him altogether. Make him work for his shots and don't give him open looks and Longely will be neutralized.

Backcourt wise, the Celtics have no answer for Jordan. Johnson is a heck of a defensive player but Jordan is too much for him. Celtics help defensive will have to be effective to stop him. Harper is in the same boat as Longely, he's effective if you ignore him

The bench matchup is the interesting part. Overall, I think the Celtics have the better bench but the Bulls have the best bench player of the two in Toni Kukoc. And the Celtics have no answer for Kukoc.

The coaches is where I think the significant differences are. This is not to say that KC is a bad coach but he's not as great as people thinks he is. He worked with a great team and I don't fault him on that at all. However, Phil to me is a master motivator without the screaming and yelling. Phil's motivation is more psychological. KC to me wasn't a great X's and O's coach but neither was Phil. However, Phil had the luxury of some great assistant coaches to handle majority of that part for him and he had the wisdom of letting those guys run that part of their strategy.

So in the end, it would be a great series but I give it to the Bulls in 7.

I have to say I am surprised by how many here chose bulls, I have done this thread twice know and usually dominated, well 7/3 for c's, even than the bulls fans dont even try to argue like they do here, thanks guys.



But to disagree.....


of course you dont count your from Chicago lol.


Just to let you know i take c's 4-2 maybe 4-3 if Chicago had home court and played well [jordan]. But I do see them as close, just not good matchup for chi imo.



pip/bird
I really think you hit it well, bird scored well against pip over career, but his rebounds and assists were down some. Pip is as good as any sf ever at d, but bird is bird.


just saw this online bird schools pip

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=larry+bird+vs+scottie+pipen&FORM=VIRE4#view=detail&mid=01DBDF538B817ABE606601DBDF538B817ABE6066

there one for joran also, just shows some highlights of them matched-up, fun to watch.



rodman/mchale
I agree as well ,mchale still "fast" for him in 86 pre broken foot in 87. Rodman does well vs malone, but mchale was faster,taller and had more length and better low post moves. Also at 34 rodman only played 32 min, with no backup to defend or rebound at pf/c that leves bulls in allot of trouble against c's frontcourt and rebound advantage, especially if rodman gets in fouled trouble [mchale once fouled him out in 18 min].



longely/parish
I disagree fully, in 86 more than ever it was unselfish passing pick out mismatch, none cared who scored. Parish as all star and great scorer and efficient scorer, the c's would go to him, some playoffs he led c's in scoring such as 81-82. I feel he has been underestimated on this thread. Watch the 87 finals even with twisted ankle, he was for much of games [with mchale hurt] the go to guy for boston against all nba defender kareem. This is a guy who when bird was out in 88-89, he averaged 18.6 12.5 and shot 57% and was all nba at 35. he was 32 in 86. Less minuts and shot with walton/bird, but he was a great player especially on offence. I agree he was not clutch.



backcourt defense

Read on my OP under matchups, DJ and ainge played great against jordan/bulls because jordan had to double down on post all the time leaving them open for shots. He would have to double down to help down low, leaving open shooters, something the 86 c's were great at, as well as passing to find the open shooter. Harper never won any defensive award. He would get some steals but no more than johnson/ainge would. At 32 he played limited minutes and the boston backcourt defense could match that of chicago, just not the offence [jordan]. As I said in earlier post, ainge was drafted and played his early years as a defensive sepicalist, offence came along later.




pip/mchale

yeah i agree, as i said mchale would cause problems but would not be able to stop pipen. He reminds me of a worthy almost on offence.


rodman
I agree his offensive rebounds is problem for anyone. I think it would be parish on him, parish a great rebounder and 7 foot would do as good a job as anyone, that would put bird [the best sf rebounder ever save maybe baylor 10 a career] on longley who averaged 5 rebounds a game and 1.7 offensive, while bird averaged 9.8 a game in 86.



jordan/dj
yeah dj as good as any, especially against a older mj. But none ever could stop MJ. Sometimes k.c would let jordan go and stop all around him, so that would be interesting to see. Likley big men who guard rodman/longley would be keeping watchful eye. Bird for one who loves help d, used well against jordan in 86-88. But 96 jordan had killer post game, that would force a double or score well even with dj on him. he had a post game of a great center.




bench

I feel the best bench player was sixth man of the year walton. As any would tell you the best backup center ever, you cannot say kukoc was best backup sf ever. I agree that boston could not really guard kukoc [unless they used parish/mchale kukoc was slow] it would be likley that wedman would be on him. Wedman was good defender [former all nba defender] but only 6'7. Kuco was better at that time than wedman offence, but kukoc could not really guard anyone either, he was liability on defense. They would not be abel to put him at pf, he could only play sf/sg as someone suggested against boston. So he is better overall than wedman, but wedmans d even it out some, I say slight advantage between the two, were as walton has big advantage over wennigton.


coach

I agree phil was better.


in the end c's win 4-2 or 4-3 lol.

[ojandpizza]

86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

I can't really say who would win in a series, originally I said probably Boston in 7, but only because of depth and how they look on paper. But idk, I feel strongly towards advantages both team have and gut says to never bet against Jordan.. But even though I can't really make a strong stance for either team I do want to comment on a few of the points being brought up..

First of all, I think y'all are slightly overrating the individual impact McHale would have in this series.. Great player don't get my wrong, but the posts are acting like he would have a Jordan-esque impact, even with Rodman guarding him. When was he ever a dominant rebounder? I'm struggling to recall how he's supposed to negate the dominance Rodman brings to the boards. Rodman's dominance on the glass helped them overcome advantages that teams with good big men had as well. Mourning, Shaq, Ewing, Kemp, Malone, Webber, etc... He also spent time defending all those guys, and bigger guys, he spent some time defending Shaq even... Not saying McHale won't be able to put up a decent line but he's not going to just destroy Rodman nor is Boston going to continually go to him without him having a huge advantage, which he doesn't have. Also thinking he would dominant the glass against Dennis is borderline laughable. He didn't dominate the glass against the majority of his playoff matchups, much less Dennis Rodman... Also, in no way is he guarding Pippen. Yes he's quick for someone his size, but not Pippen quick, not Pippen who just came off his best individual season ever finishing 3rd in MVP voting. This is Pippen at his peak, not the 22 year old who's stats against the late 80's Celtics you keep referring to.


Also jjsmity I'm not saying anything you've said about Boston is wrong but you're making statements while completely ignoring the other side of the argument.

For example: "Jordan is past prime and 32 years old". Jordan was 32, but not past his "prime". He was past his peak athletically but his overall offensive game, and efficiency scoring was at a level few players have ever been at. He brought home the MVP, finals MVP, All Star game MVP, also made all defensive first team, he was the definition of the word dominant. Nobody could guard him at this point in his career, DJ would be no different. This wasn't the same skinny Jordan who relied on isolation plays and a lacking jumpshot that he had success guarding, he was no longer 22 years old and 190 pounds.. This Jordan had the best midrange shot the league has ever seen, added 30 pounds, brought home 3 championships, 4 MVPs, 3 finals MVPs, and 8 scoring titles. His game was much more diverse, he shot 40% from 3 during that playoff run, scored posting up, scored off the dribble, but most importantly scored in a system with an extremely talented sidekick.

Another "Harper didn't have any defensive awards".. What does that matter? He was easily one of the best defensive guards in the league at that time, during the second 3peat the Bulls could have had 4 players make the all defensive team and nobody would have made an argument. Just because Harper never won any awards for his defense doesn't mean it was by any means lacking, especially with his size and versatility at that end.. His defensive rating was on par to currently guys like Tony Allen, on par with Jordan and Pippen from that season, better than Dennis Johnson's.

Another: "Rodman only played 32 minutes" I'm not sure what the argument even is there, but McHale only played 35.. In that extra 3 minutes is he just supposed to run off 10 straight points and pull down 8 boards or something? You act as if the amount of time Rodman is on the bench McHale is just going to flat out dominate. It's also worth mentioning that Rodman actually averaged 34 minutes in the playoffs that year, but the stat is flawed because he only played 19per in the first round. In the other 3 rounds Rodman averaged over 37 minutes per game, and a monster 15.3 rebounds per game.. This coming against Ewing, Oakley, Shaq, Horace, Kemp.

Also Bill Walton.. I don't know if I would go as far as calling him the best back up center ever, maybe he is maybe he isn't, but that alone doesn't make him more valuable than Kukoc just because he isn't the best back up small forward ever.. That doesn't correlate whatsoever.. Also during the playoffs Walton played about 18 minutes per game, taking about 5 shots per game. He definitely does other things well, but his play making and help defense for Boston wasn't anything close to what he gave Portland.. He was still a great player off the bench, but not to the extent that he would be a huge issue for Chicago to handle, IMO. Kukoc was also the 6th man of the year, just as Walton was.

But, most importantly, the talks of DJ guarding Jordan, McHale dominating, Pippen vs Bird, etc are all completely besides the point, because it wasn't individual play that made Chicago so good. Too much emphasis has been put on the individual matchups rather than a team concept.. The Bulls versatility defensively was no joke, Harper could guard 3 positions, Jordan could guard 3 positions, Pippen 3-4, Rodman another 3. There's a reason they were the best defensive team in the league for 3 straight seasons. No more of the "Jordan doubling down" you're referring to, also worth noting the Bulls had a higher defensive rating than Boston and also were accustomed to giving up significantly less points per game than Boston.

Offensively they had a devastating duo and a system that was designed to maximize Jordan and pick apart apposing defenses. I feel Boston would be some what slow on their rotations with Chicago's ball movement. There is a reason Phil's triangle offense has won 11 championships.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jjsmity]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

I can't really say who would win in a series, originally I said probably Boston in 7, but only because of depth and how they look on paper. But idk, I feel strongly towards advantages both team have and gut says to never bet against Jordan.. But even though I can't really make a strong stance for either team I do want to comment on a few of the points being brought up..

First of all, I think y'all are slightly overrating the individual impact McHale would have in this series.. Great player don't get my wrong, but the posts are acting like he would have a Jordan-esque impact, even with Rodman guarding him. When was he ever a dominant rebounder? I'm struggling to recall how he's supposed to negate the dominance Rodman brings to the boards. Rodman's dominance on the glass helped them overcome advantages that teams with good big men had as well. Mourning, Shaq, Ewing, Kemp, Malone, Webber, etc... He also spent time defending all those guys, and bigger guys, he spent some time defending Shaq even... Not saying McHale won't be able to put up a decent line but he's not going to just destroy Rodman nor is Boston going to continually go to him without him having a huge advantage, which he doesn't have. Also thinking he would dominant the glass against Dennis is borderline laughable. He didn't dominate the glass against the majority of his playoff matchups, much less Dennis Rodman... Also, in no way is he guarding Pippen. Yes he's quick for someone his size, but not Pippen quick, not Pippen who just came off his best individual season ever finishing 3rd in MVP voting. This is Pippen at his peak, not the 22 year old who's stats against the late 80's Celtics you keep referring to.


Also jjsmity I'm not saying anything you've said about Boston is wrong but you're making statements while completely ignoring the other side of the argument.

For example: "Jordan is past prime and 32 years old". Jordan was 32, but not past his "prime". He was past his peak athletically but his overall offensive game, and efficiency scoring was at a level few players have ever been at. He brought home the MVP, finals MVP, All Star game MVP, also made all defensive first team, he was the definition of the word dominant. Nobody could guard him at this point in his career, DJ would be no different. This wasn't the same skinny Jordan who relied on isolation plays and a lacking jumpshot that he had success guarding, he was no longer 22 years old and 190 pounds.. This Jordan had the best midrange shot the league has ever seen, added 30 pounds, brought home 3 championships, 4 MVPs, 3 finals MVPs, and 8 scoring titles. His game was much more diverse, he shot 40% from 3 during that playoff run, scored posting up, scored off the dribble, but most importantly scored in a system with an extremely talented sidekick.

Another "Harper didn't have any defensive awards".. What does that matter? He was easily one of the best defensive guards in the league at that time, during the second 3peat the Bulls could have had 4 players make the all defensive team and nobody would have made an argument. Just because Harper never won any awards for his defense doesn't mean it was by any means lacking, especially with his size and versatility at that end.. His defensive rating was on par to currently guys like Tony Allen, on par with Jordan and Pippen from that season, better than Dennis Johnson's.

Another: "Rodman only played 32 minutes" I'm not sure what the argument even is there, but McHale only played 35.. In that extra 3 minutes is he just supposed to run off 10 straight points and pull down 8 boards or something? You act as if the amount of time Rodman is on the bench McHale is just going to flat out dominate. It's also worth mentioning that Rodman actually averaged 34 minutes in the playoffs that year, but the stat is flawed because he only played 19per in the first round. In the other 3 rounds Rodman averaged over 37 minutes per game, and a monster 15.3 rebounds per game.. This coming against Ewing, Oakley, Shaq, Horace, Kemp.

Also Bill Walton.. I don't know if I would go as far as calling him the best back up center ever, maybe he is maybe he isn't, but that alone doesn't make him more valuable than Kukoc just because he isn't the best back up small forward ever.. That doesn't correlate whatsoever.. Also during the playoffs Walton played about 18 minutes per game, taking about 5 shots per game. He definitely does other things well, but his play making and help defense for Boston wasn't anything close to what he gave Portland.. He was still a great player off the bench, but not to the extent that he would be a huge issue for Chicago to handle, IMO. Kukoc was also the 6th man of the year, just as Walton was.

But, most importantly, the talks of DJ guarding Jordan, McHale dominating, Pippen vs Bird, etc are all completely besides the point, because it wasn't individual play that made Chicago so good. Too much emphasis has been put on the individual matchups rather than a team concept.. The Bulls versatility defensively was no joke, Harper could guard 3 positions, Jordan could guard 3 positions, Pippen 3-4, Rodman another 3. There's a reason they were the best defensive team in the league for 3 straight seasons. No more of the "Jordan doubling down" you're referring to, also worth noting the Bulls had a higher defensive rating than Boston and also were accustomed to giving up significantly less points per game than Boston.

Offensively they had a devastating duo and a system that was designed to maximize Jordan and pick apart apposing defenses. I feel Boston would be some what slow on their rotations with Chicago's ball movement. There is a reason Phil's triangle offense has won 11 championships.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

first off..... good post. I am playing ball tonight so must be quick in responses, I agree with much of what you said, I think you have misunderstood me some.



rodman/mchale

I never said he would out rebound rodman, in fact c's had 3 better rebounders in front of mchaale imo. Rodmen best rebounder in series both teams. What i argued is if rodman [age 34] played 32 min a game and likely in foul trouble against mchale [as happened in detroit] who is going to rebound for chicago against not mchale only, but bird,walton and parish. I also said mchale would not destory rodamn, but would be a offensive option that would also cause fouls on chicgos only rebounder. Also when in, how does he do it against the best sf rebounder, mchhale and parish? I would put parish on him on defense to help try keep the animal off the boards, hes 7 foot and good rebounder as well.



pipen shot 46% on 19.4 in 95-96, amazing in 94-95 yes. But mchale [mutiple all nba first team defensive] would not be able to stop him, but make it tuff, mchale had longest arms in history of nba. He would back off pip and give him his inconstant outside shot and diminish most the rest of his offence. I say pip would go around 18 points on 45-46% but he would have to work for it as well [than guard bird on other side].



jordan
past speed/athletic prime is all i meant, easier for dj who had trouble with his speed. You dont have to tell me how great he was I know.



harper
from what i remember by this time at 32, he really did not do much for me when i watched at either end. I am willing to change opinion [I will be watching 96 bulls soon again] could you give me anything to support? not awards since he has none but quotes or anything like that?.



rodman 32

its not a argument against him at all, but against the bulls backup PF and C, well and starting C. Who rebounds if rodman is in foul trouble and on bench?.
Mchale 35 min , only because he had great backup, not because hes 34 like rodman. The problem is not so much with mchale playing more with noone to defend, but also walton [better rebounder] comes in after. C's rotated walton for parish, than move to pf for mchale, than sit etc.

kukoc

true but you heare many talk of walton coming off bench noone talks of the great sixth man kukoc. I see walton as big advantage over weenigton, I see kukoc as slight [because not good at d wedman was] advantage over wedman. That is were I see the bigger difference, but walton played both ends d and offence, and rebounded.



team chemistry
I agree fully with you, I cant think of a team that played better as a unit than 86 c's. All the great teams of course such as 96 bulls had the chemistry great, or we would not talk about them. No team i feel offence/defence was a versatile as the 86 c's [read op].



My case as you know is mad in op, I will be adding/updating under how they match up i think.


thanks 4 post.

[DamnYanks2]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

For me it's simple, yea, it might sound like a cop out, but I'm picking the team with Jordan on it, I just feel like whoever he played, he was gonna come out on top.

[KG]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

The McHale bested Rodman when they played argument is a little misleading. Rodman was primarily a wing defender in those days compared to his Bulls run when he was exclusively a low post defender. Antics aside, he was as positionally sound as they come when it came to either pushing guys off their spot and/or not even letting guys get to their spot.