Game 1 of the '92 finals just started on NBA TV

[AlexBrady]

In a theoretical matchup with the Warriors, Armstrong's reckless and sloppy defense would get destroyed by Stephen Curry. Harper, on the other hand, would make Curry sweat to get good looks.

Armstrong was a curious selection for the All Star game and Chicago's coaching staff privately disrespected his headstrong play.

Grant didn't quite have the stuff to average 20 ppg. He was a reliable shooter from around 15 feet (infinitely better than Rodman with his jumper) but didn't have serious go-to moves. Grant also had trouble making the correct cuts and reads in the triangle offense at times. Surprisingly, Rodman was actually a better executer of the triangle.

Comparing Grant and Rodman's rebounding capabilities is interesting. Grant, in his prime usually grabbed one rebound for every four minutes of playing time which is outstanding. Rodman was grabbing one rebound for every 2.3 minutes in his Chicago days. That is phenomenal and blows Grant away.
In addition Rodman was both quicker and faster than Grant.

[ojandpizza]

Quote: Originally Posted by jake44np

'91 Jordan was all about getting to the rim, he lacked a consistant jumper and had no 3pt shot. '96 Jordan was a much better shooter and had developed an unstoppable turn around jumper. '96 Jordan was a much better all around player and he himself will tell you that.

I disagree. He was younger, faster, a better defensive player, and put more pressure on defenders than the 96 Jordan did. He had just missed nearly 2 seasons of basketball completely and it definitely showed a bit even though he was still arguably the best player in basketball.

One of the biggest factors of his performance in the later stage was they had shortened the 3 point line. He was never a great range shooter, just wasn't part of his game. Them shortening the line for that 3 or 4 year span however long it was enabled him to statically shoot them at a higher clip despite him still not quite having that range, though it had gotten better.. Also during that period, positionaly speaking, there wasn't much competition for him. Reggie Miller might have been the best SG he even faced during that run and he didn't even defend him on the other end. Gary Payton gave him struggles, but naturally he destroyed the likes of Chapman, Hornacek, Russell, Starks, Kittles, etc.. You have the greatest player of all time against a field of guys that weren't even close to his realm. It was a bigger feat with him doing that against Drexler, Dumars, and those cats, and the teams the Bulls were beating in general were better teams.

[ojandpizza]

Quote: Originally Posted by AlexBrady

In a theoretical matchup with the Warriors, Armstrong's reckless and sloppy defense would get destroyed by Stephen Curry. Harper, on the other hand, would make Curry sweat to get good looks. Armstrong was a curious selection for the All Star game and Chicago's coaching staff privately disrespected his headstrong play. Grant didn't quite have the stuff to average 20 ppg. He was a reliable shooter from around 15 feet (infinitely better than Rodman with his jumper) but didn't have serious go-to moves. Grant also had trouble making the correct cuts and reads in the triangle offense at times. Surprisingly, Rodman was actually a better executer of the triangle. Comparing Grant and Rodman's rebounding capabilities is interesting. Grant, in his prime usually grabbed one rebound for every four minutes of playing time which is outstanding. Rodman was grabbing one rebound for every 2.3 minutes in his Chicago days. That is phenomenal and blows Grant away. In addition Rodman was both quicker and faster than Grant.

Rodman is the best pound for pound rebounder to ever play, so that's not really news there.

[AlexBrady]

Quote: Originally Posted by ojandpizza

Gary Payton gave him struggles, but naturally he destroyed the likes of Chapman, Hornacek, Russell, Starks, Kittles, etc.. You have the greatest player of all time against a field of guys that weren't even close to his realm. It was a bigger feat with him doing that against Drexler, Dumars, and those cats, and the teams the Bulls were beating in general were better teams.

Jordan didn't struggle against Gary Payton. He typically caught the ball where he wanted and limited Payton's maneuverability to go for steals. The Glove was an aggressive yet highly overrated defender.

Kerry Kittles and his quickness gave Jordan a much tougher time especially in screen/roll set ups. Jordan couldn't seem to beat Kerry to the screen in time.

The teams the Bulls beat in the late 90s were better than their early 90s victims. I would rank the 96 Sonics as the best followed closely by the 97 Jazz.

[cima]

Was Jordan REALLY a better 3 point shooter later in his career though? His % is inflated from the shortened 3 point line and in 97-98 when they moved the line back again, his % went back to **** with it (24%)

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

[djep]

Quote: Originally Posted by DoubleDeuce

Marv Albert and the Czar on the call (with Ervin Johnson occasionally saying really dumb things). Drexler was so fun to watch on fast breaks. Just deadly. I forgot about Bill Cartwright's form on free throws. Hideous. Chicago Stadium was a great venue. Phil Jackson was wearing a tie that you would feel bad about buying for a quarter at a yard sale.

That NBA on NBC theme music was iconic.

[AlexBrady]

Quote: Originally Posted by cima

Was Jordan REALLY a better 3 point shooter later in his career though? His % is inflated from the shortened 3 point line and in 97-98 when they moved the line back again, his % went back to **** with it (24%) Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

Yes. His turn around jumper from the low post was improved. His release point on his three-point ball was slightly raised and the results improved. Jordan was just a more versatile offensive player by 96.

[cima]

Quote: Originally Posted by AlexBrady

Yes. His turn around jumper from the low post was improved. His release point on his three-point ball was slightly raised and the results improved. Jordan was just a more versatile offensive player by 96.

Percentages don't back that up though, even in the playoffs. In the playoffs he shot 39% from 3 the first three peat and only 30% in the second three peat, and that's with the shortened line for 2 years.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk