Tired of Jordan's Legacy, the Bulls were the best defensive team of the 90s.

[TitleMaster]

Here's another swipe at Ewing's legacy as a Knicks.

The NYC (and Bostonians are in this one as well) fans have this Georgetown/Cambridge MA/Jamaica hero exalted as the Knick's alpha franchise player. I'd argue that Ewing wins a title on no team where he's the dubbed alpha.

Imagine this scenario, in 1984, Robert Parish finds himself transferred to 1992 in NYC and Ewing, sent back in time to 1984 in Boston. And there you have it, Ewing wins the '84 & '86 titles, next to Bird and McHale. Likewise, in the alternate future, the Parish Knicks win nothing but put up great fights, as Oakley, Mason, McDaniels, Jackson, and Starks put on stifling defenses against all opponents.

[Donoghus]

I'd still expect the Bulls to beat the Knicks.

Not enough firepower alongside Hakeem Olajuwon.

I think they would've given the '91-93 Bulls a run for their money.  I don't think they would've taken out the '96-98 Bulls, though.

[TitleMaster]

That said, the Knicks did not have the sheer volume of 3 point shooting the two Rockets champions did, and that would still hurt them against the Bulls.

Cassell was the shooter who could render his own shot. The other Rockets were basically wide open jumpers, with Hakeem routinely drawing double and triple teams.

In the Knicks scenario, since the same type of double team would need to be utilized, otherwise Hakeem would simply drop 40 PPG on Cartwright w/o concern, the open players who hover off screens will be in the 15-18 foot area thus making 'em tighter two point opportunities.

[Who]

I'd still expect the Bulls to beat the Knicks.

Not enough firepower alongside Hakeem Olajuwon.

I think they would've given the '91-93 Bulls a run for their money.  I don't think they would've taken out the '96-98 Bulls, though.

That 1992 team with Xavier McDaniel and Mark Jackson was the Knicks only chance at beating the Bulls during that first era.

The 1991 team and 1993-to-1996 teams were all too weak to beat a Bulls team with Michael Jordan.

It's a shame the Knicks never matched up with Chicago in the playoffs in 1997 and 1998. With Allan Houston and Larry Johnson. Those were their strongest teams outside of that 1992 squad. I always thought they would have given the Bulls a stronger test than anyone else in the East at the time. Although, I'd still favour the Bulls heading into that series.

[TitleMaster]

I don't think they would've taken out the '96-98 Bulls, though

In a nutshell...

Later 90s: Luc Longley, key help defender Dennis Rodman

Early 90s: Bill Cartwright, key help defender Horace Grant

Here's the problem, you need Cartwright/Rodman as the combination to guard Hakeem. Cartwright's career is over come '95.

[TitleMaster]

The 1991 team and 1993-to-1996 teams were all too weak to beat a Bulls team with Michael Jordan.

In the real world, the Bulls almost beat the Knicks in '94 w/o Jordan.

Here are the key perspective differentials here

1) Patrick Ewing being this phenomenal player ... he wasn't. He was the original Chris Webber forerunner, a man who'll collapse under pressure.

2) Michael Jordan, a swingman, singlehandlely walking over everyone including a superstar center, who he's not playing one-on-one with anyways.

Now, take in the above cues and then make these adjustments... Michael goes off for 30-40 ppg. The Knicks defense, now lead by Hakeem and friends, shut down all the other Bulls and don't fall for the scheme of sending Jordan to the line all of the time. Hakeem goes off for 30-40 ppg, but whenever a 3rd defender arrives to shore up Cartwright/Grant or Longley/Rodman, he finds not an open "Rockets 3pt shooter", but a Knick, 15-18 feet from the basket for a tighter jumper.

[Roy Hobbs]

Anybody who thinks that Ewing is only slightly better than Cartwright watched a different NBA than I did. 

[TitleMaster]

that Ewing is only slightly better than Cartwright

Cartwright had also started his career with the Knicks and for his first few years, also put up solid 20 ppg & 8 boards. Of course injuries kicked in and when the Knicks drafted Ewing, and he was a Georgetown star, Cartwright was expendable. Cartwright wasn't an alpha male so he took whatever reduced role, which was expected of him. Ewing basically filled in for Cartwright but then added more to his repertoire which is why he's an all star center, albeit not an alpha male scorer.

By the time Cartwright had arrived in Chicago, he was reduced from being a normal star to that of a servicable center. Still, he did his job well and the Bulls had a good frontline during the first half of the 90s with Pippen/Cartwright/Grant.

[Greenbean]

Alot of the Jordan mystique is generated by his brand...

The thing is he built his brand by WINNING first (unlike Lebron)

He was a dominant two way player who, yes, played on great defensive teams.

If that was all, you would not be tired of his legacy. You are probably tired of the fact that the guy is still a household name 8 years after retiring (for the third time). Or how players are still compared to him.

If you strip all of that away, the guy would still be in the top 2 of basketball players on nearly everyone's list.

He garnered the respect of his peers as well as the media and the consumers of his brand.

He was obsessively competitive and supremely talented. The fact that he was savvy enough to let smart people market him correctly to turn him into one of the most well known faces in the last 100 years might tick you off, but it is based on greatness, not bluster.

[fairweatherfan]

Alot of the Jordan mystique is generated by his brand...

The thing is he built his brand by WINNING first (unlike Lebron)

As the age LeBron is now, Jordan had as many titles as LeBron and fewer Finals appearances.  I agree that LeBron is no Jordan and never will be, but the Jordan brand was absolutely massive before he'd won anything but slam dunk and scoring titles in the NBA.  It was the biggest knock on him until the Bulls started getting rings.

[Greenbean]

Alot of the Jordan mystique is generated by his brand...

The thing is he built his brand by WINNING first (unlike Lebron)

As the age LeBron is now, Jordan had as many titles as LeBron and fewer Finals appearances.  I agree that LeBron is no Jordan and never will be, but the Jordan brand was absolutely massive before he'd won anything but slam dunk and scoring titles in the NBA.  It was the biggest knock on him until the Bulls started getting rings.

I dont want to compare the two brands but LeBron is marketed like he has done something in the league as a basketball player, which he has not beyond individual acheivements.

I dont think Jordan wasa  household name in China until he won a bunch of rings.

Tough to compare different times I know. Impossible really with the marketing tools this generation has at its disposal.

The point I am making is that the OP is probably tired of Jordan's legacy because he is overexposed to his greatness. Doesnt mean the guy wasnt still great.

[TitleMaster]

The point I am making is that the OP is probably tired of Jordan's legacy because he is overexposed to his greatness.

Well for one, I don't worship any Golden calves (sorry, make that Bulls).

And next, since this guy's statement, along with Magic & Bird, have become the only opinions which matter, I find it annoying that he said he wouldn't follow LeBron despite the fact that I feel he would have also left if Phil Jackson, Pippen, and Grant weren't on his squads. I suspect he'd probably be ticked off at Coach Brown as well.

And then finally, I'm from Boston MA but I'd always kept one eye on Houston, since that '86 finals. The reason for that is that I knew that Olajuwon was the real deal. He wasn't this Dr J vis-a-vis MacAdoo or even Maravich vis-a-vis King type of scorer. He was the total b-ball package in one big man... a center, who moves like a guard, and was the true defensive player of the era, with offense which was nearly perfect: spins, fakes, everything. And unlike Stern's other guy, there were no Hakeem rules. He couldn't get to the line at will, he had to earn all those free throws.

[Greenbean]

The point I am making is that the OP is probably tired of Jordan's legacy because he is overexposed to his greatness.

Well for one, I don't worship any Golden calves (sorry, make that Bulls).

And next, since this guy's statement, along with Magic & Bird, have become the only opinions which matter, I find it annoying that he said he wouldn't follow LeBron despite the fact that I feel he would have also left if Phil Jackson, Pippen, and Grant weren't on his squads. I suspect he'd probably be ticked off at Coach Brown as well.

And then finally, I'm from Boston MA but I'd always kept one eye on Houston, since that '86 finals. The reason for that is that I knew that Olajuwon was the real deal. He wasn't this Dr J vis-a-vis MacAdoo or even Maravich vis-a-vis King type of scorer. He was the total b-ball package in one big man... a center, who moves like a guard, and was the true defensive player of the era, with offense which was nearly perfect: spins, fakes, everything. And unlike Stern's other guy, there were no Hakeem rules. He couldn't get to the line at will, he had to earn all those free throws.

Yawn...

You like Hakeem we get it. You think he is better than Jordan. You feel slighted that your favorite player didnt get as much pub as MJ so you conjure up all kinds of fantasy situations to try and prove to everyone here that he is better. I like your Celtics fantasy situations much better.

But come on...you really think MJ didnt "earn" free throws? Did you watch basketball in the 90's? In todays game MJ might score 40 ppg. No one could stay in front of the guy when you were allowed the hand check. Imagine now?

Hakeem was a great player. He is in my top 8. Jordan was better though.

[Celtics4ever]

The league was hardly full of talent in the 90s.  Nowadays good teams have three all stars it was the same in the 80s, 70s and 60s.  The Bulls were one of the few team that had three all stars in the 90s.   The league's talent level was down in the 90s or the talent that was there was spread pretty evenly at times.  There were few good big men that played down low too.  I think Michael's championships are vastly over rated.  They would not have beat the 80s Celtic or Laker lineups.  Even with Michael scoring 61 he could not beat them.

Micahel was the best player in the 90s overall.  He won his rings when the league was down.  Sure they were a decent team and solid defensively.   But they are not even remotely an all time great team, IMHO.

[TitleMaster]

No one could stay in front of the guy when you were allowed the hand check. Imagine now?

I think both Cooper and Moncrief did a pretty good job of keeping up with Jordan, granted there weren't many others.

And as for scoring prowess, no one on the vaunted mid-80s Celtics could slow down Bernard King either. My point is that the scorer/wing man extraordinaire type doesn't make one the greatest player of all time.

Hakeem was a great player. He is in my top 8. Jordan was better though.

This is the part I don't understand. Why is Hakeem, a player who can block shots at will, draw constant help defense in the post to even slow down the near unstoppable Dream Shake (thus generating instant opportunities for teammates), a true rebounding machine, and a finisher at all ends... a subpar all star player?

My argument is that one alpha male scorer/defender can't play high level defense for an entire squad. This is where the Bulls were a fine team because they were a defensive squad with an alpha male scorer type. The Ewing Knicks, however, were a defensive unit but had Chris Webber's older brother in the middle than an alpha male scorer. Thus, the Knicks never had that final finisher who could seal the deal for them. I've seen how Ewing has lost series. He's a 4th quarter loser and had Chris Webber's M.O. long before the Kings-Lakers series.