If Clyde Drexler played with the 90's Bulls instead of MJ, how many titles do you think they would of won?

Question

I think MJ & Clyde are very comparable. They both had similar style of play. Both were slashers, both had crazy jumping ability, both could drive to the rim & slam it in someones face, both had the ability to lead a team to the finals, & both were rightfully a franchise player.

But that being said, I think Drexler, Pippen, & the Bulls would of won 0 titles & never reached the finals. My opion is that Drexler's Blazer team were alot more talented then the Bulls were...and what made the difference between the 2 team was MJ.

Tweety,
MJ only had 2 losing seasons without Pippen, & that's when he was a REALLY OLD man playing as a Wizard......all 13 years he played with the Bulls he made the PLAYOFFS. So how did he have 5 losing seasons? Because making the PLAYOFFS is all that matter. This isn't COLLEGE! This is the NBA.......Anyways, in 88 Pippen coming to the Bulls didn't help MJ much(in your opion that's MJ's first winning season). As a wise man told you before, MJ was developing as a player. His outside shooting got better, he had to learn the system of the NBA(rookies doesn't know the rules & the system of the NBA), he learned to trust his teammates, and he had to become a better DEFENDER....and like I said, MJ had to develop. 1988 Pippens first year was also the year MJ led the league in steals, was on the all-nba 1st defensive team, & he got the defensive player of the year award! So give MJ his credit! Besides, Pippen wasn't even a starter in the 1988 regular season. That was all MJ's doing!

....and Pippen was there for 3 years before the Bulls won a title! He didn't change anything! It was all MJ. It's a known fact that the Bulls didn't sart winning until MJ DEVELOPED into a better leader.....They didn't start winning until he started trusting his teammates & making them better!

....and Pippen was there for 3 years before the Bulls won a title! He didn't change anything! It was all MJ. It's a known fact that the Bulls didn't sart winning until MJ DEVELOPED into a better leader.....They didn't start winning until he started trusting his teammates & making them better!

Answer 1

zero

Answer 2

I like you believe MJ was the difference because I didn't watch Clyde that much but I know MJ was clutch and who knows if Clyde would have made those same clutch shots and clutch plays MJ made in the playoffs?! My biggest thing is, if the Bulls didn't have MJ, who knows if they would have ever had the same team because GM's build around franchise players like MJ and I'm sure MJ had some input in who played for the Bulls, so nobody knows if those same players like Pippen would've have been drafted by the Bulls, I just don't think things would have played out the same as far as roster goes so I like you think MJ was the different and I can't say they would have won 0, but I don't think it would have been the same.

Answer 3

I said throughout his career that Drexler would most likely never lead his team to a title...and I was correct. He did win in Houston on Olajuwon's coattails, but Drexler never LED his team to a title.

Drexler is a very easy going guy, and he, frankly, just never had the killer instinct necessary to win a title. He should have looked at the finals against Chicago as a personal challenge (Michael certainly did).

He could be an all-star quality SUPPORTING memeber of a championship team, but I never thought he could LEAD a team to a title.


Drexler never had the luxury of playing with anyone as good as Scottie Pippen though. Pippen was extremely intellingent on the court in addition to being extremely talented as well.

Whether Drexler and Pippen could have won a title together depends on who they would have played. But they would have beaten the Bulls teams of Michael before he got Scottie.

Obviously, Jordan was a better player than Clyde Drexler. But that doesn't make him the greatest of all time. And as you know, if you pair up Drexler and Pippen, that means Jordan doesn't have Pippen...which means that Jordan's team would have a losing record, as ALL Jordan teams did without Pippen as a teammate.

__________________________________________________

Why is it so incredibly difficult for you to grasp the concept of a "winning season"??

Let's go to nba.com

http://www.nba.com/coachfile/pat_riley/

Here are a couple of quotes from the nba.com article:

"... (Riley) became the first HEAT coach to post back-to-back winning seasons..."

Does that mean that Riley won two titles with the Heat? Of course not...it simply means that the Heat won more games than they lost.


Another one:

"... Before joining the Heat, Riley spent four successful seasons as the head coach of the New York Knicks. Prior to Riley’s arrival the Knicks had posted just four winning seasons in the previous 10 years (1981-91). During his four-year stint in New York, Riley guided the Knicks to FOUR STRAIGHT WINNING SEASONS..."
(emphasis is mine)

I don't recall Riley winning four titles with the Knicks do you? NBA.com must mean something else when they talk about a winning season.

Also, the Knicks did not win four championships in the ten years prior to Riley's arrival. As the article stated, they merely had four winning seasons.

Why are you being so incredibly stupid about this, other than the fact that you can't face the truth?

The Bulls had losing records in EACH of Michael's first three seasons. Period. End of story. Just because the Eastern Conference was weak that under-.500 teams were able to squeak into the playoffs, it doesn't make a team like the Bulls a WINNING team, since the lost more often than they won.

Are you that stupid?

btw, Jabbar won championships at the age of 40 and at the age of 41. There was no reason for Michael to be washed up by that age, even though he was.

Jabbar won a title at 40 against the greatest front line ever assembled (Parrish, McHale, Bird and Walton).... He repeated at the age of 41.

Age is only a number... Jordan let it get to him...Jabbar didn't.

________________________________________________

If it took Michael SEVEN years to become a leader, how does that make him the greatest player of all time? Some guys are leaders from the moment they step on an NBA court... what the hell took Michael so long??

A lot of guys have been and were leaders their ENTIRE careers, not just starting with their 7th or 8th year in the NBA. It was THOSE guys who were the greatest players of all time...

If Michael, according to your own words, didn't become a leader until he'd been in the league for about 7 years, then he's even further down the list of all time greats that even I thought!

Answer 4

Being avery huge bulls fan my whole life I think the same as you Clyde was no MJ. Clyde is a hall of famer but MJ is a part of the elite. My opinion is that MJ was the greatest to ever play simply because he made his teamates better players Yeah I know he has all of the individual awards, but he made a team of nobodys into the greatest Dynasty since Bill Russels Celtics

Answer 5

Squadoosh!!!!

MJ was the best to ever play the game and he is irreplaceable i dont care what anybody says. Im not saying glide was a bad player by any means but nobody can compare to air jordan.

Answer 6

Clyde played matador defense just like Doc...big difference between he and MJ (zero titles)

Answer 7

Kobe Bryant is the best player in the league!!!

Answer 8

those where the days... when the Knicks were the only team that could beat them... go Knicks...