Did the 1994 Bulls prove that Michael Jordan wasn't needed?

Question

My opion is that they didn't prove JACK! The 94 Bulls record was 55-27 & they didn't even reach the EASTERN CONFERENCE FINALS. With MJ they were a 3 peat DYNASTY TEAM. In 94 THE Bulls went from a dynasty team that can win back to back titles to a playoff team that can't reach the conference finals. If that's not failure without MJ, well I don't no what failure is. MJ was needed BADLY! Then people say, the Bulls won 55 games without MJ, & when they had MJ they only won 57 games. Okay, well here's the correction on that. The 91, 92, & 93 Bulls were the same team. The 92 Bulls record was 67-15/plus a NBA title. The 94 Bulls won 12 less games/plus a 2nd round put out, & they added players like Kukoc, Kerr, & Longley. Anyways, the 94 Bulls just proved to be a playoff team that's never going to win (big deal, even the Clips were a 2nd round playoff team in 06). But with MJ, they were 6 X champions, two 3-peats, 72-10 record, & and a unbeatable dynasty team. The 94 Bulls didn't prove JACK!

Jamie A,
has a 0 basketball I.Q.. With MJ they were a DYNASTY TEAM. In 94 they weren't even a conference finals team, they got put out in the 2nd round. If MJ didn't have Pippen it would of been some other side kick! Since MJ made it a dynasty team(not a championship team that wins once), he most likey would of won without Pippen.

To Soul On,
Hornacek?....lol. That shows me what kind of B-Ball I.Q. you got. The fact is, in 94 they won 55 games, no title, & no conference finals. But with MJ they won 72 games, 6 titles, & was a dynasty team....and regular 2nd round playoff team sucks if you compare it to a dynasty team. They didn't prove jack! If they would of made the finals or won a title they would of proved something, but they didn't prove jack! MJ was needed badly!

Hoopfan,
in 95 MJ was out of shape, rusty, and wasn't playing to his potential. MJ had took an entire season off & came back at the end of the 95 season to play the last 17 games. He came back to a team that wasn't used to playing with him. How do you expect an out of shape MJ to jump in a new line up and win a title. Anyways, when MJ came back with an tune up & played the entire season, the Bulls went 72-10 with another nba title, you moron! MJ made that team.
p.s. The Bulls didn't drop 2 games without MJ, they dropped 12 & didn't play in a finals or coference finals. Before 94, the Bulls with MJ won 67-12 & won 3 titles. So that is failure. How you go from a dynasty team to a team that can't reach the conference finals?...lol. That is failure.

No Hoopfan:
you got to count the best record they had with MJ. So it goes like this.
1992: 67-15 & winning a title
1994: 55-27 & not making it to the conference finals.
That's a 12 game drop, no title, & getting put out the playoffs early. That's considered failure without MJ!
p.s. The 91-93 Bulls were the same team. So it's only fair to take the best record they had with MJ and compare it to the 94 seaon. So it's not 57 dropped to 55, it's 67 dropped to 55, you moron! and if you want to look at the Bulls dynasty OVERALL.
1996: 72-10, a record record, & a title.
1994: 55-27, & you know the rest.
That's a 17 game dropped.

Answer 1

Whoever would say that the Bulls didn't needed MJ or that the Bulls were just as good without him, must be an idiot! The Bulls without MJ are average at best, just like they are now.

Answer 2

They didn't prove JACK to you because you're a IDIOT!!

In Bill Russell's final season, the 1969 Celtics went 48-34, and won a title. The next year, the Celtics were 34-48 and missed the playoffs. That's a 14 game drop.

In Oscar Robertson's final season, the 1974 Bucks went 59-23, and lost in the NBA finals. The very next year, the Bucks went 38-44, and missed the playoffs (with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on the team) . That's a 21 game drop.

In 1988, Larry Bird led the Celtics to a 57-25 record, and the eastern conference finals. The very next season, he missed all but 6 games due to injury. The Celtics finished 42-40, and were swept in the first round of the playoffs. That's a 15 game drop ( WITH Parish, McHale, and DJ ..BTW).

In 1993, Michael Jordan led the Bulls to a 57-25 record, and a third straight title. Then he retired. The next year, the 1994 Bulls finished 55-27, and lost in the second round of the playoffs in 7 games. That's only a 2 game drop.

Everyone said that if Jordan returned, he would lead the Bulls to another championship.

In 1995, Jordan DID return for the final 17 games, even lighting up the Knicks for 55 points in his 5th game back. So where did the Bulls end up?

They lost in the second round of the playoffs to Orlando in 6 GAMES, even WORSE than the year before ( without Jordan).

So if Jordan was so significant in the Bulls winning championships, then WHY didn't they win in 1995? They had those "great players" Kukoc, Kerr, and Longley that you mentioned. LOL Why couldn't he "will them to victory" in 95 ?

And don't give me that B.S. about him being "rusty". Players that are " rusty" don't throw up 55 points in a game.

And like Alpha said...were it not for one of the WORST calls by an official in playoff history, the 94 Bulls DO go to the finals.

Face it, the teams with the great players I mentioned completely crumbled when they lost their leaders.

The Chicago Bulls replace a 32 ppg hall of famer, with a CBA player, and only drop two games? I would hardly call that "failure"....IDIOT! LOL

______________________________________

James, in those 17 games, Jordan put up 26.9 ppg/ 6.9 rpg/ 5.3 apg, PLUS led the Bulls in scoring in the playoffs that year with 31.5 ppg. He also put up 55 points in his 5th game back. He was NOT out of shape. That's just another cop-out by a "Jordan fanatic".

Jordans point totals in the 2nd round vs. Orlando: 19, 38 , 40 , 26 , 39 , and 24. Doesn't look too "rusty" to me....

If he was the "greatest player of all time" like you say, he should be able to jump into ANY lineup and help his team win. Face it, IDIOT, the Bulls did just fine without him. Its amazing how well you can do without the most selfish player in history on your team. LOL

__________________________________

1993) with MJ: 57-25

1994) without MJ: 55-27

57 - 55 = 2......THAT'S A TWO WIN DROP, MORON!

Now go ahead and give "on time" best answer and get this over with. He's the only other IDIOT that will agree with you. LOL

_______________________________

Then why could he not lead them further in the playoffs in 1995 then they were without him in 1994? And please, don't use that "he was rusty" B.S. I've already showed you he wasn't.

Answer 3

no offence mate, but i think ur looking at ONE season where th eBulls played well. and they did. 72 wins is amazing. but did Jordan score every point, rebound every ball ? of course not. team game it was. did you even see the playoffs and finals run during that year and more recent years with the Bulls when Jordan was there? i did. Pippen actually made a hugh push for MVP award. would he have gotten it? maybe not. maybe they wouldnt dare not give the MVP to MJ. but Pippen made a push for it, and had he not injured his back in game 6, he in my mind would have gotten it. he was the defensive stopper, offensive facilitator and a player who was hitting crucial shots inside and outside.

u cant replace a player like Jordan. he was a fantastic player for the Bulls. but he never could do it alone which is why he routinely got his *** handed back to him against the bad boys.

u said the bulls were 55-27 without Jordan. that was still a good year for the team considering there was no dynamic duo. Pippen has to play against the double teams and rely on role players to help him get the team over the line. during that year he was All Star MVP and considered league MVP. a year before that when Jordan was there the team went 57-25...wow...two extra wins!!!!!

i think u need to stop being so narrow minded and start acceptin that not all single players no matter how great can lead a championship team....if u dont believe me, then ask Kobe. see what he has to say....the 94 Bulls didnt win....but they werent crap....in fact, they had the third best total in the L behind the Hawks and Knicks who were both tied on 57 wins....2 more then the Bulls without Michael Jordan.....

Answer 4

You gonna always need that other piece of the puzzle. The Bulls were good without Jordan they were like a Eastern conference final team like, but you got to have that other player. OR coach. Look at Dallas and the Lakers...... well the Lakers back in 1999. When they added Phil Jackson as a coach, it boast the Lakers up as a championship team. Even though I think the refs cheated for them in that Game 7 against Portland. Lets goto Dallas. With Don Nelson, they were just a Semi team. But when Avery came and add something to that team like toughness and Defense they went to the NBA Finals. They should've won. Look at Detroit when they got Rasheed Wallace and Philly when they got Mt. Mutumbo, that time they went to the finals. They add a little extra to the team.

Hey Scottie can't do without Mike, Mike can't do without Scottie. Them two are a GREAT DUO. We all saw in 1997-98 season at the beginning. Mike and the Bulls was not doing that good, but when Scottie came the Bulls start killing teams.

Answer 5

Since it seems to be ok with you to compare ANY TWO Bulls teams (not just teams from consecutive years), let's compare, shall we?

1985 Bulls, with Jordan but without Rodman 38-44 (lost 3-1 in first round)
1996 Bulls, with Jordan and Rodman 72-10 (won title)

Michael obviously wasn't the reason they won 72 games OR the title, since I just showed you that with Michael (but without Rodman) they only won 38 games.

The 94 Bulls might not have "proved" jack, according to you, but Michael never WON jack without another top 50 teammate, namely, Scottie Pippen.

Face it, James...without Scottie, Michael was a loser...EVERY SINGLE YEAR!
________________________________________

It's also true that:

1) Horace Grant played 17 years in the NBA
2) BJ Armstrong played 11 years in the NBA

Both of these players made the East all star team in 1994, for the ONLY time in their careers....all without Michael there to "make them better". Neither of them were all stars while playing with Michael, even though he supposedly "made everyone else better".

It was Scottie that made these guys better, not Michael.

Answer 6

Let me you tell you something me and my buddy have this conversation all the time.that year if you remember kukoc was a beast Scottie was a beast .a phantom call by hughe hollins bulls would have beat the knicks the bulls were a shooting guard away.that year Jerry krause turned down a trade for Jeff hornacek. give the bulls props they lost the best player in world and still won 55 games and remember every top team in the east was built to beat a team with micheal Jordan. had the bulls made the trade for Jeff hornacek a guy who could shoot the three and smart enough to learn the triangle 4peat all day. but Mike came back and they won so we well never know check scottie's stats and kukoc stats that year he lead the league in buzzer beaters that year.

Answer 7

You are a....
1. hater

A person that simply cannot be happy for another person's success. So rather than be happy they make a point of exposing a flaw in that person.

_______________________________________________

They came within one bad call of going to the ECFinals.It proved that the Bulls were a contender even without MJ.

Of course they need MJ..every great team need's two great players to win chips
so maybe it just tarnishes his legacy.Who cares without Bill Russell the Celtics would'nt even make the playoffs...he's the greatest WINNER...EVER..to easy.......

Answer 8

ANYBODY THAT KNOWS THE GAME REALIZES THAT A ONE-MAN TEAM WILL NEVER WIN THE TITLE.