Hey old man river, zip it or I'll break your hip.

http://blogs.chron.com/jeromesolomon/2010/12/phil_jackson_is_a_great_coach.html

quote:

---

Instead, when asked if the Rockets' back-to-back championships were tainted because of Michael Jordan's foray into baseball, Jackson elected to take a sideways shot.

"Definitely," Jackson said. "Without a doubt. Clearly, if the Bulls were whole, we would have won. It's pretty much registered by now. When Michael played, we won the championship."

---

Dude is an *******. I don't understand how people could have watched Hakeem during those two seasons and failed to conclude that the guy was the greatest player on the planer during that time.

For that matter, Jordan was playing during the Rockets second championship, but he couldn't get it done.

Don't blame him for thinking it, but sounds like a jerk actually saying it to the media.

uhhh...he's probably right.

the bulls were good that year even without the greatest basketball player in the history of anything

also...both phil's hips are already broken. threat moot.

meh..... who cares what that idjit thinks...... it's just speculation anyway..... who knows what would have happened

He is right.

He is right.

what a cry baby!! Poor butt hurt mavs, slurs, bulls, fakers, and other team who didn't win those two years...

Two championship banners hang in Toyota center and no amount of crying and excuse making will change that!! Go Rockets!!

Another point how many freakin years was Jordan in the NBA and didn't win the title??

Jordan played full seasons 6 times with Phil Jackson and won 6 titles. Phil is not really going out on a limb here

He's 100% correct.

Put Phil on a team without all stars at every position and he is nothing special.

Neither are most coaches. If you don't have the players, you are probably not going to be a successful coach.

How can he be right when what he said is empirically false.

quote:

---

When Michael played, we won the championship

---

He played during the Rocket's second championship season, but he lost. He got beat. He couldn't even get the Bulls past an Orlando team that Hakeem swept in the finals.

Can't believe I'm going to argue on behalf of the Rockets, but Hakeem was unbelievable at this time. To say that the win would have been a given? No way.

We'll never know. The Bulls never played the Rockets in a series. I know the Rockets fared pretty well when they played the Bulls during the regular season in the Jordan years, but I don't pretend like that defines how they would have matched up in the World Championship. I tend to think the Rockets would have won at least one of the championships if Jordan was still playing, because Olajuwon was just at another level and the Bulls would have had no answer for him.

Why does everyone keep saying IF Jordan was still playing. He WAS playing during the Rockets second championship, and he LOST in the playoffs to a team that the Rockets SWEPT!

Flies in that season Jordan "played" in the Bulls without Jordan were 31-31 at one point, and Jordan only played in 17 games, after putting basketball aside for a year and a half

do you really count that? because you'd be one of the few people who do (aka stupid).

I might agree with Phil.. but it's no lock by any means. The Bulls retooled quite a bit when Jordan left. They picked up Kukoc and Harper. Would they have made those moves if Jordan hadn't left? Or would they have kept that aging group together?

I've always thought Jordan's absence made that team stronger for his second 3-peat. If he had been there the whole time I could see them being just like Phil's Laker team that got fat and complacent and ended up losing to the Spurs while going for the fourth in the row.

Add the facts that Hakeem was rediculous those years and the Jordan Bulls never really faced a dominating center (Ewing doesn't count).. and the conclusion is that its no lock. Phil can say it all he wants, that doesn't make it reality.

[This message has been edited by Ag Natural (edited 12/2/2010 5:03p).]

Fact - The Rockets were 5-1 against the Bulls the first 3 years they won their NBA Championship. Had MJ and the Bulls faced the Rockets in 94 and 95, it is very conceivable that MJ would have lost to the Rockets... twice.

Phil is right. As a Spurs fan, I don't always like the guy, but he's usually right.

Rockets contained Jordan better than anyone and they had no answer to Hakeem in his prime. I think they win in 94 and I know they win in 95. No one was going to derail that 95 team. Hell, if it weren't for the Rocket-killers (aka the Sonics), I think Houston could have taken them in 93.

Phil saying that is as bad as texas fans saying they lost the MNC only because Colt got hurt. waah



[This message has been edited by SJEAg (edited 12/2/2010 6:35p).]

Notice the posters arguing so strongly against the Rockets..

Simplebay (scoreboard)
Cokehead
Dr. Cub.

Hmm.. no biases ANYWHERE that might possibly contribute to a very ill advised, whiny opinion.

[This message has been edited by mazag08 (edited 12/2/2010 6:41p).]

rockets would have taken them. phil can suck it. he's always good for as being a smart ass and getting under people's skin...looks like he's done it again

Bulls would have won those titles with MJ. No doubt about it.

But the Rockets deserve credit for getting the job done, even if it wasn't against optimal competition.

quote:

---

If he had been there the whole time I could see them being just like Phil's Laker team that got fat and complacent and ended up losing to the Spurs while going for the fourth in the row.

---

The 00s Lakers were doomed to fail eventually because Shaq is one of the laziest superstars ever, and young Kobe was a social basketcase. Jordan is the most competitive superstar ever. But, you could argue that his super competitiveness is the main factor that drove him away from the game to seek new challenges. So maybe it would have failed anyway, but probably not due to Jordan getting lazy. Maybe Pippen gets tired of his role and demands a trade to a team where he can be the star like freaking late 00's Shawn Marion.

quote:

---

Flies in that season Jordan "played" in the Bulls without Jordan were 31-31 at one point, and Jordan only played in 17 games, after putting basketball aside for a year and a half

do you really count that? because you'd be one of the few people who do (aka stupid).

---

You're a moron. The Bulls were in the playoffs. Jordan was on the team. He wasn't injured. He played every game of the playoffs. And the Bulls got beat by a team that the Rockets swept. Those are facts. What Phil Jackson said is wrong as a matter of empirical fact.

quote:

---

Bulls would have won those titles with MJ. No doubt about it.

---

Well, since they had MJ for the second playoff run, and they didn't win the title, i guess there is actually quite a lot of room to doubt it - since it is false as a matter of historical fact.

[This message has been edited by Whistling For Flies (edited 12/2/2010 8:00p).]

I pretty much agree with Ag Natural.

If Jordan doesn't take that 1.5 year break, does the team stick together? Pippen got his chance for the spotlight and realized how much better things were with Jordan there. I don't think that happens if they stick together

And Jordan doesn't win playoff series without Pippen.

The real question is, why do you rockets fans even care? You all seem a little sensitive. Jordan is the greatest to have ever played, but you guys won 2 championships with one of the greats of the time (Hakeem). Be proud of that. Just because someone thinks the Bulls would have won given some hypothetical doesn't mean they're jealous, just means they don't agree with you Rocket fans.

Sensitive?

We are told every year by some blow hard jealous opposing fan who thinks he is smack talking that we dont deserve our championships.

Please tell me where defending yourself against ignorant idiots means you are sensitive..

As a Spurs fan, I say Phil can go **** himself.

I guess the 2000 Lakers championship is "tainted" because Duncan had a knee injury.

Fact of the matter is, Hakeem and the Rockets won the NBA Title, and just because someone took a hiatus to play baseball doesn't take anything away from them.

"First in Sight, Ready to Fight"

quote:

---

Notice the posters arguing so strongly against the Rockets..

Simplebay (scoreboard)
Cokehead
Dr. Cub.

Hmm.. no biases ANYWHERE that might possibly contribute to a very ill advised, whiny opinion.

---

1. Where was I "arguing strongly against the Rockets"?
2. I readily admit my bias. I am, and always have been, a Bulls fan. I went to my first game at the old Chicago Stadium when Jordan was still in HS. But there is no anti-Rockets bias here.

[This message has been edited by Dr. Cub, Esq. (edited 12/3/2010 8:34a).]

and i don't really like the bulls. my bias is towards the lakers and this doesn't affect them in any way.

i also live in houston and have no anti-rockets bias.

plus...you don't exactly see Mavs/Spurs fans arguing in favor of the rockets in this thread.

It could be argued that the Lakers won their championship two years ago only because Kevin Garnett was injured. They barely squeaked it out last year taking advantage of a one-year-older Garnett coming off an injury plagued season.

Asterisks can be applied anywhere if you're picky.

Exactly. The Rockets' championships are just as valid as any other championship in the history of the NBA.

But it will always be a talking point of "Who do you THINK would have won if Jordan never left". Just as injuries provide the same talking points. "Who do you THINK would have won that year if player X didn't get hurt?"

In the end, it doesn't matter because Houston won and they have 2 rings to show for it.