The 1991 NBA Playoffs

[Beat LA]

Boston aside, what surprised you the most about that postseason?  Was it the Lakers making the Finals?  For me, it's kind of surprising how the Pistons lost to Chicago.  Was anyone else shocked that they were swept?  I thought that our series against the Cavs in 2010 was going to go the same way because of our age, injuries, and being on the road, but I was pleasantly surprised. 

I mean, sure, Detroit was an older team and they had injuries, but they also had great depth.  It just looks like they kind of limped to the ECF and said, "we're done," haha.  Where was the fight and the effort that they had showed against the Celtics and Hawks?  It just, something feels off about that series to me.  It should have been a great one, imo.

[freshinthehouse]

Boston aside, what surprised you the most about that postseason?  Was it the Lakers making the Finals?  For me, it's kind of surprising how the Pistons lost to Chicago.  Was anyone else shocked that they were swept?  I thought that our series against the Cavs in 2010 was going to go the same way because of our age, injuries, and being on the road, but I was pleasantly surprised. 

I mean, sure, Detroit was an older team and they had injuries, but they also had great depth.  It just looks like they kind of limped to the ECF and said, "we're done," haha.  Where was the fight and the effort that they had showed against the Celtics and Hawks?  It just, something feels off about that series to me.  It should have been a great one, imo.

That was probably the first playoffs series that I really paid attention to.  I remember being bummed that year because the C's were so good in the first half but kind of limped into the playoffs.  I know that in 91 most people thought that the Bulls would win, but I think it was a shock that it was a sweep.  It seemed like the Pistons threw their best punch (literally and figuratively with that bunch of goons), and when Chicago didn't flinch, Detroit buckled like a card table.  That team aged in a hurry.  Champions in 1990 and by 1992 they were first round fodder.

It may have been may naivete at the time, but I really thought Portland could have beat the Bulls in 1991.  I thought they had the athleticism to match up with the Bulls and I thought they had better depth.  This may also be because I always like those Blazer teams and that I was already getting a distaste for Michael Jordan.

[moiso]

That was the first and maybe only series ever in which I rooted for the Lakers.  I was still hoping that the previous 80's era wouldn't turn it over to Jordan for another year.

[Donoghus]

Lakers beating the Blazers that year in the conference finals was probably the biggest surprise to me.

Portland really should've made 3 finals in a row.  That was a pretty stacked team and that Lakers squad wasn't that strong. 

[Moranis]

Nothing really surprised me about that year.  The Lakers were still a 58 win team (third best in all of basketball).  It wasn't like this was a 45 win team.  I was a bit surprised that Chicago swept Detroit, but fully expected the Bulls to win.  The Bulls weaknesses were down low something none of the teams they played could exploit.  The Bulls had one of the greatest post seasons ever that year, losing just 2 games including sweeping the two time defending champion and losing just 1 game to the team that had won the prior (to detroit) 2 titles. 

[Beat LA]

Boston aside, what surprised you the most about that postseason?  Was it the Lakers making the Finals?  For me, it's kind of surprising how the Pistons lost to Chicago.  Was anyone else shocked that they were swept?  I thought that our series against the Cavs in 2010 was going to go the same way because of our age, injuries, and being on the road, but I was pleasantly surprised. 

I mean, sure, Detroit was an older team and they had injuries, but they also had great depth.  It just looks like they kind of limped to the ECF and said, "we're done," haha.  Where was the fight and the effort that they had showed against the Celtics and Hawks?  It just, something feels off about that series to me.  It should have been a great one, imo.

That was probably the first playoffs series that I really paid attention to.  I remember being bummed that year because the C's were so good in the first half but kind of limped into the playoffs.  I know that in 91 most people thought that the Bulls would win, but I think it was a shock that it was a sweep.  It seemed like the Pistons threw their best punch (literally and figuratively with that bunch of goons), and when Chicago didn't flinch, Detroit buckled like a card table.  That team aged in a hurry.  Champions in 1990 and by 1992 they were first round fodder.

It may have been may naivete at the time, but I really thought Portland could have beat the Bulls in 1991.  I thought they had the athleticism to match up with the Bulls and I thought they had better depth.  This may also be because I always like those Blazer teams and that I was already getting a distaste for Michael Jordan.

The rapid decline of the Pistons happened because Jack Mccloskey panicked after they were swept and let two of their biggest offensive weapons go in Vinnie Johnson (who was outstanding in the 91 playoffs for them), and James Edwards, who, despite being 35 with a bad back, injured his ankle in game one and was never really a factor at all in that series against Chicago.  Choosing not to retain him really hurt, imo, because he was their only low post player, and without him, they simply had no offensive game, despite keeping Aguirre. 

There's a Detroit fan on Youtube who, in his comments under many of the videos of the games, says that it was all fixed and that they never ran their offense (pick and roll and screening for their guards aside, I didn't know they had one lol).  He said that they never wanted to win and that Chuck Daly fixed it because he was the coach of the Dream Team.  I don't agree with that, but when I watched the games he does have a point or two.  1).  With just one day between the end of game 6 against us and the start of game 1 of the ecf, Daly chose to suddenly start Isiah Thomas, which, imo after watching the first game, threw Detroit out of sync more offensively than Chicago's defense.  I know that Zeke played a great game 6, but they had just won the prior 3 games with a backcourt of Dumars and Johnson, who, in the first two games, played extremely well together.  It wasn't just that the microwave was on fire, it was that that particular group of players were used to playing with each other, and without any practice time, putting Thomas into the starting lineup might have cost them that series, imo.  He already had the hamstring and the wrist injuries, not to mention the ankle, so he really should have been coming off the bench for the Pistons from game 5 against us to the end of their playoff run; and if he is going to start, start him in game three after you've at least had a couple of days to practice.  That move makes no sense to me, and with the way that Dumars and VJ had been playing, not to mention Aguirre, yeah, I think that had the rotation not been altered they could have won the first game, at least.  That game was very doable, despite what the official Bulls' final film shows. 

To me, and I think that Bob Ryan might have said this at the time, it looked like Bill Laimbeer retired after game 6 against us lol, Edwards didn't give them anything, Rodman's head clearly wasn't into game 3 (although he was there in game 1, holding Pippen to 2/8 shooting until they switched him onto Jordan, where he held, literally and figuratively of course lol, MJ to O points in the 3rd quarter, while Pippen really got it going against Dumars, who had done a good job on Jordan up until that point.  Another blunder, imo.), Salley didn't show up on either end until game 3 bc of foul trouble (finally lol), and Isiah scored 11 and 10 points, respectively, as a starter, in the first two games.  That's great production off the bench, but not if you're starting.

Idk, there's just something a little fishy about that series.  Look at the difference in effort between the series against us and the ecf.  Yeah, they might have been tired, but that's a lame excuse.  They still could have tried.  In 87 we didn't have 5 healthy players and we came within a bad call and horrible officiating of tying the nba finals against a lakers team that was way better than the Bulls team the Pistons faced; and in 88, it was even worse for us.  Bird couldn't move because of the Achilles, his back was hurting, and he had the flu in the ecf.  To top it all off, Ainge didn't score in what, 1 or 2 of the games in that series, and we still lost by a handful of points in every game because our EFFORT was there.  We might have been older, but their fire was every bit there, and they never gave up.  They played like the champions that they were, unlike the Pistons.

Anyway, Detroit losing Edwards and VJ kind of mirrored what happened when Ray Allen left, I thought, because the pieces, coupled with Rondo's injury, never fit together like they had with the fantastic four (big four always sounded stupid to me), and just like the Pistons, we lost in the first round in 2013.  Detroit didn't go quietly in 92, though, and had Dumars made his free throws at the end of game 3, they likely would have won that series against the Knicks.  Joe missed those two crucial ones in game 6 against us in 91, too.  I thought he was a great free throw shooter.  Maybe we should have fouled him in other big games haha. 

Still, that team couldn't play any other way, so they should have just stayed together for at least another year.  They could have signed Mahorn, who was a free agent in 1991, and been 9 deep again.  That team probably could have beaten Chicago in 1992, but whatever.  I'm rambling. 

There's nothing wrong with having a distaste for Jordan, btw, although ESPN would probably call you and I blasphemous lol.  Has their ever been a more protected player, from day 1, than him?  Maybe Kareem?  You could tell how things were going to change once nbc took over from cbs, boo, and they had no one but MJ ass-kissers and friends as their "reporters."  Could it have been anymore biased?  Incredible.  That was even worse than it is now for Lebron, and that's saying something

You were probably right about the Blazers, too, since they would have had homecourt (which might very well have played a big role for Chicago, imo, because none of them had ever played on that stage before) and had beaten the Bulls in both games that year.  Interesting to ponder, but we'll never know.

[Beat LA]

That was the first and maybe only series ever in which I rooted for the Lakers.  I was still hoping that the previous 80's era wouldn't turn it over to Jordan for another year.

Same here

[Redz]

Boston aside, what surprised you the most about that postseason?  Was it the Lakers making the Finals?  For me, it's kind of surprising how the Pistons lost to Chicago.  Was anyone else shocked that they were swept?  I thought that our series against the Cavs in 2010 was going to go the same way because of our age, injuries, and being on the road, but I was pleasantly surprised. 

I mean, sure, Detroit was an older team and they had injuries, but they also had great depth.  It just looks like they kind of limped to the ECF and said, "we're done," haha.  Where was the fight and the effort that they had showed against the Celtics and Hawks?  It just, something feels off about that series to me.  It should have been a great one, imo.

That was probably the first playoffs series that I really paid attention to.  I remember being bummed that year because the C's were so good in the first half but kind of limped into the playoffs.  I know that in 91 most people thought that the Bulls would win, but I think it was a shock that it was a sweep.  It seemed like the Pistons threw their best punch (literally and figuratively with that bunch of goons), and when Chicago didn't flinch, Detroit buckled like a card table.  That team aged in a hurry.  Champions in 1990 and by 1992 they were first round fodder.

It may have been may naivete at the time, but I really thought Portland could have beat the Bulls in 1991.  I thought they had the athleticism to match up with the Bulls and I thought they had better depth.  This may also be because I always like those Blazer teams and that I was already getting a distaste for Michael Jordan.

The rapid decline of the Pistons happened because Jack Mccloskey panicked after they were swept and let two of their biggest offensive weapons go in Vinnie Johnson (who was outstanding in the 91 playoffs for them), and James Edwards, who, despite being 35 with a bad back, injured his ankle in game one and was never really a factor at all in that series against Chicago.  Choosing not to retain him really hurt, imo, because he was their only low post player, and without him, they simply had no offensive game, despite keeping Aguirre. 

There's a Detroit fan on Youtube who, in his comments under many of the videos of the games, says that it was all fixed and that they never ran their offense (pick and roll and screening for their guards aside, I didn't know they had one lol).  He said that they never wanted to win and that Chuck Daly fixed it because he was the coach of the Dream Team.  I don't agree with that, but when I watched the games he does have a point or two.  1).  With just one day between the end of game 6 against us and the start of game 1 of the ecf, Daly chose to suddenly start Isiah Thomas, which, imo after watching the first game, threw Detroit out of sync more offensively than Chicago's defense.  I know that Zeke played a great game 6, but they had just won the prior 3 games with a backcourt of Dumars and Johnson, who, in the first two games, played extremely well together.  It wasn't just that the microwave was on fire, it was that that particular group of players were used to playing with each other, and without any practice time, putting Thomas into the starting lineup might have cost them that series, imo.  He already had the hamstring and the wrist injuries, not to mention the ankle, so he really should have been coming off the bench for the Pistons from game 5 against us to the end of their playoff run; and if he is going to start, start him in game three after you've at least had a couple of days to practice.  That move makes no sense to me, and with the way that Dumars and VJ had been playing, not to mention Aguirre, yeah, I think that had the rotation not been altered they could have won the first game, at least.  That game was very doable, despite what the official Bulls' final film shows. 

To me, and I think that Bob Ryan might have said this at the time, it looked like Bill Laimbeer retired after game 6 against us lol, Edwards didn't give them anything, Rodman's head clearly wasn't into game 3 (although he was there in game 1, holding Pippen to 2/8 shooting until they switched him onto Jordan, where he held, literally and figuratively of course lol, MJ to O points in the 3rd quarter, while Pippen really got it going against Dumars, who had done a good job on Jordan up until that point.  Another blunder, imo.), Salley didn't show up on either end until game 3 bc of foul trouble (finally lol), and Isiah scored 11 and 10 points, respectively, as a starter, in the first two games.  That's great production off the bench, but not if you're starting.

Idk, there's just something a little fishy about that series.  Look at the difference in effort between the series against us and the ecf.  Yeah, they might have been tired, but that's a lame excuse.  They still could have tried.  In 87 we didn't have 5 healthy players and we came within a bad call and horrible officiating of tying the nba finals against a lakers team that was way better than the Bulls team the Pistons faced; and in 88, it was even worse for us.  Bird couldn't move because of the Achilles, his back was hurting, and he had the flu in the ecf.  To top it all off, Ainge didn't score in what, 1 or 2 of the games in that series, and we still lost by a handful of points in every game because our EFFORT was there.  We might have been older, but their fire was every bit there, and they never gave up.  They played like the champions that they were, unlike the Pistons.

Anyway, Detroit losing Edwards and VJ kind of mirrored what happened when Ray Allen left, I thought, because the pieces, coupled with Rondo's injury, never fit together like they had with the fantastic four (big four always sounded stupid to me), and just like the Pistons, we lost in the first round in 2013.  Detroit didn't go quietly in 92, though, and had Dumars made his free throws at the end of game 3, they likely would have won that series against the Knicks.  Joe missed those two crucial ones in game 6 against us in 91, too.  I thought he was a great free throw shooter.  Maybe we should have fouled him in other big games haha. 

Still, that team couldn't play any other way, so they should have just stayed together for at least another year.  They could have signed Mahorn, who was a free agent in 1991, and been 9 deep again.  That team probably could have beaten Chicago in 1992, but whatever.  I'm rambling. 

There's nothing wrong with having a distaste for Jordan, btw, although ESPN would probably call you and I blasphemous lol.  Has their ever been a more protected player, from day 1, than him?  Maybe Kareem?  You could tell how things were going to change once nbc took over from cbs, boo, and they had no one but MJ ass-kissers and friends as their "reporters."  Could it have been anymore biased?  Incredible.  That was even worse than it is now for Lebron, and that's saying something

You were probably right about the Blazers, too, since they would have had homecourt (which might very well have played a big role for Chicago, imo, because none of them had ever played on that stage before) and had beaten the Bulls in both games that year.  Interesting to ponder, but we'll never know.

TP for some wicked in depth analysis of something that happened that long ago!

[Beat LA]

Boston aside, what surprised you the most about that postseason?  Was it the Lakers making the Finals?  For me, it's kind of surprising how the Pistons lost to Chicago.  Was anyone else shocked that they were swept?  I thought that our series against the Cavs in 2010 was going to go the same way because of our age, injuries, and being on the road, but I was pleasantly surprised. 

I mean, sure, Detroit was an older team and they had injuries, but they also had great depth.  It just looks like they kind of limped to the ECF and said, "we're done," haha.  Where was the fight and the effort that they had showed against the Celtics and Hawks?  It just, something feels off about that series to me.  It should have been a great one, imo.

That was probably the first playoffs series that I really paid attention to.  I remember being bummed that year because the C's were so good in the first half but kind of limped into the playoffs.  I know that in 91 most people thought that the Bulls would win, but I think it was a shock that it was a sweep.  It seemed like the Pistons threw their best punch (literally and figuratively with that bunch of goons), and when Chicago didn't flinch, Detroit buckled like a card table.  That team aged in a hurry.  Champions in 1990 and by 1992 they were first round fodder.

It may have been may naivete at the time, but I really thought Portland could have beat the Bulls in 1991.  I thought they had the athleticism to match up with the Bulls and I thought they had better depth.  This may also be because I always like those Blazer teams and that I was already getting a distaste for Michael Jordan.

The rapid decline of the Pistons happened because Jack Mccloskey panicked after they were swept and let two of their biggest offensive weapons go in Vinnie Johnson (who was outstanding in the 91 playoffs for them), and James Edwards, who, despite being 35 with a bad back, injured his ankle in game one and was never really a factor at all in that series against Chicago.  Choosing not to retain him really hurt, imo, because he was their only low post player, and without him, they simply had no offensive game, despite keeping Aguirre. 

There's a Detroit fan on Youtube who, in his comments under many of the videos of the games, says that it was all fixed and that they never ran their offense (pick and roll and screening for their guards aside, I didn't know they had one lol).  He said that they never wanted to win and that Chuck Daly fixed it because he was the coach of the Dream Team.  I don't agree with that, but when I watched the games he does have a point or two.  1).  With just one day between the end of game 6 against us and the start of game 1 of the ecf, Daly chose to suddenly start Isiah Thomas, which, imo after watching the first game, threw Detroit out of sync more offensively than Chicago's defense.  I know that Zeke played a great game 6, but they had just won the prior 3 games with a backcourt of Dumars and Johnson, who, in the first two games, played extremely well together.  It wasn't just that the microwave was on fire, it was that that particular group of players were used to playing with each other, and without any practice time, putting Thomas into the starting lineup might have cost them that series, imo.  He already had the hamstring and the wrist injuries, not to mention the ankle, so he really should have been coming off the bench for the Pistons from game 5 against us to the end of their playoff run; and if he is going to start, start him in game three after you've at least had a couple of days to practice.  That move makes no sense to me, and with the way that Dumars and VJ had been playing, not to mention Aguirre, yeah, I think that had the rotation not been altered they could have won the first game, at least.  That game was very doable, despite what the official Bulls' final film shows. 

To me, and I think that Bob Ryan might have said this at the time, it looked like Bill Laimbeer retired after game 6 against us lol, Edwards didn't give them anything, Rodman's head clearly wasn't into game 3 (although he was there in game 1, holding Pippen to 2/8 shooting until they switched him onto Jordan, where he held, literally and figuratively of course lol, MJ to O points in the 3rd quarter, while Pippen really got it going against Dumars, who had done a good job on Jordan up until that point.  Another blunder, imo.), Salley didn't show up on either end until game 3 bc of foul trouble (finally lol), and Isiah scored 11 and 10 points, respectively, as a starter, in the first two games.  That's great production off the bench, but not if you're starting.

Idk, there's just something a little fishy about that series.  Look at the difference in effort between the series against us and the ecf.  Yeah, they might have been tired, but that's a lame excuse.  They still could have tried.  In 87 we didn't have 5 healthy players and we came within a bad call and horrible officiating of tying the nba finals against a lakers team that was way better than the Bulls team the Pistons faced; and in 88, it was even worse for us.  Bird couldn't move because of the Achilles, his back was hurting, and he had the flu in the ecf.  To top it all off, Ainge didn't score in what, 1 or 2 of the games in that series, and we still lost by a handful of points in every game because our EFFORT was there.  We might have been older, but their fire was every bit there, and they never gave up.  They played like the champions that they were, unlike the Pistons.

Anyway, Detroit losing Edwards and VJ kind of mirrored what happened when Ray Allen left, I thought, because the pieces, coupled with Rondo's injury, never fit together like they had with the fantastic four (big four always sounded stupid to me), and just like the Pistons, we lost in the first round in 2013.  Detroit didn't go quietly in 92, though, and had Dumars made his free throws at the end of game 3, they likely would have won that series against the Knicks.  Joe missed those two crucial ones in game 6 against us in 91, too.  I thought he was a great free throw shooter.  Maybe we should have fouled him in other big games haha. 

Still, that team couldn't play any other way, so they should have just stayed together for at least another year.  They could have signed Mahorn, who was a free agent in 1991, and been 9 deep again.  That team probably could have beaten Chicago in 1992, but whatever.  I'm rambling. 

There's nothing wrong with having a distaste for Jordan, btw, although ESPN would probably call you and I blasphemous lol.  Has their ever been a more protected player, from day 1, than him?  Maybe Kareem?  You could tell how things were going to change once nbc took over from cbs, boo, and they had no one but MJ ass-kissers and friends as their "reporters."  Could it have been anymore biased?  Incredible.  That was even worse than it is now for Lebron, and that's saying something

You were probably right about the Blazers, too, since they would have had homecourt (which might very well have played a big role for Chicago, imo, because none of them had ever played on that stage before) and had beaten the Bulls in both games that year.  Interesting to ponder, but we'll never know.

TP for some wicked in depth analysis of something that happened that long ago!

Haha, thanks.  I do what I can , plus, it's a hobby of mine

[Beat LA]

Nothing really surprised me about that year.  The Lakers were still a 58 win team (third best in all of basketball).  It wasn't like this was a 45 win team.  I was a bit surprised that Chicago swept Detroit, but fully expected the Bulls to win.  The Bulls weaknesses were down low something none of the teams they played could exploit.  The Bulls had one of the greatest post seasons ever that year, losing just 2 games including sweeping the two time defending champion and losing just 1 game to the team that had won the prior (to detroit) 2 titles.

The Lakers could, and did, though, with Magic, Worthy, Vlade, and Perkins.  Still, our Big Three was their kryptonite, particularly McHale, even on one foot.  I read in The Jordan Rules about how Horace Grant said that there was no way that he could stop McHale because of all of his post moves, but that shouldn't come as a surprise, considering that Kevin is the best pivot player of all time.  The Pistons couldn't do anything with him, either, so they just threw dude after dude at him, hoping to tire him out by beating him up, but that never worked lol.  Even with that ankle sprain, the Pistons had no answer for McHale in 91, especially in game 6, when he pretty much single-handedly kept us in that game.  34 points off the bench!?   [dang] son   He would have had 37 if he hadn't missed 3 free throws, and 39 if the refs hadn't screwed us with that horrible call on the tip in.  Ugh.  Didn't Salley say that guarding McHale was to be in his torture chamber lol?

Anyway, back to the Lakers.  I honestly think that with a few relatively simple moves they could have beaten Chicago, even without homecourt.  Worthy's injury came at exactly the wrong time, and Scott didn't even score lol.  He was complete and utter crap in that series lol. 

1).  Jerry West, iirc, had a deal at the trade deadline all done, but backed out at the last minute.  The player who was to be acquired for peanuts (as is the typical compensation package from the lakers lol)?  Sedale Threatt, the very same guy who they acquired after the season.  LA needed someone who could more than spot Magic - they needed a guard who could come in and score, run the show, and play defense, like Vinnie Johnson or Danny Ainge.  Threatt was that guy and more.  With him off the bench, Magic wouldn't have gotten tired in, say, game 3, when the lakers ran out of gas after smoking the Bulls for a 13-15 point 3rd quarter lead.  I've seen various clips from the 91 preseason of that Lakers squad, and they looked deadly.  Even better than the year before.  They likely would have made it back to the finals and beaten Chicago in 92 had Magic not contracted the HIV virus.  Trust me, Threatt would have been huge for them, on both ends.

2).  Waiving Michael Cooper was stupid.  Yes, he was about to turn 34, and he no longer was the player that he had been for them in the 80s, but he could still contribute, especially defensively.  I know what you're thinking - there's no way that a 34 year old Michael Cooper could guard Michael Jordan, and, stretches aside, you're absolutely right; but it's not about Michael, and it never was.  The key to Chicago was Pippen, and, to a lesser extent, Horace Grant.  We all know about Pippen's fouling, I mean, guarding, of Magic in game 2 that the Lakers destroyed as a strategy in game 3, but Scottie also had a great finals offensively, and despite being a bit older, I think that Cooper could have more than done the job against Pippen in that series.  It would have been fun to see him frustrating Scottie, but not in a dirty way (well, most of the time.  Cooper was a quasi-dirty player, especially against us, imo) like what Rodman used to do to him.  I just think that a bench of Threatt, Teagle, Cooper, Green, and Campbell, would have been too much for the bulls to handle.

3).  Speaking of which, they needed to give Elden Campbell Mychal Thompson's minutes.  Aside from playing against us and beating up, I mean, guarding, McHale, haha, Thompson was just plain cooked by 90-91, while Campbell was their John Salley, defensively, as a rookie.  He could run, jump, rebound, and especially block shots, and he would have made the perfect target for Magic on alley-oops.  His court speed alone would have tired out guys like Cartwright and Perdue.  He did score 21 points off the bench in game 5 of that series, btw, so he obviously wasn't nearly as inept offensively as Salley was for most of his career lol.

Just my 2 cents.  That team would have beaten Chicago, imo.  It wouldn't have been easy, of course, but I just think that their depth would have ultimately proven to be too much for Chicago to handle.

[greg683x]

That Pistons team aged in a hurry because they were already heading past their prime when they got over the hump.  The Pistons were always the clear #3 in 80's at best, they had to wait for the Celtics and Lakers to age and decline before they could make their move

[Beat LA]

Btw, for anyone who doesn't know, the Bulls had a spygate of their own in the 91 finals that goes largely overlooked.  Everyone says that the Celtics cheated and had guys in the 76ers' huddle during that 81 series, which wasn't true.  I think Fitch sent someone back to the locker room to watch the reports that the sideline people were reporting as part of some cbs segment that was quickly done away with by the network.  What a dumb idea, and that is cheating, but the Bulls were much worse.  They actually had cameras fixated on the Lakers' huddle.  Wow.  I'll see if I can find a link.  I'm surprised that this wasn't more highly scrutinized at the time, even though it was clearly his game by that point with all of his friends roaming the sidelines and the broadcasters always kissing his ass.

[Beat LA]

I also, and this is just me, would have liked to see the Lakers use the trap against Chicago, if only to throw the Bulls' game right back in their faces lol.  This is where Cooper would have helped.  Everyone talks about Chicago's trap, but the Lakers used it with great success during their run.  It even worked against us once and a while.  I would have really enjoyed seeing Jordan getting frustrated haha.  I know that it was Pat Riley's strategy, but Dunleavy employed the same principles defensively, so it shouldn't have been too hard to implement.  The slow-down style really worked for the Lakers that year.  Of course, having one of the top 2 point guards ever running the show doesn't hurt, either.

You know the one team that never handled Chicago's or LA's trapping defenses?  The Pistons.  It's kind of amazing, and yet really pathetic at the same time lol, that they couldn't solve it.  Otherwise, that 1990 series against Chicago would have been 5 games, max.  I wish that the Celtics could have used that defense, but we simply didn't have the personnel necessary to make it as effective as the ones employed by the Bulls and Lakers (although it did get us back in the game in game 5 against the Pistons in 91 when nothing else was working.).  Sigh.

[manl_lui]

[dang], I was 3...no memory of it lol

the best years were definitely the 80s to mid 90s

[Beat LA]

That Pistons team aged in a hurry because they were already heading past their prime when they got over the hump.  The Pistons were always the clear #3 in 80's at best, they had to wait for the Celtics and Lakers to age and decline before they could make their move

I thought that the 76ers were #3.  They were a power long before the Pistons, and for a longer period of time, going back to their series against Portland.  Eh, it's probably a tie.

I don't think that Detroit was past their prime when they started winning, but some of their big contributors were getting close to the end of their prime by 1989, ie. Laimbeer, Mahorn, and Edwards.  I'm not putting Vinnie Johnson in that group because he was simply amazing in 91.  They definitely do not go as far in the playoffs that year without him. 

The other factor, too, is that Salley and Rodman never learned how to score lol.  Salley was huge in 1992, but the Pistons needed that kind of production in 91.  As for Rodman, need I say more haha?  You could probably make the argument that both of those guys were better offensive players when they entered the league than when they left it, and that's pretty sad.

Honestly, I think that the Pistons could have done a lot more to bolster their bench for the 90-91 season.  They gave $900K to Tree Rollins   Yeah, I don't get it, either.  Defense wasn't their problem.  Age was, particularly inside, and there were a few guys that could have, imo, made a huge difference, especially against Chicago, not that I've thought about this a lot or anything (sarcasm).  I still can't believe they went after DJ.  It wouldn't have been right seeing him in a Pistons uniform.  Anyway, these are my three guys -

1).  Joe Barry Carroll - I know that his nickname was Joe Barely Cares lol, but he was only 32-33 in 90-91, as opposed to Edwards, who was 35-36.  Big difference.  At 7'0" you wouldn't be losing anything size-wise, and in addition to his excellent inside game, which is what Detroit desperately needed, he could do 3 things that Buddha never could: 1.  Pass (the Bulls exposed this in the ecf), 2.  Rebound (despite being 7'1," the most Edwards ever averaged was 8.5.  Who is he, Roy Hibbert, haha?  I know that with Rodman and Laimbeer he didn't have to rebound, but come on lol.), and 3.  Block Shots.  This is a big one, because aside from Salley, the Pistons never had a shot-blocking starter, which was a huge weakness, imo.  Of course, neither did Chicago, so...  Still, to have one guy do all of those things would have been huge for them, and he would have been a big-time scorer against the Bulls.  Plus, Edwards gets more rest, and they're nine deep, minimum, and that's scary.

2).  John Long - although they briefly signed him that year, they should have kept him instead of releasing him.  Why?  Not only was he familiar with them, but in a game that used to be on Youtube, he defended Jordan extremely well, never going for pump-fakes and forcing Michael to take a tough shot.  It was that game at the palace where Chicago won with a lot of help from the officials, not that I have any sympathy for the Pistons, although it should be noted that Isiah didn't play because of the wrist injury.  I just think that having him, in addition to Gerald Henderson, behind Vinnie Johnson, would have alleviated a lot of stress/pressure on Dumars, who may have worn down by the ecf after being asked to play Isiah's role for half of the year.  At the very least, adding John Long couldn't have hurt, imo.

3).  Jim Paxson - at 6'6" 200 lbs, he had good size, and he wasn't too old.  I've seen a bunch of highlights from that 1990 team, and despite his age, Paxson always played Jordan extremely well, imo.  Like Long, he never went for fakes, and even when Jordan scored, at least it was tightly contested.  I somehow get the feeling that Chuck Daly would have liked that. 

The other reason is to give him an opportunity to get back at the Celtics, and I'm sure that the Pistons would have loved to acquire someone who had so much intimate knowledge of our team in case they met up with us in the postseason.  Don't undervalue that.

Personally, I don't like the guy.  He called out Bird (I know that Larry was trying to figure out how he could reincorporate himself back into the team, but still, come on.  You're Jim Paxson, although another book said that it was McHale instead of Paxson, or it was Paxson and McHale, idk lol), was never the factor that he should have been for us off the bench (although he did injure his back against the Hawks in the 88 playoffs.  I don't think that it would have mattered, though, because once we traded Sichting and Vincent, we no longer had a guy who could stay with Isiah Thomas for the majority of the game, because DJ was getting up there and Danny was hurt, as well, iirc), and in the book Bird Watching, Larry said that as soon as Paxson arrived he knew to stay as far away from him as possible, because he was a backstabber or something like that in the clubhouse.  Sounds like the perfect Piston to me, haha.  Like John Long, at the very least, he's another shooter, an excellent passer, and didn't he have a bit of a post game (the Pistons needed that as much as anything)?  Just thought I'd ask.

I know, I know, Joe Barry Carroll?  I'm crazy, right, haha?