[ClarkNasty]

It's cute how you keep shifting your argument. First Kerr, then Harper, then to the 2nd 3peat vs. the first.

Horace at his peak, which he was during the Bulls years was way better than Rodman during his 3 Bulls years. He was an excellent offensive player, an excellent rebounder (double-double guy), and as I mentioned before, Rodman's defense was really pretty poor by the 3rd year. All he did was rebound, and even his rebounding numbers were a little inflated due to his fighting off teammates for uncontested ones since he wanted the stats. He was a winner? What does that mean, he happened to land on 3 great teams. Horace v Rodman really isn't very close at all IMO. Rodman at his peak, sure. Not the Bulls Rodman though, who had gone from little to zero interest in offense, got T'd up every other game, and whose defense went from good to mediocre to wretched in a 3-year span.

I agree that Kukoc was a nice addition to the 2nd run. I also think that Jordan first run > Jordan 2nd run, and the same with Pippen.

I could grant that the 72 win team was the best of the 6, that's not the debate. It's important to realize that the last title team was by far the worst of the 6. They really were going downhill very fast.