Dude.
Glue guys are role players.
Michael Jordan was not a role player.
You have no idea what you are talking about. As usual.
He's sure as heck trying (and failing) to make it look like he does.
Dude.
Glue guys are role players.
Michael Jordan was not a role player.
You have no idea what you are talking about. As usual.
He's sure as heck trying (and failing) to make it look like he does.
Apparently most of this thread was spent arguing the meaning of the fictional term "glue guy".
Never my intention but everyone has their own agenda I suppose...
Apparently most of this thread was spent arguing the meaning of the fictional term "glue guy".
Never my intention but everyone has their own agenda I suppose...
It isn’t an argument.
You were wrong and I corrected you. You clearly don’t know what the term means.
We were "arguing" two different issues. I was arguing Jordan's value to the Bulls, while you were arguing the definition of "glue guy".
But, I'll go ahead and let you satisfy your continual need to have the last word in literally every argument, something you perpetually prove to be the case.
FWIW, Google's definition of "glue guy" is as follows:
"On athletic teams, a glue guy (or gal) is the one who, in the midst of adversity, will make sure that everyone sticks together."
It says nothing, about any specific basketball role the said player plays, even if we generally view it to be the Shane Battiers and P.J. Tuckers of the world.
I was thinking Cartwright.
You contradicted yourself here. Point being, during the near-two years he was gone, the Bulls had turned over the entire roster except for Pippen.
Jordan gets all the credit in the world for his talent level and competitive drive. The thing he probably doesn't get enough credit for is that he may have been the most significant glue guy of all-time. Because the Bulls very seldom made significant roster changes while he was around, especially during the dynasty years.