# I've seen the player who could give us what Eddy did



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

I'm not a big college basketball fan, but I watched for a few minutes this afternoon and I saw a player catch the ball on 3 possessions with a defender on his back, leverage his weight, spin to the basket and dunk. 

Hilton Armstrong. I was just waiting for one guy to make me feel like we could at least have the option of a player who could give us SOME of the post offense we lost when we lost Curry. Armstrong is only 235, but definitely has the frame to fill out. Better yet, from all indications, he could be available with our pick. 

I fear however that this is going to turn into the Gordon draft. We could have had Deng and Iguodala and that would be awesome, but I just felt like we didn't do it because both players were considered "too high" at the third pick. Same thing here. I'd love to see us get Armstrong and Williams. That would revamp our frontcourt. Williams and Armstrong are not Davis and Curry, but they are the closest thing for the cheapest price (draft picks and not a horrible contract where you overpay for another frontcourt player) that I see on the market. However, I fear both will be considered "too high" with the Knicks pick. 

For now, let's not compare Armstrong and Aldridge. Armstrong we can likely get with OUR pick. Let's compare Aldridge and Shelden Williams. If we had time to wait on Aldridge I'd say great, but really, how good is this guy gonna be? I've watched Aldridge and I just don't see it. What I see in fact is what I saw when I watched Curry and Chandler... a player who disappears for long stretches, oozes with potential, but makes you wonder when it will be delivered if ever. I was ALL FOR the Krause storm of potential. I loved the rationale of trying to eventually go from worst to first, and skip the middle ground. And with Jay Williams and Eddy Curry not having unforeseeable problems, it may have worked out. Look how good it worked out eventually even WITH Williams costing us a #2 pick. *That said, at this point, I just don't feel like we have 2-3 years to wait on Lamarcus Aldridge. I'd love to say that I've watched him and I see Chris Bosh all over again, but I don't see that at all.* I really want to, but I watch LaMarcus and I see more Famous Kwamous Brown than Chris Bosh.

Hilton Armstrong has the kind of back to the basket moves that are very rare in today's basketball. Yeah he's doing it against college guys, but it's become such a lost art that some guys can't even look as good as he does attempting those moves against thin air. It's like illegal defense went out the window and everybody was like "oh yeah, post moves, don't need em." Well this kid has them, and he has the ability to put a move on and finish strongly almost in one motion. He may be only 235, but he's not an extreme ectomorph like Chandler, he'll put the weight on. People had been telling me I had to check this guy out, and I'm sold. Especially, like I said, if he's available with our pick. I'd almost love to see us trade down if the Knicks pick ends up top 3, because teams would pay a hefty randsome for Rudy Gay or Adam Morrison, two players we don't need. They'd also pay pretty decently for Aldridge. Trade down and take Williams. I'd LOVE this lineup going into free agency:

C Armstrong, Harrington, Sweetney
PF Chandler, Williams
SF Deng, Nocioni
SG/Combo Gordon, Basden
PG Hinrich, Duhon

That just gives us more the type of frontcourt we had last year. We can win matchups and we can go offense (Armstrong/Harrington), defense/rebounding (Chandler/Williams) and mix and match. We'd have the type of balance that WE'D be forcing the tempo up front, which is kind of like winning the battle at the line of scrimmage in football. 

This draft may not suck just yet.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I see LaMarcus and I see Bill Cartwright 

I see Hilton and I see a late bloomer that with a bit more filling out resembles Nene IMO although Nene never has been a noted shotblocker ( irrespective of his hops ) but Nene is a decent body up post defender that pokes a lot of balls free and gets steals

I think Hilton has that explosive quality that Nene does ( when healthy )


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Armstrong isn't the only guy in college basketball that can work with his back to the basket. Millsap, Davis, Marco Killingsworth, are just a few of the guys that I've seen have some serious post offense. The problem is, as you've mentioned, that these guys don't have the BODY of Eddy Curry with all that quickness.

There's actually a LOT of guys that have some serious back-to-basket moves. The question is, will their physique allow that game to translate over to the NBA. Guys like Zach Randolph are rare. Sean May, if he can ever stay healthy, might be one of those guys. Sweetney was supposed to be one of those guys.

And honestly, when he's not being triple-teamed by swarming defenses that only focus on Duke's two leading scorers, I've seen Shelden Williams power his way down with a few post dribbles then spin to the rim.

I agree that Hilton Armstrong has that element to his game, and I think he's going to be a fine NBA talent. But I don't know that I'd take him quite so high.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

I say "heck no" to Killingsworth, he'll be too far out of position in the NBA. He's closer to 6'6" or 7" than the 6'8" he's listed at.

I would not take Armstrong with either of our first rounders.

I don't usually buy the "he'll put weight on" thing. They said that about Tyson and Yao too I thought. Hilton just doesn't have the right body type to put so many pounds on.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Showtyme said:


> Armstrong isn't the only guy in college basketball that can work with his back to the basket. Millsap, Davis, Marco Killingsworth, are just a few of the guys that I've seen have some serious post offense. The problem is, as you've mentioned, that these guys don't have the BODY of Eddy Curry with all that quickness.
> 
> There's actually a LOT of guys that have some serious back-to-basket moves. The question is, will their physique allow that game to translate over to the NBA. Guys like Zach Randolph are rare. Sean May, if he can ever stay healthy, might be one of those guys. Sweetney was supposed to be one of those guys.
> 
> ...


That's exactly it. That's what I was assuming into the equation. Is Armstrong the only guy who can post up? No. Is he even the best at it? Probably not. Is the the best guy with a body that will allow him to have a reasonable chance to do it in the NBA? Yes. 

That's the thing... that is EXACTLY what I said. "I wouldn't take him quite so high." Remember I advocated taking him with our pick, which should be teens, but even so, who cares where you take a guy if he's the best fit for your team. We have a rebounder and shot blocker. We need replacements for Curry and Davis. Who is better at replacing what those two guys brought than Armstrong and Williams.

I enjoyed your post and this is by no means a shot at you, but "quite so high" is what got us Gordon instead of Iguodala.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

giantkiller7 said:


> I say "heck no" to Killingsworth, he'll be too far out of position in the NBA. He's closer to 6'6" or 7" than the 6'8" he's listed at.
> 
> I would not take Armstrong with either of our first rounders.
> 
> I don't usually buy the "he'll put weight on" thing. They said that about Tyson and Yao too I thought. Hilton just doesn't have the right body type to put so many pounds on.


And Aldridge does? We don't need Armstrong to be 285 like Curry. With what I saw today, he'd be EFFECTIVE as a post threat at say 250-255. That's not entirely unreasonable. With today's ummm "technology" that can be done in one summer lol.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Pippenatorade said:


> And Aldridge does? We don't need Armstrong to be 285 like Curry. With what I saw today, he'd be EFFECTIVE as a post threat at say 250-255. That's not entirely unreasonable. With today's ummm "technology" that can be done in one summer lol.


I never said Aldrige did... nor did I say Armstrong had to be 285. But he has to be bigger... just saying that it is an issue to consider when drafting... it's up to him to be dedicated enough to get bigger...

He has improved a ton this year though...


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

giantkiller7 said:


> I say "heck no" to Killingsworth, he'll be too far out of position in the NBA. He's closer to 6'6" or 7" than the 6'8" he's listed at.
> 
> I would not take Armstrong with either of our first rounders.
> 
> I don't usually buy the "he'll put weight on" thing. They said that about Tyson and Yao too I thought. Hilton just doesn't have the right body type to put so many pounds on.


In the middle of the first a 6'10"+ guy that almost definitly will be a player in the league is a good pick. But Paxson really needs to go for 2 homeruns, and just hope to hit once. Armstrong will be a solid bench guy, but thats not what we need.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

giantkiller7 said:


> I never said Aldrige did... nor did I say Armstrong had to be 285. But he has to be bigger... just saying that it is an issue to consider when drafting... it's up to him to be dedicated enough to get bigger...
> 
> He has improved a ton this year though...


Ok so we're on the same page. I think if you read up on the three classic builds you will see that Armstrong has a different frame than Chandler. First of all, Armstrong is 6'11" 235, not 7'1" 235, so that is a difference. Chandler is a pure ectomorph.

I've always wished someone would post something like THIS on here:

*Body Types - Which One are You? The Ectomorph, the Mesomorph, the Endomorph, or a Combination?

We have known for quite some time now in bodybuilding that different body types respond differently to both training and nutrition. As a result, it is incredibly important to be aware of what your body type is so that you can design a training and workout program accordingly. In this article, the history of body types and some interesting pieces of information to help you identify them will be mentioned.

William Sheldon

William Sheldon (1898-1977) was an American psychologist who spent his life observing all the variety of human bodies. He taught at several universities and spent his career doing valuable research. As a child he was an avid observer of animals and birds, and as he grew up, this hobby turned into a strong ability to observe the human body.

The basics of body types are listed below:

The ECTOMORPH 
Definitive "Hard Gainer" 
Delicate Built Body 
Flat Chest 
Fragile 
Lean 
Lightly Muscled 
Small Shouldered 
Takes Longer to Gain Muscle 
Thin 


The extreme ectomorph physique is a fragile and delicate one. The bones are light, joints are small and muscles are slight. The limbs are relatively long in proportion and the shoulders droop. The ectomorph is a linear physique. Straight up and straight down, and may appear longer than he or she really is, due to the length of limbs coupled with lack of muscle mass developed on those limbs. The ectomorph is not naturally powerful and will have to work hard for every ounce of muscle and every bit of strength he or she can gain.

Other Ectomorph Traits

The extreme ectomorph may have long fingers, toes and neck are long. A pencil neck you could say. The features of the face are sharp, and the shape of the face is triangular. The lower jaw is somewhat receding. The skin tends to burn easily. Extreme ectomorphs may suffer from extremes of temperature. Due to the great body area in relation to muscle mass, the ectomorph may suffer from great heat, and due to low body fat, the ectomorph may suffer from great cold. The hair is fine and grows quickly and is sometimes difficult to keep in place.

Famous Ectomorphs

Lisa Kudrow, Kate Moss, Brad Pitt, Seth Green, Edward Norton.

The MESOMORPH 
Athletic 
Hard Body 
Hourglass Shaped (Female) 
Rectangular Shaped (Male) 
Mature Muscle Mass 
Muscular Body 
Excellent Posture 
Gains Muscle Easily 
Gains Fat More Easily Than Ectomorphs 
Thick Skin 


The Mesomorph Body

The mesomorph has well-defined muscles and large bones. The torso tapers to a relatively narrow and low waist. The bones and muscles of the head are prominent. Features of the face are clearly defined, such as cheek bones and a square, heavy jaw. The face is long and broad, and is cubicle in shape. Arms and legs are developed and even the digits of the hand are muscled.

Other Traits of the Mesomorph

The skin of the mesomorph is thick and the mesomorph tans well. The hair is heavy in texture.

Famous Mesomorphs

Bruce Willis, Sylvester Stallone, the majority of Mr. Universe winners.

Endomorph


Soft Body 
Underdeveloped Muscles 
Round Physique 
Weight Loss is Difficult 
Gains Muscle Easily Like the Mesomorph. 


The ENDOMORPH

The body of the extreme endomorph is round and soft. The physique presents the illusion that much of the mass has been concentrated in the abdominal area. This may or may not be true. The arms and legs of the extreme endomorph are short in length and taper. This may give the appearance of stalkiness. The hands and feet of the endomorph are comparatively small, and the upper arms and thighs are often more developed than the lower parts of the arms or legs. The body has a high waist.

Other Traits of the Endomoprh

The skin is soft and smooth, and the hair is fine. The head of the endomorph is spherical. The head is large and the face broad.

Famous Endomorphs

John Goodman, Roseanne, Jack Black.

Combinations of Body Types

Very often, people cannot be easily classed as one of the three main body types. Although there are some people who are purely ectomorphs, endomorphs, or mesomorphs with little or no characteristics of the other body types, very frequently, people fall into mixed categories, such as ecto mesomorphs, or endo mesomorphs, where largely, they are like the mesomoph, but with traits of the ectomorph (such as small joints or a trim waist), or traits of the endomorph (such as a tendency to gain fat easily).*

So you see Chandler to me is like Harvey Grant. One of those few players that just isn't packing the weight on. They tried everything with Harvey and it never worked. 

Now, I do think it's unfair to put this tag on Armstrong. Why? Because he hasn't been in the pros for 5 years. In college a premium is put on being able to get up and down the court and beat teams in transition. With the three point line closer the game is more bunched up. Coaches in college aren't asking you to get up to 255, or 275. They want you to get up and down the court and be able to guard switches and stuff like that more than they are looking for a 275 lb. battering ram. 

So all I'm saying is, if he'd been in the league a year or two, or if he was like 220, it would be one thing. But I think that this guy gaining 15-20 lbs. is probably pretty reasonable.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Hustle said:


> In the middle of the first a 6'10"+ guy that almost definitly will be a player in the league is a good pick. But Paxson really needs to go for 2 homeruns, and just hope to hit once. Armstrong will be a solid bench guy, but thats not what we need.


So who is a better offensive center in this draft? Cause I haven't seen one yet. There might not be two homeruns in this whole draft, and if there are two, that is all there are. We need specialists that give us balance.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Pippenatorade said:


> (big-a$$ post)


well yeah, I don't expect anyone in college to be huge. It's the same with college football and the NFL. Just maybe a little bit bigger, because even in college ball, the true post players are a little bigger

Good points though, I agree, and I hope he can get those 20 lbs.



> In the middle of the first a 6'10"+ guy that almost definitly will be a player in the league is a good pick. But Paxson really needs to go for 2 homeruns, and just hope to hit once. Armstrong will be a solid bench guy, but thats not what we need.


also, he's a guy that's only really been good for a year. We do need someone that can come in and immediately compete for the starting job... I don't want a solid bench player in the low to mid 1st.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Pippenatorade said:


> So who is a better offensive center in this draft? Cause I haven't seen one yet. There might not be two homeruns in this whole draft, and if there are two, that is all there are. We need specialists that give us balance.


How about a better offensive PF, and we play Tyson at C?

Aldrige, supposedly Bargnani, and Hansborough if he declares. MAYBE Tyrus Thomas or the Landlord.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

giantkiller7 said:


> also, he's a guy that's only really been good for a year. We do need someone that can come in and immediately compete for the starting job... I don't want a solid bench player in the low to mid 1st.


I think he's more than a solid bench player by far, and again I ask, who is so much better? All I'm gonna get back is Williams (I agree), Aldridge (I've discussed) and a bunch of guys who either lack size, lack the requisite athleticism, and then the wildcard that everyone loves screaming as they jump up and down I think because they like the sound of his name. I'll let you guess who that is, but he's definitely NOT the player for us.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Pippenatorade said:


> And Aldridge does? We don't need Armstrong to be 285 like Curry. With what I saw today, he'd be EFFECTIVE as a post threat at say 250-255. That's not entirely unreasonable. With today's ummm "technology" that can be done in one summer lol.


Aldridge has a bigger and longer frame, 2 years younger than Armstrong and he's already stronger. Armstrong doesn't look like he has the frame to add that much weight, 250 is really pushing it. Aldridge on the other hand should easily get up to 250. If I'm right about Aldridge, him and Tyson might just be a pretty good duo, even though no one seems to be up in arms about him.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Pippenatorade said:


> I think he's more than a solid bench player by far, and again I ask, who is so much better? All I'm gonna get back is Williams (I agree), Aldridge (I've discussed) and a bunch of guys who either lack size, lack the requisite athleticism, and then the wildcard that everyone loves screaming as they jump up and down I think because they like the sound of his name. I'll let you guess who that is, but he's definitely NOT the player for us.


I'm not denying that he's one of the best out there--this is also a weak frontcourt draft--just that he's something of an unproven commodity right now.

And I hope we're not taking Redick, but don't tell sloth.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

giantkiller7 said:


> How about a better offensive PF, and we play Tyson at C?
> 
> Aldrige, supposedly Bargnani, and Hansborough if he declares. MAYBE Tyrus Thomas or the Landlord.


Man.... 12 games ago, you couldn't find anyone still claiming Tyson was a center. Now I guess that rationale is back. Tyson Chandler is not a full-time, 82 game center, and never will be. I don't care how many REBOUNDS (because he still can't score at the position AT ALL) he's gotten in the last 12 games or so. He's not a center. 

Just go back 12 games on this board and look for people still claiming he was a center. You won't find any.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

He's not a PF either. In the NBA today, most frontcourt scorers are PFs and Cs are usually the defense/rebounding guys like Tyson.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Hustle said:


> Aldridge has a bigger and longer frame, 2 years younger than Armstrong and he's already stronger.


And that's all fine and good until you watch him play BASKETBALL.



> Armstrong doesn't look like he has the frame to add that much weight, 250 is really pushing it. Aldridge on the other hand should easily get up to 250.


Entirely subjective. Please though, tell me what key differences you uncovered in the physiques of Aldridge and Armstrong during your analysis.



> If I'm right about Aldridge, him and Tyson might just be a pretty good duo, even though no one seems to be up in arms about him.


Both get abused against the better centers, and probably the better PF too. They seem redundant to me.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Pippenatorade said:


> I think he's more than a solid bench player by far, and again I ask, who is so much better? All I'm gonna get back is Williams (I agree), Aldridge (I've discussed) and a bunch of guys who either lack size, lack the requisite athleticism, and then the wildcard that everyone loves screaming as they jump up and down I think because they like the sound of his name. I'll let you guess who that is, but he's definitely NOT the player for us.


Armstrong has a solid overall game, but is too skinny and light to be a starting 6'10" center, and I can't imagine him competing against todays starting power fowards. He's 6'10" with intangibles so he's bound to make it, but I don't see outstanding potential.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

giantkiller7 said:


> He's not a PF either. In the NBA today, most frontcourt scorers are PFs and Cs are usually the defense/rebounding guys like Tyson.


But he's not a center lol. Just because he isn't one doesn't make him the other. The teams that are WINNING championships are still employing post threats who are 6'11" or taller. In fact, the only team that didn't do this and didn't have Jordan between 2006 and 1979 were the Pistons in 1989 and 1990, since you could argue Laimbeer was not a very good post threat.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> So who is a better offensive center in this draft? Cause I haven't seen one yet. There might not be two homeruns in this whole draft, and if there are two, that is all there are. We need specialists that give us balance.


I know stats don't tell the whole story, but Mr. Hilton Armstrong is averaging a whopping 9.8 points in college. And you expect him to produce like Eddy Curry, who's scoring 15 in the NBA? I don't get it. I realize that Hilton is a bit of a late bloomer, but non-superstar players don't walk into the NBA and start scoring significantly more than they did in college. 

At least Paul Davis (who I saw just suck it up recently against Iowa) and Aldridge are putting up 20/10 number instead of 10/7. Those numbers imply those two are dominating on this level, and I don't want to draft a guy in the first round, a senior no less, who isn't dominating in college.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Hustle said:


> Armstrong has a solid overall game, but is too skinny and light to be a starting 6'10" center, and I can't imagine him competing against todays starting power fowards. He's 6'10" with intangibles so he's bound to make it, but I don't see outstanding potential.


We don't have years to wait on potential and he's 6'11" 235. Tyson is 7'1" 235 and he's a center now. We don't need Armstrong to be a great all around player, but he's gonna be an offensive spark. Curry was a terrible player as an all around player, but he gave us one thing and we won. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Pippenatorade said:


> But he's not a center lol. Just because he isn't one doesn't make him the other. The teams that are WINNING championships are still employing post threats who are 6'11" or taller. In fact, the only team that didn't do this and didn't have Jordan between 2006 and 1979 were the Pistons in 1989 and 1990, since you could argue Laimbeer was not a very good post threat.


But he's not a PF either! You could use your logic on yourself--just because he's not a C doesn't mean he's a PF. He's closer to a C. Size doesn't matter as much as how you utilize it. We need inside scoring, doesn't matter what position we get it from. I was just pointing out that the general trend in the NBA is for the PF to be the offensive guy and the C to be the d/rebounding guy.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I know stats don't tell the whole story, but Mr. Hilton Armstrong is averaging a whopping 9.8 points in college. And you expect him to produce like Eddy Curry, who's scoring 15 in the NBA? I don't get it. I realize that Hilton is a bit of a late bloomer, but non-superstar players don't walk into the NBA and start scoring significantly more than they did in college.
> 
> At least Paul Davis (who I saw just suck it up recently against Iowa) and Aldridge are putting up 20/10 number instead of 10/7. Those numbers imply those two are dominating on this level, and I don't want to draft a guy in the first round, a senior no less, who isn't dominating in college.


He's also playing on Connecticut. How many players on that team will eventually play in the NBA? You can say 5 for sure right now. I've been told all year by greater minds than mine that he always dominates his matchup but there aren't enough balls to go around for him to get 15-20 PPG on that team. 

If we draft Davis with anything, I'll shoot myself in the face. And as far as Aldridge goes, moot point anyway, since I'm advocating drafting Armstrong with OUR pick, and Lamarcus won't be there. But I'll say it again, I see Kwame Brown written all over Aldridge and we don't have time to wait on him.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Pippenatorade said:


> I see Kwame Brown written all over Aldridge and we don't have time to wait on him.


Why? Does that make him different from Hilton, who's really only played significant minutes and has had any effect for one year only?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

giantkiller7 said:


> But he's not a PF either! You could use your logic on yourself--just because he's not a C doesn't mean he's a PF. He's closer to a C. Size doesn't matter as much as how you utilize it. We need inside scoring, doesn't matter what position we get it from. I was just pointing out that the general trend in the NBA is for the PF to be the offensive guy and the C to be the d/rebounding guy.


Ok but on a championship team? And just because a "PF" is the offensive guy now, does that mean that teams with 6'10" PFs or shorter ever win anything when those teams are the offensive threats? I'm not interested in being like everyone else. When you have a guy who can play CENTER and is an offensive threat that guy is infinitely more valuable than the offense coming from the 4. For example, Ben Wallace always had more trouble with Eddy Curry than he did with 6'9" and 6'10" power forwards. 

There are a lot of guys who play offense from the 4. I'm aware of that. There are also a lot of guys who can guard offense from the 4 way easier than they can guard it from the 5.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

giantkiller7 said:


> Why? Does that make him different from Hilton, who's really only played significant minutes and has had any effect for one year only?



Villanueva
Okafor
Boone

Where is Texas' list of guys who could keep a guy on the bench? Buckman doesn't do it for me, sorry. 

He was a *** recruit and a late bloomer. He grew two inches from his freshman year and Okafor was there for his first two years on campus. 

Kinda reminds you a lot of Braylon Edwards.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> He's also playing on Connecticut. How many players on that team will eventually play in the NBA? You can say 5 for sure right now. I've been told all year by greater minds than mine that he always dominates his matchup but there aren't enough balls to go around for him to get 15-20 PPG on that team.
> 
> If we draft Davis with anything, I'll shoot myself in the face. And as far as Aldridge goes, moot point anyway, since I'm advocating drafting Armstrong with OUR pick, and Lamarcus won't be there. But I'll say it again, I see Kwame Brown written all over Aldridge and we don't have time to wait on him.


I know he's on Connecticut, but he's a senior, and he's not scoring 10 per, and you really expect him to score in the league? Honestly, I can't think of an example of a senior who scored 10 per in college who came in and was soon scoring 15. Probably some point guards who were allowed to open up their offensive game in the pros would fit that description, but that's very different.

Assuming that Sheldon Williams measures out at a legit 6' 9", I'd rather have him than Armstrong.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Villanueva
> Okafor
> Boone
> 
> ...


Sorry for writting a bunch of posts, but again, Braylon was a seriously dominant receiver by his last year. If you can't separate yourself offensively from Josh Boone, I don't expect much scoring in the pros from you.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Pippenatorade said:


> Ok but on a championship team? And just because a "PF" is the offensive guy now, does that mean that teams with 6'10" PFs or shorter ever win anything when those teams are the offensive threats? I'm not interested in being like everyone else. When you have a guy who can play CENTER and is an offensive threat that guy is infinitely more valuable than the offense coming from the 4. For example, Ben Wallace always had more trouble with Eddy Curry than he did with 6'9" and 6'10" power forwards.
> 
> There are a lot of guys who play offense from the 4. I'm aware of that. There are also a lot of guys who can guard offense from the 4 way easier than they can guard it from the 5.


I'm not denying that we need an offensive threat. Sorry, but I don't get your point here.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I know he's on Connecticut, but he's a senior, and he's not scoring 10 per, and you really expect him to score in the league? Honestly, I can't think of an example of a senior who scored 10 per in college who came in and was soon scoring 15. Probably some point guards who were allowed to open up their offensive game in the pros would fit that description, but that's very different.


He's a senior who had a #2 overall pick in front of him for two years and another lotto pick in front of him last year. AND he's playing with Josh Boone. I guess the tournament will tell the story won't it.



> Assuming that Sheldon Williams measures out at a legit 6' 9", I'd rather have him than Armstrong.


That's funny man. I thought I advocated drafting BOTH of them, WILLIAMS FIRST, earlier in this thread lol.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> He's a senior who had a #2 overall pick in front of him for two years and another lotto pick in front of him last year. AND he's playing with Josh Boone. I guess the tournament will tell the story won't it.
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny man. I thought I advocated drafting BOTH of them, WILLIAMS FIRST, earlier in this thread lol.


I see that. I'm just telling you what my ranking of the college bigs would be, and it would be something like this right now:

1. Aldridge
2. Williams
3. Davis (yes, Davis)
4. Armstrong


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I know he's on Connecticut, but he's a senior, and he's not scoring 10 per, and you really expect him to score in the league?


Pippenatorade would deny that by saying that's because he doesn't get the ball much, but that means he has less experience scoring and therefore won't have much more of an effect in the pros.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Pippenatorade said:


> And that's all fine and good until you watch him play BASKETBALL.


I've seen quite a bit of both.



> Entirely subjective. Please though, tell me what key differences you uncovered in the physiques of Aldridge and Armstrong during your analysis.


1. Age- Aldridge is younger and already bigger
2. Aldridges wingspan appears to me to be longer. *Aldridge has much wider shoulders*, Armstrong has a rather slim physique. 

Actually I mentioned both of these reasons before and I think they are rather obviously factual.



> Both get abused against the better centers, and probably the better PF too. They seem redundant to me.


Offensivily Aldridge is better shooting and in the post, Armstrong is a better and very impressive passer. I wouldn't say either is bad defensivily, but maybe not what you would like to see in a couple of the top big guys in next years draft. I think Aldridge will get better as his basketball IQ and weight goes up, that is where I see the difference betwwen the 2, Armstrong has a pretty good IQ and I guess you don't agree but I feel he won't have the ability to effectivily gain much more weight.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

giantkiller7 said:


> I'm not denying that we need an offensive threat. Sorry, but I don't get your point here.


What don't you get. You said:

Play Tyson at the 5 and get your offense from the 4, because most teams bring their offense from the 4.

I replied that I don't want to be like most teams. If you look at championship teams going back to the beginning of time, they almost always have one thing in common. They do things differently from 90% of the teams in the league. 

I also replied that it may be true that MOST teams bring their offense from the 4. It is also true that most teams can defend the 4 much better than they can defend a legit offensive threat at the 5. If this were not true, Eddy Curry wouldn't even be in the league.

Yes, you're right, just about any team can bring offense from the 4. That is why you become significantly more dangerous when you can bring even decent offense from the 5. 

*OR we can do it this way. You go back and give me a list of teams who even MADE it to the NBA finals with a center who had a career PPG of 7.2 or lower.* Then take that list and shorten it to the teams that won the finals.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

I see the difference.

http://www.uconnhuskies.com/sports/MBasketball/2005/Bios/ArmstrongGallery/05mbb200 119.jpg

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper657/stills/44funoel.jpg


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

giantkiller7 said:


> I'm not denying that we need an offensive threat. Sorry, but I don't get your point here.


Armsrong doesn't have the size or moves to be a go to post guy period.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

giantkiller7 said:


> I see the difference.
> 
> http://www.uconnhuskies.com/sports/MBasketball/2005/Bios/ArmstrongGallery/05mbb200 119.jpg
> 
> http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper657/stills/44funoel.jpg


It's obvious, no.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Pippenatorade said:


> What don't you get. You said:
> 
> Play Tyson at the 5 and get your offense from the 4, because most teams bring their offense from the 4.
> 
> ...


But that's all more or less irrelevant. You're saying we need to play someone that can score at center, because no winning team has had a center that couldn't score, so we should look at Armstrong compared to the other centers.

I say that there are much better offensive PFs int he draft than offensive Cs, so why not take the best offensive big man, which will most likely be only a PF, and play Tyson at C, because really there's no reason not to, because we could put Tyson at either spot.

Then you say Tyson is not a C.

I say he's not a PF either. So we could play him anywhere.

You say you don't want to be like all the other teams by having a primarily offensive PF and defensive C, but then you say we should be like other teams and have an offensive C. WTF?

And for the record, putting something in bold doesn't make it more important.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Hustle said:


> Armsrong doesn't have the size or moves to be a go to post guy period.


and that sums it all up.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Hustle said:


> 1. Age- Aldridge is younger and already bigger
> 2. Aldridges wingspan appears to me to be longer. *Aldridge has much wider shoulders*, Armstrong has a rather slim physique.
> 
> Actually I mentioned both of these reasons before and I think they are rather obviously factual.


LOL I don't know why you keep comparing them. I'll take Armstrong, but EVEN IF you'd take Aldridge, I'm advocating taking Armstrong with OUR pick, NOT the Knicks pick. 



> Offensivily Aldridge is better shooting and in the post, Armstrong is a better and very impressive passer. I wouldn't say either is bad defensivily, but maybe not what you would like to see in a couple of the top big guys in next years draft. I think Aldridge will get better as his basketball IQ and weight goes up, that is where I see the difference betwwen the 2, Armstrong has a pretty good IQ and I guess you don't agree but I feel he won't have the ability to effectivily gain much more weight.


But even if Armstrong is close, it doesn't matter. If Armstrong gives you 75% of the offense, one will be available in the teens and one will be gone by pick 5 guaranteed. I'm not impressed with Aldridge, but even if I were, that still holds true. I advocate taking SHELDEN WILLIAMS with our first pick, but I did say that if Aldridge is available somebody will want him and you trade down and take Williams. Then you get to our pick and who are you gonna take over Armstrong in the teens?


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Pippenatorade said:


> LOL I don't know why you keep comparing them. I'll take Armstrong, but EVEN IF you'd take Aldridge, I'm advocating taking Armstrong with OUR pick, NOT the Knicks pick.


because you called them a wash


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Pippenatorade said:


> Then you get to our pick and who are you gonna take over Armstrong in the teens?


Brandon Roy. Rodney Carney. Tiago Splitter. Ronnie Brewer. That's irrelevant.

You plan your draft on who you will draft with your first pick, and then go from there. You don't plan to draft somebody with your second pick and draft around that with the first.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

giantkiller7 said:


> But that's all more or less irrelevant. You're saying we need to play someone that can score at center, because no winning team has had a center that couldn't score, so we should look at Armstrong compared to the other centers.
> 
> I say that there are much better offensive PFs int he draft than offensive Cs, so why not take the best offensive big man, which will most likely be only a PF, and play Tyson at C, because really there's no reason not to, because we could put Tyson at either spot.
> 
> ...


LOL are you serious. Yes I want to be like other WINNING TEAMS and have an offensive center. You want to be like every other team in this league and have an offensive power forward.

What don't you get. Go back and make a list for me please.

NBA Champions with a center who averaged 7.2 PPG or less in his career:
1. I'm betting the next will be the first

You didn't actually refute anything I said, you only completely botched an attempt to summarize it.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Pippenatorade said:


> LOL are you serious. Yes I want to be like other WINNING TEAMS and have an offensive center. You want to be like every other team in this league and have an offensive power forward.
> 
> What don't you get. Go back and make a list for me please.
> 
> ...


Why the hell is everything we say so funny to you?

I just don't get what you're trying to prove, because you're flip-flopping all around. I honestly don't know if you still have a point or if you're just responding to everything with "LOLWTF you're an idiot."

It doesn't matter where our frontcourt scoring comes from. As long as you have frontcourt scoring, period. That's all I'm trying to say. Stats are nice, but yours are pretty weak. until the Pistons won the championship, I bet no center on a 'ship team had averaged less than 10.

So how are we allowed to win a championship then? If we have a 6'1" backup PG, is that okay? I don't want that to interfere with your rules.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

giantkiller7 said:


> Brandon Roy. Rodney Carney. Tiago Splitter. Ronnie Brewer. That's irrelevant.
> 
> You plan your draft on who you will draft with your first pick, and then go from there. You don't plan to draft somebody with your second pick and draft around that with the first.


LMFAO and when did I ever say you do that? Aldridge isn't better than Shelden Williams to me either, but to other people they will say "you can't take Williams at 2 or 4, that's 'too high'." 

I'd rather have Armstrong over any of those guys you named. Well Carney and Brewer probably not, BUT they won't be there at pick 10, I'll put all my rep points or whatever on that right now. Not to mention, I'd like to get two frontcourt players out of this draft, because you have to overpay for them in free agency. You get way more for your money on a SG in free agency than a center. But like I said, THATs moot because Brewer and Carney = gone by pick 10.

And I knew you'd bring him up. Tiago Splitter. LOL. Don't make me get into that please. I want an offensive post player who wants to spin and dunk on people, not someone who wants to show you all the guard skills he can bring from the post position.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

FYI you come off as an idiot when your main argument against eveyrone's points is "LOL."

What you're saying is that you're set on us drafting Armstrong, but you're comparing him and Aldridge, as if it's a choice between them. But Aldrige would only come with the first pick and Armstrong with the second.

Plus, you really haven't supported anything you've said with any evidence--everytime we come up with a reason as to why not to draft Armstrong, you change the topic to some irrelevant aspect of the discussion.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Anyway, I'm not too into continuing this further. But Aldridge is clearly the top big man in college hoops, and one of the only true post up players. I see exponentially less upside in Armstrong, and I wonder if at his size he'll even be able to bang bodies in the post in the pros. He's also only had one decent year in college, so he's a walking question mark. I would take Lamarcus with our first pick in a heartbeat, thereby eliminating the need for a big man over a slasher with the second pick.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

giantkiller7 said:


> It doesn't matter where our frontcourt scoring comes from. As long as you have frontcourt scoring, period. That's all I'm trying to say. Stats are nice, but yours are pretty weak. until the Pistons won the championship, I bet no center on a 'ship team had averaged less than 10.


IT DOES MATTER. That's what you don't get. We heard all summer how it didn't matter and Tyson could play center. How has that turned out. Mediocrity on a team with almost no injuries all year long. It absolutely matters. Any team can get offense from the four. Hell, Songaila and Harrington are offense from the four are they not? Songaila is pretty good too, I'd take him over Splitter. Every team has some way to get offense from the four, and just about every team has a player or two who can guard the four pretty darn effectively. Few teams can generate offense from the five, AND correspondingly, few teams can stop good offense from the five. 

Look at last year. We had Eddy Curry. All that guy can do is be a battering ram in the post. He can't pass, can't rebound and is an average defender at best. And look at the problems he caused for other teams. We were able to build a gameplan around the first quarter problems he caused. And that was ALL he had going for him. Effective offense from the 5. Get the point yet?

Also don't confuse method with effect. Yes playing Tyson and Ben Wallace at center may be strategically similar, but Tyson is not Ben Wallace. He's not as good, not close to as good, and isn't ever gonna be close to as good. When he finishes in the top 5 for a defensive player of the year award, then let me know. 



> So how are we allowed to win a championship then? If we have a 6'1" backup PG, is that okay? I don't want that to interfere with your rules.


This is funny. Did I attempt to make up my own or did I tell you to look at championship history from last year going all the way back?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

giantkiller7 said:


> FYI you come off as an idiot when your main argument against eveyrone's points is "LOL."
> 
> What you're saying is that you're set on us drafting Armstrong, but you're comparing him and Aldridge, as if it's a choice between them. But Aldrige would only come with the first pick and Armstrong with the second.
> 
> Plus, you really haven't supported anything you've said with any evidence--everytime we come up with a reason as to why not to draft Armstrong, you change the topic to some irrelevant aspect of the discussion.


Please don't call me an idiot or tell me I come off like one. Contrary to your last post, I haven't called anyone anything. What is wrong with saying LOL when someone isn't reading what you are writing. I'm sorry for you "LOL" means "LOL you're an idiot." I truly regret that that is how you read the acronym LOL.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

I'm talking post offense buddy, not any kind of offense. And most teams get their post offense from the PF spot. There are very few NBA Cs that average more scoring than their PF counterparts, winning teams or not. PF and C are almost interchangable. Heck, the PF gets more touches in the post usually than the C. That's what you don't get--that as long as you're posting people up and scoring inside, banging bodies, it doesn't matter who does it.

The Spurs get their post scoring from Duncan, not Rasho or Muhammed. Are you going to tell me there's something wrong with that?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

giantkiller7 said:


> I'm talking post offense buddy, not any kind of offense. And most teams get their post offense from the PF spot. There are very few NBA Cs that average more scoring than their PF counterparts, winning teams or not. PF and C are almost interchangable. Heck, the PF gets more touches in the post usually than the C. That's what you don't get--that as long as you're posting people up and scoring inside, banging bodies, it doesn't matter who does it.
> 
> The Spurs get their post scoring from Duncan, not Rasho or Muhammed. Are you going to tell me there's something wrong with that?


Duncan has always been a center. People can call them what they want. He's a 7' 255+ lb. true center. He came onto a team that already had a center so he technically got slotted into the "four"... but it was more like the 1985 Rockets who just had TWO centers. Does having Ron Harper next to Michael Jordan make Ron Harper a "point guard"...? IT worked with Robinson so they've done it with Nesterovic. 

But you write off my argument by saying "winning teams." Championship teams? Like I said, who was the last championship team to have their center average 7.2 PPG or less, and who was the last championship team to get their post offense from someone shorter than 6'11" (i.e. true PFs). 

The answer to the second part is 1986 Celtics. TWENTY YEARS.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I'm just happy to know that a dominant center like Eddy Curry can be replaced with a 10-16 first round draft pick.

That makes all the extra picks and capspace that much more sweet.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm just happy to know that a dominant center like Eddy Curry can be replaced with a 10-16 first round draft pick.
> 
> That makes all the extra picks and capspace that much more sweet.


He can give us some of what EC brought us, I didn't think SOME OF would fit in the title though. Maybe he CAN'T, but I don't see anyone else who can. No one in this draft is gonna do that on that high of a level, but I saw someone who made me feel like it's not an entirely lost cause. 

Is capspace an all star? Or is he just kind of a star.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> He can give us some of what EC brought us, I didn't think SOME OF would fit in the title though. Maybe he CAN'T, but I don't see anyone else who can. No one in this draft is gonna do that on that high of a level, but I saw someone who made me feel like it's not an entirely lost cause.
> 
> *Is capspace an all star? Or is he just kind of a star*.


Capspace isn't a person. Its a term for money that a team is permitted to spend under the NBA collective bargaining agreement to obtain free agents or to take on more incoming than outgoing salary in a trade. 

If a team has capspace it may spend up to the limit of that "space" to obtain a free agent. If a team does not have capspace, it can only spend certain exceptions, often referred to as the "MLE" or the "LLE". 

And for the record, I like Hilton Armstrong more than Sheldon Williams and numerous others just like you. That, in part, is why I've repeatedly advocated taking the best talent available with the Knicks' pick regardless of position. If that is, for example, Gay instead of Aldridge, then draft Gay.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Eddy Curry is irreplaceable.

Although Tim Thomas would come close.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Back to the topic, Hilton Armstrong reminds me of Lorenzen Wright. And while Wright wouldn't be a bad pick up in free agency to provide some depth, I think we can do better with what is likely to be a top 16 pick. Williams and Josh Boone are both better players, IMO.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Its funny that so many people say, oh were a better team without Eddy, blah blah blah, but there just hoping to find a center with a fraction of what Curry did.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> That said, at this point, I just don't feel like we have 2-3 years to wait on Lamarcus Aldridge.


Why not? Why are you in such a rush, have I missed the memo where our players have contracted progeria?


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> Back to the topic, Hilton Armstrong reminds me of Lorenzen Wright. And while Wright wouldn't be a bad pick up in free agency to provide some depth, I think we can do better with what is likely to be a top 16 pick. Williams and Josh Boone are both better players, IMO.



this whole thing started by saying Armstrong could give us some of the things we lost from Curry. IMO we only lost one thing when curry left, low post scoring. he can't defend, rebound, block, or pass so his 15ppg down low is the difference. I agree, it has changed the way the bulls offense runs, and finding another guy on the block that could give us 15 a night (and hopefully more than 5 rebounds) is important. But HILTON ARMSTRONG? He is a defensive minded player who really has no low post skills. At best we are looking at a Dalembert kind of player, which would be great but not a low post scorer. I really don't see how Armstrong would help this team that much? Instead of 1 Chandler, we would have 2, but I thought the whole problem was low post scoring?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I don't think Armstrong has the size to be a starting center. He looks to be shorter than Boone and he has enormously long neck so his reach may not be in line with his height. I didn't notice that his arms were exceptionally long so I would not be surprised if it turns out that he has the functional size of a 6'9" player. And he doesn't have the strength to compensate like Morning was able to do. 

However I like him as a PF and would not be disappointed if the Bulls took him in the early teens, depending who else was on the board.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Please don't call me an idiot or tell me I come off like one. Contrary to your last post, I haven't called anyone anything. What is wrong with saying LOL when someone isn't reading what you are writing. I'm sorry for you "LOL" means "LOL you're an idiot." I truly regret that that is how you read the acronym LOL.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

And another thread goes down the drain.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Electric Slim said:


>


I figured it was time for a game of "hang Matrix for what he said in may 2004" lol. Bust em all out Slim :-D


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> I figured it was time for a game of "hang Matrix for what he said in may 2004" lol. Bust em all out Slim :-D


Now back to our regularly scheduled program.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> *OR we can do it this way. You go back and give me a list of teams who even MADE it to the NBA finals with a center who had a career PPG of 7.2 or lower.* Then take that list and shorten it to the teams that won the finals.


I realized you said career, not season average. But, come-on now, you are the self-proclaimed MJ Bulls expert.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1993.html

:clown:


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Pippenatorade said:


> Duncan has always been a center. People can call them what they want. He's a 7' 255+ lb. true center. He came onto a team that already had a center so he technically got slotted into the "four"... but it was more like the 1985 Rockets who just had TWO centers. Does having Ron Harper next to Michael Jordan make Ron Harper a "point guard"...? IT worked with Robinson so they've done it with Nesterovic.
> 
> But you write off my argument by saying "winning teams." Championship teams? Like I said, who was the last championship team to have their center average 7.2 PPG or less, and who was the last championship team to get their post offense from someone shorter than 6'11" (i.e. true PFs).
> 
> The answer to the second part is 1986 Celtics. TWENTY YEARS.


Okay, but think about it. Duncan technically plays PF. That's my point, that PF and C are interchangable. It's not like if he were technically on the roster as a C he would be doing anything differently. Same with Tyson, etc. That's what I've been saying all along. It's not like Tyson's game would change if we technically slotted him at C.

Anyway, back to the topic. Do we need someone to give us what Curry did? You basically mean can we get low post scoring, and yes, we can, but not only through Armstrong. The only real thing Eddy gave us was inside scoring, and any competent PF or C should be able to do that. So it's not like Hilton can do something LaMarcus can't.

And to whoever posted it, Eddy was far from dominant.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> That said, at this point, I just don't feel like we have 2-3 years to wait on Lamarcus Aldridge.


Why?


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

step said:


> Why?


And further, why wait on him, who will have started for one and a half seasons, and not Armstrong, who has far less experience and only has had one at least decent season under his belt?

There is some very flawed logic to Pippenatorade's argument. It seems like with all the points he's making, he could be making a great case as to us drafting Aldrige, not Armstrong.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> And further, why wait on him, who will have started for one and a half seasons, and not Armstrong, who has far less experience and only has had one at least decent season under his belt?
> 
> There is some very flawed logic to Pippenatorade's argument. It seems like with all the points he's making, he could be making a great case as to us drafting Aldrige, not Armstrong.


Well anyone we draft is going to take time, that's certain, but what I can't understand is why the timeframe. Why must the Bulls be in such a rush to become contenders? 

Contender or bust in 2-3 years. Ludicrous.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I should also point out that when I saw Nene 5 years ago he was probably around 230

He certainly bulked up to his current 255 to 260 without too much trouble for a guy who has a lot more lithe like


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

sloth said:


> Its funny that so many people say, oh were a better team without Eddy, blah blah blah, but there just hoping to find a center with a fraction of what Curry did.


That is exactly what I want. I want a center with a fraction of what Curry did. I want the fraction that was able to put up big numbers in a hurry with some go to post moves.

The fraction of what Curry did that I don't want is the fraction that has no concept of help defense, non-existent passing ability, lack of ability to position for a rebound, disappearing act after the first time he cools down on the bench, when he seemingly can't get his mojo back for the remaining 3 1/2 quaters,etc.

But the first quarter scoring action, yeah, that is the fraction of what Eddy did that I want.

From what I've seen (and it isn't a whole lot) I'm still not sold on Hilton (for reasons wholly unrelated to the above), but that can change.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

step said:


> Well anyone we draft is going to take time, that's certain, but what I can't understand is why the timeframe. Why must the Bulls be in such a rush to become contenders?
> 
> Contender or bust in 2-3 years. Ludicrous.


I agree, that's what I don't buy about everyone here's "sign every player we don't have immediately" philosophy. How many teams have won it all with third and fourth year players?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

step said:


> Why?


I thought we were supposed to be "real contenders next year." That's what Paxson fans have been selling. So now that THEY are selling it, why should I have to wait until 2009 for their promises to be fulfilled?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

giantkiller7 said:


> And further, why wait on him, who will have started for one and a half seasons, and not Armstrong, who has far less experience and only has had one at least decent season under his belt?
> 
> There is some very flawed logic to Pippenatorade's argument. It seems like with all the points he's making, he could be making a great case as to us drafting Aldrige, not Armstrong.


Like I said, it's not like you have to choose. We will be able to draft Armstrong, that is 100% certain. He will be available with one of our picks, probably the lower one. Why talk about Aldridge like drafting him is automatic when we aren't even assured of being in the position to get him? Not to mention, I'll bet right now that Shelden Williams is gone by our second pick, which, if you READ, gets back to my point. I'll take Armstrong, because when it comes to picking between Aldridge and Shelden Williams, I'll take Shelden Williams every time. So my choice is not between Aldridge and Armstrong, but rather Aldridge and Williams. Since I want Williams, who is going to be a GOOD player from day one, I'm forced to look at who will likely be available with our SECOND pick, and I like Armstrong, which is all I was saying. 

Now, since I know you don't really read, I'll kind of map this out further and anticipate you repeating things you've already said. NO, I am not starting with who to take with our second pick and working backwards. I want Shelden Williams with our first pick. He will add a lot of the intimidation, muscle and energy down low that we lost when AD was traded. He's the type of player that will do what he does from day one as well. Very polished, NBA ready IMO. To pick between HE and Aldridge is a very easy choice for me. That said, he's not gonna solve our offensive needs downlow. That leaves us with one of two choices:

1. Find someone else in the draft who will solve those problems
2. Find a free agent who will solve those problems

I'd rather go for the gusto with a 12th or 14th pick than pay Chandler-type dollars for someone like Maybiner Hilario and end up being like most other teams with a grossly overpayed bigman or two on the roster. I'd rather spend that money on a SG, because you get more for your money when it comes to wings than bigs in NBA free agency. So that brings us back to the pick. Who gives us the best chance to have an offensive option close to the basket. I like Armstrong, which is all I was saying. I think Armstrong may in fact have the best chance to give us good post offense close to the basket. And not facing a guy up and trying to dribble around him, but backing him down and tryint to finish with authority or with a hook close to the basket. People say "well he's incomplete." So was Eddy. When we draft Shelden, if we do, we'd have he and Tyson to complete our frontcourt. We already have guys with scoring ability at PF. 

So that was my thinking. Shoot me.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> That is exactly what I want. I want a center with a fraction of what Curry did. I want the fraction that was able to put up big numbers in a hurry with some go to post moves.
> 
> The fraction of what Curry did that I don't want is the fraction that has no concept of help defense, non-existent passing ability, lack of ability to position for a rebound, disappearing act after the first time he cools down on the bench, when he seemingly can't get his mojo back for the remaining 3 1/2 quaters,etc.
> 
> ...


But Eddy did as much to improve those weaknesses as anything Tyson has done. Tyson is in his fifth year, still weighs 235 and can't score to save his life. I know people like to think that scoring is like this afterthought. I mean after all, ask the 82games.com crowd. The team that scores the most points doesn't win anymore, it's actually the team with the highest efficiency rating and the most rebounds that wins the game now lol. We had a team full of specialists last year and won. Why? Because we had balance. It would be one thing if Eddy didn't spend hours with Skiles every day two seasons ago working before and after practice. Then I could say, "oh yeah I think we should kill him" just like everyone else, but the dude made a lot of improvement since his rookie year. He never regressed like Tyson did this year, but then again, Tyson makes really mean faces, so I can see the point of people who rip Eddy. After all, Eddy was our only incomplete player last year. Oh wait, Ben is PRETTY incomplete still, and Tyson? Well I guess Tyson is a complete player if scoring is thought of as an afterthought. But I've always wondered that. IF scoring is "just scoring" when it comes to Tyson, then why wasn't rebounding "just rebounds" when it came to Eddy. IF we "just don't ask Tyson to score," then why did we "just not ask Eddy to rebound"...? Because take all your complaints about Eddy, and we still did those things excellently AS A TEAM, so why does it matter.

I've always wondered that. I always subscribed to the philosophy of Will Perdue that "everyone has different talents, and you just have to figure out how to fit your talents in." And I thought Eddy did that on a team that was very fun to watch and won 47 games. He wasn't the only incomplete player, far from it, and his post scoring was probably the single most valuable thing that anyone brought to the table. He was also a good person who spent all last summer getting in the best shape of his life and was starting to destroy people before that stupid night in Charlotte. 

And the thing with Eddy is forget all the passing and blocking. What I like about him was by his fourth year, he realized who he was and didn't try to do too much. He was becoming more Kyle Orton than Rex Grossman for example. Both QBs have a LONG way to go, but at least Kyle realizes that and doesn't try to throw into triple coverage. Likewise, Eddy realized he wasn't a great passer or shot blocker and he was getting better and better at not attempting things he just couldn't do. It's not like he was trying to jump around and swat everything all wildly or trying to make bullet passes that he had no business throwing.

The list of things Tyson can't do is rather long. Like "catch" lol. That's just to start. But I guess after he finally decided to show up for 12 games, all is forgiven.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Eddy's post presence is almost irreplaceable, but it's the rest of the game that a replacement could easily makeup for in terms of helping us win(FT%, turnovers, passing, ballhandling, rebounding, blocks, team defense, foul trouble, shooting).

all we have to do is stay pat until 07'. resign songaila, keep the picks(aldridge, s.williams), bring back harrington or allen, use cap space to overpay some vets to play for one year, give it all to BONZI 1year max(or draft a 2 instead of williams and sign Wright), keeping 07 open to all possibilties.

*06' Squad*
Songaila, Aldridge, Sweetney
Deng, Nocioni
Chandler, Williams, Harrington 
Bonzi, Gordon, Basden 
Hinrich, Duhon

Songaila 4, Hinrich 7.5, Chandler 8.5, Gordon 4.9, Deng 3.3, Duhon 3.2, Aldridge 3.8, Williams 2, Knicks draft pick 2. Thats roughly 40M, not quite the max left over, but we could make more space if needed, having some very nice players and contracts.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Hustle said:


> all we have to do is stay pat until 07'. resign songaila, keep the picks(aldridge, s.williams), bring back harrington or allen, use cap space to overpay some vets to play for one year, give it all to BONZI 1year max(or draft a 2 instead of williams and sign Wright), keeping 07 open to all possibilties.
> 
> *06' Squad*
> Songaila, Aldridge, Sweetney
> ...


We're not getting Aldridge and S. Williams, we'd have to pick between the two. I'll take Williams.

Oh and I wouldn't bring up waiting until next summer when it comes to free agency, not a very popular philosophy when we can become "real contenders" this summer.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> But Eddy did as much to improve those weaknesses as anything Tyson has done.


Red Herring/Strawman


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Strawman


Scott that's it? Come on man, you know I respect you and think highly of your opinions. Throw me a frickin bone here.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> I've always wondered that. I always subscribed to the philosophy of Will Perdue that "everyone has different talents, and you just have to figure out how to fit your talents in." And I thought Eddy did that on a team that was very fun to watch and won 47 games.


I agree with that philosophy and with your sentiments.

However, I stand by my previous comments about the fraction of Eddy that I miss and the fraction of Eddy that I do not miss.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Pippenatorade said:


> Like I said, it's not like you have to choose. We will be able to draft Armstrong, that is 100% certain. He will be available with one of our picks, probably the lower one. Why talk about Aldridge like drafting him is automatic when we aren't even assured of being in the position to get him? Not to mention, I'll bet right now that Shelden Williams is gone by our second pick, which, if you READ, gets back to my point. I'll take Armstrong, because when it comes to picking between Aldridge and Shelden Williams, I'll take Shelden Williams every time. So my choice is not between Aldridge and Armstrong, but rather Aldridge and Williams. Since I want Williams, who is going to be a GOOD player from day one, I'm forced to look at who will likely be available with our SECOND pick, and I like Armstrong, which is all I was saying.
> 
> Now, since I know you don't really read, I'll kind of map this out further and anticipate you repeating things you've already said. NO, I am not starting with who to take with our second pick and working backwards. I want Shelden Williams with our first pick. He will add a lot of the intimidation, muscle and energy down low that we lost when AD was traded. He's the type of player that will do what he does from day one as well. Very polished, NBA ready IMO. To pick between HE and Aldridge is a very easy choice for me. That said, he's not gonna solve our offensive needs downlow. That leaves us with one of two choices:
> 
> ...



Okay, but let's think about this here. Your goal is to get low-post scoring, right? So what I'm saying is that I would rather draft Aldridge with our first pick to get the said low-post scoring, because I believe he's miles above Armstrong, and anyone else really, in that area, and therefore that would make drafting Armstrong moot. I understand that you think we should get Shelden first and then Armstrong, which would give us both the post D and offense, but I'm questioning how much inside O either of those guys could give us. Personally I don't see Armstrong as the kind of guy that will be able to do that. We could pick up Harrington in FA, who can score inside very well, and then draft Shelden. I feel like there are other scenarios like those two that would give us greater benefits than drafting Armstrong.

And who do we have that can get us inside scoring at PF? Certainly not Sweetney, Othella, or Tyson. Songaila is more of a perimeter threat, he can but doesn't take it inside very often.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I agree with that philosophy and with your sentiments.
> 
> However, I stand by my previous comments about the fraction of Eddy that I miss and the fraction of Eddy that I do not miss.


I know man, and all I was saying was that I think he tried. If you look at the things people didn't like about Eddy in 2004-05, they were REALLY bad in 2002. REALLY bad. His first two years, he couldn't even stay on the court


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Pippenatorade said:


> We're not getting Aldridge and S. Williams, we'd have to pick between the two. I'll take Williams.
> 
> Oh and I wouldn't bring up waiting until next summer when it comes to free agency, not a very popular philosophy when we can become "real contenders" this summer.


I thought my idea covered all bases, we could be good next year, and still wait to spend.

If we don't make the playoffs we may well have a shot at getting williams with our pick, I hope he ends up out of reach. But at least three teams in the west will have better records than us in the lottery if we don't make it, that leaves us at 11 or lower. I would guess he goes top 10, but he definitly won't go top 7, so who knows, depends on who enters and whos stock does what, sheldon one of the only guys who's stock won't change.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> What I like about him was by his fourth year, he realized who he was and didn't try to do too much...Likewise, Eddy realized he wasn't a great passer or shot blocker and he was getting better and better at not attempting things he just couldn't do.


His self-realization doesn't do much for me in terms of evaluating him. I agree he is what he is, and in terms of overall worth, I take that into account and calls 'em likes I seez 'em.



> The list of things Tyson can't do is rather long. Like "catch" lol. That's just to start. But I guess after he finally decided to show up for 12 games, all is forgiven.


You say "catch" I say "jump" -- To-MAY-to To-MAH-to


Hey, you want a bone -- here it is. My position has been consistent. I like Eddy. My first choice was to hope the Bulls would work something out. I just believe that given that he has an extrordinary talent in a limited aspect of the game (namely dominant low post scoing until the first time he rests) and extrordinary flaws, which often cost his team enough to negate his early good efforts, his loss was a short term strain on the team, since we don't have the bulk on the current roster to make up for his loss, but his loss in the big picture is not the end of the world, and the wringing of hands over him that has dominated this board this season is somewhat overemphasized in terms of evaluating our struggles this season. 

As to Tyson, his vacation from November to the end of January is immensely frustrating. But in the context of the topic, bringing up his flaws in response to a criticism of Eddy is certainly a strawman/red herring bail out.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

giantkiller7 said:


> Okay, but let's think about this here. Your goal is to get low-post scoring, right? So what I'm saying is that I would rather draft Aldridge with our first pick to get the said low-post scoring, because I believe he's miles above Armstrong, and anyone else really, in that area, and therefore that would make drafting Armstrong moot. I understand that you think we should get Shelden first and then Armstrong, which would give us both the post D and offense, but I'm questioning how much inside O either of those guys could give us. Personally I don't see Armstrong as the kind of guy that will be able to do that. We could pick up Harrington in FA, who can score inside very well, and then draft Shelden. I feel like there are other scenarios like those two that would give us greater benefits than drafting Armstrong.
> 
> And who do we have that can get us inside scoring at PF? Certainly not Sweetney, Othella, or Tyson. Songaila is more of a perimeter threat, he can but doesn't take it inside very often.


See that's the thing. We can't really have this conversation, because I'm not even sure you think there is a difference between Harrington and Curry as scorers. They're interchangeable right??

Because it's easy. You STILL found a way to make this Aldridge v. Armstrong. Draft Aldridge and not only am I not sure we gain that great of a low post scorer, but now we still have to find an AD type player. If we don't get one with that second pick, now you have to spend 10 mill a year overpaying for things that Shelden can do from day one. I want post offense, but moreso I think we need a post player to help us glue things down in our frontcourt. Shelden is such an easy solution. I hate Duke, but I am sold on him in a major way. Honestly if Armstrong had like a ridiculous tournament where he killed everyone and vaulted himself into a top 5 pick (not gonna happen, but lets just say it did), and I had to choose between he and Williams, I'd pick Williams. Gay v. Williams? Williams. Brewer v. Williams? Williams. So that's just where I'm coming from.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Hustle said:


> I thought my idea covered all bases, we could be good next year, and still wait to spend.
> 
> If we don't make the playoffs we may well have a shot at getting williams with our pick, I hope he ends up out of reach. But at least three teams in the west will have better records than us in the lottery if we don't make it, that leaves us at 11 or lower. I would guess he goes top 10, but he definitly won't go top 7, so who knows, depends on who enters and whos stock does what, sheldon one of the only guys who's stock won't change.


I know. I was being sarcastic. SOME of Paxson's fans think that our "assets this summer can make us REAL contenders next year. Why wait!? I'm 'drooling' over Bargnani." LOL STuff like that. I neer get sick of making fun of it. I like your idea. Wade is restricted next year.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Pippenatorade said:


> We can't really have this conversation, because I'm not even sure you think there is a difference between Harrington and Curry as scorers. They're interchangeable right??


Now where did I say anything along those lines? I said PF and C are interchangable--the positions themselves, not the players that play them. You seem to have ignored my Duncan comment from earlier--he's more or less a C, but he's playing PF with no dropoff in play. The reason we can't have this conversation is because you keep making stuff up. There is a difference--there are bad post scorers and great post scorers, but it's not like the good ones only play one position.



> Because it's easy. You STILL found a way to make this Aldridge v. Armstrong. Draft Aldridge and not only am I not sure we gain that great of a low post scorer, but now we still have to find an AD type player.


AD did little on the court. It was his leadership and demeanor on the court that kept him around for so long, and Shelden won't give us half of that.



> If we don't get one with that second pick, now you have to spend 10 mill a year overpaying for things that Shelden can do from day one.


Says who?



> I want post offense, but moreso I think we need a post player to help us glue things down in our frontcourt. Shelden is such an easy solution.


I was never opposed to drafting Shelden, but trust me he won't give us half of what AD did. What we need to get back is that badass attitude. We have better defensive players this year than last, but not near half the defense. It's AD's loss that made the difference. What AD brought us on the court was some decent low post D, a nice ten foot jumper, and not much else. What he brought us off the court was something Shelden can't touch. I think that's where you have it wrong.

Plenty of guys can bring us what AD did on the court. Not many can't bring us what AD brought us off it.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

giantkiller7 said:


> Now where did I say anything along those lines? I said PF and C are interchangable--the positions themselves, not the players that play them. You seem to have ignored my Duncan comment from earlier--he's more or less a C, but he's playing PF with no dropoff in play. The reason we can't have this conversation is because you keep making stuff up. There is a difference--there are bad post scorers and great post scorers, but it's not like the good ones only play one position.


Duncan is a special superstar.. What does Duncan have to do with anyone on our roster? Chandler can play center and we can have a PF do our scoring because Duncan can play PF? I'll say it again. The last team to get post offense primarily from a true power forward AND win a championship, besides Detroit was BOSTON in 1986. And McHale and Rasheed were not even first options on their team. 



> AD did little on the court. It was his leadership and demeanor on the court that kept him around for so long, and Shelden won't give us half of that.


AD did little on the court? I really don't know if I can take anything you say seriously after that comment. The man allowed Chandler and Curry to play their games. Before that, they'd never been consistent at much of anything. Hell before AD got here they were having a terrible time staying on the floor. He was an intimidator, a muscle guy and a hell of a defender down low. When you can take a player who other NBA centers voted the player "they least like facing" and say he did little on the court, I don't know what to say. I guess 82games.com has taken over what it means to be a fan. 



> Says who?


Are you serious? Have you seen the paychecks bigs have been getting in recent years?



> I was never opposed to drafting Shelden, but trust me he won't give us half of what AD did. What we need to get back is that badass attitude. We have better defensive players this year than last, but not near half the defense. It's AD's loss that made the difference. What AD brought us on the court was some decent low post D, a nice ten foot jumper, and not much else. What he brought us off the court was something Shelden can't touch. I think that's where you have it wrong.
> 
> Plenty of guys can bring us what AD did on the court. Not many can't bring us what AD brought us off it.


I can't talk to you man. You know everything about every single draft prospect. You're like Jonathan Givony or somebody! We'll just have to have differing opinions. AD did a hell of a lot for us on the court and Shelden is a hell of a lot more ready to come in and play BASKETBALL than Aldridge, even if he doesn't have Aldridge's measurables.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> His self-realization doesn't do much for me in terms of evaluating him. I agree he is what he is, and in terms of overall worth, I take that into account and calls 'em likes I seez 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well said. My thoughts to a "t". 

Except I'd add that "my first choice was to hope the Bulls would work something out" with Eddy as long as it didn't cost more than 8-9 million a year. I didn't want his salary to have a disproportionate impact on this summer's capspace.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Well said. My thoughts to a "t".
> 
> Except I'd add that "my first choice was to hope the Bulls would work something out" with Eddy as long as it didn't cost more than 8-9 million a year. I didn't want his salary to have a disproportionate impact on this summer's capspace.


The only issue I'd have with both of you is this. My point was, why is it some things are tolerable with some players but not with others. Why was everyone nitpicky about every little thing with Eddy last year and when you say "well Tyson can't score, Tyson can't catch, Tyson took a 40 game vacation" it's "well we don't ask Tyson to score" and people minimize him taking HALF A SEASON off. 

To you I'd reply that I didn't want Tyson's contract hampering our capspace. I'd also say that if that space gets spent this summer I think you will be sorely disappointed.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> The only issue I'd have with both of you is this. My point was, why is it some things are tolerable with some players but not with others. Why was everyone nitpicky about every little thing with Eddy last year and when you say "well Tyson can't score, Tyson can't catch, Tyson took a 40 game vacation" it's "well we don't ask Tyson to score" and people minimize him taking HALF A SEASON off.
> 
> To you I'd reply that I didn't want Tyson's contract hampering our capspace. I'd also say that if that space gets spent this summer I think you will be sorely disappointed.


First, I don't think Chandler "took half the season off". I think he was pressing. Cracking.It pissed me off immensely and I consider it the primary cause of the team's current predicament. Thankfully, he appears to have overcome it.

Second, you could not be more wrong about how I perceive the capspace. If virtually every penny is not spent, I will be irrate. I will only be sorely disappointed if it is wasted through non-use and expiration.

Anyway, as to the point of your thread, I believe you may be right about Armstrong as a good draft target with the Bulls own draft pick. I have no doubt that players of his caliber can fill Curry's shoes admirably.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I still don't understand why some people continue to insist that low-post scoring from your center is of some great importance when it comes to winning in the NBA.

The Pistons, Mavs and Spurs are by far the best 3 teams in the league. Who are their low-post scorers again? (And please don't say 'Tim Duncan', 60% of his shots are jumpers)


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

I am going to let everything else go, aside from this, because I know it's never going to get us anywhere.



Pippenatorade said:


> You know everything about every single draft prospect.


I thought that was both funny and ironic.



> AD did a hell of a lot for us on the court and Shelden is a hell of a lot more ready to come in and play BASKETBALL than Aldridge, even if he doesn't have Aldridge's measurables.


But my point is that whatever AD did physically on the court didn't touch his leadership abilities, etc. They basically brought him in to protect Eddy and Tyson, which he did, and I tie that into the intangibles I brought up earlier--when I talked about what AD did on the court, I was talking about stats and numbers. Things like toughness, leadership, etc. are all intangibles, which is not what I was referring to when I talked about what happened on the court, the things I said Williams won't bring. Shelden won't do that for Tyson, because he's a rookie. He won't bring the same attitude. He's not going to stand there and protect someone a few years older and more experienced than him. He's not going to shove people around or tell Tyson what to do out there, which was what AD did. He won't guide Tyson along, because he'll be a rookie. Tyson will be the one doing the bossing around. And that's what made AD special. AD did all those things for Tyson. I don't get where you get this illusion that Williams is some sort of vet leader already.

I'm done.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Pippenatorade said:


> The only issue I'd have with both of you is this. My point was, why is it some things are tolerable with some players but not with others. Why was everyone nitpicky about every little thing with Eddy last year and when you say "well Tyson can't score, Tyson can't catch, Tyson took a 40 game vacation" it's "well we don't ask Tyson to score" and people minimize him taking HALF A SEASON off.
> 
> To you I'd reply that I didn't want Tyson's contract hampering our capspace. I'd also say that if that space gets spent this summer I think you will be sorely disappointed.


LOL, and yet another poster tries to "defend" Eddy by saying "how come people don't criticize Tyson more?"

It's so funny, it's like when a 12-year-old gets in trouble for getting a D in Math and defending himself by saying "well, my little brother got a D in English, what about him"?

Oh, and I don't mean "LOL you're an idiot", I just mean "LOL, it's funny".


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

bullsville said:


> LOL, and yet another poster tries to "defend" Eddy by saying "how come people don't criticize Tyson more?"
> 
> It's so funny, it's like when a 12-year-old gets in trouble for getting a D in Math and defending himself by saying "well, my little brother got a D in English, what about him"?
> 
> Oh, and I don't mean "LOL you're an idiot", I just mean "LOL, it's funny".


And then there is the poster that predicts 47 wins for the Bulls, predicts Tyson to do this and that, and then completely disappears for a month while Tyson is putting up the worst numbers of his career, only to come back and beat his chest harder than ever when Tyson decides to show up. That is the funniest poster by far.

Not to be confused with the poster who said BEFORE Eddy's heart condition that we'd be better off with a sack of chips instead of Eddy, because 82games.com says so. 

I called 33-37 wins. When we fail to win 47, will there be even an ounce of humility, or will the chest bump outward even further? I'll stick with 33-37 wins, AND I don't even need a defunct website that nobody goes to to help me come up with that prediction.

LOL


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

bullsville said:


> I still don't understand why some people continue to insist that low-post scoring from your center is of some great importance when it comes to winning in the NBA.
> 
> The Pistons, Mavs and Spurs are by far the best 3 teams in the league. Who are their low-post scorers again? (And please don't say 'Tim Duncan', *60% of his shots are jumpers)*


Where did this number come from?


----------



## hammer (Oct 29, 2005)

I read these threads all the time, but I usually stop myself from posting because the vast majority of you guys are just hopeless. As far as I can tell, bullsville is an insanely bright basketball mind. He has more NBA knowledge in his pinky finger right now than Pippenatorade will ever have throughout the course of his life, and that is a fact.

Ahh, the secretly embarassed mental midgets who called Tyson a bust are all sweating right about now, aren't they? Nobody is ever gonna forget how insanely terrible your basketball thoughts are. You just can't see the beast, can you? This guy has the makings of a legendary defender/rebounding champion in this league, and most people were calling him a bust at the age of 23. Hey, I don't have to rent "Ace Ventura" to get my laughs. I could just come here. 

And yes, Eddy Curry is a worthless, heartless, brainless, gutless wonder. People who support him are worse than the Ben Gordon fans. And if you support both of these lousy players? Oh my, do the world a favor and volunteer to have your nuts chopped off. We already have enough morons running around.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

hammer said:


> I read these threads all the time, but I usually stop myself from posting because the vast majority of you guys are just hopeless. As far as I can tell, bullsville is an insanely bright basketball mind. He has more NBA knowledge in his pinky finger right now than Pippenatorade will ever have throughout the course of his life, and that is a fact.
> 
> Ahh, the secretly embarassed mental midgets who called Tyson a bust are all sweating right about now, aren't they? Nobody is ever gonna forget how insanely terrible your basketball thoughts are. You just can't see the beast, can you? This guy has the makings of a legendary defender/rebounding champion in this league, and most people were calling him a bust at the age of 23. Hey, I don't have to rent "Ace Ventura" to get my laughs. I could just come here.
> 
> And yes, Eddy Curry is a worthless, heartless, brainless, gutless wonder. People who support him are worse than the Ben Gordon fans. And if you support both of these lousy players? Oh my, do the world a favor and volunteer to have your nuts chopped off. We already have enough morons running around.


Why do you have to insult everyone who you don't agree with? Knock it off, it's already tired and you just started..


----------



## hammer (Oct 29, 2005)

Chops said:


> Why do you have to insult everyone who you don't agree with? Knock it off, it's already tired and you just started..


Ahh, I was just commenting on the laughable bullsville/pippenatorade exchange.

And I've been reading these threads for a while. But don't worry, you'll probably only see me posting here once in a great while. I suppose that a hiatus is a good thing in my particular case, yeah?


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

hammer said:


> Ahh, I was just commenting on the laughable bullsville/pippenatorade exchange.
> 
> And I've been reading these threads for a while. But don't worry, you'll probably only see me posting here once in a great while. I suppose that a hiatus is a good thing in my particular case, yeah?


Sounds like a good thing to me too.

Peace.


----------

