# Should the Raps draft Stephen Curry?



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

Should they trade down and pick up Curry? He's not much of a slasher but he can def create his own shot. Would having him on the wing help Bosh inside?


----------



## Junkyard Dog13 (Aug 9, 2003)

I think Chase Budinger b.c his ability to play both the 2 &3


----------



## changv10 (Apr 25, 2005)

i think we should be all over the freshman wings
Tyreke Evans, DeMar DeRozan

Other possibilities - Gerald Henderson, Al-Farouq Aminu

To strengthen our wings is likely the strategy, but going with best player available is what we should do too. A proven winner like Ty Lawson wouldn't be a far reach even though we already have Calderon. Same goes with Curry ... but I'd go with those freshman wings first ... especially Evans.


----------



## chocolove (Apr 4, 2006)

I dont think the Raptors will have a lot of people wanting to trade up to their draft position. I think the value of the players that are going to be around when the Raps pick arent that great, we wouldnt get a really good player out of the trade.

That being said, if Raps were to trade down, I'd want them to look at Tyreke Evans before Curry. I think Evans is slotted by a lot of the draft sites to go mid to late first round so it could work out.


----------



## Onions Baby (Mar 12, 2007)

Absolutely not to Stephen Curry.

Evans, DeRozan, Henderson, Aminu, Budinger are all more attractive. Evans is slipping a little much, we should grab him if he's on the board. Already polished offensively and can create his own shot. Questions about effort are worth the risk for a player of his skill level.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I hope they dont, he's got a home in NJ. Maybe some of you just missed what Gordon did to the Celts or how Roger Mason has been playing with the Spurs, such players have value on playoff teams.


----------



## chocolove (Apr 4, 2006)

HB said:


> I hope they dont, he's got a home in NJ. Maybe some of you just missed what Gordon did to the Celts or how Roger Mason has been playing with the Spurs, such players have value on playoff teams.


I agree, but the raps need help in their starting line-up. Parker is probably gonna play in a reserve role for us this upcoming season so we're gonna need a guy that has size, can defend the 2 spot, and chip in on offense a little bit. Tyreke Evans, I think, would fill that role better.


----------



## mo76 (Jun 13, 2003)

Dee-Zy said:


> Should they trade down and pick up Curry? He's not much of a slasher but he can def create his own shot. Would having him on the wing help Bosh inside?


mg:
You don't know what you are talking about. "create your own shot" is such a cliche. Doesn't mean he would be a good first round pick for the raptors. quincy douby basically does what curry would be doing, and the raptors desperatly need a true 2 guard


----------



## Onions Baby (Mar 12, 2007)

mo76 said:


> mg:
> You don't know what you are talking about. "create your own shot" is such a cliche. Doesn't mean he would be a good first round pick for the raptors. quincy douby basically does what curry would be doing, and the raptors desperatly need a true 2 guard


Curry wouldn't be hesitant to shoot the jumpers that Douby passes up though. Curry's going to be a 40% career 3-point shooter in the NBA. Not trying to defend him, just saying.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Curry is kind of a reach as a top 10 pick and I don't think we'll find a good deal trading down. If he drops to the ~20 pick I don't mind the Raptors buy him from another team. In a stronger draft he would likely be somewhere in the 2nd round, therefore it's good for him that he's coming in this year.



HB said:


> I hope they dont, he's got a home in NJ. Maybe some of you just missed what Gordon did to the Celts or how Roger Mason has been playing with the Spurs, such players have value on playoff teams.


Pretty poor comparison in my opinion. The Bulls have had their share of frustration with Ben Gordon and the only reason why we're even talking about him now is because KG isn't playing and the Bulls are all of a sudden looking like a good team playing against a weak Celtics squad. If the Bulls somehow move on, it will not surprise me if Gordon shoots the Bulls out of the playoffs somewhere down the road.

Roger Mason has good size and is an underrated defender that provides decent bulk and toughness, something Gordon and Curry don't and will never have.

A better comparison for Curry would be either Luther Head or a more consistent version of Salim Stoudamire.


----------



## spuriousjones (Apr 24, 2004)

i like him. is he really far from a #9 talent?

he's got a high hoops IQ, solid passer, super shooter. and he's been doing it successfully while being triple-teamed and the focus of team defenses. he gets to the line, steals the ball. and is really good off the ball — he's always moving, like rip hamilton. i'd also read somewhere that he's not done growing and could still put on a couple more inches.

i think he's going to be a successful nba player for a long time. we could use him.


----------



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

I think a consistent version of Salim Stoudamire is horrible. He is much better than that.

I would add to spuriousjones that he is quite clutch. He is a great shooter but finds way to score. He is not just a jump shooter. With Calderon feeding him the ball, he will be a headache to defend. The only concern is his D. He needs to be paired up with a pass first defensive PG and Calderon isn't that.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

seifer0406 said:


> Curry is kind of a reach as a top 10 pick and I don't think we'll find a good deal trading down. If he drops to the ~20 pick I don't mind the Raptors buy him from another team. In a stronger draft he would likely be somewhere in the 2nd round, therefore it's good for him that he's coming in this year.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Bulls wouldnt be in the playoffs without Gordon's fourth quarter heroics. You could arguably say he's been their most important player. He's been one of the most clutch performers in the league this year. Saying taking him at 9 is a reach is silly. Look at draft sites and look at the top 30 picks and tell me if any of the guys below him are really going to make that much of a difference at 9 or 29. Its a poor draft, there's no surefire pick past the first two or three picks.

Lol do you watch college basketball at all? Luther Head and Salim Stoudemire are nothing like Curry. Head was the guy getting passes from Dee Brown and Deron Williams, he's a good spot up shooter but he's not a dead eye shooter at all. You cant run Head off screens because he's not a lightning quick shooter. Brooks is similar to Curry not Head. Curry isn't a spot up shooter, he's a natural scorer. He can hit shots from any and all positions on the court. What really seperates him from Head and Stoudemire is his ability to put the ball on the floor and create his shot, and oh the fact that he also averaged 6apg this past season. He can facilitate and distribute the ball quite handily. Gordon, Head and Stoudemire dont have that in their games. He's also 6'3, which last I check is taller than those other players.

The most accurate comparison for Curry is Jason Terry


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Son of sweet shootin' Dell Curry? 

**** ya. I'd love that.


----------



## spuriousjones (Apr 24, 2004)

Dee-Zy said:


> I think a consistent version of Salim Stoudamire is horrible. He is much better than that.
> 
> I would add to spuriousjones that *he is quite clutch.* He is a great shooter but finds way to score. He is not just a jump shooter. With Calderon feeding him the ball, he will be a headache to defend. The only concern is his D. He needs to be paired up with a pass first defensive PG and Calderon isn't that.


that's a major part of what makes him what he is. don't know how i skipped that—thanks for pointing it out.

curry is super clutch. he's not afraid to take the big shots, and he can make them. right now, we don't really have anyone that coach can have get the ball and just say, "make something happen". we don't have a clutch performer. curry can do that.

obviously, he's going to have trouble with the 6'7 freak athletes but i don't think his d is as bad as he's getting labeled. he's a pretty good pickpocket and plays smartly. and remember, the guy covering him will be tired from chasing him around like a chicken and always having to stay on the guy—you can't leave curry open.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> The Bulls wouldnt be in the playoffs without Gordon's fourth quarter heroics. You could arguably say he's been their most important player. He's been one of the most clutch performers in the league this year. Saying taking him at 9 is a reach is silly. Look at draft sites and look at the top 30 picks and tell me if any of the guys below him are really going to make that much of a difference at 9 or 29. Its a poor draft, there's no surefire pick past the first two or three picks.
> 
> Lol do you watch college basketball at all? Luther Head and Salim Stoudemire are nothing like Curry. Head was the guy getting passes from Dee Brown and Deron Williams, he's a good spot up shooter but he's not a dead eye shooter at all. You cant run Head off screens because he's not a lightning quick shooter. Brooks is similar to Curry not Head. Curry isn't a spot up shooter, he's a natural scorer. He can hit shots from any and all positions on the court. What really seperates him from Head and Stoudemire is his ability to put the ball on the floor and create his shot, and oh the fact that he also averaged 6apg this past season. He can facilitate and distribute the ball quite handily. Gordon, Head and Stoudemire dont have that in their games. He's also 6'3, which last I check is taller than those other players.
> 
> The most accurate comparison for Curry is Jason Terry


We're not talking about top 30, we're talking about top 10. There are quite a few prospects that are better than Curry from 9-15, and I don't feel that the Raptors should use their pick (which likely will be at 9) on him. 

Luther Head and Stoudemire might not be similar players to Curry while Curry is in college, but they are going to be similar players once he's in the NBA. I honest don't see Curry being a big scorer in the NBA, most of his points will likely be from the outside. Juan Dixon's transition to the league should be a good example of how Curry's would be. When you get down to it, unless he's a lot better than those 2 guys which I doubt, they are going to share similar roles in the NBA, which is to knock down outside shots. They are all combo guards, and we've seen a good number of those over the years which leads me to believe that he will more or less be the same. As for him being a PG because he averaged 5.6 assists in his final year(while averaging close to 4 TO), the guy isn't going to play PG in the NBA, everyone knows that. If you're looking for someone to play PG, Ty Lawson is a much better prospect. You're getting a combo guard that's best used as a spark off the bench, and to me that's not worth a top 10 pick even in a weak draft like this one.

And one last thing for Gordon, one can argue that the best ball the Bulls played this season was after they acquired John Salmons and Brad Miller. I don't know how important Gordon is to the Bulls, but it's quite likely that they won't even resign him this summer because Salmons is just a better player imo. One can also argue that as good as Gordon has played, the Bulls are still just a .500 team. It is hardly justification for combo guards to be considered building pieces or even starters for good teams. I have yet to see one of the power house teams sporting a 6-3 shooting guard and I don't expect to see one any time soon. The other guy you mentioned was Roger Mason for the Spurs. First of all the guy is 6-5 and has decent bulk. He also plays defense unlike Gordon and Curry(I'm going to assume defense won't be his calling card in the NBA). Jason Terry is his best case scenario, but Curry isn't nearly as athletic as Terry was when Terry entered the league. The guy is called "The Jet" for a reason, Curry just doesn't possess that kind of speed and explosiveness.


----------



## spuriousjones (Apr 24, 2004)

> Jason Terry...is called "The Jet" for a reason,


They're his initials: *J*ason *E*ugene *T*erry


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dell Currys son is going to be an amazing player.

You heard it here first. Unless someone else said it. Then you heard it here second.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

^Lol good one. But seriously Terry is just like Curry, if you can, cue tapes of Terry at Arizona or his earlier years in Atlanta, even right now. He's a quick guard, very good shooter that will hit that shot if he gets an open look. Head and Stoudemire simply werent good ball handlers or facilitators in college. Curry's also taller than both. And no one is drafting Curry to be a pg, you are correct but rather his ability to make plays at the 2 guard spot will be valuable. He's not a one dimensional player like Stoudemire and Head. Dixon's also undersized and has no point guard skills, he's simply a shooter. I think its easier to compare Curry to underachievers rather than a guy whose proven himself in the league like Terry, but you forget, Terry struggled and toiled a lot in Atlanta before getting a chance in Dallas.

I suggest you go the Bulls board, or better yet, check the ROY thread in the NBA general about how important Salmons, Rose, Gordon and co. are to the Bulls. The input is from Bulls fans. Gordon has been great this season, if they had any say, Deng and Hinrich would be gone and Gordon would stay. Gordon's game fits Rose' better than Salmons. Salmons is a not a catch and shoot guy, he's more of a one on one type of scorer. That takes the ball out of Rose' hands, whereas Gordon doesnt have that problem, of course you can also run plays for Gordon. Terry's not speed demon btw.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

spuriousjones said:


> They're his initials: *J*ason *E*ugene *T*erry


Yes, but don't you think he needed to be quick for them to name him that? :uhoh: Kind of like Dennis Scott was nicked name 3D because he wore number 3, shot 3s and his name started with D.



HB said:


> ^Lol good one. But seriously Terry is just like Curry, if you can, cue tapes of Terry at Arizona or his earlier years in Atlanta, even right now. He's a quick guard, very good shooter that will hit that shot if he gets an open look. Head and Stoudemire simply werent good ball handlers or facilitators in college. Curry's also taller than both. And no one is drafting Curry to be a pg, you are correct but rather his ability to make plays at the 2 guard spot will be valuable. He's not a one dimensional player like Stoudemire and Head. Dixon's also undersized and has no point guard skills, he's simply a shooter. I think its easier to compare Curry to underachievers rather than a guy whose proven himself in the league like Terry, but you forget, Terry struggled and toiled a lot in Atlanta before getting a chance in Dallas.


Jason Terry actually put up solid numbers in Atlanta on those horrible Atlanta teams. Those teams were going nowhere with guys like SAR and Antoine Walker being main players (I think Glenn Robinson was there for a year also). They traded Terry because they needed to rebuild, not exactly because Terry was playing horrible. Terry's not as fast now, but when he was younger he was considered one of the quicker guys in the game. I suggest you look up some videos on youtube of his first few years in Atlanta.

We'll disagree on whether Gordon fits Rose better. I think it's quite obvious that they're going to have some serious defensive problems in the future if that's their starting backcourt for years to come. With Hinrich and Gordon at least Hinrich can guard elite 2 guards in the game ala Jason Kidd. Gordon might be the Bulls most explosive scorer, but just like all combo guards their teams will suffer on the defensive end when he starts, just like how the Bulls are suffering right now.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Still I am a bit baffled by your post though, yes Curry's not going to be a defensive stalwart, but who within that 9-15 range is? Curry has a talent that easily translates to the NBA, he's a great shooter. There's no one in that 9-15 range that doesn't have a serious question mark, its a weak draft.

As for Terry, he struggled in his first season and after that put up good numbers though you could argue he was putting up good numbers on a bad team. Curry's also like Bibby, he's not a legit point guard, but he can score and dish the ball. Yes Terry's fast but he doesn't play a speed game. Curry's no slow poke either. 

As for the Bulls suffering, I dont know, they are hanging in there with the defensive champs right now, hardly suffering considering they are the 7th seed in the East.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> Still I am a bit baffled by your post though, yes Curry's not going to be a defensive stalwart, but who within that 9-15 range is? Curry has a talent that easily translates to the NBA, he's a great shooter. There's no one in that 9-15 range that doesn't have a serious question mark, its a weak draft.
> 
> As for Terry, he struggled in his first season and after that put up good numbers though you could argue he was putting up good numbers on a bad team. Curry's also like Bibby, he's not a legit point guard, but he can score and dish the ball. Yes Terry's fast but he doesn't play a speed game. Curry's no slow poke either.
> 
> As for the Bulls suffering, I dont know, they are hanging in there with the defensive champs right now, hardly suffering considering they are the 7th seed in the East.


I never said the Raptors are looking for a defensive stopper, I'm only saying that Curry will be a guaranteed defensive liability in the NBA. Most players in the draft aren't defensive specialists, but the majority of them don't create defensive loopholes when they're in the lineup. I mean, why do you think it has been such a problem for the Raptors giving Kapono consistent playing time? He can't stay on the floor because he can't guard anybody.

I don't know how you can say that Bibby isn't a legitimate point guard. He averaged 6.5 assists in his rookie year and over 8 assists for 2 straight years after that. After he moved to Sacramento, the team had other players that can distribute the ball (Divac and Cwebb) and Bibby became more of a scorer. I personally don't think Curry has a chance to average more than 6 assists in the NBA. Therefore he's nothing like Mike Bibby.

The Bulls are suffering on the defensive end with Gordon as their starting SG and have been for years. His offense makes up for it but again, it is not going to work in the long run. I personally don't see the Bulls building their team with Rose and Gordon as their starting backcourt. They may get lucky and beat the Celtics without KG. But if they get past the Celtics and end up playing a team with an aggressive SG such as Iguodala or Wade (If the Heat somehow makes it that far), you will see Gordon gets punished in ways that Ray Allen would not.

The bottom line is, Curry at best is a bench player or career sixth man. The best case scenarios for him is either Ben Gordon or Jason Terry, both of them are in and out of the starting lineup for pretty much their entire career. In my opinion, a top 10 pick should yield you a starter, and chances are you will not get one in Curry.

And as far as the Raptors is concerned, their main weakness is perimeter defense and athleticism, both of which Curry doesn't cover. If Chase Budinger is on the board or if somehow Demar DeRozan drops to us then we pick either one. Gerald Henderson would be another guy that we should take a look at.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I really wouldn't be critiquing Gordon's game that MUCH considering how big he came up for the Bulls today. Ray Ray's neither a defensive specialist either and I also recall two time MVP Steve Nash being a poor defender. Defense is a nice quality, but there are very few players who excel at it. Curry might or might not be a starting quality type player, but the skills he brings to the table will get him time on the court. He can dish and shoot well. The Bulls more than anything will get punished because of their inexperience, not because Gordon's a bad defender. Gordon's best form of defense is his offense, when he's hitting shots, he is forcing the opposing team to exert more energy trying to shut him down. 

Bibby's more of a scoring guard, who also happens to be a defensive liability, but that hasn't stopped him from starting for some very talented teams. I do know Curry's never played with that type of talent, I can only imagine he should be able to rack up some assists on the teams Bibby has been.

I do hope the Raps dont draft Curry and he falls to the Nets. Budinger's too unpredictable for my liking. He's hot today, cold the other. He has the tools but he's way too passive. Henderson is a 6'4 shooting guard, who's not really great at anything but good at a lot of things. Derozan is the wild card, and probably a guy the Raps should look towards drafting. He might be the best bet of the bunch. Honestly the Raps dont need Curry, you've got shooters, shooting is the least of your worries. A reliable slasher/scorer is more suitable.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> I really wouldn't be critiquing Gordon's game that MUCH considering how big he came up for the Bulls today. Ray Ray's neither a defensive specialist either and I also recall two time MVP Steve Nash being a poor defender. Defense is a nice quality, but there are very few players who excel at it. Curry might or might not be a starting quality type player, but the skills he brings to the table will get him time on the court. He can dish and shoot well. The Bulls more than anything will get punished because of their inexperience, not because Gordon's a bad defender. Gordon's best form of defense is his offense, when he's hitting shots, he is forcing the opposing team to exert more energy trying to shut him down.
> 
> Bibby's more of a scoring guard, who also happens to be a defensive liability, but that hasn't stopped him from starting for some very talented teams. I do know Curry's never played with that type of talent, I can only imagine he should be able to rack up some assists on the teams Bibby has been.
> 
> I do hope the Raps dont draft Curry and he falls to the Nets. Budinger's too unpredictable for my liking. He's hot today, cold the other. He has the tools but he's way too passive. Henderson is a 6'4 shooting guard, who's not really great at anything but good at a lot of things. Derozan is the wild card, and probably a guy the Raps should look towards drafting. He might be the best bet of the bunch. Honestly the Raps dont need Curry, you've got shooters, shooting is the least of your worries. A reliable slasher/scorer is more suitable.


I don't know why I shouldn't critique Gordon's game. They beat a Celtics team who is without their best player. Congratulations to them but if KG was playing then the Bulls would be on a date with the Pistons about 3PM this afternoon. I will say it one last time, the Bulls are not going anywhere with a backcourt of Gordon and Rose. Unless Dwight Howard gets tangled up with Iguadala and both get season ending injuries, the farthest the Bulls will go this year is round 2. It is really silly to use the results the Celtics series as some sort of boast for Gordon when the team that the Bulls is beating is nothing like the team that was considered favorites as champions going into this season.

Bibby is not more of a shooting guard. He was a point guard even in Arizona, remember the duo with him and Michael Dickerson? He is a PG that can score, but as a distributor he is still considered one of the better guys that've done it in his era.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

But again, the Bulls didnt get this far without Gordon's contributions. He averaged close to 20ppg this season and is consistently one of the league's clutch performers. The Bulls as a team overachieved! Its not their fault that KG is out, tough luck for the Celts.

As for Bibby, top distributors in this era....No way


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Bibby is and has always been a point guard. He has a bit of scoring guard in him, but there was never any question on if he was a 1 or a 2. Bibby has always been a 1.

A top distributor in this era? Not even close.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

lol...how did "One of the better guys that's done it in his era" turn into top distributor in his era? Do you exaggerate what you read?

Bibby is one of the better distributing PGs in the league and has been one every year that he played(healthy year).

The Bulls is a .500 team that had no chance against any top seeds until KG went down. I'm not saying they shouldn't cherish the experience, but you've got to be kidding me if one doesn't look at their success in the playoffs with a grain of salt.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> lol...how did "One of the better guys that's done it in his era" turn into top distributor in his era? Do you exaggerate what you read?
> 
> Bibby is one of the better distributing PGs in the league and has been one every year that he played(healthy year).
> 
> The Bulls is a .500 team that had no chance against any top seeds until KG went down. I'm not saying they shouldn't cherish the experience, but you've got to be kidding me if one doesn't look at their success in the playoffs with a grain of salt.


If you were to make a list of the best distributors over the last 10 years, Mike Bibby would not be on that list. Being a "good" distributor is one thing, but to rank him with the top guys? No.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

R-Star said:


> If you were to make a list of the best distributors over the last 10 years, Mike Bibby would not be on that list. Being a "good" distributor is one thing, but to rank him with the top guys? No.


I thought I explained it in the reply that he isn't one of the best passers. You know what, just forget it then, I don't know how to state it any clearer. HB said that Bibby isn't a PG, I'm saying that he is and even if you compare him with other PGs that's considered true PG (aka distributor), he is still one of the better PGs in his era. If you make a top 20 list of PGs every year, Bibby is in the top half every single year. He may have fell off a bit after he got injured, but for the first 7-8 years of his career he was a pretty damn good point guard.


----------



## mo76 (Jun 13, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> We're not talking about top 30, we're talking about top 10. There are quite a few prospects that are better than Curry from 9-15, and I don't feel that the Raptors should use their pick (which likely will be at 9) on him.
> 
> Luther Head and Stoudemire might not be similar players to Curry while Curry is in college, but they are going to be similar players once he's in the NBA. I honest don't see Curry being a big scorer in the NBA, most of his points will likely be from the outside. Juan Dixon's transition to the league should be a good example of how Curry's would be. When you get down to it, unless he's a lot better than those 2 guys which I doubt, they are going to share similar roles in the NBA, which is to knock down outside shots. They are all combo guards, and we've seen a good number of those over the years which leads me to believe that he will more or less be the same. As for him being a PG because he averaged 5.6 assists in his final year(while averaging close to 4 TO), the guy isn't going to play PG in the NBA, everyone knows that. If you're looking for someone to play PG, Ty Lawson is a much better prospect. You're getting a combo guard that's best used as a spark off the bench, and to me that's not worth a top 10 pick even in a weak draft like this one.
> 
> And one last thing for Gordon, one can argue that the best ball the Bulls played this season was after they acquired John Salmons and Brad Miller. I don't know how important Gordon is to the Bulls, but it's quite likely that they won't even resign him this summer because Salmons is just a better player imo. One can also argue that as good as Gordon has played, the Bulls are still just a .500 team. It is hardly justification for combo guards to be considered building pieces or even starters for good teams. I have yet to see one of the power house teams sporting a 6-3 shooting guard and I don't expect to see one any time soon. The other guy you mentioned was Roger Mason for the Spurs. First of all the guy is 6-5 and has decent bulk. He also plays defense unlike Gordon and Curry(I'm going to assume defense won't be his calling card in the NBA). Jason Terry is his best case scenario, but Curry isn't nearly as athletic as Terry was when Terry entered the league. The guy is called "The Jet" for a reason, Curry just doesn't possess that kind of speed and explosiveness.


Juan Dixon is a good comparison, he was a superstar in college too.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

seifer0406 said:


> lol...how did "One of the better guys that's done it in his era" turn into top distributor in his era? Do you exaggerate what you read?
> 
> Bibby is one of the better distributing PGs in the league and has been one every year that he played(healthy year).
> 
> The Bulls is a .500 team that had no chance against any top seeds until KG went down. I'm not saying they shouldn't cherish the experience, but you've got to be kidding me if one doesn't look at their success in the playoffs with a grain of salt.


I repeated what you said. You said he was one of the top distributors of this era, I am saying he isn't. Sacaramento in the early 2000s had arguably the most talented squad put together in the NBA. They never won a championship. Any point guard worth his pay would rack up assists easily on those squads, YET Bibby never topped double digit assist numbers. He's as much of a point guard as Steve Francis, Marbury and heck Jason Terry. Top distributors of this era would be Kidd, Nash, Paul, Williams...Bibby isnt in that class. Good scoring point guard is what he is, couldbe why he's never made an all star game. A guy whose career APG is 6.1 IS NOT one of the top distributors of this era. Bibby's only had two seasons where he's had more than 8 apg, and never any with over 9apg. 

The Bulls went on a tear going into the playoffs, if they had the same team they have right now to start the season, they wouldnt be the 7th seed, meaning they probably wouldn't be facing the Celtics.

And when I say he isn't a pg, its more in the sense that he's a scoring guard playing the point because of his size. He's better shooting the ball than passing it. Bibby's poor point play is one of the reasons why Sacramento and the Hawks are doing so poorly.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> I repeated what you said. You said he was one of the top distributors of this era





Seifer0406 said:


> He is a PG that can score, but as a distributor he is still considered one of the better guys that've done it in his era.


/facepalm

If you're unsure what I meant, I'm telling you what I mean right now. He is one of the better passing PGs in the league and at the very least should be considered a PG. He is not Chris Paul or Deron Williams, but he isn't Iverson out there playing PG.



> Sacaramento in the early 2000s had arguably the most talented squad put together in the NBA. They never won a championship.


Your point? Is it related to Bibby and whether or not he's a point guard? I have a comment that I'll save for when you answer this question.

As for his assists dropping once he got to the Kings, it was more due to the fact that they had other players that could distribute, mainly Divac and C-Webb. If you look at Jason Williams's numbers, he averaged around 6 assists a game when he played with the Kings, yet once he went to the Grizzlies his assist went up to 8+. On the Hawks they also have Joe Johnson who is a good distributor. We're not talking about someone who has never averaged high assist numbers, Bibby already proven that he can be an efficient passer his first 3 years in the league.



> The Bulls went on a tear going into the playoffs, if they had the same team they have right now to start the season, they wouldnt be the 7th seed, meaning they probably wouldn't be facing the Celtics.


They are a .500 team. They tear as hard as any .500 team could, let's not exaggerate things. I'll say it again, they have *no chance* against any of the top seeds until KG went down.

It's funny how you praise Gordon for bringing a team to .500 and knock on Bibby when their team won 47 games this year. Before Bibby got traded to the Hawks the Hawks struggled for years because they didn't have a point guard. Once he got on board they first made the playoffs and took the Celtics to 7 games (That's a real feat if you want to praise a team for giving it to the champs). I am in shock how you would make a comment like that. Do you pay attention to teams other than the Nets?

and a big lol for the sacramento part. You think Ron Artest and his record company along with all the other curious moves the Kings have made over the years had anything to do with the transformation of the Kings into a laughingstock? If I were to list the things that have gone wrong since the Kings dismantled their C-Webb core Bibby's play would not have made the top 10.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

_He is still considered one of the best distributors of this era_ and I am flat out saying no he isnt, not with a career apg of 6.1. Iverson has a career 6.2apg average btw.

As for the Kings not winning the championship, yes not having good point play was one of the problems that team had. Everyone on that squad was pretty much a scorer.

As for Bibby, the Hawks, and the Kings, bottom line is that his numbers dropped on a talented squad. Why are we even dragging this along? A guy with a career apg of 6.1 is not a great passer. Look Vc played with Kidd last year when he put up close to 5 apg and Kidd had close to 10apg. So I still dont see why Bibby playing next to JJ should affect his numbers.

Again, the Bulls after the trade have been playing significantly well. Something to the tune of 14-2 I believe. If they had the same team at the start of the year they'd definitely be better than just a .500 team and much better than the 7th seed. Lol at telling me do I pay any attention to teams other than the Nets when I am currently in Chicago and have watched most of the Bulls games this season. 

And yes Bibby did improve the Hawks a bit, but they still havent gotten out of the first round with him and are currently about to be dispatched by the Heat. Matter of fact he was outplayed badly by Rondo in the playoffs last year. Bibby's not an ideal point guard, AT ALL. The Bulls situation this year is quite similar to when the Warriors beat the Mavs, their record is not indicative of how well their play to end the season has been.

I dont recall Artest playing on the C-Webb, Peja, Miller, Christie, Bibby, Hedo, Jackson, Clark teams. I mean anyone who watched that team knew they were clearly one of the best offensive teams ever assembled and Bibby still couldn't put up double digit assists on that squad. Bibby might not have been the main reason why that team failed, but please believe point play was one of them.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

HB said:


> _He is still considered one of the best distributors of this era_ and I am flat out saying no he isnt, not with a career apg of 6.1.


I like how you italic the text yet it still wasn't what I said. You know how I like to tell people that they can't read, this is one of those times where the shoes fit. You know what, let's just forget that I said that. I already explained what I meant yet for some reason you refuse to accept what I wrote down. It isn't relevent to Stephen Curry and I have no real interest in continue this little reading game.



> As for the Kings not winning the championship, yes not having good point play was one of the problems that team had. Everyone on that squad was pretty much a scorer.


Heard of this dude named John Stockton? *Having a power house team that happened to play in your era was the biggest problem that team had*. In the Kings case, they had the Lakers and the Spurs to contend with. If you can be as good as the Kings were with a PG like Bibby, I'd take it. The most you can ask for is a chance to win the chip in this league, and the Kings had their share of chances.



> I dont recall Artest playing on the C-Webb, Peja, Miller, Christie, Bibby, Hedo, Jackson, Clark teams. I mean anyone who watched that team knew they were clearly one of the best offensive teams ever assembled and Bibby still couldn't put up double digit assists on that squad. Bibby might not have been the main reason why that team failed, but please believe point play was one of them.


lol what? There are 2 things that are just hilarious about this post.

#1 The teams C-Webb/Peja/Bibby were on didn't "suck"



HB said:


> Bibby's poor point play is one of the reasons why Sacramento and the Hawks are doing so poorly.


#2. I clearly said



> If I were to list the things that have gone wrong since the Kings dismantled their C-Webb core Bibby's play would not have made the top 10.


therefore I end with 



> You know how I like to tell people that they can't read, this is one of those times where the shoes fit.


Let's just get back to Stephen Curry. This whole Bibby talk is interesting but it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Go ahead and post more of your thoughts on this guy, the draft is coming up and we should talk more about the guys Raptors should or should not draft.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

So you are saying, Bibby isnt considered one of the best distributors of this era? That's not what you meant?

The Kings were a more talented outfit than the Lakers and won more games that year. Horry's fluke shot was the downfall of that team.

As for Curry its not what the Raps need. They should take Derozan.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Just go back and read what I wrote the first time and my explanation the 2nd time. I have a feeling whatever I write down now it will just translate into something else when it reaches the back of your head.

The Lakers did three peat, it is no fluke. The Kings would have won one if they had more luck or maybe even if the refs didn't bet on games (this is a can of worms I rather not open). But again, to say that Bibby was a big reason why the Kings didn't win any championship is just ludicris. They were amongst the best teams in the league for a good length of time and had realistic chances at a championship.

I agree we should take DeRozan as well.


----------



## mo76 (Jun 13, 2003)

R-Star said:


> If you were to make a list of the best distributors over the last 10 years, Mike Bibby would not be on that list. Being a "good" distributor is one thing, but to rank him with the top guys? No.


LOL @ "best distributers". 
How did a conversation about Steph Curry turn into some BS argument about who is percieved to be the best passer of the last 10 year based on media hype and 2k9 ratings. SHUT UP.


----------



## Junkyard Dog13 (Aug 9, 2003)

draft Henderson/Budinger solves SG issues.
Both good wing players with potential to start.


----------



## vinsanity77 (May 1, 2006)

I'm surprised not a lot of people want Demar Derozan. He is a slasher, the exact type of player that the raps need. Weren't the raps near the bottom of the league in free throw attempts? This guy, imo, will go to the line 8-10 times a game in his prime. He will be like a Maggette/Richard Jefferson type of a player which is not bad at all for a player drafted 9th overall, and if he develops his jump shot a bit more, he can become like a VC-lite, which would be amazing, minus the attitude. His defense is supposedly pretty good as well, so he will not be a liability on defense if his offense doesn't come naturally when he first enters the League.

Plus, the guy already has an NBA body and height to play the 2 or the 3, and plus with the lack of SGs and SFs signed on our team right now (zero, i think), I do not understand why he shouldn't be a strong candidate for the 9th spot. Sure, he didn't play as well at USC this year as people hoped, but he did play well down the stretch which is a positive that we should look at.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

forget curry.. i see jennings slipping past the knicks. he's really brought a lot of negative publicity on himself with rubio bashing.


----------



## mo76 (Jun 13, 2003)

vinsanity77 said:


> I'm surprised not a lot of people want Demar Derozan. He is a slasher, the exact type of player that the raps need. Weren't the raps near the bottom of the league in free throw attempts? This guy, imo, will go to the line 8-10 times a game in his prime. He will be like a Maggette/Richard Jefferson type of a player which is not bad at all for a player drafted 9th overall, and if he develops his jump shot a bit more, he can become like a VC-lite, which would be amazing, minus the attitude. His defense is supposedly pretty good as well, so he will not be a liability on defense if his offense doesn't come naturally when he first enters the League.
> 
> Plus, the guy already has an NBA body and height to play the 2 or the 3, and plus with the lack of SGs and SFs signed on our team right now (zero, i think), I do not understand why he shouldn't be a strong candidate for the 9th spot. Sure, he didn't play as well at USC this year as people hoped, but he did play well down the stretch which is a positive that we should look at.


I agee, draft someone who can defend wing players PLEASE. College production doesnt matter as much as you would think. ie Jrue Holliday, Russell Westbrook. 
If rubio does fall to the raptors, I still don't think we should draft him. We have jose calderon. I heard rubio will need several years to develop from some NBA scouts. Toronto needs someone who can step in and do something right away.


----------



## vinsanity77 (May 1, 2006)

mo76 said:


> I agee, draft someone who can defend wing players PLEASE. College production doesnt matter as much as you would think. ie Jrue Holliday, Russell Westbrook.
> If rubio does fall to the raptors, I still don't think we should draft him. We have jose calderon. I heard rubio will need several years to develop from some NBA scouts. Toronto needs someone who can step in and do something right away.


If Rubio does somehow fall 9th (which would be impossible btw) you have to draft him. We can trade Calderon for NBA wing players that can play defense because calderon has really good value, but you never ever give up on a potential franchise-type PG especially in a draft this weak.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

vinsanity77 said:


> If Rubio does somehow fall 9th (which would be impossible btw) you have to draft him. We can trade Calderon for NBA wing players that can play defense because calderon has really good value, but you never ever give up on a potential franchise-type PG especially in a draft this weak.


i think we learned from passing up studs like iguodala to never pass up on the best talent available, even when you already have a player who plays a similar position. there's nothing wrong with having an abundance of talent at one position because you can always trade.

i doubt rubio would fall that far. the lowest he would fall would be 4th to sac but i still see memphis taking him at 2 and trading down.

jennings however.. reports are that even the knicks are passing him up at 8th so raptors have a decent chance. he's no rubio but at 6'5 we can use him as a combo guard(which is what he is in the nba).


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Has anybody seen Demars interview on Raptors.com? He has Dwight Howard-esque shoulders. 

He's the player that has all the attributes to become what we need (and what we should have got when we drafted Iggy)

Henderson is another option in the same sort of mould. 

Rubio isn't coming anywhere near the 9th pick, kid is a born baller. Next Stockton?

S.Curry has a beautiful shot but we've seen just that doesn't translate all that well in the big L. JJ Reddick springs to mind (although he definately has improved and impressed me the more time that passes) ... Curry would be nice but not the impact player we need, I could never seen him averaging 20+ ...

For me it's DeRozan all the way and I hope BC gets it done.


----------



## billfindlay10 (Jan 24, 2003)

c_dog said:


> i think we learned from passing up studs like iguodala to never pass up on the best talent available, even when you already have a player who plays a similar position. there's nothing wrong with having an abundance of talent at one position because you can always trade.
> 
> i doubt rubio would fall that far. the lowest he would fall would be 4th to sac but i still see memphis taking him at 2 and trading down.
> 
> *jennings however.. reports are that even the knicks are passing him up at 8th so raptors have a decent chance. he's no rubio but at 6'5 we can use him as a combo guard(which is what he is in the nba).*




Jennings is not even close to 6'5"...He is a 6'1" 170 lb point guard....no combo in his game at all....although in Europe he did play off the ball a bit.


----------



## martymar (Jan 5, 2006)

Junkyard Dog13 said:


> I think Chase Budinger b.c his ability to play both the 2 &3


he is horrible, according to pre-draft workouts they were saying he is soft, jump shot happy.


----------



## martymar (Jan 5, 2006)

HB said:


> As for Curry its not what the Raps need. They should take Derozan.


well raps should take best player available if by chance harden or evans are still available at 9th they should take those 2..I don't think curry would be available to raps since knicks really likes him as for derozan tonnes of pontential played better during pac 10 tourney and shown some glimpses during march madness tourney but his low stock can be attributed to Tim Floyd system (horrible coach)


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

billfindlay10 said:


> Jennings is not even close to 6'5"...He is a 6'1" 170 lb point guard....no combo in his game at all....although in Europe he did play off the ball a bit.


my bad. *bashes head* of course it's rubio that was closer to 6'5(6'4)...well if jennings can't play combo then there's a good chance he's going to bust in the nba, and it would make sense why everybody's passing up on him now.

edit: because i don't want to double post. i'm really liking derozan and evans now. this draft isn't top heavy but there will be a lot of good players available at 9. i like derozan because i think he fits this team better. 6'7 sg who can replace parker at the 2 and possibly replace bosh as the face of this franchise. he athletism has drawn comparisons to former raptor vince carter.


----------



## billfindlay10 (Jan 24, 2003)

Derozan is interesting, he has a great NBA frame, he needs a little strength, but his length is there. Could Derozan be an Iguodala, or does he turn into a Gerald Green?


----------



## martymar (Jan 5, 2006)

billfindlay10 said:


> Derozan is interesting, he has a great NBA frame, he needs a little strength, but his length is there. Could Derozan be an Iguodala, or does he turn into a Gerald Green?


Gerald Green had hops thats about it, there were too hype about him when he came out of high school. plus even one year of college still makes a difference compare to coming out of high school directly


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

billfindlay10 said:


> Derozan is interesting, he has a great NBA frame, he needs a little strength, but his length is there. Could Derozan be an Iguodala, or does he turn into a Gerald Green?


gerald green wasn't even that bad. i always thought he could have turned out something like jr smith at the very least. dumb player but incredibly atheltic and not shy to shoot from 3 point land. he just never had the kind of coach that liked that style of play unlike smith who had byron scott and george karl, both of whom aren't shy to play young players even if their personalities clash.

i honestly think derozan has potential to be great. in terms of his frame and athletism, i say he's probably #1 in this underwhelming draft class. he's more athletic than blake griffen, imo, who is kind of the "safe" pick. i would be extremely happy with derozan at 9. i don't want this team to pass up on more iguodala and danny granger's.


----------



## mo76 (Jun 13, 2003)

c_dog said:


> gerald green wasn't even that bad. i always thought he could have turned out something like jr smith at the very least. dumb player but incredibly atheltic and not shy to shoot from 3 point land. he just never had the kind of coach that liked that style of play unlike smith who had byron scott and george karl, both of whom aren't shy to play young players even if their personalities clash.
> 
> i honestly think derozan has potential to be great. in terms of his frame and athletism, i say he's probably #1 in this underwhelming draft class. he's more athletic than blake griffen, imo, who is kind of the "safe" pick. i would be extremely happy with derozan at 9. i don't want this team to pass up on more iguodala and danny granger's.


Gerald Green is not as quick and recovers when he is off balance much slower than JR Smith (which is why JR Smith is good.) Strength and upper body control. 
The fact that JR Smith acts like an idiot (and i couldn't picture him even talking to George Carl) doesnt matter because he is good. Gerald Green was compared to T-Mac because he could have got on the court as a defender and get lots of fast break points and eventually develop. (probably because he thought the comparison was to the magic's version of T-Mac and not the raptors version)
I hope demarr derozen doesn't fall victim to the same sort of thing. If he has it in his head that he has to be "the next big thing" or whatever, I think he will be less likely to develop.


----------

