# Billups = More Experienced JC?



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Everytime I watch Billups I think you're watching JC, just with more experience.

I actually think JC will end up being a better player, especially if he finds a situation, like Billups had to, that allows him to play his game.

Anyway, not too much to say, but right now I think that's the best comparison for JC, Billups.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Billups is a way better shooter , more bb brains on his head and although not a great defender still is better on D than Jamal , probably following the rest of his champion team.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> Billups is a way better shooter , more bb brains on his head and although not a great defender still is better on D than Jamal , probably following the rest of his champion team.


If you watch their style of play, that is what I was comparing...

JC will be more like Billups when he becomes more of a playmaker towards the basket, Billups does it daily, JC does it sometimes, but he tends to settle for a J more often than going strong to the basket and getting to the line...

With JC's one on one ability, he's pretty much able to drive whenever he wants, and it doesn't take a screen or a million dribbles...

Anyway both are scoring PGs that are not afraid to shoot it, Billups is 4 years older than Crawford, and anyone who knows anything about Billups history I think will agree with this comparison because his style, like JC's, didn't catch on right away with Boston, Denver, Minnesota, etc....


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> If you watch their style of play, that is what I was comparing...


with this I agree.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

You mentioned the point I was going to bring up in your second post, arenas.
Billups has been moved around and tried out in different systems for how long, and I was a fan of him the whole time, like I am with Crawford. Once he matured, kind of cooled down and let the game come to him, he became alot more effective.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>JRose5</b>!
> You mentioned the point I was going to bring up in your second post, arenas.
> Billups has been moved around and tried out in different systems for how long, and I was a fan of him the whole time, like I am with Crawford. Once he matured, kind of cooled down and let the game come to him, he became alot more effective.


I've been a fan of Billups since I saw him in person at the McDonald's Game in St.Louis, which IMO was the best MCD's game ever....

KG, Pierce, Marbury, Carter, etc.

There were some scrubs like Ryan Robertson, but he was in because he was a hometown kid.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

Crawford would need to grow a heart and some balls to become either Billups or Hamilton.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> Crawford would need to grow a heart and some balls to become either Billups or Hamilton.


Quit baiting each other.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Quit baiting each other.


Quit baiting each other.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I've been a fan of Billups since I saw him in person at the McDonald's Game in St.Louis, which IMO was the best MCD's game ever....
> ...


That was a good one, I remember Pierce was probably the ugliest SOB at that point.. :laugh: 

The best part about that year was during the Skills Competition, Carter's going up for his last dunk, and the dumbass announcer is trying to be dramatic and says something like, "..here it is, the last dunk from..Cris Carter!" 
And then there was an awkward pause and he tried to play it off like he was cool.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey! Are you still "guaranteeing" the Clippers take Deng?


I said if the Clippers didn't, someone would move up to get him...

That's far from calling Yao Ming a serviceable center at best...

That's one of the most comical statements ever made here, and you made it about 24 hours ago.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

And yet, I am right. Ming is, at best, a serviceable center. He's not a worldbeater, nor a badass. He's Brad Miller without the toughness.

I stand by that statement.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

An "out of shape" Eddy Curry nearly accomplished what Ming did.

Nope. I am not impressed with Yao much at all. The only reason he was voted an all-star, was because of the damn internet. He could be great someday. But he needs to get tougher and start using his size more.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> And yet, I am right. Ming is, at best, a serviceable center. He's not a worldbeater, nor a badass. He's Brad Miller without the toughness.
> 
> I stand by that statement.


I challenge you to find 1 person on this board that agrees with you.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

Why?

Is that some sort of requirement? I thought what I was posting was MY opinion?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> Why?
> 
> Is that some sort of requirement? I thought what I was posting was MY opinion?


Not at all...

IMO, I don't think you'd find anyone that would agree...

If you could have Yao, you wouldn't take him?


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Not at all...
> ...


First off? I appreciate you TALKING to me, and not insulting me. You'll win points with me if you keep that up!  

I think that (Hell, I HOPE that) Curry will be far better than Ming. I am really surprised that he has kept his word and is working out like he said he would.

I want to see that IN -SHAPE Curry ALL SEASON LONG. It will mean wins for us.


----------



## sologigolos (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> An "out of shape" Eddy Curry nearly accomplished what Ming did.
> 
> Nope. I am not impressed with Yao much at all. The only reason he was voted an all-star, was because of the damn internet. He could be great someday. But he needs to get tougher and start using his size more.



serviceable is a very subjective adjective. in the era of hakeem, ewing, and robinson, Yao Ming wouldn't have been a #2 center in the league. but this past season, he was a #2 center in the league, in his second year in this country. because he's been a pro, because he's been on the national team, y'all keep forgetting that this was his second year, and only the first year when his team began to play with him as the focus of their offense (and the transition is still not complete). and you're right, he does need to learn to use his size more. but the fact that he's not tapped his full potential does not automatically make one only "serviceable"

and he's an allstar because of internet voting?
please

when shaq vs yao II happened two years ago (the one where yao swatted shaq's shots like they were fruit flies) there was a quick on-screen statistics that showed the breakdown of allstar votes, and even when you counted only the paper ballots and internet votes WITHIN the north america, yao still led shaq by a good margin.
damn those asian-americans voting for their own kind.

and i'm sorry, even if it was the chinese internet users voting for yao (i mean, come on, out of the 1.2 billion people, very few of them have internet access, it doesn't make that big of a freakin difference), they're NBA fans nonetheless, they still watch games on TV and NBA profits, they still buy the merchandise and all that good ****. NBA stopped being US's league when they expanded to toronto and memphis. these are the fans that the NBA is marketing to, in china, in serbia, everywhere, and they have just as mur red army government could not mobilize all 1.2 billion people to write in wang zhizhi and mengke bateer as allstar starters?

in the two years that yao ming has been in the league, he has been consistently called the #2 center in the league. since he has adjusted midway through his rookie season, i haven't really found articles in SI or ESPN that knocks him or calls him "serviceabble". i haven't heard many GMs or coaches that cried outrage over Yao's selection in the all-star roster.

maybe we're all missing something that you're not.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> I want to see that IN -SHAPE Curry ALL SEASON LONG. It will mean wins for us.


I agree completely.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>keilhur</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is the example in the dictionary of "5 star post".


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>keilhur</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Quit attacking other posters and talk basketball. 

This was an excellent post.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

Sorry, I just dont see much in the guy.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

The only comparison I see between the two is that JC will need to be traded to 3 or 4 different teams before he finally 'discovers' himself. In other words, he ain't cutting it as a Bull.

Good defense, shot selection, and taking the ball to the hoop. Will JC magically develop these skills too?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I have to agree on the sentiments that Ming is MUCH better than a "servicable" center. Of course I also think Brad Miller is better than a "servicable" center. Ming has great fundamentals, good post moves, amazing atheleticism for someone his size, good basketball sense, good hands, and an incredibly nice shot. Sure, he still needs to adjust to being an NBA player and Francis needs to work more to utilize him but the sky is the limit for this guy and I don't even understand how anyone could label him as merely "servicable". To me thats like saying MJ was "alright" in his prime.


But, back to the thread topic at hand. I definitley agree with Arenas that Bilups and Crawford have very similar playing styles. Crawford of course isn't as far along as Billups is but I think once he gets it all together he will be similar to Billups but better as well.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Everytime I watch Billups I think you're watching JC, just with more experience.
> 
> I actually think JC will end up being a better player, especially if he finds a situation, like Billups had to, that allows him to play his game.
> ...


Arenas, didn't we debate (like maybe 3 or 4 months ago)... that Paxson would only be offering to match the MLE for Crawford, because Pax mentioned Billups contract in the same breath as Crawfords?

You laughed it off, said JC would get much more and that he was the superior player? I'm confundido brother because it seems like you've changed your tune. Oh what a good playoff run can do for player eval


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> The only comparison I see between the two is that JC will need to be traded to 3 or 4 different teams before he finally 'discovers' himself. In other words, he ain't cutting it as a Bull.
> 
> Good defense, shot selection, and taking the ball to the hoop. Will JC magically develop these skills too?


Jamal has shown plenty of talent. what he hasn't shown is consistiency in any measure. without that, nothing else he does will matter because no team will be able to depend on him.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Billups = More Experienced JC?*



> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Arenas, didn't we debate (like maybe 3 or 4 months ago)... that Paxson would only be offering to match the MLE for Crawford, because Pax mentioned Billups contract in the same breath as Crawfords?
> ...


I think JC will be a better player than Billups, I think I said that in my original post.

My comparisons are to playing style, and circumstances.

JC will get more than the MLE this year, I'm convinced of that.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Crawford can be better than Billups NEXT season.


Billups is just in a great situation in Detroit, I still don't think he's better than Baron Davis, Malbury, Cassell, Bibby, Kidd, or any of the top PG's.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> Crawford can be better than Billups NEXT season.


Agree with that.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

You know, I used to hope JC would not end up ONLY as a Chauncey Billups. I still think JC can follow Chauncey's trajectory. Only now, I'm not too down on that.

However, I'm still down on some semblance of a team ever being formed around JC by Pocky Sticks. What made Chauncey look great was a great team effort. I doubt Jamal with crappy teams would ever get an NBA Finals MVP in a Chicago Bulls uniform under this regime (sticking my hand out there hoping to be struck by lightning hoping to be proven wrong ).


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

I think it will be rather easy to replace Jamal than most people worry about. When you get down to the basic, we are talking about a SG who can score 17 ppg and below average defense (At least in my opinion).

I think we can easily fill the void that JC leave if we can re-sign him. Of course whoever we get won't have 40 or 50 points game like JC did a few times. 

Except that, I think league has tons of candidate who can provide us the points, rebounds and assist like JC.

The real question is whether JC will the player many on this board think he is or will be on another team, which is rather open question yet. And I don't think anybody will be sure of the outcome. Only time will tell. Until then we are talking to each other out of our *** no matter hard we try. One will thin he will be a bona fid super star someday and it will be on another team and got pissed about it. But equal number of people will say he will be another journey man with offensive skill (yet all but too streaky) on a good team and nothing more than that.

So ultimately this whole debate is based on how you predict his ultimate future status as a player. 

Depending on that answer, you can see both possible scenarios IMO. I happened to be the one who think that void won't be that big and easily filled by our replacement over the summer.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> I think it will be rather easy to replace Jamal than most people worry about. When you get down to the basic, we are talking about a SG who can score 17 ppg and below average defense (At least in my opinion).
> 
> I think we can easily fill the void that JC leave if we can re-sign him. Of course whoever we get won't have 40 or 50 points game like JC did a few times.
> ...


So who do you think we can replace him with so easily? Just curious.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> So who do you think we can replace him with so easily? Just curious.


5 Journeymen SG's could easily equal JC's production.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

I don't have any name on my head and it is Paxon's job to find the right guy.

What I am saying is that barring JC's occasional brilliant (too far rarely to my taste) games, we are replacing a SG who can score 17 ppg, <5 rebounds, 6 assists.

I think there are plenty of candidates to meet the above mentioned condition and with better defensive skill.

If you are going to start talking about his potential again, then I got nothing to talk to you, but what JC had offered us for the last 4 years isn't something that hard to replace is what I am saying.

Again I am not talking about whether he will be much better player overall in the future and everything. Who know exactly what he will be after all? Do you? (Oh I forgot. You always act like you and only you know what you are talking about.  )


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> I don't have any name on my head and it is Paxon's job to find the right guy.
> 
> What I am saying is that barring JC's occasional brilliant (too far rarely to my taste) games, we are replacing a SG who can score 17 ppg, <5 rebounds, 6 assists.
> ...


So you don't know who Paxson could find to replace him but your sure he is replacable, does that about sum it up? 17, 5, and 6 isn't exactly easy to replace when all you have to work with is the MLE. The only name I can think of is Quentin Richardson and the Bulls won't be able to get him and he will probably command more than the MLE. Not even going into the fact that Crawford does have potential and SHOULD improve next season, he was drafted as a project player and has improved every season, I'm not sure HOW you think we can replace what Crawford brings to the team. It doesn't sound like you are either. In fact, it sounds like you just don't care for JC and wouldn't mind if he is jettisoned for nothing. If thats your opinoin then you are certainly entitled to it. Personally I think thats ridiculous talk.

Yeah, I do always act like I know what I am talkingabout...it's this thing called confidence...works wonders for you! Just make sure to admit when your wrong too!


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

While you could say CB was late to mature had to find his spot on a team and that is similar to JC but in terms of game they could not be more different. 

Billups is a very strong, solidly built 6'3" PG who goes hard to the hole and shots a ton of FT (6 per game). He is low to the gound with shortish legs and plays tough man to man defensive and great off ball D. And he scores almost 17 pts per game on only 12.8 shots per game and 39% form 3 land.

Frankly, his game is a lot more like hinrich than JC. Mind you this is not a diss on JC but he is long an long legged, driibbles the ball high, thin, perfers the Jumpshot to driving to the hoop and has a sliky smooth game and not the power game that Billups has, Just imo.

david


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Frankly, his game is a lot more like hinrich than JC. Mind you this is not a diss on JC but he is long an long legged, driibbles the ball high, thin, perfers the Jumpshot to driving to the hoop and has a sliky smooth game and not the power game that Billups has, Just imo.
> 
> david


I disagree, it takes Hinrich a year to get to the hoop, if it all...

Billups and JC it takes a dribble, crossover, and bam they are there...

Hinrich fans are all over the place with their comparisons..

It's anywhere from Billups to Stockton...

Make up your minds.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

Arenas, Billups was very much appreciated by the Timberwolves. The problem at the time was that they couldn't pay him what he wanted. It was only in the past year when KG threatened to bolt did the Wolves decide to go into luxury tax land.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Hinrich fans are all over the place with their comparisons..

It's anywhere from Billups to Stockton...

Make up your minds.

I saw you write recently how you are trying to be more polite. Does that include this? I only have one mind and when did you become the power to be that decides if i am a hinrich fan and what does that have to do with my opinion. This sounds like an insult.

This is why you seem to get such a strong negitive opinion from some people. Is being considerate that hard? 

david


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Hinrich fans are all over the place with their comparisons..
> 
> It's anywhere from Billups to Stockton...
> ...


Well I am trying David, sorry if I've included you in any group and I definitely wasn't trying to insult you....

Respect your opinion, but I still think in terms of playing style, JC is closer to Billups than Hinrich is.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

cool david


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> So you don't know who Paxson could find to replace him but your sure he is replacable, does that about sum it up? 17, 5, and 6 isn't exactly easy to replace when all you have to work with is the MLE. The only name I can think of is Quentin Richardson and the Bulls won't be able to get him and he will probably command more than the MLE. Not even going into the fact that Crawford does have potential and SHOULD improve next season, he was drafted as a project player and has improved every season, I'm not sure HOW you think we can replace what Crawford brings to the team. It doesn't sound like you are either. In fact, it sounds like you just don't care for JC and wouldn't mind if he is jettisoned for nothing. If thats your opinoin then you are certainly entitled to it. Personally I think thats ridiculous talk.
> ...


personally I'd still like to hear a response to this...


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> personally I'd still like to hear a response to this...


Because it was a great question that no one has an answer for, you won't get one.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Because it was a great question that no one has an answer for, you won't get one.


I agree. It's easy to dump on Crawford and say he is easily replacable..not so easy to ACTUALLY FIND a replacement that the Bulls could afford and get. Unless of course your one of the few people that for some reason think Bob Sura is all that and a bag of chips.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree. It's easy to dump on Crawford and say he is easily replacable..not so easy to ACTUALLY FIND a replacement that the Bulls could afford and get. Unless of course your one of the few people that for some reason think Bob Sura is all that and a bag of chips.


Sura and Cheaney could fill the void left from JC....


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> So you don't know who Paxson could find to replace him but your sure he is replacable, does that about sum it up? 17, 5, and 6 isn't exactly easy to replace when all you have to work with is the MLE. The only name I can think of is Quentin Richardson and the Bulls won't be able to get him and he will probably command more than the MLE. Not even going into the fact that Crawford does have potential and SHOULD improve next season, he was drafted as a project player and has improved every season, I'm not sure HOW you think we can replace what Crawford brings to the team. It doesn't sound like you are either. In fact, it sounds like you just don't care for JC and wouldn't mind if he is jettisoned for nothing. If thats your opinoin then you are certainly entitled to it. Personally I think thats ridiculous talk.
> ...


Ace, for the record I want Jamal to stay. But by looking at pure numbers, 17/4/5 you're missing a huge point. Jamal was NOT an efficient scorer last year. He shot 38.6% from the field, 31.7% from the arc. #3 in the entire NBA in 3 pointers attempted. 3 free throws attempted per game. does this smack of an irreplaceable player to you?

Jamal carried us for a bunch of games last year b/c quite simply he is a streaky shooter. Those types get hot, can carry you for games, but more often than not shoot a bad percentage game in and game out. And I am speaking nothing of his defensive prowess, which we can all agree is below average for a guard.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace, for the record I want Jamal to stay. But by looking at pure numbers, 17/4/5 you're missing a huge point. Jamal was NOT an efficient scorer last year. He shot 38.6% from the field, 31.7% from the arc. #3 in the entire NBA in 3 pointers attempted. 3 free throws attempted per game. does this smack of an irreplaceable player to you?
> ...


and SD i have a question to ask you 

is there a player in the nba who scores as much as JC does without plays being run for them?as little as they do for JC? 

that has alot to do efficiency if you ask me .


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace, for the record I want Jamal to stay. But by looking at pure numbers, 17/4/5 you're missing a huge point. Jamal was NOT an efficient scorer last year. He shot 38.6% from the field, 31.7% from the arc. #3 in the entire NBA in 3 pointers attempted. 3 free throws attempted per game. does this smack of an irreplaceable player to you?
> ...


Would you mind comparing and contrasting his inefficent scoring with the rest of the team? Crawford is still maturing as a player and I don't think shooting nearly 39%fg & 32% from 3pt land means he is done. It seemed clear to me that a lot of teams focused on him and that he was at many times the Bulls only scoring option. The WHOLE TEAM had low fg%'s.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> and SD i have a question to ask you
> ...


No sabo.

I do know that the Spurs don't run set plays but base their whole offense off of Duncan and to a lesser degree Parker. Dallas, New Jersey, and Sacto run the Princeton motion offense. I doubt much of the scoring there is from architectured plays. Houston, a simply high low. Los Angeles, the famed triangle. The Bulls, a hodgepodge of pick-n-roll with back screening.

I wish I could make a definitive statement to answer your question happyG. But I will say that you'd be surprised how much scoring comes as an overflow of players moving w/o the ball and running a general offensive set. Jamal has always struck me as more of a freelance player and if you call that 'efficient' than it is our perogative.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Would you mind comparing and contrasting his inefficent scoring with the rest of the team? Crawford is still maturing as a player and I don't think shooting nearly 39%fg & 32% from 3pt land means he is done. It seemed clear to me that a lot of teams focused on him and that he was at many times the Bulls only scoring option. The WHOLE TEAM had low fg%'s.


So we are blaming Crawford's low shooting percentage on his teammates? How did opposing teams gunning to stop Jamal hold him to a 3 point shooting percentage of 31.7%? Wasn't Jamal the one who as #3 overall in the NBA in three pointers attempted?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> So we are blaming Crawford's low shooting percentage on his teammates? How did opposing teams gunning to stop Jamal hold him to a 3 point shooting percentage of 31.7%? Wasn't Jamal the one who as #3 overall in the NBA in three pointers attempted?


yeah and how many of those were to beat the clock when someone passed him the ball at the last second? How did the other scorers on the Bulls open things up? Your missing the point. The whole team had terrible fg%, so it's ok for everyone else to have a crappy shooting percentage but Crawford does and he's the only one called out for it? Hinrich didn't shoot any better really. EVERYONE shot terribly and thats because the Bulls were comprised of some pretty damn poor players and very few scoring options. Pax needs to find some more scorers and get some roster balance and THEN I would expect Crawford's shooting percentage to rise along with the rest of the teams...assuming the coaching is legit.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace, for the record I want Jamal to stay. But by looking at pure numbers, 17/4/5 you're missing a huge point. Jamal was NOT an efficient scorer last year. He shot 38.6% from the field, 31.7% from the arc. #3 in the entire NBA in 3 pointers attempted. 3 free throws attempted per game. does this smack of an irreplaceable player to you?
> ...


While the aggregate results may show what you say is correct, it doesn't exactly address some important points.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a streaky shooter. The problem is if that streaky shooter stops shooting when he's not going well, then you never get to see the good streaks. In Crawford's case, I can count a lot of games he was sat in Q4 and a lot of Q4 games where he got hot. So what is the cost of sitting him in those Q4 games?

Likewise, his 39% FG shooting may be more an indication of Skiles' terrible offensive sets, pressure on him not to shoot shots he's comfortable with, and so on.

The aggregate stats may not tell a good story. You can have a guy who plays just a few minutes/game and shoots 1 for 3 for 81 games. In that 82nd game, he might shoot 1 for 3 for his first shots and then go 20 for 20 in his next shots. Maybe he'd go 20 for 20 every game given the chance, but the aggregate will show something like 81+1+20 for 243+3+20 = 102/266 = .383

So I guess you may have to look at Crawford anecdotally. Things like his 50 point game and his 40 point game(s) may mean a LOT more than his overall stats. To me it's an indication he may well be able to have those kinds of games more frequently if used in a scheme that better suits his skills. You might look at the several (many) games I remember him going 6-18 through Q3 and ending up near 50% FG for the game. 

On the other hand, if the team is insistent on playing a certain style of basketball and Crawford can't be efficient in that system, then you have an issue to deal with.

But that begs the question: given the results, why insist on a certain style of basketball vs. playing a style that suits the strengths of a guy who can score 50 a few times a season?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> No sabo.


I'm gona guess you were trying to say, "no se."


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> But that begs the question: given the results, why insist on a certain style of basketball vs. playing a style that suits the strengths of a guy who can score 50 a few times a season?


In other words...

Win vs. Proving Points....


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> No sabo.
> ...


in skiles' scheme i dont think he has much of a choice i all offenses there are the main scheme and then there are plays , in the main scheme the ball rarely touches crawford's hands and in the plays the ball rarely touch's crawford's hands outside of the occasional pick and roll...most of JC points come after the defense has stopped whatever play that has been run and then its up to JC to create something with his handleagainst the clock.

that is always low% and it doesn't matter who is at the helm ...take away the money plays of T-mac and kobe and leave to create stuff for themselves and you will see a much lower level of efficiency from them too.

he took it upon himself under cartwright too but at least under him he got the occasional gimmie as vehicle of the offense ( a couple of open 17 fters or something of that nature from jalen or jay ) 6 -16 (.375) into an 8-18(.411) makes a world of difference and changes JC from a low % chucker to what is avg. for his style of play.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> yeah and how many of those were to beat the clock when someone passed him the ball at the last second? How did the other scorers on the Bulls open things up? Your missing the point. The whole team had terrible fg%, so it's ok for everyone else to have a crappy shooting percentage but Crawford does and he's the only one called out for it? Hinrich didn't shoot any better really. EVERYONE shot terribly and thats because the Bulls were comprised of some pretty damn poor players and very few scoring options. Pax needs to find some more scorers and get some roster balance and THEN I would expect Crawford's shooting percentage to rise along with the rest of the teams...assuming the coaching is legit.


Jamal finished his 4th season as an NBA player and we're still blaming teammates, coaches, the GM, and Benny the bull for deficiencies in his game. Can we keep the conversation to Jamal? Thank you.

Ace, if Jamal is as great as you and others make him out to be, when will he be able to rise above his lowly teammates and this armpit franchise to prove that he is a star player? Or is he essentially a role player in that he needs his teammates to be at his level or better in order for him to optimize his talents and minimize his weaknesses? Just asking.

There are plenty of young players in this league who can score in bunches: Arenas, Hughes, SJax, JRich, Terry etc. Just because I see Jamal 80 times a year doesn't mean I value him more than the rest of them. And none of the names I've mentioned are franchise types so neither is Jamal IMO.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm gona guess you were trying to say, "no se."


Yeah I was just trying to be chistoso. :grinning: I say that to my latino buddies just as a joke.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Ace, if Jamal is as great as you and others make him out to be, when will he be able to rise above his lowly teammates and this armpit franchise to prove that he is a star player?


Well if this ? can be asked I'll ask this one...

If Kirk is our best player, why can't we blame him for only winning 23 games?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> While the aggregate results may show what you say is correct, it doesn't exactly address some important points.
> ...


or why play a style where every important nonrookie not named JYD and gill (who shot 39% its just one year with the heat he shot 33%) , shot a career low fg% TC , EC , JC , AD , fizer

its all good and fun to blame JC for inefficiency , but no one was efficient. who is to blame ?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal finished his 4th season as an NBA player and we're still blaming teammates, coaches, the GM, and Benny the bull for deficiencies in his game. Can we keep the conversation to Jamal? Thank you.
> ...


How am I blaming everyone else? I am saying EVERY Bull (except probably Curry) had a crappy fg% last season. And most of them weren't counted on to take the bail out shots that Crawford took most of the time. Jamal has noone to blame for his deficencies than himself, his coaches, and father time. 

I don't know how "great" I make Jamal out to be. I think he could easily be on the level of a Steve francis, Chauncey Billups, maybe even a Gilbert Arenas type when it is all said and done. But it isn't all said and done. even as a 4th year player he is still developing. 

You don't "rise above the level of your teamates" your only as good as your teamates will allow you to be. If there are no other shooters to draw out the defense then Crawford takes a contested shot. If Curry can't get him the ball out of the double team...he doesn't get an open look. Yeah, of COURSE he needs to have a solid team to maximize his abilities...

So what about the rest of the teams fg woes, how come they are conveniently overlooked?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Well if this ? can be asked I'll ask this one...
> ...


I don't view Kirk as a superstar. He's a complimentary player IMO, albeit a very good one. Same goes for Jamal.

The only player on our roster who has that potential is Eddy f'n Curry  Only problem is that mentally he's a couple donuts short of a dozen, so the chances are 50/50 with that kid. JMO.


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> On the other hand, if the team is insistent on playing a certain style of basketball and Crawford can't be efficient in that system, then you have an issue to deal with.
> 
> But that begs the question: given the results, why insist on a certain style of basketball vs. playing a style that suits the strengths of a guy who can score 50 a few times a season?


Crawford scored 50 in Skiles' system, so I don't think that's the issue unless you think he should be able to score 60 or 70.


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> or why play a style where every important nonrookie not named JYD and gill (who shot 39% its just one year with the heat he shot 33%) , shot a career low fg% TC , EC , JC , AD , fizer
> 
> its all good and fun to blame JC for inefficiency , but no one was efficient. who is to blame ?


TC - INJURY
EC - Became focus of defenses and double-teams 
AD - AGE 
Fizer - Injury

Losing other offensive options like Jalen and Donyell also hurt, obviously. Unless this is going to turn into a thread about who's to blame for the Bulls sucking (management or players), we should probably stick to the issue of Jamal.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kramer</b>!
> 
> Crawford scored 50 in Skiles' system, so I don't think that's the issue unless you think he should be able to score 60 or 70.


actually that was the one game skiles broke his mold and went and made up plays for crawford ....so it wasn't in skiles sys. at all


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> actually that was the one game skiles broke his mold and went and made up plays for crawford ....so it wasn't in skiles sys. at all


I wish I could have seen that game. I tried to order it through pontel but they don't ship to the US.


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> actually that was the one game skiles broke his mold and went and made up plays for crawford ....so it wasn't in skiles sys. at all


So Skiles is very versatile and open to changes!  

If it worked so well that game, hopefully Skiles incorporates that a little bit more in the future. Too bad Jamal will most likely be gone.:sigh:


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

I will be more than happy if Jamal prove me wrong and become a proven star. After all he is a Bull, right?

But still my prediction on Jamal isn't that bright. I am not saying he isn't good or anything but I am saying he isn't anything special as of now and probably won't be.

Here is why: Even most ardent JC people still based on their prediction on his POTENTIAL.

And he will be what many picture him to be 

IF he build upper body strength
IF he can improve his shot selection
IF he can decide to drive in
IF he didn't mind some physical contact
IF he doesn't jack up that many 3s
IF he goes to the line more
IF he can improve on his D way more than right now
If he can adjust his game as SG (He is not going back to PG position as long as he is a Bull.)

IF just keep coming up...

Of course he can achieve every thing above. You NEVER say NEVER.

But if I have to put my money on, I would say he will improve some of the above mentioned area, but not by much. He will be a better player than this year, but NOT BY MUCH.

But still I hate to lose him for nothing this summer. I hope Paxon to sign him for what it is worth, but down the road I still see him traded later on. JC is just not the kind of player either Paxon or Skile prefer.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> or why play a style where every important nonrookie not named JYD and gill (who shot 39% its just one year with the heat he shot 33%) , shot a career low fg% TC , EC , JC , AD , fizer
> ...


Exactly.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I know I keep harping on Skiles' poor offense and how I think the Bulls should run a lot.

Here's Crawford's line stats in a pre-season game they beat the Pacers on OT 103-96:

50 minutes
6-18 FG
3-8 3PT
<B>16-17 FT</B>
4 reb
<B>8 Ast</B>
3 ST
31 PTS

<B>How he got those 17 FTs were on fast breaks and mostly because the Pacers got so frustrated they just kept grabbing him when he was about to lead the break.</B>

So what if he shot 6-18? VICTORY.

In Skiles' first game, Bulls beat the Bucks by 10. In their last meeting, Bucks beat the Bulls by <B>THIRTY</B>.

42 minutes
12-23 FG
4-7 3PT
2-2 FT
<B>8 reb
8 AST
3 STL</B>
1 BLK
30 Pts

Get the picture?

BTW, in that 50 pt performance, Curry scored 25 pts with 12 boards, so Crawford could hardly be blamed for hogging the ball. Kirk shot 2-11 with 10 assists (10 assists on all those points?).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kramer</b>!
> 
> Crawford scored 50 in Skiles' system, so I don't think that's the issue unless you think he should be able to score 60 or 70.


True. Problem is Crawford, given the rest of the team, should have been a threat to score 50 in just about any bulls game, not just the one they ran plays for him.

Oddly, people have called me a Crawford hater so many times I can't count.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, I've said it b4 but I'll say it again:

Skiles offense: if we see the same thing we saw last year this coming season then I'll call for his head. Until then, I'll chalk it up to him being basic and teaching the basics because that's all that can be done with a bunch of kids who don't know anything. If it worked with the Grizzlies, it ought to work for us.

Crawford is the kind of player that needs to play with other good players to be most effective. Put him on a ****ty team where all his weaknesses are exposed and few of his strengths can be properly used and he's less than the sum of his parts. On the right team, however, he's more, a la Toni Kukoc.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Crawford is the kind of player that needs to play with other good players to be most effective. Put him on a ****ty team where all his weaknesses are exposed and few of his strengths can be properly used and he's less than the sum of his parts. On the right team, however, he's more, a la Toni Kukoc.


I disagree with this, how many leading scorers with his talent on are career 2nd unit players?

I agree he'd be off the bench on some of the powerhouses in this league, but he'd start and have a big role on a lot of teams throughout the league.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I disagree with this, how many leading scorers with his talent on are career 2nd unit players?
> ...


I don't disagree with that... Toni Kukoc would have started and had a big role on a lot of teams too.

Maybe Al Harrington is a good comparison today. He should probably get 30-35 minutes on most teams, but he's not an ideal fit at either the 3 or 4. On a good team with its basic positions filled, he becomes an X factor that can come in and score 40 points in a game on some nights and give a solid performance on most others.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with that... Toni Kukoc would have started and had a big role on a lot of teams too.
> ...


As it is Harrington gets 31 MPG....


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I really don't see the similiarities between JC and Billups. Sorry. Their body types are totally diffrent, and their games aren't _that_ similiar.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> 
> IF he build upper body strength
> ...


And the thing is, if you watched him this season closely(there wasn't a whole lot else to watch with the Bulls) you'd see that his shot selection has improved, he is going to the hole more, he's gotten a touch better at not jacking the 3's(but that's more a product of the youthful desperation of playing on a ****ty team where you put pressure on yourself to win the game by yourself) and his D has vastly improved playing next to Hinrich and under Skiles, he is really using his length better and better to get steals...

The only ifs on there that weren't really addressed were strength and adjusting to the SG position, which is hard to judge since he hasn't had an offseason to focus on the position, he's been learning it on the fly. Though he's getting better at coming off of screens and shooting without putting the ball on the floor to regain his rhythm.

Between Chandler, Fizer, Curry and Crawford--Crawford's the one who has improved his game the most since coming in.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

LOL no way.....Billups plays D, Billups drives, Billups MAKES his jumpers.

It will be 6-7 years before you ever see anything resembling Billups out of Crawford.....if ever.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I dont think the Billups comparisons are that far off when you compare where he was at age 24 to where Crawford is now.The pistons got him and was able to allow him to mature into his role on the team . I think Crawford could follow a similar path if given the oppurtunity.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> LOL no way.....Billups plays D, Billups drives, Billups MAKES his jumpers.
> 
> It will be 6-7 years before you ever see anything resembling Billups out of Crawford.....if ever.


:yes:


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Between Chandler, Fizer, Curry and Crawford--Crawford's the one who has improved his game the most since coming in.


now _this_ i'll agree with.

Chandler is the same offensive player he was straight outta Compton, although defensively he's improved. (still hasn't gotten the hang of playing his man staright up, though.) and Curry is, well, Curry.  

Crawford has improved. i just don't think he's improved as much as arenas, et al, seem to think he has. JMSO, he's a decent combo guard and hasn't proven that he's much more.


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> I dont think the Billups comparisons are that far off when you compare where he was at age 24 to where Crawford is now.The pistons got him and was able to allow him to mature into his role on the team . I think Crawford could follow a similar path if given the oppurtunity.


but how much more opportunity are we supposed to give him?

how much longer should we put up with his lousy shot selection, occasional bouts of selfishness, lackadaisical defense, and frequent lack of desire to drive to the hoop? 

you'd suggest building the whole team around Jamal. that's fine, but to what end?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>thunderspirit</b>!
> 
> but how much more opportunity are we supposed to give him?
> 
> ...


We got rid of Artest because he was crazy...but also because while being a good defender he had a tendency to shoot too much and clearly would never be a good shooter. I don't think resigning Jamal means "the whole team is built around Jamal". IMO, the team is actually built around Curry who also happens to be Crawford's best friend. Crawford has real chemistry with Eddy and is the best guy on the team at feeding him in the post so why let him go for nothing? Especially when he probably is only going to ebe given an offer in the 6-7mil a year range.


----------

