# When when will Kirk Hinrich play at Jason Kidds level???



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Tit for tat.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Rookie Kidd:
11.7ppg / 5.4reb / 7.7ast / 1.9stl / 3.2TO / 39% FGp / 27% 3pt on 33.8 min per game

Kid Hinrich:
11.5ppg / 3.4reb / 6.2ast / 1.3stl / 2.7TO / 40% FGp / 39% 3pt on 34.9 min per game


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

You're comparing a rookie without even a years experience to one of, if not the best, veteran point guards in the league?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> You're comparing a rookie without even a years experience to one of, if not the best, veteran point guard in the league?


Well, if you want to compare Jamal to the biggest high school phenom to ever enter the league then it seems like a fair comparison to me.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Rookie Kidd:
> 11.7ppg / 5.4reb / 7.7ast / 1.9stl / 3.2TO / 39% FGp / 27% 3pt on 33.8 min per game
> 
> ...


Wow,very close.

not that i think Kirk has a chance of being as good as Kidd who's really one of a kind,but those rookie stats r very close.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, if you want to compare Jamal to the biggest high school phenom to ever enter the league


But Jamal is a veteran with "impressive, fascinating skills" himself, lacking only "consistency" according to many on the board.

It's a fair question.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> But Jamal is a veteran with "impressive, fascinating skills" himself, lacking only "consistency" according to many on the board.
> ...


Yeah and so's Kirk.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah and so's Kirk.


Based on...?


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> Wow,very close.
> 
> not that i think Kirk has a chance of being as good as Kidd who's really one of a kind,but those rookie stats r very close.


Hinrich absolutely can be as good as Kidd. Why do you think otherwise? He may not be as good in all the same ways Kidd is good, but KH is already a better shooter.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> Hinrich absolutely can be as good as Kidd. Why do you think otherwise? He may not be as good in all the same ways Kidd is good, but KH is already a better shooter.


I have to agree. Kidd doesn't have any intangibles that I don't think Hinrich has. In fact, Kidd is not nearly as good a shooter as the rook Kirk is.

All Kirk needs to do is develop, keep working hard and have an opportunity.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Based on...?


4 years at Kansas, playing organized ball since he was a pup, and the posts on this board of course! The same thing you based your statement about Jamal on, right?


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> I have to agree. Kidd doesn't have any intangibles that I don't think Hinrich has. In fact, Kidd is not nearly as good a shooter as the rook Kirk is.
> 
> All Kirk needs to do is develop, keep working hard and have an opportunity.


I think Kidd has better vision, which I would consider an intangible. Hinrich doesn't seem to be the type to make the spectacular no-look pass like Kidd has been known to. But those passes tend to be overrated by fans and media because of the "wow" factor.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> 4 years at Kansas, playing organized ball since he was a pup, and the posts on this board of course! The same thing you based your statement about Jamal on, right?


I fail to see how not playing organized ball helps a player in any given way. Has it helped Jamal and Eddy have a clue defensively their first 3+ years in the league? Has it helped Eddie Robinson develop into a great two-way NBA player?

Please enlighten me. The fact that Jamal learned the game on the street and played only 2 years of HS ball doesn't exactly <i>encourage</i> me.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> the posts on this board of course!


I don't think they're going the way you intended...

>>Hinrich absolutely can be as good as Kidd.<<

>>I have to agree. Kidd doesn't have any intangibles that I don't think Hinrich has.<<


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

This is absurd ACE. Kirk has proven he will be a Kidd level PG in less than a year while Lebron has proven in less than a year that is already better than JC who has 4 years ahead of him. Kirk will be on Kidds level one day. JC will be lucky to even sniff talent or success level Lebron will have.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> I fail to see how not playing organized ball helps a player in any given way. Has it helped Jamal and Eddy have a clue defensively their first 3+ years in the league? Has it helped Eddie Robinson develop into a great two-way NBA player?
> ...


Organized players are more prepared to play, your basically saying what I am saying.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> Hinrich absolutely can be as good as Kidd. Why do you think otherwise? He may not be as good in all the same ways Kidd is good, but KH is already a better shooter.


Kneepad - u put some optimism in me-coming from the stats man himself.

I agree Kirk is a better shooter,I just think Very highly of Kidd cause he's such a special player,completely different than Kirk who is more of a blue color(SP?? 2nd language) player(and a dam good one).

I'd be a VERY happy fan if Kirk could be even close to Kidds play.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IntheBlinkofaDeng</b>!
> This is absurd ACE. Kirk has proven he will be a Kidd level PG in less than a year while Lebron has proven in less than a year that is already better than JC who has 4 years ahead of him. Kirk will be on Kidds level one day. JC will be lucky to even sniff talent or success level Lebron will have.


Thumbs up.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think they're going the way you intended...
> ...


I hope Hinrich is as good as Kidd. Thats the difference between me and some posters on here, I want ALL of the Bulls to be successful.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Thats the difference between me and some posters on here, I want ALL of the Bulls to be successful.


Nice shot below the belt. When the going gets tough...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Nice shot below the belt. When the going gets tough...


Whats below the belt about that? When posters make threads everyday simply to try to make ONE player on a team of 15 look like crap then what does that say? Especially when the player always being bashed leads the team in scoring and is right up there in assists.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> I have to agree. Kidd doesn't have any intangibles that I don't think Hinrich has. In fact, Kidd is not nearly as good a shooter as the rook Kirk is.
> ...


wow retro - u too.

u and Kneepad both opinion i think highly of put some optimism in me.

Kidd does have the ultimate court vision and is a great rebounder and very smart defender - but throughout his hole carrer was a low % shooter.

Kirk needs a good SF and SG next to him to slash and get him some open shots for his fg% and his 3p is already good and consistently gets better throughout the season.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Organized players are more prepared to play, your basically saying what I am saying.


I guess. But just because a player is young doesn't automatically foreshadow improvement in a certain area. For example, Jamal becoming a slasher, Eddy becoming a good defender, eRob developing an NBA handle, etc, etc.

Jamal has had 3.5 seasons on <i>the NBA level</i>. You may disagree but 95% of baskeball minds profess that one full year on the NBA level is more valuable than one year in college. Basketball has been Crawford's full time job for 3.5 seasons. I fail to see how we can continue to blame 'lack of organized basketball' as a reason for shortcomings in his game.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Kirk Hinrich will be a fine player. 

Jason Kidd- 16.5 PPG 6.8 RPG 9.4 APG 1.79 SPG .387 FG%
Kirk Hinrich-11.5 PPG 3.4 RPG 6.2 APG 1.3 SPG .395 FG%

THose are Kirks rookie stats to Kidds stats now. Kirk can easily reach those numbers, am I right.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

If I follow your logic , Ace, (At least for fun), Kirk will play at Kidd's level as soon as Bulls surround Kirk with quality player just like Jamal will finally reach his potential as soon as we surround him with quality player.

Now you see your logic at its work. how does it sound?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess. But just because a player is young doesn't automatically foreshadow improvement in a certain area. For example, Jamal becoming a slasher, Eddy becoming a good defender, eRob developing an NBA handle, etc, etc.
> ...


It doesn't mean that a player WON'T improve either. I agree that a year of NBA ball is more valuable than a year of college ball. BUt when talking about Jamal you have to remember that this kid didn't start playing ball until high school and he only played 2 years in HS. He is light years behing a kid like Kirk who has been playing ball since he was knee high. Really, we should be pleased that Jamal plays as well as he does despite not having enough experience. And even in those 3 1/2 years (and it was more like 3) Jamal still had plenty of issues to deal with. And if your saying that his game hasn't improved at all since he was a rookie then I don't know what to say.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal has had 3.5 seasons on <i>the NBA level</i>. You may disagree but 95% of baskeball minds profess that one full year on the NBA level is more valuable than one year in college. Basketball has been Crawford's full time job for 3.5 seasons. I fail to see how we can continue to blame 'lack of organized basketball' as a reason for shortcomings in his game.


Right On!!!


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> If I follow your logic , Ace, (At least for fun), Kirk will play at Kidd's level as soon as Bulls surround Kirk with quality player just like Jamal will finally reach his potential as soon as we surround him with quality player.
> 
> Now you see your logic at its work. how does it sound?


Uhhh...I don't think thats my logic at all. Still, there is some validity to that though. If Kirk, or Jamal, have someone they can throw the ball to that can consistently score it, then their assists go up. If they have someone that can post up and draw a double team and then kick the ball out to them then their scoring and 3pt% should go up. Etc....


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Theres some good basketball posts being made now.

Really good.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Uhhh...I don't think thats my logic at all. Still, there is some validity to that though. If Kirk, or Jamal, have someone they can throw the ball to that can consistently score it, then their assists go up. If they have someone that can post up and draw a double team and then kick the ball out to them then their scoring and 3pt% should go up. Etc....


What do you mean it wasn't your logic? You practically preach that it is all because of lack of talents around Jamal , not becuase of whatever Jamal was doing wrong.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I despise the logic that just because Kirk has been playing basketball his whole life he has no ceiling and won't improve while Jamal despite this being his 4th year in the league has incredible growth potential in his game. You also act like he had nto even touched a basketball until HS. Ridiculus. To borrow a phrase from my man bullhawk, Kirk is better now and will continue to be better than Jamal.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

Jason Kidd's best statistical season was the strike shortened 1998-99 season when he averaged 16.9 ppg, 10.8 apg, 2.3 spg and shot 44.4 percent from the field. He had seven triple doubles in the 50 game season.

The Suns that year were horrible besides Kidd. Other than him their best players were Tom Gugliotta, Cliff Robinson, Rex Chapman, Luc Longley, and George McCloud. If you ask me leading THAT team to the playoffs in the West is FAR more impressive than anything he has done with the Nets.

So if you are comparing Kirk Hinrich to Jason Kidd -- which is a joke, in my opinion -- don't say that Hinrich can't ever be expected to carry an awful team to the playoffs on his back, or to lead the league in assists despite having no top-quality scorers on the team. Jason Kidd did both.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IntheBlinkofaDeng</b>!
> I despise the logic that just because Kirk has been playing basketball his whole life he has no ceiling and won't improve while Jamal despite this being his 4th year in the league has incredible growth potential in his game. You also act like he had nto even touched a basketball until HS. Ridiculus. To borrow a phrase from my man bullhawk, Kirk is better now and will continue to be better than Jamal.


Thats pretty straightforward logic. Scouts use it all the time to figure a players upside. Upside is really only unfulfilled potential, Kirk spent 4 years at college and has filled MOST of his potential, he still has some room for improvement but he isn't going to improve drastically. It's like comparing Chandler and Brand. Brand spent 4 years at Duke, of COURSE when he came into the league Brand didn't have the upside that Chandler has. He had fulfilled most of his upside already! It's a similar situation with Jamal. Whether you like it or not, thats the way it is.

And there is a HUGE difference between "touching a basketball" and playing organized team basketball.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess. But just because a player is young doesn't automatically foreshadow improvement in a certain area. For example, Jamal becoming a slasher, Eddy becoming a good defender, eRob developing an NBA handle, etc, etc.
> ...


OK what kind of full year at the NBA level are they referring to ? Is it one where you just sit on your *** and watch games up close ? 

That's the NBA experience Jamal had the first year. Hell, you could do that, but it doesn't mean you can play in the NBA. It's one thing to watch, quite another to actually play.

So would you argue that sitting on your *** in the NBA is a more valuable basketball experience for a player than actually doing something in college ?

You don't learn fundamentals at the NBA level. It's about getting results by any means necessary. He didn't develop instincts as to what to do what in any given situation. He seemed to be shocked by the speed of the game at first and developed his own tendencies. As a result, Jamal came in very raw as basically a high school senior compared to Kirk coming in as a graduated college senior. This is why we sort of have to wait on him. . .at least until something better comes our way. It's a job, yeah, that Jamal should have come more prepared to play, but this game is about management getting these players to do their jobs and making them happy, not the other way around, especially in this new era of free agency.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Was that Kidd's rookie year? No. enough with everyone thinking that Kirk can't improve because he had 4 years at Kansas.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Please...

I hope you guys are enjoying whatever needles and/or pipes you're sharing...

Kirk is a good player, but come on, he's nowhere near Jason Kidd...

Kidd saved the Nets franchise, meanwhile Kirk's on one of the worst teams in the league putting up decent #s...

To say that he's going to be a Kidd level player, and some of you say in a year, is beyond ridiculous.

Kirk will be a Kidd level player when he actually wins, not puts up so so #s on a sorry *** team.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Brand spent 4 years at Duke, of COURSE when he came into the league Brand didn't have the upside that Chandler has.


Brand was only at Duke 2 years.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> 
> What do you mean it wasn't your logic? You practically preach that it is all because of lack of talents around Jamal , not becuase of whatever Jamal was doing wrong.



I didn't say anything like that on this thread. But, yeah, I DO think that. I think you could take Jamal and put him on a more talented team with more options and he would shine, so would Hinrih for that matter...pretty simple logic I think.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> 
> Brand was only at Duke 2 years.



Your right, I stand corrected, the comparison still holds water though because Chandler came straight outta high school.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> Kidd saved the Nets franchise, meanwhile Kirk's on one of the worst teams in the league putting up decent #s...
> 
> ...


And then, what is exactly Jamal is doing?

Putting up decent number on one of the worst team in NBA...

Why does this sound familiar?

Oh, I forgot. I just saw it in your own post regarding Kirk.

Sorry.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IntheBlinkofaDeng</b>!
> Was that Kidd's rookie year? No. enough with everyone thinking that Kirk can't improve because he had 4 years at Kansas.


No one is saying that Kirk can't improve. But it won't be drastic improvement, he came into the league as a developed player, not a project, whats so hard to understand about that?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> It doesn't mean that a player WON'T improve either. I agree that a year of NBA ball is more valuable than a year of college ball. BUt when talking about Jamal you have to remember that this kid didn't start playing ball until high school and he only played 2 years in HS. He is light years behing a kid like Kirk who has been playing ball since he was knee high. Really, we should be pleased that Jamal plays as well as he does despite not having enough experience. And even in those 3 1/2 years (and it was more like 3) Jamal still had plenty of issues to deal with. And if your saying that his game hasn't improved at all since he was a rookie then I don't know what to say.


You're putting words in my mouth, and really.. it doesn't strengthen your point at all. I am not turning this into a Kirk v. Jamal thread either. I am talking solely about Jamal.

Per your post, how is it that Jamal doesn't have enough experience? Are you kidding me? He's been in the NBA for 3.5 seasons. The argument about organized ball is getting old and you should give it a rest. Now that Jamal is in his 4th NBA season, and there are still holes in his game, we hear the same excuses recycled over and over. ACL injury, he's too skinny, he only played organized ball for 2 years in HS, he needs better surrounding players, blah blah blah. What do these have to do with Jamal's inconsitent play? What does this have to do with Jamal shooting 39% this year and 40% for his career. What does this have to do with Jamal's tendency to pull up for an outside shot rather than drive the lane.

I have mixed feelings about Jamal, but let's not get ahead of ourselves when evaluating his talent. He's a scorer who relies on his streaky outside shot for 80% of his offense, doesn't show consistency defensively, doesn't get to the line much, doesn't make a huge difference on a game's outcome and he's in his 4th NBA season. Thoughts of Ron Mercer come to mind. Oh include the above with passing ability? Poor man's Jalen Rose. So if we take most of the qualities said above to be true, we're talking about a third tier NBA talent, not an All-Star.... not someone you pay 8-9M a year to. Can he show improvement in these areas? Of course he can. But I'm not buying the arguments that Jamal's lightbulb will magically turn on and he'll become a highly effective two-way player. Sorry.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything like that on this thread. But, yeah, I DO think that. I think you could take Jamal and put him on a more talented team with more options and he would shine, so would Hinrih for that matter...pretty simple logic I think.


Isn't it true that <b>any</b> player will play better if you surround him with quality player around?


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>IntheBlinkofaDeng</b>!
> Was that Kidd's rookie year? No. enough with everyone thinking that Kirk can't improve because he had 4 years at Kansas.


I was responding to ace's argument that Kirk would be much more successful if he had someone who could score that he could throw the ball to. If that's the only way Kirk can be successful then you can't compare him to Jason Kidd, because Jason Kidd was very successful on a horrible team.

As for Kirk's upside, the fact is that if a player isn't a star by 24 or 25 he'll almost certainly never be one. That's all there is to it. Kirk can improve but he's only got a year or two and if he's not a star by then, you guys need to stop talking about him like he can get there.

Jason Kidd entered the NBA at a younger age than Kirk did. When he was Kirk's age he was averaging 17 ppg and 10 apg. Sorry but there's just no comparison.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Sorry I just hate that arguement. All these young kids come into the league and just because they came out of HS(or in Jamals case one year of college) that are considered projects. Which ends up being nothing more than a useful excuse for why they continue to suck 4 years into the league. And on top of that they want huge money come contract time. Why? Once again because they are projects. Bullsheet. Just because a player went to college does not mean they are developed and wont improve dramatically. Hasn't Duncan improved a lot since his rookie year? Why can't Kirk? Oh yeah it is that Crawford fan double standard thing at work.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> You're putting words in my mouth, and really.. it doesn't strengthen your point at all. I am not turning this into a Kirk v. Jamal thread either. I am talking solely about Jamal.
> ...


I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, rather expound on your post. You believe what your gonna believe and noone can convince yu differently. I will say that OF COURSE Jamal would be better on another team or with REAL NBA talent and not also rans like AD & JYD on his team. The "excuses" for the holes in Jamal's game are legitimate, he didn't have the experience coming into the league, or the build. Has he improved since his rookie year? Yes. DOes he continue to improve? Yes. So I don't really see what the problem is.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IntheBlinkofaDeng</b>!
> Sorry I just hate that arguement. All these young kids come into the league and just because they came out of HS(or in Jamals case one year of college) that are considered projects. Which ends up being nothing more than a useful excuse for why they continue to suck 4 years into the league. And on top of that they want huge money come contract time. Why? Once again because they are projects. Bullsheet. Just because a player went to college does not mean they are developed and wont improve dramatically. Hasn't Duncan improved a lot since his rookie year? Why can't Kirk? Oh yeah it is that Crawford fan double standard thing at work.


You don't like young players, I understand that. But my post on upside has nothing to do with whether I am a Crawford fan or not, it's a fact. It's actually a COMPLIMENT to Kirk because I am saying he is more developed that Crawford is now. I think your not really getting the way scouts view upside.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> As for Kirk's upside, the fact is that if a player isn't a star by 24 or 25 he'll almost certainly never be one. That's all there is to it. Kirk can improve but he's only got a year or two and if he's not a star by then, you guys need to stop talking about him like he can get there.
> 
> Jason Kidd entered the NBA at a younger age than Kirk did. When he was Kirk's age he was averaging 17 ppg and 10 apg. Sorry but there's just no comparison.


I find it very hard to argue with this. I can't think of any examples either. But FYI,

Jamal Crawford
DOB: 3/20/80 - Turns 24 this month.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> No one is saying that Kirk can't improve. But it won't be drastic improvement, he came into the league as a developed player, not a project, whats so hard to understand about that?


I don't know, it's very easy to understand...

I'd venture to say you'd probably have more GM's in the league that would want JC before Kirk...

Why?

Well for starters he's a 6'6 PG...and he's only 23...

He has a lot of years left in him and still has a lot of that can be taught to him, maybe the Bulls can't do it, but a lot of other teams would think they could.

JC would probably be an all-star already if he had played 4 years at Kansas, UNC, etc, he's still a great a player despite of inexperience, but he still has faults, and needs coaching.

Yes these guys are great talents, but without coaching to harness that talent, there's just a lot of untapped potential there.

You guys harp on the fact JC's been in the league 3+ years, what is your point?

First year he didn't play, 2nd year he was hurt, last year when he got to play he OUTPLAYED JWill...

Let's not act like this guy has been given a chance and/or good coaching in his 3 years so he should be a lot further along.

There's a reason you're seeing the improvements in JC since December...

I'm sure he's working hard, but I'm sure it also has to do with Skiles working with him, and he hasn't had that until now.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> 
> Isn't it true that <b>any</b> player will play better if you surround him with quality player around?


uh, yeah. I agree. never said it wasn't true. Of course, I think that you take a player like Jamal or Kirk and they are going to improve a lot more than say a Brunson just by having a solid supporting cast. Hell, the Bulls don't even have a starting sf! Yet we want to blame all of their ills on JC


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, rather expound on your post. You believe what your gonna believe and noone can convince yu differently. I will say that OF COURSE Jamal would be better on another team or with REAL NBA talent and not also rans like AD & JYD on his team. The "excuses" for the holes in Jamal's game are legitimate, he didn't have the experience coming into the league, or the build. Has he improved since his rookie year? Yes. DOes he continue to improve? Yes. So I don't really see what the problem is.


Problem is that considering how fast he improves over the years, it might take a lot longer than you think? Certainly not next year. So question you have to ask is "when?". And nobody has a definite answer for that. 

Simple fact is that Jamal believer wants to keep him as log as they want and wait til one day he will reach his potential. 

Nonbeliver think that they have seen enough of him and with so many flaws in his game, it might take forever. So simply they wants to move on. In a way move on from this non-stopping controversy surrounding him.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Please...
> 
> I hope you guys are enjoying whatever needles and/or pipes you're sharing...
> ...


No one is saying Hinrich is as good as Kidd is now. I (and others) are saying there's no reason to discount Hinrich's chances of becoming as good as Kidd. He has all the tools. If you are claiming otherwise-- that Hinrich has no chance to be as good as Kidd-- I would like to hear your reasoning as to why you think that. Why do you think it's so utterly rediculous?

As for Kidd saving the Nets... he's a great player, but there are very few select players in the history of the league who have ever had the ability to single-handedly "save" a franchise. And almost all of them were big men. Kidd's arrival in N.J. coincided closely with the arrival of several other players who have also been significant to the Nets limited success.

And do I need to point out that in Kidd's first three seasons his team won 36, 26, and 24 games?


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I'd venture to say you'd probably have more GM's in the league that would want JC before Kirk...


I seriously doubt this.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

I think "Never" is an understatement.....


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> 
> Problem is that considering how fast he improves over the years, it might take a lot longer than you think? Certainly not next year. So question you have to ask is "when?". And nobody has a definite answer for that.
> 
> ...


Yeah but all of the Non-believers fail to recognize that Jamal is leading the team in scoring and is second in assists. Jamal is a GOOD player. He may not be Lebron like some of you want but you can't blame that on him, he was never SUPPOSSED to be Lebron. And even when Jamal does something right people spend more time dragging him through the mud than giving him his props. Case in point, he led us to beating GS, he was the leading scorer for the GAME, outscoring even J-Rich with 27pts on 12-21 shooting, 17 in the 4th qte & Ot and here we go again with posts like "when will Jamal be like Lebron". I'd say Jamal has had several games that were "Lebronlike" at least this season. Of course then it's well "why can't he do that every night". You guys need to cut the man a little slack IMO.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

what's with everyone today? why these kinds of threads again? jamal v. lebron v. wade v. kirk v. kidd???? huh? is it because hinrich gets a little well deserved lovin' from the press as a result of the triple-double and is, with good reason, called one of the bright spots for the bulls this season? is it petty jealousy from the crawford camp? is it over defensiveness from the hinrich side? what? 
it's pointless. everyone is going to have their favorite player, that's great- but to bait and bash on behalf of them is childish at best. i think most would agree that jamal and kirk TOGETHER in the backcourt has a ton of potential and when they both have it going on, it is fun to watch in what is otherwise a completely dismal and depressing season. lighten up. 


and arenas, i think that most of the GM's in the league today, and more than a few coaches would choose kirk over jamal. uh, who's smokin' what?


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah but all of the Non-believers fail to recognize that Jamal is leading the team in scoring and is second in assists. Jamal is a GOOD player. He may not be Lebron like some of you want but you can't blame that on him, he was never SUPPOSSED to be Lebron. And even when Jamal does something right people spend more time dragging him through the mud than giving him his props. Case in point, he led us to beating GS, he was the leading scorer for the GAME, outscoring even J-Rich with 27pts on 12-21 shooting, 17 in the 4th qte & Ot and here we go again with posts like "when will Jamal be like Lebron". I'd say Jamal has had several games that were "Lebronlike" at least this season. Of course then it's well "why can't he do that every night". You guys need to cut the man a little slack IMO.


Sometime when I read your post, I found my self wondering why you are so adament about Jamal then. Some points you made: Jamal was inconsistent (because of so many reason you posted). Average about 17ppg. No defense. Never will be James-like player.

Uhh... why then? Why all this love-fest?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> what's with everyone today? why these kinds of threads again? jamal v. lebron v. wade v. kirk v. kidd???? huh? is it because hinrich gets a little well deserved lovin' from the press as a result of the triple-double and is, with good reason, called one of the bright spots for the bulls this season? is it petty jealousy from the crawford camp? is it over defensiveness from the hinrich side? what?
> it's pointless. everyone is going to have their favorite player, that's great- but to bait and bash on behalf of them is childish at best. i think most would agree that jamal and kirk TOGETHER in the backcourt has a ton of potential and when they both have it going on, it is fun to watch in what is otherwise a completely dismal and depressing season. lighten up.
> 
> ...


You got it backwards my firend. I posted the Hinrich/Kidd thing as a direct result of GB's Jamal/Lebron thing. I actually LIKE both Jamal and KH and hope we keep them both in the Bulls backcourt for a long time.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> 
> Sometime when I read your post, I found my self wondering why you are so adament about Jamal then. Some points you made: Jamal was inconsistent (because of so many reason you posted). Average about 17ppg. No defense. Never will be James-like player.
> 
> Uhh... why then? Why all this love-fest?


Jamal is playing much better defense lately. Jamal is a GOOD player. He isn't a superstar like Lebron but that doesn't mean he isn't a VERY good player. In another season or two he might surprise some people because he works very hard to improve his game. And he very well could be a star one day...just not today. But the bottom line is he IS a good player and it's just silly when everyone wants to lay all of the Bulls problems at the feet of one of their good, young, developing players.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

I think GB's original thread was sort of cheap shot toward Jamal camp because GB seems to be fed up with so many excuses (sorry , lack of better term) for Jamal and yet bloated expectation for him from the same camp.

And of course, as you can see Ace counter that with his own jab.

But it's all for fun. Right?


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

> You don't like young players, I understand that.


First of all don't tell me what I like and what I don't like. I do like young players. I mean Kirk is not young, what the hell? I don't like kids coming from high school in general or leaving college early( 2 years I don't mind one year I don't like) but I still am a fan of Melo or KG or Brand. I despise these young kids who come into the league no where near ready to play at this level and use their "upside" as a crutch for there piss poor play and then after accomplishing nothing expect to get paid huge money. I don't expect these kids to be stars from day one like Lebron but he is not the only one playing very well soon after coming in. Names like Amare, Bosh, Melo come to mind. How are they able to do it but I have to wait 5-6 years for JC,EC, or EC to do it? Face it they ain't got it.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> You got it backwards my firend. I posted the Hinrich/Kidd thing as a direct result of GB's Jamal/Lebron thing. I actually LIKE both Jamal and KH and hope we keep them both in the Bulls backcourt for a long time.


oh, i _know_ you did, buddy o' mine. i get it. my little venting session was just that - frustration that i actually share with you...i like them both in the bulls backcourt. and i can see right through GB's little modus operandi as i know you can too...i was just trying to figure it out outloud...next time, i'll just keep my mouth shut.
well i'll try anyway. and now look what airety has done in creating a thinly veiled bash hinrich thread. 

so petty. can't we all get along? it's so ridiculous.


:grinning:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IntheBlinkofaDeng</b>!
> 
> 
> First of all don't tell me what I like and what I don't like. I do like young players. I mean Kirk is not young, what the hell? I don't like kids coming from high school in general or leaving college early( 2 years I don't mind one year I don't like) but I still am a fan of Melo or KG or Brand. I despise these young kids who come into the league no where near ready to play at this level and use their "upside" as a crutch for there piss poor play and then after accomplishing nothing expect to get paid huge money. I don't expect these kids to be stars from day one like Lebron but he is not the only one playing very well soon after coming in. Names like Amare, Bosh, Melo come to mind. How are they able to do it but I have to wait 5-6 years for JC,EC, or EC to do it? Face it they ain't got it.


You don't like kids coming from high school in general or leaving college erly. Ergo you don't like young kids. It wasn't intended as an insult as you apparently took it. You don't like project players. And as far as facing it "they ain't got it". I'll have to take your word for it, my crystal ball is in the shop but apparently yours is working almighty guru.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

You did not answer my question. What is the difference between JC,EC, and TC and guys like Amare,Bosh, or Melo?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> oh, i _know_ you did, buddy o' mine. i get it. my little venting session was just that - frustration that i actually share with you...i like them both in the bulls backcourt. and i can see right through GB's little modus operandi as i know you can too...i was just trying to figure it out outloud...next time, i'll just keep my mouth shut.
> ...


Yeah, I don't want to BASH anyone, I like BOTH KH & JC, I just hate all of the hating that goes on about JC, it's like noone is satisfied with the GOOD #'s he puts up, if he isn't Kobe they can't be happy. Whatever. Anyways, nice to see I am not the only guy that likes both of em.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IntheBlinkofaDeng</b>!
> You did not answer my question. What is the difference between JC,EC, and TC and guys like Amare,Bosh, or Melo?


Amare, Bosh, & Melo all have more NBA ready bodies and apparently aren't as big of projects as TC, EC, and JC. You can't expect EVERYONE to develop at the same level. Whats the difference between KG & Jermaine O'neal?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't want to BASH anyone, I like BOTH KH & JC, I just hate all of the hating that goes on about JC, it's like noone is satisfied with the GOOD #'s he puts up, if he isn't Kobe they can't be happy. Whatever. Anyways, nice to see I am not the only guy that likes both of em.


tell ya what, come up to nyc we'll burn some of my special house blend and we can scream and yell and clap and cry together - for both of them. one for all and all for one. 

go bulls. 

:yes: :grinning:


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Difference between KG and Jermaine O'Neal. KG was better from day one and will continue to be better. Ergo Amare,Bosh, and Melo will always better than Crawford, Curry, or Chandler. Yeah lets stick with these 3. Oh yeah and don't try to convince me that Bosh has a more NBA ready body than JC or TC has. He is as frail as they are but he has the goods. They don't.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> tell ya what, come up to nyc we'll burn some of my special house blend and we can scream and yell and clap and cry together - for both of them. one for all and all for one.
> ...


That sounds tempting! You should come to KY, you can imagine what sort of "house blends" we have down here in the Bluegrass state  

Anyway, GO Bulls!


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IntheBlinkofaDeng</b>!
> Difference between KG and Jermaine O'Neal. KG was better from day one and will continue to be better. Ergo Amare,Bosh, and Melo will always better than Crawford, Curry, or Chandler. Yeah lets stick with these 3. Oh yeah and don't try to convince me that Bosh has a more NBA ready body than JC or TC has. He is as frail as they are but he has the goods. They don't.


You missed the point entirely...right over your head. Yeah, of course KG is better than O'neal. But KG came into the league and immediately played extremely well. O'neal came into the league and it took him 5-6 years to develop into an ALL STAR caliber player, which he is.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> That sounds tempting! You should come to KY, you can imagine what sort of "house blends" we have down here in the Bluegrass state
> ...


 and speaking of that, i hope jamal lights one up on lebron tonight, i really really do. that would be so freakin' great.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> and speaking of that, i hope jamal lights one up on lebron tonight, i really really do. that would be so freakin' great.


Yeah and Hinrich can light one up on Mcginnis or whoever too! 

Go Bulls!


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Well lets just say I think it is ludicrous to have to wait on a kid 5-6 years. That is what is wrong with this league. You should not enter into the league if aren't going to perform. You also should not get a fat contract after 4 years if it is going to take you until your 6th year to play worth a damn.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IntheBlinkofaDeng</b>!
> Well lets just say I think it is ludicrous to have to wait on a kid 5-6 years. That is what is wrong with this league. You should not enter into the league if aren't going to perform. You also should not get a fat contract after 4 years if it is going to take you until your 6th year to play worth a damn.


Well thats an argument I can understand and somewhat agree with. Players should go to college until they are ready to come out. But unfortunately the NBA has turned into a market of "potential". But I agree with your points, players are getting paid on potential and the Bulls have 3 of them. Probably not the best position to be in but they are there and we have to deal with it.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> You missed the point entirely...right over your head. Yeah, of course KG is better than O'neal. But KG came into the league and immediately played extremely well. O'neal came into the league and it took him 5-6 years to develop into an ALL STAR caliber player, which he is.


When people put Jermaine O'neal as an example of slow deveoper, they forgot one thing, though. It wasn't like O'neal was getting tons of playing time during his stay. Hell, no. They were packed with talent and simply there wasn't any time left for O'neal to play other than a minute here and there. It's not like O'neal was getting all the playing time and yet develop slowly till he became a Pacer. 

No all he needed to show his talent was getting playing time and he finally got his due from Pacers and showed his worth. 

I am not buying this notion that "Look, there is an allstar who took four years to really develop his game". It's more like he was already quite a good player in his Blazer day and coudn't find the playing time.

Anyway, I am not buying this Jermaine O'neal excuse for our kids' slow development.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

This league needs a minor league system BADLY. Seriously... for players like Jamal, and even Kirk. No rookie minus Lebron, Carmelo and Dwyane who seriously help their teams WIN should be on an NBA roster at all wasting time.

The NBDL really isn't what I'm thinking of either because it's a free for all and not team-specific. In the Chicago minor-league team, they could teach Chicago offenses and Chicago-defenses. The LAL team would teach the triangle, etc.

The draft would be expanded to 5 rounds, which I'd absolutely LOVE. A 2nd rounder starts to mean something because you can actually develop the player, and not end up cutting him due to a lack of roster space.


Why do I bring this up? If this system existed, Jamal would have spent the past three years in the minor league system (he needed to coming out) and this would be his "rookie" year. His stats, if this was his rookie year would be impressive.

He'd be in almost the same boat as Kirk.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> 
> When people put Jermaine O'neal as an example of slow deveoper, they forgot one thing, though. It wasn't like O'neal was getting tons of playing time during his stay. Hell, no. They were packed with talent and simply there wasn't any time left for O'neal to play other than a minute here and there. It's not like O'neal was getting all the playing time and yet develop slowly till he became a Pacer.
> 
> ...


O'neal didn't get a lot of playing time, thats true, of course neither did Jamal until end of last season. The point is that ALL players develop at different speeds. O'neal wasn't just some monster player that could never crack Portlands lineup because of who all was in front of him. Of course thats part of it, but he had a lot of developing to do too. You could say the same thing about Al Harrington, even though he isn't at that level yet, Rashard Lewis too. The influx of HS players has been more of a recent trend so we don't have a whole lot of basis to really predict success. One thing that is true IMO, every player develops at a different speed.


----------



## rynobot (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> O'neal didn't get a lot of playing time, thats true, of course neither did Jamal until end of last season. The point is that ALL players develop at different speeds. O'neal wasn't just some monster player that could never crack Portlands lineup because of who all was in front of him. Of course thats part of it, but he had a lot of developing to do too. You could say the same thing about Al Harrington, even though he isn't at that level yet, Rashard Lewis too. The influx of HS players has been more of a recent trend so we don't have a whole lot of basis to really predict success. One thing that is true IMO, every player develops at a different speed.


There is a difference though. Jermaine was playing behind Brian Grant and Rasheed Wallace. Who was Crawford playing behind untill Jay Williams was drafted?


----------



## Sánchez AF (Aug 10, 2003)

NEVER ¡¡¡


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Ok, first, when is Jamal going to play Lebrons level? now, when is kirk going to play at Kidds level? The answer is the same, never


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

and the next question is, who cares? 

or if you'd rather, why bother arguing about it?

:|


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> 
> The NBDL really isn't what I'm thinking of either because it's a free for all and not team-specific. In the Chicago minor-league team, they could teach Chicago offenses and Chicago-defenses. The LAL team would teach the triangle, etc.


There already is a NBA Minor League system.

It's called the Bulls, Clippers, Wizards, and Warriors. They draft 'em, season them a lil, and then you (Legit NBA team) reap the rewards.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Thoughts of Ron Mercer come to mind. Oh include the above with passing ability? Poor man's Jalen Rose. So if we take most of the qualities said above to be true, we're talking about a third tier NBA talent, not an All-Star.... not someone you pay 8-9M a year to. Can he show improvement in these areas? Of course he can. But I'm not buying the arguments that Jamal's lightbulb will magically turn on and he'll become a highly effective two-way player. Sorry.


Super superdave, super.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> more GM's in the league that would want JC before Kirk...


:laugh:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah but all of the Non-believers fail to recognize that Jamal is leading the team in scoring and is second in assists. Jamal is a GOOD player.


So was Mercer.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> I think GB's original thread was sort of cheap shot toward Jamal camp


It was a sincere question.

And a site admin agreed with me.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>rynobot</b>!
> 
> 
> There is a difference though. Jermaine was playing behind Brian Grant and Rasheed Wallace. Who was Crawford playing behind untill Jay Williams was drafted?


Jamal was behind Khalid during his rookie year as a raw out-of-high schooler and was injured his second year. Third year in comes Jay.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Again the answer is Never, lets move on


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> 
> Isn't it true that <b>any</b> player will play better if you surround him with quality player around?


Ask Michael Jordan.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> As for Kirk's upside, the fact is that if a player isn't a star by 24 or 25 he'll almost certainly never be one. That's all there is to it. Kirk can improve but he's only got a year or two and if he's not a star by then, you guys need to stop talking about him like he can get there.


Ask Sam Cassell if it's possible.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

I was waiting for someone to bring up Sam Cassell or Ben Wallace, the only two exceptions in the entire NBA in the last few years, and think they had a good point. It's really a pretty meaningless point, and here's why.

There have been a lot of decent young players in the NBA over the past few years. Hundreds of them, in fact. A lot of them have had a pretty amazing work ethic, too, or else a lot of them wouldn't have been in the NBA to begin with. Yet out of those hundreds of guys, only TWO guys who weren't stars by age 24 became stars later. TWO. So when you guys assert that YOUR team's guy is going to be the exception, with no other reason than you like the guy and he works hard and he's on your favorite team, it's tough for me to take you guys too seriously.

If someone posted on here that they were going to win the lottery tomorrow and I told them there was no chance they'd win it, would you find the name of some dude who won the lottery last week and say "Ask him if it's possible?" Sure it's POSSIBLE, but the odds are overwhelmingly against it. OVERWHELMINGLY.

That's why I can say with confidence that if Kirk Hinrich isn't a star next year then he'll never be one.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Amare, Bosh, & Melo all have more NBA ready bodies and apparently aren't as big of projects as TC, EC, and JC.


You did not just say that, considering Eddy Curry came into the league at 6'11" and a trimmer 285 lbs.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> I was waiting for someone to bring up Sam Cassell or Ben Wallace, the only two exceptions in the entire NBA in the last few years, and think they had a good point. It's really a pretty meaningless point, and here's why.
> ...


Uhhhh, how many guys are stars in their rookie years? Cassell and Ben Wallace aren't the only guys that had to develop into the players they are today. It took Baron Davis three years until he was a quality player. Payton and Stockton did relatively little their first years. Andre Miller was mediocre as a rookie. Jason Kidd wasn't that much ahead of Hinrich as a rookie. So until you come up with a better reason than "Well, a lot of guys don't get better after their rookie season, and I don't think Hinrich will develo", than I'll take your opinion with a grain of salt. You may think a lot of those guys that don't develop have great work ethics, but the majority of them don't. In Hinrich's 4 seasons at Kansas, you could ask anyone on the team who the hardest worker was, and they'd say Kirk before blinking an eye. He's one of the hardest workers you're ever going to find. On top of which, he has all the physical skills to become an all-star calibur player, and in fact, is playing at close to that level right now, as a rookie. I'm not really seeing your logic. Is it a given he'll be an all-star? Of course not, especially in the guard-crowded Eastern Conference. But it's most certainly a possibility.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> This league needs a minor league system BADLY. Seriously... for players like Jamal, and even Kirk. No rookie minus Lebron, Carmelo and Dwyane who seriously help their teams WIN should be on an NBA roster at all wasting time.
> 
> The NBDL really isn't what I'm thinking of either because it's a free for all and not team-specific. In the Chicago minor-league team, they could teach Chicago offenses and Chicago-defenses. The LAL team would teach the triangle, etc.
> ...


Amen.

If we're lucky, we could simultaneously implement this and demote say, 4 current NBA teams to division II status.


----------



## benfica (Jul 17, 2002)

*I think Kirk is a Star right now*

Check out what he is doing lately, stat stuffer ala Kidd. I bet he gets another triple double before the year is out. Came close tonight.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

The thing is the number of seasons you've been in the league really doesn't mean very much at all, it doesn't matter if you are a rookie. If I started a thread asking why Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry had worse rookie seasons that Kirk Hinrich is having, you guys would jump all over me, and rightly so because that would be an idiotic question, since Kirk spent 4 years at one of the best college programs in the nation while Tyson and Eddy came right out of high school. What matters is AGE. Your PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT happens at the same schedule whether you go to college or whether you join the NBA. And when you compare Kirk Hinrich's production to other point guards' production AT THE SAME AGE, he falls well short of those point guards who have become All-Stars.

Baron Davis is 24 RIGHT NOW and he is already a perennial All-Star. Jason Kidd at Kirk's age averaged 10 assists a game and was already a pretty big star. Andre Miller, on the other hand, he was NOT a star at Kirk's age, and Lo and Behold, he still hasn't had an All-Star season AND HE NEVER WILL HAVE ONE. I mean he's like 27 already, it's just not going to happen.

Andre Miller is an extremely solid point guard, and if Kirk Hinrich can become as good a player as Dre is, you guys will have done really well in this draft. That's an optimistic outlook, but a realistic one. Baron Davis, not realistic. Jason Kidd, not realistic.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

don't forget Kirk was weakened for a long time this season with a viral infection at the beginning. He's worked himself into his current form. If you buy the idea that he had to overcome physical weakness at the start, you can say Kirks stats would be dead on Kidds rookie season if he wasn't sick.

Its possible, when you see how Kirk keeps improving each month.
Not saying it happened like that. But its possible.
not saying Kirk is as good as Kidd either. I'm just talking about rookie stats.


----------



## SpartanBull (Oct 12, 2003)

K. Hinrich 37 7-16 3-6 5-8 3 8 7 2 0 0 6 22 


He sure looked like Kidd tonight !!


----------



## 7thwatch (Jul 18, 2002)

Kirky with another great game tonight:

22 points, 8 rebounds, 7 assists

Forget next season, if Kirk keeps putting up the numbers like he has been lately, it might not be to much of a stretch to call him a star by the end of this season (thats pushing it, but IF he keeps putting up 18/8 type numbers, IMO those are star level numbers for a pg. And he plays great D.) And he's got such a great work ethic I think he'll be much improved next year.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> What matters is AGE. Your PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT happens at the same schedule whether you go to college or whether you join the NBA. And when you compare Kirk Hinrich's production to other point guards' production AT THE SAME AGE, he falls well short of those point guards who have become All-Stars.


Gary Payton, age 23:
31 mpg, 9.4 ppg, 45.1% FG, 66.9% FT, 13.0% 3PT, 3.6 rpg, 6.2 apg.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> The thing is the number of seasons you've been in the league really doesn't mean very much at all, it doesn't matter if you are a rookie. If I started a thread asking why Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry had worse rookie seasons that Kirk Hinrich is having, you guys would jump all over me, and rightly so because that would be an idiotic question, since Kirk spent 4 years at one of the best college programs in the nation while Tyson and Eddy came right out of high school. What matters is AGE. Your PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT happens at the same schedule whether you go to college or whether you join the NBA. And when you compare Kirk Hinrich's production to other point guards' production AT THE SAME AGE, he falls well short of those point guards who have become All-Stars.
> 
> Baron Davis is 24 RIGHT NOW and he is already a perennial All-Star. Jason Kidd at Kirk's age averaged 10 assists a game and was already a pretty big star. Andre Miller, on the other hand, he was NOT a star at Kirk's age, and Lo and Behold, he still hasn't had an All-Star season AND HE NEVER WILL HAVE ONE. I mean he's like 27 already, it's just not going to happen.
> ...


That's a bit unfair. You can't fault Hinrich for staying 4 years in school in search of a championship. Please don't tell me you think development at the college level is on par with development on the pro level. Hinrich has already made huge strides in just his rookie season. Honestly, what in Hinrich's game is going to limit him? Can you think of anything realisitic?

As for Dre, he did average 11 apg in his third year, I believe he was 25 or 26, and was a HUGE snub at the all-star game.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Gary Payton, age 23:
> 31 mpg, 9.4 ppg, 45.1% FG, 66.9% FT, 13.0% 3PT, 3.6 rpg, 6.2 apg.


It's true.

In the 80s and early 90s people hit their primes at a much older age than they do today. I'm sure you could find PLENTY of examples of guys who broke out at 26 or older if you look at guys as old as Gary Payton. But for whatever reason, it just doesn't happen anymore.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> It's true.
> ...


I'll give you the answer to that one........talented players are entering the league at a much younger age than they used to. Hinrich is an exception to the rule at this point, a throwback to the players of old. An immensely talented player who went to school for 4 years, is drafted in the top 10 and actually makes an impact (albeit on a poor team) in his first season.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> It's true.
> ...


This is only true if you believe every kid that goes league before they're 20 these days is a guaranteed star. Which obviously isn't the case.

Another factor to consider is the system Hinrich was in at Kansas. He didn't play point guard his final two years there, and he was never the first option on offense. Food for thought........


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>7thwatch</b>!
> if Kirk keeps putting up the numbers like he has been lately, it might not be to much of a stretch to call him a star


Estoy de acuerdo.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> This is only true if you believe every kid that goes league before they're 20 these days is a guaranteed star. Which obviously isn't the case.


  

Of course I don't believe that. Plenty of kids become busts.

What does that have to do with this discussion?


----------



## 7thwatch (Jul 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Estoy de acuerdo.


Two years of Spanish class, and I still needed freetranslation.com to figure out what you were saying :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll give you the answer to that one........talented players are entering the league at a much younger age than they used to. Hinrich is an exception to the rule at this point, a throwback to the players of old. An immensely talented player who went to school for 4 years, is drafted in the top 10 and actually makes an impact (albeit on a poor team) in his first season.


That's a really good point actually, but I disagree. I think the fact that the NBA has gotten younger has something to do with it, but I think the main reason people peak earlier today is that the style of play has changed.

Kirk Hinrich is hardly a throwback. As you guys point out to everyone who will listen, he doesn't meet the stupid stereotype of "white guy who isn't very talented or athletic but has a really high basketball IQ and solid fundamentals." He's actually a really tough kid who is extremely athletic. I think the reason stars are younger is that the NBA today is more based on athleticism, while 10 years ago it was more based on fundamentals. You need to play harder now than you used to, and it wears on your body. You reach your athletic peak at a much younger age.

But seriously you two, good discussion!


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Okay, my words were a bit ambiguous.*



> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> What does that have to do with this discussion?


In your previous post you implied that players hit their primes at a "much older" age 10-15 years ago then they do today. While this is true in a general sense and is attributable to all of the young kids jumping league, it in no way has any bearing on whether or not Kirk Hinrich will or will not hit his prime at a later age than what you imply. While what you're saying isn't necessarily untrue, IMO it doesn't apply to a player like Hinrich.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

And good conversation, by the way.


----------



## 7thwatch (Jul 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> You need to play harder now than you used to, and it wears on your body. You reach your athletic peak at a much younger age.


hmmmm . . . I don't think players play "harder" now then back in the day. I think the old school players would leave it all on the floor just as often if not more often than a player today. Its just that today players have greater athletic ability that allows them to do more. I don't think they are wearing down their bodies faster because they are playing harder. Players today do a lot of standing around because the poplarity of the iso. 

Players today also have many advantages to help maintane their bodies at a high level that the players of old did not. We have much greater technology and knowledge to help us train our athletes than back then. Jordan came in after 3 years of college and improved a LOT over the course of his career. VV gave you the GP example. I agree more with kccheifs fan. I tend to think it has more to do with the fact that the most talented players almost always come out after highschool or a year or two of college max nowdays. I have a hard time beleiving that over the course of 30 or 40 years humans started physically peaking a few years earlier.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Hmmm.

After last night, I'm starting to wonder if KH is anywhere near his "ceiling".

He may tie Wade for third best---and will probably become a star at whatever position he and the organization want him to star at.

Quite simply--it's because he wants it, and he's willing to work for it.

I think we're all underestimating his athletic ability--but think! : if he has the athleticism of some guys on the team.


----------

