# The Bulls' "Lack of Talent"



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

I don't know where this talent-challenged sentiment is coming from. As I said in an earlier post, the Bulls are the second youngest team in the league, yet, they are contending for playoff position. Most of the time a team with such a low average age is one in a rebuilding stage, meaning its record really, really sucks. Atlanta and Portland, teams sandwiching the Bulls in average age, have horrible records, yet, most of us concede the fact that they are going through a youth-movement and are rebuilding with talented, but inexperienced players. Are the Bulls not doing that, too? 

Are most of us Bulls fans so used to watching this team that we now consider most of the roster lacking talent? Are most of us just excited watching other young talented players on other teams or in college to which we have less exposure just because we want to imagine them in a Bulls uniform and thus, conclude that they have more talent than any of the Bulls players? I think many people on this board, including me, sometimes confuse talent with skill and experience. I believe the many of the Bulls player are very talented in relation to other NBA players. Their lack of experience is what's keeping them from being a 55-win team. 

The good news is that, unlike the first post-Jordan Bulls, these Bulls are experiencing a lot more wins. Elton Brand even admitted that the piling of losses was taking a toll on him mentally, and it seemed to have followed him to the Clippers until this season. Give credit to Skiles for keeping it simple (unlike having to learn the triangle offense) and instilling an intense playing style to this team, because for a team lacking experience, hard work and a never-quit mentality make up for it.

I'm just saying that the Bulls have as much talent as any other team and that many of us forget just how young this team is.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

The team is doing as well as it is because it is scoring pretty much a perfect score on the OTHER side of talent on the yin/yan sphere. The little things, showing up, caring; these are things that can get you a LOT of NBA wins in and of themselves in today's NBA. You need both talent AND jib to win, and many nights jib will get you the victory. I say all the time that the Bulls don't get it when they live with the jumper, HOWEVER, more than ever, teams are not getting it. I see the Bulls get victories when other teams try to live by the jumper more than the Bulls do. 

I call it Jalenitis. 

The Bulls need to play for the jumper in their current state. As I've always said, I think Paxson has done poorly (though I AM NOT SAYING he's done poorly relative to Krause), but Skiles has done a great job of working with what Paxson has given him. Skiles knows that this team has better chances finding an open jumper for Kirk than passing it into Tyson and asking him, or really just about anyone in our frontcourt, to create on a consistent basis. 

Jalenitis is when you have the talent to penetrate and get exceedingly higher percentage shots, but, because you are a wuss who has been overpaid for so long that you've simply lost touch with reality and with what made you great in the first place (see also Chris Webber, Steve Francis, Stephon Marbury [who got this disease LONG before most players get it; he may have been born with it], etc.), they simply throw up jumpers. Because "hey, I've got 70 million in the bank, we aint winning no championship, and if we lose, the steak is still gonna taste great tonight." (See also, the Chicago Cubs for about a century now). 

And of course we do have SOME talent. Luol Deng could max out to be as good as SOME of the weaker second fiddles on past NBA championship teams. But that's not enough. Like I put it in another thread, which Bull would be as good as the second best player on an NBA champion since RUSSELL joined the league? I can see Luol being as good or better than Manu Ginobili, Kenny Smith, Jack Sikma or Jamaal Wilkes, four of the weaker second fiddles in NBA history. But who can you see ever approaching the playing level of the best player on an NBA Champion? Who on this team? Here they are since Russell joined the NBA:

Bill Russell
Wilt Chamberlain
Willis Reed
Oscar Robertson
Jerry West
Jon Havlicek
Rick Barry
Bill Walton
Dennis Johnson
Elvin Hayes
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (who passed the torch to Magic later in the Lakers run)
Larry Bird
Moses Malone
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Hakeem Olajuwon
David Robinson (Some will say that Duncan was already better, either way)
Shaquille O'neal
Tim Duncan
Ben Wallace (If you're going to argue this one, remember, this could easily be one of 3 other guys)

Now you look at that list and you tell me who on this team could max out to be like THAT. THAT is what people mean when they say we are lacking the talent to contend. Paxson fans can talk about value systems, and "Ways" and everything else in between. And they have a very good point. Because those teams also did know how to play the right way. That is VERY important. Several teams had the TALENT to win the NBA title, but didn't, because they didn't play the right way. Wilt Chamberlain headed MANY teams like this. The 1995 Orlando Magic, talentwise, could be right up there with the greatest teams ever. However, their jib was questionable.

When it comes down to it though, there are teams like the ones headed by those great men on that list who will look you in the eye and say "you try hard? I don't care!! I'm better than you plain and simple. Try as hard as you want and look at me laugh as I tear your heart out." That is the cold reality of the situation. Jordan played against many teams with GREAT jib. The Detroit Pistons of 1991 and the Utah Jazz of 1997 and 1998 had more jib than this group probably ever will. You need talent and jib to win a ring. Russell's Celtics beat many teams that tried hard and played the right way. They also tried hard, but had more talent, and at the end of the day when the right way cancelled each other out, the talent differential was all that was left. 

Many fans of today's teams that call into the Score and say things like "so what if we get swept by the Pistons? Jordan's Bulls got beat by Detroit and look where they ended up" are not examining history closely enough. If you know the history of the NBA you really get a handle on what the realities are. Many many things that held true in 1970 still hold true today when it comes to championship play. You need:

1. Jib
2. Talent
3. The ability to get high percentage scores inside
4. The ability to hit the outside shot well enough when the opposing D collapses inside
5. Luck

We excel at 1 and 4, we are not even close to championship caliber at 2 and 3, and 5 changes every second. 

So if you, or anyone, thinks we don't lack talent, championship caliber talent... then tell me who on this roster is close or could be close to anyone on that list save Dennis Johnson (the NBA hasn't been as weak as it was in 1978 since before Bob Pettit). 

And the draft class? I've yet to have someone give me a home run argument as to why Lamarcus Aldridge will be better than Horace Grant. 

James, Wade, Howard.... these are the guys that you could reasonably point to and say "IF he keeps it together, his name could one day go up on that list without you repeating the name and scratching your head." Chris Paul MAY convince me that you could say the same about him with decent improvement next year. Amare was on that level before his injury. Players of that level are so very hard to come by and so very rare. You can take a look at guys that people think of as "stars" or even borderline superstars and they were never on that level and are never going to be on that level. Barkley, Ewing, Reggie Miller, Chris Bosh, Gilbert Arenas, Mark Price, Ray Allen, Carmelo Anthony. You can go on and on and on. 

That list should be so important to NBA fans when thinking about talent. Think about this. As good as Scottie Pippen was, and I'll take Pippen in his prime over just about any player in the game today, save MAYBE Lebron James and Dwyane Wade, would he have made that list if he played his whole career as the #1 guy without Jordan? You could argue he would. He did finish 4th in MVP voting in 1994 while leading his team to just two fewer wins than the 57 win total put up by MJ's 93 title winners, while replacing MJ with Pete Myers. He also finished 3rd in MVP voting in 2000 and if Steve Smith could have hit the ocean in game 7 v. LA, that team probably wins the title and Scottie is up on that list. Those are two of his three youngest seasons without MJ, and only one of them was in his prime. 

*And this is not to say that before Paxson we were going in that direction with Curry or Krause or whoever. In fact, Krause is guilty of trading away a player in Elton Brand who COULD just defiantly make that list.* I'm just giving perspective as far as where we ACTUALLY are and the kind of ammo you need to get where I want to be.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

You saw the Detroit Pistons argument coming so you simply decided to add Ben Wallace, that clearly doesnt belong to that group. 

And Pax has fielded a competitive team, to the point that many people argue that we would have a better record with other than Skiles as a coach (opposite to what you said). 

Note: When I often say the Bulls dont have talent (see: Draft Thread), its just sarcastic since that is what some Bulls fans (?) questioned not so long ago when the Bulls werent in Playoffs territory. Now they are down the rocks, waiting to see if Phily gets in so they can "win" a baseless argument. 

I think the Bulls are talented, but they lack that top tier guy (if it is a MUST in order to win a championship, thats another thing/discussion).


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

El Chapu said:
 

> You saw the Detroit Pistons argument coming so you simply decided to add Ben Wallace, that clearly doesnt belong to that group.
> 
> And Pax has fielded a competitive team, to the point that many people argue that we would have a better record with other than Skiles as a coach (opposite to what you said).
> 
> ...


The Pistons have four guys who would be the best player on the Bulls. What's so hard to understand about that? 

There is no argument as to whether we have the talent needed to merely be competitive. Competitive and contenders are different. 

I didn't argue that we'd be better without Skiles, rather that we'd be worse without him.

Like I said, pick any top guy on a title team and who do the Bulls have that could max out at that level? Save Dennis Johnson, who was that guy in perhaps the worst year in NBA History, there is little argument.

If you really look at history, both recent and beyond, you'll be confronted by realities. If you bury your head in the sand and chant a mantra however, you'll hear what you want to hear.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

Pippenatorade, the vast majority of those guys you listed were #1 or other very high picks, which the franchises were more or less lucky to fall into. These guys probably come along every 3-5 years at best, so what's your argument? Should the Bulls not make the most out of the opportunities they've had to field a competitive team, and just sit around waiting for the next MJ, Lebron etc. to come along, the rarity of which I don't think you're paying justice.

I look at a team like Memphis, that is probably 2 years advanced to this current Bulls squad. Not long ago, Pau Gasol was probably on a similar playing plateau to what Kirk and Luol currently are. There is absolutely no reason why this team couldn't participate in the Western conference finals if they continue developing. And Pau is what, 25? It's a long process, and the Bulls are ahead of nearly every rebuilding team that has not had a can't miss top 2 prospect.

As an aside, your point on Ben Wallace. He along with Chauncey Billups, probably the two focal points of their championship, and current championship favouritism. Now, I bet you weren't thinking, when Chauncey Billups was 22 or 23, that he could have been someone on your list (You said Ben Wallace, but alluded that it could've been anyone of 4 guys). 

There is absolutely no reason why Kirk, Luol and Ben (who are ahead of that curve already) cannot be Pau Gasol, Elton Brand or Chauncey Billups (obviously different poisitons, but we're talking level of play). In addition to that, you'll probably pick up a pretty handy big in this year's draft. LeBron James, Dwight Howard and others... these guys aren't walking through that Bulls locker room door any time soon. So why don't you take a look at Detroit, Memphis etc., two teams that continued to build without much luck in anyway, and see that you've done just about as well as any team could have.

Detroit beat a team consisting of Shaq and Kobe, two guys that could definitely belong on your list. So there are clearly exceptions to the rule. And until you get that next big thing prospect, which 1 or 2 franchises may be lucky to get in a decade, why not try to be one of the exceptions.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Greg Ostertag! said:


> Pippenatorade, the vast majority of those guys you listed were #1 or other very high picks, which the franchises were more or less lucky to fall into. These guys probably come along every 3-5 years at best, so what's your argument? Should the Bulls not make the most out of the opportunities they've had to field a competitive team, and just sit around waiting for the next MJ, Lebron etc. to come along, the rarity of which I don't think you're paying justice.
> 
> I look at a team like Memphis, that is probably 2 years advanced to this current Bulls squad. Not long ago, Pau Gasol was probably on a similar playing plateau to what Kirk and Luol currently are. There is absolutely no reason why this team couldn't participate in the Western conference finals if they continue developing. And Pau is what, 25? It's a long process, and the Bulls are ahead of nearly every rebuilding team that has not had a can't miss top 2 prospect.
> 
> ...


Who made reference to what we "should do"..? I was simply commenting on the idea that we don't lack talent. My argument was "here is what championship caliber talent has been over the history of the NBA, you tell me who could fit on this list one day." Not "oh man we should do this because this is how you get it." My approach was diagnosis not cure. Relative to NBA title teams we do lack talent, so when people say we "lack talent" that is probably what they mean. It's relative, and I illustrated a point of relativity. There are other points that could also be argued, like "who on our team projects to be as good as any second fiddle in NBA title history."

And you can pick out Ben Wallace if you want, but the thing with Detroit is that they have FOUR guys close to their first guy. Hairline close if you ask me. That makes it significantly easier to win a title when your top guy may not be as great as other top guys. 

Also, if you're asking for a high pick on that team that you looked to as someone who could be that guy when they were drafted, look no further than RASHEED Wallace, who many thought was the driving force of that Trailblazers team that was oh so close. You'll recall that Detroit didn't take off until they added him. His ability to help out on Shaq and then get back to Karl Malone, while also exposing Karl on the other end of the court was key. So if you want the last name on that list to be Rasheed, no, we don't have anyone on this team that I look to and say "yeah, with time, he could easily be as good as Rasheed." 

So no my argument (and I don't know that it was an argument as much as a statement of where we are and where you need to be) was not "oh we don't have 'that guy' give up, give up, set the house on fire and run."


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

Its a lack of experience point blank evey major player except for tyson has improved we lost Curry and took a step back.Individually I feel this team has moved forward.They have NO BIG MAN.So I understand if they have to rely on jumpers.The Bulls are like Ewoks from starwars trying to fly through Endor the land of the great big trees!We just have to stay out of that forest a bit more then other teams due to size.If anyone has a Ewok PICK PASTE IT THANKS!!! :banana: :laugh: :starwars: :starwars: :starwars:


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Pippenatorade said:


> So if you, or anyone, thinks we don't lack talent, championship caliber talent... then tell me who on this roster is close or could be close to anyone on that list save Dennis Johnson (the NBA hasn't been as weak as it was in 1978 since before Bob Pettit).


OK, I'll bite. 
Kirk Hinrich
Kirk could become an elite point guard in the league, although he will probably not be recognized as such until the Bulls win a championship or two. He is already one of the best, and is getting better. No doubt some yo-yo will quote offensive stats to prove the opposite, but it's Kirk's defense that makes him stand out. BTW dont bring me 82games +/- stuff; it seems to fail as often as it succeeds in capturing defensive effectiveness.

Ben Gordon
There's a chance that Ben Gordon could become an elite scorer in the NBA. He has been inconsistent, and has had a hard time staying on the floor because of sometimes poor ball handling and/or poor defense. But he is rapidly improving in those areas, and is capable of adding a slashing/driving offense to his already deadly outside game. He could break out any time -- and stay broken out.

Even if you concede the possibility, I suppose you might point out how short these two guys are... But that's another question.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> And the draft class? I've yet to have someone give me a home run argument as to why Lamarcus Aldridge will be better than Horace Grant.


What was so terrible about Horace Grant?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Recent events call for this thread to be reconsidered.

Ben Gordon will become a star ... and soon!


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Nobody on the Bulls is a star yet at this point, but I do think that Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, and Nocioni and sometimes Chandler would be great third options on a contending type team, and that the first three could step it up to secong guy level with continued development, especially if given a true star to play with to elevate their games. If we can keep at least 3 of those guys and add in a star, people would gain a better appreciation of the team's talent.

Hell, if Ben Gordon can put it all together, mixing in his abilty to just be on fire like he was tonight with finding a way to get to the line like against the Nets, along with using teams playing him for the J to draw fouls like Billups and Hamilton/Miller(though I hate those types of fouls honestly) he could be that guy. I think Luol has a chance to be that guy too.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Babble-On said:


> Hell, if Ben Gordon can put it all together, mixing in his abilty to just be on fire like he was tonight with *finding a way to get to the line* like against the Nets, along with using teams playing him for the J to draw fouls like Billups and Hamilton/Miller(though I hate those types of fouls honestly) he could be that guy. I think Luol has a chance to be that guy too.


Finding the way to get to the line seems to be the difference between "second level" stars and "real" stars. Look at the free throw statistics tonight. If you watched tonight's game, Kirk and Ben were mugged every time they drove to the middle -- usually without getting a call. The key here is the Iverson effect... you have to convince the refs that every time you drive the middle you get to go to the foul line -- because you are a "star". Remember the recent game when Iverson got a call for falling into his own player on a pic? Star reputation is worth at least 5 or 6 points a game. In that regard, we still obviously don't have a star. But if Ben continues to break records, and starts begging for calls after falling down driving the middle like Arenas and Iverson... voila' -- a "star" will be born!


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

I'm not convinced that having a team that can hit a jumpshot is such a bad idea. While agree that when it ISN'T falling, we need to DRIVE! Fact is, the Bull has at least as many "points in the paint" as their opponents MOST nights. This with a woefully deficient front court. Those points aren't necessarily all coming from jump shots.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Here's something. If the playoffs began today, these are the teams with NO 2006 All-Stars on it:

Denver
Sacramento
Milwaukee
Chicago

And of those teams, here are the teams that have NO players who have been All-Stars in the last two years (so that their talent is still relevant).

Chicago

I don't buy into anyone that says that we are as talented as anyone else. I'm a HUGE Ben Gordon fan and I think Hinrich can be in the Bibby-class of All-Stars, like when he has that really crazy year that we all know he'll have soon. But the fact of the matter is, these guys even at their best will barely sneak in as All-Stars. From that first list, Artest, Bibby, and Brad Miller could all be All-Stars in future years; Carmelo and even Camby could be All-Stars; Redd has been and could certainly be an All-Star, and I think we'll see Bogut's name in there one of these years.

*The truth is, we don't have any All-Stars, any former All-Stars, or any guys that are bordering on that All-Star plane* (Hinrich's closest, who competes in a position with a LOT of talent at guard like Iverson, Pierce, Carter, Wade, Arenas, Redd, even Chris Paul). We don't have a guy that's ever scored 20 points in a season, or averaged 10 rebounds. Teams that have been trying to take our playoff spots (Boston, Philly) are more "talented". Philly's WAY underperforming their talent; Webber and AI alone should be enough to get to the EC Finals, but when your "role" players are the crazy-talented Iguodala and Dalembert, how dare they putz around with the 8th seed? I'd think that either Mo Cheeks or Iverson will be out of town this offseason, because that's seriously unacceptable.

*We have three guys that are going to continue to get really good (Gordon, Deng, Nocioni), three guys that we know we can expect solid production from as long as they aren't in funks (Duhon, Hinrich and Chandler), and role players to fill in the gaps.*

Every time I think of it, I can't help but consider that we're just one really great player away from becoming an elite squad. One guy to add to the mix that will help our entire team get better. But the fact is, we don't have that guy, where a lot of other teams do.

We ARE outperforming our talent. You can't just say that "because we're in the playoffs, we must be talented", unless you want to engage in a definitional battle of the word "talent". We even naturally crystallized a word for this intangible chemistry and hard work component ("jib") on this board (and I find myself sometimes throwing it into conversations except that people outside of this forum don't know what I'm talking about).


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

I'll give one precendent that could mean that someone from the current Bulls roster could make the All-Star team. Manu Ginobili, who averaged "only" 16 points per game last season and did not have any statistics that were all-star caliber, made the All-Star team last season.

For all the numbers that Dwight Howard has, Ben and Rasheed Wallace made the All-Star team despite arguably inferior numbers and not Howard.

It is argued that Detroit needed the "star" power of Rasheed Wallace in order for them to win the championship in 2004. However, if you were to not know a thing about Wallce prior to him joining the Pistons would you know that he is a star? It is argued that the unselfish offense that the Pistons run affects his numbers. That said, the Bulls may already have all-star caliber players, but the unselfish offensive system being run in Chicago is affecting said players' numbers. One knows that Rahseed Wallace is a star player because he was an all-star in 2000 and 2001; potential Bulls all-stars such as Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, and Nocioni have no such luxury, because none of them have ever played in an offensive system unlike the Bulls'.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Showtyme said:


> *The truth is, we don't have any All-Stars, any former All-Stars, or any guys that are bordering on that All-Star plane*


If (when) the Bulls win 50-60 games and advance in the playoffs beyond the first round (maybe even as early as next year), fans and/or coaches will find a way to nominate one or two Bulls to the all-star team the following year. Otherwise, the whole concept of "stardom" will risk being exposed as superfluous.

Do the Bulls need a all-star game nominated star to win? I don't think so. But it would be nice to have one or two guys who get star treatment from the referees -- worth 5-10 extra points per game at the free throw line and lots of no-calls.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

McBulls said:


> OK, I'll bite.
> Kirk Hinrich
> Kirk could become an elite point guard in the league, although he will probably not be recognized as such until the Bulls win a championship or two. He is already one of the best, and is getting better. No doubt some yo-yo will quote offensive stats to prove the opposite, but it's Kirk's defense that makes him stand out. BTW dont bring me 82games +/- stuff; it seems to fail as often as it succeeds in capturing defensive effectiveness.
> 
> ...


Ok you gave me two guys, but you didn't give me two guys or even one guy you think they'd compare to. And remember, say you pick one guy, like Manu Ginobili or Dennis Johnson and make a convincing argument... now you're at what... the lowest 2% of top two NBA title contributors.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

McBulls said:


> Recent events call for this thread to be reconsidered.
> 
> Ben Gordon will become a star ... and soon!


Why? Because he hit a bunch of threes in a row?? Like I said, forget the open-ended stuff. Compare him to a name on that list. You can't because those cute threes he gets off, he wouldn't even smell against a Jo Jo White, Clyde Frazier, Dennis Johnson or Joe Dumars. And these were not lead guys on ring winners. Want a lead guy of a reasonable or "Closest" comparison to Gordon. Isiah Thomas. Gordon would cry if he faced Isiah. Does that mean Gordon should be ashamed or we should quit? NO, BUT it does illustrate what people mean when they question our talent. There is a point on the line where we discontinue having a player who can be discussed as someone who COULD be this good, and that point is clear. Gordon could MAX OUT as a second fiddle on a BAD NBA Champion, nothing more. i don't care if he hits 15 shots in a row


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Why? Because he hit a bunch of threes in a row?? Like I said, forget the open-ended stuff. Compare him to a name on that list. You can't because those cute threes he gets off, he wouldn't even smell against a Jo Jo White, Clyde Frazier, Dennis Johnson or Joe Dumars. And these were not lead guys on ring winners. Want a lead guy of a reasonable or "Closest" comparison to Gordon. Isiah Thomas. Gordon would cry if he faced Isiah. Does that mean Gordon should be ashamed or we should quit? NO, BUT it does illustrate what people mean when they question our talent. There is a point on the line where we discontinue having a player who can be discussed as someone who COULD be this good, and that point is clear. Gordon could MAX OUT as a second fiddle on a BAD NBA Champion, nothing more. i don't care if he hits 15 shots in a row


He's got 32 double digit fourth quarter games in his brief career. He's been a more effective scorer in the clutch than Kobe this season. 

There is a whole lot more than one game on which to base the observation that Gordon has special ability.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> He's got 32 double digit fourth quarter games in his brief career. He's been a more effective scorer in the clutch than Kobe this season.
> 
> There is a whole lot more than one game on which to base the observation that Gordon has special ability.


Ok give me a name on that list that you are willing to argue he could be/be as good as in time.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Ok give me a name on that list that you are willing to argue he could be/be as good as in time.


Your whole premise is flawed because you assume that history has ended and you now have the ability to judge the caliber of player who is capable of winning an NBA championship. What would you have said had you been around right before Willis Reed won? That he could never win because he was not as good as Chamberlin and Russell? 

Ben Wallace was not nearly as good as the guys who won recently before him. Yet he won. 
I'd argue that the difference between he and the previous six guys who won is similar to the difference between he and the player Gordon will likely become with more experience and consistancy. 

Are you arguing that Ben Wallace will forever be known as the worst best player who's won a championship besides Dennis Johnson?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

It's not about looking at past teams and figuring out how good their 1st and 2nd options were. I look at this way, what player could be added to our current team to make us a serious contender? 

I think if you added Pau Gasol to our team (or Brand, Nowitzki, Garnett, Yao, etc), for example, we would be contenders. The Bulls are much better than the Grizzlies minus Gasol, and the Grizzlies are a 50 win type team. 

So we are one player away, albeit a really good player (top 15 at least, and fitting to our frontcourt needs), but we're not two or three legends away like some believe.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Your whole premise is flawed because you assume that history has ended and you now have the ability to judge the caliber of player who is capable of winning an NBA championship. What would you have said had you been around right before Willis Reed won? That he could never win because he was not as good as Chamberlin and Russell?
> 
> Ben Wallace was not nearly as good as the guys who won recently before him. Yet he won.
> I'd argue that the difference between he and the previous six guys who won is similar to the difference between he and the player Gordon will likely become with more experience and consistancy.
> ...


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TripleDouble again.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Pippenatorade said:


> Why? Because he hit a bunch of threes in a row?? Like I said, forget the open-ended stuff. Compare him to a name on that list. You can't because those cute threes he gets off, he wouldn't even smell against a Jo Jo White, Clyde Frazier, Dennis Johnson or Joe Dumars. And these were not lead guys on ring winners. Want a lead guy of a reasonable or "Closest" comparison to Gordon. Isiah Thomas. Gordon would cry if he faced Isiah. Does that mean Gordon should be ashamed or we should quit? NO, BUT it does illustrate what people mean when they question our talent. There is a point on the line where we discontinue having a player who can be discussed as someone who COULD be this good, and that point is clear. Gordon could MAX OUT as a second fiddle on a BAD NBA Champion, nothing more. i don't care if he hits 15 shots in a row


Gordon is a better pure shooter than all of the guys above except Johnson. IMO he's a better pure shooter than either Pippen or Jordan -- two great players we both watched for many years. Of course there is more to the game than jump shooting; otherwise the championship Bulls would have featured Steve Kerr as one of their leaders. 

The players you mention above were all very good defensive players and/or great ball handlers, which are areas that Gordon needs to improve. He has improved his defense and ball handling this year, and with Skiles as a tutor, I think he will continue to improve. With that improvement will come more playing time, a starting role and hopefully some more respect from the referees. 

The question you asked originally is whether any current Bulls could ever become stars who lead a championship team. I gave you two names and stand by them -- with the important caveat that they *could* become great, not that they already are. After all, greatness is something that is largely earned by winning titles, which is something that even Lebron James is in no danger of doing.

Will Ben Gordon become a superstar? Maybe yes, maybe no. I think he has great physical gifts, a Jerry West like ability to shoot in the clutch and a great work ethic. But he still has a lot to learn. If he starts to listen to his own publicity, begins to think he is a finished player, or gets hurt he probably won't become the star we hope he can be. But if he continues to work hard and improve in the areas most people think he needs to improve, he can be a Sam Jones-like scorer on a championship team. 

Nice article on Ben this morning in the trib : http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...1apr16,1,2622561.story?coll=chi-sportsnew-hed . I think its a well balanced view of his current status.

BTW, I don't agree with the general premise that HOF players are necessary components of a championship team. However it is very helpful to have been a member of a championship team if you aspire to be in the Hall of Fame.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Pippen, man, sometimes I just don't know what to do with you. Sometimes I begin to doubt you are even a Bulls fan, but that can't be true so I'm trying to understand your argument. Let me try to break it down. If Ben Gordon was 32, Hinrich was 29, Deng was 30, and Chandler was 31 then yea I'd say we have a lack of talent and are simply overachieving to get to the current position of being in the playoffs. This team is young. Gordon is in his second year. What was said about Jordan in his 2nd year, Kobe in his 2nd year, Shaq in his 2nd year. You can't immediately judge a player because he's not averaging 25 and 10 in his 2nd year in the league while at the same time getting virtually no calls from the officials because he's not a "star". 

In my mind, to win a championship, you need not two special players but one. People can argue Kobe is the best basketball player in the game, but everyone of his rings was largely dependent on Shaq. I'd say that in the past 25 years or so, every championship team has had one guy and then four other guys who fill roles. 

Shaq
Duncan
Jordan
Olajuwon
Isiah 
Magic
Bird

Dumars was good, Kobe was great, McHale was unique, Pippen was a great player also, but these guys didn't win championships until the 4th or 5th year of their careers and only because they were playing next to a truly special players. How many titles did the non-MJ bulls win? My point is, that if you want to win a championship, a team needs to grab one of the truly special players that will ever play this game, and that's a lot harder than you might think. Ewing never won a title, Barkley never won a title, etc. Having a lot of talent does not automatically mean your team will be successful. If you're saying that we need a special guy to win a championship, I would have agreed ten years ago or even five years ago, but the game is changing. 10 years ago if you had a top 15 player or two top 25 guys in the league, you made the playoffs simple as that. Now, the teams that have those qualifications in the league who aren't in the playoffs include: Phily(Allen Iverson), Minnesota(Kevin Garnett), Utah(Andrei Kirilenko), Boston(Paul Pierce), Houston(Tracy McGrady/Yao), Seattle(Ray Allen/Rashard Lewis). 

With the recent changes in defense and the lack of defense being played on a nightly basis around the league, basketball has reverted back to its natural state of being more of a team game. The three most successful teams in the league really don't revolve around one guy (Phoenix, San Antonio, and Detroit). It's a team effort which is something that even Jordan understood. Guys like Kerr, Livingston, BJ, Pax, etc. were needed to support MJ. When the Bulls fall into somebody special like that we'll be a) lucky and b) patient enough to keep making the playoffs and chugging away with our "role" players until we grab a special guy like that.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> Your whole premise is flawed because you assume that history has ended and you now have the ability to judge the caliber of player who is capable of winning an NBA championship. What would you have said had you been around right before Willis Reed won? That he could never win because he was not as good as Chamberlin and Russell?
> 
> Ben Wallace was not nearly as good as the guys who won recently before him. Yet he won.
> I'd argue that the difference between he and the previous six guys who won is similar to the difference between he and the player Gordon will likely become with more experience and consistancy.
> ...


Oh wait wait wait. Did I say "we can't win because we don't have a player as good as Bill Walton in 1977"..? No. 

I simply said "Who on this team reminds you of even ONE lead guy in FIFTY years of championship play." Fifty years is a rather large sample size btw. But even aside from that, I just want to know. If we're so "talented"... if questioning our "talent" leads to a retort in quotations, then why is it we don't have one guy you could point to and say "yeah, if he just continues to improve as he has, he could remind you of this lead guy." And we're not talking about 14 years of championship play, we're talking about FIFTY, since 1956. The point is not "We can't win." We're not talking about ability to win per se. We're talking about points on the talent continuum and where we are. 

As far as what I'm arguing I thought that that was stated rather clearly. A poster started a thread that basically put quotations marks on the argument of anyone who questions our talent at all, and the reply is basically to say that there are levels of talent and this is a way you could pinpoint ours. Miami, Cleveland... they can build their team from here on out knowing that they already have THAT GUY, we can't. It's like the difference between the Cavs of the late 80s/early 90s and the Bulls of that time. The Bulls already had two guys like that, so they could afford to get role player after role player. The Cavs of that time were built exactly like us (and I think that you will see us max out in much the same manner they did), and thus they did not have that assurance. They did not need ANOTHER role player; they needed to gamble on the superstar. 

BTW, Willis Reed stood up to Wilt Chamberlain and gave him everything he wanted in 1970. That leg injury he suffered really hampered his career. When he was young, he, along with Walt Bellamy and Nate Thurmond were DEFINITELY looked at as guys who could be reasonably close to a Russell or Wilt with time. Did people think that they WOULD be? Nah, but nobody doubted that they COULD be. I seriously doubt that anyone on our team could approach the level of greatness of anyone on that list NOT named Dennis Johnson.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

The Bulls do lack talent. They have almost no athleticism, they dont have a player who can create shots for himself and they have very little height. And lets not get carried away with this playoff talk. We are talking about making the playoffs with a terrible record in a conference where its possible that FOUR TEAMS WILL HAVE A LOSING RECORD AND STILL MAKE THE PLAYOFFS. In almost any other year, the Bulls would be deep lottery. But good coaching and hustle has gotten them in the mid 30s. But eventually, if this club is ever to do anything, its going to need talent. Cause its not there.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> The Bulls do lack talent. They have almost no athleticism, they dont have a player who can create shots for himself and they have very little height. And lets not get carried away with this playoff talk. We are talking about making the playoffs with a terrible record in a conference where its possible that FOUR TEAMS WILL HAVE A LOSING RECORD AND STILL MAKE THE PLAYOFFS. In almost any other year, the Bulls would be deep lottery. But good coaching and hustle has gotten them in the mid 30s. But eventually, if this club is ever to do anything, its going to need talent. Cause its not there.


This is accurate on sooo many levels, but I have only one slight disagreement.

It seems like Gordon or Deng could actually be a stud/star player in the elite of the NBA, but they aren't being groomed to become those players.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> The Bulls do lack talent. They have almost no athleticism, they dont have a player who can create shots for himself and they have very little height. And lets not get carried away with this playoff talk. We are talking about making the playoffs with a terrible record in a conference where its possible that FOUR TEAMS WILL HAVE A LOSING RECORD AND STILL MAKE THE PLAYOFFS. In almost any other year, the Bulls would be deep lottery. But good coaching and hustle has gotten them in the mid 30s. But eventually, if this club is ever to do anything, its going to need talent. Cause its not there.


Miami has a HOF center, an athletic guard who can create shots for himself, and many tall players.
Our untalented, unathetic, midget team is beating this star-studded team at home by 5 at the half on national TV? 

Nah, that's impossible.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Miami has a HOF center, an athletic guard who can create shots for himself, and many tall players.
> Our untalented, unathetic, midget team is beating this star-studded team at home by 5 at the half on national TV?
> 
> Nah, that's impossible.


So you think we are a better team then Miami based on one half of basketball in what is a meaningless game for the Heat? Am I gathering that right? How many games do you actually think the Bulls would win a first round series against Miami?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Miami has a HOF center, an athletic guard who can create shots for himself, and many tall players.
> Our untalented, unathetic, midget team is beating this star-studded team at home by 5 at the half on national TV?
> 
> Nah, that's impossible.


Are we watching the same game? The Heat starters buried ours.

Our 2nd unit came up big against guys named Doleac, Simian, Anderson, and Posey.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> The Bulls do lack talent. They have almost no athleticism, they dont have a player who can create shots for himself and they have very little height. And lets not get carried away with this playoff talk. We are talking about making the playoffs with a terrible record in a conference where its possible that FOUR TEAMS WILL HAVE A LOSING RECORD AND STILL MAKE THE PLAYOFFS. In almost any other year, the Bulls would be deep lottery. But good coaching and hustle has gotten them in the mid 30s. But eventually, if this club is ever to do anything, its going to need talent. Cause its not there.


Welcome to 2006. The NBA talent level is down, we are not back in the 80's or 90's. We lack talent? Maybe. But so do 25+ teams, by following the logic. 

And Gordon can create his own shot. 

We have little height? We can adress that this very offseason. If with Curry we had "height", we will have height come next season with some signing and one (or two) draft selections. Which height does the Pistons have? A 6'8 center? If Im not mistaken, you were the guy that argued that the height thing was overrated and put the Suns as an example.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> Welcome to 2006. The NBA talent level is down, we are not back in the 80's or 90's. We lack talent? Maybe. But so do 25+ teams, by following the logic.


I think that in terms of the actual talent level of the actual players on the teams, I have to say that even relative to this NBA, the Bulls have to be one of the least talented rosters in the league.

Once again, we have no All-Stars and no player that has ever been an All-Star. To my knowledge, the other NBA teams like that are: the Hawks, the Hornets, the Bobcats, the TrailBlazers, and the Magic (I don't really count Grant Hill as a contributing player). And these teams, other than the Magic, are totally at the bottom of the NBA and none of them near the playoffs.

So let's not talk in terms of objective talent. I think we have lots of decently talented guys. But none of them can even touch Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Chris Bosh, Jason Richardson, Ray Allen, Andrei Kirilenko, Tracy McGrady, Yao Ming, Allen Iverson, and a host of other players on teams that will not be competing in the postseason.

*I can't think of any other way to figure out why we're getting W's on par with teams that have stars and balance on their rosters except that we make the chemistry and the dirty work happen. We ARE undertalented, and I'm proud of it.*

Of course, I want us to see a lot more talent in this system that maximizes talent and fights for every win, so I'm not actually proud of the fact that we're undertalented. But I sort of like looking at other teams in the league and know that we're beating them... and we're not even really supposed to. I'm proud of our guys for playing over their heads.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> So you think we are a better team then Miami based on one half of basketball in what is a meaningless game for the Heat? Am I gathering that right? How many games do you actually think the Bulls would win a first round series against Miami?


This years record clearly shows Miami to be the better team. 
Although the Bulls scored more points overall, Miami took the season series.
But today the Bulls kicked their butt on their home floor on National TV -- first half and last half.
Guess when your're a team of stars it's not cool to bring it every game.

If Bulls see them in the playoffs, Miami better come to play at least 4 times.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

I would be a fool to say the Bulls are more talented than Miami, but the big difference between them is a center that is head and shoulders above everyone else at his position and is out from the league soon.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> Welcome to 2006. The NBA talent level is down, we are not back in the 80's or 90's. We lack talent? Maybe. But so do 25+ teams, by following the logic.
> 
> And Gordon can create his own shot.
> 
> We have little height? We can adress that this very offseason. If with Curry we had "height", we will have height come next season with some signing and one (or two) draft selections. Which height does the Pistons have? A 6'8 center? If Im not mistaken, you were the guy that argued that the height thing was overrated and put the Suns as an example.


Your mistaken

The league is getting smaller, there can be no denying that. But still the best teams have something upfront. We dont. And even relative to the rest of the league, the Bulls still lack talent. Nice win today, but to say we have talent based on this game is beyond absurd, its frankly downright comical. Miami would probably beat Chicago 4-1 in a first round matchup.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> Your mistaken
> 
> The league is getting smaller, there can be no denying that. But still the best teams have something upfront. We dont. And even relative to the rest of the league, the Bulls still lack talent. Nice win today, but to say we have talent based on this game is beyond absurd, its frankly downright comical. Miami would probably beat Chicago 4-1 in a first round matchup.


I think the Bulls have talent, and Im not basing my argument in today's game. I disscused this long ago, when the Bulls were out of playoffs land. 

And I agree: Miami would have no problems handling us in any potential playoffs matchup. But this doesnt mean we are NOT talented. 

And that something upfront we dont have wont be a problem next season. We are 2-3 years from being contenders IMO.

The league is getting smaller and less talented. Same thing happens in soccer, when each day is harder to come by a special talent.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I think Ben, Luol, Noc and Kirk are plenty talented. I guess we can talk about how our making the playoffs is all smoke and mirrors and simply superior effort, but those four guys are really good, and young. While we shouldn't get carried away by this closing run, we should give those guys props for carrying an undersized team into the playoffs. It takes a respectable amount of talent to do what they've done this season IMO. Add some solid frontcourt help and maybe a big guard to them and I honestly think we'll be set to step into the contenders' ring in the East.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

I still think the unselfish offensive system of the Bulls hides the talent levels of their players.

Still, the core players of this team are in their second or third year in the league.

I believe the ability and willingness to play hard should be part of someone's talent level, especially when a mental ability like court vision factors into a player's talent level.

Anyway, we'll see how the Bulls will do in the playoffs, when every team is playing with a sense of urgency.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> I think the Bulls have talent, and Im not basing my argument in today's game. I disscused this long ago, when the Bulls were out of playoffs land.
> 
> And I agree: Miami would have no problems handling us in any potential playoffs matchup. But this doesnt mean we are NOT talented.
> 
> ...



Unless you live in Brazil

The Bulls are a below average team (in terms of talent) in a league, which could be argued (not by me), that lacks talent. If the Bulls were in the west they would be terrible. They get by on good coaching and hustle. They have some "talent" in the backcourt and above average talent at the 3 spot. But they have no talent upfront. Its a nice complement to Scott Skiles and the staff for getting this group into the playoffs and a shot at 500. But we are not a talented team. Maybe in 2-3 years, but I dont see alot of organic growth, outside of Deng, in the current crop. We have what we have with most of our players. Thats Paxs job to add talent to this lot. That worries me, because talent is everywhere, not necessarily in the ACC, Duke or college basketball, but worldwide (see Africa for Soccer and soon basketball). But heart/determination do not equal talent, lets be honest about that. And only special players, like Jordan in basketball or a Ronaldinho in Soccer, possess both. Perhaps thats what is wrong with the league today, too few of the stars have both to be truly special. But thats a different subject. On paper, this Bulls team is really no better then the Knicks. But the games are not played on paper. Coaching, Heart, Hustle won over talent. But I have yet to see an NBA team, with the exception of Detroit, win without truly special talent. And we are nowhere near having it. So few teams do.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

This Bulls team isnt better than Knicks? Are you joking, right? On paper, everywhere, the Bulls are better. 

You have to look at players with both eyes, not see only one side. Its like saying the Bulls are the better team because they have better free throw shooters than another team. OK, that might be true, but free throw shooting is only one aspect of the game. That doesnt make you better. So the Knicks are clearly not better than the Bulls, not even on paper. 

Again, I think I should go back to definitions: what do you understand by talent? Because if the Bulls team has no talent at all, then Im giving up.

And in soccer its the same: when you say to an old man how good Robinho is, for example, he can only laughed after having seen such great players back in the 60's, 70's and 80's.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

rlucas4257 said:


> But heart/determination do not equal talent, lets be honest about that.


I just have to disagree with you on this one. Maybe this was true 20 years ago, when everyone played their guts out and left it all on the floor, but I think it's rare that a team has as many guys who do that as the Bulls do. I think that speaks to the fact that having a motor like that _is a talent_ in its own right. It's a mental talent, not a physical one, but talent all the same. The last two championship teams, Det and SAS, are the ones that have both the physical talent and the mental talent. We have a good deal of the latter, and not quite enough of the former (though I think we have a little more than is generally acknowledged). That's Pax's mandate this summer.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

El Chapu, "on paper" the Knicks are a pretty stacked (from a talent standpoint), in my opinion. Obviously this doesn't always translate to success on the court. We've been over the myriad of problems with the make up of that team (selfish, no heart, lack of defenders, etc) but there is a lot of talent there.

I agree with a lot of your points in this thread Chapu, but one statement you made was about the overall height of the Pistons. True they have a 6"8 center, but they also have a 6'11 power forward and a 6'9 small forward (with an enormous wingspan that makes him play bigger). They also have decent height in their backcourt (6'3 and 6'7).


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

The Bulls have a 7'1" power forward (Chandler), a 6'8" center (Sweetney), and a 6'9" small forward with an enormous wingspan (Deng).


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

from my vantage point, if the bull lacks "talent" of any type, it's interior talent. this has been the most glaring deficiency all season. othella, sweetney, schensher, songalia and allen are below average nba players. skiles deserves credit for utilizing their strengths and minimizing their weaknesses. chandler is a below average talent as well, but (due to his youth and lack of college training) i'm still holding out hope that he'll improve to a 12/12/3 player that can go 35-40 minutes without fouling out.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

In my view, talent is anything that helps a team win games. Heart, determination, ability to play within a team structure, and basketball IQ are as much a part of the definition of "talent" as athletic ability.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> In my view, talent is anything that helps a team win games. Heart, determination, ability to play within a team structure, and basketball IQ are as much a part of the definition of "talent" as athletic ability.


Right. Larry Bird had talent. Corey Benjamin had athleticism and some might think he had 'potential', although that obviously hasn't panned out. I think our guys have plenty of talent considering where they are at in their careers. And I believe their pre-draft combine results showed that several of our core players also have more athletic gifts than some seem to acknowledge. My recollection is that Deng has very good foot speed & length, while Hinrich & Gordon were very good all around athletes. Chandler has defensive & rebounding talent and obvious athletic gifts. We don't have any 'stars', but I think we have multiple future all-stars on our team with great talent for their age and good athleticism. How else could we have nearly a 500 record w/ only 1 legitimate post player and one of the youngest set of core players in the league after losing 2 starters from last season? If we lack talent, lack athleticism and have an underage team with only 1 decent post player, then Skiles must be the coach of the century. I see us very much like a younger version of the Pistons, although we are presently lacking anyone like Rasheed Wallace.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

no doubt we have some talent on this team. we're just not talented across the board. 

we have 4 good to excellent pgs. 
2 excellent prospects at sf. 
and chandler who is dominant, but after 5 years still can't manage to play a whole season at a consistently high level.

but arguably no 'natural' shooting guard. 
our best power forward is learning to play center. 
and i don't see any of our remaining pf's as must have's as we build to the future.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

TwinkieTowers said:


> The Bulls have a 7'1" power forward (Chandler), a 6'8" center (Sweetney), and a 6'9" small forward with an enormous wingspan (Deng).


Exactly. Obviously its not the same to have a 7'1 stiff than a 6'9 talented foward. Give me the 6'9 foward over the 7'2 stiff. 

And thats why I say the Bulls wont have much height issues next year if they address things accordingly. They could add two 6'10+ players, with talent. 

BTW, our lucky GM also has the luxury to swap picks with the Knicks next season, and that is a very interesing big men crop. So one of our main weakness could be a plus aspect soon. 

Dkg1: I agree the Knicks are talented, but thats not the entire story. Would you argue Marbury is talented? But at the same time, isnt he somewhat of a cancer? So both things should be taken into consideration. And maybe the negatives aspects outweight the positives ones in the Big Apple.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

McBulls said:


> Miami has a HOF center, an athletic guard who can create shots for himself, and many tall players.
> Our untalented, unathetic, midget team is beating this star-studded team at home by 5 at the half on national TV?
> 
> Nah, that's impossible.


I believe Cleveland swept the REGULAR season series with the Bulls in 1989 or 1992. Next.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally Posted by *rlucas4257*





> But heart/determination do not equal talent, lets be honest about that.





Interesting. It could go the oposite way. What good is talent with no heart? I see a team (the Bulls) play their hearts out every night with "no talent"(that seems to be the thing to say around here) yet we win games that way. 


You mentioned the knicks on paper being as good as the bulls. Yet where is the desire, heart and determination. What good does talent do a player if they waste it?


We have a team with heart and determination in almost every player. We add some talent to this team...talent with similar convictions, we could go places. 

I do agree with you. Most teams that do well have at least one star. We do need a star or two.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> In my view, talent is anything that helps a team win games. Heart, determination, ability to play within a team structure, and basketball IQ are as much a part of the definition of "talent" as athletic ability.


Russell
Chamberlain
Reed
Robertson
West
Havlicek
Barry
Walton
Johnson
Hayes
Abdul-Jabbar
Bird
Moses Malone
Magic
Thomas
Jordan
Olajuwon
Robinson
O'Neal
Duncan 
Wallace

On that list, I don't see one guy who, even in the attributes you list, can be touched by anyone on our roster. Now or in the future or in the future of the future. And then in all the things on the other side there is that talent too. Where our guys just flat lack it, these guys, this small fraternity of players, excels in it.

The Heat do all of those things when they don't have the season wrapped up AND they have Dwyane Wade. The Pistons do all of those things AND they have Rasheed Wallace. In a couple years you will be seeing the Cavs do those things AND have Lebron James. Same with Orlando. 

This whole idea that we lack talent, but we should be proud because we are still beating talented teams... it works against El Chapu's "stinky 25".. Against the other however many teams left over, when it COUNTS, you don't get wins just by caring. In the regular season, it is sad, that against almost all the teams, you can get wins without much talent just by caring. Look at the Jazz. People thought that when Malone left and Stock left, they'd win 15 games. People thought wrong. They've had almost no talent too, but they get wins by showing up. Pretty sad NBA if you ask me. 

But when you get to that final 8, the conference semis, all the suddens every team shows up every single position. You aren't going to shellshock anyone by getting up in their grill anymore. AND they have talent. 

*You'll never win without both. You have to show up too. That's why people can say "Iverson is a superstar and look at Philly" and they are missing the point. To say the Bulls need talent to win isn't saying that teams with talent don't need to also have all the other things down. But when you get to the final 8, teams have a lot of talent and they show up period. If you are lacking in either side of the coin you will be exposed.*


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

truebluefan said:


> Interesting. It could go the oposite way. What good is talent with no heart?


ITS NOT A ONE OR THE OTHER ARGUMENT. Nobody is saying, "the Bulls need talent, they should give up their heart and be like the Knicks." You need both. When I say "we really don't have talent and there are teams that do" I'm not saying that if you get talent you can just throw your jock on the floor and win. The 2002 Miami Hurricanes proved that that is not the case in the Fiesta Bowl.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> On that list, I don't see one guy who, even in the attributes you list, can be touched by anyone on our roster. Now or in the future or in the future of the future. And then in all the things on the other side there is that talent too. Where our guys just flat lack it, these guys, this small fraternity of players, excels in it.


Huh? You can say that about majority of teams out there. Even the majority of teams that played when they played. Yet there were still some teams that were good despite that. I dont get your point. Players you listed do not come around that often. Back then and even now. 

Are you calling them talent? If so then I see your point, but then one can say by your list, there is not much talent in the NBA at all these days.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

OT Pip...when are you disbanding the club in your sig??


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Pippenatorade said:


> But when you get to that final 8, the conference semis, all the suddens every team shows up every single position. You aren't going to shellshock anyone by getting up in their grill anymore. AND they have talent.
> [/b]


Gosh Pippenatorade, is this a concession that the Bulls have a chance to go to the final 8?

That's palpable progress!


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> ITS NOT A ONE OR THE OTHER ARGUMENT. Nobody is saying, "the Bulls need talent, they should give up their heart and be like the Knicks." You need both. When I say "we really don't have talent and there are teams that do" I'm not saying that if you get talent you can just throw your jock on the floor and win. The 2002 Miami Hurricanes proved that that is not the case in the Fiesta Bowl.


I see what you mean, but I was addressing Rlucas statement of " But heart/determination do not equal talent, lets be honest about that." 

In our case it makes up for "lack of talent" and in the case of other players, other teams, talent not used is a waste. 

But yeah, both go hand-in-hand. When that is the case, a team is something special.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Russell
> Chamberlain
> Reed
> Robertson
> ...


You are basically saying that we don't have the "talent" to win the championship. That's not a general "lack of talent", and it's a VERY narrow thing you're saying. The Bulls share this "talentlessness" with at least 27 teams in the NBA.

And do you really think that it was Stockton and Malone's fault that they didn't win? You think it was some flaw in their ability to play basketball that didn't propel them into the NBA championship? You think that Ewing wasn't "championship material"? How about Barkley? Was he not championship worthy?

Sometimes, guys are good enough but teams are not. You do need both, as you stated, but you can't back that argument with the fact that none of our guys have won championships.

For what it's worth, I think that a talented team and talented players are different. If you could possibly isolate either, the Bulls might be the 2nd most talented team in the league but have one of the 5 least talented roster of players in the league.

But I think that when virtually Detroit's entire roster of players made the All-Star team, it really said something about the coaches in the league. They know that a lot of these guys ARE talented, that their team presence talent is extremely high, and that the team-chemistry helped each individual player develop as well.

So the true answer, in my opinion, is that they are RELATED. The "jib" talent and the "individual player" talents are related, because individuals can develop their games to a higher level in a winning environment. I remember a few years ago that DaBullz was preaching this like crazy. Our young guys will develop not by getting extensive garbage time in what basically was garbage SEASONS, but that they'd develop in winning programs with good players starting in front of them. The Pistons have become living proof of it.

But I think the Bulls will become living proof of it as well. Pip, you are looking at our team with a snapshot, when our team has a ton more upside than people know. I don't think even Paxson understands how much better our players can become. Luol Deng is an effective presence, and he really hasn't mastered the game yet. Ben Gordon is showing that he can be a reliable 20-point scorer when he gets comfortable within the offense. Hinrich is already one of the best-kept secrets at his position. Nocioni is on a tear, could easily start at SF for many teams in the league, and hopefully will become the 6th man who gets 30 mpg. 

Who is to say that if we didn't have two more frontcourt talents that were of the quality of these four talents that we wouldn't have a strong, balanced, developing team? 

I agree that the Pistons model isn't the typical formula for winning a championship, but if any team is on their way there, it's the Bulls. And I really admire the Pistons. Those guys DO have egos, you know, but they decided to forsake them somewhat so that they could have a bigger team identity with a greater conglomerate team ego.

*It might not be typical, and I respect your opinions (widely held by many smart basketball people), but a lot of people are recognizing that something "different" is happening in Chicago.* Whether or not we continue this, I don't know, but I think we're in a good position to go either the superstar way or the Pistons way, and I'd personally love it if we could build a Pistons-like consistency instead of relying on talent more than teamwork.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

I'd really like to see Paxson to continue to go the Pistons way. I don't know about all you guys, but I am starting to become more fond of these current Bulls than championship Bulls. I know this current squad has talent, but let the public perceive that they are undertalented; if there is such a thing as a Cinderella team in professional basketball, then this is it.

Paxson can still go for a "star", but which star will be willing to probably average "only" 18 points per game? I think KG may be one such player who could accept a drop in scoring production. His current career stats already suggest he will probably become a Hall of Famer. I don't think he would mind a scoring decrease, and his rebound numbers would probably still be about the same.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I think that other than the lack of a true star, the Bulls lack of talent is really in their depth this season. 

I think a top 6 of Hinrich, Noc, Chandler, Duhon, Deng and Gordon is pretty solid. 

After that, there are no guys who should be higher than 9-10 on a decent team.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The Bulls need more talent. I think we can all agree on that. But they have talent now as well and some very good talent at that. The theory that this is a team that "lacks" talent is absurd. What it lacks is diversity of talent because, other than one one-dimensional player, there is no talented size. 

Matrix is noting that in the history of the league, a lot of the elite players have won championships. Well, duh. Its great to have one of the 2 or 3 best players in the league on your team. But most teams don't have that and even a lot of the teams that do, or did, never won the championship.

The Bulls are in a very nice position going forward to continue to build. That is what matters. Lets not lose sight of that while we lament our "untalented" team's second straight playoff appearance despite their absurd youth and inexperience.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I have to confess that I don't have a clue what this argument is about. I mean we're somewhat talented, and we need another top level player in the right age bracket. And we need a couple more years. And some luck. Does anyone really disagree with that?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

truebluefan said:


> Huh? You can say that about majority of teams out there. Even the majority of teams that played when they played. Yet there were still some teams that were good despite that. I dont get your point. Players you listed do not come around that often. Back then and even now.
> 
> Are you calling them talent? *If so then I see your point, but then one can say by your list, there is not much talent in the NBA at all these days.*


Ding, ding, ding! Now we're making headway. There isn't much talent in the NBA these days. But people make that out to be like "oh there's no talent, you can win without it." Just because there isn't much, people think it's easier. It's not. That means if you actually HAVE a player like that.. a Dwyane Wade, Lebron James or soon Dwight Howard, it becomes that much easier than it was when there WERE MORE players like that. 

My argument is not in a vacuum. It's in reply to a post that suggests anyone who dare step out of the party picket line and ask questions about our talent should be replied to with quotation marks. Our talent IS questionable. That is the reality. Now, if all you want is a GOOD team, great. The 1992 Cavaliers were a GOOD team. Nothing to be ashamed of. If people are replying with "hey, if all we ever become is 'Price to Hot Rod Williams, back to Price over to Nance for the dunk' I'll be happy," then great. I just will never be happy with that.

But the argument was simply to illustrate that even with our roster's youth and the fact that they will improve, there is a ceiling. Some people, whom I'm convinced have very little grasp of NBA history, seem to be taking the ostrich approach here. Like "oh well we're so young. We'll win 40-41 games this year. Just add 4 wins for every year our roster gets older and 2 playoff wins for every year that passes and the championship will be ours by natural progression one day" they are living a pipe dream similar to the DREAM that Cleveland fans had. I knew Cav fans back then. They thought that the superiority of their roster 1-7 and team play would overcome the selfish ballhog Jordan and his two man show. It just doesn't work that way in the NBA. And my point is simply to show that by looking at a small list. The sad, cold reality of it is.. get someone who "belongs" on that list, and everything gets easier. Ironically, we are where Cleveland once was. And nobody sees that our fans sound as foolishly the same as their's did. That may sound cynical, but I'm only stating my opinion. Yours could be drastically different and that would be fine with me. We're all Bulls fans here.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

GB said:


> OT Pip...when are you disbanding the club in your sig??


I'm kinda not. Our record with him last year was far better and we were headed to the third best record in the east after starting 0-9. We'll talk about gleeful bumps and cute little sig comments after the first round.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

McBulls said:


> Gosh Pippenatorade, is this a concession that the Bulls have a chance to go to the final 8?
> 
> That's palpable progress!


Not a chance. If the Bulls win more than one game against Detroit or Miami I'll be very proud of Chris Duhon, Kirk Hinrich, Luol Deng, Andres Nocioni and Scott Skiles... a.k.a. the five guys winning in spite of No Show, Glorified Ainge and Butterbean Esch


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Showtyme said:


> You are basically saying that we don't have the "talent" to win the championship. That's not a general "lack of talent", and it's a VERY narrow thing you're saying. The Bulls share this "talentlessness" with at least 27 teams in the NBA.
> 
> And do you really think that it was Stockton and Malone's fault that they didn't win? You think it was some flaw in their ability to play basketball that didn't propel them into the NBA championship? You think that Ewing wasn't "championship material"? How about Barkley? Was he not championship worthy?
> 
> ...


Look I'm not saying that just about the whole NBA doesn't stink today. When people say "well MJ wouldn't be able to shoot 53.9% from the field cause the defenders are so much longer and more athletic," I almost laugh my bleep off until I can't breath. 1988 MJ would average 60% in today's NBA. Wade is at 49% now and MJ himself shot a higher percentage than Kobe is this season, at age 40 back in 2003 with the Wiz. Surely the NBA didn't get that much better in 3 years. Today's NBA is a joke compared to 1992. Hell, the NBA of 1996 was a joke compared to 1992 and previous. Maybe even 1994 was a joke compared to 1992. Ok, I'll calm down. Look the NBA does suck, and I certainly give the Bulls credit. I don't like Tyson Chandler and I think Ben Gordon is overrated, but I'll never approve the scapegoating of him that was going on earlier this year. BUT, that said, I give Noce and Kirk and Du and Skiles and Deng all the credit in the world for how they come out and approach the game. It IS a shame that Deng comes out and dominates and No Show Chandler gets his face on the front of ESPN.com for doing the best thing he did all day (making a face), but that's beside the point. 

I'm not one of these guys who is like "keep your jib, I only want talent." I defend Eddy Curry and what we were with Curry a lot, but no one ever notices that Curry is about the only guy I've ever defended whose talent is above his jib. I see some guys like k4e who like Curry because they just gravitate to that type of player, so they also love Crawford and Stardizzle or whatever his new name is this week. I'm not into "Baller" types. But I'm realistic. There are two sides to the coin. While I recognize the effort of this team, there will come a time when it won't be enough. And I love the movie Hoosiers btw. I think that that stuff is great. In HIGH school and college where it belongs. In the NBA, as Lasorda said about pro sports, there is nothing but winning. There is no education like you preach to young guys or moral victories. It is win or go home. So while others are thinking about trading for Paul Pierce or someone who will only make us marginally better, or thinking that this draft is just gonna bring us that pie in the sky, I'm secretly obsessing about GETTING a guy like Wade. I may be unrealistic too, but at least my unrealism is pointed in the direction of recognizing history and what it teaches us. 

I'm not saying that I'm not talking about a small group of teams in history. But someone started a thread basically acting like the fact that we are winning young just means everyone should shut up about our lack of talent, like discussing where we are on the spectrum is a futile venture because if we just wait, this team is gonna lay golden eggs at the rate its going at. And I'm saying that it is useful to point to a spot on the talent spectrum and say "This is where we are and history shows us that this is where you need to be." I'm not saying that we can't still be good if we don't get there, but not recognizing that THERE is where we want to be and just smiling is unrealistic to me.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

....


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> I see some guys like k4e who like Curry because they just gravitate to that type of player, so they also love Crawford and Stardizzle or whatever his new name is this week. I'm not into "Baller" types.


Whoa whoa whao pip, that's not my type of player at all.

Curry is a good center and Crawford is a nice combo guard. There is nothing flashy or "ballah" like about Curry's game anyway, IMO.

My favorite players since I've followed the team are MJ, Pip, Kukoc, Artest, Crawford, Deng and Nocioni.

Curry is a valuable commodity...we were a better team with him... it will be hard to replace him. I hate the flash over substance movement in the NBA... as much as I hate the guaranteed contract. But, I also feel that players that may be into the more "ballah" side of the NBA can still help a team and can still be useful players.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Whoa whoa whao pip, that's not my type of player at all.
> 
> Curry is a good center and Crawford is a nice combo guard. There is nothing flashy or "ballah" like about Curry's game anyway, IMO.
> 
> ...


I knew that was coming. Wise guy rule number 1! You don't name names. Sorry K4E. I just always thought you were into the "Ballers." Thanks for setting me straight. I do agree that SOME can. But they need something like Curry's valuable post scoring AND at least a good attitude even if they aren't Rudy on the court. And from all indications, Curry was never a bad attitude guy.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> Note my moniker if you want, I'm done being nice about it honestly. Whatever.
> 
> Listen, you can go on with that fantasy if you want to. "Why talk about talent, don't look at the man behind the curtain, you might go blind. We must trust the vision, that is what is important." Excuse me while I go barf.
> 
> ...


I thought my post started out by saying the Bulls need more talent and that "we can all agree on that." I don't think I mentioned Paxson even once. 

I'm simply saying this team has some very strong talent, but it needs more diversity of talent going forward. And that, so far, its achieved a lot given the lack of diversity and youth and that this is something to be encouraged about.

I certainly agree with you, as I think we all do, that having one of the best players in league in a given year is a good thing. And, for the record, about 90% of what you just wrote doesn't actually apply to anything I wrote. So spare me the lecture about sticking to the topic.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Just for the record, Ed Nealy, if your old enough to remember who he was, had heart, hustle and determination, but did he have talent? I believe heart, hustle and determination, proven here, are exclusive of talent. You are only a special player when you have both. The Bulls have lots of one, but not alot, or below average, of the other, mostly cause they get a zero upfront. Its not distributed on the roster. I believe the Bulls have only 4 players who have a prayer of starting on other teams in the league, and 5 who would be anyone elses rotation. And one of those 5 is hurt right now, but was a bit player for Sac last year.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Just for the record, Ed Nealy, if your old enough to remember who he was, had heart, hustle and determination, but did he have talent? I believe heart, hustle and determination, proven here, are exclusive of talent. You are only a special player when you have both. The Bulls have lots of one, but not alot, or below average, of the other, mostly cause they get a zero upfront. Its not distributed on the roster. I believe the Bulls have only 4 players who have a prayer of starting on other teams in the league, and 5 who would be anyone elses rotation. And one of those 5 is hurt right now, but was a bit player for Sac last year.


It wouldn't surprise me if Nealy put up Nocioni-like numbers if he got a lot of consistent PT. He'd certainly put up similar numbers of bruinses on opponents, too.

If he were a bulls' player, he'd have "talent" magically.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if Nealy put up Nocioni-like numbers if he got a lot of consistent PT. He'd certainly put up similar numbers of bruinses on opponents, too.
> 
> If he were a bulls' player, he'd have "talent" magically.


I'm gonna have to go with rlucas on this one. Nealy would lose a footrace to the Bulls' version of Robert Parrish. Noc may not be the most athletic guy around, but he's generally capable. Nealy always looked slow and 10lbs heavy to boot to me.

Speaking of heavy, am I the only one who thinks Sweetney might have dropped 10-15lbs since mid-season? He's still too heavy but he's a bit trimmer and a bit quicker than his completely ponderous form before he got benched.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I'm gonna have to go with rlucas on this one. Nealy would lose a footrace to the Bulls' version of Robert Parrish. Noc may not be the most athletic guy around, but he's generally capable. Nealy always looked slow and 10lbs heavy to boot to me.
> 
> Speaking of heavy, am I the only one who thinks Sweetney might have dropped 10-15lbs since mid-season? He's still too heavy but he's a bit trimmer and a bit quicker than his completely ponderous form before he got benched.


Nealy was clearly on the Bulls to give hard fouls.

The REAL question here is the obvious one.

Suppose that all teams try to emulate the "pistons formula" - at some point, teams do emulate the winning teams as evidenced by teams trying the Triangle a lot during the Bulls' dynasty.

Now you have "all things being equal" except for talent.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Speaking of heavy, am I the only one who thinks Sweetney might have dropped 10-15lbs since mid-season? He's still too heavy but he's a bit trimmer and a bit quicker than his completely ponderous form before he got benched.


I'm waiting for next season, contract year baby. Hopefully he plays well so we can ship him off for something worthwhile, if we haven't done so by then.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Nealy was clearly on the Bulls to give hard fouls.
> 
> The REAL question here is the obvious one.
> 
> ...


Not just talent - you also have age and continuity. And a random element reflecting injuries, ping pong bounces, behavior and other goofy **** you can't totally predict. And I wouldn't go so far as to assume every team would emulate that formula. The formulas are likely to change over time and the uncertainty about what exactly the best formula is will lead different teams to try different variations.

So you've got to have
* The right formula
* The right talent
* In the right combination of age and experience (how would the Sixers be different with CWebb, AI, and Iggy all in their primes, for example?)
* And with the right luck

At least those are the big factors I can think of.


----------

