# Is Jamal, or will he ever be, better than Arenas?



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Yes. This season. And for every season afterwards. He's got more skillz.


----------



## Jumpman23 (Oct 10, 2002)

*Yeah he will*

From what I've seen from Jamal, especially during the last 20 games of the season, I really believe he will be a special player...a top 5 point guard in the league. IF he will be better then Arernas I don't anyone can say for sure. Arenas had the oppertunity to play 35-38 min/game for an entire season...where as Crawford played 10 min one game 5 the next then 25 in another...so his stats aren't going to be as good as that of Arenas. JC is taller though and I think much quicker. He has a MUCH better 3pt shot, his assist to turnover ratio is also better. So I think next year he'll definetly be the better pg.:yes:


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

It's scary how close these guys stats are when you compare Crawford's last year and Arenas numbers the year before this one.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

Crawford put up Arenas like numbers when he started. Hopefully, he'll start the ENTIRE year next year. And Crawford is taller and has a better Assist/TO ratio.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

I think it's just about impossible to even guess who'll be the better player in the long run at this point. Last season I believe Arenas was better, but he also had free reign at PG whereas Crawford was in a battle with Jay most of the season. As for the future, I have no clue.


----------



## Da Bull$ (Aug 11, 2003)

Ya is now per 48 and alwayd will be.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

There is something I just don't like about Arenas

Kind of like an Artestesque like disruptive instability


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Yes. This season. And for every season afterwards. He's got more skillz.


I agree. Jamal will prove to everyone, this season, that he is better than Arenas.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> There is something I just don't like about Arenas
> 
> Kind of like an Artestesque like disruptive instability


I agree with you about that in Arenas, the thing is, I see it in Crawford as well, though more off the floor. I never got the feeling he has totally commited to the Bulls, body and mind. This may be due to the Bulls bringing in Jay and now Hinrich, who I think was brought in to play point, not SG.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree with you about that in Arenas, the thing is, I see it in Crawford as well, though more off the floor. I never got the feeling he has totally commited to the Bulls, body and mind. This may be due to the Bulls bringing in Jay and now Hinrich, who I think was brought in to play point, not SG.


Agree.

Kirk was definately brought in as a point and next to TJ Ford I think he is the most pure point in the draft - just so happens he has a nice J ( tho we didn't see too mant go down in SL - hence Kirk is a bust already :sigh: ) 

I think Jamal matured a lot in the back half of the season. I always thought he was waaaay immature and he was his own biggest enemy in how he chose to handle situations

I give him his due for how he handled himself - he seems more mature and settled now that he has some confidence


----------



## WhoDaBest23 (Apr 16, 2003)

Jamal will definitely be better than Arenas. He'll prove that this upcoming season. Arenas had a chance to blossom in GS and he took advantage of it. Jamal will have that chance this season and he'll show his true talent on the court. :yes:


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

I don't want to discount Crawford's performance over the final 20 games of last season. He gave a lot of people a good indication of what he's capable of.

The problem I have is that he's yet to prove that he can play with pressure. In fact, if we're to draw any conclusions at all about his performance last year we can't ignore the fact that until *after* the trade deadline Crawford basically sucked big time. Consider this. When he was in direct competition with Williams and when he had to deal with the possibility of being traded, Jamal shot 37% from the field and 32% from the three point line.

After the trade deadline passed, he shot 46% from the field and 40% from the three point line.

What does this all mean? I can't say for certain. But one might conclude that he doesn't respond well to competition or pressure situations over which he has very little control.

Was this all part of immaturity? :whoknows:

This season he's going to get the chance to demonstrate again, over the course of an entire season, if he's got what it takes inside. Can he deal with the pressures associated with making a serious push for a playoff slot? Can he step up when it matters? We're going to find out, aren't we?

Before we make any bold predictions about what kind of player he'll be, or whether he'll outperform a point guard who just signed a $60+ million dollar free agent contract, lets see what he can do in games that matter. I for one hope he succeeds like crazy. But he's got a lot to prove this season before anyone can legitimately compare him to a player like Arenas.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> I don't want to discount Crawford's performance over the final 20 games of last season. He gave a lot of people a good indication of what he's capable of.
> 
> The problem I have is that he's yet to prove that he can play with pressure. In fact, if we're to draw any conclusions at all about his performance last year we can't ignore the fact that until *after* the trade deadline Crawford basically sucked big time. Consider this. When he was in direct competition with Williams and when he had to deal with the possibility of being traded, Jamal shot 37% from the field and 32% from the three point line.
> ...


Kismet brings up a very important issue. We have all seen players who want the ball in the fourth quarter of important games and those guys who don't.

Remember the Kings-Lakers series two years ago. Of course, if the ball had bounced a little differently the Kings would have won that series, but it really shouldn't have been that close. What made it close was that outside of Mike Bibby (and sometimes Chris Webber), there weren't many Kings who wanted the ball when the game was on the line late in that series. The Kings at times played scared and that was the main reason that series was as close as it was.

These guys on the Kings hit key shots all season and during other playoff series, but when the pressure was really on, they started to fold. Whereas Mike Bibby who had not put up big numbers during the season stepped up when it counted.

It worries me that Crawford has only been able to perform late in seasons when his minutes were assured. If the pressure of losing minutes to Jay Williams was too much pressure, how will he respond in the 4th quarter of game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals? Will he welcome the presssure like Mike Bibby or Tony Parker or will he shy away from it like many of the Kings and much of U.S. team at the World Championships last year?

There is no way to know the answer to this question. Crawford has hit some big fourth quarter shots, but so have a lot of these other guys who didn't answer the call when the pressure was _really_ on? Is the first half of last season a good indicator of how Crawford responds to real pressure? I hope not.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

As far as Arenas and Crawford- Arenas has really shown some stuff. Of course, he also was benched for Earl Boykins in most 4th quarters.

Can Crawford be better? Yeah. Is it likely he'll be better? I think so. Is it guaranteed? No, not really.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I tend to disagree with Crawford only playing with the pressure off.If anyone who has ever played team sports will attest that after taking over the pg spot after the all star break there was more pressure on Crawford to show what he could do more than any other player because it was probably his one and only chance to prove himself after the all the drama of the first half of the season .


As for sucking the first half his shooting % doesnt tell the entire story as he actually directed the team well and played a lot fo the 4th quarter while only averaging 18mpg in december and 17mpg in november.

I think his late year surge was more due to BC's finally stopping the yanking of his chain after every mistake moreso than Crawfords playing well with assured minutes.

Does anyone really think that if he played poorly that Bc wouldnt have went back to Jay ? 

If you look at +/- of the quarters Jamal played in the first half of the season and his play during the second half I think it more than shows what Jamal is made of and while its easy to say the game meant nothing they were actually a HUGE stepping stone for the players and the franchise.


----------



## blizzaw665 (May 23, 2003)

Crawford is not as good as Arenas yet. Hopefully, he won't be until after this upcoming season. If Arenas can get 10mil per year, than Crawford will expect the same if he does as well as Arenas did last year. We cannot afford to pay Rose 16mil, ERob 7mil, Crawford 10mil, Chandler 11mil, and Curry 11mil (Not to mention Fizer's possible extension and, of course, the rest of the team.) That is why I honestly wonder if we drafted Hinrich this year to let him get better so he can start next year, and let Crawford walk. In fact, I wonder if they let Fizer walk as well. That way, we can afford to re-sign Chandler and Curry, who should be the #1 priority.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>blizzaw665</b>!
> Crawford is not as good as Arenas yet. Hopefully, he won't be until after this upcoming season. If Arenas can get 10mil per year, than Crawford will expect the same if he does as well as Arenas did last year. We cannot afford to pay Rose 16mil, ERob 7mil, Crawford 10mil, Chandler 11mil, and Curry 11mil (Not to mention Fizer's possible extension and, of course, the rest of the team.) That is why I honestly wonder if we drafted Hinrich this year to let him get better so he can start next year, and let Crawford walk. In fact, I wonder if they let Fizer walk as well. That way, we can afford to re-sign Chandler and Curry, who should be the #1 priority.


Curry may very well demand and deserve a max contract. 
As for chandler? He needs to show more consistancy if he wants the max. He has one giant game and five average or below. Conditioning has a lot to do with it. If Tyson wants a max contract, he has a lot more to do than eddy does at this time.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

This is a very interesting thread. Personally I think Jamal & Arenas are very similar players. I could very well imagine them both being very close to the same level. Hopefully Jamal will shine this season (hopefully after we give him a long term extension) and will prove to be a little better than Arenas. But Arenas is a player in his own right and I would imagine these players will be very close ability wise.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I think the reason why arenas is talked about more is the fact that he was a second round pick wasn't he? And Crawford was a #8? Or #7.. So good things was expected of Jamal. Gilbert game into the league and learned how to play the point and is a decent player. He had more to prove.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

I believe Arenas is currently the better of the two, and will have a better NBA career.. here's why:

1) He led the young Warriors to a 17 win turnaround in the West. He is a difference maker
2) He is the superior defender-- his MO coming into the league was that of being a good PG defender his rookie year, he's added to this his sophomore season and shown potential to be a great defender
3) He gets to the line-- TOP20 in FT attempts last season. Driving/finishing/getting to the charity stripe is a weakness in Jamal's game. And no, I don't expect it to ever be one of his strengths
4) He's more physical and has a better frame -- 6'3" and a 6'10" wingspan (same as Jamal). Jamal is an ectomorph who will likely have trouble putting on more weight in the future

Just my opinion. I guess I'm once again in the minority here. We'll see how the season unfolds. Should be fun!


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> I don't want to discount Crawford's performance over the final 20 games of last season. He gave a lot of people a good indication of what he's capable of.
> 
> The problem I have is that he's yet to prove that he can play with pressure. In fact, if we're to draw any conclusions at all about his performance last year we can't ignore the fact that until *after* the trade deadline Crawford basically sucked big time. Consider this. When he was in direct competition with Williams and when he had to deal with the possibility of being traded, Jamal shot 37% from the field and 32% from the three point line.
> ...


Jamal should be fine under pressure.

You seem to be extremely optimistic for the big guys who still have a lot to prove as shown in the Eddy Curry thread, but extremely skeptical of Jamal even though Jamal's been through more pressure in his young career than Tyson and Eddy combined. It's really funny (but also interesting and possibly correct) how you argue that Eddy's and Tyson's improved play during the second halves of the last two seasons might be attributed to being "too tight muscle-wise to play the game fluidly." "I'm thinking it might have taken that long for their bodies to loosen up enough to allow them to regain touch and flexability. Has anyone noticed how both of them were attrocious at the free throw line until February or March when all of a sudden they seem to re-acquire their shooting touch?" 

No mention of the lack of pressure those two face during those months. Cart and Floyd didn't hesitate to give them minutes during that time. Now I wish Tyson and Eddy would have gotten their a$$es kicked more somehow by the coaches really making them earn their time and playing them against gorillas or something so they could toughen up and know that they could be dominant. 

Jamal has played under the very real pressure of getting traded and benched for the past 3 years, whereas Eddy and Tyson have been coodled and coddled as our franchise cornerstones who have known that were eventually going to get their minutes. They've been allowed to grow on their own, which is OK, but not the ***-k1cking that Jamal's gotten. 

I can only recall the horrible February as the time where Jamal really sucked and couldn't hit the side of the ocean. His best production pre-trade deadline was the subpar January with averages of 10.4 and 4.3 in 20 minutes, and even then, he was helping to keep the team close in games when he played 20 or more minutes, most notably the 101-102 loss to the Heat where he hit a last second three. The knock on him at the time was his aversion to the paint. But now that he can score, he's become a ballhog.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> I believe Arenas is currently the better of the two, and will have a better NBA career.. here's why:
> 
> 1) He led the young Warriors to a 17 win turnaround in the West. He is a difference maker
> ...


We're both in the minority. People are so blinded by team loyalty that they don't recognize the players for what they actually are.

The 17 win turnaround for GSW, and in the WEST, is one hellaciously impressive feat.

You forgot to mention that Arenas did it for 82 games, consistently.

Peace!


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

ELDRUHMAI, Tyson and Eddy must also prove that they can deliver in the clutch and when the pressure's on. You'll get no arguement from me on that issue.

But they do have one less season of experience than JC, so I guess they deserve to be cut just a tiny bit more slack than Jamal in this area. However, if the Bulls are going to make the playoffs there's no doubt that they'll have to step up and produce *this season*.

Please don't mistake my remarks as a criticism of Crawford. I consider the point I raised about him and how he might deal with pressure as more of an _unanswered question_ than a flaw or shortcoming. But let's face it...if he wants the Bulls to make a long term financial committment to him, well, in some ways this season has become his personal Armageddon, hasn't it? Heck, the fact that this thread comparing him to Arenas exists sort of sets his performance bar for the coming season, doesn't it?

Playoffs? Long term contract extension? *NOW THAT'S NBA PRESSURE!* If he has a banner year and the Bulls break through to the playoffs JC will have proven he deserves to be paid and treated like a team cornerstone and not a complimentary role player. But the time for waiting for him to have a breakthrough season is over. He's got to deliver now. I don't expect an all-star performance out of him. That would be asking too much too soon. But he does need to execute, to lead, and to show a willingness and ability to occasionally but the team on his back and carry it to a big win. He's got to be good enough for our opponents to have to scheme for him, maybe double him on occasion which in turn will present scoring opportunities for his teammates. He has to be able to defend well enough to disrupt an opponent's offensive sets from time to time. And he has to play smart help defense so that our bigs aren't forced to stop penetration from the perimeter as often as they have in the past. Keep the bigs out of foul trouble and we'll win more than we'll lose. But that starts with perimeter defense, and JC has to shine in that area this season.

Like I said, I hope like hell that he's even better than he was the last quarter of 02/03. Because if he becomes an all-around, multi-dimensional player for our Bulls, well we all might be able to say one day that "The Dynasty's back, Baby!"


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> ELDRUHMAI, Tyson and Eddy must also prove that they can deliver in the clutch and when the pressure's on. You'll get no arguement from me on that issue.
> 
> But they do have one less season of experience than JC, so I guess they deserve to be cut just a tiny bit more slack than Jamal in this area. However, if the Bulls are going to make the playoffs there's no doubt that they'll have to step up and produce *this season*.
> ...


I think your being reasonable. This is year #4 for Jamal. True he was injured for a year, but this is the year he needs to show us what JK saw in him.


----------



## The OUTLAW (Jun 13, 2002)

Remember that not only is Arenas better than Crawford right now but he is also 2 years younger. While I like Crawfords game and the fact that he presents matchup problems for other pg's, I do believe that Arenas is a much quicker player and almost as good a shooter as Crawford. The advantage the Crawford has right now is that he is better at running a team than Arenas is.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The OUTLAW</b>!
> Remember that not only is Arenas better than Crawford right now but he is also 2 years younger. While I like Crawfords game and the fact that he presents matchup problems for other pg's, I do believe that Arenas is a much quicker player and almost as good a shooter as Crawford. The advantage the Crawford has right now is that he is better at running a team than Arenas is.


I would dispute that Arenas is better than Crawford right now even. Their stats are pretty close when you take into account minutes played. Arenas is just what's hot right now, because he was a free agent. I find his temper slightly troubling, and GS didn't play him in the 4th quarters because he didn't know how to take care of the ball(I know some of you questioned Crawford's ability to play under pressure, but those same question marks are around Arenas' neck). I don't know if I'd give Arenas as much of the credit for GSW turnaround this year as people seem to. They have a lot of other talented players, who have underachieved for years, I think the new coach was more responsible than anything.

I expect Crawford to be in the ballpark of 20-25ppg 5-7apg 3rpg. I think Arenas is going to struggle with Washington trying to fit in with Stackhouse, Hughes, Dixon ect...

This will probably give people pause next offseason, because they'll say Crawford was just playing for his contract like Arenas was, and how do we know he won't struggle the same?

We'll see though. This is put up or shut up time for Crawford. Either he does it this season, or he's never going to do it. I hope he stays healthy.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I think Crawford and Arenas are very similar talents. The key issue for any talent is whether they realize their potential and make good on their talent.

Last year, Arenas did that...making good on at least a large chunk of his talent. He became an explosive scorer and play-maker and looks like he could become one of the most valuable point guards in the game.

Crawford showed signs of realizing his potential in the last quarter of the season or so. The key issue will be if he can continue that soon after this season begins. He's got a ton of talent, but that quantum jump from "potential" to "star" is a tough one and you can never *assume* it will happen. Just have to hope...his finishing kick last year does provide that hope, though.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> We're both in the minority. People are so blinded by team loyalty that they don't recognize the players for what they actually are.
> ...


Make that three of us. I didn't expect all the people in this thread to think Jamal already was he equal or more.

That said, I think Jamal is a bit less of a head case.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> I expect Crawford to be in the ballpark of 20-25ppg


You're gonna hate Cartwright then.



> I think Arenas is going to struggle with Washington trying to fit in with Stackhouse, Hughes, Dixon ect...


I think Stack is going to have problems playing with Arenas...


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

I agree with Vin and Da Bullz here, there is no way Crawford is better than Arenas at the moment. Arenas has performed consistently for a whole season, Crawford for a quarter of a season. Can Crawford become a better player than Arenas? He has the talent, so I hope he can.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> I think Stack is going to have problems playing with Arenas...


I wonder when people are going to start holding stackhouse accountable for being a terrible teammate? He was at North Carolina when him and Sheed where there. He was in Philly. He wasn't for 1 season in detroit. And then he went back to his former ways with the Wizards. I think Stackhouse has the absurd ability to bring down the level of his teammates. Some people make their teammates better, Stack makes them worse.

So yeah. Arenas' stats will most certainly dip or stay the same with Stackhouse, unless he gets lucky and stack pretends to be injured again.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Benny the Bull</b>!
> I agree with Vin and Da Bullz here, there is no way Crawford is better than Arenas at the moment. Arenas has performed consistently for a whole season, Crawford for a quarter of a season. Can Crawford become a better player than Arenas? He has the talent, so I hope he can.


Chalk one more up for the growing minority...

DB, I wouldn't say I'm blinded by team loyalty, but I do expect big things from Curry and Chandler, and not unreasonably so. It makes sense to incorporate IMPROVEMENT in expectation, instead of assuming that they will remain the exact same as the last time we saw them pick up a basketball.

I think Crawford is going to improve as well, and show himself to be quite a stellar point guard.

But the reason why I agree with yall that Arenas may end up being a better overall PG is that he started playing at a higher level much earlier in his career (considering KG, Kobe, and TMac signed contract extensions when I think they were 22, maybe Arenas is making the most money any 21 year old in the NBA has ever made). By default, then, he'll have more years of playing at that level.

In addition, I also forsee Arenas improving his game. He will maintain his physical prime for another 6-7 years without any visible loss of athleticism. He's going to be lightning quick, surrounded by decent weapons (worse than in GS, but there are some flashes of potential on the Washington roster, without a doubt), play for who I think will become an excellent coach in Eddie Jordan, and be matched up against largely worse players... the majority of good PG's are in the West (Payton, Francis, Nash, Marbury, Bibby, Miller, Cassell) compared to the East (Kidd, B. Davis, Billups, Snow, Lebron?, Tinsley, Crawford). Arenas is going to have his way more nights than not, and because of that, he'll explode. 

He shoots a really decent percentage, rebounds big for a little guy, plays stingy defense, is a big playmaker (his assist/TO ratio could be better, though), and he gets to the line.

Adding on with DaBullz's comment, he's definitely shown to be consistent. He brings it night in and night out.

Arenas is a lot like Darrell Armstrong in his prime years, except he looks a little taller and with longer wing span. But Armstrong didn't start playing in his prime game until he was 30... Arenas is 21. 

Crawford is going to inevitably be an excellent player too, and may even outshine Arenas on certain occasions. I hope he remains a Bull and continues to be the answer at PG.

But Arenas has a head start, and will have a long-lived career of excellent PG play. If he plays hard this upcoming season, he's a lock for the All-Star game, IMO... probably right after Kidd and Baron Davis, and even Davis isn't a lock. (Lebron might make it, purely because of voting, but I don't know.)

By the way, I think Jay Williams had more potential than Gilbert Arenas. Although Williams was not the composed shooter Arenas is, his ceiling as a player was enormous. Some of the moves he could put on NBA veterans were totally ridiculous, and his crossover made him look like a Starbury clone. His passing vision was pretty strong, considering he was constrained to a system he didn't really like (triangle); he still ranked 12th in the NBA in assists per 48 minutes.

His defense was fairly atrocious, but improving towards the end of the season. I think he had the intelligence and the physical skills to play excellent defense, and I believe that defense can be taught to intelligent, skilled learners. 

Anyway. That's off topic.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> Please don't mistake my remarks as a criticism of Crawford. I consider the point I raised about him and how he might deal with pressure as more of an _unanswered question_ than a flaw or shortcoming. But let's face it...if he wants the Bulls to make a long term financial committment to him, well, in some ways this season has become his personal Armageddon, hasn't it? Heck, the fact that this thread comparing him to Arenas exists sort of sets his performance bar for the coming season, doesn't it?
> 
> ...


Regarding his contract and possible extensions, Jamal needs only to meet the expectations of whatever is within his reach on the court. Shooting well, playing perimeter defense, dishing the ball inside, and leading the team is well within his reach. Impacting the win total is sort of in his reach. Quite conceivably, Jamal could end up leading this team to wins but not quite into the playoffs, like . . . gasp. . .Gilbert Arenas !

Kismet, you're assuming that if Jamal does play perimeter defense, leads, and hustles, that stuff will automatically translate to wins. What if he does that stuff, leads this team to a few wins but not enough, and we still win only about 35 ? I just think that the negotiations of Jamal's contract at the end of this season can (and should) be more complicated if the team just barely misses the playoffs rather than it being a simple "Jamal didn't meet expectations" case.

Per Jamal the individual and player, I just don't think that "dealing with pressure" is that much of a question for Jamal because it seems like his confidence has already been at rock bottom as a baller during this eason and he's managed to fight back with a vengeance. He's had the ability, just not the mindset.

And finally, for the actual thread, Gilbert's a star. He has the potential to frustrate anyone, most especially Jamal. For now, he's a better catalyst for a team than Jamal, but I think Jamal could be just as good.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

It seems to me that arenas is even more overrated than Crawford.

Arenas put up great offensive stats on a team that didnt make the playoffs and the Warriors improvement could just as easily be contributed to Troy Murphy becoming a double double guy,Jamison moving back to sf and jrich improving.

The warriors were one of the worst half court teams and all they basically did was push the ball looking to get the score up over a hundred.

I think we will see more of a TRUE portrayal of Gilberts skills this season in Washington just as we will with Crawford.

I just feel that if you place any young pg in the Warriors system with a lack of attention to halfcourt offense and they excel.


Fullcourt game ,35mpg,15 shots per game and I think there are several pg's rotting on some benches in the league that could 18 and 6 a night.


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

*6 of one, half a dozen of the other?*

Both players strike me as similar enough (granted Arenas has a sizable head-start as mentioned) that their physical differences or similarities may be overshadowed by the mental and spiritual. 

By mental, I mean their ability to dial it up or reign it in as the game calls for. Both have shown the ability to dial it up, I don't know that I've seen either reign it in, something more valuable for pgs than other positions.

By spiritual, I mean how bad they want it, how important to their team as a whole AND to their teammates as individuals as well. Also more important at the pg than other positions IMO.

Call me a pessimitst, but in today's NBA I don't judge the spiritual until after a player has played in a contract year AND after a big contract is signed.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

Arenas is still a shooting guard, which is what everyone seems to be overlooking. I realize that he put up 6 assists a game, but that doesn't make him a point guard (see: Jason Terry). He loses the ball a lot, and I see him looking down at his feet when he's dribbling in transition way more than he should (never). He just seems to have that reckless mentality of a scorer, and I think there's a place for that but it's not a good fit for the Bulls.

Couple all that with being somewhat of a headcase (the refusal to shoot fiasco), and I'd take Crawford for the future (regardless of contract size, which is/likely will be in Jamal's favor).


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I live in the Bay Area and watch a lot of GSW games last year.

Arenas was not the only reason for the 17 additional wins. GSW finally had a healthy team and a real coaching staff. But he was clearly a difference maker.

The previous season, as a 20 yr old second round draft pick, he got stuck on the bench for the first 1/3 of the season. But then he came out and outplayed designated star Larry Hughes and played just as well as Craw did last season. He did complain about the competition. He just beat it.

Last season, the new coach named Sura starter in training camp. Arenas just kept working and locked down the spot.

This Boykins thing is mostly a myth. First, when Boykins played, JRich got benched as much or more than Arenas at the end of games. And it was only used in the first half of the season. And it was mainly b/c at the time Boykins was hot and dang near unstoppable one-on-one. Thems just the facts.

Arenas is 2 years younger, has already played at a very high level, and will continue to improve.

He is not a Jason Kidd-type PG but would be perfect for the triangle.

I like Craw, but if I could trade Craw for Arenas straight up, I would do it in a heartbeat.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> I live in the Bay Area and watch a lot of GSW games last year.
> 
> Arenas was not the only reason for the 17 additional wins. GSW finally had a healthy team and a real coaching staff. But he was clearly a difference maker.
> ...


On this subject, johnston seems eminently qualified to evaluate Gilbert's impact on the Warriors. And if he says Arenas was a difference maker, that's good enough for me.

A question for you johnston: as a left coaster did you get to see as many Bulls games as GS games and how much of Crawford's late season run did you get to observe?

I'm not challenging your opinion of the two point guards. But I have a lot of respect for your basketball acumen and I'm just curious as to what you're basing your preference for GA over JC on. 

I think Jamal has been blessed with a tremendous amount of talent. In fact, skillwise I think his God-given basketball gifts exceed Arenas'. I guess I'm speculating that you might feel Gilbert's heart may be a little bigger than Jamal's. This is a tricky area because speculation about intangibles is very difficult to support or substantiate.

Quirky as his personality may be, I think Arenas has proven himself to be a gamer. He's overcome the stigma of being a second rounder, he's beaten off his competition for a spot in the starting lineup. And based on your observations he's already proven himself as a difference maker.

In three seasons, JC has _demonstrated_ that he has an abundance of talent, but he really hasn't _proven_ he has the mettle to lead, and to consistently influence factors that effect the outcome of games. That's what he needs to prove this season if he has any chance of being favorably compared to Arenas.

I'll look forward to your response.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> A question for you johnston: as a left coaster did you get to see as many Bulls games as GS games and how much of Crawford's late season run did you get to observe?


I saw a fair amount of both teams and was quite impressed with how Craw closed the season. And stated it at the time. But it's fair to say that I seriously questioned JC until after the All-Star break last year. 



> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> I'm not challenging your opinion of the two point guards. But I have a lot of respect for your basketball acumen and I'm just curious as to what you're basing your preference for GA over JC on.


Gilbert played at a very high level over the course of an entire season and led his team to a bunch of extra wins. 

If Crawford had done the same over an entire year, there might not be much difference in my mind between the two. 

I don't know about heart, but Arenas is a killer competitor like many of the great ones. He has that drive. He has that chip on his shoulder but in the right way IMHO.

There is very little doubt in my mind that Arenas won't be a borderline All-Star or better. There is considerly more doubt about Crawford at this time for me. 

Maybe Crawford's upside is higher. But Arenas's is high enough and more of a sure thing. 

p.s. I think anyone knocking Arenas for not being a true PG is missing the boat esp if they are supporting Craw. One, when is the last time a Jason Kidd-type PG led his team to a championship? Two, Craw ain't Kidd.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I saw a fair amount of both teams and was quite impressed with how Craw closed the season. And stated it at the time. But it's fair to say that I seriously questioned JC until after the All-Star break last year.
> ...


Thanks. :greatjob:


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

i think areanas is the better player at the moment. but let's not lose sight that every key warrior upped their game compared to last year. maybe areanas had something to do with that, but remember in the first half of the season gilbert was getting benched in the 4Q in favor of earl boykins. so yeah arenas was a key player in the warriors improvement, but he wasn't the only pg/reason behind it.

http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/hughes_frank/1501826.html


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RoRo</b>!
> i think areanas is the better player at the moment. but let's not lose sight that every key warrior upped their game compared to last year. maybe areanas had something to do with that, but remember in the first half of the season gilbert was getting benched in the 4Q in favor of earl boykins. so yeah arenas was a key player in the warriors improvement, but he wasn't the only pg/reason behind it.


Fine, I'll only give Arenas as much credit now as this board would give Crawford next year assuming the Bulls win an extra 17-20 games next year, Chandler and Curry get better, Pippen takes over at PG during select games in the first part of the year and Crawford still averages 18\5\6 over 82 games.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Fine, I'll only give Arenas as much credit now as this board would give Crawford next year assuming the Bulls win an extra 20 games next year, Chandler and Curry get better, Pippen takes over at PG during select games in the first part of the year and Crawford still averages 18\5\6 in 80 games.


For once (it seems), we agree.

I do happen to be a big fan of Crawford, FWIW.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

I think Arenas is the better player right now, but nobody in here is really qualified to say that one or the other has more upside. 

About Arenas being a headcase, the game against the Knicks comes to mind. BUT, keep in mind how that game went. Arenas didn't shoot the whole game, and than with like 5 minutes left the coach tells him to start 'firing the damn ball'. Now if the Warriors went on to lose that game, it would of made Arenas look really bad. But what happened? Arenas scored 14 points in the last 5 minutes in a comebehind victory for the Warriors. Who doesn't want somebody who can do that on their team? The game against the Spurs also comes to mind. He was so upset with losing, that at halftime he took in shower in all his clothes. He then went on to score like 25 points in the second half. Is it really a bad thing to have somebody who wants to win so much on the team? He was drafted in the second round, so he plays with a chip on his shoulder. Call it being a headcase, and even if he's 2nd in the league in technicals, the guy wants to win. After the Knicks game one of the coaches said "if he was 3 inches taller, he'd be Kobe Byrant". 

Arenas isn't a true PG, he's more of a Starbury/Francis type PG. Still, 18, 6, 4 are great numbers for a 2nd year player. If he didn't have Jamison/Richardson/Murphy on his team, than his scoring ppg would be even higher. On the Wizards, he'll still get to play an uptempo fast break game, and with less scorers, theirs no reason why his numbers can't go up.

From what I've seen of Crawford, he's a good talent. I wouldn't say it's likely that he'll be better than Arenas, I don't know if he has that same drive that Arenas does. I don't think Crawford is going to put up 20-25 ppg next year, I mean theirs only like 2 point guards in the league putting up 21 plus. Right now, I would take Arenas cause he's showed he can be consistent throughout a whole season, and because he's younger. He was a 2nd rounder, so you know he earned his way into the starting line up.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> I do happen to be a big fan of Crawford, FWIW.


Really? Cause you've got a funny way of showing it. You'd rather trade him away for Antoine Walker. Or if he stays, you'd rather him not start. What exactly do you like about Crawford, for future reference? Do you see any promise at all in him?


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

johnston, didn't see your earlier post about seeing the warriors first hand (i just caught the games vs the bulls and the sonics). i'm not trying to slight arenas' contributions at all, it's just that i was equally as impressed with murph's and jamisons' games as well. i think arenas new contract and new role with the wiz is one part earned (thru last years performance) and one part speculation (the wiz hoping he exceeds last years performance when given a greater role/responsibility). i think a similar pattern will follow alot of our younger players. they'll show the talent and ability to draw the large contract offers, but because they are not the sole dominant player greater expectation will follow them.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Really? Cause you've got a funny way of showing it. You'd rather trade him away for Antoine Walker. Or if he stays, you'd rather him not start. What exactly do you like about Crawford, for future reference? Do you see any promise at all in him?


Of course I see promise in him. He may be the team's best pure shooter from long distance. He's got a wicked crossover dribble. He's quick for his size. His effort to comeback from his knee injury is commendable (to say the least).

The downside is that he is not a great defender or ballhandler under pressure. He doesn't standout in practice or in all but a few games as being a guy we must have on the floor - he didn't prove it to cartwright, and I don't remember seeing any of the players quoted as saying JC should start over JWill.

I see Walker as a guy who's ready RIGHT NOW to be an all-star (he is an all-star) vs. a guy who may or may never be as good as many on this board hypes him up to be. Walker is a point forward who can bang inside on defense. We must have great perimiter play to go with inside play, or the defense will simply collapse into the lane as much as possible and dare us to shoot.

I would rather have a team of all-stars AND Curry/Chandler/Fizer than have a team that has a miniscule chance of being a playoff factor because it has no all-stars and is just playing underdeveloped players. Underdeveloped players who may or may not ever pan out and who may or may not remain with the team if they do pan out. 

Frankly, I'd rather see us with a frontline of someone like Walker+Curry/Chandler (at C)+Fizer.

I agree with you that if Crawford puts up big numbers for 82 games next year, then we can view him as an achiever instead of a potential player. If he's our starting PG, then I root for him to be as great as possible so we can win as much as possible.

As for starting him, I simply have this perspective: We just signed one of the better PGs in the league in Pippen, and I expect the Bulls will figure out that he should be the PG, and for the next 2 years. The good thing about Pippen being an older player is that he's not going to dominate the minutes at PG, so there's time for JC and Hinrich to get some seasoning.

I predict that Jamal will start, the team will falter early, and Cartwright will end up playing the vets again. Something like this:
<DD>Pippen
<DD>Rose
<DD>Chandler
<DD>Fizer
<DD>Marshall
With a solid bench:
<DD>Crawford, Hinrich, Curry, Hassell, etc.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

See. It sounds to me like it's not that you're a crawford fan, it's that you're a bulls fan and he happens to be a player on it. Nothing wrong with that. But I don't think it really classifies you as someone who can say "I'm a big fan of Crawford".

The only reason I'm bringing this up, is because I think it's funny that right before someone rips into Crawford they always start off with "I'm as big a fan of crawford as any" or something to that effect, and then "but"....and then they proceed to rip his game and talk about all the negatives without touching on any of the positives of his game.

Why pretend?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I don't pretend.

All season long, last year, I believed that, and voiced my opinion that, Crawford should have been the starter over JWill. But honestly, I would rather have had Travis Best as the starting PG with those guys getting increasing PT over the course of the season.

Yeah, I'm a Crawford fan, and a Bulls fan. I liked Kukoc, even though he wasn't a starter. I liked Ron Harper, even though his numbers weren't much better than Hassell's from last season (where most people gripe about how bad he is). 

I was a fan of BJ Armstrong, who I think Crawford is a great comparison to. Though BJ showed better skills (at shooting and defense, at least) than Crawford has to date.

Being a fan, or a big fan, of a player doesn't mean I have to be ignorant of his true skills, potential, and what it means to the team.

Many people here were fans of Rick Brunson, but that doesn't mean they felt he should have been the starter.

Being a fan of a player doesn't mean you have to demand he plays more minutes than he rightly should, at the cost of the team's W/L record. And the W/L record is my focus.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Well, Pax has made it pretty clear that he's leaning towards waiting to see how the *team* performs before making a long term committment to Jamal.

''All I expressed to Jamal is that whatever happens in this process, if something doesn't work out this year, it doesn't mean that we don't want him back,'' Paxson said. ''I'm still kind of in a patient mode with the whole process, and we don't necessarily feel something has to get done before the season. We're going to try to talk again some time in September. 

''I have to look at certain things for the organization, and Jamal has to look out for himself, which he should,'' Paxson said. ''It doesn't mean we don't want him back."

*''I want all of our guys to know what really matters is how many games we win. That determines how we'll proceed.''*

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull151.html

I've said over and over that Crawford's future with the Bulls is primarily tied to the success the team has this season. So lets not get all caught up in the numbers game. Individual stats are only important to fantasy leaguers. With Paxson, its all about winning ballgames.

Sounds to me like John has high expectations of Jamal as well. Under these circumstances, logic suggests that he fully expects JC to become an impact player, a difference maker. I think that's a fair expectation for someone who plays the lead guard position on a playoff team. Hopefully Jamal will understand and accept Paxson's conditions and become the player Cartwright wants him to be. If he does, then that not only means that JC wins...it will mean that the Bulls are winners and all Bulls fans will finally have something to really cheer about.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

''I want all of our guys to know what really matters is how many games we win. That determines how we'll proceed.''

I read this to mean that the whole team may be subject to a re-eavluation if they don't make playoffs this year.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Of course I see promise in him. He may be the team's best pure shooter from long distance. He's got a wicked crossover dribble. He's quick for his size. His effort to comeback from his knee injury is commendable (to say the least).
> ...


I'm probably the biggest Crawford fan on these boards and freely admit it. Crawford & Curry are my favorite players with Chandler a very close third. I don't see how anyCrawford "fan" will think that he's not gonna be the Bulls starting pg all year.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> ''I want all of our guys to know what really matters is how many games we win. That determines how we'll proceed.''
> 
> I read this to mean that the whole team may be subject to a re-eavluation if they don't make playoffs this year.


Absolutely. But at the same time we have to be reasonable as well. Unless something catastrophic occurs, there's very little chance that Paxson will tear down the entire team and start the rebuilding process all over again. He's publically made a committment to Chandler and Curry as the centerpieces of this team's future. So I think you'll see him exercise restraint with regards to trading them off if things don't go well.

Now, if those two players were to prove themselves to be a couple of slackers, well that's another story.

But you're on the right track when you suggest that JP's sending a message to the entire team. He wants everyone to know that it's all about _team success_ first and foremost. And anyone who attempts to put himself or his career above the team will find himself in another uniform if possible.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> ''I want all of our guys to know what really matters is how many games we win. That determines how we'll proceed.''
> 
> I read this to mean that the whole team may be subject to a re-eavluation if they don't make playoffs this year.


I agree that Pax's quote is critical. But I think that it has more to do with how Chandler and Curry's potential extention would be handled next off-season. 

In other words, capitalize on your potential, turn the flashes into consistancy, get us to the playoffs and get the big extention a year early.

Crawford's mandate would be similar but with even higher stakes b/c he will be an RFA and another team might take a flyer on his potential.


----------



## local_sportsfan (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> As far as Arenas and Crawford- Arenas has really shown some stuff. Of course, he also was benched for Earl Boykins in most 4th quarters.
> 
> Can Crawford be better? Yeah. Is it likely he'll be better? I think so. Is it guaranteed? No, not really.


Myth.

Richardson was always the guy who was benched in favor of Boykins. Musselman would move Arenas to sg, with Earl playiong the point.

And there is no chance of Crawford being better than GA next year. Gilbert's younger, quicker, stronger, tougher, a better passer, more unselfish, and he has more fire than Crawford.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>local_sportsfan</b>!
> 
> And there is no chance of Crawford being better than GA next year.


No chance? None? I like that.

There is no chance that Arenas will work alongside Stackhouse. Punches will get thrown. The last guy with fire on the wizards was hated by most of the guys that are still there.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> No chance? None? I like that.
> ...


i'm wondering what the odds are for a hughes -arenas fight by x-mas?

gil has taken 2 starting pg spots from the guy in 3 years ....i say its even $


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm probably the biggest Crawford fan on these boards and freely admit it. Crawford & Curry are my favorite players with Chandler a very close third. I don't see how anyCrawford "fan" will think that he's not gonna be the Bulls starting pg all year.


Jamal Crawford (starts)
37 min, 5-11 FG, 5 ast, 12 pts
50 min, 7-18 FG, 7 ast, 16 pts
24 min, 2-10 FG, 6 ast, 4 pts
24 min, 1-7 FG, 4 ast, 5 pts
19 min, 5-8 FG, 1 ast, 11 pts
19 min, 3-7 FG, 3 ast, 8 pts
33 min, 4-12 FG, 6 ast, 14 pts
26 min, 4-6 FG, 4 ast, 11 pts
28 min, 5-11 FG, 3 ast, 12 pts
30 min, 6-16 FG, 7 ast, 15 pts
31 min, 5-14 FG, 4 ast, 14 pts
30 min, 2-10 FG, 8 ast, 7 pts
28 min, 2-7 FG, 4 ast, 4 pts
40 min, 7-19 FG, 5 ast, 21 pts
26 min, 3-10 FG, 4 ast, 8 pts
39 min, 5-12 FG, 8 ast, 17 pts
24 min, 5-10 FG, 3 ast, 14 pts
35 min, 7-21 FG, 10 ast, 18 pts
43 min, 10-27 FG, 8 ast, 25 pts
16 min, 3-6 FG, 3 ast, 7 pts
42 min, 8-18 FG, 8 ast, 19 pts
44 min, 7-19 FG, 7 ast, 19 pts
41 min, 7-16 FG, 4 ast, 22 pts

= 23 games, 31.7 min/game, <B>.378 FG%</B>, 5.0 APG, 12.2 PPG

32 min, 9-16 FG, 10 ast, 24 pts
31 min, 6-9 FG, 10 ast, 15 pts
34 min, 9-17 FG, 8 ast, 23 pts
34 min, 10-15 FG, 10 ast, 22 pts
24 min, 8-16 FG, 5 ast, 17 pts
31 min, 10-20 FG, 8 ast, 33 pts
38 min, 10-17 FG, 6 ast, 26 pts
41 min, 13-23 FG, 8 ast, 33 pts

= 8 games, 33.1 min/game, .564 FG%, 8.1 APG, 24.1 PPG

= 31 games, 32.1 min/game, .438 FG%, 5.8 APG, 15.3PPG

Those 8 games were very nice, if not outstanding. The rest were not very good at all. I weigh both and see him as 23/31 chance of being not very good at all for any game. Several of those 23 games were from March and April which was the only time of the season he had good games.

I don't just remember the good games.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> i'm wondering what the odds are for a hughes -arenas fight by x-mas?
> ...


:laugh: :laugh: 
That's true. How mad do you think Hughes is seeing Arenas again?

That backcourt just seems like a recipe for disaster chemistry wise. Good luck to Eddie Jordan sorting it all out.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal Crawford (starts)
> ...



well considering that it was his first major stint of 20+mpg in his career you would have to take into account natural improvement hes only 23.

I never knew that fg% was such a huge factor in determining whetehre or not you had a good game considering 

Kidd 41%
B.Davis 41%
Billups 42%

Stats have to be taken in a certain grain of salt because you can shoot poorly and still impact the game for your team .Crawford had that HORRIBLE 6 game stretch after the all star break and before the trade deadline where he shot TERRIBLE but if you take out those games and say he shot the same 39% he was shooting the earlier months and he ends the season shooting over 44% from the field.

There is no reason whatsoever to think that Crawford wont improve on his game this summer .This is the first injury free,controversy free offseason he has had in his career.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Some people seem to think Crawford is going to put up those 24.5/8APG numbers all season. I just don't believe it. I do believe he will improve, but will be closer to the 12.2/5 APG numbers.

Now, if Pippen can become PG for Portland and take them to a 35-15 (ish) record, then I don't see why BC is going to stick with a 12.2/5APG guy if the team is not playing well. 12.5/5APG is real improvement!

Nothing is a given. Pippen may not be the ballplayer he was for Portland. Crawford could be that 24.5/8APG player all season. If I had to bet, it'd be on Pippen, based purely on the track record.

Statistics seem to go in cycles. At one point, FG% will be high, league-wide, and a few years later it will be much lower. Last season, for wing players, the FG% was typically low, as you note.

However, .367 FG% is low enough that it allows teams to use the defender for double teams (Curry, Rose) or to otherwise collapse into the free throw lane. Combined with equally poor shooting by JWill and Hassell, the Bulls were in a serious world of hurt until the season was a wash and the games meaningless for us, except in a spoiler role.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Some people seem to think Crawford is going to put up those 24.5/8APG numbers all season.


Yep.:yes: 

You watch. It'll be in that 20-24ppg range and his assists will be in the 6-8 range. I think he'll supplant Rose as our primary perimeter scorer.

I think pippen is going to be the 12ppg/5apg guy. He's going to do things that don't show up in the stat book though.

Curry and Crawford next year buddy. Chandler doing the dirty work with Pippen. Fizer making a run at 6th man of the year and Rose going comfortably into an efficient 19ppg mode.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal Crawford (starts)
> ...


these were his actual #s in his 31 starts if you question this then voice your complaints to espn because i pasted them directly from them 
G MIN FGM-FGA FG% 3PM-3PA 3P% FTM-FTA FT% STL BLK TO PF OFF DEF TOT AST PTS 

31 32.4 6.1-13.8 .439 1.7-4.5 .383 2.1-2.5 .846 1.06 0.39 1.9 2.0 0.4 2.8 3.2 6.0 16 


these are from march 
14 31.4 6.1-13.5 .455 1.9-4.4 .443 1.6-1.9 .885 1.29 0.21 2.1 2.4 0.2 2.6 2.9 6.7 15.9 
these are from april
8 37.0 8.5-18.3 .466 2.3-6.3 .360 3.8-4.4 .857 1.00 0.50 2.5 2.3 0.9 3.4 4.3 6.5 23.0 

you'll notice the fg% is actually .439 he avg 16 pts a games 6 ast. and 38% from 3pt range 

he had a 3:1 to ratio and shot nearly 85% from the line 

all in all pretty good for a player's 1st time getting serious playing time and you'll have to excuse me if I dont share your pessimistic outlook from these alone

but you said something about only 8 good games

31 6-9 .667 3-5
.600 0-0
-- 1
1
1
3
0
3
3
10
15

3/8
Lac
L 103-97 30 2-10 .200 1-5
.200 2-2
1.000 0
0
0
0
0
1
1
8
7

3/11
Lal
W 116-99 32 9-16 .563 4-4
1.000 2-2
1.000 1
1
2
1
1
3
4
10
24

3/12
@Mem
L 124-95 28 2-7 .286 0-2
.000 0-0
-- 2
0
3
2
0
0
0
4
4

3/14
@Hou
L 121-91 34 9-17 .529 4-5
.800 1-2
.500 2
0
3
3
1
1
2
8
23

3/16
@Sas
L 108-97 40 7-19 .368 3-8
.375 4-4
1.000 2
0
3
1
0
5
5
5
21

3/18
Atl
W 103-78 26 3-10 .300 2-4
.500 0-0
-- 2
0
0
3
0
2
2
4
8

3/22
Nyk
W 100-98 34 10-15 .667 2-3
.667 0-1
.000 0
0
2
2
0
9
9
10
22

3/23
@Det
L 105-82 39 5-12 .417 1-3
.333 6-6
1.000 0
0
3
4
0
7
7
8
17

3/26
Mia
W 82-74 33 8-16 .500 1-4
.250 0-0
-- 1
1
6
3
0
2
2
5
17

3/28
@Ind
L 140-89 24 5-10 .500 1-4
.250 3-3
1.000 1
0
1
2
0
0
0
3
14

3/29
Sac
L 107-92 35 7-21 .333 1-4
.250 3-4
.750 3
0
1
3
1
1
2
10
18

Numbers for March 31.4 86-189 .455 27-61 .443 23-26 .885 1.3 0.2 2.1 2.4 0.2 2.6 2.9 6.7 15.9 
DATE OPP RESULT MIN FG PCT 3P PCT FT PCT STL BLK TO PF OFF DEF TOT AST PTS 
4/1
Sea
L 101-94 43 10-27 .370 2-11
.182 3-5
.600 0
1
0
3
1
3
4
8
25

4/2
@Phi
L 108-101 16 3-6 .500 1-1
1.000 0-0
-- 2
0
4
4
1
0
1
3
7

4/5
Mil
W 117-115 42 8-18 .444 2-7
.286 1-1
1.000 0
0
2
2
1
5
6
8
19

4/8
Ind
W 115-103 31 10-20 .500 3-5
.600 10-11
.909 0
0
1
0
1
2
3
8
33

4/9
@Det
L 111-102 38 10-17 .588 1-4
.250 5-6
.833 1
1
4
5
0
6
6
6
26

4/11
Njn
W 95-86 44 7-19 .368 2-7
.286 3-4
.750 2
1
2
0
1
5
6
7
19

4/13
@Min
L 119-95 41 7-16 .438 2-5
.400 6-6
1.000 2
1
3
0
1
5
6
4
22

4/15
Phi
W 115-106 41 13-23 .565 5-10
.500 2-2
1.000 1
0
4
4
1
1
2
8
33 

i counted 12 out of his final 20 games in which JC garnered 17 pts or better and 6 assists or better 

if you hold jason kidd to the same standard in his last 20 games it comes out to only 10 out of 20(arenas 7out of 20 for all those who want to know)

i'm not saying JC is the equal of kidd but its obvious the kid is going places and soon


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Your argument is uninspiring. Your optimism is worthwhile, but reality will set in.

My numbers were calculated with a spreadsheet using the data from Yahoo! sports' game-by-game logs.

Go look at the stats for Crawford, Curry, and Chandler for March and April of the previous season. Your expectation that their performances for those two months translates into similar performances at the starts of the next seasons is unrealistic.

I will give you this warning:

If Rose's production drops to 15/game and Curry, Chandler, and Crawford average about 15/game (12 for Chandler), our team looks a LOT like the one that won 16 games two seasons ago.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

actually I think 18 pts / 7 assists is a very reasonable expectation for Crawford. 24 might be a bit much.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Your argument is uninspiring. Your optimism is worthwhile, but reality will set in.
> 
> My numbers were calculated with a spreadsheet using the data from Yahoo! sports' game-by-game logs.
> ...


you say you only saw 8 good games all season

and that he shot .378 from the field as a starter 

well if you were using yahoo i suggest you look again

Total 80 24.9 4.2 10.1 41.3 1.1 3.0 35.5 1.3 1.6 80.6 0.3 2.0 2.3 4.2 1.7 1.0 0.3 1.6 10.7 
Home 39 25.7 4.6 11.1 41.5 1.1 3.3 34.9 1.1 1.4 80.0 0.3 2.2 2.5 4.9 1.7 1.0 0.4 1.7 11.5 
Away 41 24.1 3.8 9.2 41.1 1.0 2.8 36.3 1.5 1.8 81.1 0.2 1.9 2.1 3.5 1.7 1.0 0.3 1.5 10.0 

As Starter 31 32.4 6.1 13.8 43.9 1.7 4.5 38.3 2.1 2.5 84.6 0.4 2.8 3.2 6.0 1.9 1.1 0.4 2.0 16.0 

Sub 49 20.2 3.0 7.8 38.4 0.7 2.1 31.7 0.8 1.0 74.5 0.2 1.6 1.7 3.0 1.6 0.9 0.3 1.3 7.4 

because they say the exact same thing espn says as far as his #s as does the game log and if you check nba.com it will also say the same as the #s above 

i may be optimistic but the ACTUAL #s back me up 

and who cares what the individual players avg. as long as they can score when they need to and win games in the process

rose may only avg in the area of 16 
maybe JC and EC avg 15 each also
and TC gets 13 

add marshall and fizer with 12 a piece and add in 10 for pip and thats 93 pts right there plus e-rob hassell kirk ,baxter blount 

there is more than enough scoring without needing a big time anchor 

all the bulls truly need is a player to give it to in the 4th and i believe they have 3 right now in JC rose and fizer with curry to be there by the end of next season and most likely to be thet guy from then on


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

You think the Bulls can have 7 players in double figures?

Think you can find me a team in NBA history that had 7 players in double figures (for 75 games each)?

The stats don't lie. Crawford shot what he shot, scored what he scored, and dished what he dished for those 23 games.

His other 8 games were good enough to raise his shooting %, but the 23 games were good enough to considerably lower his scoring and other numbers.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal Crawford (starts)
> ...


I double checked these numbers against the game log here:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3407/gamelog

One number is incorrect (should be 33 minutes one game instead of 24). The rest of the data is correct.

I think my spreadsheet calculation didn't include one game, so the 16PPG number is correct.

It doesn't change the data or the argument enough to matter.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> You think the Bulls can have 7 players in double figures?
> 
> Think you can find me a team in NBA history that had 7 players in double figures (for 75 games each)?
> ...


I'll find you a team that has 7 double figure scorers as soon as you find me a team that has has never lost a player to injury ...(newflash i expect injuries to inflate #s )

anyone can fiddle with #s to say what they want if i take out a game in april and just use the other 7 JC avgs 25.5 pts a game for april

or how about his last 5 (26.6pts)

the bottom line is most people with common sense know enough to take the entire scope of the time he was a starter and not try to pad his argument with time split with brunson (while rick was shooting nearly 70% from the field

but for some reason you have decided against what is commonly held wisdom and think that every young player on the team will faulter and i guess in saying that the latest rebuilding effort should be a failure as well


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

23 of 31 games isn't fiddling with the numbers.

You can interpret it any way you wish.

I look at it and say he was inconsistent over the long haul. He was really good for 8 of those 31 starts, and the rest he was so-so. The question was asked why he wouldn't start, and I think if he plays 2 out of every 3 games like he did last season, coach will look for someone who plays 3 of every 3 games consistently, even if the stats are worse overall.

Or if he doesn't come out of the gate on fire and stay on fire, coach will shake things up by changing the lineup.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 23 of 31 games isn't fiddling with the numbers.
> 
> You can interpret it any way you wish.
> ...


I absolutely agree. JC's a veteran now. He's got to play like one and he has to get the job done consistantly. No more ups and downs. No more peaks and valleys. Forget Jamal's individual numbers...he has to fit into Bill's and John's system or he'll move on. This is it...this is the season Crawford has to become an impact player, a difference maker.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> You think the Bulls can have 7 players in double figures?
> 
> Think you can find me a team in NBA history that had 7 players in double figures (for 75 games each)?


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teamstats?team=sac&seasonYear=2002&season=2 

 Sort of. It was the year Webber missed the beginning of the season..

But I agree.. Jamal's consistency will be his biggest gauge of success this year.. I don't want to worry about him scoring 20 pts a game (I don't want him to)..


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sovereignz</b>!
> 
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teamstats?team=sac&seasonYear=2002&season=2
> ...


Good find, but neither Webber nor Stojakovic played in 75 games.

I think memphis had 7 guys with double figures last season, but it included Miller for 16 games, etc.

BTW, do you think that the Bulls are all of a sudden going to rival the Mavs?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Uhhhh, Guys, JC started the season poorly because his friggin starting job was just handed over on a silver plater to JWill. That and the fact that all he heard up until the trade deadline is that he was going to be dealt, he admits that this weighed heavily on his mind and accounts for his shooting slump prior tothe trade deadline. 

Stats are useful....but give me scouting over stats any day. DOes Jamal have good lateral foot speed? Does he have nice form on his shots? Can he fight through a screen? Can he beat the press, what sort of handles does he have? 


Purely from a scouting perspective Jamal HAS the tools. He's just now figuring out how to put it all together. Of course he didn't have great stats the whole season, the dang light didn't go off until well after the trading deadline. BUt I have seen every game Jamal has played in (except one with Indy) last season (and every season for that matter) and believe me this kid very rarely looked really bad out there. Even when he had his off nights he tried to do what he could to help the team. You know, it seems like it's really tough for some folks to realize that with young players like Jamal, they can play mediocre, put up stats that make ya kinda yawn, then all of the sudden that NBA light goes off and BOOM! they are playing like all stars. I'd cite Jermaine O'neal, Tracy McGrady, and Baron Davis as examples. Just because Jamal didn't start to really put it together until later into the season, that doesn't mean anything IMO, fact is he IS putting it together. And for anyone who has seen him at the EBC, he has added some muscle and he doesn't have that boyish look on his face anymore. IMO, Jamal will average 18/7/3 next season but will play well enough to turn heads and will have some huge games. 

btw, anyone else see that insidehoops description of Jamals dunk against so so def? to paraphrase "On a breakaway dunk Jamal brought the ball between his legs and bounced it off of the backboard for an alley oop to himself dunk"(sick ain't it?)


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Uhhhh, Guys, JC started the season poorly because his friggin starting job was just handed over on a silver plater to JWill. That and the fact that all he heard up until the trade deadline is that he was going to be dealt, he admits that this weighed heavily on his mind and accounts for his shooting slump prior tothe trade deadline.


The Crawford optomists would seem more realistic to the rest of us if they didn't put up poor ol' JC on the cross. 

You know stuff like....

Tim Floyd did not like him. Williams is to account for JC's crappy summer league play last year. And then on the 3rd day after the trading deadline, JC was resurrected and promised himself that the Bulls would no longer misuse his talent. Etc.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Uhhhh, Guys, JC started the season poorly because his friggin starting job was just handed over on a silver plater to JWill. That and the fact that all he heard up until the trade deadline is that he was going to be dealt, he admits that this weighed heavily on his mind and accounts for his shooting slump prior tothe trade deadline.
> 
> Stats are useful....but give me scouting over stats any day. DOes Jamal have good lateral foot speed? Does he have nice form on his shots? Can he fight through a screen? Can he beat the press, what sort of handles does he have?
> ...


ace, people just dont understand thats how it goes most of the time with young players,if you look year to year the stats may only show some improvement or slight improvement but the leaps a player a may show gamewise can be substantial 

too busy looking at #s saying 10 pts 4 assist "those aren't starters #s" and look at things to slant the negative 

dabullz and some others on this site would be the type to say in 87 "stockton will be a bust ...he's been in the league 3 years and hasn't started yet,he'll never be any good"

there is something to be said for watching a player develop (they do tend to do that)

and yeah i read the discription of the dunk i plan to see it as soon as i findout which game it was in


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 23 of 31 games isn't fiddling with the numbers.
> 
> You can interpret it any way you wish.
> ...


I dont think you can say he was good for only 8 games of those starts.If you look at the games in which he has played *actual starters minutes * which I consider to be 30 or more minutes per game its a more accurate detail of his play as opposed to comparing him playing 50 minutes one game and 19 minutes  the next in games he started .

He had 20 games in which he played started and played more than 30 minutes his stats for those games are 

*20 games 19ppg 7 apg 44% fg averaging 16 shots a game * 

When he got consistent starters minutes he produced pretty efficient stats and when you factor in the 5 starts he had where BC had him split minutes almost straight up with Brunson then he actually was very solid not neccessarily great as a starter but hes young I only expect him to get better.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> The Crawford optomists would seem more realistic to the rest of us if they didn't put up poor ol' JC on the cross.
> ...


i say nothing of the kind, JC's mindset seems simple enough, as his minutes increase his game grows

when his min. shrink so does his effectiveness 

and i never reference anytime before he came back before from the acl except to state that they had slated him to start his 2nd year but injury prevented him so since they had been promising a starting job they should have delived on that promise and if he had played himself out of it , thats fine because it would have taken away any question of if he was ready 

but williams was no more ready than crawford and with williams injury its extremely easy to 2nd guess them starting him for any legnth of time before jamal got his chance because he was the incumbant and was actually (though wrongfully) promised the starting spot again after that season

so i say what i always say , play him if he cant do it, move on but there is no excuse not to play young players all they can handle on a developing team


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

After thinking about it more, I don't see how anybody could really say that Crawford is better than Arenas right now. Arenas's rookie year was similar to Jamals year last year. Arenas has really only been playing in the league for a year and a half, and he's already progressed this far. He's the 32nd best statistical player in the league at the age of 21. He's coming to a team with less scorers than Golden State, so his numbers should go up. Jamal is all hype until he comes out and has a full season of good numbers. Right now it's all speculation, I mean no offense to you guys, but Bulls fans are known for overestimating their talent. 

I think Arenas will put up around 19, 7, 5 next year.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

bump


Are there any people out there who would still take Crawford over Arenas (recent groin injury aside)?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I certainly hope not.

The thing I've most noticed about Arenas now that he's closer and I see and read more about him is that he's one of those guys that criticism and loss as motivations. 

He's still a little loopy, but he really doesn't like to lose. I think he's concluded that to be seen as a good player, he's got to win. Because of that, he tries to figure out how.

Jamal isn't there yet. I don't get the sense yet that he feels that horrible about losing. I don't see the massive chip on his shoulder that I see on Gil.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> I certainly hope not.
> 
> The thing I've most noticed about Arenas now that he's closer and I see and read more about him is that he's one of those guys that criticism and loss as motivations.
> ...


The cool thing is Arenas is only 21 years old, going on 22. He is so young and wants to be great. 

Kinda strange that more players don't think like him (i.e. Kwame Brown, Eddy Curry).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I think part of it is look where Gil is coming from. As a Second round pick, he had to play better than people just to get on a team, much less get any PT.

Brown, Curry, Crawford... all high draft picks... all guys who were basically told "you're a project, come along at your own pace We'll let you play while you develop".

I don't know if that's such a good idea... maybe it seperates the concept of "improving as a player" from the concept of "becomming a winning player".

Improving as a player means you put up better stats and whatnot.

Becoming a winning player means you play more because you give your team the best chance to win.

If the team you're playing on basically says "we're going to give you minutes no matter what", or even "we're going to give you more minutes as your stats make you appear more productive", it's an incentive for a player to improve his statistical output.

If the team says "you're not going to play no matter what if we're winning more with the guy in front of you", it's an incentive for the player to do the things that make a team win more (which aren't necessarily statistical).


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I don't get that, because look at a guy like Richard Jefferson or Lebron. They just work hard all the time. 

There are exceptions to each side, but even if someone said you were a project, wouldn't you want to prove your not a project and start playing good ball like Amare, Carmelo and Lebron. I mean Chandler shows that he has that heart, his skills just aren't all there yet. He still has heart and determination nonetheless.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I'd still take Crawford. Arenas is great. I hope Crawford gets that sort of opportunity soon. They both put up the same sorts of numbers relative to playing time. Both can score and both can get assists in the bunch, and both can rebound. I think Crawford is really close to Arenas right now, and given the time and support of a franchise, I have no doubt that he'll actually end up better.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> I'd still take Crawford. Arenas is great. I hope Crawford gets that sort of opportunity soon. They both put up the same sorts of numbers relative to playing time. Both can score and both can get assists in the bunch, and both can rebound. I think Crawford is really close to Arenas right now, and given the time and support of a franchise, I have no doubt that he'll actually end up better.


Wow. There's only one legit advantage that Crawford has over Arenas, and that is that Gilbert is more than a little bit loco. I worry about his implosion. However, just like Ron Ron, when he harnesses his insanity, which is most of the time, he's deadly on the court. Jamal is around just as talented but about 1/3 as competitive.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamal's problem is , despite his quickness and size, he does not play defense. If he focuses on his defense no one will mind that he has a scorer's mentality. He also needs to get rid of his Rucker Park act. Play defense and then maybe we get lucky and trade Rose. Jamal is a much better 2 guard than Rose. Someone close to Jamal should tell him that if he plays solid defense he doesn't have to worry about anything. He will play. Look at Artest ; he played major minutes when he was an offensive liability. Trent's probably a better example of how defense will keep you on the court. Stay in front of your man please, Jamal.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> I believe Arenas is currently the better of the two, and will have a better NBA career.. here's why:
> 
> 1) He led the young Warriors to a 17 win turnaround in the West. He is a difference maker
> ...


My opinion hasn't changed. Arenas > Crawford


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

*Crawford* 

14 games 7 starts 29 mpg 13 fga per game a/t 2.12

41 fg% 40% 3fg 87% ft 1spg 2tpg 2rpg 5 apg 14ppg 




*Arenas * 

13 games 13 starts 37 mpg 15fga per game a/t 1.38

41 fg% 31% 3fg 79%ft 2spg 4 tpg 5rpg 5 apg 20ppg


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Bill Walton mentioned how well Jamal Crawford has been playing for no real reason in the Cleveland game tonight. Didn't mention anyone else on the bulls. That's pretty cool for Bill Walton to show some love for our beleaguered point guard.


----------



## jsong (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Bill Walton mentioned how well Jamal Crawford has been playing for no real reason in the Cleveland game tonight. Didn't mention anyone else on the bulls. That's pretty cool for Bill Walton to show some love for our beleaguered point guard.


You didn't know Bill Walton is a moron. You take whatever he says with a grain of salt.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jsong</b>!
> 
> You didn't know Bill Walton is a moron. You take whatever he says with a grain of salt.


He just randomly said it out of the blue on national television. When is the last time a bulls player was mentioned on national television--yeah...never. It's worth mentioning. Not really a piece open to discussion though. You can't really argue that he didn't say it. And the point isnt anything to do with the merits.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Arenas has better stats, has led his team to a better record, plays better defense, has managed not to get benched for Steve Blake, has had a tripple double, and outplayed J-Craw in head to head competition. He's better right now and let's not forget he's still two years younger.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> Arenas has better stats, has led his team to a better record, plays better defense, has managed not to get benched for Steve Blake, has had a tripple double, and outplayed J-Craw in head to head competition. He's better right now and let's not forget he's still two years younger.


But aside from that, yeah, Jamal's way better


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Bill Walton mentioned how well Jamal Crawford has been playing for no real reason in the Cleveland game tonight. Didn't mention anyone else on the bulls. That's pretty cool for Bill Walton to show some love for our beleaguered point guard.


Jamal playing well ?

When ?

Did Walton have an Acid flashback or something?

I'll bet my last buck .. this dick hasn't even seen the games 

Playing well?

He must be referring to the mini catch up against the Songalia, Massenburg and the rest of the Kings 3rd stringers when we were already down 30 and the Kings starters left the stadium for a lap dance and some poon tang


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

Actually, Jamals played pretty well in their last few games if you cared to watch, and i thought he made significant improvement in his last game in terms of passing the ball and when to go to the hole. You gotta love all the haters who went from trading Jamal to keeping him. Or the ones that dont even watch the games and just hate on Jamal regardless of how he plays :laugh: 

I'd have to say Arenas is better, hes arguablly the best pg in the league. His numbers this year which have been very good, still dont give enough credit to him in terms of his contribution to the Wizards. I wasnt even a big Arenas fan when he was with GS, i thought he was a selfish gun and that the Wizards were overpaying him. Hes proven otherwise with the Wizards, the coaching staff even had to tell him to shoot more earlier on in the season, saying how he was being too unselfish. 

That said, Jamal is going to be a star. Even some of the haters with some common sense know this by watching his ability, but afew others that have no eye for talent dont or are just in denial  Its pretty obvious imo if you watch the games, and his deficiences largely have to do with maturing and experience, to know when to pass or shoot. As somebody whos played basketball, its much easier to learn that than learn to be quick or athletic, and it really is about maturity. 

I know you haters are going to hate to hear this, but in the longrun you cant win with hating on Jamal. He'll only get better, his potential is as high as anybodys, and hes probably a part of the Bulls future. His trade value is pretty high right now btw, but i dont think the Bulls are willing to trade him anymore either. FJ and JSong can post thier Jamal-hate in every post that picks out anything Jamal does wrong, but i think everyone should take note of how quiet they are when there isnt much to criticize, especially recently(i hope everyone remembers all the Jamal-hate posted by numerous people after the first 4 games or so~). I even think Dabullz has come to the realization that Jamal has alot of potential and would rather keep him than trade him. Anyhow, hate all you want especially when hes been playing as good lately or better than any other Bull, in the end your the only 2 that'll look like idiots once he does blow up and become that player :grinning:


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

FWIW ,Crawfords hasnt played well at home this season but neither has anyone for the Bulls.

However on the road: 


Jamal is averaging 

16.9 ppg 5.8 apg 2rpg 2tpg 46% fg 39% 3fg 94% ft 

30mpg on 13 fga per game .


I would say he is behind Arenas in terms of development but I think Pax went with Skiles to help develop jamal .


----------

