# And now! The starting lineup for your Chicago Bulls



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

PG Hinrich
SG Gordon
C Curry
SF Deng
PF Chandler

Bench:
AD, JYD, Crawford, and who cares?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> PG Hinrich
> SG Gordon
> C Curry
> ...


That 6'2-6'3 backcourt will get lit up nightly, and it makes no sense to me that our leading scorer should now come off the bench.

Deng will get lit up nightly.

This team won't sniff 30 wins.

At least the Clips drafted Livingston


----------



## Chicago N VA (Oct 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> PG Hinrich
> SG Gordon
> C Curry
> ...


Where do I barf.. I am going to say this again.... I am not looking forward to only winning 25 games a year...for the next 2 or 3 years..

Looks more like a NBA JV team..If someone can honestly say they are excited with that lineup.... I will say your dillusional...

So again scratch next year...


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: And now! The starting lineup for your Chicago Bulls*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> That 6'2-6'3 backcourt will get lit up nightly, and it makes no sense to me that our leading scorer should now come off the bench.
> ...


i bet livingston will get lit up far more than ben/kirk backcourt, that dude cant even bench 145, or was it 180? ben/kirk are mentally tough and physically strong. and livingston makes Jc look like those guys from global gym in the movie dodgeballs.

heck, when i see livingston' picture i think i can push hiim around a lil too. the clippers management better prays livingston doesnt suffer a carrer ending injury by getting knocked out in a game. i hope he at least make it pass the summer league-.-


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

If JC is resigned, I think he and Hinrich will start and Gordon will back both of them up.


----------



## lou4gehrig (Aug 1, 2003)

I would take Hinrich Gordon backcourt defensively over Arenas and Hughes.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

It's better than what we ended the season with.

Hinrich, Crawford, Linton, AD, Curry


I still want to see what happens with Crawford.


----------



## LoaKhoet (Aug 20, 2002)

With Gordon and Deng on our team, we are now very versatile. We can make trades or whatever. Paxman came in with the mind of making the team deeper and he certainly did that. I was hoping for a huge trade to bring in either Pierce or McGrady but overall i am satisfied. 

I do think Deng and Gordon bring a lot of value to our team. Orlando should consider those two and filler for McGrady. Boston should also consider those two for Pierce. But if Paxman decides to not doing anything, we should be fine as well. Gordon should have a Wade-kind of year. Deng is a tough one to tell. But he will get the minutes at SF so i expect big from him as well. Personally, I would bring back JC. You dont let a good player walk away from your team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I'm talking about 5 lotto picks in the starting lineup. And Jamal as 6th man. As our leading scorer, Jamal's team won 23 games. As sixth man, he provides instant scoring ability, which is a good thing in a 6th man. As a PG, Jamal has never shown he can run an offense that gets anyone but himself involved. 

Chandler, Curry, and Crawford are all 4th year players now. Veterans. Even if they never turn out as great as they were projected, they're more than decent as veterans.

This is the first time we're NOT looking at having some older veteran presence. Those old vets didn't want to pass the ball to our other guys, and for good reason. But these guys have no choice but to pass to each other. I think they'll figure out how to share the ball and who to get the ball to and when.

No matter what trades we make or who we draft, it's unrealistic to think we're going to be champs next season. We saw Kobe and Shaq with Payton and Malone and they couldn't do it.

So yeah, it's going to be at least two years before we're going to be talking about potentially winning a championship. In the mean time, our guys are REAL young, so they're not going to be that old when they get it together. 

This is also the first time I feel comfortable saying we have a strong player, or player to be, at every position. We have a real PG and a real SG and a real SF and a real PF and a real C. We have a new Bennie the Bull who is unlike any player the Bulls have had since MJ left town - he can score ANYWHERE on the court.

I cannot stress how quickly things have turned around for this team, just by trading away next year's pick for a lotto pick in this draft. We actually got to go for a homerun with a very high pick. Going for the homerun is the only way we're getting out of the cellar and are going to compete.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: And now! The starting lineup for your Chicago Bulls*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> That 6'2-6'3 backcourt will get lit up nightly


Nah.

And Livingston will be a Knick or Laker when his next contract gets signed...


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I'll gladly take JC on the Clippers...

I don't see how much sense it makes to throw Gordon into a starting 2 spot after JC had the kind of year he had.

Let the kid go somewhere and start and prove his worth and be appreciated and maybe somewhere that might actually be headed somewhere.

Barring any trades this Bulls team wins 25 games next year...


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Barring any trades this Bulls team wins 25 games next year...


uh oh, arenas is at it again

i m sure people all remember the draft predictions he made with clippers taking deng and such... 

only thing is with this prediction, we gonna have to wait 1 year long to make fun of arenas again? hehe
maybe not 1 year when our beloved bulls gets win no.26 at early feb.

p.s arenas please dont be offended i m just kidding around. peace...


----------



## jwill22bulls (Jun 23, 2003)

Average age is about 21?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: And now! The starting lineup for your Chicago Bulls*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> Nah.
> ...


Homerism..

Catch it!

Our team can do no wrong, our players are great....

Gordon's defense isn't the greatest, he can guard PGs, but he's going to get lit up if he has to guard SGs.

Hinrich got lit up by lesser PGs last year, so you're going to throw him on SGs?

Maybe Gordon will be a Knick or Laker by the time he can hang with some SGs or maybe even some PGs based off the defense I've seen him play at UCONN.


----------



## comptons (May 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: And now! The starting lineup for your Chicago Bulls*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> At least the Clips drafted Livingston


I must admit, I'm jealous. I wanted Gordon, but I didn't want anyone else to have Livingston.

In my fantasy world they would be the Bulls future backcourt. . . 
ah well.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

*Re: Re: And now! The starting lineup for your Chicago Bulls*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> That 6'2-6'3 backcourt will get lit up nightly, and it makes no sense to me that our leading scorer should now come off the bench.
> ...


Not really. If you actually look at last year our problem was not defense. We played defense. We couldn't score. We have enough defenders to counter what other teams will do.

Crawford won't be back. He's awful Arenas. Let's talk a year from today when he has another season full of him mouthing off, playing little defense and shooting under 40%. Jamal is holding Eddy Curry back. Just like Rose held him back. Now Eddy will be the unquestioned focal point on offense, and Gordon, unlike Jamal will make sure Eddy gets his first and then get his.

As much as I admittedly wanted Andre Iguodala or Luke Jackson more than Deng.....no Luol Deng will not get lit up nightly next year. Will Luol Deng make defensive first teams? No, but he won't get lit up. Consider who we had last year at SF.....Jalen "I want to hog it like Jamal" Rose, Eddie Robinson, Ronald Dupree, Scottie Pippen and Kendall Gill.

I can instantly say that Luol Deng is better right now, today, than all of the 03 versions of those players.

Gordon benches 400 lbs. He's not getting backed down. 

Arenas i know the team isn't street enough for you....not enough BALLERS, but maybe we'll win as much as the average Clippers team.


----------



## Reciprocity Failure (Jun 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> PG Hinrich
> SG Gordon
> C Curry
> ...


If JC stays, I'm thinking he will start, unless JC looses his starting spot to ANOTHER rookie (kidding, but not). Then again, I guess we could find out who wins the JCvsBG 1 on 1 games in practice.
And if JC stays, I think this team could win 31 games. I say 31 because that would be their best record since the glory days. That would be at least progress, and thats all I can really hope for.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I'm talking about 5 lotto picks in the starting lineup. And Jamal as 6th man. As our leading scorer, Jamal's team won 23 games. As sixth man, he provides instant scoring ability, which is a good thing in a 6th man. As a PG, Jamal has never shown he can run an offense that gets anyone but himself involved.
> 
> Chandler, Curry, and Crawford are all 4th year players now. Veterans. Even if they never turn out as great as they were projected, they're more than decent as veterans.
> ...


Amen, 1000 times. I'd rather see this team lose 60 games than have to watch some veterans like Gill or Marshall talk like they never make mistakes and basically think that they aren't on the Bulls because everyone else thought they sucked. 

It's finally Eddy's team


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

Some questions about this thread?



We want this to be Eddy's team what has he shown that proves he is able to? Maybe he will explode this season or maybe hell wait till March?



When did Jamal not get the rest of the team involved? He hardly played point this year and who was going to pass to?and He has always passed to Eddy, if anything he feeds Eddy the best of anybody on this team. 


Some people just see what they want to see and when has he mouthed off. Just ignorant folks...


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

> It's finally Eddy's team


Lord, I hope not.

If this is Eddy's team next year, I think we'll be going nowhere fast. The guy is a mental marshmallow. What has he done or said that would make you think he is ready to lead an NBA team. I doubt Pax wants to hand over the keys to the franchise to a guy who can't even stay in shape.

Actually, I think if anything, this draft does the exact opposite. Deng and Ben are two mentally tough guys who can contribute right away that will help to collectively makeup for Eddy's lack of mental fortitude. 

I know that's not the point of this thread, but I thought I would add that.

Anyways, I think to start the season, Jamal and Kirk start with Ben backing them both up. I doubt that Ben will be a better defender of two guards than Jamal right off the bat, if ever. For the most part, I'm excited to see how it works. All three guys can play both backcourt positions, and all are slightly different in their skill sets. I think they'll have their fair share of problems, but overall, I'm optimistic that it will workout. Mostly because I just think Ben's a flat out player. He's a guy you can just stick out on a basketball court, and he'll make his presence felt, no matter who else he is playing with. 

Also, I don't think Pax is done dealing either. I have a feeling that he intended to trade the picks, but he felt like the other teams were asking too much, and decided to just keep the picks. I'm guessing he's still looking to make some changes though.


----------



## comptons (May 30, 2002)

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


He also fed Marcus the best. Kirk was terrible at feeding the post last year, people just assume he was much better at it then Jamal.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: And now! The starting lineup for your Chicago Bulls*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> That 6'2-6'3 backcourt will get lit up nightly, and it makes no sense to me that our leading scorer should now come off the bench.
> ...


Suppose C. Billups 6'3" is a defensive liability. I guess 1 inch means alot to you little guy. I mean Wade's only 6'4". Oh, you're right JC would get lit up nightly at 6'5".

I'll remind you arenas when Livingston 6'7" gets his skinny little *** kicked all over the western conference.

You need to admit Pax's good job in this draft. At least provide an alternative course of action as GM. Don't just speculate that our new backcourt will be "lit up".

I do agree with u that if wee keep JC he will start. This team needed guards, though.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rosenthall</b>!
> Lord, I hope not.


Centers that put up better numbers at age 21 than Eddy Curry in the history of the NBA = 

Yao Ming (BARELY)
Shaquille O'neal



> If this is Eddy's team next year, I think we'll be going nowhere fast. The guy is a mental marshmallow. What has he done or said that would make you think he is ready to lead an NBA team. I doubt Pax wants to hand over the keys to the franchise to a guy who can't even stay in shape.


Pax is very happy with Eddy's conditioning. In fact, if you had any idea what you were talking about you'd know that Eddy showed up early and stayed late every day after Skiles go there.



> Actually, I think if anything, this draft does the exact opposite. Deng and Ben are two mentally tough guys who can contribute right away that will help to collectively makeup for Eddy's lack of mental fortitude.


Ok Dickie V. LMAO @ Eddy Curry not being as good as Ben Gordon and Luol Deng. These guys are being brought in to be Eddy Curry's role players. 

I know that's not the point of this thread, but I thought I would add that.

You're way off base on Curry......but the season will show you that. And you should pray he doesn't fail.....his success is our only short term chance at success.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Crawford's problem wasn't getting his team involved. His problem was that he only took one shot at doing it. He would either try to create his own shot early in the shot clock, else he'd dribble, try and drive and create; if he got thrown off on his drive, he would pull up and shoot as well.

This was perceived by fans as very bad shot selection. However, it REALLY was a lack of confidence on any other Bull knocking down a shot from the outside coupled by the fact that he thought he could do anything on any given sequence. As he matures as a ballplayer, he could be a Ray Allen type of player.

A mystic liability (should be fine based on their atleticism, but they aren't for some reason) on defense, but can be counted on to hit a clutch shot and create when need be on the offensive end.

Deng should give Crawford another out, as he seems to have a very decent mid-range game. I personally would have prefered Snyder or Iggy (to help shut down on the defensive end), Deng should fit in nicely once he gets used to the speed of the NBA game.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

LB26matrixns 

If this is Eddy's team, he's going to have to prove it. So far, he's nothing close to being worth making the Bulls his team, or even building around him.

One of these days, he'll get to be as good as Ilgauskas and at that point in his development, he'll still be nothing more than a very good role player. That's what Ilgauskas is.

Maybe sometime in the more distant future, he'll be much better than Ilgauskas, and then we can talk about this being Eddy's team.

In the mean time, we have 6 players of any real value and any one of them could be our leading scorer, and any one of them could turn out to be the leader of this team. Or maybe we won't have a leader at all, but we'll still turn out to be a TEAM.

Unfortunately, Curry isn't the best player on this team. I realize we want and need him to be, but let's face reality ;-)


----------



## Robert23 (Dec 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Centers that put up better numbers at age 21 than Eddy Curry in the history of the NBA =
> ...


I guess you haven't heard Tim Grover's comments on how lazy Eddy "StayPuff" Curry is. Lets face it Curry is the foundation for any success the Bulls are going to have as a franchise at this point. And unless he starts picking up the work ethic instead of relying purely on his potential. He needs to grow up and act like he's being paid millions of dollars to play basketball. The sad thing too is that these role players that are being brought in are partially here to teach Eddy about work ethic. He has several months left to start making people think differently of him and I hope he does.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Centers that put up better numbers at age 21 than Eddy Curry in the history of the NBA =
> ...


You can choose to look at it like that if you want to. But I think the bottom line is, Eddy should've done a LOT better than what he did last season. Eddy was expected to be an impact player last season, and he wasn't. Plain and simple. Even when he scored a lot of points, he never really altered the course of the game, and I don't think I want to build my franchise around a guy like that, atleast not yet.



> Pax is very happy with Eddy's conditioning. In fact, if you had any idea what you were talking about you'd know that Eddy showed up early and stayed late every day after Skiles go there.


Maybe Eddy is in good shape right now. But remember at the middle of the season? Eddy Curry was out of shape, and according to Pax and Skiles, he never had been in adequate NBA shape in his life. And even when Eddy started working out extra, I'm pretty sure it was at Skiles' insistence, not because of some wave of motivation that came over Eddy. And even this offseason, with all of the lipservice being paid to working hard and improvement, Eddy left for a week on a cruise after two weeks of working out. And see Tim Grover's comments in another thread. I think all of these instances point to the fact that Eddy is just not terribly self motivated, and I'm not sure that he ever will be. I mean, he's a professional basketball player, and after two and half years, he had never been in adequate shape. I think when you combine that with his disposition, and the many comments made about him, from sources both within the Bulls organization and outside of it, it just makes me think that Eddy is a soft guy, and will only really go and work when he is prodded to.




> Ok Dickie V. LMAO @ Eddy Curry not being as good as Ben Gordon and Luol Deng. These guys are being brought in to be Eddy Curry's role players.


Actually, I think there's a very good chance that one or both of those guys could be better than Eddy next year. Eddy is immensely talented, but he has holes in his game that are big enough to drive a truck through, and for the most part, they've been there since he's entered the league. Eddy is a very one dimensional player right now, he's a decent scorer in the post, with a pretty good jump hook, but he doesn't have another post move to counter when the defense stops it, he's a poor passer, shot blocker, rebounder, and help defender. And furthermore, Eddy has never really been known to be a hardworker, and all of these flaws have existed since he entered the league, so what's to say that they're going to be drastically improved upon this next season?

Anyways, the point I was trying to get at was that I think Eddy will only start to realize his natural gifts if he is surrounded by the right people who will work hard, and get on his *** when he doesn't. Or in other words, Eddy's not going to do it on his own. Eddy will respond to his environment, but he won't actually go out and mold it with his own will, which is why I think Pax's plan is to surround him with a lot of players who are talented and tough, and hope that Eddy will respond to that. 

And yes, I hope that one day Eddy will be so good that they will be his role players.



> You're way off base on Curry......but the season will show you that. And you should pray he doesn't fail.....his success is our only short term chance at success.


Well, I hope I am wrong. But from what I've seen and read, I just think Eddy is a soft guy, and I'm skeptical if that will ever change. I just don't see him suddenly taking the attitude of an Amare Stoudemire or Kevin Garnett. It would be great, but I'm not holding my breath. And I think solely depending on him for short term and long term success is risky at best, and I think Pax thinks that too, hence this need to acquire 'assets' that are tough minded and determined. Because if we put the onus solely on Curry, I doubt he'll come through. 

I hope you are right, and that I'm wrong, but we'll see. Eddy definitely has the talent to be a franchise player, but I don't think he has the mind or heart. Because of this, I think just waiting around for Eddy to suddenly 'get it' is a recipe for disaster and will probably never happen. I don't think he'll ever be a franchise player, for his mental shortcomings, but I think he's the type of guy who if you put in the right environment, could be very very good, and conversely, if you put him with the wrong people, will probably sink to their level and fail.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Robert23</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess you haven't heard Tim Grover's comments on how lazy Eddy "StayPuff" Curry is. Lets face it Curry is the foundation for any success the Bulls are going to have as a franchise at this point. And unless he starts picking up the work ethic instead of relying purely on his potential. He needs to grow up and act like he's being paid millions of dollars to play basketball. The sad thing too is that these role players that are being brought in are partially here to teach Eddy about work ethic. He has several months left to start making people think differently of him and I hope he does.


Oh I've read them Robert. There is nothing that bad. What's so bad about "Eddy turns it on when he wants to, he came back and didn't gain weight on his vacation." That doesn't negate the fact that aside from Shaq and Yao......no one's done it better at age 21.....whether you think he's fat, or you sit there and fantasize about what you could do if you were 6'11" 285, or whatever. Yeah so he doesn't have the "blue collar" mentality that makes a lot of people in our area really good plumbers and bus drivers.....doesn't change the fact that the numbers don't lie. 

When are people like you gonna get it?

When Scott Skiles came to town Eddy:

Showed up to practice an hour early every day
Left an hour after everyone else (even Kirk Hinrich) every day


Then Curry gets to the Berto where Pax says that he's in the best shape he's ever been in. 

So what's the problem. He doesn't make mean enough faces for you and Grover.

Again....any time you want to debate that anyone on the following list has had less to do with our failures last year than Curry I will light you up:

Chandler (back)
Jamal (shot selection, whining to media)
Cartwright (inept)
Williams (Knievel)
Rose (selfish cancer) 
Fizer (fat and worthless)
Robinson (a vagina)

It's actually really hilarious. Fizer, taken with the same 4th pick the year before Eddy, would show up to camp weighing the same thing Eddy did even though he's 3-5 inches shorter, and you never heard people that just wouldn't let it go. And Fizer didn't produce even numbers. Also.....Eddy doesn't think he's magic johnson in the open floor like Fizer. And when Fizer finally proves that he was nothing but useless by going to charlotte via the expansion draft.....all you hear is how "sorry" people feel for Marcus, and how "they can't wait to see him get his chance."

Even Eddy's biggest haters, like Sam Smith, admit that even if Eddy never cares as much as some would like.....he's still gonna be a damn good player on talent alone. I'd rather utilize that talent than brow-beat and alienate the kid for what he isn't.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rosenthall</b>!
> 
> 
> You can choose to look at it like that if you want to. But I think the bottom line is, Eddy should've done a LOT better than what he did last season. Eddy was expected to be an impact player last season, and he wasn't. Plain and simple. Even when he scored a lot of points, he never really altered the course of the game, and I don't think I want to build my franchise around a guy like that, atleast not yet.


Pretty hard to alter the game when teams start to triple you, or even leave a triple on you when you don't even have the ball, and then when you get it and pass out of the triple or double....you're passing to Linton Johnson, Jamal Crawford, Kendall Gill, Ronald Dupree, Antonio Davis, Jerome Williams, etc., etc.

Sure Eddy made an impact. Teams would start with the single and then boom.....Eddy's got double figures in the first quarter. But coaches have this funny thing in the NBA called adjustments. They look at Ronald Dupree's FG% before the game, and even Jamal's and guess where the double and triple starts to come from. I mean I don't really respect your hoop knowledge, so I don't expect you to realize this, but go back......watch......watch some games where teams just left two and three guys by Eddy and dared the other Bulls to shoot. Outside of Kirk nobody could be a threat. Why leave Eddy ever? Who else was gonna hurt you. 

What I like that Deng and Gordon provide is that teams won't be able to do that. Now we'll have four guys (with Tyson being healthy again; all indications are that he's fully recovered) that can score if Eddy's doubled and passes to them wide open. Instead of dividing, and alienating....why not see how all these players can compliment each other. Luol Deng and Ben Gordon remind me of far more talented versions of what would be Eddy Curry's Rick Fox and Derek Fisher. 

You can fantasize about what Shaq would do if he was out there with Antonio Davis, Linton Johnson, Ronald Dupree and Kirk Hinrich all you want, but I am willing to bet that it would be pretty ugly just the same.




> Maybe Eddy is in good shape right now. But remember at the middle of the season? Eddy Curry was out of shape, and according to Pax and Skiles, he never had been in adequate NBA shape in his life. And even when Eddy started working out extra, I'm pretty sure it was at Skiles' insistence, not because of some wave of motivation that came over Eddy. And even this offseason, with all of the lipservice being paid to working hard and improvement, Eddy left for a week on a cruise after two weeks of working out. And see Tim Grover's comments in another thread. I think all of these instances point to the fact that Eddy is just not terribly self motivated, and I'm not sure that he ever will be. I mean, he's a professional basketball player, and after two and half years, he had never been in adequate shape. I think when you combine that with his disposition, and the many comments made about him, from sources both within the Bulls organization and outside of it, it just makes me think that Eddy is a soft guy, and will only really go and work when he is prodded to.


You're argument has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese. First of all.....no Bull was in good condition under Bill Cartwright. Jalen Rose, Donyell Marshall and even the blue collared Lonnie Baxter ALL admitted that playing in Chicago left them drastically behind their NBA teammates.

So what if Skiles insisted....Eddy showed up and put the work in. Did Erob? No! Perfect example of what Eddy COULD have done. 

Tim Grover's most telling words were "Eddy didn't gain any of the weight he lost when he went on his cruise."

I'm from Chicago Heights, and my buddy knows Eddy's family. I was told that the timing of the cruise was so that the kids in the family would be in summer and thus not miss school. Is that good enough for you? I mean mind you Pax did say he was in great shape when he left. When he got back he showed up. When does the childish, obsessive crucifixion stop? Ever? 

I've just smashed every point in that paragraph.



> Actually, I think there's a very good chance that one or both of those guys could be better than Eddy next year. Eddy is immensely talented, but he has holes in his game that are big enough to drive a truck through, and for the most part, they've been there since he's entered the league. Eddy is a very one dimensional player right now, he's a decent scorer in the post, with a pretty good jump hook, but he doesn't have another post move to counter when the defense stops it, he's a poor passer, shot blocker, rebounder, and help defender. And furthermore, Eddy has never really been known to be a hardworker, and all of these flaws have existed since he entered the league, so what's to say that they're going to be drastically improved upon this next season?


He's improved on all of them. Eddy did start to show a stop jump last year. His rebounding has improved 33-50% every year he's been in the league. Last year he had a game with 5 blocks and Skiles praised him for defensive improvements. His blocks have gone up every year. In fact Eddy's stats have all improved year to year. If you just continues with the same level of improvement we've seen already......the numbers would project out to:

17 PPG 8 RPG 1.5 BPG......which is really no worse than what Yao did at 22. He never had to pass until last year because he hadn't been doubled yet. This is what happens when walking Jokes like Bill Cartwright (BTW Eddy at 21 BLOWS Bill Cartwright and his work ethic as a player out of the water. Go compare Eddy's numbers to BC's CAREER numbers. Go watch Eddy's numbers swallow your hard working hero) don't baptize players like Eddy by fire, because in Eddy's rookie year.....we couldn't throw Eddy to the Wolves......we were gonna make the "playoffs." ROFL what a joke. 



> Anyways, the point I was trying to get at was that I think Eddy will only start to realize his natural gifts if he is surrounded by the right people who will work hard, and get on his *** when he doesn't. Or in other words, Eddy's not going to do it on his own. Eddy will respond to his environment, but he won't actually go out and mold it with his own will, which is why I think Pax's plan is to surround him with a lot of players who are talented and tough, and hope that Eddy will respond to that.
> 
> And yes, I hope that one day Eddy will be so good that they will be his role players.


Fact is he is still going to be the star and they will be the role players. As for your earlier point about Gordon maybe being better.....Gordon is older lol.....so I'd certainly hope so. This team will not succeed if Eddy is playing off of Luol Deng. It has to be the other way around. 

When Eddy was a rookie, regardless of how hard he, or Tyson (who worked hard) worked......they were told to defer to the veterans, simply because.....they were veterans (like Kendall Gill....if that is what a veteran is, no thanks lol). That was the justification. Now it is Eddy's turn to be the man they defer to simple because he's been on the team longer, because that was all the justification he got.




> Well, I hope I am wrong. But from what I've seen and read, I just think Eddy is a soft guy, and I'm skeptical if that will ever change. I just don't see him suddenly taking the attitude of an Amare Stoudemire or Kevin Garnett. It would be great, but I'm not holding my breath. And I think solely depending on him for short term and long term success is risky at best, and I think Pax thinks that too, hence this need to acquire 'assets' that are tough minded and determined. Because if we put the onus solely on Curry, I doubt he'll come through.
> 
> I hope you are right, and that I'm wrong, but we'll see. Eddy definitely has the talent to be a franchise player, but I don't think he has the mind or heart. Because of this, I think just waiting around for Eddy to suddenly 'get it' is a recipe for disaster and will probably never happen. I don't think he'll ever be a franchise player, for his mental shortcomings, but I think he's the type of guy who if you put in the right environment, could be very very good, and conversely, if you put him with the wrong people, will probably sink to their level and fail.


But Eddy doesn't need to have the mentality of an Amare.....if he gets halfway there we'll be fine for two reasons. One.....while Eddy and Amare are about equal athletically....Eddy dwarfs Amare. Secondly.....like I said....Pax is doing the Detroit thing and saying no thanks to the Lakers thing. We don't need Eddy to be Shaq......we're gonna end up being more like a star with five equal points, and play team basketball. LA can keep their Kobe and Shaq philosophy......I'd rather have five guys that can do a GOOD job at beating you, than have two guys who are all world and ten guys that can't creat their own shot. 

Also remember one last thing. I do see a tenacity in Eddy's floor game. BUT Eddy never played organized basketball until he was 15. It was three seasons of high school and then onto the Bulls, where he really didn't even see much action his first 1.75 seasons. The thornwood coaches were bout the worst coaches on earth. So Eddy is just now developing instincts that most of these guys had down by the end of high school. This makes him look lethargic and indifferent, when what he's really doing is having to think "ok what do i do here." If you have to do that in this league you're dead. But I've seen Eddy slowly start to develop instincts. And I believe that once he begins to just act.....a lot of people will see that aside from conditioning, there was never really an issue.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> LB26matrixns
> 
> If this is Eddy's team, he's going to have to prove it. So far, he's nothing close to being worth making the Bulls his team, or even building around him.
> ...


Eddy Curry *Age 21*
14.7 PPG, 6.2 RPG, 49.6% FG

Yao Ming *Age 21*
13.5 PPG, 8.2 RPG, 49.8% FG

Brad Miller *Age 24*
7.7 PPG, 5.3 RPG, 46.1% FG

WOW! Eddy spanks Brad convincingly in all three state, EVEN rebounding, at 3 years younger.

Zydrunas Ilgauskas *Age 27*
11.1 PPG, 5.4 RPG, 42.5% FG

OUCH. Way to open your mouth without checking the numbers. You mean Eddy has 6 more years to average 3.6 less PPG, 0.8 less RPG and 7.1% lower FGs. At this pace I don't know if Eddy can ever do that. It must have been that stats were so hard to come by on that legendary 2001-02 Cleveland Cavaliers team huh? LMFAO, Ilgauskas is 29, an all star, and at the peak of his career and he barely averaged better numbers than Curry last year!!

Zydrunas Ilgauskas *Age 29*
15.3 PPG (+0.6), 8.1 RPG (+1.9) 48.3% FG (-1.3%)

LOL he's a less efficient scorer and barely scored more!!

As much as Eddy doesn't make mean enough faces for you.....he's FAR better than Brad Miller at 24 and Z at 27. He's well on his way to joining Yao as a top two center as Shaq exits (I classify Duncan and Dirk as PF). 

This is Eddy's team simply because it's Eddy's more than anyone else's.

Tyson? Nah. Health issues, not enough of an offensive threat
Kirk? Close. I like Kirk a lot, if anything I'd like to think of this team as belonging to the two of them. But Eddy with little to no effort will really be as good or better than Kirk at 110%. But like I said.....I think the world of Kirk
Gordon? Rookie. When Eddy was just a rookie (which is what you'll hear any time Deng or Gordon make a mistake "just" a rookie) he was told to just sit his *** on the just bench and just watch. Offensively I AM looking forward to Gordon being our second option, but come on. Gordon tops out as Dwayne Wade or Joe Dumars. With Eddy's physical gifts alone he tops out as a Shaquille O'neal, or the closest thing you'll ever see. 
Deng? Nah....Deng will be a good role player for this team. That is where his value is. He's a setup man. Dishonorable? No. I think at 7 he's a value and I'm happy to welcome him. 
Jamal? LOL we tried that last year. Bye Jamal.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

as of right now, nobody on the bulls except curry has any franchise type of player talents. everyone knows the focal point of the team is eddy curry, it doesnt matter if hes a leader or not, sometimes some people just dont like to be a leader. i think chandler and kirk will end up being the "leaders" and captains of this team. but this bulls team will go as far as curry takes them. everyone else there just role players that paxson brought in to complement eddy. yes you can win occasionally with our guards do all the scoring,which they are capable of, gordon/jc will put up huge numbers here and there. but in the playoffs, when things get slow down, a legit post threat is defiintely needed if u wanna go far. and nobody on the bulls team except eddy provides that.
like i have bene saying all those time, eddy will be the best center in the league once shaq is gone, i guess the bulls management seem to agree with me. everyone is very high on eddy curry.

i predict the bulls will win 35+games next season.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> I'll gladly take JC on the Clippers...
> 
> I don't see how much sense it makes to throw Gordon into a starting 2 spot after JC had the kind of year he had.
> ...


im going to say we win 30-40 next yr,why?i think KH and ben will crack some heads when someone isnt playin the way they should,TC is back and he will be very hungry after what happend the past year,i also think EC just might lay off the cheese burgers for once come into camp in shape.oyeah we get rid of JC that right there nets us about 5more games


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> PG Hinrich
> SG Gordon
> C Curry
> ...


My hope is that it will be:

PG Hinrich
SG Crawdaddy
SF (FA aquisition)
PF Tyson
C Curry

Bench:
Gordon, Deng, AD, JYD, Duhon, Tommy Smith, Dupree, Linton, (one more Center to ride the IR all year -- Mario Austin?)


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bulls</b>!
> 
> 
> im going to say we win 30-40 next yr,why?i think KH and ben will crack some heads when someone isnt playin the way they should,TC is back and he will be very hungry after what happend the past year,i also think EC just might lay off the cheese burgers for once come into camp in shape.oyeah we get rid of JC that right there nets us about 5more games



make that 10 games at lesat if we get rid of JC as long as jc is a starter next season we will continue to suck andbe confused on offense. the best role for jc is to come off the bench and back up either guard spots. but i m afraid hes not willing to do it. his ego is too big to be coming off the bench.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Eddy Curry *Age 21*
> ...


Just a couple weaks ago you gave me six kinds of **** for pointing out a whole host of centers at a similar age, early in their careers, who absolutely kicked Eddy's butt statistically.

Now, you're free to make whatever arguments you want as long as you stay within the guidelines, of course, but when I see stuff like this, what I think is that it's hard for you to be very objective about Curry. If you can present a piece of evidence that will support him, you'll do it, but if a completely comparable piece of evidence doesn't support him, you'll attack it's credibility. If you suggested that such evidence was inappropriate and inaccurate before, your using it now must be similarly inappropriate and inaccurate. More to the point, such inconsistency makes discussion pretty boring, because there's really nothing being discussed.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> Eddy Curry *Age 21*
> 14.7 PPG, 6.2 RPG, 49.6% FG
> 
> ...


Shaq *Age 21*
29.3 PPG, 13.2 RPG, 59.9% FG
Ouch, more than twice as good as Curry at the same age. But nobody tripled teamed him, because he's not as good as Curry!

Olajuwon *Age 22*
23.5 PPG, 11.9 RPG, 67.7% FG

Mourning *Age 22*
21.0 PPG, 10.3 RPG, 57.2% FG

Here's your true comparables:

Darryl Dawkins *Age 21*
11.7 PPG, 7.9 RPG, 57.5% FG

Joe Barry Carroll *Age 22*
18.9 PPG, 9.3 RPG, 49.1% FG


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Looks like DC beat DB to it.


----------



## Justice (Nov 22, 2003)

Yao ming never played NBA when he was 21. When he was 21, he was something like 40ppg 25rpg in CBA. ). He is from a country that basketball training is one of the worst. In his second season, he did much better (18 ppg, 9 rpg, 52%FG). 

If you really believe Eddy is a Franchise player, you should compare him to the Shaqs, Hakeems, DRobinsons etc etc. As people already pointed out, he is light-years away from these guys. If he can only be better than Brad millers, he is only a role player.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think our roster looks more like this:


Pg- Hinrich/Gordon/Pargo
Sg- Crawford/Gordon/Dupree
Sf- FA/Deng/Johnson
Pf- Chandler/AD/Jyd
C- Curry/AD/FA???


Deng might be thet starter but I hope we can land a guy in FA to start, Stephen Jackson or Hedo being my first choices. I don't see anyway that Gordon starts over Crawford butGordon should get plenty of time backing up both Hinrich & Crawford. And whoever said JC doesn't get the team involved :laugh: I guess that accounts for his high # of assists...


----------



## epic (Mar 16, 2004)

i like the draft. hinrich and jc should start with gordon coming off the bench... that can alternate during the season, though.

coming away with gordon and deng, who we initially thought was gonna be ours at 3 anyway, is a bonus.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I think our roster looks more like this:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Just a couple weaks ago you gave me six kinds of **** for pointing out a whole host of centers at a similar age, early in their careers, who absolutely kicked Eddy's butt statistically.
> ...


Yes because to me it doesn't matter if a center does BETTER than you at an older age (you gave examples of players who were 21 and turned 22, which Eddy will NEXT season).....they're supposed to.....they're older. But when Eddy does better than a center at an older age........that's just exposure.

And also.....I didn't go for Zydrunas' stats on a whim. The inept poster SPECIFICALLY brought up Zydrunas Ilgauskas without having the slightest clue what he was talking about.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Shaq *Age 21*
> ...


Shaq is clearly better.

Mourning was 22. Eddy turns 22 next season.....compare next seasons numbers to Eddy please. 

Eddy had a higher PPG than Dawkins last year and a higher FG% the year before.

Again.....Joe Barry Carroll was 22.....compare THIS COMING SEASONS numbers to Carroll please.

You brought up Ilgauskas......you had no friggin clue what you were talking about. Yeah so you found some ALL TIME centers who did better than Eddy when they were a year older.....that doesnt' change the fact that Eddy's numbers clearly expose Ilgauskas (and favorite of many "hard-work loving" Bulls fans....Brad Miller). So if you're gonna bring Ilgauskas up.....at least have the common courtesy to admit, A. Eddy isn't as bad as you fantasize about him being, B. You got exposed, bad!

LB: Michael Jordan's stats at age 23 were awesome
DB: Oh yeah well Kobe bryant at age 24 was better
LB: Ehhh, wasn't he older, isn't he SUPPOSED to be better?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Shaq is clearly better.
> ...


Curry's stats aren't awesome, period.

He hasn't come in and dominated like those other players, which is the point. They obviously were the stud player you pretend Curry already is.

Today is today, no matter how old Curry and Z are. Z is better RIGHT NOW, and he's nothing like a goto guy, nor is anyone calling Cleveland Z's team. That's why the Bulls aren't Curry's team, yet, either.

Yep, Jordan's stats were awesome his first year. Curry's weren't. That's the big difference, again.

It's just plain silly to call any 14/6 guy THE guy on any team.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes because to me it doesn't matter if a center does BETTER than you at an older age (you gave examples of players who were 21 and turned 22, which Eddy will NEXT season).....they're supposed to.....they're older. But when Eddy does better than a center at an older age........that's just exposure.
> ...


1. The whole "at what point did the guy turn 21" thing is pretty much a complete red herring as far as I'm concerned. You're trying to take an arbitrary point in time and use it to divide guys into discrete categories and it's just not making much sense to me.

In a post to me, you complained that it was unfair to compare Eddy to a guy who turned 22 during the course of a season at all, even though he only turned 22 at the end of the end of his season. Yet, here you are arguing that next year Eddy will be comparable to those guys even though he turnes 22 only like a month and a half into the season.

In other words, you seem to be arguing that it's fair to compare when Eddy is 22 for the vast majority of a season and the other player is 21 for the vast majority of a season, but that it's unfair to compare if the scale tips, even slightly, in the other direction (that is, if the Other player is a couple months older than Eddy).

Even if I bought into the idea that age is the major determinant (I don't), you seem to be tipping the scales unfairly to your guy.

2. I don't buy the idea that age is the major determinant. Other things being equal, I believe that pro-experience should accelerate, rather than slow a player's development. Thus, a 21-22 year old in his third season, with all of that experience in the pro game, with unimpeded access to coaching and pro resources, shouldn't be at a disadvantage (and in fact should be at an advantage) when compared to a player of similar age who is a professional rookie with a couple years of college experience.

Bottom line is that experience and learning count, and for my money a year in the pros should teach a kid more than a year in college (at least about playing pro basketball). If it doesn't, it's the fault of the team, the player, or both.

3. I'd wager you couldn't hold that "inept" poster's jock, so how about we avoid those kind of derogatory statements.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

very interesting question. On first glance, my gut says

Chandler
Deng
Curry
Gordon
Hinrich

Then I think Deng might come off the bench for the first 2 months, though I see him clearly as a starter by seasons end. Then I think, what about Jamal? if Jamal is here, he will start. 

Chandler
FA
Curry
Crawford
Hinrich/Gordon

Gordon and Kirk will battle out for the last spot. Deng, mark my words, will probably start 50+ games for the Bulls, but I am thinking opening day. 

ANyway, its way too early to tell. But I can tell you the Bulls got 3, YES THREE, good players who will be in the top 9 rotation next year. That is what I would call a success. I do believe Gordon will score double figures next year, but dont be surprised if Deng actually emerges, with Emeka Okafor and Andre Igoudala, as the best rookie this year. Is there a player in the league who is going to be in a position to play more minutes as a rookie then Deng? Only Emeka. No team in the league is as bad at one position as we are at the 3. Assuming no FA signings, Deng will have a chance to play a ton. And I expect him to do well


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> very interesting question. On first glance, my gut says
> 
> Chandler
> ...


Rlucas, who would you target at SF in free agency?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 2. I don't buy the idea that age is the major determinant. Other things being equal, I believe that pro-experience should accelerate, rather than slow a player's development. Thus, a 21-22 year old in his third season, with all of that experience in the pro game, with unimpeded access to coaching and pro resources, shouldn't be at a disadvantage (and in fact should be at an advantage) when compared to a player of similar age who is a professional rookie with a couple years of college experience.
> 
> Bottom line is that experience and learning count, and for my money a year in the pros should teach a kid more than a year in college (at least about playing pro basketball). If it doesn't, it's the fault of the team, the player, or both.


Mike, I usually buy most of what you're selling, but I don't know that I buy this. I think the player is better prepared both mentally and physically by going to college. We also know the NBA would prefer it that way and I don't believe its just for economical reasons although they certainly weigh heavy. I still believe the NBA is in a state of flux learning how to deal with all these projects they're now drafting.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JRose5</b>!
> 
> 
> Rlucas, who would you target at SF in free agency?


My top FA guy would be Marquis Daniels. I think Daniels makes some sense. Stephen Jackson is a bit of a long shot but I like him. Turk, I am not a fan of, but anything less then the MLE and could be worth it. If Macas is really available, get him. Ansu Sesay is a little bit of a sleeper


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> My top FA guy would be Marquis Daniels. I think Daniels makes some sense. Stephen Jackson is a bit of a long shot but I like him. Turk, I am not a fan of, but anything less then the MLE and could be worth it. If Macas is really available, get him. Ansu Sesay is a little bit of a sleeper


There was quite a buzz about Daniels toward the end of the season, but isn't it generally presumed that Cuban will pay to keep him?

Also, with our backcourt getting stocked up last night, do you still think it's likely we'll go after Macas? What gave us an advantage in that chase (the availability of playing time for him) no longer applies, really.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> Mike, I usually buy most of what you're selling, but I don't know that I buy this. I think the player is better prepared both mentally and physically by going to college. We also know the NBA would prefer it that way and I don't believe its just for economical reasons although they certainly weigh heavy. I still believe the NBA is in a state of flux learning how to deal with all these projects they're now drafting.


Interesting POV. I have a slightly different view, or you may just call it an enhancement to what you just wrote.

The NBA is actually in a very bad way, compared to where it was just a few years ago, due to the influx of european and underaged talent. It's a feedback-loop kind of thing in operation.

When there were few underaged and european players, the talent in the NBA was considerably better, IMO. A HSer or euro that joined an NBA team had to play against a league made up of 99% real men - veterans and college seasoned guys. But as more and more HSers and euros join the league, they're having to play 98% men, then 96% men, and so on. There's the feedback loop in action.

Eventually, the league will achieve a balance of many very young veterans (i.e. 21 year old/3 year vets like Curry), older veterans who started out like Curry, and HSers and euros, with a smattering of 2nd round college guys.

The effect is fairly evident to me. The original dream team used to dominate in the olympics. Recent teams have struggled, because they are made up of talent that is now the lower denominator that equals euro talent. Young guys like Amare can come in and dominate the other guys who should be playing in euro leagues or college ball because they're not having to match up with the Ewings, Oakleys, Olajuwans, etc., of the world. Those guys just don't really exist anymore.

Some look at the NBA and say it's weaker than it used to be because of expansion and the dilution of talent. I don't buy that argument, because it seems like adding 10 teams (say 150 players) shouldn't be adding 150 players that much worse than those already in the league.

But adding HSers and other lesser skilled players in draft after draft has devastated the overall quality of basketball in the league far more than dilution would suggest.

Why has team scoring and FG% for wings gone down so radically over a decade? Zone defense - nah, I can't see the zone keeping guys like McAdoo or Maravich or Gervin or Jordan or many many other of the great talents from scoring anyway. Those guys simply had great fundamental skills, honed by playing against the top HS talent, then college talent, and then making the jump to the pros. 

I submit that team scoring is down because there just aren't guys who have spent the 4 college years in the gym and in a structured program working on fundamentals through drills. In a ~25 game season over several months, there's so many off days that the coach gets to work on fundamentals with the players. In a 82 game season over the same period of time, you don't have the same kind of practice time, nor do you want to practice as much or you tire out the players.

That's where a guy like Kobe can succeed at this game beyond most others. He's definately a great athlete, but he also works on his game much more than most others. And when he plays, he is playing more and more against unskilled guys like Curry, Chandler, and Crawford of the Bulls, and Amare and TMac and others throughout the league.

At least that's my theory.

Peace!


----------



## Robert23 (Dec 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Interesting POV. I have a slightly different view, or you may just call it an enhancement to what you just wrote.
> ...


Excellent Post! I agree with it 99%. The only thing I disagree with is the dillution argument. I think that has some effect on it. Not as much as raw HS and early entry players but it definetly is a factor. If you had only 150 players in a 10 team league. You going to have 5 of the absolute best players on each team and then the next 100 might be really good. The next 150 you bring in are not going to be as good as the first 150 and on top of that your going to have to divide the top 50 among 20 teams. So you migh only have like 2 or 3 of the top players on a team. Which isn't that much worse but when you get to 30 teams you definetly start seeing the difference. And because of that teams start feeling more desperate to get a superstar to improve their team. So they have to start grabbing highschool kids and other players who aren't quite ready. It's a big snowball effect.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> 
> Mike, I usually buy most of what you're selling, but I don't know that I buy this. I think the player is better prepared both mentally and physically by going to college. We also know the NBA would prefer it that way and I don't believe its just for economical reasons although they certainly weigh heavy. I still believe the NBA is in a state of flux learning how to deal with all these projects they're now drafting.


I used to think so, but I think the opposition really boils down to the economic costs. Consider that there are strict limits placed on how much they can make a kid practice, and then consider the more informal limits (even if they are sometimes laughable) that come on how much work you do as a college kid. When I went to school, I knew some guys on the football team pretty well, and at least met some of the guys who played hoops then. And of course the sport is their primary activity... especially during the season, but like most things college, it's generally not approached as a job.

Then just consider how man games and how many practices you're in. Eddy Curry played 1150 minutes as an NBA rookie and 2154 last year. That's experience. 

In comparison, consider that Okafor and Gordon were considered possibly the two most polished guys in the NCAA last year, and they played 1166 and 1345 minutes of basketball last year (respectively).

In short if you accumulate experience and knowledge in games and practice, Curry likely got more as a barely played NBA rookie than the top college guys in the country. Now I agree that the college guys got longer PT and in some cases higher pressure situations, but they also had vastly less exposure in terms of practice and behind the scenes stuff. 

In short, I think that if it makes any difference at all, it's better to be a pro. As an addendum, I also think it's true that good players are just good players, and the effect of this "learning" is in many, though of course not all cases overstated. The guys that can play, within reason, are going to come in and start showing you something.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Curry's stats aren't awesome, period.
> ...


Ok so who is the guy on this team? 14 and 6 are damn good numbers for a 21 year old playing a man's position....THE MOST DOMINANT position in the NBA.

Great point.....Brad Miller and Zydrunas Ilgauskas are 28 and 29 respectively and their better than would-be college-senior-to-be Eddy Curry. But Z wasn't better by much.....and his percentage was lower. Eddy Curry still has 3 or 4 more years of the kind of continuous growth we've seen from him. He will be better than both of those guys.

But let's hear it.......if Eddy isn't the guy on this team, who is? This should be real fun lol.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> 1. The whole "at what point did the guy turn 21" thing is pretty much a complete red herring as far as I'm concerned. You're trying to take an arbitrary point in time and use it to divide guys into discrete categories and it's just not making much sense to me.
> ...


We can go back and forth on this....and you'll never win. 

Paragraph by paragraph:

1. You say it's arbitrary.....it's not. A guy has a thing called birthday.....if he turns 22 in a season, that means he started the season at 21. Eddy turned 21 last year, so he started the season at 20. Does it matter? Hell yes it does......a player sees more improvement from 21 to 22 on average than almost any other age. This is the time of your life when you are adjusting and growing. Every year, every month counts. To Illustrate:

Eddy Curry at 19: 6.7 PPG 3.8 RPG 
Eddy Curry at 20: 10.5 PPG 4.4 RPG
Eddy Curry at 21: 14.7 PPG 6.4 RPG

For three years Eddy Curry has shown that you can take 40-50% of his PPG and just add that on to next year going +3.8 PPG from his rookie year to his second year, and +4.2 PPG from his second year to his third year. His RPG has increased 1.3 RPG per season so far, with his third season netting a bigger increase than his second. Just project that out and you've got 19.2 PPG and 7.7 RPG. That would collectively be better than Yao Ming at age 22. Will he get there? We'll see....BUT we have a sample of three years now with empirical evidence that he'll come close. Not to mention.....finally.....no Brad Miller, Charles Oakley, Corie Blount OR Donyell Marshall to start the season. Expect Eddy to see more minutes and put up better numbers. 

Yes next year Eddy turns 22. He will be responsible for being compared to other players AT 22. One thing you fail to realize about a lot of these guys, like Amare and KG, as an aside, is that they don't play center. A lot easier to put those numbers up at PF, than it is playing against men at center. 

No I am not arguing that at all. What I am saying is that if you are 21 on opening day......that is your "22 year old season" because that means you will be 22 before the NEXT opening day. So Eddy was 20 this opening day, and you want to compare him to guys that turned 22 in March of the season. No.....different ages period. 

2. Not true.....not in Eddy's case. Bill Cartwright was not a teacher. Ask a million different people through sunday. He and Floyd could coach slightly below average if you gave them grizzled veterans who were ready to play. While other guys were in college getting instruction and being able to try their techniques against worse competition to refine them....Eddy was behind Brad Miller almost his entire rookie year, and then was watching Corie Blount and Donyell Marshall lose games for another year and a quarter. Bill would put those two in and our point differential would dip BELOW what it was when Eddy was in the game. So no.....not an advantage. An advantage if you have a progressive coach and organization who throws you to the dog's and figures you can get all of your mistakes out of your system sooner, rather than later? Yes.....for Amare and Kevin it was an advantage. For Jermaine O'neal and Eddy Curry it was not. 

You have to blame the Bulls organization. For one.....who didn't Jerry Krause's regime screw up? You're talking about an organization where Miller and Artest looked pedestrian, that turned Jalen Rose from a decent vet to a confused kitten, that made Jay Williams go from a lock to a borderline bust, that jacked Fizer up real bad......the list goes on and on. Eddy was ready to play as much as any 19 year old. We'd go to Cleveland Eddy's second year.....he'd have 10 points and 6 rebounds in the first quarter en route to a Bulls lead, and then he'd sit for 2 quarters for no reason at all. Ironically the "veterans" aka Bill's boyfriends.....would have us down by 20 by the time Eddy came back in. 

3. Inept is not derogatory at all. When you make claims that Eddy couldn't compare to Z, and then you are shown numbers that completely contradict your arrogant claims you are "inept". Doesn't mean you aren't a good person....just means you don't know how to search facts and use your facts to make logical arguments. You throw your opinion around without any factual backing whatsoever and you are.....inept.

Also I have a degree from Purdue and am working on my juris doctor Mike.....does that make me pretty great? Not necessarily. Does it mean I could more than hold the jock of a poster who can't navigate nba.com? Definitely.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>JRose5</b>!
> 
> 
> Rlucas, who would you target at SF in free agency?


Have to target Stephen Jackson....you have to. You can start with Jackson and Gordon at SF and SG.....then bring Deng in....slide Jackson to SG, and then either send Gordon to the bench or move him to PG. It gives you the versatility to counter any lineup.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I used to think so, but I think the opposition really boils down to the economic costs. Consider that there are strict limits placed on how much they can make a kid practice, and then consider the more informal limits (even if they are sometimes laughable) that come on how much work you do as a college kid. When I went to school, I knew some guys on the football team pretty well, and at least met some of the guys who played hoops then. And of course the sport is their primary activity... especially during the season, but like most things college, it's generally not approached as a job.
> ...


Your theories kind of leave out big facts on the regular. 

Although Gordon and Okafor played less minutes, they played less games over the same time span. What does this mean? That while every NBA coach complains that there is no time to practice once the season starts.......college teams practice nearly every day, because there are less games each week and each month, AND the season is shorter. 

So....it would kind of be like saying "Mr. Doe had a very real motive to kill his wife, he must have done it," and neglecting to say that when the police showed up on the scene they saw a motorcycle gang standing over Mr's Doe's wife with a bunch of uzis with fresh smoke eminating from within. 

Now....stop and breath.....your first reaction to what I just told you will be that I am "attacking you" or "getting personal"....not at all. I am just dismantling your arguments without breaking any rule whatsoever. Having the balls to tell you are wrong, why you're wrong, and how wrong you are.....is not breaking a rule. And if it is....that is censorship. That is saying "hey I am a mod and have more friends here and you are not, so therefore I am provided more leeway and opportunity to speak my case than you."


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok so who is the guy on this team? 14 and 6 are damn good numbers for a 21 year old playing a man's position....THE MOST DOMINANT position in the NBA.
> ...


It's obvious the guy was Crawford. Leading scorer, 2nd (barely) in minutes, led the team in FGA, led the team in scoring, and was the leading scorer in 37 games. You do want your goto guy to lead the team in FGA. BTW, Curry led the team in scoring 19 times, about what you'd expect from a #2 option.

It is entirely irrelevent what age Curry is. Nobody panned Shaq for being young, they praised him because he was awesome. Curry doesn't strike fear into anyone, nor has he been awesome, except on RARE occaisions.

All you've argued is that Curry has improved from a terrible player into a guy who's not so terrible. I'll stipulate that. You win. The numbers speak for themselves - 14/6, which isn't very good for a guy you claim is so terrific.

Your logic suggests that at age 31, Curry will be scoring 50+ PPG (10 years x 3.8 PPG + 14.7PPG) and grabbing close to 20 RPG (10 years x 1.3 RPG + 6.2 RPG). Doubtful.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> It's obvious the guy was Crawford. Leading scorer, 2nd (barely) in minutes, led the team in FGA, led the team in scoring, and was the leading scorer in 37 games. You do want your goto guy to lead the team in FGA. BTW, Curry led the team in scoring 19 times, about what you'd expect from a #2 option.[/auote]
> 
> But this IS Eddy Curry's team. Jamal won't be back, and if he is Eddy will have the greater role. They did draft a SG and two guards overall right? I missed the part where they also drafted a center. Oh wait....that didn't happen.
> ...


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Pretty hard to alter the game when teams start to triple you, or even leave a triple on you when you don't even have the ball, and then when you get it and pass out of the triple or double....you're passing to Linton Johnson, Jamal Crawford, Kendall Gill, Ronald Dupree, Antonio Davis, Jerome Williams, etc., etc.
> ...


Crap. 

LB, I had a big, thorough response to your post, but it got wiped out. Schnoogens.

Well, I'm not going to write it again, but I'll briefly re-state some of my main points.

You say Eddy made an impact last season. Well, on what basis? It wasn't statistical dominance (14/6 is okay, but nothing to throw a party over), and it certainly wasn't our record either. His crappy teammates had something to do with it, no doubt, but I don't think they completely vindicate Eddy's mediocre season. I think if you put any 'impact' post player in Eddy's place (JO, Shaq, Webber, Duncan, take your pick) I think they would have all fared better than Eddy did. JMO.

Your point about the Cartwright regime and Eddy's conditioning has some validity......to a point. However, I don't think it gets Eddy off the hook. I don't think you can pin Eddy's conditioning entirely on Cartwright. At some point, Eddy is accountable for that. Staying in shape is a simple responsibility, and even if your coach is lax about it, you shouldn't need someone babysitting you to do it. I think it alluded to how soft our team is, moreso than a flaw in Cartwright's methods. Coaches like Phil Jackson and Rick Adelman aren't micro-managers when it comes to monitoring their players conditioning, but it's not an issue, since their players take care of themselves. And while I think it's good that Eddy has responded to Skiles, I think the fact that these measures had to be taken speaks to Eddy's self motivation. 

I don't think Eddy will EVER have the tenacity of someone like Amare Stoudemire. It's just not his personality. You can acquire toughness to a point, but I don't think you can just override your personality. And I don't think the argument about Eddy not playing basketball until a late age holds water either. Look at Amare, I think he started playing organized basketball at a later age than Eddy, if I'm not mistaken. And one of Luol Deng's biggest strength's is his court awareness, and the dude didn't start playing until three or four years ago. 

Alas, I don't think we disagree on things as much as it may appear. I like Eddy Curry too, and I agree with you that for this team to reach its full potential as currently constructed, Eddy HAS to fulfill his potential. He's our one true ace in the hole, something that almost no other team has. However, I just think to go into next season expecting Eddy to carry this team would be a big mistake, because I don't think he's ready. You may disagree on this, but I think he's soft, has never displayed a great work ethic, and has a lot holes in his game, and even if he will eventually be the best player on our team, I really doubt we'll be able to rely on him as 'the man' next year. JMSO.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Your theories kind of leave out big facts on the regular.
> ...


The don't really leave out those facts, they simply disagree and/or don't put the same weight on them. You can feel however you like about it 



> So....it would kind of be like saying "Mr. Doe had a very real motive to kill his wife, he must have done it," and neglecting to say that when the police showed up on the scene they saw a motorcycle gang standing over Mr's Doe's wife with a bunch of uzis with fresh smoke eminating from within.
> 
> Now....stop and breath.....your first reaction to what I just told you will be that I am "attacking you" or "getting personal"....not at all. I am just dismantling your arguments without breaking any rule whatsoever. Having the balls to tell you are wrong, why you're wrong, and how wrong you are.....is not breaking a rule. And if it is....that is censorship. That is saying "hey I am a mod and have more friends here and you are not, so therefore I am provided more leeway and opportunity to speak my case than you."


In truth my first reaction was to sort of arch an eyebrow and wonder what the hell you're going on about. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, nor is that a requirement. If the mods here were going to operate on that principle, there wouldn't be any discussion in the first place.

I suppose I am a bit amazed, however, at your continued patting yourself on the back for being "right" when in fact you simply "disagree" and by your continued name and education dropping (regarding rather run of the mill stuff educational stuff, by the way). That's not grounds to edit your posts, but it is grounds for me to not take them all that seriously.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> My logic, sense you never asked and just assumed, suggests that barring injury or severe drug problem, etc, Eddy will show similar improvement statistically every year until he's about 26, with each year's improvement shrinking slightly.


Curry didn't improve last season. Statistically, he got 50% more minutes and 50% more points. If he keeps up that pace, he's going to have to play more than 48 minutes per game to put up the scoring numbers you say he will.

But let's look at your latest backpeddling a bit closer. So now you say Eddy's going to improve by 3.8 PPG for 5 years.

14.7 + 3.8 x 5 = 33.7 PPG

Still doubtful.

That players show statistical improvement every year until age 26 is also bogus. Look at Chandler. Oh, you want to bring up his injury? Look at Corie Blount or Stacey King.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> No I am not arguing that at all. What I am saying is that if you are 21 on opening day......that is your "22 year old season" because that means you will be 22 before the NEXT opening day. So Eddy was 20 this opening day, and you want to compare him to guys that turned 22 in March of the season. No.....different ages period.


You do understand, don't you, that this provides an inconsistent basis for comparison in some cases though. Put it this way... do you agree that, under your scheme:

You're saying that Player A, who turns 21 on October 1 (before the season) is in his "21 year old season" and Player B, who turns 21 on November 1 (during the season) is in his "20 year old season".

These two guys are, in fact, only seperated by one month in real age, yet you are arguing they are not to be compared to each other.

At the same time, you seem to be saying that it would be ok to compare player A to Player C, who turned 21 on January 1. Since Player C starts the season at age 21, that's also his "21 year old season". He is, in fact, 10 months older than player A.

Thus, are you arguing that it's fair to compare A to C, who is 10 months older, but inappropriate to compare him to B, who's 1 month younger?

Again, that doesn't make much sense to me.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rosenthall</b>!
> 
> 
> Crap.
> ...


What current Bulls numbers were any better? Jamal? Tyson? The answer is no one.



> Your point about the Cartwright regime and Eddy's conditioning has some validity......to a point. However, I don't think it gets Eddy off the hook. I don't think you can pin Eddy's conditioning entirely on Cartwright. At some point, Eddy is accountable for that. Staying in shape is a simple responsibility, and even if your coach is lax about it, you shouldn't need someone babysitting you to do it. I think it alluded to how soft our team is, moreso than a flaw in Cartwright's methods. Coaches like Phil Jackson and Rick Adelman aren't micro-managers when it comes to monitoring their players conditioning, but it's not an issue, since their players take care of themselves. And while I think it's good that Eddy has responded to Skiles, I think the fact that these measures had to be taken speaks to Eddy's self motivation.


The point was.....no Bull was in shape under Cartwright. When Skiles got to Chicago Eddy worked hard. 



> I don't think Eddy will EVER have the tenacity of someone like Amare Stoudemire. It's just not his personality. You can acquire toughness to a point, but I don't think you can just override your personality. And I don't think the argument about Eddy not playing basketball until a late age holds water either. Look at Amare, I think he started playing organized basketball at a later age than Eddy, if I'm not mistaken. And one of Luol Deng's biggest strength's is his court awareness, and the dude didn't start playing until three or four years ago.


Amare started playing basketball at 13 and graduated high school at 19....that year span right there is Eddy's entire basketball life. Also....the coaches at Thornwood sucked, Floyd sucked, Cartwright sucked. 



> Alas, I don't think we disagree on things as much as it may appear. I like Eddy Curry too, and I agree with you that for this team to reach its full potential as currently constructed, Eddy HAS to fulfill his potential. He's our one true ace in the hole, something that almost no other team has. However, I just think to go into next season expecting Eddy to carry this team would be a big mistake, because I don't think he's ready. You may disagree on this, but I think he's soft, has never displayed a great work ethic, and has a lot holes in his game, and even if he will eventually be the best player on our team, I really doubt we'll be able to rely on him as 'the man' next year. JMSO.


We don't and you've been reasonable. I recommend the article "Pax: The Focus is still on Curry and Chandler"


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> The don't really leave out those facts, they simply disagree and/or don't put the same weight on them. You can feel however you like about it [


The first sentence is incoherent.



> In truth my first reaction was to sort of arch an eyebrow and wonder what the hell you're going on about. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, nor is that a requirement. If the mods here were going to operate on that principle, there wouldn't be any discussion in the first place.
> 
> I suppose I am a bit amazed, however, at your continued patting yourself on the back for being "right" when in fact you simply "disagree" and by your continued name and education dropping (regarding rather run of the mill stuff educational stuff, by the way). That's not grounds to edit your posts, but it is grounds for me to not take them all that seriously.


Education dropping is absolutely warranted when people start saying that you can't hold other people's jocks. Other people, mind you, who don't even have the ability to check their facts before making claims.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Curry didn't improve last season. Statistically, he got 50% more minutes and 50% more points. If he keeps up that pace, he's going to have to play more than 48 minutes per game to put up the scoring numbers you say he will.
> ...


LOL I'm not backpeddling....I'm meeting your arguments head on lol. I SPECIFICALLY STATED that I see Eddy topping out around 22-25 PPG.....YOU CANNOT READ lol.

In the post you responded to.....



> I'm expecting Eddy to gradually get up to about 22-25 PPG and 10-12 RPG, which LIKE I SAID...is enough to set the tone for our multi-talented roster, because we will not be a TWO MAN team, but a five man team[/quote


Are you a Bulls fan? Or do you hate the Bulls. I thought Eddy was a Bull.

But if you disagree that his is gonna be Curry's team.....I urge you to read the article "Pax: Focus still on the big men"


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> You do understand, don't you, that this provides an inconsistent basis for comparison in some cases though. Put it this way... do you agree that, under your scheme:
> ...


I could tell you why that doesn't make sense to you, but that wouldn't be very nice. 

Can you show me an actual example of this? I don't think anyone on your list was merely a month older. If they were, and I remember checking the ages, I would not have contested that at all.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

This is amusing in the way that watching a lion devour a gazelle on the nature channel is amusing. *LB26!*, I know you're relatively new to this board, and I've enjoyed many of your posts since coming over.

A bit of friendly advice. Get to know the posters a little more before going toe-to-toe. *MikeDC!*, *DaBullz!*, and *Rosenthall!* are all guys who participate in reasoned, well documented debates and conversations on this board. You are not going to sway their opinions with "lol", put downs, and posting in all caps.

Nor will you be banned from this board for doing the same. You will, however, lose a lot of respect on the board for posting in this manner and will just become an annoyance to posters who may otherwise respect what you have to say.

Take our friend *Arenas!* for example. He's got hoops knowledge to spare, but he's such a jerk in his conversations that many people wish he would go away. 

I'd say to take this kind of arguing back to RealGM, but I understand that is not possible right now. Try to stick to facts and opinions, though, and leave the all-caps and put downs to others.

Peace!


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> This is amusing in the way that watching a lion devour a gazelle on the nature channel is amusing. *LB26!*, I know you're relatively new to this board, and I've enjoyed many of your posts since coming over.
> 
> A bit of friendly advice. Get to know the posters a little more before going toe-to-toe. *MikeDC!*, *DaBullz!*, and *Rosenthall!* are all guys who participate in reasoned, well documented debates and conversations on this board. You are not going to sway their opinions with "lol", put downs, and posting in all caps.
> ...


Hey I hear you.....I really do. But two things. If you want to have a tone with me.....have your facts straight (not you, but rather DaBullz). Don't make a claim about Eddy topping out as Z Ilgauskas when he's already almost as good as Z ever was and he's 21, and you just forgot to check the numbers lol. When you do that that is severe ineptitude.

With MikeDC.....it's not personal, and I do respect him. He just "doesn't like Eddy Curry." LOL. I'm cool with that. Facts are still facts, and while I disagree with DC, his arguments are a LOT more on par than Dabullz

Rosenthall is cool with me. I mean he's respectful, and although he disagrees.....he doesn't just throw out unfounded opinion, or make inaccurate claims. 

As far as putting DaBullz down.....it was one word in one post, and to be inept is not like an exhaggerated insult. If I ever say "Eddy will never be as good as Rasho Nesterovic?", and you show me that Eddy is already better at 21 than Rasho at 24 or 25....please.....call me inept in that conclusion. 

But thanks for the word of advice Wynn. Maybe it's time for us all to throw the towel in, agree that all of us have made some points, and move on before it gets too ugly. 

Dabullz, DC? Whatta ya say?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Well taken.

I think you'll also realize that all of these guys like Eddy Curry, but we're all tired of trying to count on him to show up consistently.

Again, great to have you here. It's always nice to have well-spoken dissenting opinions!


----------



## shlomo (Dec 8, 2002)

Great thread. It's nice to see the overall tone improving here, with posters actually bothering to reply to other's points.

shlomo


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> Well taken.
> 
> I think you'll also realize that all of these guys like Eddy Curry, but we're all tired of trying to count on him to show up consistently.
> ...


I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I am happy to be here. I think you'll find that, while I get sensitive about Eddy, you'll very rarely see me get quite this energetic about a Bulls topic. On the NBA board? LOL, different story.

But let me re-emphasize that the moderating here is fair and true, which is why the threads are different than realgm.com.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

What I have to say is that I agree with *Wynn!*, and I agree with the better way in which the thread is ending than the way it was beginning


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> What I have to say is that I agree with *Wynn!*, and I agree with the better way in which the thread is ending than the way it was beginning


Mike......Eddy will show you....wait and see. Can you agree that winning a little with these new guys would lighten everybody up?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Mike......Eddy will show you....wait and see. Can you agree that winning a little with these new guys would lighten everybody up?


----------

