# We Overrate Jamal Crawford



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

I’m going to get bashed for this but hear me out. All Crawford has done in his career is show in his last 20 games that he COULD be a very good player. He played very well in this period. Before this, which ever way you look at it, he has achieved little. If you were being harsh on him, you could say that previously he couldn’t get playing time because he just wasn’t good enough. Taking a softer stance, in his first year, Pink Floyd wouldn’t play him. In his second he injures his knee, and does well to come back late in the season. He plays well, shooting a nice percentage, but at no time solidifies himself as the starting PG, hence the reason we drafted Jay Williams. Last season, he was inconsistent off the bench, but when given the chance to start, he played well, especially late in the season.

Whichever way you look at his career so far, is that Crawford has really only proven himself in the last 20 games of last season. Critics will say it was a hot streak, Crawford supporters will say it was a period where he proved he could play at a consistently high level. However, it was only 20 games and not an entire year. As a result, I think the Bulls should be careful of what type of extension he gets. I think they should sign him to an extension, but only one at or just above the MLE. The maximum I would offer is 6 years at $39 million, starting at $5 million in his first year, with annual increases of $600,000. It could be a real bargain in the future.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I don't get people who say Crawford has only played well f0r 20 games! Crawford has shown signs coming off of the bench and starting at the end of the season before last and last seasons "hot streak" was a hell of a lot more than 20 games! More like half a season. In any case, I think it is ridiculous to suggest that the Bulls overvalue Crawford, if anything it seems like they undervalue him bringing in prospects like JWill & Hinrich to compete with him. 

I guess it's possible that us fans overrate him although it seems like a great majority are sleeping on him and posting threads talking about how the Bulls "Overrate" him and so on. :yes: 

I feel very confident that us fans that have been accused of "overrating" Crawford will be villified next season. I guess we will all just have to wait & see how it plays out.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

It is the nature of the beast. As fans it is only natural that to overvalue our players because of the attachment we have to them . Crawford( or anyone else) on the team is not as good as we make them out to be or as bad as fans of other teams think they are. Just how things work. Having said that Crawford is a nice young player who has a bright future.


----------



## LuCane (Dec 9, 2002)

> I don't get people who say Crawford has only played well f0r 20 games! Crawford has shown signs coming off of the bench and starting at the end of the season before last and last seasons "hot streak" was a hell of a lot more than 20 games! More like half a season.


While I do agree that Crawford has shown potential for more than 20 games, I also think you are seemingly falling into the same trap the original poster described.

Crawford has not proven to be an All-Star, yet "we" (as Bulls fans)speak of him as though he has. What Jamal has done is show "extended glimpses" of what we HOPE will come. He has done this in the same way Curry did last year, as well as Chandler. The difference is, there truly seems to be a general overblown loyalty to Crawford by certain groups (if you cant tell by the fact that every poster says "I will get bashed for saying this" before mentioning anything even slightly negative about Jamal). Why? Probably has a great deal to do with the PG controversy of last year, and many of the fans seemingly "choosing sides." When this happened, different posters argued for or against Crawford and Williams, further reinforcing (and increasing) their own personal feelings toward Crawford or Williams.



> In any case, I think it is ridiculous to suggest that the Bulls overvalue Crawford, if anything it seems like they undervalue him bringing in prospects like JWill & Hinrich to compete with him.


You say its "ridiculous?" Some people on this board have Crawford on the level of a bonified star, when the fact is he has simply shown the potential to be one. They undervalue him by bringing in competition? Its possible that they might hurt his feelings, but I dont see this as a way they can undervalue him. Are you honestly saying you didnt believe, going into the 2002 draft, that Jay Williams would have a serious impact on this team and league? What does bringing in a Jay Williams have to do with Crawfords value when Crawford had barely shown us anything at all, at the time? Now, I do understand that bringing in Hinrich is questionable, considering what Jamal showed us what he COULD be during the last season, and while it may show a reluctance by the front office to fully commit to Crawford, it ALSO demonstrates what I have been stating:

Crawford has all the talent in the world, and he has shown glimpses of this talent/potential, but he has not proven his value, JUST YET.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LuCane</b>!
> 
> 
> While I do agree that Crawford has shown potential for more than 20 games, I also think you are seemingly falling into the same trap the original poster described.
> ...


Oh I agree, Jamal isn't an all star yet. That will take a little longer. What he has done is shown consistent glimpses that he is going to be a talent on the NBA level and given his age thats a very good thing. 

My point is tha the TEAM seemingly undervalues him. Not neccessarily by bringing in JWill, that was expected. What, for me, was unexpected was them giving JWill the starting og job when Jamal and JWill were pretty equal going into the season. It didn't make much sense to me then and it doesn't now. You should always go with the guy with more experience when all things are basically equal, which they were. The Bulls would have been better served starting the season the way they ended it. With Jamal starting and JWill providing energy as a back up. This is in no way intended as a slam on JWill who I think probably would have ended up being a very good player before his injury. Now of course all of that is in doubt. Drafting Hinrich seems like a slap in the face to Jamal from my perspective but I guess we will see how it plays out.

Jamal has a great deal of talent and it is undenably true that he has some developing to do. Thats all to be expected given how early Jamal came out, how young he is, and the time off with the ACL. IMO, Jamal will only prove his TRUE value if he is given over the pg reigns by the Bulls and if they let him be the man. Will they do that? I hope so but I guess we will wait and see.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Jamal Crawford is my favorite bulls player. So I'll allow myself to overrate him. Thank you.

I've seen enough flashes to convince me that he's going to be a star. That kid has unreal talent. And I think by the end of the season he had figured out that he was just that good.

The rest of the league better beware.


----------



## bullsinjection (May 15, 2003)

I am on Jamal's bandwagon also. But 20 games is a long time. Teams had time to scout his game and adjust their defenses to stop Jamal. Tha fact that he played excellent basketball for that streak shows that Jamal is coming into his own and is ready to play at a consistent high level.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

fan is short for fanatic. 

i guess you could call it overrating him, but i'd attribute this to excitement as well. i would hold back my enthusiasm if he was getting by purely on athletic ability and we had to say stuff like "he'll be really dangerous once he gets a jump shot", or "wait until jamal learns how to take people off the dribble then watch out". Instead jamal's been showcasing a variety of skills and does so with a flare that makes him a huge reason why it's fun to watch bulls games once again.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

It's good to remember that we are, in fact, Bulls fanatics. This will make us overrate basically every player on the roster.

Maybe if you look at the Denver Nuggets fans, they will tell you that Jeff Trepagnier is one of the hottest up and coming prospects, or that Vincent Yarborough has shown signs of becoming just as good a player as Steve Smith. They may tell you that Rodney White is going to have an All-Star season, and Ryan Bowen is a hard-nosed rebounder and defender in the style of a poor man's Dennis Rodman.

But the rest of the league knows that Trepagnier will be a quality bench spark at best, that Vince Yarborough is Mike Penberthy at best, and that Rodney White is a mystery that could be at best, J.R. Rider and at worst, out of the league. Ryan Bowen has never scored more than 5 points a game, and has no real position. 

For some of us Bulls fans, Dalibor Bagaric is young and ready to become a definite force in the style of Rasho Nesterovic. Eddie Robinson can be a Richard Jefferson if he just put his mind to it, and Marcus Fizer might be significantly better than Kenyon Martin, if he could stay healthy and keep the weight off. Eddy Curry is obviously going to be better than Shaq, and Tyson Chandler is Garnett in the making. Jamal Crawford is Gary Payton, except taller and quicker.

But to the rest of the league... they don't see it that way.

As for Crawford, I DO think that a lot of teams might be interested in him. A good point guard is pretty tough to find, and one that's proven himself in significant NBA games is as good an indicator as you can get. 

Two recent point guards that might be comparable to Crawford: Troy Hudson and to a less comparable extent, Chauncey Billups. (Not a coincidence? They both had semi-breakout years in Minnesota. Something about being on the floor with KG... or maybe Flip Saunders is the real deal.)

These guys showed some decent streaks and some decent stats, stats that I'm pretty sure Jamal could sustain over a full season starting. They were signed (or will be signed in a year or so) for very decent money, and were fairly sought after in the FA market. Both Detroit and Minnesota are satisfied with their players at the point guard position, and are not looking to upgrade.

I think Jamal Crawford is one of those high value guys too. A failr sure thing because he's been proven in games, but I think a lot of guys around the league are pretty interested in him.

And because he's a quality player, one that has really grown into the hearts of Bulls fans, we definitely want to keep him around... we want to keep him so much that maybe we'd justify our desire with exaggerating his actual ability.

But it's there. Let there be no doubt. This guy is a true player, and if we don't get something REALLY sweet in return, we're letting a championship piece slip through our fingers, and I am almost positive it would come back to haunt us.


----------



## realbullsfaninLA (Jan 8, 2003)

If Crawford became as good as Billups,I'd be estatic!He's one of the most underrated players in the league.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Benny the Bull</b>!
> I’m going to get bashed for this but hear me out. All Crawford has done in his career is show in his last 20 games that he COULD be a very good player. He played very well in this period. Before this, which ever way you look at it, he has achieved little. If you were being harsh on him, you could say that previously he couldn’t get playing time because he just wasn’t good enough. Taking a softer stance, in his first year, Pink Floyd wouldn’t play him. In his second he injures his knee, and does well to come back late in the season. He plays well, shooting a nice percentage, but at no time solidifies himself as the starting PG, hence the reason we drafted Jay Williams. Last season, he was inconsistent off the bench, but when given the chance to start, he played well, especially late in the season.
> 
> Whichever way you look at his career so far, is that Crawford has really only proven himself in the last 20 games of last season. Critics will say it was a hot streak, Crawford supporters will say it was a period where he proved he could play at a consistently high level. However, it was only 20 games and not an entire year. As a result, I think the Bulls should be careful of what type of extension he gets. I think they should sign him to an extension, but only one at or just above the MLE. The maximum I would offer is 6 years at $39 million, starting at $5 million in his first year, with annual increases of $600,000. It could be a real bargain in the future.


the same thing could be said about chandler, so it all evens out now does it?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

There is a plethora of PGs who not only have better upside than Jamal but who've actually been putting up better numbers than we might ever expect from Jamal. 

For the Bulls to become a dynastic type team again, they're going to need Crawford to be as good as Kobe and for Curry to be as good as Shaq. Neither player has shown, even during their short streaks of their best performances, there's just no indication that either is going to approach the level of superstardom that championship teams seem to require.

We either have to bank on Curry and Chandler becoming a dominant duo, like Hakeem and Sampson were (or Admiral and Duncan) or that the combination of Crawford and Curry do become as dominant as Kobe and Shaq.

As repetitive as I may sound, I can only point out that none of our designated cornerstone players have had careers that suggest these guys are going to be anything better than pretty good players. We need dominant players to have a prayer.

There's no doubt in my mind that we are overrating Jamal Crawford. There are just too many other PGs who are young and are already better players. His trade value appears to be not as good as we'd like to believe: Jamal PLUS Marshall PLUS filler might get us an all-star player (Walker). If Jamal were rated as high as some of us posters think, then we'd be able to get Walker plus filler for Jamal.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> There is a plethora of PGs who not only have better upside than Jamal but who've actually been putting up better numbers than we might ever expect from Jamal.


Just out of curiosity, which PGs do you consider to be among this catagory?


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, which PGs do you consider to be among this catagory?


The only young PG that I think has a better upside that Crawford is Arenas. I can't really think of anyone else who's better or going to be better than him. In 3-4 years (probably sooner) Crawford will be a top 10 PG in this league and maybe top 5.

3-4 years:
1. Marbury
2. Kidd
3. Francis
4. Davis
5. Arenas
6. Crawford

I think he'll be right around there.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Jamal came out as a freshman...He has basically played a year and a half in the NBA considering his ACL injury and how Floyd never played him much his rookie year. Do you folks honestly believe that Jamal has fulfilled his potential? Thats the thing about Jamal, he is pretty darn good right now and he is GOING to get better.


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

I hate to sound repetitive, but I don't think JC is overated as much as he is miscast. Jamal is an excellent shooter with great passing skills and a shoot first mentality. In other words, he's a SG playing PG. At best you might get away with calling him a combo guard. But nothing that I've seen from him suggests that ball distribution will ever be his number one priority.

To back up my claim I'll once again site the following statistics from last season:

*With 20 games remaining last year, Jamal was inserted into the starting lineup to stay beginning 3/6 against the Warriors. Prorated over 48 minutes Jamal would have averaged 22.6 shots per game and 8.0 assists per game for those last 20 games. Lets see how he compares with the prorated numbers of other top PG's in the league last season:*

*POINT GUARD/SPG/APG PER 48 MINUTES*
Stephon Marbury: 22.7spg/9.7apg
Jamal Crawford: 22.6spg/8.0apg 
Baron Davis: 20.3spg/8.1apg
Jason Kidd: 19.9spg/9.8apg
Gilbert Arenas: 19.8spg/8.6apg
Steve Nash: 19.7spg/10.6apg
Steve Francis: 19.0spg/7.3apg
Mike Bibby: 18.3spg/7.5apg
Tony Parker: 18.0spg/7.5apg
Jason Williams: 17.1spg/12.6apg
Jay Williams: 16.8spg/8.6apg

While on the court, Jamal took more shots per minute than every top point guard in the league except Stephon Marbury. He even took more shots on average than Arenas yet he handed out fewer assists. And Jalen Rose averaged 22.7spg last season...thats .1 more than JC during his last 20 games.

Jamal may have a great future ahead of him...it just won't be as a traditional pass first point guard.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

those are false stats dickie


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

What kind of numbers were TMac and J. O'neil putting up after their 3rd seasons?

Did either of these two have to deal with the worst coach in the NBA history(record wise) and a major injury?

JC was drafted as a 165 lb "project". A Chicago camp wonderkid
who rocketed up the draft board to become a high lotto pick

Now that JC is just starting to realize his vast potential,
the Bulls have the opportunity to lock him up for 6 to 7 years
at a relatively (non-max) decent salary.

Does JC's past play warrant big money? No

As an aside, how come no brings out the point guard is the most difficult to learn and play position (look at Baron Davis, Gary Payton, Steve Nash) in the NBA line with JC like they always 
do with Jay "Evil Knievel" Williams?

Does JC's future ability warrant locking him up at a
decent amount before JC further elevates his game, sustains this
higher level of play and demands more money?

IMO yes.

This is the risk Bulls management takes in not valuing JC enough now. Do not sign him now for what he has shown he's capable of doing on the court (his play after the trade deadline) believing he can't sustain this play and then hope to sign him for less money without having to extend him....which to me is pretty cynical.

Ironically IMO JC trials and tribulations (primarily Floydsie and the ACL) have lowered his value right now making him more affordable to sign now (6-7 yrs at $42 -44 mill).

If the Bulls wait, and JC does what many of his supporters believe he's capable of doing, than not locking JC up now will cost a lot more in a yr as a RFA particularly becuase JC is a 6'5 spg (shooting point guard) with mad combo skills allowing him to play both the 1 and the 2 in the process creating all kinds of mismatch problems for the opposition.

Arguing that JC is really a 2, or not a pure position 1 is plain silly when JC was getting or nearly getting double digit assists to go along with his double digit scoring.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

Jc is a point guard, its really naive not to think that, i did some statistical research 2 days ago on this matter. conclusion? he's a point guard, flat out. Dickies stats were false, as noted by ncbullsfan
http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=41950&pagenumber=2


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> Jc is a point guard, its really naive not to think that, i did some statistical research 2 days ago on this matter. conclusion? he's a point guard, flat out. Dickies stats were false, as noted by ncbullsfan
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=41950&pagenumber=2


There's no point in arguing with him, since Dickie was the one insisting that JC was only worth a second round pick before last season's trading deadline according to his "inside informtation".


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> The only young PG that I think has a better upside that Crawford is Arenas. I can't really think of anyone else who's better or going to be better than him. In 3-4 years (probably sooner) Crawford will be a top 10 PG in this league and maybe top 5.
> 
> 3-4 years:
> 1. Marbury
> ...


Another excellent post by Pinball.:clap: 
Though I do think that Kidd will have broken down alot by then.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> I hate to sound repetitive, but I don't think JC is overated as much as he is miscast. Jamal is an excellent shooter with great passing skills and a shoot first mentality. In other words, he's a SG playing PG. At best you might get away with calling him a combo guard. But nothing that I've seen from him suggests that ball distribution will ever be his number one priority.
> 
> To back up my claim I'll once again site the following statistics from last season:
> 
> ...


Do you think that those #'s might have something to do with the fact that, for most of the season, JC was only coming off the bench for limited spurts and trying to make the most of the time that he was in the game?
From what I have seen of Jamal, he is a PG, *not* a SG. Anyways, I think the whole soncept of a "traditional, pass-first pg" is very overrated. I mean, wouldn't you take Gary Payton in his prime over JKidd in his prime? I know I would.


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> those are false stats dickie


You know what? You're partially correct. I goofed on the assists calculation. Over the last 20 games his 48mpg prorated assist number should have been 9.6 per game. And that's considerably more than the 8.0 I assigned to him. My apologies. But his prorated shots per game still rank him second overall, trailing only Marbury.

Before you and ztect and others continue to try to jump down my throat please take note of the fact that I pay JC his props as a shooter and a passer. But I still think he's got a shoot first mentality. And when you've got a powerful post game like the Bulls do I still feel there's no need for your primary distributor to take more shots on a per minute basis than PG's like Davis, Kidd, Arenas, Nash, et al.

Tell you what. Lets see how many shots he averages at the start of this season when he's got Fizer, Chandler, Marshall and Curry all healthy and at his disposal in the post. Maybe he took those extra shots last season because his post options were limited by injuries to Fizer Chandler and Marshall (BTW, that's the arguement I would have used against my own post instead of just saying the numbers were false).

With all our weapons available JC could and should average a double/double this coming season. Afterall, Miller did it with the Cavs in 01/02. If JC can do that with much more offensive firepower than the Cavs had back then, then I'll be the first person to vote for him as the starting PG on the Eastern Conference All-Star team.

In all honesty, do you think that's a reasonable expectation?


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> 
> 
> ...Tell you what. Lets see how many shots he averages at the start of this season when he's got Fizer, Chandler, Marshall and Curry all healthy and at his disposal in the post. ...
> ...


Don't forget that it's not just feeding the post that generates assists, but it's also the post player's ability to finish with a basket after receiving a good pass.

Esp. as EC improves and TC gets better in the post, JC's assist totals will increase. It obviously was no coincidence that EC and JC had great stat nights on the same nights.

Equally important though to finishing from the post players, is that other teams not be able to double down on Ec and TC. This is where JC, Hinrich's, and Rose's outside shooting shouldn't be frowned upon. 

One thing though to get better balance, and better midrange and 3 pt looks is for the bigs (TC, EC and Fizer) to be able to better recognize the double teams, and be able to pass outside to the shooters.

So JC did jack up some shots becuase right now EC and Fizer are black holes who went to the basket in situations when they should have gone back outside.

Or, in other words, an outside in game also has to go back outside at times so perimeter players stay in the flow and get good looks


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ztect</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't forget that it's not just feeding the post that generates assists, but it's also the post player's ability to finish with a basket after receiving a good pass.
> ...


I completely agree. I also believe that we'll have to continue to be patient with Chandler's and Curry's passing. Don't forget how long it took Brand to learn how to pitch the ball back outside. He's gotten better, but he's still got a 1 to 1 assist to turnover ratio going as does Shaq and most other post players.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I agree that Crawford took a lot of shots for a pg but just the stats didnt take into account the state of the Bulls during those twenty games.

#1 Bulls leading scorer Rose was in a horrible shhoting slump scoring less than 16 pts on 10 occasions and shot 39% for the month of March.


#2 Chandler missed or played less than 12 mins in 5 of those games adding to a already weakened frontcourt with Fizer already out with a acl injury.

#3 Marshall scored in single digits in 4 games and went scoreless in 3 others during this stretch.


I think its safe to say that if Crawford and Curry didnt step up and take some offensive responsibility that we wouldve saw a few record losses during this stretch.Crawford on more than one occasion showed the capacity to run the offense and get everyone involved and then if needed pick it up in the second half and due to injuries and slumps he just had to do it more than often.

I cant wait to see what he does with a full and healthy array of weapons this year.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Do you think that those #'s might have something to do with the fact that, for most of the season, JC was only coming off the bench for limited spurts and trying to make the most of the time that he was in the game?
> From what I have seen of Jamal, he is a PG, *not* a SG. Anyways, I think the whole soncept of a "traditional, pass-first pg" is very overrated. I mean, wouldn't you take Gary Payton in his prime over JKidd in his prime? I know I would.


Kidd is absolutely better than JCraw right now.

As are:
Gary Payton
Jason WIlliams
Stephon Marbury
Jason Terry
Steve Nash
Andre Miler
Eric Snow
Baron Davis
Gilbery Arenas
Steve Francis
Sam Cassell
Troy Hudson
Howard Eisley
Tony Parker
Avin Williams
Mike BIbby
Charlie Ward
Nick Van Excel
Chauncy Billups
Derek Fisher
(In no particular order)


----------



## Crawscrew (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Kidd is absolutely better than JCraw right now.
> ...


Eisley? Fisher? Ward??? Why you hatin on JC, Dabullz


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Kidd is absolutely better than JCraw right now.


Of course he is. Everyone knows that- what does it have to do with this thread? I said I'd take Payton in his prime over Kidd, not Crawford over Kidd. Jeez, I'd have to be crazy to say that.:laugh: 





> Gary Payton
> Jason WIlliams
> Stephon Marbury
> Jason Terry
> ...


Fischer? Ward? Eisley? No way. As for Snow, Alvin Williams, and most likely Troy Hudson, is there anyone who believes that Crawford won't be regarded as better than any of them by this time next year?


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Kidd is absolutely better than JCraw right now.
> ...


It sounds like someone hates JC. Must be a Jay fan.  Really though, Fisher? Eisley? Ward? Alvin Williams?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Kidd is absolutely better than JCraw right now.
> ...




The following of your list are not better than Crawford:

Jason Williams
Jason Terry
Andre Miler
Eric Snow
Gilbery Arenas
Sam Cassell
Troy Hudson
Howard Eisley
Avin Williams
Mike Bibby
Charlie Ward
Nick Van Excel
Derek Fisher

First off. He's a bigger guard than everyone on this list.
Second. He's younger than everyone on this list.

His upside is in a diffrent tier than these guards.

He's already played better games than some of these guys have played in their entire careers.(Charlie Ward, Howard Eisley for instance)

I guarantee if you throw away the CBA we could trade straight up for any of these guys on this list, except possibly Mike Bibby.

The fact that you would rather have Charlie Ward, Howard Eisely, Derek Fisher, or Alvin Williams over JC is beyond my feeble logic.

Have you seen Jamal actually play a game? Did you see the numbers he was throwing up in some of the games at the end of the year?

Yes yes. That was garbage time. But I guarantee you that none of these players could put up those numbers...even in garbage time.

Sure a lot of us overrate Crawford. But you are severly underrating him.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> 
> 
> You know what? You're partially correct. I goofed on the assists calculation. Over the last 20 games his 48mpg prorated assist number should have been 9.6 per game. And that's considerably more than the 8.0 I assigned to him. My apologies. But his prorated shots per game still rank him second overall, trailing only Marbury.
> ...


yes and no. Double-digit assists are alot to ask for anyone in the NBA, even Jason kidd lead the league last season but only dished out 8.9 a game. Id be happy if Jamal put up 6 to 8 assists a game next year. Scottie Pippen used to average 6 assists per game during the championship years.

One thing we have to remember is that Andre Miller, like Jamal Tinsley cant shoot a lick(dre is a *21%* 3-point shooter)... .. so they pad their assist numbers to make up for their lack of range. Jc on the other hand.. is a lights-out shooter when he starts, so it wouldnt be realistic to expect him not to score much. He has a significant size advantage on almost every single opponent he faces in the NBA.... it wouldnt be prudent for him ignore the fact the not mant point guards in the NBA can guard him. I wouldnt expect him to dish out double-digit assists a game for the simple fact that he has the ability to score on his opponents virtually at will, unlike andre '_21% from the arc_' miller.

with that said.... if we have a healthy fizer, marshall, chandler and curry up front to go along with jalen.. Jamal should significantly increase his assist numbers. Im not expecting andre miller-in-cleveland type of assist numbers.... but a significant increase nonetheless. We'l just have to wait till the season starts i guess.



> (BTW, that's the arguement I would have used against my own post instead of just saying the numbers were false).


i think we can both agree on that.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Williams is the better passer than Crawford. I'll be honest... I really hope he comes back strong and takes the job back from Crawford.

I've always been a Jay fan over a Jamal fan. However, Crawford is definitely going to be an elite PG in the league, among the top 8 or so at the prime of his career. I just happen to like the way Jay plays: a quick point that can distribute and dribble, and likes to create a lot of motion and confusion in breaking down defenses. Crawford is more dangerous because he's slippery, and can pull up for his own shot a lot easier than Jay can. 

Crawford isn't just a shooter at the point guard position... he has real vision and knows how to run a team when he's supposed to. But I will have to say that he's certainly far from the ordinary point guard. 

Then again, it's hard to evaluate anything in the triangle. Crawford really might be more successful in the triangle than Jay, since Jay is more of a BJ Armstrong look-alike than Crawford is, and Armstrong never really racked up a lot of stats, even when he played a lot of minutes.

The triangle lends itself to Crawford, and that's why he's not overrated. Assists, points, stats... they all don't really matter. What matters is that we have a guy that can take care of the ball, dribble, pass, and score at the point guard, and our offense will dictate which of those capacities he will exercise and at what time they will be exercised.


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

DaBullz is _not_ hating on JC, the Second Coming. he's merely stating what i think should be obvious: right now, as we read this, most of the players on his list are better than Crawford.

that doesn't mean they'll be better than Crawford a year from now. heck, i doubt he's saying that they're sure to be better than Crawford a few months from now. we don't know that yet.

what we _do_ know is what JC has proven to date, and what the other players on that list have proven to date.

yes, futuristxen, JC is taller. yes, he's younger. yes, he probably has more "upside." however, those attributes and $3.50 will get you a latte at Starbucks.

there are plenty of GMs in the league who'd be willing to roll the dice on Jamal turning into a star. there are far fewer who'll be willing to pay sticker price for a player who hasn't proven a damn thing over the course of a season yet. he's not saying he'd trade JC for any of these guys; he's saying that they've proven their value in the league, while Jamal is still something of a tease: the only thing Jamal has proven you'll get out of him for sure is 10.7 ppg and 4.2 apg, his averages for last season.

which means, as of this moment, the following players belong back on DaBullz's list:

Jason Williams
Jason Terry
Andre Miller
Gilbert Arenas
Sam Cassell
Mike Bibby
Nick Van Exel

(i'll grant you that the rest are a lot more questionable. but history and track record has demonstrated what you'll get with any of these guys as far as production.)


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>thunderspirit</b>!
> DaBullz is _not_ hating on JC, the Second Coming. he's merely stating what i think should be obvious: right now, as we read this, most of the players on his list are better than Crawford.
> 
> that doesn't mean they'll be better than Crawford a year from now. heck, i doubt he's saying that they're sure to be better than Crawford a few months from now. we don't know that yet.
> ...


You brilliantly walked the "you're hatin' on JC minefield". Very nicely said. :yes:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

You folks are nuts if you think I don't like Crawford. I do. I'm just not going to be overly blinded by fanatacism and see him as something he isn't.

EVERY single PG I put on that list is <B>currently</B> a better passer, scorer, defender, and generally better equipped to be PG of a quality team.

MAYBE Crawford will someday be better. Someday, whenever that is. It isn't now. Crawford would thrive on a team with a bunch of veterans, of that I'm sure.

As for JWill, I believed the hype. I expected him to put up 18PPG and 8APG, and prove right away he was an impact player. Like Steve Francis did. I would classify him as a major disappointment, and given a lot of time, he might have turned out to be a pretty good PG, too.

Of the two, I consistently said Crawford should have been the starter - once JWill showed us what he was(n't). That was pretty early in the season.

Frankly, cutting down other players who actually perform on a regular basis does not make Jamal a better player.


----------



## the_disco_pimp (Jul 25, 2002)

*/sigh*

Give crawford a break, he was injured for an ENTIRE SEASON... how many of you could severely tear your ACL and get back to 100% in under a year.... give him time, he has shown flashes of greatness, and from sparks come forest fires.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

How can you not factor in a player's upside?

Jamal has only played basically 2 seasons of basketball. And only recently was he finally allowed to play. And he played VERY well.

How as an evaluator of talent, can you not look at that and say Jamal is very likely going to be a very good point guard in the NBA.

We're talking about incredibly young players here.

And this line of thinking in terms of comparing their stats against players who are getting a lot of minutes and are allowed many more mistakes--is the same line of thinking that got Jermaine O'Neal traded for Dale Davis.

Who got the better end of that deal?

I guarantee that a trade for most of the guys on Dabullz list will leave us with the same regret.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

As an evaluator of talent, I see two kinds of potential players. There's the kind, like Francis, who come in the league and kick arse from day one. And then there's guys like Crawford. 

I am absolutely convinced that Jamal may someday be a pretty good player. He isn't now. His game is mostly one-dimensional.

What I saw from watching him play for THREE seasons, is that during his third, he did not look like a quality point guard. The only thing that made it possible for him to be at the PG position was having Rose there to actually be the PG.

My criticism of Jamal is based upon a few factors:

1) He starts the offense at half court. A good PG starts the offense closer to the top of the key. I do not think he is a good ballhandler when he is put under pressure by the defense. Hence he is a least smart enough to give up the ball to Rose.
2) He is a terrible defender. In spite of his height, which should be an advantage, he is too light or simply doesn't have the drive to stick to his man, fighting through picks, etc.
3) He has "put up" good games in the closing month of the past two seasons. He hasn't "put up" good games at the start of, or in the middle of seasons. His season averages are an aggregate of his good games and his bad ones, and his averages are just not all that good. Look at Rose's stats which are likewise an aggregate. He at least PRODUCES regularly.

As for J. O'Neal, did it ever occur to you that O'Neal thrived because he went to a team with players much better than our own? You cannot say with any surety whether he would have been anywhere close to as good if he had been acquired by the Bulls.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> And this line of thinking in terms of comparing their stats against players who are getting a lot of minutes and are allowed many more mistakes--is the same line of thinking that got Jermaine O'Neal traded for Dale Davis.


Maybe you could elaborate because that doesn't sound like my understanding of the Indy/Portland trade. Are you really suggesting the J O'Neal in Indy would have been the same J O'Neal in Portland as Portland was constituted at said time? Personally, I think you need a better analogy. I think Ben Wallace would fit your argument better.

Bulls posters need to face the facts. If management wants to trade Crawford its gonna happen. And while we're at it, lets also face the reality that they have a lot more on the line by trading him than anybody here.

So all this talk about how they'll regret it, etc. is pretty much rubbish. If they trade him and it works out - great. If it don't - oh well. I'm sure Reinsdorf will likely sign on with any deal that goes down anyway so be assured ain't nobody losing their gig for trading Jamal. 

Now if somebody could just achieve a moratorium on all this hatin' Jamal crap...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> Then again, it's hard to evaluate anything in the triangle. Crawford really might be more successful in the triangle than Jay, since Jay is more of a BJ Armstrong look-alike than Crawford is, and Armstrong never really racked up a lot of stats, even when he played a lot of minutes.


The BJ Armstrong comparison is interesting. But please be aware that Armstrong was an actual member of the all-star team in 1994.

I think the Armstrong comparison is a lot stronger with Crawford than with JWill. Armstrong was a deadly outside shooter, ranked 4th all-time in 3PT pct. But that's where the comparison ends. Armstrong actually received votes for the all-nba defensive team. Crawford hasn't. 

Armstrong and JWill are about the same height. But that's where the similarity ends, IMO. Armstrong wasn't a PG, in spite of his physical attributes being suited to the position. He was pretty much a 3Pt shooting specialist.

Some fun with the stats:

BJ Armstrong 1st 3 seasons:
81 games, 15.9 min/game, .485 FG%, .500 3PT%, 1.3RPG, 2.5APG, 5.6PPG
82 games 21.1 min/game, .481 FG%, .500 3PT%, 1.8RPG, 3.7APG, 8.8PPG
82 games 22.9 min/game, .481 FG%, .402 3PT%, 1.8 RPG, 3.2APG, 9.9PPG

Crawford 1st 3 seasons:
61 games 17.2 min/game .352 FG%, .350 3PT%, 1.5RPG, 2.3 APG, 4.6PPG
23 games 20.9 min/game, .476 FG%, .448 3PT%, 1.5 RPG, 2.4 APG, 9.3 PPG
80 games 24.9 min/game, .413 FG%, .355 3PT%, 2.3 RPG, 4.2 APG, 10.7 PPG

The numbers are quite similar for similar minutes, though the games played are quite different. It looks to me like BJ was better though. And most importantly, BJ Armstrong wasn't the kind of player to lead his team to a championship, but was a key role player.

Peace!


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> You folks are nuts if you think I don't like Crawford. I do. I'm just not going to be overly blinded by fanatacism and see him as something he isn't.


I'm not overly blinded by fanatacism either, and I still think that Crawford is better than Eisley, Fischer, and Ward. Even non-Bulls fans like Pinball agree with me there.



> 1) 1) He starts the offense at half court. A good PG starts the offense closer to the top of the key. I do not think he is a good ballhandler when he is put under pressure by the defense. Hence he is a least smart enough to give up the ball to Rose.
> 2) He is a terrible defender. In spite of his height, which should be an advantage, he is too light or simply doesn't have the drive to stick to his man, fighting through picks, etc.


Both of theses criticisms are entirely valid. However, I would argue that many young players are poor defenders and improve as they get older. As far as ballhandling, I noticed the same thing about JC, but I do want to at least give him the chance to improve in that area before we trade him away.



> 3) He has "put up" good games in the closing month of the past two seasons. He hasn't "put up" good games at the start of, or in the middle of seasons. His season averages are an aggregate of his good games and his bad ones, and his averages are just not all that good. Look at Rose's stats which are likewise an aggregate. He at least PRODUCES regularly.


At the start and middle of his first season in the league, Crawford was one year removed from H.S,. and was in Floyd's doghouse. At the start and middle of the season before last, Crawford was not yet back from his ACL injury. At the start and middle of last season, Crawford had the Jay Williams situation- I think you underestimate how much of an effect this had on a young player like Jamal. Not only were his minutes sparse (21.675 mpg), they were spread out, so neither he nor Jay was ever really allowed to get in a rhythm. That much is mainly Cartwright's fault- he handled that situstion very poorly, IMO. It took Crawford until sometime around the end of February to figure out how to really make the most of his time on the floor, and from that point on he clearly distinguished himself from Jay as the better PG. Through the months of March and April, when his minutes climbed to 34 mpg, he averaged 19.5 ppg and almost 7 apg and, despite his reputation on this board as a chucker, did it on 46% shooting, including 40 % from 3-point range. 

It's all well and good to say that Jamal has never produced for a whole season, but by the same token it is only fair to point out that he hasn't really had an oppurtunity to. If he had been the only quality young PG on this squad and it had still taken him until March and April to produce regularly, then I would not be sold on him at all. But if you look at his production in the beginning of the season, you also have to look at the circumstances he had to deal with- that's only fair.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

it just boggles the mind that folks don't seem to want to acknowledge Crawford's VAST potential. Sure, he is only just starting to tap into it, but IMO thats a GOOD thing. I mean he really is a very young player and right now is the time for fans to start getting excited about Jamal starting to really show what he has. Instead, we want to compare him to guys that have been in the league for a dozen years! Is Crawford as good as Payton? Well of course he isn't! Will he BE as good as Payton in a few years? Thats entirely possible. 

Anyway, I think the only way to convince a lot of posters that Jamal is in fact a special player is to just let it ride and wait and see what he continues to bring to the ball club. Maybe eventually guys will get it....


----------



## LuCane (Dec 9, 2002)

While you are correct in saying that its "entirely possible," I would have serious reservations about Jamal Crawford turning into the player Gary Payton is, and has been.

In fact, I see them as totally different players who can impact a game in completely different ways.

I obviously hope he does become somewhere even near Payton, but again, I will hold back my expectations.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LuCane</b>!
> While you are correct in saying that its "entirely possible," I would have serious reservations about Jamal Crawford turning into the player Gary Payton is, and has been.
> 
> In fact, I see them as totally different players who can impact a game in completely different ways.
> ...


I agree 100%. He's not turning into GP, especially defensively. GP was a tenacious defender when he came into the league, it wasn't something he worked on as he got older. I don't expect Jamal to develop into GP or Maurice Cheeks here. However, I do think he'll get better with age and develop into a solid defender. The thing about Crawford, though, is it's his offensive skills that make him "special". He's got terrific ballhandling skills and a nasty crossover. He does a great job of penetrating and getting into the lane and finishing. He's isn't a finisher in the Vince Carter or TMac sense where he jumps over people and throws it down. He does a great job of using his height to shoot over the top of people, much like GP. He's also got that floater in the lane that GP had. While he's not a great 3pt shooter I think he'll develop into a very good midrange shooter. Payton has never been a great 3pt shooter either but he did have a solid jumpshot. This is why Jamal is often compared to Payton. It isn't for his defenisive skills but for his offensive skills. I think he's going to be a very productive player for the Bulls. The one thing I would like to see him work on, though, is his post game. I'd love to see him use his size to back down smaller defenders. His size is a great attribute and he should use it to his advantage.


----------



## Coyat (Jun 18, 2003)

I like the fact that Crawford has potential, but how long will it take for him to 'tap' into it? I've never been a Crawford-fanatic, so you can understand why I'm skeptical (sp? too lazy to check). I think down the road Crawford will be a productive starter, but nowhere near the all-star status some people envision him to become. 

The GP comparison is nice, but it's not very realistic. Payton was a top PG his whole career (for the most part) who could do the traditional PG skills (start the O, pass first, lead team) and become the no.1 scoring option and clutch in the deciding moments of the game. I think it's a stretch for Crawford to do those things. He has the ability to create his shot, but finishing is a bit of a problem. He isn't the leader of the team as long as Rose is there to do some of the traditional PG skills. Later on in his career, Crawford will be a good player.. a good ROLE player. I don't see him leading a team through the playoffs like Kidd, GP, Marbury, Magic, and maybe even Penny have done.

As of right now, I'd like to see Crawford bulk up on his frame. He was.. wiry. I've heard reports that he has added muscle over the offseason and that's good news to me. Hopefully now he can utilize his new frame and become a nice slashing PG (sorta what Marbury likes to do).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

As long as we have guys like Curry, Chandler, and Crawford, PRAYING that they actually do have the VAST potential and that it turns into something more than just a few "flashes" of what might be is all we can do.

Banking the entire future of the team on players who do not inspire ACTUAL comparisons to players who are not even in the top 10% of the NBA's best players is not my view of how to become an NBA title contender. Nor was it Krause's. Krause's plan was to bring in established FA types with real/actual skills. Remember how he tried to bring in TMac and/or Eddie Jones and their ilk? Or how when he failed, miserably, to bring in a top FA, he traded to bring in Rose, who should have been the first of SEVERAL quality players to build a team around.

What you can take to the bank is that the best players Krause drafted have been traded away. That would be Brand and Artest. The proof is in the pudding, not in some mythical "VAST potential" that may or may not ever be realized (see JWill for just one way it may not).

I do not understand how some Bulls fans have strayed so far from Krause's vision of how to build a contender to something that is an obvious and miserable failure. 

What we really need is for Rose to score close to 30 PPG, because he's the only guy on the team who is actually capable of it. RIGHT NOW. That would elevate us, as a team, to one that has a TMac type of player. People who say Rose needs to change his game are right, they're just far off the mark as to how. He took 19 shots per game and scored 22. If he took 26 shots per game, he'd be near TMac in scoring.

We know that TMac alone isn't enough to win, so on top of a more prolific scoring Rose, we'd need two of our other players to step it up. 

Fizer is the most NBA ready player of our draftees, and he is a real scorer. 

Crawford could be that other guy.

Or Curry has to stay in ballgames and become more than just an offensive player.

Or the Bulls have to consolidate some of this VAST potential into an actual high-quality NBA player. This is the only SURE option.

Remember, we not only have to beat the wimpy East teams to get into the playoffs, we have to beat them in the playoffs and then contend with much better teams in the West to win it all.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> What you can take to the bank is that the best players Krause drafted have been traded away. That would be Brand and Artest. The proof is in the pudding, not in some mythical "VAST potential" that may or may not ever be realized (see JWill for just one way it may not).


I guarantee what any GM will tell you that Eddy already has higher trade value than Artest, and most will tell you that he has higher trade value than Brand (though Brand's production is obviously superior at this point)



> What we really need is for Rose to score close to 30 PPG, because he's the only guy on the team who is actually capable of it. RIGHT NOW. That would elevate us, as a team, to one that has a TMac type of player. People who say Rose needs to change his game are right, they're just far off the mark as to how. He took 19 shots per game and scored 22. If he took 26 shots per game, he'd be near TMac in scoring.


No, we need the exact opposite of that. We need Rose to pass more and make this a more multi-dimensional team, if anything. To his credit, Rose was passing noticeably more by the end of the season, which was incidentally when the Bulls played what was by far their best ball of the year. Rose already shoots too much at too low of a %- if he shot as much as you are suggesting, his % would drop even lower and this team would become ever worse. You can't say that "since he averaged 22 ppg on 19 shots, he should be able to average 30 ppg on 26 shots"- it just doesn't work that way. As shot attempts go up, so too does fatigue, thereby decreasing the quality of the shot attempts. To average 30 ppg he would need more than 26 shots per game, I will tell you that right now. Not only that, but the other parts of his game would suffer as well- his assisst and rrebound numbers would go down, and his already deplorable defense would suffer as well.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> I do not understand how some Bulls fans have strayed so far from Krause's vision of how to build a contender to something that is an obvious and miserable failure.


You are probably the only person I know, Bulls fan or non-Bulls fan, who considers this rebuilding effort an "obvious and miserable failure". Krause opted at first for the rebuilding method of attracting established F.A.'s, because it is common sense to go for the quicker and safer method. Just because that method didn't pan out does not, in any way, mean that this one is a "failure"- it is obviously going to take longer to get results, but in the long run it will probably prove to be much better than if we had signed Grant Hill, Eddie Jones, Brian Grant, Glen Rice, or Tim Thomas.
The Bulls current nucleus is considered extremely promising among the entire basketball community, not just among Bulls fans. Seemingly everyone else seems to recognize the ability in Curry, Chandler, and Crawford- why don't you? I really don't understand why you seem to assume that players never change, that young players never improve, that teams never grow together and improve without the aid of major personnel changes. Yeah, there are flaws in the games of our guys, but for cryin' out loud, they are 20, 20 and 22 years old, respectively. I'd much prefer to take a chance on their developement that trade them for veterans who will improve us in the short run but hurt us in the long run.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The celtics have two players who shoot low FG% and one of them is a top scorer, AND THEY MAKE THE PLAYOFFS. What the Celtics don't have is anyone else. If we had Rose and a Walker, we'd make the playoffs, too, AND we'd have Curry and tons of potential and a future IF/WHEN the Curry/Chandler types do pan out.

Of course our rebuilding plan is a miserable failure. It hasn't produced a single guy on our roster through the draft who is anything more than a top MINOR LEAGUE prospect. The bottom line is wins/losses. During the course of rebuilding, the Bulls are close to the worst record in the history of the NBA over a similar stretch of seasons, if not the worst.

20 and 22 year old players are GREAT to have, if you're the old Bird/McHale/Parrish Celtics and you're looking to have continuity (a chance to prolong the championship caliber teams). 20 and 22 year old players clearly are a 30 win team. The proof is in the pudding. 30 wins is not playoffs, not championship, not what an NBA team should strive for.

Pretending that these 20 and 22 year old players are anything more than 20 min/game and MAX 10PPG contributors is absurd. There is a huge and obvious difference between "potential" and a ROOKIE who comes into the league and becomes a Hakeem, a Barkley, a Francis, a Walker, a Jordan, a Shaq, etc. Those are the kinds of players you can build a championship team around. 10PPG scorers are not.

As for Rose, the "fatigue" argument is UTTERLY bogus. If a guy can't shoot 6 times per quarter instead of 5, he's just not in basketball shape - and Rose IS and DOES play 40+ minutes. Guys shoot far more than Rose should in the 3PT shooting contest at the all-star game without any "fatigure" factor, sheesh. The "we need the opposite from Rose" argument is nothing more than arguing that the Bulls should play to lose.

"Let's go away from our best player so our lesser players can have lesser performances."


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I do not understand how some Bulls fans have strayed so far from Krause's vision of how to build a contender to something that is an obvious and miserable failure.


Krause is the ultimite potenal guy. Why get a vet SG when you can have second round picks with MORE potential on the roster?

If you exclude drafting really raw guys and hoping that developed into superstar's, Krause's plan has been a complete failure. B/C all that's left is Rose, eRob and Marshall. 



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Or the Bulls have to consolidate some of this VAST potential into an actual high-quality NBA player. This is the only SURE option.


This is the SURE option to turn the last 5 years of losing into a complete failure and ensuring that we will be rebuilding again quite soon. I bet Washington wishes they still had Webber or either Wallace around.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

On the other hand, I'm sure we were glad we didn't keep Olden Polynice instead of trading him for Pippen.

Cuts both ways.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> It's all well and good to say that Jamal has never produced for a whole season, but by the same token it is only fair to point out that he hasn't really had an oppurtunity to.


That was the point in starting this thread. It's difficult to give Jamal credit since he has really only played well in the last 20 games of the season. He had some good games in between, however it was in this period which was probably the only time he played consistently well. Bulls fans probably get caught up in his potential when viewing his ability, rather than what he has actually done. The some does applies for Chandler and Curry to a certain extent. I'm not as pessimistic as some but I'm still skeptical on whether he can bring it for the whole year. I hope he can for his sake, and the Bulls.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> The celtics have two players who shoot low FG% and one of them is a top scorer, AND THEY MAKE THE PLAYOFFS. What the Celtics don't have is anyone else. If we had Rose and a Walker, we'd make the playoffs, too, QUOTE]
> They can make it work because Paul Pierce is arguably one of the top 5 players in the league, twice the player Jalen Rose is. They have a good coach and play excellent team defense- something that the Bulls do not, and will have trouble doing until Rose is either moved or has his minuted limited. The two situations are not at all comparable.
> Walker is an excellent player and I would love to have him *if* Rose is moved, perhaps for an expiring contract. But I don't think they would be effective together because of the chuck-fest that would be going on out on the perimeter- IMO, they are too similar to coexist effectively. It might make us a better team in the short run, but I'd be willing to bet that there'd be a whole lot of friction down the road as a result of Walker and Rose being placed together on a team. We are nearing luxury tax land anyway- adding another max contract that will need to be extended in 2 years will not help us.
> 
> ...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

There is no law of the universe that says a young player has to just potential. Magic Johnson played just one year of college, and he turned out (RIGHT AWAY) to be a dominant player. I've also shown you Shaq's stats at the same age as Curry.

The problem with our young guys is that they have PROVEN not to be dominant players (like Magic) already, by not producing.

Projecting better stats onto our players is meaningless. What counts is that they aren't as good as an awful lot of NBA players, including guys like those PGs I put on my list of "better than Crawford."

So here's the thing about Hinrich. We haven't seen him play. He might turn out to be a Magic type player for all we know. I'm at least willing to give him the benefit of a looksee. What a wonderful surprise it would be if he came out and put up 20+ PPG and 8 assists for us. It's WITHIN THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY, just as anything you believe Crawford/Curry/Chandler might do.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

The main diffrence between Shaq and Magic is that they weren't brought along so slowly. They got the minutes right away.

This didn't happen for our young guys until the end of this year. And they definitely showed enough flashes of dominance to convince most of this board and most of the league, along with Bulls managment.

Compare Shaq and Curry's numbers--Curry is playing half of the minutes. and oddly enough he has about half the numbers.

A better comparison is KG, Kobe, T-Mac, Jermaine O'Neal. Those guys, like our guys, had to ride the pine until their second and third years.

with your line of reasoning you would have traded all of those all-stars for players like antoine walker and juwan howard.

:no:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The main difference between Shaq/Magic and our guys is that it took about 2 seconds for a coach to see those guys PERFORM on the floor, to see they already had tremendous skills, and that those guys were close to dominant from the second they played in their first game. When a player is that special, it's pretty obvious. Imagine MJ as a rookie, tongue hanging out, dunking over 5 players (the starters) in the first Bulls' practice...

The difference between our guys and Kobe or KG (two HSers) is that Kobe and KG had real skills at all things basketball when they were drafted. Neither were "projects" that had to be trained to shoot or defend or pass or play team D or get open or protect the ball, etc.

The other big difference is that we're trying to develop not just one HSer, but two, plus a bunch of other guys barely old enough to shave. 

People like to point at J. O'Neal as some sort of example of what will happen with Curry/Chandler. His development wasn't stunted, but rather greatly enhanced because he got the advantage of watching real NBA players do their thing on the court, and practicing against them during practice time.

You misrepresent my "line of thinking." I wouldn't trade away all of our young players. I've only talked about trading ONE as part of a deal for an all-star.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> The main diffrence between Shaq and Magic is that they weren't brought along so slowly. They got the minutes right away.
> 
> This didn't happen for our young guys until the end of this year. And they definitely showed enough flashes of dominance to convince most of this board and most of the league, along with Bulls managment.
> ...


To say our players showed enough flashes to prove they belonged in this league and might one day be something special would be accurate. 

To say our players showed enough flashes of *DOMINANCE* is pure heresy. 

Dominance is not achieved in one game, does not last for only one quarter and it does not come against a lottery team (see the blowout win over ATL on MLK day). Dominance and the Bulls should not even be used in the same sentence. The Bulls have not had 'flashes' of dominance since they truly were dominant and collecting championship hardware along the way.

Curry may one day be dominate on the offensive end of the floor.

Chandler may one day be dominate on the defensive end of the floor.

No other Bull even remotely looks to have the skills to be dominant to me.

And just to address Crawford since many think he is dominate as well, I would simply say IMO - nope. 

My idea of dominate would be Kobe, T-Mac, Pierce, Magic in his day, maybe Lebron someday (assuming he's the next Magic)...but sadly no Jamal.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Give me a break. Chandler and Curry were just as developed coming into the league as KG and Kobe. Chandler came into the league thinking he was going to play SF with his handles and adoration of the 3 pointer. To say they came in as complete projects like Diop over in cleveland is to seriously misrepresent the players when they came in the league.

The fact of the matter is that High Schoolers are always brought along slowly(until Lebron James this year, and by a fluke, Amare Stoudamire last year) because it's part of the "development" process.


Compare this with Shaq and Magic who were two of the most hyped rookies to ever come into the league and never had to worry about "earning" minutes or the quick hook. Neither of those guys had to look over their shoulder that much early in their career.



> To say our players showed enough flashes of DOMINANCE is pure heresy. Dominance is not achieved in one game, does not last for only one quarter and it does not come against a lottery team (see the blowout win over ATL on MLK day).


Um. Flashes of Dominance. Understand that for a second. A flash of dominance could indeed be achieved in 1 game

 

And how about against the world champion lakers? Curry dominated Shaq in that Game.

I would say that's one helluva flash of dominance against one of the most dominating players of all-time.

Or Tyson dominating the Portland Trailblazers.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

KG is quite possibly THE best defensive player in the NBA and has been since season 2. He's one of the top passers and rebounders and scorers. His whole game is well-rounded and was pretty much from season 1. He may well be the very best player in the NBA, bar none.

In the limited playing time Kobe got as a rookie, he looked a lot like Michael Jordan. He had a complete game. Since the Lakers had a veteran roster and playoff aspirations, he didn't get PT as a rookie. But look at his 2nd season, which showed much more significant progress than we've seen from any of our young guys. At the same age as our youngest players, he was winning the first of his threepeat championships, something we cannot say about our guys.

Chandler hasn't shown he's a good defender. He's shown that when he guards good offensive players, he draws 4 quick fouls. Even when he guards not-so-good players, they lit him up, all season long.

Curry hasn't shown he can do a thing on defense, or pass the ball, or block shots, or shoot from more than a few feet out. Or that he can stay in the game for more than 24 minutes in games before March.

I fully concur with Spartacus Triumverate, who said, "To say our players showed enough flashes to prove they belonged in this league and might one day be something special would be accurate. 

"To say our players showed enough flashes of DOMINANCE is pure heresy."


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Give me a break. Chandler and Curry were just as developed coming into the league as KG and Kobe. Chandler came into the league thinking he was going to play SF with his handles and adoration of the 3 pointer. To say they came in as complete projects like Diop over in cleveland is to seriously misrepresent the players when they came in the league.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that High Schoolers are always brought along slowly(until Lebron James this year, and by a fluke, Amare Stoudamire last year) because it's part of the "development" process.
> ...


So any time a guy dunks over somebody he "flashed dominance"? :uhoh: Wow, you make such a great case. I didn't know it could just be for a matter of seconds. Well, duh. Yeah, even David Kornel flashed some dominance then. 

That has to be the most lame reasoning I think I've ever heard. I thought you were implying they flashed dominance over an extended part of the season such as the Jamal fan club would argue about his last 20 games.

Based on your argument, I'd be willing to guess that every guy whose at least played a full game has probably flashed some dominance. :laugh: 

Now moving right along... Chandler adored the 3 did he? Can you elaborate on this one?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*in the context of this thread*

JC is not overrated he played well at the end of the year and contrary to belief in most cases young guards tend to stay at that level of play or improve under the circumstances crawford did 

cases in point ricky davis and gilbert arenas ,both got starters minutes towards the end of the 2001-02 season and played very well , well enough there was a substantial buzz about them the next year (davis garnered an MLE deal from minny and gilbert effectively took the pg spot and banished hughes to another team because the warriors were no longer interested in keeping him) Crawford's experience I believe is very similar in that he did put up very good #s and also was a driving force in a few wins and strong contributor in a several others as Arenas and davis did in their previous spurts the season before 

its rare that a perimeter player takes a step back after emerging to such a degree without having suffered an injury


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

*Re: in the context of this thread*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> JC is not overrated he played well at the end of the year and contrary to belief in most cases young guards tend to stay at that level of play or improve under the circumstances crawford did
> 
> cases in point ricky davis and gilbert arenas ,both got starters minutes towards the end of the 2001-02 season and played very well , well enough there was a substantial buzz about them the next year (davis garnered an MLE deal from minny and gilbert effectively took the pg spot and banished hughes to another team because the warriors were no longer interested in keeping him) Crawford's experience I believe is very similar in that he did put up very good #s and also was a driving force in a few wins and strong contributor in a several others as Arenas and davis did in their previous spurts the season before
> ...


Happy, I think the thread is correct and let me tell you why. The thread means we as posters overrate him. You don't have to go far to see the starry predictions of many all-star awards to come for young Jamal. The comparisons to future HOFs like GP. The posts declaring Jamal is already one of the leagues top PGs. Posters believe Jamal will achieve greatness. They also defend him with extraordinary fanaticism. If you disagree or bring up Jamals weaknesses you're simply "hatin' on Jamal". Quite simply, if we weren't overrating him, 1/2 the board wouldn't be swung in such an extreme position seeing only the positives and potential of him. Those who are his greatest supporters almost NEVER concede he has a weakness. What you hear is excuse after excuse for his plight and a glowing assessment of his abilities and potential. To put it succinctly, there is nothing "FAIR AND BALANCED" about the viewpoints on Jamal. The viewpoints tend to be VERY EXTREME. Now contrast this with Bulls management who obviously does not overrate him. I mean you'll usually find in any Jamal thread the warning to Bulls management how they'll regret trading him. Jamal is a good looking young player and the Bulls are very lucky to have him. He is a good shooter and with improvement could one day be a very good distributor. He needs to work on his D, but given his size at the point he could bring serious matchup troubles for the opposition. The same could be said if he could develop a post up game ala Mark Jackson. I enjoyed watching the guy at the end of last year and HOPEFULLY it is a barometer of things to come. But, I'm not going to sit here and argue against every poster telling them it IS a barometer of things to come and stooping to this "hatin' on him crap" if they disagree. My personal favorite on this team is Chandler. I wouldn't have even wanted to trade him if we were doing a Garnett deal. I love this kids attitude, his work ethic and while he still needs to work on his game - you won't find posts from me that defend the guy like he was my long lost brother. Conversely, I understand he's not there yet. I believe he will get there one day and hopefully soon. But even that isn't guaranteed. We all know that if Curry and Chandler don't become stars, this team is likely heading for another rebuilding. I just don't see the extreme Jamal posters thinking clearly on "their guy". Nobody is a sure thing until they are. Period. JWill was supposed to be and just ask the Jamal extremists how that was turning out.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: in the context of this thread*



> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> 
> 
> Happy, I think the thread is correct and let me tell you why. The thread means we as posters overrate him. You don't have to go far to see the starry predictions of many all-star awards to come for young Jamal. The comparisons to future HOFs like GP. The posts declaring Jamal is already one of the leagues top PGs. Posters believe Jamal will achieve greatness. They also defend him with extraordinary fanaticism. If you disagree or bring up Jamals weaknesses you're simply "hatin' on Jamal". Quite simply, if we weren't overrating him, 1/2 the board wouldn't be swung in such an extreme position seeing only the positives and potential of him. Those who are his greatest supporters almost NEVER concede he has a weakness. What you hear is excuse after excuse for his plight and a glowing assessment of his abilities and potential. To put it succinctly, there is nothing "FAIR AND BALANCED" about the viewpoints on Jamal. The viewpoints tend to be VERY EXTREME. Now contrast this with Bulls management who obviously does not overrate him. I mean you'll usually find in any Jamal thread the warning to Bulls management how they'll regret trading him. Jamal is a good looking young player and the Bulls are very lucky to have him. He is a good shooter and with improvement could one day be a very good distributor. He needs to work on his D, but given his size at the point he could bring serious matchup troubles for the opposition. The same could be said if he could develop a post up game ala Mark Jackson. I enjoyed watching the guy at the end of last year and HOPEFULLY it is a barometer of things to come. But, I'm not going to sit here and argue against every poster telling them it IS a barometer of things to come and stooping to this "hatin' on him crap" if they disagree. My personal favorite on this team is Chandler. I wouldn't have even wanted to trade him if we were doing a Garnett deal. I love this kids attitude, his work ethic and while he still needs to work on his game - you won't find posts from me that defend the guy like he was my long lost brother. Conversely, I understand he's not there yet. I believe he will get there one day and hopefully soon. But even that isn't guaranteed. We all know that if Curry and Chandler don't become stars, this team is likely heading for another rebuilding. I just don't see the extreme Jamal posters thinking clearly on "their guy". Nobody is a sure thing until they are. Period. JWill was supposed to be and just ask the Jamal extremists how that was turning out.


Bingo!

If I could wave a magic wand, I'd do so and make Curry be like Shaq and Chandler like KG and Crawford like Kidd. Slam dunk, championship. There's nothing more that I want than for these kids to become the real deal. Except for one thing: I want my team to win and to put fear into our opponents. I don't want to be sold on waiting, which is what I've been sold on for about 6 years now.

I look at the Spurs and how they have won championships and been in the playoffs for 15 of the last 18 years. Remarkable consistency, my money's worth as a ticket-buying fan, and a real reason for optimism every year. If organizations win championships, take note of an organization that does win championships AND makes playoff teams.

To add one thing to your wonderful post, it isn't just the overrating of our players that is the total issue with me, though very irritating thing to deal with. It's the underrating of our true best player(s) and the dissing of the best players on other teams, as if it makes our guys somehow better.

Maybe we can get Antoine Walker, maybe not. To say we don't want him is foolish and to say we don't want him because he is a bad player is ridiculous. He's an all-star, which is something we can't say about anyone on our team, including our very best player, Rose. This is an example of what I'm talking about.

Here's the calculus as I see it:

Bulls win 30 games
subtract JWill
add Hinrich
add Newble and/or Pippen
add growth of players due to development
subtract growth of players on other teams due to development
= 32 wins, maybe 33

To make the playoffs, we need 42 and possibly more. Newble/Pippen and player growth isn't good for 12 wins. I just don't see it. A rookie Jordan was only good for like 9 wins, and we're not talking about adding that kind of great player.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> There is no law of the universe that says a young player has to just potential. Magic Johnson played just one year of college, and he turned out (RIGHT AWAY) to be a dominant player. I've also shown you Shaq's stats at the same age as Curry.
> 
> The problem with our young guys is that they have PROVEN not to be dominant players (like Magic) already, by not producing.


So I guess Tracy McGrady, Jermaine O'Neal, and Ben Wallace proved themselves not to be dominant players by not producing consistently by their 2nd season seasons in the NBA? 
Every player has a different learning curve.

Anyway, nobody's comparing anyone on the Bulls to Shaq and Magic- those are two of the top 10 greatest players, and no one on this team will ever touch their greatness. I think most everyone on this forum realizes that (except for a select few).



> Maybe we can get Antoine Walker, maybe not. To say we don't want him is foolish and to say we don't want him because he is a bad player is ridiculous. He's an all-star, which is something we can't say about anyone on our team, including our very best player, Rose. This is an example of what I'm talking about.


As i have said before, I would love to have Walker if Rose was moved. But as things are, I don't want Walker- not because he isn't currently better than anyone on our roster, but because he doesn't fit with our team at all, IMO.



> Here's the calculus as I see it:
> Bulls win 30 games
> subtract JWill
> add Hinrich
> ...


Things are not that cut-and-dry. You simply cannot correctly make that conclusion based on "calculus"- it doesn't work that way. There are far too many variables, such as the fact that you have no idea how much the developement of our young players will affect this team. 

You seem to be very caught up on numbers- a 20 ppg scorer and a 10 ppg scorer rarely equal one 30 ppg scorer, as you have suggested in the past. Walker+Howard+Rose does not = Shaq +Kobe, though their collective #'s are comparable. IMHO, Walker+Howard+Rose= a still-crappy team + alot of chemistry and luxury tax problems that we wouldn't have otherwise.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: in the context of this thread*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> I look at the Spurs and how they have won championships and been in the playoffs for 15 of the last 18 years. Remarkable consistency, my money's worth as a ticket-buying fan, and a real reason for optimism every year. If organizations win championships, take note of an organization that does win championships AND makes playoff teams.


I can't disagree more. The Spurs are the Spurs today because they were brutal for one season (3rd worst in 1996-1997) when Robinson was hurt, won the lotto and landed Duncan. To land Robinson, they were the 4th worst team the season before they drafted him... and won the lotto. That's some luck. And... they hit home runs with their #1 picks.

Unless you are in Florida or Cali, that’s the most reliable way to build a champion.

Luck and good fortune play into it at some point. The Bulls were brutal for 4 years, landed the #1 pick only once and when they had it there was not a franchise changing player available. Brand is solid... but does not seem like a man who can lead a team to a title... much less a winning season. When they landed the #2 pick, the PG they drafted was a disappointment and then got hurt. The #4 pick resulted in Fizer, and the other #4 resulted in Curry. 

Walker is an above average player but does not seem like a special player. Much like Rose. Special players win championships. Seeing Crawford and Curry and Chandler take over games at times shows potential... and that is important. They have the potential to be difference making, special, championship players. They have shown growth every year in the league... especially Curry and Crawford at the end of last season. And… the fact that they were stringing these monster games back to back to back was even more promising. Walker very well may have already hit his ceiling.

To trade away potentially special players for an above average player in an attempt to be the #7 seed in the east for a couple of seasons does not seem like a sound championship strategy.

Also, a very sound strategy is to build your championship team around talented 7 foot tall players (Shaq, Duncan, Robinson, Hakeem, Kareem)... the Bulls seem to have 2 very talented 7 foot tall players that are continuing to grow.

As for Fizer, he had a really solid couple of months last season. Just like Jamal. Just like Curry. Just like Chandler. 

While you can argue that statistically, Fizer may have been marginally better.... I don't think you will find a GM or scout in the league that would take Fizer over Curry or Chandler. 

Superstar guards or big men (or a combo) usually win the championships. 6-8 PF/SFs usually don't (Walker, Fizer). I like what I see with the Bulls and what they are building. 

You may wish to throw away all that promise for a player like Antonie Walker.... I don't think that would be wise. Why is the goal to add 13 more wins instead of 8? Don't we want to win the title?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

First off, Dabullz. When you're looking at the spurs and what a great organization they are do you factor in that they are incredibly lucky?

Tim Duncan. If they don't win that lottery that team would be in an entirely diffrent place. Especially considering the Admiral's decline.

They did some good scouting on Parker and Ginobilli. You have to give them that. But getting Duncan when they did was the main reason they are the team they are today.




> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> 
> 
> So any time a guy dunks over somebody he "flashed dominance"? :uhoh: Wow, you make such a great case. I didn't know it could just be for a matter of seconds. Well, duh. Yeah, even David Kornel flashed some dominance then.
> ...


Okay. In response to you, I think you got carried away or just totally misunderstood what I said. how is David Kornel dunking on somebody anything like Eddy Curry abusing Shaq for a whole game? Of course Eddy and Tyson and Jamal had more than just one game of dominating play this year, after the all-star break these guys were killing folks. But how can you watch a game like that where one of these young guys shows what they are capable of doing and not have that act as an indicator for future play? We got glimpses this last season of the type of players we have and the type of future we can look forward to, it's not that these guys can't play, it's just been a problem of playing consistently, which is a problem all young players have--I think this season they will level out their play more and that means more wins for the bulls

As far as the Chandler comment. Did you not watch the Bulls summer league games his first year? Kid hardly ever moved inside of the three point line. I mean he wasn't dirk nowitski or anything. But he clearly thought of himself as a perimiter player.

I guarantee the reason he doesn't shoot outside anymore, has less to do with his skill set and more to do with Bill Cartwright telling him to get his lanky *** into the post and be a man.


I find it funny that you talk about how above defending your player you are, since you a Chandler fan, but you still make the comment that you wouldn't trade him for KG.

Yet you see something wrong with Jamal fans who think Jamal is worth a little more than Antoine Walker.

:laugh: 

One thing of note, it's funny but on the Cavs board someone brought back a thread about Ricky Davis from last year and it was hilarious to see the things people were saying bad about his game in light of the leap his play made with the extra minutes and the extra year.

I predict a similiar situation with Crawford. No matter what team he ends up with.

But we'll see how the season resolves our arguements.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> First off, Dabullz. When you're looking at the spurs and what a great organization they are do you factor in that they are incredibly lucky?
> 
> Tim Duncan. If they don't win that lottery that team would be in an entirely diffrent place. Especially considering the Admiral's decline.
> ...


With all the lottery picks we've had, we didn't get lucky. We're on track to get another lottery pick. Maybe we'll get lucky one of these years.

Clearly the Spurs have done more than just drafting Duncan right. They were a playoff team for years before they got him.

The Bulls' record after the all-star break with Curry/Chandler "destroying" other teams' guys wasn't any better than with Hassell, Blount, and Fizer playing their most minutes. The Bulls won their 15th game on January 20th. The starting lineup was Crawford, Hassell, Rose, Marshall, and Chandler (24 minutes). Fizer got 27 minutes, Robinson 24, Blount 16, Brunson 24, and Curry 7.

In their 16th win, Curry played 7 minutes, chandler 18.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Yeah because they won another lottery before that and drafted David Robinson.

I'm not saying the spurs aren't a good organization. But they were a joke before Robinson got there. And it took getting Duncan for them to win their titles.

It's not even like they were the 3rd pick and had Michael Jordan to draft. They were the number 1 pick. And both years you had a top 50 all-time player, center.

I'm sorry. But that is just crazy stupid luck.


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Don't we want to win the title?


um, don't we have to make the playoffs first, in order to pursue that elusive goal?

you raise valid points, but they miss the mark a bit. 

_maybe_ EC, TC, and JC are ready to take the next step. or _maybe_ they'll continue with their somewhat maddening tendency to fall into bouts of inconsistency and non-factor-dom.

DaBullz brought up Gary Payton in a different thread. people have talked before about Michael Finley, Eddie Jones, and Latrell Sprewell. the big problem with most of these discussions has been that Rose is the centerpiece of the deal from our end. that's akin to spinning your wheels, because it merely replaces one proven player with another, and still doesn't address the problem of production.

Walker is being used as an example, not as a target. JMSO, he's not the kind of player for which you'd deal three players. the actual question here isn't so much "what can we get" but more of "who do we want?"

what would it take, for example, to land Peja from Sacramento? or Toni Kukoc from Milwaukee? Kerry Kittles? Jamal Mashburn? Ray Allen? that's how we need to think.

every successful team in the future of the luxury tax era is going to be built around two key, proven, and productive players, and fill in the cracks with whatever they can, while limiting bad contracts. right now, this team has one of those key, proven, and productive players; that's Rose.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> First off, Dabullz. When you're looking at the spurs and what a great organization they are do you factor in that they are incredibly lucky?
> 
> Tim Duncan. If they don't win that lottery that team would be in an entirely diffrent place. Especially considering the Admiral's decline.
> ...



Ok, in response to you -

First off, I did not say I would not trade Chandler for Garnett. I like Chandler, but unlike Jamal fans I'm realistic. Chandler for Garnett is a NO-BRAINER. I said, "I wouldn't have even wanted to trade him if we were doing a Garnett deal. " I can't even believe I have to explain this, but since you just recently registered perhaps you didn't read all of the KG threads - at least I'd hope that would be the reason. THERE WAS NEVER A CHANDLER FOR GARNETT TRADE SCENARIO. If you know anything about the CBA you'd understand its not even possible. And if you did follow any of the KG trade threads you'd know that the thinking was Minny would demand Chandler IN THE TRADE. Posters were willing to give him up because we would have KG. WHAT I AM SAYING IS I WOULD NOT HAVE WANTED TO DO A TRADE --- EVEN FOR KG THAT WOULD HAVE INCLUDED CHANDLER. I would have loved to have Chandler, Curry AND Garnett together though. And it matters not that it was impossible because trading for Garnett was impossible in the first place. But go ahead and search. Find my posts about Chandler on that issue that make me come across like some star-struck teenager fawning all over Jamal and expressing endless devotion to Jamal and everything about him. Oh, I mean Chandler of course. :laugh: 

Next, maybe you can find the RMR statistics to prove your claim Chandler was Dirk jacking up the 3s and "hardly ever moved inside the three point line". I just don't remember that at all and I SERIOUSLY DOUBT IT. But hey, BACK UP YOUR CLAIM and I'll more than happily give you props. 

As for the rest of it, sounds like you got carried away or misunderstood. I never said the boys couldn't play. I clearly stated "To say our players showed enough flashes to prove they belonged in this league and might one day be something special would be accurate. To say our players showed enough flashes of DOMINANCE is pure heresy." I think this is FAR MORE ACCURATE than your claim that "Eddy and Tyson and Jamal had more than just one game of dominating play this year, after the all-star break these guys were killing folks". Killing folks? Really!? I guess thats good for you...made for more enjoyable viewing. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like the games I watched. From my standpoint, I was just glad to see we were SHOWING WE COULD PLAY COMPETITIVE BASKETBALL and that the young guys looked like they belonged in the league. I'll wait for all those superstardom, all-star, dominant accolades for when I actually see it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Yeah because they won another lottery before that and drafted David Robinson.
> 
> I'm not saying the spurs aren't a good organization. But they were a joke before Robinson got there. And it took getting Duncan for them to win their titles.
> ...


The Rockets got two top-50 all-time type centers, too. Hakeem and Sampson. The Knicks got Ewing. Orlando got Shaq. Charlotte got Mourning. Denver got Mutumbo. Minnesota got Garnett. Houston got Ming. 

That's just the centers. We can talk about the Jordans, Barkleys, Birds, Magics, etc., too, if you like. You'd think given all the lottery picks we had, we might have actually gotten a special player (well, we did in Brand and could have/should have had Francis).


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Yeah because they won another lottery before that and drafted David Robinson.
> 
> I'm not saying the spurs aren't a good organization. But they were a joke before Robinson got there. And it took getting Duncan for them to win their titles.
> ...



Wow. How does one even respond to that mess of an argument? 

First off, "crazy stupid luck" is Orlando getting the #1 pick in the draft two years in a row when they had a 1 in 66 chance the second year and drafted one of the most dominate centers to ever play the game in the first year. And how many titles did they win? Zippo.

Yes San An had two number ones, but they were 10 freakin' years apart. They only got Duncan #1 because the Admiral was injured. You think thats "crazy stupid luck" too? 

And if the Spurs have such "crazy stupid luck", what about every other team that won a title? No luck involved there or just no "crazy stupid luck"? 

How about those Showtime Lakers? "Crazy stupid luck"? I mean, they have Jabaar (Milwaukee #1 '69) and then 10 freakin' years later get Magic (#1 '79)...but that wasn't enough 3 years later get Worthy (#1 '82). No luck or just not "crazy stupid luck"?

I call "crazy stupid luck" getting a shooting guard with the third pick in the draft and having him lead you to 6 world titles. Yup, thats "CRAZY STUPID LUCK". :yes:


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Next, maybe you can find the RMR statistics to prove your claim Chandler was Dirk jacking up the 3s and "hardly ever moved inside the three point line". I just don't remember that at all and I SERIOUSLY DOUBT IT. But hey, BACK UP YOUR CLAIM and I'll more than happily give you props.


This brings up an interesting point.

I see a lot of you guys have some interesting stats seemingly on hand.

Is there a good online source for stats, not just for current NBA players but past ones? And win loss records and all of that.

I swear that's what happened. But hey maybe I'm wrong. He hasn't even attempted a 3 pointer in the NBA yet. So I'm sure you're probably right, and I just have a shady memory.

I still don't really understand your position on the idea of KG for Chandler. If it was possible for that to happen, you would be against it. But you would do it? I don't know. I'm an illiterate fool, and the point is only important in that it should help you feel some sort of empathy towards crawford fans. But maybe not, huh?

As far as this question, which is more interesting:



> what would it take, for example, to land Peja from Sacramento? or Toni Kukoc from Milwaukee? Kerry Kittles? Jamal Mashburn? Ray Allen? that's how we need to think.


I'd give up Crawford, Fizer and Rose for Ray Allen if Seattle Wanted to. I think Seattle outright stole Ray Allen from the Bucks. Ray Allen was one of the best players in the league last year once he got out of Milwaukee. He's got better handles than I thought he did. He can hold it down in this league with just about anyone.

Also I would like to see Crawford in Seattle if the Bulls don't want him. As I've been waiting awhile to go back to the Sonics after all these years. I haven't fully forgiven them for trading Kemp for Baker. Crawford, and Rashard would run things. Play Jalen at the 2. That'd be some fun.

Jamal Mashburn is also a diffrence maker IMO. I'd go for him if he was available as well. Probably wouldn't part with Crawford and Fizer to get him though, mostly because I have some doubts as to how he'd fit in with the triangle. It didn't seem to work when he played it in dallas under clemons.


I think the best option though is just to keep our heads and be patient. It's only a few months until the season starts. Let's see what the young guys bring this season before we decide we have to do something drastic.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> This brings up an interesting point.
> ...


Maybe based on the time of day, I'm not being clear about this. I would gladly trade Chandler for Garnett even up. That is a NO-BRAINER. I would not include Chandler in the proposed trades for Garnett listed on this board some time ago. He was a part of a package in those deals as he would have to be based on the CBA. We would have had to trade half our freakin' team to get KG based on the CBA. Cool?


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> This brings up an interesting point.
> ...


Just curious, are you saying you are a Sonic fan or just someone who would follow Jamal to the Sonics? If you are a Sonic fan, are you a Chambers/Haywood/Cage/Sikma/McDaniel/Watts/Williams/Ellis and of course "Downtown" Freddie Brown era fan or simply a GP/Kemp/McKey era guy? I used to like those old Sonic teams.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Perhaps this would normally be done via PM, but I have no issue with making this statement/comment in public.

Spartacus,

It is a pleasure to read your posts and to see such reasoned and well articulated arguments.

I, for one, appreciate it.

I note you have only posted ~210 times. I hope that number grows!

Peace


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Reading this whole thread has really been pretty sickening to me. Guys are expecting Chandler, Curry, and Crawford to just step onto the NBA court straight out of HS (or freshman year of college for Jamal) and immediately show that they are gonna be the next best thing. Whats scary to me is that there are people who follow basketball and the Bulls as seriously as I do and don't realize that young players take time to develop. Sure, Garnett had an incredible first year, as did Amare, and even Kobe was OK in limited minutes...not dominating...OK. But for every one player who declares early and is an immediate success there are 5 others that take 2-3 years to develop. What about J. O'neal riding the pine in Portland? WHat about Tracy McGrady? Bender? Harrington? The list goes on and on. 

:sigh: 

If there is one thing I have learned following basketball so closely is that there are some people who are able to identify talent at the early stages and there are other people who will just say "oh he's a scrub, he can't do anything". I've seen it a bazillion times. I remember when the Bulls had a deal in the works to trade for J. O'neal and everyone and their brother came out and said, "he's a scrub he averages 3.9ppg, if Krause trades 2 draft picks for a guy like this he should be tarred and feathered!" That was pretty common thinking at the time. And I remember folks who wanted to trade Jamal for "anything we can get" because he wasn't producing as quickly as they would have liked. Now he does produce as many people (like myself) predicted he would eventually and we overrate him. :sigh: 

It's a lose lose proposition! If your one of the few people that is able to identify talent at an early stage and you point it out, expect to be ridiculed for quite some time until the guy your touting starts to produce a little, then when he produces and shows flashes..you can be accussed of "overrating your guy". Then, finally when he puts his game all together and becomes an All Star everyone will forget that you were the one who first predicted that he would be one after a summer league performance in his rookie year or something. Everyone will be on his bandwagon and if you point out that he was "your guy" people will shrug and say "yeah right". 

It's a lose lose proposition. 

I'm just going to say that I don't OVERRATE Jamal. I rate him. Which is more credit than he gets from a lot of folks around here. Jamal has flaws in his game as do most young players before they iron them out. Remember Pip couldn't shoot the J? Would I trade Crawford for KG? of course. Kobe? Yep. Antoine Walker? You must be joking me? 

Barring any unforseen hindrance, Jamal IS going to be a special player, whether your one of the folks who realized that early on, yesterday, or one of the folks who still thinks he will be of the caliber of Alvin Williams. Curry & Chandler will likely be special 
players as well. Young players take time in this league to develop. And I give props to all of the folks who are able to recognize greatness early. For the rest of you, there is no sense in debating it with you....just remember the people who told you how good these players would one day be when that day comes around.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

I've gotta tell you - with no disrespect meant to any individual poster - I've long been sick of all this mindless Jamal idol worship which quickly led to all this "you're hatin' on Jamal" crap. 

Sure, most folks probably have a favorite player on this team, but it doesn't mean you mindlessly rave on about how this guys the next coming of [insert hall of famer of choice] and then disrespect EVERY OTHER POSTER who isn't quite that sold yet.

I'm not sure when this board turned into a - wait and you'll see I told you so - board, but I've been pretty clear where I stand on Jamal. He's a Bull and I like him. I want him to become a great player. I want that for EVERY BULL. He may not exactly be a high maintenance personality, but there is some maintenance involved there. He has created his own situation with the Bulls organization and needs to take responsibility for it whereas most Jamal posters blame everyone EXCEPT Jamal for what has happened to him since joining the Bulls. He started to play pretty dang well at the end of last year, but he has a long way to go and his game does have plenty of weaknesses that I DO BELIEVE HE CAN CORRECT. We've got a great looking player here, but lets not get too far ahead of ourselves. The guy needs to buy into what management wants out of him and he needs to get better. For all of our sakes lets hope thats what happens.

Is Jamal overrated? Well if you're talking about by the Bulls or you're talking about by the League I'd say absolutely not. If you're talking about this board, I'd say absolutely without a doubt.

Are the posts about Jamal devisive? Usually. Should the Jamal supporters quit all this "hatin' on" crap? Oh, absolutely. Until then, I suspect there will be plenty more "sickening threads" to both types of posters palettes.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

If Jamal played on another team besides the Bulls, would we be beating down the doors to get him? Would we be calling him a "Special" player?

The adage is that you pretty much know what you're going to get by a player's third season in the league. That requires a little bit of interpretation in the age of very young players, but not a huge amount.

Ace mentions McGrady, for example, but after his third season, it should have been clear to most people that, even if he wasn't producing at a superstar level yet, he was really taking off.

Jermaine O'Neal, is another odd case, but mostly because he was stuck on an incredibly deep Portland team. 

Al Harrington is not. I think he's an example of "what you see is basically what you get". He's developed into a very nice player, but I wouldn't describe him as "special" or "a star". He's very above average... but that's about it.

Part of the problem with Jamal is that he missed almost a whole season of court time. So in one sence, his "year 3" is this year. And he played very well at the end of last year. So my expectation is that if he is going to be a "special player", he needs to start the season as well as he ended it last year (20+ ppg and 7apg).

If he's just going to be a good player, he'll put up about the same kind of numbers he did after the all-star break last year (14ppg, 2rpg, 5.5apg). Of course that's not a hard and fast rule, but it's kind of a measure of how well he might play.

As far as "hating on" him, it just seems funny to me how many people wouldn't trade him for very good players. In my mind, it's 50/50 whether Crawford reaches the Gil Arenas/Andre Miller/Ricky Davis level, much less the "I wouldn't trade him for all but 10 players in the NBA level".


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> If Jamal played on another team besides the Bulls, would we be beating down the doors to get him? Would we be calling him a "Special" player?


If he played for another team, I guarantee there would have been at least 100 mostly irrational trade proposal threads on this board to get him, simply because in the past year we have proposed about 100 possible trades for every decent young player in the league. That's what we Bulls fans do- we constantly propose nonsensical trades.  

Seriously though, I'm not one of those that is under the impression that Crawford is the next GP or the player that Penny Hardaway should have been. I do, however, think that he can be a very good player in this league, and I do not see the value in trading him for a much older player that could potentially upset our team chemistry and would certainly hurt us financially.



> Part of the problem with Jamal is that he missed almost a whole season of court time. So in one sence, his "year 3" is this year. And he played very well at the end of last year. So my expectation is that if he is going to be a "special player", he needs to start the season as well as he ended it last year (20+ ppg and 7apg).


I agree- this season, definitely, is put-up-or-shut-up time for Crawford. If he produces this season, great. If not, then _and only_ then should we talk about replacing him with a vet. I want to see what we have first before we throw it away.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> If Jamal played on another team besides the Bulls, would we be beating down the doors to get him? Would we be calling him a "Special" player?
> Part of the problem with Jamal is that he missed almost a whole season of court time. So in one sence, his "year 3" is this year. And he played very well at the end of last year. So my expectation is that if he is going to be a "special player", he needs to start the season as well as he ended it last year (20+ ppg and 7apg).


Right... he lost a year. And... even in his year 3 (last year)... when they played him major minutes he did blow up.... which is even more promising. We'll see this year if he can get it done.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

i think the bulls have a slightly unique case here. some hs'ers can show you things in year one, others take 2-3 maybe even 4 years. but in most cases teams really only have 1 hs'er to worry about developing. there aren't too many teams that have two guys straight out of high school at the same time. top it off that this team doesn't have the kind of quality veteran leadership to take the pressure off curry and chandler. add to that the fact that there is just as much youth and nba inexperience on the perimeter.

what this means for the bulls is that they should hold on to the young talent because it'll take a longer time to see what each of the kids is truly made of. the ultimate test is on court performance so naturally it'll be difficult to get just one guy to blow up when in fact all the kids are looking to show and prove themselves. the result, jamal will show some stuff for a 20 game stretch. tyson will put up some inspiring double doubles in some other month and curry will dominate the post for a quarter or two during a series of games. anyways, this year is huge for these three guys. the hs'ers enter the 3 year timeframe where we should start seeing some consistency to go along with all that promise and jamal's numbers this year are eerily similar to arenas' numbers from last year. arenas came into the next year with a ton of confidence and really proved himself, jamal looks poised to the same.

i think waaaay back between 95-97 the washington bullets/wizards had rasheed wallace, cwebb, juwan howard, and even ben wallace on their roster at one time or another. who did they decide to keep around and rebuild with? 

juwan howard! 

sheed was just a rookie and cwebb had a lock on the 4 spot so they traded wallace for rod strickland and i think otis thorpe. 

a year later cwebb gets traded because chris was 'one dimensional' and juwan had the skillz of a 3 in a body of a 4. so cwebb goes to sac for mitch richmond. 

now the wiz have two all-star level guards and a one time all-star at pf (thorpe). to get a center they trade four unknown guys for ike austin (former most improved player). one of those unknowns was ben wallace. 

so anyways, despite how much we may watch games, scout players, etc, etc there really is no sure fire analysis. players do develop over time. but by how much and for how long is debatable. the only thing that's for sure is that there are no formulas or guarantees.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> 
> 
> Just curious, are you saying you are a Sonic fan or just someone who would follow Jamal to the Sonics? If you are a Sonic fan, are you a Chambers/Haywood/Cage/Sikma/McDaniel/Watts/Williams/Ellis and of course "Downtown" Freddie Brown era fan or simply a GP/Kemp/McKey era guy? I used to like those old Sonic teams.


When I first started watching basketball, I was a jordan-bulls fan. This was due a lot to my age at the time. The first finals I ever watched was bulls-lakers. I was 9 I think. Good times.

When I really started getting into basketball, it was right around when Kemp came into the league. And so I was a sonics fan from the GP/Kemp/Mckey era until they traded Kemp. Then I was disgruntled. But I'm liking them again now that they got Allen and Rashard Lewis. Kind of a clean slate deal now.

You didn't like the 90's sonics?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

MikeDC - great post!

I couldn't say it any better than you or Spartacus. WRT his post, I agree with it 100%. I happen to like Jamal, and was one of the biggest proponents of giving him the starting job last season. All season long.

The truth is the rumors of trades involving him and Fizer go back almost two seasons. The trade rumor for Walker is quite recent. Krause drafted him, then drafted JWill to play instead. Paxson drafts another PG with a lottery pick the next season. Cleveland drafted him and thought so much of him they traded him for Chris Mihm. That should be the ultimate indication of how Krause, and now Paxson, and the league, rate (or overrate) him.

The ironic thing is that Krause destroyed a team that had just won a championship because he didn't want us to become the Celtics, who had gone from first to worst. Yet here we are, 6 years of "worst" (in history), and the Celtics are a playoff team with two all-stars.

As a long time Chicago sports fan, I've seen my share of special players. Gale Sayers, Walter Payton, Ernie Banks, Billy Williams, Fergie Jenkins, Dick Allen, Bruce Sutter, Andre Dawson, Ryne Sandberg, Sammy Sosa, and Michael Jordan. Perhaps my standards are too high, but when I pay money to see my team play, I want to see those kinds of players. Among the very best in history, and true legends. Even when they didn't win championships, there was hope for one with those guys.

For Spartacus: Jack Sikma, Gus Williams (from Golden State), and Lenny Wilkins.

Peace!


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Is Crawford overrated? I suppose that is a completely relative question and one that can't have an absolute answer. For the most part, you can call me a Crawford supporter. I've liked what I've seen from him in bits and pieces. The problem, as has been pointed out, is that his play has been in bits and pieces.

He strung together a very good run of games at the end of this season. The team played well against some pretty stiff competition. Also, it should be noted that during those final 20 or so games we didn't have Fizer. Marshall was basically useless as he was ailing. Chandler was limited and eventually pulled because of his esophigitis (sp?) problems. The team was still trying to find time for some of its' borderline players (Mason Jr.) to see what they could do.

So much of this game is based on confidence and what I was noticing at the end of the season were some pretty confident young players - Curry, Crawford and even J-Will had gotten some of his swagger back. For a season and a half, Curry looked almost scared, or at least disinterested. After the All-Star break, it was like he was a different player. Confident. Agressive and, dare I say it, demonstrative at times. The kid realized that he truly belonged in the leage and that he could score.

Jamal was the same way towards the end of the season. Also, he had a rather difficult road to overcome. Losing a year to an ACL tear is difficult. Moreso is the mental adjustment that it takes to have confidence in the knee again. I've read time and time again that most athletes with an ACL tear take almost another year to gain full confidence in their knee again. I can't remember how many times last season Crawford had an open lane to the basket and instead of driving, he would pull up for a 21-ft jumper - possibly the worst shot in basketball. By the end of the season, he was breaking players down and getting in the lane. 

The maturation of a young basketball player is a process. Some "get it" quicker than others. For all intents and purposes, Crawford was more of a project than either Curry or Chandler. Curry and Chandler have been fastracked to the NBA from the 8th grade on. They played all the AAU ball. They attended all the camps. They attended "powerhouse" HS's. Crawford didn't play organized ball until his junior year in HS. 17 games in college and then to the NBA. The kid was RAW. There's been a whole lot of refining going on these last three years for him - both as a player and as a man. I think there is still more refining yet to be seen.

None of the three C's got much in the way of instruction thru HS. It's a problem with the american basketball system now. Exploit the kids and send them on their way.

One of the posters stated that you needed all-stars on your roster to win. That's true. It was also stated that we don't have any all-stars. Also true. The problem I have with such an assertion is that all-stars are constantly rising and falling. One years all-star is next years journeyman. If the same players were always all-stars, shouldn't we still be watching Oscar Robertson, Chamberlan, Cousey, West and the like? The point is that players BECOME all-stars. We have some of them on this roster. Will Carwford ever be one of those players? Maybe. I won't rule out the possibility.

Patience is required. I'm willing to give the three C's thru this season. All three of them should now be in a position both physically and mentally to endure and produce. I'm pretty sure that the confidence that our young team displayed towards the end of last year will carry over to this year. Our three kids know they belong and they know that they can compete. They view themselves as men playing in a mens league now rather than boys learning a mans game...

Now look, I've gotten myself all worked up!!! I think I'm gonna finally break down and get the Dish this year.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> When I first started watching basketball, I was a jordan-bulls fan. This was due a lot to my age at the time. The first finals I ever watched was bulls-lakers. I was 9 I think. Good times.
> ...


Didn't like the 90's Sonics but liked the previous ones - although I was never much of a Tom Chambers guy.


----------



## 2cool4skool (Mar 30, 2003)

What ever type of contract Gil Arenas gets -- Crawford deserves the same.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> What ever type of contract Gil Arenas gets -- Crawford deserves the same.


I don't think so. I'm a Crawford supporter as well, but he's nowhere near as proven as Gil.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> Is Crawford overrated? I suppose that is a completely relative question and one that can't have an absolute answer. For the most part, you can call me a Crawford supporter. I've liked what I've seen from him in bits and pieces. The problem, as has been pointed out, is that his play has been in bits and pieces.
> 
> He strung together a very good run of games at the end of this season. The team played well against some pretty stiff competition. Also, it should be noted that during those final 20 or so games we didn't have Fizer. Marshall was basically useless as he was ailing. Chandler was limited and eventually pulled because of his esophigitis (sp?) problems. The team was still trying to find time for some of its' borderline players (Mason Jr.) to see what they could do.
> ...


Great post! :yes: :yes: 

And I HIGHLY reccomend satellite with NBA league pass...it's a must!


----------

