# Sun-Times: Skiles settles on three starters...



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull271.html




> *Before the game, Skiles announced that Duhon had earned the starting spot in the backcourt along side Kirk Hinrich,* meaning that Ben Gordon -- last season's NBA Sixth Man Award winner -- would be used off the bench once again.
> 
> ''He's more comfortable that way and Duhon and Hinrich give us a better defensive lineup to start the game,'' Skiles said.
> 
> ...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Not encouraging.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

So Othella may start over Chandler?

Nocioni over Deng?


I just want the games to start already because every piece of news lately sounds terrible. 

I thought that Deng, Gordon, and Chandler were going to be playing 30+ minutes. Was that just me?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

madox said:


> So Othella may start over Chandler?
> 
> Nocioni over Deng?
> 
> ...


I still think Chandler and Deng will get their 30 min., but I'm not sure what to make of Ben. He's quickly going from "future All-Star" to "glorified Jannero Pargo."


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

I thought for sure Ben would be starting by now


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Hmmm. We will have a nice bench with deng, Gordon and chandler off of the bench. Nice to have a $10mill guy as a back up. 

I know its preaseason, but his rebounding is dissapointing so far. 

That starting lineup is small. But then again so were the Suns last season. (I know we are not the Suns.)


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Again, this is Skiles/Cartwright style of coaching. Put the best lineup out there.

Can you believe it's four years after we drafted the Baby Bulls and some of us (a voice inside of me, even) are still calling out: "Let the kids play!"

I think Gordon will make the transition into the starting role when he's ready. And if he's never ready, then it's not for us to make him a less effective basketball player by trying to force him to be ready. I anticipate that he'll still get the big minutes, but maybe after a slow start. 

As for Chandler, I really did expect him to be starting but I think he hasn't been a ferocious defender as billed, nor has he added to his offensive game as he should have. However, he is only 23 years old and we might consider his NBA career like his collegiate training. A lot of 4-year college guys don't figure out how to score in the NBA until two or three years into the league. And while Chandler has been in the pro game for longer and a quicker learning curve might be anticipated, we have to remember that his basketball IQ is still developing. I think that he's still got the capacity to be a beast, and that he CAN still learn more and be a more mature big man, and once he does that... it'll be huge. However, I do wish he didn't have so many coaching changes; he had a much rougher ride than, say, Emeka Okafor. 

I might even contend that Chandler could have had something of Okafor's mental engagement with the game had he gone to a great basketball college, like Michigan State or Kentucky or UConn or Arizona... places with great teachers of the game, schools that won't turn their coaches over for quite a while.

Regardless. Chandler's not a starter in the NBA? Fine. We're paying him huge bucks? That doesn't correlate so much with his ability, as we all know, so much as it correlates with the collectively bargained timing for rookie extensions.

Deng, also, is young and coming off injury. As a Bulls fan, I think they are equally effective on the court, just that they offer different skill sets.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Honestly, who cares about Gordon starting? (apparently other than Gordon?) As long as he gets the minutes. If he plays better coming in 6 minutes into the ballgame and plays well the rest of the way, I don't mind. 

Starting games is overrated and if coming off the bench allows Ben to be the best that he can be, we have to do it. 

With that said, I thought it would be a lock that Tyson would be starting. I would like to know the reasoning behind this. Does Skiles want to establish scoring downlow to start games?

The Deng/Nocioni starting job battle should be interesting but I wouldn't be surprised if Tim gets a boatload of minutes as well.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Things are certain to change after the first 9 games


----------



## nybullsfan (Aug 12, 2005)

This is getting alittle crazy, deng should start over nocioni he is a better all around player and gives us the scoring we need. Chandler should definitly start afterall he did sign a 60mill extension and gives us nice defense and rebounding. as for others Songaila won the starting job farily but i expect sweetney to get the starting nod as the season goes on. as for ben i hate to say it but duhon won that starting job hopefully he can get his shooting percentages up during the real season and become a starter.

I expect a opening night the line up of Chandler/Songailia/Deng/Hinrich/Duhon and eventually Chandler/Sweetney/Deng/Gordon/Hinrich as the season goes by.


----------



## david123 (Mar 11, 2005)

man, **** skiles.

don't feed us this bs that gordon is more comfortable coming off the bench when he was given 5 lousy pre-season games to "prove himself." at least give him a chance. 

it's important to be a strong defensive team, but lord, please show some concern that this team has absolutely no semblance of an offensive game. 

mark my word, gordon will want out of chicago if skiles continues to have him off the bench...
bulls will be lucky to win 35 games this year.


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

how did chris duhon get the starting nod over gordon ? the starting line up still had trouble scoring . I also think deng should be in the starting line up. We need offense. To be honest with you I wish we did not resign scott skiles last year .


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

So this will be it?

PG-Chris Duhon
SG-Kirk Hinrich
SF-Luol Deng
PF-Darius Songaila
C- Malik Allen
-----------------
PG-Ben Gordon
SG-Tim Thomas
SF-Andres Nocioni
PF-Michael Sweetney
C- Tyson Chandler

Thats good balance. Chandler has earned the starting spot just as much as Malik Allen has, and I think Skiles is out to send a message to the bonehead.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

spongyfungy said:


> Honestly, who cares about Gordon starting? (apparently other than Gordon?) As long as he gets the minutes. If he plays better coming in 6 minutes into the ballgame and plays well the rest of the way, I don't mind.


Actually, Gordon's said he doesn't really care on a couple of occasions.

Skiles seems mildly against this. At least, he seemed to think it was a meaningful thing that Gordon had the chance to step up and claim a starting job, and thus I can only imagine he cared a bit and hoped Ben would make the most of the chance.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> Actually, Gordon's said he doesn't really care on a couple of occasions.
> 
> Skiles seems mildly against this. At least, he seemed to think it was a meaningful thing that Gordon had the chance to step up and claim a starting job, and thus I can only imagine he cared a bit and hoped Ben would make the most of the chance.


I should clarify. while Gordon says he doesn't care, he produces differently when he starts. Ben and Skiles can't pinpoint the problem but it's all mental.

The more that this notion is enforced, the more probable that this issue will hover over him his entire career.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Man, you guys who are clamoring for Gordon to start, did you watch the preseason games? Gordon was like crap on a stick starting with Hinrich in the backcourt, we only got a little momentum going with Duhon out there...get over it.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

Skiles really likes putting the better players on the bench is seems. Honestly, from an outside perspective, I have no clue why. This should be the lineup imo

Hinrich- he is a pg. Not a sg. 
Gordon- best potential on team. Start him
Deng- best all around player this year on Bulls
Sweetney- on block scorer. Good energy
Chandler- misused off the bench. Gave him the big money, now start him

Nocioni, Duhon and others would be a solid bench.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

Well if Gordon doesn't start you almost have to start Othella over Chandler, from an offensive standpoint, otherwise Deng is all of a sudden our #1 option to open up games. That sounds like a disaster.

Pick and rolls with Hinrich/Songaila? Ugh...

Duhon
Hinrich
Deng
Songaila
Chandler/Othella


What in the hell is wrong with Gordon that he can't start? This is holding the entire team back (of course I know it's not from bad work ethic based on what we know he did this offseason, but for chrissake...)... and Chandler is certainly not helping his own cause based on preseason, tho I think everyone knows if you'd just start Chandler and play him 35 minutes he'll get 12 rebounds and a couple clocks... Hey Tyson stop biting on every damned pump fake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think you start the above lineup with Othella to start the season, but man, if Ben and Tyson can't earn 30 minutes or so a piece I'll view that as a very bad sign for the Bulls prospects this season.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I think Tyson starts at center with Songalia and Deng upfront and Duhon and Hinrich in backcourt. Then Ben at PG/SG, Nocioni and Thomas at SF/PF and Sweetney and Harrington at PF/C. That is the 10 that basically gets the run. Basden,Allen,Piatkowski,Pargo,and maybe Griffin gets the filler minutes. Oh and for the record Hinrich and Songalia would be sweet in the pick and roll together.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

I know Hinrich/Songaila can run an effective pick and roll, and you can go to that at times during the game, I was just saying I don't think you want to rely on that too heavily especially at the outset of the season when they're still learning each other's games.

It can be effective but not the focal point of an offense, not from what I've seen. 

Don't offenses need a focal point? In the fourth quarter we've got Gordon, we used to have Eddy early on... but now what?

I think if you start Chandler that team is going to average 12 points in the 1st quarter.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, in the only game I've seen anything of, Skiles was using Sweets as a mini-me version of Eddy at center, so my guess is that's very well who might put Chandler on the bench if it comes to that.

Sweets is such an odd player. Comparing him to Curry really brings out the whole dichotomy of acquired skills vs. physical abilities and highlights why you need both. In the end, I'd take Eddy 10 times out of 10, but the comparison is really interesting.

Sweetney is more skilled, in the sense that he's a (very slightly) better passer and decision-maker, and he's got softer touch and better footwork.

On the other hand, Curry's still got soft hands and is a scoring machine around the basket. Saying that Sweetney's better than Curry isn't saying that Curry sucks, because he's still better than 90% of the big guys out there. Compared to either of these guys, Tyson is clueless and even a more skilled player like Othella doesn't look very good.

The difference comes in that Curry's freakish athleticism and size make him capable of executing more with less skills on offense. Sweetney, on the other hand, is one of the least athletic and short (in both height and wingspan) NBA players to come down the pike in a while. That makes him a liability on defense. Contrary to popular opinion, Curry was typically a solid man vs. man defender. He's a bad decision-maker, but fundamentally he usually put his big body where it needed to be. Sweetney, by virtue of his slowness and shortness, will make even the most average of opposing big guys like better than they are because they'll shoot over him or go around him. That's why I'd take Curry.

But, we don't have Curry. And the similarity is that while Curry was a mediocre defender, he was, on net, a valuable asset because he was a very good offensive player for us. Sweetney's going to bring that too, and in exactly the same fashion. He'll hopefully keep us in games, and people will gripe about his (lack of) assists and (many) turnovers (not understanding that his role is to get the ball and score) and his defense (not accepting that his offensive production is a stunningly rare and valuable commodity).

Interestingly, if this happens, our lineup, vs. last year, would seem likely to be very comparable to last years:

1- Duhon - internal improvement
2- Kirk - internal improvement
3- Deng - internal improvement once he's in shape
4- Songaila - similar skillset to AD, but with less size, strength and defense
5- Sweetney - similar skillset to Curry, but with less size and defense

Bench
Gordon - internal improvement
Nocioni - internal improvement
Chandler - slight internal improvement once he's in shape

------------

In short, it appears to me we took a step back on defense up front, but will have ample opportunity to improve from other areas.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Man, you guys who are clamoring for Gordon to start, did you watch the preseason games? Gordon was like crap on a stick starting with Hinrich in the backcourt, we only got a little momentum going with Duhon out there...get over it.


But... Hinrich makes his teammates better at PG.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> But... Hinrich makes his teammates better at PG.



Not as much as Duhon does.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

My post was tongue in cheek and I know yours was too.
:biggrin:


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Well, in the only game I've seen anything of, Skiles was using Sweets as a mini-me version of Eddy at center, so my guess is that's very well who might put Chandler on the bench if it comes to that.
> 
> Sweets is such an odd player. Comparing him to Curry really brings out the whole dichotomy of acquired skills vs. physical abilities and highlights why you need both. In the end, I'd take Eddy 10 times out of 10, but the comparison is really interesting.
> 
> ...



Nice post.

Personally, I think this team made a horizontal move this offseason. Got more scoring. Got less defense. There's going to be very little room for error with these guys. I certainly hope they can reduce the turnovers and fouls because the lock-down defense that we could play last season won't be as effective. This years edition of the Bulls seems much like last years in terms of what might translate into wins. Couple that with the east getting better overall and that's where I come up with around 45 wins (give or take a few).

When you look at Duhon, Kirk and Deng, they are returning starters from last season. It's reasonable to assume (hope?) that they'll be better players. Replace Davis with Songaila and you lose defense and toughness and gain scoring and passing. Pretty much a wash. Replace Curry with Sweets and you lose serious scoring, so-so defense and poor rebounding and replace it with ok scoring, a little less than so-so defense and better rebounding. Overall I'd call that a net loss. Our bench should be better than last year. If you've got Chandler, Gordon and Noce comming off the bench, again I'd assume (hope?) that they've all improved. Harrington should be the same - solid. Thomas is a real wild card but he sure does bring scoring. Pargo will bring what he brings. That's 11 deep right there.

I think it will be the play of our second unit, much like last year, that will help to determine how this team competes. Your starting five above hardly puts the fear of God (or anything else) into opposing defenses, but as long as they keep it close, I feel as if our bench is one of the better ones in the league and may well be the key component in winning games.

Less than a week to go!


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> Skiles really likes putting the better players on the bench is seems.


Skiles seems to value consistancy more than anything. Duhon, Songalia and Hinrich are probably the 3 most consistant players we have.


----------



## FreeSpeech101 (Jul 30, 2004)

david123 said:


> man, **** skiles.
> 
> don't feed us this bs that gordon is more comfortable coming off the bench when he was given 5 lousy pre-season games to "prove himself." at least give him a chance.
> 
> ...


Dude, the Bulls win with depth, and having Gordon come in and score against tired starters or scrubs is part of the reason for the Bulls success. Have faith in Skiles, he has earned respect...


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Sweetney, on the other hand, is one of the least athletic and short (in both height and wingspan) NBA players to come down the pike in a while.


I disagree on the wingspan front (7'1" is ample wingspan IMO)...
http://www.360hoops.com/content/2003/06/30_draftanalysis.shtml

Otherwise, nice post.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Fizer Fanatic said:


> I disagree on the wingspan front (7'1" is ample wingspan IMO)...
> http://www.360hoops.com/content/2003/06/30_draftanalysis.shtml
> 
> Otherwise, nice post.


I don't think so. That article compares him to Brand, but Brand's got 7'5".

If you're shorter, you obviously have to have longer arms if you're going to have equivalent reach (especially if you're fat and can't jump very high).

For comparison, here's some of the major guys from the last couple of drafts

2005 (Player, wingspan, reach)
Bogut 7'3, 9'2.5
Frye 7'2.5, 9'2.5

2004 
Okafor, 7'4, 9'2.5
Howard, 7'4.5, 9.35

2003
Bosh 7'3.5, 9'1
Collison 7'1.5, 9'
Kaman 6'11.75, 9'2.5
Milicic 7'5, 9'3.5
Sweetney 7'1, 8'11.5
West 7'4.25, 9'0.5

So basically, he's at the lower end of the spectrum as far as wingspan and reach when you compare him to contemporary PF/C type guys.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

We clearly need a new coach. Basketball requires 5 starters, not 3.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

I think Ben is better coming off the bench right now . . . However, by All-Star break I think it will be very difficult to keep him off the floor from opening tip. I'm not very concerned about who will start at C for us, I'm reasonably certain that Chandler will be our starter. I think that starting Sweets woule be a mistake because though he's a good scorer and rebounder, if he's trying to match up against a Center in this league he's toast. I also think Deng will start at the 3, but it will be a great head to head for the 3s.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Gordon seems like a Bobby Jackson type player,which isn't a bad thing. If he can come off the bench and still own 4th quarters he'll still be a very valuable player in the league.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> We clearly need a new coach. Basketball requires 5 starters, not 3.


Well, I guess if 5 players don't earn starting spots, Skiles is planning on going Norman Dale at the beginning of games?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Well, I guess if 5 players don't earn starting spots, Skiles is planning on going Norman Dale at the beginning of games?


Maybe he's settled on starting 3 instead of 5?

If he were a really smart coach, he'd settle on starting 6 or 7


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Maybe he's settled on starting 3 instead of 5?
> 
> If he were a really smart coach, he'd settle on starting 6 or 7


Nah, we would score a lot early in games but our bench would be too depleted...


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

I am definitley pro-duhon as starting PG and putting Ben back to 6th man. I think that's the most effective move.

Hopefully the Chandler move is temporary. He should be starting at center within 2 weeks, i would hope.

Songalia starting comes as a surprise. Sweetney seemed to have the better preseason.

Duhon
Hinrich
Deng
Songalia
Chandler

Gordon
Nocioni
Thomas
Othella 
Sweetney

Pargo
Basden
Pike
Allen

Whatever lineup is the most effective is the best decision. No matter what, we'll once again have arguably the best bench inthe NBA.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I don't think so. That article compares him to Brand, but Brand's got 7'5".
> 
> If you're shorter, you obviously have to have longer arms if you're going to have equivalent reach (especially if you're fat and can't jump very high).
> 
> ...


Here's some more official measurements (I think these are good to have around for comparison's sake)

2001
Curry - 6'11.75", 301lbs, 7'6.5" wingspan, 9'3" reach
Chandler- 7'0.5", 224lbs, 7'3" wingspan, 9'2" reach
Kwame - 6'11.5", 243, 7'1, 9'
Eric Chenowith 7'2", 264, 7'4", 9'3"


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Here's some more official measurements (I think these are good to have around for comparison's sake)
> 
> 2001
> Curry - 6'11.75", 301lbs, 7'6.5" wingspan, 9'3" reach
> ...



Is Jay Williams the only guy in the world with an equivalent wingspan that is actually less than average for his height?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

well skiles didn't say chandler *wouldn't start* just that they had pretty much settled on the backcourt and songaila.

maybe these are typical skiles light a fire under the guy type comments like when he said duhon was the best PG and the next night kirk and ben had their best preseason games.

not that i am ADVOCATING this, but it's something skiles tends to do.

i bet chandler starts on wed.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

The Truth said:


> Is Jay Williams the only guy in the world with an equivalent wingspan that is actually less than average for his height?



Marbury looks like he's sporting gator arms. But, I don't have the stats to prove it. Some of it has to do with shoulder width also.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ben Gordon had 10 assists last game against minny. Just 1 turnover.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Ben Gordon had 10 assists last game against minny. Just 1 turnover.



And he was what? like 0-50 from the field?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> And he was what? like 0-50 from the field?


0-7

I just have a hard time figuring out how a guy who can dish out 10 assists can't play PG.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> 0-7
> 
> I just have a hard time figuring out how a guy who can dish out 10 assists can't play PG.


I wish I'd seen this game and had context for the 10 dimes.

It's possible that with a little more work Gordon can play the point, I suppose. He may be one of those guys who needs the offense to run through him to be effective. In the 4th quarters of games last year he didn't bring the ball up the court, but we ran him off a screen and fed him the ball early on in most sets, enabling him to make decisions with most of the shot clock left. Of course, he typically decided to shoot. Ben's a bit of a mystery right now.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> 0-7
> 
> I just have a hard time figuring out how a guy who can dish out 10 assists can't play PG.


He was dishing the ball to guys who happened to be hitting their shots. I watched the game and quite frankly I was a bit surprised that he had so many assists as it didn't seem like that many.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I do remember Gordon doing a little streetball dribble bringing the ball up and getting it stolen at halfcourt. Given all of the "right way" and "streetball" comments brought up on this board I am surprised noone has jumped all over this already.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> I do remember Gordon doing a little streetball dribble bringing the ball up and getting it stolen at halfcourt. Given all of the "right way" and "streetball" comments brought up on this board I am surprised noone has jumped all over this already.


You seem a little resentful over the fact that people aren't as critical of Ben as they were with Jamal. Me personally, I give Ben a little more slack because he's only in his second year, and the real games are yet to start. Maybe some of the patience that you so liberally give to Jamal should be applied to Ben.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I do remember Gordon doing a little streetball dribble bringing the ball up and getting it stolen at halfcourt. Given all of the "right way" and "streetball" comments brought up on this board I am surprised noone has jumped all over this already.


I saw that and shook my head. But it doesn't seem to be his habit, and it is the preseason, so I let it go. If he wasted time with the And1 alley slop every game, It'd be a different story.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> You seem a little resentful over the fact that people aren't as critical of Ben as they were with Jamal. Me personally, I give Ben a little more slack because he's only in his second year, and the real games are yet to start. Maybe some of the patience that you so liberally give to Jamal should be applied to Ben.



I'm not. really. I like Ben Gordon and want him to succeed for the Bulls. I am a little leary of him because of his height and his natural position being sg. Ben HAS had a rough preseason though, he just has NOT looked impressive. Of course, that being said, it IS just the preseason and hopefully when the games start counting Gordon will impress like he did last season and hopefully more with better defense. I give Jamal a lot of patience because he did not start playing organized ball until his sophomore year of HS and doesn't have quite the pedigree of someone like Ben Gordon. I think Crawford has more "upside" than Ben does.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I saw that and shook my head. But it doesn't seem to be his habit, and it is the preseason, so I let it go. If he wasted time with the And1 alley slop every game, It'd be a different story.



Yeah I have never seen him do it before either. I am sure Skiles didn't much care for it. I'm sure your right though and he was just being a lil fancy in the preseason (although it cost him the ball so maybe he will be less willing to do that again in the near future)


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> I'm not. really. I like Ben Gordon and want him to succeed for the Bulls. I am a little leary of him because of his height and his natural position being sg. Ben HAS had a rough preseason though, he just has NOT looked impressive. Of course, that being said, it IS just the preseason and hopefully when the games start counting Gordon will impress like he did last season and hopefully more with better defense. I give Jamal a lot of patience because he did not start playing organized ball until his sophomore year of HS and doesn't have quite the pedigree of someone like Ben Gordon. I think Crawford has more "upside" than Ben does.


Yet Jamal has been in the league 5 years, and I've never seen you make any "but he was like 0-50" type comments after any of Jamal's occasional 2-17 FG, 1-10 3PT type performances in the time I've lurked here.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

When does an "upside" tag get peeled off and the realisation sinks in that the player sucks arse

And not just a little bit of arse..but arse...oooh say the size of Sherman Klump's?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> Yet Jamal has been in the league 5 years, and I've never seen you make any "but he was like 0-50" type comments after any of Jamal's occasional 2-17 FG, 1-10 3PT type performances in the time I've lurked here.



Well I have commented frequently when Jamal has a poor game. I don't excuse him for playing crappy sometimes too. Jamal has been in the league 5 years, granted one lost to an ACL injury, but Gordon has been playing ball since he was knee high, thats why I think Jamal has more upside. Sausag kings smart comments notwithstanding.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

I do to an extent understand the Jamal upside argument. Since he does so much room for growth. As time has progressed though, I've gotta believe at this point that he started off so far behind the eight ball developmentally that it stunted his capacity to grow because he didn't have that solid fundamental base upon which to build his game, especially in the demanding NBA environment.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> I'm not. really. I like Ben Gordon and want him to succeed for the Bulls. I am a little leary of him because of his height and his natural position being sg. Ben HAS had a rough preseason though, he just has NOT looked impressive. Of course, that being said, it IS just the preseason and hopefully when the games start counting Gordon will impress like he did last season and hopefully more with better defense. * I give Jamal a lot of patience because he did not start playing organized ball until his sophomore year of HS and doesn't have quite the pedigree of someone like Ben Gordon. I think Crawford has more "upside" than Ben does.*




:makeout: 


we know. ace, with all due respect, we already have a special thread for your boo. do us all a favor and post your love notes to your skinny lil' stud muffin in there. that would _much_ appreciated.

and yeah, i know, you were responding to babble. but geeez, have a little self control. 


i'm out....happy halloween weekend everyone. keep safe!


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> Well I have commented frequently when Jamal has a poor game. I don't excuse him for playing crappy sometimes too. Jamal has been in the league 5 years, granted one lost to an ACL injury, but Gordon has been playing ball since he was knee high, thats why I think Jamal has more upside. Sausag kings smart comments notwithstanding.


Theres a big difference between, when a guy goes 3-17 while jacking up 10 threes, acknowledging that he had a bad game, and when a guy goes 0-7 but has someone points out that he had 10 assists, which is pretty nice, saying, "but what was he, 0-50?".


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> I do to an extent understand the Jamal upside argument. Since he does so much room for growth. As time has progressed though, I've gotta believe at this point that he started off so far behind the eight ball developmentally that it stunted his capacity to grow because he didn't have that solid fundamental base upon which to build his game, especially in the demanding NBA environment.



you may be right. They asked his HS coach what player that he would take as a cornerstone for his hypothetical NBA franchise out of players he has coached or current players in the NBA, he picked Jamal over evryone so that says a lot to me. Honestly, I think Jamal is going to finally do his thing this year though it may be after the all star break before it happens, but I could be wrong, it has definitley happened before.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> Theres a big difference between, when a guy goes 3-17 while jacking up 10 threes, acknowledging that he had a bad game, and when a guy goes 0-7 but has someone points out that he had 10 assists, which is pretty nice, saying, "but what was he, 0-50?".



I'm glad Gordon had 10 assists and all and I wasn't trying to slam him with 0-50 comment, it was just painful watching Gordon, who is a good shooter, miss shot after shot after shot like that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> When does an "upside" tag get peeled off and the realisation sinks in that the player sucks arse
> 
> And not just a little bit of arse..but arse...oooh say the size of Sherman Klump's?


To some people, arse tastes like candy


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> :makeout:
> 
> 
> we know. ace, with all due respect, we already have a special thread for your boo. do us all a favor and post your love notes to your skinny lil' stud muffin in there. that would _much_ appreciated.
> ...


My bad. I didn't wanna turn this into another Crawford thread, but I thought the whole "why don't we hear any derisive streetballer comments about Ben based on this one play?" was a clear allusion to Crawford.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> My bad. I didn't wanna turn this into another Crawford thread, but I thought the whole "why don't we hear any derisive streetballer comments about Ben based on this one play?" was a clear allusion to Crawford.


It was, and with good reason.

FWIW, in that other thread, it was posted that Crawford's preseason stats are something like .462 FG%.

If ANY of our guards shoot like that, we'd be wetting ourselves.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> It was, and with good reason.
> 
> FWIW, in that other thread, it was posted that Crawford's preseason stats are something like .462 FG%.
> 
> If ANY of our guards shoot like that, we'd be wetting ourselves.


Hinrich is shooting .446. Hope you've got some Depends.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I don't think so. That article compares him to Brand, but Brand's got 7'5".
> 
> If you're shorter, you obviously have to have longer arms if you're going to have equivalent reach (especially if you're fat and can't jump very high).
> 
> ...



I ddn't fully realize just how many of the recent draftees were freakish in this way (much longer wingspans that heights), but I still disagree to an extent. Sweetney seems a bit below average given that. However, I think there are more 'long' types in your sample above than there is in the NBA as a whole in the post positions (you're missing guys like Villanueva, Humphries, Vroman who are more at the short end of the wingspan spectrum in those drafts, and maybe the older guys aren't as big?). For his height, Sweetney's arms are pretty long and that makes his wingspan fairly close to average, albeit still probably a bit below average, for his position. Brand is a total freak at 7'5" given his height.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Hinrich is shooting .446. Hope you've got some Depends.


I mean in the regular season.

Hinrich shot < .400 last season, and Gordon barely shot .400


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I mean in the regular season.
> 
> Hinrich shot < .400 last season, and Gordon barely shot .400


Just like Crawford.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Just like Crawford.


Just like Crawford.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> I mean in the regular season.
> 
> Hinrich shot < .400 last season, and Gordon barely shot .400


If you don't care what Hinrich or Gordon are shooting the pre-season, why post what Crawford is shooting? I personally don't care what any of them are shooting in small sample sizes spread over meaningless games, but I think if you're going to laud Crawford for his pre season percentage and note that Bulls fans would be wetting themselves if our guards shot that well, you should note that Hinrich basically is (shooting that well, not suffering from involuntary defecation).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Fizer Fanatic said:


> I ddn't fully realize just how many of the recent draftees were freakish in this way (much longer wingspans that heights), but I still disagree to an extent. Sweetney seems a bit below average given that. However, I think there are more 'long' types in your sample above than there is in the NBA as a whole in the post positions (you're missing guys like Villanueva, Humphries, Vroman who are more at the short end of the wingspan spectrum in those drafts, and maybe the older guys aren't as big?). For his height, Sweetney's arms are pretty long and that makes his wingspan fairly close to average, albeit still probably a bit below average, for his position. Brand is a total freak at 7'5" given his height.


Yeah, Brand is pretty crazy. You're right, I did pick the longer guys, but the method to the madness is that those guys tend to be the elite, big name players. I mean, our concern is whether Sweets can go toe to toe with Dwight Howard, isn't it, not Jackson Vroman? 

On a slightly OT note, let me take this opportunity to formally apologize for calling Rob Babcock an idiot- at least for the drafting of Charlie Villanueva. He appears to actually be quite good.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> On a slightly OT note, let me take this opportunity to formally apologize for calling Rob Babcock an idiot- at least for the drafting of Charlie Villanueva. He appears to actually be quite good.


Ditto. I went so far as to rip the pick in my signature. I'm stunned he's been so productive. Joey Graham has had a few nice games too. Perhaps Babcock had a great draft. They certainly needed some more talent on the team. I still think it's odd in that Charlie is really close to Bosh's build. They're really both power forwards, and I'm not sure how well either can play another position.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> To some people, arse tastes like candy


Depends on whose arse


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I don't know how there can be any mystery as to the other 2 starters 

Its Chandler and Deng 

I honestly can't see Tim Thomas fitting into the rotation


----------



## Deke (Jul 27, 2005)

i think Ben will be starting by sometime before the trade deadline. if not he's likely to be going.


----------

