# Who is better nets or bulls?



## thenetsfan (Sep 3, 2005)

Who do think is the better overall team who will win the most games and go the farest in the playoffs? you may want to read this article before posting your answer http://www.hoopshype.com/columns/wallace_johnson.htm
I say the nets


----------



## ToddMacCulloch11 (May 31, 2003)

Its hard to say at this point, since the Bulls made some major changes and the Nets are getting a completely remade bench. It's going to depend on how well these new players fit into the team, how well the rookies do, how much the young players develop, etc. So my opinion is..who knows.

Now I'll just sit back and watch the fans argue for their team just because.


----------



## ludovico (Mar 29, 2006)

Close race.. maybe the Nets, but I'm not sure.


----------



## NJ+VC (Feb 8, 2005)

i think bulls maaay have the better team because of their depth, but i think nets will goo deeper in the playoffs because the bulls are still young and nets have good leadership..in a couple years bulls because of the young talent they have


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

Nets.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

I could see the Bulls posting a better regular season record, due to depth, motivation and youth, but New Jersey having the offensive firepower to go deeper in the playoffs.


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

how could anyone say the nets are better than the bulls ? The bulls beat the nets 2 out of 3 last year .


----------



## Chris Bosh #4 (Feb 18, 2005)

Bulls.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

mr.ankle20 said:


> how could anyone say the nets are better than the bulls ? The bulls beat the nets 2 out of 3 last year .



didn't golden state beat dallas 3 out of 4 times last year?


----------



## D.J. (Mar 9, 2006)

The Bulls will be the better regular season team but the Nets will be the better playoff team.


----------



## New Jazzy Nets (Jan 25, 2006)

mr.ankle20 said:


> how could anyone say the nets are better than the bulls ? The bulls beat the nets 2 out of 3 last year .


And if I remember right the nets beat the heat 3-1 in the regular season. Nets have a better team. Wallace is a nice addition but he only brings Defense he is a upgrade over Chandler no doubt. But I just don't see this team being better then the Nets. The nets rookies have looked a lot more impressive then the Bulls rookies.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

They'll win about the same amount of games in the regular season, but the Bulls will be the better playoff team like they were this year despite being 10 games worse in the regular season.


----------



## thenetsfan (Sep 3, 2005)

mr.ankle20 said:


> how could anyone say the nets are better than the bulls ? The bulls beat the nets 2 out of 3 last year .


I will explain why the bulls one, one game against the nets fair. But the other game the nets one the alantic division crown and the bulls beat them. But i will not lie nets have a hard time guarding Gordan,Hinrich etc.


----------



## Shady* (Jul 3, 2005)

Bulls IMO.


----------



## ToddMacCulloch11 (May 31, 2003)

mr.ankle20 said:


> how could anyone say the nets are better than the bulls ? The bulls beat the nets 2 out of 3 last year .


 and both teams rosters have gone through a lot of changes since then.


----------



## Seanzie (Jun 9, 2003)

*Hunkers down, waiting for Nets homers to show up, destroying any semblance of a thread*

And anyways, I think right now, the Nets have the better team. I don't know how well the Bulls are going to mesh together, but I think New Jersey's three man perimeter punch outdoes what the Bulls are trying to do. The Bulls are an unknown to me right now. The Nets are more tangible in terms of being able to judge the team's talent.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

ToddMacCulloch11 said:


> Its hard to say at this point, since the Bulls made some major changes and the Nets are getting a completely remade bench. It's going to depend on how well these new players fit into the team, how well the rookies do, how much the young players develop, etc. So my opinion is..who knows.
> 
> Now I'll just sit back and watch the fans argue for their team just because.





> and both teams rosters have gone through a lot of changes since then.


Ah, joining in the action I see 

Anyway, to answer the question...Nets.


----------



## AJC NYC (Aug 16, 2005)

Well of course the soon to be champs the nets


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

That has to be the most ignorant article ever written.


----------



## MRedd22 (Jun 10, 2006)

Nobody knows yet...How much of an impact Big Ben will play on a new team...Tyrus Thomas we dont know how much he will do in his rookie year so until they actually play nobody knows


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

Bulls


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

New Jazzy Nets said:


> And if I remember right the nets beat the heat 3-1 in the regular season. Nets have a better team. Wallace is a nice addition but he only brings Defense he is a upgrade over Chandler no doubt. But I just don't see this team being better then the Nets. The nets rookies have looked a lot more impressive then the Bulls rookies.



The bulls manage to beat the nets without one of there keys guys . It was Luol Deng. Are you kidding me Tyrus Thomas dominated Josh Boone today.


----------



## Shady* (Jul 3, 2005)

sloth said:


> That has to be the most ignorant article ever written.


Wrong thread.

You always ****ing do that. :curse:


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

Bulls- they have depth and starting calibur big men

they were also better last year imo- at least in the playoffs. And they just got a lot better and added a lot of confidence


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Shadyballa8D13 said:


> Wrong thread.
> 
> You always ****ing do that. :curse:


No that article is ignorant in the first post. It says that the Bulls team won't be successful because he draws a Rodman comparison and says Wallace can't win a championship without a Jordan and Pippen. Then he says if tyrus can't be a Sheed clone, the Bulls can't be successful. The Bulls are better defensively in a lot of spots, lets start at pg with Kirk, sf with Noc, and C with Ben, and then we have Thabo and Tyrus off the bench who are great defenders, Thabo is probaly the best defender the Bulls have as a guard, he's amazing, he's Jesus. The Bulls are easily the best defensive team in the league, and they have offensive weapons as well, how they can't be successful is beyond me. Can't say we are going to be in the Finals, or win them, but we have to be one of the top contendors, and not in the pretender category.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

neither, it's going to be the knicks. frank0009, back me up.


----------



## notorioustlp (Jun 13, 2006)

Come on, this thread is a blatant attempt to get two of the most vocal fan bases on BBB.net to start bashing each other. You should have just made a thread titled "Kobe Bryant is a douche", then sit back and watch as 35 pages of angry responses fill up the thread. This site cracks me up sometimes.


----------



## Ghost (Jun 21, 2002)

i will pick the Nets until I see the Bulls mesh with Ben Wallace and how the Young players progress.


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

Nets at the moment. With a lineup of J-kidd, VC, and Jefferson this team cant go wrong. Also having a decent pg coming on for J-kidd (Marcus Williams), this team will win the atlantic division. Bulls will be good once ty thomas develops.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

I think people should take a look at this article.

http://www.yesnetwork.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060707&content_id=1404832&oid=36318&vkey=3

Although it was written by a Nets beat writer, I think it gives a perspective from the point of view from those who believe the Nets are better than the Bulls.


----------



## DemonaL (Aug 24, 2005)

Bulls have a big nice center in the middle... and have a few shooting weps..

Kirk = Kidd
Gorden < VC
Nocioni < RJ
M.Allen = Collins(his height will play a factor)
Ben > Kristic 

I think the Nets have a better backcourt... but they both pretty even IMO.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

DemonaL said:


> Bulls have a big nice center in the middle... and have a few shooting weps..
> 
> Kirk = Kidd
> Gorden < VC
> ...


Malik Allen?

Kirk=Kidd
Gordon< VC
Nocioni=RJ
PJ Brown < Krstic
Ben>Collins
----------
Thabo>Williams
Thomas>Boone
Duhon>McInnis/Planicic
Deng>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wright


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

sloth said:


> Malik Allen?
> 
> Kirk=Kidd
> Gordon< VC
> ...


Nocioni is not = to RJ...


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

i think kidd>hinrich, at least for now.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Kidd's a lot better passer than Kirk, Kirk is on a whole different level in terms of defense, Kirk's a better scorer, and Kidd is a better rebounder.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

sloth said:


> Kidd's a lot better passer than Kirk, *Kirk is on a whole different level in terms of defense*, Kirk's a better scorer, and Kidd is a better rebounder.


:laugh: 

Kidd was first team all defense...


----------



## thenetsfan (Sep 3, 2005)

sloth said:


> Malik Allen?
> 
> Kirk=Kidd
> Gordon< VC
> ...


Thabo better than Williams?


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

ToddMacCulloch11 said:


> Its hard to say at this point, since the Bulls made some major changes and the Nets are getting a completely remade bench. It's going to depend on how well these new players fit into the team, how well the rookies do, how much the young players develop, etc. So my opinion is..who knows.
> 
> Now I'll just sit back and watch the fans argue for their team just because.


co-sign


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

whoa, what?
Kidd>Kirk
VC>Gordan
RJ>Nocioni
Krstic>Brown



But thats not how the game is played..................*Cough*knicks....*cough*

oh yeah....Collins isnt better than wallace. forgot to post that.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

2dumb2live said:


> whoa, what?
> Kidd>Kirk
> VC>Gordan
> RJ>Nocioni
> ...



*Cough*where's wallace?...*cough*


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

thenetsfan said:


> Thabo better than Williams?


Yes, very much. You don't get a name Jesus Sefolosha without being good.


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

bootstrenf said:


> *Cough*where's wallace?...*cough*


hey i editted because for some reason collins<ben wouldnt appear in the post! :curse:


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

no big deal.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

sloth said:


> Yes, very much. You don't get a name Jesus Sefolosha without being good.


Thabo is a 2 gaurd. Marcus is a point gaurd, the best in the 2006 draft class (I consider Foye a 2).

Why you are comparing the two I have no clue. But hey, whatever floats your boat.


----------



## CurlyBeast (Mar 12, 2005)

Nets.

I yawn at the Big Ben signing. I don't see how he's going to stop the little guys from chucking up jump shots all night. They were already a great defensive team last year. Ben doesn't address their weakness.

They might win more games than the Nets (injuries could play a role during the season, plus getting the young guys on the Nets' bench adjusted), but they won't be the better team. Nets would whoop 'em mercilessly in the playoffs.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Net2 said:


> Thabo is a 2 gaurd. Marcus is a point gaurd, the best in the 2006 draft class (I consider Foye a 2).
> 
> Why you are comparing the two I have no clue. But hey, whatever floats your boat.


Thabo plays both spots....he's a two when he's on the court with Kirk/Du, but a point when he's on teh court with Gordon (the big reason he was drafted for)


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

sloth said:


> Thabo plays both spots....he's a two when he's on the court with Kirk/Du, but a point when he's on teh court with Gordon (the big reason he was drafted for)


So what puts Thabo over MWill as a point gaurd?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Net2 said:


> So what puts Thabo over MWill as a point gaurd?


Handles, passing ability, defense.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

sloth said:


> Handles, passing ability, defense.


defense yes, but besides that Williams is better in all aspects.


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

sloth said:


> *Handles, passing ability*, defense.


well this is just my opinion......but i say williams is better than thabo in those categories. not sure about defense though...


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

sloth said:


> Handles, passing ability, defense.


Passing I don't think so.

Marcus Williams led the Nation in assists at 8.1, and led the Orlando Summer League in assists as well with 9.3.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Net2 said:


> Passing I don't think so.
> 
> Marcus Williams led the Nation in assists at 8.1, and led the Orlando Summer League in assists as well with 9.3.


In addition to that, in the summer league he was playing with a bunch of offensively challenged players and still managed to pile up assists. His jumper looked really good too. The kid is going to be special. Possibly the best kept secret in this draft. There is no way Thabo is as good as him.


----------



## Fray (Dec 19, 2005)

New Jersey Nets.


----------



## AJC NYC (Aug 16, 2005)

Well duh, the nets are a better team


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Yikes... Bulls in a walk.

By the end of the year the Bulls were a better basketball team... ask the Heat fans what they saw in the playoffs.

Kidd may be better than Hinrich right now... but that gap is closing quickly. 

Vince Carter is a loser. Richard Jefferson is a nice player... but I'd rather have the Nocioni/Deng combo...


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

Dornado said:


> Yikes... Bulls in a walk.
> 
> By the end of the year the Bulls were a better basketball team... ask the Heat fans what they saw in the playoffs.


Agian I don't know how you can say that when they finished with a .500 record and had to rally at the end to beat out a team that the Nets finished well ahead of in the division to make the playoffs.

They took the Heat to an extra game. If you want to call the Bulls being a better team because of that, well, whatever floats your boat.



> Kidd may be better than Hinrich right now... but that gap is closing quickly.
> 
> Vince Carter is a loser. Richard Jefferson is a nice player... *but I'd rather have the Nocioni/Deng combo*...


Carter/Jefferson > Nocioni/Deng


----------



## Intense Enigma (Oct 22, 2005)

sloth said:


> Kidd's a lot better passer than Kirk, Kirk is on a whole different level in terms of defense, Kirk's a better scorer, and Kidd is a better rebounder.


 duuuuuuh


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

Net2 said:


> Carter/Jefferson > Nocioni/Deng


i think it's:

carter>(jefferson=nocioni)>deng

does that make sense? i could clarify.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

bootstrenf said:


> i think it's:
> 
> carter>(jefferson=nocioni)>deng
> 
> does that make sense? i could clarify.


OK I see, well let me break it down

Carter > Deng

Jefferson > Nocioni

Jefferson > Deng

Carter > Nocioni


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

T-h-a-b-o S-e-f-o-l-o-s-h-a. Write it down, memorize it. He's going to rule the NBA for years to come. LeBron who?


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> Bulls- they have depth and starting calibur big men
> 
> they were also better last year imo- at least in the playoffs. And they just got a lot better and added a lot of confidence




Typical typical typical. Magic >>> Heat, BTW. You guy start guys like Antwoin Walker and Jason "White POS Williams". Nuff said.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

Jizzy said:


> Typical typical typical. Magic >>> Heat, BTW. You guy start guys like Antwoin Walker and Jason "White POS Williams". Nuff said.


 :laugh:

bitter bitter bitter

when will you guys learn? You dont win in the NBA without a big man. Shaq, Duncan, Wallace Bros, then Shaq again- its the NBA since post Jordan. I (and many others) correctly said the Nets had no chance last year, which ended up being the case (Nets were by far the Heats easiest opponent), and the same will happen this season if you dont acquire a starting calibur big man. 

may sound like a broken record huh? It probably is, but thats the way it is


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> :laugh:
> 
> bitter bitter bitter
> 
> ...


You mean star caliber big men?

They have starting caliber big men in Krstic and Collins, (btw, it's caliber, not calibur) who are more than capable of holding their own as starters, I think you mean they need an impact big man such as a KG.

Anyways it wasn't lack of big men that killed the Nets in the first round, it was lack of depth, and blown chances, and the fact that Cliffy got suspended and RJ got hurt further sealed the Nets' fate. 

Next season is a whole new season, Shaq, GP, and Zo are a year older, the Nets have new players, and the Bulls are a whole different team.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

Net2 said:


> You mean star caliber big men?
> 
> They have starting caliber big men in Krstic and Collins, (btw, it's caliber, not calibur) who are more than capable of holding their own as starters, I think you mean they need an impact big man such as a KG.


a KG type is not needed (Shaq wasnt close to KG this past season), but mediocrity with Kristic and Collins aint going to cut it either. 

you need to acquire an all star type big man though...superstar type isnt needed, but you need a difference maker, somebody who could do more then hold their own


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Well, you use the arguement Heat are getting older. Well Bulls are getting older too, only their cores young, and young players get better as they get older, especially people who work on their game as much as Ben, Kirk, Du, and Luol. Thabo is an all defensive quality player the moment he steps on the court, Kirk was already the best defensive guard last year, and Wallace was the best defender period. People like to tlak about the lack of offense the Bulls are going to get out of Ben Wallace this year....lets look around the East playoffs. Big Z the medioquere over in Cleveland, bad bad Nazr in Detroit, David Harrison, Aristotle, Jamaal Magloire, Jason Freaking Collins, Brenda Haywood. Yeah, Bulls will get more offensively out of their center than every team but Miami and Cleveland, and more defensively than every other team in the East. Ah man, Bulls will be playing 4 on 5 offense, but the rest of the East doesn't! Ben Wallace being such a crappy (but better than 5 playoff centers from last year) offensive player is going to be the downfall of the Bulls :laugh:


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Net2 said:


> You mean star caliber big men?
> 
> They have starting caliber big men in Krstic and Collins, (btw, it's caliber, not calibur) who are more than capable of holding their own as starters, I think you mean they need an impact big man such as a KG.
> 
> ...


Dude, the Nets might be better than the Bulls and they might not, but one thing is for sure, Collins is definitively NOT a starting caliber big man.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> a KG type is not needed (Shaq wasnt close to KG this past season), but mediocrity with Kristic and Collins aint going to cut it either.
> 
> you need to acquire an all star type big man though...superstar type isnt needed, but you need a difference maker, somebody who could do more then hold their own


I understand your point.

But on the other side of the argument, what's stopping Krstic from being that guy? He certainly has the talent. He keeps getting better and better, and unlike previous years, he is not participating in overseas competition (worlds), which means he will have more time to be in the gym and the weight room. I expect him to have his best season yet this year.

I like our current team, and the Nets' front office does too. The bench just may be able to make a difference this year, Marcus Williams has proven IMO that he can step in for Jason Kidd and produce and Josh Boone has shown promise as well, plus if the Nets can acquire one or two more veteran FA's (Butler, Songalia possibilities) then there's no doubt that the bench will have been much improved (Vaughn and Padgett have already been shown the door, which is a good starting point)


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

SeaNet said:


> Dude, the Nets might be better than the Bulls and they might not, but one thing is for sure, Collins is definitively NOT a starting caliber big man.


That's your opinion.

He's been our starting center for four years, so he must be doing something right.

He may not put up the stats, but he does play a role on this team, and he plays it well.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Net2 said:


> That's your opinion.
> 
> He's been our starting center for four years, so he must be doing something right.
> 
> He may not put up the stats, but he does play a role on this team, and he plays it well.


Whatever he's doing right isn't right enough to make the Nets contenders. And he's the weakest link (by a factor of 10) in the starting lineup. And every year when the Nets are eliminated in the playoffs, its by a team w/ a strong front line (usually very strong defensively especially) that doesn't even bother to cover him while completely shutting him out of the scoring. What does that tell you?


----------



## AJC NYC (Aug 16, 2005)

The nets will have the best record in the east


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

SeaNet said:


> Whatever he's doing right isn't right enough to make the Nets contenders. And he's the weakest link (by a factor of 10) in the starting lineup. And every year when the Nets are eliminated in the playoffs, its by a team w/ a strong front line (usually very strong defensively especially) that doesn't even bother to cover him while completely shutting him out of the scoring. What does that tell you?


So you're going to place the blame on the Nets not being contenders and the Nets not winning a championship on a role player? 

Come on


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Net2 said:


> So you're going to place the blame on the Nets not being contenders and the Nets not winning a championship on a role player?
> 
> Come on


I'm not placing the *whole blame * on anyone. What I'm saying is that the Nets will never win the title if Collins is a starter and has to play 30+ minutes a night. He needs to be on the bench. He's a joke of a starter. And I'm saying that every year in the playoffs the opposing team that the Nets loses to, doesn't even bother to cover him (while they use his man to double team all over the court) and he can't make them pay, and the Nets have to have him out on the court. And that as long as that's the case, it doesnt' matter what else the Nets do wrt/ the bench or shooters or whatnot... they will not be contenders.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

SeaNet said:


> I'm not placing the *whole blame *on anyone. What I'm saying is that the Nets will never win the title if Collins is a starter and has to play 30+ minutes a night. He needs to be on the bench. He's a joke of a starter. And I'm saying that every year in the playoffs the opposing team that the Nets loses to, doesn't even bother to cover him (while they use his man to double team all over the court) and he can't make them pay, and the Nets have to have him out on the court. And that as long as that's the case, it doesnt' matter what else the Nets do wrt/ the bench or shooters or whatnot... they will not be contenders.


Well, it doesn't like we're going to get a better big guy anytime soon, so I'm going to stick by him instead of pointing out what he can't do. He is what he is, like it or don't like it.

Besides, I'd rather have an offensively challenged big man than a defensively challenged one. Collins is an excellent post defender, and is more effective on the court surrounded by scorers in the starting lineup.


----------



## VC4MVP (Dec 30, 2005)

Overall team:

Ehhh, not really sure, gotta go with my team i guess but not by much: Nets but its really just a toss up

Head 2 head:

Bulls

I say that because the bulls are still a lot of question marks, u arent exactly sure wut u will get out of them, they had 2 rally at the end of the season just 2 hit .500 and u kno that the nets will be around the 50-win area (barring any unforseen injury) and they should only improve from last season (as will the bulls). But head-2-head the bulls will beat the nets because their strengths are the nets weaknesses. They have extremely quick guards that are really good, they have a lot of depth, and they can shoot the 3. Ben wallace 4 some reason never seems 2 have a big game against krstic and collins.

As far as the whole x>x thing, this is how i think it goes

Big ben > Collins
Brown < Krstic
Nocioni < RJ
Gordon < Carter
Hinrich < Kidd

Chicago bench/depth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NJ bench/depth

Those player 2 player comparisons dont mean much though, because bulls play better as a unit then the nets do. The nets just run iso's 4 vc half the time and no 1 on the nets besides RJ can consistently shoot (believe it or not he is developing into our best shooter along with Krstic. Who coulda predicted that?) Krstic in the playoffs by the way, was incredible against the pacers and completely dissapeared against the heat (credit 2 udonis haslem he is a beast). 

I really dont think it can be determined which team is better til at least the regular season starts.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Net2 said:


> Well, it doesn't like we're going to get a better big guy anytime soon, so I'm going to stick by him instead of pointing out what he can't do. He is what he is, like it or don't like it.
> 
> Besides, I'd rather have an offensively challenged big man than a defensively challenged one. Collins is an excellent post defender, and is more effective on the court surrounded by scorers in the starting lineup.


Its fine to stick w/ him (there's no other option). But its foolish to think that him in the starting lineup & playing 30+ minutes a night isn't a part of the problem that has to be solved for the Nets to be contenders.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

SeaNet said:


> Its fine to stick w/ him (there's no other option). But its foolish to think that him in the starting lineup & playing 30+ minutes a night isn't a part of the problem that has to be solved for the Nets to be contenders.


True, and I would have no problem with him coming off the bench, but obviously not with the team we have right now.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

Bulls and Nets will be similar records..

but come playoffs... Bulls would be better..


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

SeaNet said:


> Its fine to stick w/ him (there's no other option). But its foolish to think that him in the starting lineup & playing 30+ minutes a night isn't a part of the problem that has to be solved for the Nets to be contenders.




OK, we get your point. You're basically saying Twin sucks because he doesn't average more then 10 ppg. We all know you wish Kenyon was still here. Just come out and say it.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Jizzy said:


> OK, we get your point. You're basically saying Twin sucks because he doesn't average more then 10 ppg. We all know you wish Kenyon was still here. Just come out and say it.


No you don't get the point. You don't get the point at all. I recognize what Twin brings to the team. But I also recognize what he can't bring and what we need someone to bring who plays his position.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> :laugh:
> 
> bitter bitter bitter
> 
> ...



I repeat, You guys won a championship with Walker and Williams starting.They are no way in hell championship players. And in case you didn't notice, the Pistons were the easiest for you guys. Every game outside of 1 and 2 in the Nets - Heat series was very close. I know some people and you heat fans are tired of these conspiract theries but I don't give a ****. The Heat won the title because Stern hand delivered it to you. BS calls were all in the Heat's favor. **** your team. 

BTW, the Bulls have less frontcourt scoring then the Nets. If you have to rely on Ben Wallace and a Pj Brown on his last wheels, then you are in deep ****.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Ben Wallace/PJ Brown/Michael Sweetney/Tyrus Thomas/Malik Allen= more production than Nets frontcourt. Tyrus is going to give good contribuations on offense, and Sweetneys slimmed down, so he might be able to dunk this year.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

sloth said:


> Ben Wallace/PJ Brown/Michael Sweetney/Tyrus Thomas/Malik Allen= more production than Nets frontcourt. Tyrus is going to give good contribuations on offense, and Sweetneys slimmed down, so he might be able to dunk this year.


The Bulls are an excellent defensive frontcourt team, but are offensively challenged in the frontcourt.

None of the Bulls frontcourt players avg more than 10ppg, at least the Nets have Nenad Krstic at 14ppg, and the Nets a a solid defensive team as well with Jason Collins, Cliff Robinson, and hopefully Josh Boone off the bench.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Haha, I just got done watching the summerleague game from today. Tyrus Thomas was totally owning Josh Boone, and then after owning Boone, he slapped Boone's ***, and got pulled for the rest of the game. Let the rivalry begin! Through summer league, Bulls 1 Nets 0!


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Net2 said:


> The Bulls are an excellent defensive frontcourt team, but are offensively challenged in the frontcourt.
> 
> None of the Bulls frontcourt players avg more than 10ppg, at least the Nets have Nenad Krstic at 14ppg, and the Nets a a solid defensive team as well with Jason Collins, Cliff Robinson, and hopefully Josh Boone off the bench.


Tyrus will be comparable to Krstic's production.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

sloth said:


> Haha, I just got done watching the summerleague game from today. Tyrus Thomas was totally owning Josh Boone, and then after owning Boone, he slapped Boone's ***, and got pulled for the rest of the game. Let the rivalry begin! Through summer league, Bulls 1 Nets 0!


Wow, congratulations...that means what?

Josh Boone has been producing as good if not better than Ty Thomas the whole week.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

sloth said:


> Tyrus will be comparable to Krstic's production.


Did you give any thought that Krstic's production might just get better?


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

sloth said:


> Tyrus will be comparable to Krstic's production.


Haha.. Nice one, dude.


----------



## Cabron_James (Feb 2, 2006)

On paper Bulls look better because of their depth but when the actual season or playoffs come. Nets will give it to them, simply because of leadership and experience that is something the Nets have that the Bulls don't. The Bulls are simply much too young and their only vets aren't even offensive players. Never under estimate the experience of the vets; bad descision making and bad shot selections always plague young teams.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Net2 said:


> Did you give any thought that Krstic's production might just get better?


Well Tyrus has a big edge in defense, rebounding, ball handling, and passing. He has a good jumpshot, and a good spin move. Tyrus is probaly going to be better, but a guy that averages 13.5 and 6.4 is just this great guy that a top draft pick can't out produce and have a bigger impact on the game in? The only advantae Krstic has on Tyrus is that he's taller. But even then, Tyrus probaly even has the higher standing reach.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

sloth said:


> Well Tyrus has a big edge in defense, rebounding, ball handling, and passing. He has a good jumpshot, and a good spin move. Tyrus is probaly going to be better, but a guy that averages 13.5 and 6.4 is just this great guy that a top draft pick can't out produce and have a bigger impact on the game in? The only advantae Krstic has on Tyrus is that he's taller. But even then, Tyrus probaly even has the higher standing reach.


He hasn't even played a game yet, but all of a sudden he has a "big edge" in defense, rebounding, ball handling, and passing? 

You kill me. You obviously didn't read my last few posts where I said Krstic was going to get better and put up the best numbers of his career this year. :laugh:


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

Nets win a few more but the Bulls go farther in the playoffs.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

It is positively astounding to me how many people have definitive ideas about what is going to happen both in the regular season and the playoffs w/ these two teams, esp. the Bulls. Its an entirely new team. Who knows how they are going to come together or not? THey could be world beaters, they could be .500. W/ lots of new guys, and lots of young guys there's no way to know.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Net2 said:


> He hasn't even played a game yet, but all of a sudden he has a "big edge" in defense, rebounding, ball handling, and passing?
> 
> You kill me. You obviously didn't read my last few posts where I said Krstic was going to get better and put up the best numbers of his career this year. :laugh:


Ugh.....Krstic isn't a good rebounder/defender.....Tyrus was drafted for that....Krstic is a low post player.....Tyrus grew up as a point guard....


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

sloth said:


> Ugh.....Krstic isn't a good rebounder/defender.....Tyrus was drafted for that....Krstic is a low post player.....Tyrus grew up as a point guard....


He isn't now? 

almost 7rpg isn't good enough eh? Is Ty Thomas going to get more than 7 rpg a game?

Ty Thomas is good, but don't go shooting off stuff before the guy plays his first NBA game.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/bycategory?cat=Fielding&sort=26


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

sloth said:


> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/bycategory?cat=Fielding&sort=26


6.4 isn't close to 7? 

Guess you and I round off differently...

Besides which, you really don't think he's going to improve on those numbers? He's only entering his third year in the league.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

Jizzy said:


> I repeat, You guys won a championship with Walker and Williams starting.They are no way in hell championship players


anyone is a championship player when they are surrounded by a top 2 guard and a top NBA center

too bad Nets arent even close on the center, and way behind on the guard, or you would be contenders


----------



## K-Dub (Jun 26, 2005)

Cabron_James said:


> On paper Bulls look better because of their depth but when the actual season or playoffs come. Nets will give it to them, *simply because of leadership and experience that is something the Nets have that the Bulls don't*. The Bulls are simply much too young and *their only vets aren't even offensive players. Never under estimate the experience of the vets*; bad descision making and bad shot selections always plague young teams.


 You contradict yourself. Bulls don't have leadership and experience? Let's start with coach first. Skiles isn't experienced? Skiles isn't a leader? Wallace and Brown aren't experienced and leaders? You make it seem like we have a bunch of rookies. That was 03-04 when we won 47 games. Those rookies are 3rd year players now. Bulls have just as much or more experience/leadership as the Nets.


----------



## Auggie (Mar 7, 2004)

thenetsfan said:


> Who do think is the better overall team who will win the most games and go the farest in the playoffs? you may want to read this article before posting your answer http://www.hoopshype.com/columns/wallace_johnson.htm
> I say the nets


typical of you ppl  yes lets all read a bash-the-bulls article before we answer... so pathetic...

bulls.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*New Jersey Not Netting A Championship
By: Sloth* 









Well the Nets ring ding signing of, well no one really improves the team. They had a stellar draft, drafting and overweight guy who took a slid down the draft line and a guy whose only in the the league because he's tall. Okay, Marcus Williams isn't bad, but he's no Jesus Sefolosha. I lichen a comparison of Sefolosha and Williams to Jesus and the Devil. Boone, he's not too talented, I reckon his NBA comparison a street pole. I was in Orlando the other day, untrue story, and Tyrus Thomas gives a monster dunk on Josh Boone, and proceeded to slap Boone on his ***, and got pulled by coach Pete Myers for the rest of the game, not before dropping 22 points on his ***. Now, I just got off with my source Herpes Murphy, and he told me that Josh Boone has filed a sexual harrassment suit against Tyrus Thomas. In other news, David Stern has fined Mark Cuban 250,000 for the league being also sued for sexual harrassment. Tyrus hit Boone's *** harder than Dirk got the cycling machine. 

Now, Jason Kidd, wow, think about all the slogans with this guy. Like see some punk little kid with an icecream stain on his shirt because the first scoop on it fell off, and just got all over him, well go up to that stupid brat faced kid on the street, and say "He kid.....Jason Kidd....ayyyyy, get it, Kid and Kidd rhyme! That will teach this punk generation what they're dealing with. In all honesty Kidd's defense stinks, and I'll tell you why. The name Kidd is 4 letters, Defense is 7 letter, 7-4=3, which means 3, which means 3*222, which=666, Jason Kidd, and the Nets are once again involved with the devil. While on the other hand Hinrich=7 letters, and defense is 7 letters, coincidence, unlikely. 

Now Carter on the other hand, I hate his store. Carter's is a little kids store, they sell baby outfits etc. Honestly, google Carter, see what you get. He's a little kid, you could call him and Air Fly, yeah he gets air, and he can fly, but he's like a little fly on the wall, just a little speck, virtually unimportant, and then that fly goes for its crazy dunk, and Ben The Fly Swatter Wallace smacks the hell out of the ball. You see, because in the end, the Bulls have the leverage, Fly's don't have stingers, they're defenseless (same with the Nets), and don't have that killer instinct, the sting of the Hornet, or the gore of a Bulls horn, or the burn of the Heat, or the amazing drowning ability of the Lakers, the Nets will never be champions, just cut down every year like the nets at the NCAA championship.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> anyone is a championship player when they are surrounded by a top 2 guard and a top NBA center
> 
> too bad Nets arent even close on the center, and way behind on the guard, or you would be contenders


Just because you say it doesnt mean its right


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

K-Dub said:


> You contradict yourself. Bulls don't have leadership and experience? Let's start with coach first. Skiles isn't experienced? Skiles isn't a leader? Wallace and Brown aren't experienced and leaders? You make it seem like we have a bunch of rookies. That was 03-04 when we won 47 games. Those rookies are 3rd year players now. Bulls have just as much or more experience/leadership as the Nets.


Experienced? Yes

But don't kidd youself, the Nets have much more veteran leadership and experience.


----------



## VC4MVP (Dec 30, 2005)

Everybody, no 1 really knows what the **** will happen with the nets and bulls next season. No team was as streaky as the nets and bulls. Almost half of the nets wins last seasons came on winning streaks. 24 wins on streaks, 49 in all. The bulls 4 the most part of the season looked like nothing more than a mediocre team til the last stretch, where they played very well and in the first round of the playoffs. This thread should be answered when the season starts. So every1 stop acting like u r positive which team is better and this why blah blah blah.


----------



## thenetsfan (Sep 3, 2005)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> anyone is a championship player when they are surrounded by a top 2 guard and a top NBA center
> 
> too bad Nets arent even close on the center, and way behind on the guard, or you would be contenders


Your kidding its scary how good Krstic can be as a center only entering his 3RD year! Also the nets don't have a top 2 guard in the nba?! thats funny


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

thenetsfan said:


> Your kidding its scary how good Krstic can be as a center only entering his 3RD year! Also the nets don't have a top 2 guard in the nba?! thats funny


I think he means top 2 shooting gaurd.


----------



## AIFAN3 (Sep 17, 2005)

This thread is actually quite funny.. Noone can really tell who is the better team until the season starts.. It's the same way everyone thought the Lakers of 04 were better than pistons of 04 and how the 06 Pistons were better than the 06 Heat.,. It's up in the air to who the better team is right now infact I wouldn't be suprised if neither team makes top 4


----------



## thenetsfan (Sep 3, 2005)

Net2 said:


> I think he means top 2 shooting gaurd.


oh i thought he ment the other 2 guard


----------



## AJC NYC (Aug 16, 2005)

The nets are a better team
that is it the bulls are way overrated
and the nets are underrated


----------



## VC4MVP (Dec 30, 2005)

AJC NYC said:


> The nets are a better team
> that is it the bulls are way overrated
> and the nets are underrated


[strike] U r not a fan. U r just a homer. [/strike] U said the nets would sweep the playoffs. Then when we lost our 1st game u said we would sweep the rest. Then when we lost our second game we would sweep the rest. Then u said we would sweep my miami. Then after each loss but the 4th u said we would sweep the rest. U cant be taken seriously talking like that.


----------



## AJC NYC (Aug 16, 2005)

VC4MVP said:


> [strike] U r not a fan. U r just a homer. [/strike] U said the nets would sweep the playoffs. Then when we lost our 1st game u said we would sweep the rest. Then when we lost our second game we would sweep the rest. Then u said we would sweep my miami. Then after each loss but the 4th u said we would sweep the rest. U cant be taken seriously talking like that.



Ur right you cant take me serious because I am the biggest nets fan out there
And I truly believe that every single game they play they will win and I know the nets are just as good as the best teams out there. And I could care less about what other people have to say about the nets
and what does being a homer have anything to do with not being a fan
I am the self proclaimed biggest nets fan
And I live in New York
I could care less about the knicks, never been a fan
I was actually a chicago fan during the Jordan era
Became the biggest nets fan in 2001


----------



## Shady* (Jul 3, 2005)

AJC NYC said:


> Ur right you cant take me serious because I am the biggest nets fan out there
> And I truly believe that every single game they play they will win and I know the nets are just as good as the best teams out there. And I could care less about what other people have to say about the nets
> and what does being a homer have anything to do with not being a fan
> I am the self proclaimed biggest nets fan


You can still be the Nets biggest fan without thinking that they will win every single game.

People would take you seriously if you were a little more realistic.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

thenetsfan said:


> Your kidding its scary how good Krstic can be as a center only entering his 3RD year! Also the nets don't have a top 2 guard in the nba?! thats funny


Kristic isnt the type of big guy I am talking about...I dont mean big guys who get 6 rebounds a game and score on mid range jump shots.....

and I mean a top 2......... guard in the league. 

in other words, any player is a championship player with the right guys around them. Pretty simple


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> anyone is a championship player when they are surrounded by a top 2 guard and a top NBA center
> 
> too bad Nets arent even close on the center, and way behind on the guard, or you would be contenders




You're "top NBA Center" did nothing in the Finals and had one good series against the Pistons. He was like the rest of your squad, just riding the back of D-Wayne Wade. To bad for the rest of the league that if you get within an inch of Wade you will get called for a foul.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

Jizzy said:


> You're "top NBA Center" did nothing in the Finals and had one good series against the Pistons. He was like the rest of your squad, just riding the back of D-Wayne Wade. To bad for the rest of the league that if you get within an inch of Wade you will get called for a foul.


And this officially ends my part in the conversation, now I will just sit back and make sure things don't get out of hand...

Remember folks, Nets > Bulls, have a nice weekend!


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

you see, I post on topic and get hated on because of my reputation with Nets fans (saying they didnt have chance, which ended up being the truth)

I try not to repspond, as I have quoted and responded to only what is on topic to what is being discussed, but I want other Nets fans to realize this is not my fault. 

I seriously cant respond to a topic about the Nets without these type of responses directed towards me. Its pretty funny actually


----------



## VC4MVP (Dec 30, 2005)

AJC NYC: Sry for saying ur just a homer, not a fan, but i was just trying 2 say that it is impossible to take u seriously when u say the nets will win every single game, and its like u dont even anything 2 back it up, u just post we will win over and over again.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> you see, I post on topic and get hated on because of my reputation with Nets fans (saying they didnt have chance, which ended up being the truth)
> 
> I try not to repspond, as I have quoted and responded to only what is on topic to what is being discussed, but I want other Nets fans to realize this is not my fault.
> 
> I seriously cant respond to a topic about the Nets without these type of responses directed towards me. Its pretty funny actually




Dude, you said the Nets have no center and no guards, what the hell do you expect to be thrown at you? You hate the Nets just because you hate the Nets fanbase, it's pretty obvious. And don't give start "Nets had no chance" BS. No person alive knows how that series would have turned out if we conveniently didn't lose our bench. 

You have a VC/Wade comaprison in your signature for Christ Sake.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

Jizzy said:


> Dude, you said the Nets have no center and no guards, what the hell do you expect to be thrown at you? You hate the Nets just because you hate the Nets fanbase, it's pretty obvious. And don't give the "Nets had no chance" BS. No person alive knows how that series would have turned out if we conveniently didn't lose our bench.


no, I said Nets dont have a good enough big man to win anything, using evidence from the last 10 championships in the NBA as my support. 

then you had to go into walker and Jwill for some reason, saying they are not championship players. I just added with a top center and top guard, anybody is a championship type player, again going into the fact that the Nets dont have a big enough big guy

of course quoting only the important stuff and ignoring the junk you posted about me and bringing the heat into the conversation for some reason in between


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> no, I said Nets dont have a good enough big man to win anything, using evidence from the last 10 championships in the NBA as my support.
> 
> then you had to go into walker and Jwill for some reason, saying they are not championship players. I just added with a top center and top guard, anybody is a championship type player, again going into the fact that the Nets dont have a big enough big guy
> 
> of course quoting only the important stuff and ignoring the junk you posted about me and bringing the heat into the conversation for some reason in between


Nenad not a good enough big man. Trust me if his shots were going down in that series, then maybe just maybe you wouldnt be sporting that avatar you have now.


----------



## Duck (Jan 30, 2006)

I hate both teams.

The Raptors.


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

Duck34234 said:


> I hate both teams.
> 
> The Raptors.


lol.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

HB said:


> Nenad not a good enough big man. Trust me if his shots were going down in that series, then maybe just maybe you wouldnt be sporting that avatar you have now.


shots didnt go down? :laugh: 

want to know the reason why the Nets had to take so many jumpshots? Its because you HAD NO BIG MAN. A big man= a post scorer who could get the team inside shots......banking on long range jumpshots in the NBA game isnt a winning formula

seriously, when the Nets are shooting 3 pointers and long jumpers while the heat are getting inside for layups and ft's, what team do you expect more shots to fall for?

(and this is on topic again commenting on how you cant win without a big guy)


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

oh, and pretty simply Nenad is a Z type (only worse as of now). The one that shoots mostly mid range jumpers.....

that isnt good enough


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> shots didnt go down? :laugh:
> 
> want to know the reason why the Nets had to take so many jumpshots? Its because you HAD NO BIG MAN. A big man= a post scorer who could get the team inside shots......banking on long range jumpshots in the NBA game isnt a winning formula
> 
> ...


I am pretty sure Dallas and Phoenix could have beaten the Heat in a series. Wouldnt that formula of yours be wrong in that sense.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> oh, and pretty simply Nenad is a Z type (only worse as of now). The one that shoots mostly mid range jumpers.....
> 
> that isnt good enough


Obviously you dont know what your talking about. He has some pretty nice post up moves. And we are talking about a guy that has played in the league for what two or so years.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Nets fans are rowdy.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

HB said:


> I am pretty sure Dallas and Phoenix could have beaten the Heat in a series. Wouldnt that formula of yours be wrong in that sense.


 You're not taking other seasons let alone decades into account
SA: Duncan
Detroit: R. Wallace
LAL: Shaq
Chicago: exception
Houston: Hakeem
LAL: Kareem/Worthy
Boston: Mchale/Parish
Philly: Malone

It's a bit striking that only one champion over the last 3 decades has not had a very good post scorer


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

HB said:


> Obviously you dont know what your talking about. He has some pretty nice post up moves. And we are talking about a guy that has played in the league for what two or so years.



I dont know what I am talking about :laugh: 

I watch the guy play. Most of his shots come from the midrange. When he is making them (Heat 2 years ago) and when he is missing them (Heat last year) the fact is that most of his attempts come from 18 feet out

he may have the moves, but he sure doesnt use them. And his 6 rebounds a game cement that fact to me that for a big man he isnt inside enough. In other words, he is a softie.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> You're not taking other seasons let alone decades into account
> SA: Duncan
> Detroit: R. Wallace
> LAL: Shaq
> ...


and it had Jordan


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Pioneer thats a very good point. But I refuse to agree with the fact that YOU need a dominant big man to win a championship. Am pretty convinced that if the suns had made it to the NBA finals, they would have run the Heat out of the building. Now wouldnt that go against conventional wisdom.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Pioneer10 said:


> It's a bit striking that only one champion over the last 3 decades has not had a very good post scorer


Teams are learning more and more how to counter post scoring because of the loose zone rules, so I expect that more teams without a post scoring threat will be winning the next decade. 

Miami having a great post scorer was almost just a coincedence in the finals, because the Mavericks did an outstanding job on him, not even letting him catch the ball in a lot of cases, cutting off the passing angles. It was Dwyane Wade, a perimeter player, that won it for them.


----------



## CurlyBeast (Mar 12, 2005)

I wish to God I could put wadeshaqeddie on my ignore list. Just to get that picture of that ****ing ***** Wade with his Larry O' Referee trophy off of my screen.

Still, I ask, who is going to stop the Bulls from chucking from the perimeter? Ben Wallace, who couldn't post up Shaq's 80 year old grandmother? Tyrus Thomas, who seems to want to play like a guard? Mike "Measure my height horizontally and not vertically and I'm really tall" Sweetney? I guess PJ Brown is the savior, then.

Their little guys are going to have to drive, drive, drive, and not chuck, chuck, chuck for that team to be a legitimate contendor. Even so, the Nets have much better little guys. And Collins is as good as, if not better, a post defender as Ben Wallace.

Oh yeah, I forgot "2 Good" Thabo! Get on his back, Bulls, and ride him to a championship!


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> I dont know what I am talking about :laugh:
> 
> I watch the guy play. Most of his shots come from the midrange. When he is making them (Heat 2 years ago) and when he is missing them (Heat last year) the fact is that most of his attempts come from 18 feet out
> 
> he may have the moves, but he sure doesnt use them. And his 6 rebounds a game cement that fact to me that for a big man he isnt inside enough. *In other words, he is a softie*.


That's where you don't know what you're talking about...

Nenad Krstic isn't soft, I've watched him for two seasons and he is more than willing to get in there and get loose balls and put-backs and use his post moves. 

The only reason why he shoots jumpers is because he's open, and most of the time he makes people pay. ****, I would have thought a big man with a jumper was a luxury.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Krstic is a championship starting caliber bigman, the problem is, you want him to be the 2nd best bigman, if he's your best big man, your probaly not winning anything.

As far as Wade gets every foul call, its simply not true, everyone fouls him, except the Bulls. Look at the Bulls series, he didn't get every call because we play better defense and didn't foul him (Skiles has him scouted out really really good).


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

sloth said:


> Krstic is a championship starting caliber bigman, the problem is, you want him to be the 2nd best bigman, if he's your best big man, your probaly not winning anything.
> 
> As far as Wade gets every foul call, its simply not true, *everyone fouls him,* *except the Bulls*. Look at the Bulls series, he didn't get every call because we play better defense and didn't foul him (Skiles has him scouted out really really good).


:laugh:


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

sloth said:


> As far as Wade gets every foul call, its simply not true, everyone fouls him, except the Bulls. Look at the Bulls series, he didn't get every call because we play better defense and didn't foul him (Skiles has him scouted out really really good).


Hinrich is the best at guarding wade in the league, bar none. 

he doesnt go for the fakes


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Teams are learning more and more how to counter post scoring because of the loose zone rules, so I expect that more teams without a post scoring threat will be winning the next decade.
> 
> Miami having a great post scorer was almost just a coincedence in the finals, because the Mavericks did an outstanding job on him, not even letting him catch the ball in a lot of cases, cutting off the passing angles. It was Dwyane Wade, a perimeter player, that won it for them.


 For all the complaining of Shaq's performance: Avery Johnson continued to double him throughout the entire series. Every single game and I would say over 3/4ths of the time Shaq saw a double

Like it or not the evidence clearly points to a very strong statistical relationship to teams with a good post scorer winning a title. Of all the talks of rules making the game faster and perimter oriented: remember that games still are nowhere near as close to as fast paced as the 80's and those fastbreak teams had several post scorers. 

Also it's not like perimeter oriented teams have NOT gone far in the playoffs in the recent past before losing to stronger teams with a post presense. The old version of the Nets with Martin also had no post scorer and the went to the Finals twice. The Celtics with Pierce and Walker got to the ECF. Philly with AI had no real post scorer. The Bucks were an awesome perimeter force with Robinson, Cassell, Allen, and Thomas and they got to the ECF. They got as far or farther in the playoffs then everone's new favorites example of the "new" offense in Phoenix and they all lost when they hit a team with better post scoring. I have a feeling this is a lot like how the new economy was going to go forever in the 90's before the crash. Sure the game is faster now but the game has been faster in years past but you still run into the same problem basketball is basketball where offenses which can attack from multiple places on the court (i.e. the post) do better then team w/o it.


----------



## CurlyBeast (Mar 12, 2005)

wadeshaqeddie => :makeout: <= sloth

Nets haters (and Heat and Bulls homers, respectively) unite!

I say let's bypass the regular season and play the Eastern Conference Finals now: Heat v. Bulls!


----------



## AJC NYC (Aug 16, 2005)

The nets are gonna be better than the bulls and Miami


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Pioneer10 said:


> For all the complaining of Shaq's performance: Avery Johnson continued to double him throughout the entire series. Every single game and I would say over 3/4ths of the time Shaq saw a double


They doubled him when he got the ball, but they weren't allowing him to get position most of the time. They held him under 20 points in every game of the series. 



Pioneer10 said:


> Like it or not the evidence clearly points to a very strong statistical relationship to teams with a good post scorer winning a title. Of all the talks of rules making the game faster and perimter oriented: remember that games still are nowhere near as close to as fast paced as the 80's and those fastbreak teams had several post scorers.


I agree that teams are better off with someone who can score in the post, because it's a balance thing. Great teams have a lot of options and ways to beat you, but I'm still not buying that the Heat won this year because they had a post scoring threat. If you trade Shaq for Nowitzki, the Heat absolutely roll the Mavericks in 4 straight games. 

The Pistons are an example of a team that won a title without a post scorer, even though you listed Wallace as proof of the contrary. Wallace was best against the Lakers when he was running the pick and pop with Billups. That series was Shaquille O'Neal being a great post threat, and the Pistons not having anyone posting up consistently, but the Pistons still rolled the Lakers. 



Pioneer10 said:


> Also it's not like perimeter oriented teams have NOT gone far in the playoffs in the recent past before losing to stronger teams with a post presense. The old version of the Nets with Martin also had no post scorer and the went to the Finals twice. The Celtics with Pierce and Walker got to the ECF. Philly with AI had no real post scorer. The Bucks were an awesome perimeter force with Robinson, Cassell, Allen, and Thomas and they got to the ECF. They got as far or farther in the playoffs then everone's new favorites example of the "new" offense in Phoenix and they all lost when they hit a team with better post scoring. I have a feeling this is a lot like how the new economy was going to go forever in the 90's before the crash. Sure the game is faster now but the game has been faster in years past but you still run into the same problem basketball is basketball where offenses which can attack from multiple places on the court (i.e. the post) do better then team w/o it.


The Suns are much better than those teams. The Nets, Sixers and Bucks teams you used as examples were all prime examples of why the east has such a terrible reputation. They were thriving when the east was at it's absolute worst.

EDIT-- Minor edit


----------



## thenetsfan (Sep 3, 2005)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> Kristic isnt the type of big guy I am talking about...I dont mean big guys who get 6 rebounds a game and score on mid range jump shots.....
> 
> and I mean a top 2......... guard in the league.
> 
> in other words, any player is a championship player with the right guys around them. Pretty simple


Your right about the two guard but as jizzy said shaq did'nt do **** in the finials and what wrong with acenter who scores points from mid range jump shots? He has a developing inside game too


----------



## VC4MVP (Dec 30, 2005)

WadeShaqEddie, did u watch the nets vs. pacers series (maybe not because only a couple were actually nationally televised) If u did u woulda saw krstic dominating. He was making most of his shots in the post, and was making about 85% of mid-range 18 foot jumpers. A lot of games in that series he pulled in 20 and 10 performances. And u keep talking about his 6.4rpg, thats just the nets system. The bigs box out, and the 1,2, and 3 get most of the rebounds to start the break.


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> You're not taking other seasons let alone decades into account
> SA: Duncan
> Detroit: R. Wallace
> LAL: Shaq
> ...


Even Detroit is an exception. Rasheed Wallace's low-post scoring was never a major factor in their winning the championship. His post-defense definitely was.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> They doubled him when he got the ball, but they weren't allowing him to get position most of the time. They held him under 20 points in every game of the series.


Doesn't really matter he still impacted the game more then his stats indicate. Also Shaq was the reason they beat Detroit. Wade was far more key against the Mavs but Shaq had an almost equal impact as Wade in the Detroit series.




> I agree that teams are better off with someone who can score in the post, because it's a balance thing. Great teams have a lot of options and ways to beat you, but I'm still not buying that the Heat won this year because they had a post scoring threat. If you trade Shaq for Nowitzki, the Heat absolutely roll the Mavericks in 4 straight games.


They wouldn't have rolled the Nets and they definitely would have not have rolled the Pistons with Dirk instead of Shaq. It's all about percentages: you're likely to get a favorable matchup or maybe two in a 4 series playoffs but chances are in one of the 4 series if you're just a perimeter team you're going to have to get scoring from someplace else. Having a post scorer makes that far more easy



> The Pistons are an example of a team that won a title without a post scorer, even though you listed Wallace as proof of the contrary. Wallace was best against the Lakers when he was running the pick and pop with Billups. That series was Shaquille O'Neal being a great post threat, and the Pistons not having anyone posting up consistently, but the Pistons still rolled the Lakers.


Wallace just because he can pick and pop doesn't negate the fact that when he went against smaller opponents is a deadly post scorer which teams like Phoenix and Dallas would kill for. And Detroit beating the Lakers had nothing to do with Shaq but a whole lot more to do Malone being hurt and not being able to guard guess who: Rasheed Wallace then anything else. It was painful to watch Slava Medvendenko and guys like George trying to guard Wallace. Wallace being a dual threat (both inside/outside) was something Phil Jackson didn't have a counter for, particularly when he had another guy off the bench in Williamson who created all sorts of mismatches in the post. Again it was comical seeing Kobe of all people trying to guard "Big Nasty" downlow. The Pistons had a very good post game.




> The Suns are much better than those teams. The Nets, Sixers and Bucks teams you used as examples were all prime examples of why the east has such a terrible reputation. They were thriving when the east was at it's absolute worst.


Frankly so what? The whole league is better now and the Suns (assuming w/o Amare or a reasonably healthy one- there one true post player) aren't going to get by SA and Dallas next year just like they didn't get by them this year. Again the percentages kick in. They got close this year but amazingly enough the pattern still held: the champion still had a great post game.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Aurelino said:


> Even Detroit is an exception. Rasheed Wallace's low-post scoring was never a major factor in their winning the championship. His post-defense definitely was.


 Tell that to Slava Medvendenko and Devean George and whoever else the Lakers tried to slow him down. He also abused Haslem in the Miami series the year they won it. As I stated in my previous post.

Detroit had Wallace to throw in the post, they brought in Williamson who for all his limitations is a good post player, and they had Okur (when they won the title) who much like Rasheed could go inside as well as outside


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Pioneer10 said:


> They wouldn't have rolled the Nets and they definitely would have not have rolled the Pistons with Dirk instead of Shaq.


Then we're basically saying Shaq is still a top 5 player based on the fact that he is one of very few players who can score on the block. There are countless great perimeter players, but if you absolutely *must have a post scorer* to win a title, then the best players in the game are Duncan, Shaq, Gasol, Yao and Brand. 



Pioneer10 said:


> Wallace just because he can pick and pop doesn't negate the fact that when he went against smaller opponents is a deadly post scorer which teams like Phoenix and Dallas would kill for.


The Pistons beat the Lakers without scoring in the post, that doesn't mean they never used Wallace in the post in a previous series. That series was Shaq dominating on the low block, while the Pistons didn't do a damn thing on the low block, but still winning the series in 5 games.


----------



## ravor44 (Feb 26, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> They'll win about the same amount of games in the regular season, but the Bulls will be the better playoff team like they were this year despite being 10 games worse in the regular season.


Well...I think its the opposite..the Bulls will have the BETTER REGULAR SEASON RECORD but the NETS will GO DEEPER IN THE PLAYOFFS...


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Then we're basically saying Shaq is still a top 5 player based on the fact that he is one of very few players who can score on the block. There are countless great perimeter players, but if you absolutely *must have a post scorer* to win a title, then the best players in the game are Duncan, Shaq, Gasol, Yao and Brand.


No I'm not saying he's top 5 and I didn't imply it either: when did I say you're best player has to be you're post scorer as well? A post scorer doesn't necessarily even have to be you're second best overall player but you need a good player who can score in the post. For example, Kareem in the second half of Showtime was second and even third best player on the Lakers but he was still vital for that team. Parrish and McHale were never close to being Bird. Clearly Shaq isn't even top 5 anymore. You're chances of winning a title is however definitely improved if you have a player who in a game can get you 20+ points in the post.



> The Pistons beat the Lakers without scoring in the post, that doesn't mean they never used Wallace in the post in a previous series. That series was Shaq dominating on the low block, while the Pistons didn't do a damn thing on the low block, but still winning the series in 5 games.


You have a different recollection of that series as one of the distinct things I took from that series was the lack of size they had outside of Shaq. Like I said watching Slava Medvendenko guarding Rasheed Wallace would have been humourous if it wasn't so pathetic. In addition, the Pistons depsite playing against a better post scorer in Shaq dominated the glass outrebounding the Lakers by 10 boards a game. Interestingly when you combine both Wallaces, Okur, and Williamson (the 4 inside threats fo the Pistons that year) they pretty much equaled Shaq. If you want to take anything from the Pistons (you can also include the Bad Boys version) as well is that if you don't have a dominant post scorer (which IMO doesn't apply to the 2004 Pistons secondary to as a team they had several good post scorer), is that you better be able to dominate both defensively and on the glass


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Pioneer10 said:


> You're chances of winning a title is however definitely improved if you have a player who in a game can get you 20+ points in the post.


Improved is different from what you were suggesting before, that you *need* a post scorer to win a title and there is little to no exception to that rule unless you have the greatest player of all-time. 

My point is that you have driven up the value of a post scorer to a level I can't agree with. If there are plenty of very capable perimeter scorers (and there are), and if a team *must* have a post scorer to win a title, combined with the fact that there isn't more than 10 good post scorers in the league right now, then those 10 or less players become extremely valuable if they're a must-have on a title team, like you're suggesting. 

Allen Iverson is a valuable scorer, but there are countless guys in the league who can score 20+ points per game from you guard spot. Eddy Curry on the other hand can get you 20 points in the post. Is he more valuable than Allen Iverson?


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> You're not taking other seasons let alone decades into account
> SA: Duncan
> *Detroit: R. Wallace*
> LAL: Shaq
> ...



Rasheed Wallace does not strike me as a dominant post scorer. Then again, the Pistons had a much better set of big men than to help its interior defense. Ben Wallace is the one that is named the most, but the Pistons also had Elden Cambell to guard Shaq. Okur was a good player in his own right, could give consistent production off the bench. Either way, the Nets best post player, Kristic, is comparable to a backup for the Detroit Pistons, showing that the Nets need to make a dramatic move to consider themselves championship contenders.


----------



## mw2889 (Dec 15, 2005)

Bulls

And where are the Nets even going, they're not getting any younger. The Bulls are on the come up. The Nets will not win a championship in the next 5 years.


----------



## naibsel (Dec 21, 2005)

mw2889 said:


> Bulls
> 
> And where are the Nets even going, they're not getting any younger. The Bulls are on the come up. The Nets will not win a championship in the next 5 years.


lol i love big ben, but he aint getting any younger either, in 2-3 yrs id much rather have nenad. and VC+RJ+Kidd way more potent offensively and defensively than Hinrich+Gordon+Deng. Nets have marcus williams ready to dominate once kidd retires in a few years. its not like the nets are the HEAT: assemble a bunch of 30+yro ring chasers who take pay cuts to win a ring one season and be virtually a diff team 2yrs later. nets have future.

im not a nets fan, i just call what i see


----------



## TrapperJohn (Jul 2, 2006)

Bulls


----------



## NJBallas51524 (Jul 16, 2006)

the nets are a lot better at least for now becasue i just dont see any chemistry at all in the bulls and thats really important in the nba so lets go nets


----------



## VC4MVP (Dec 30, 2005)

mw2889 said:


> Bulls
> 
> And where are the Nets even going, they're not getting any younger. The Bulls are on the come up. The Nets will not win a championship in the next 5 years.


Do u kno anybody that is getting younger? I dont think it is physically possible w/o plastic surgery.

RJ is entering his prime, vince is in his prime, and nenad is only about 21 or 22 and is always improving his post up moves and his jumpshot, soon he might even be able to hit 3's. The only players that the nets should worry about aging is kidd and cliff. Kidd isnt getting worse tho, and cliff never did that much in the first place. Also the nets got a core of rookies and sophmore on their bench 4 the future.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

mw2889 said:


> Bulls
> 
> And where are the Nets even going, they're not getting any younger. The Bulls are on the come up. The Nets will not win a championship in the next 5 years.



Haha.. You guys are going to start like a 35 year old Ben and a 200 year old PJ Brown. Talkin' about old.


----------



## jsuh84 (Oct 16, 2004)

Let's put this in perspective..

To all you outside of Chicago and New Jersey, who would you rather play against in a playoff series: Chicago or New Jersey?

That should settle the debate.


----------



## AIFAN3 (Sep 17, 2005)

I don't get what all the hype over big ben is.. He's just an upgrade over what tyson chandler already gave.. A big man caple of blocking shots and grabbing rebounds with no offense except putbacks and dunks. The Bulls like the Nets still lack an interior presence that commands double teams ( Maybe ty thomas can turn into one) which is essential to a team contending....


----------



## thenetsfan (Sep 3, 2005)

AIFAN3 said:


> I don't get what all the hype over big ben is.. He's just an upgrade over what tyson chandler already gave.. A big man caple of blocking shots and grabbing rebounds with no offense except putbacks and dunks. The Bulls like the Nets still lack an interior presence that commands double teams ( Maybe ty thomas can turn into one) which is essential to a team contending....


Thank you I know that both teams still may need a better inside presence but big ben is going to give exacly what chandler gave only with maybe one more block or two more rebonds. Not really a game changier.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

AIFAN3 said:


> I don't get what all the hype over big ben is.. He's just an upgrade over what tyson chandler already gave.. A big man caple of blocking shots and grabbing rebounds with no offense except putbacks and dunks. The Bulls like the Nets still lack an interior presence that commands double teams ( Maybe ty thomas can turn into one) which is essential to a team contending....



Perfectly said. You deserve an A+


----------



## DaBullz4Sho (Oct 12, 2002)

you nets fans are unbelieveable.....as far as those that said the nets have a bright future, they hardly have a future, they're more of a present team, their window is really only this year and maybe the next 2 after...and there is NO WAY rjeff,vc, kidd are better defensively than hinrich,deng, nocioni

as far as the post that said the bulls dont have enough team chemistry.....are you kidding me, teams that have no chemistry do not play the type of team defense the bulls played, they were probably one of the least talented teams in the playoffs the past 2 years and what got them to the playoffs was defense and team chemistry on both sides of the court.

Hinrich will have better numbers than kidd this year, you can book it.
deng/nocioni splitting time will have better numbers than rjeff...
Carter I will give you
pj brown will probably give the bulls better defense and a little less scoring than kristic puts out
Wallace and collins not even a debate

The bulls scored a little under 98 points per game last year, they will increase their offensive chances with the improved rebounding...their young players have another summer to improve...ESPECIALLY deng who actually gets his first full offseason since last offseason he had a wrist injury.....bulls lose tyson chandler and add pj brown and ben wallace, I dont see a loss of offense...sweetney looks to be slimmed down and should be able to go longer stretches on offense...

Tyrus thomas and ben wallace should be able to get some easy baskets with their rebounding and ability to dunk the ball.....and dont underestimate thabo sefolosha who will greatly improve the bulls' flexibility on defense on offense, he is able to play beside any of our guards, can play the 1, 2, and 3...

THIS WILL BE THE LAST YEAR THERE WILL EVEN BE A DEBATE BETWEEN THESE TWO TEAMS...

BULLS ACTUALLY ADDED OFFENSE THIS OFFSEASON, I dont see how all the sudden they go from a middle of the road offensive team with excellent defense........to an overated team with horrible offense.....bulls should score a few more points a game this season around 99 or so, and with this defense that is plenty.....


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

DaBullz4Sho said:


> you nets fans are unbelieveable.....*as far as those that said the nets have a bright future, they hardly have a future, they're more of a present team, their window is really only this year and maybe the next 2 after...and there is NO WAY rjeff,vc, kidd are better defensively than hinrich,deng, nocioni*
> 
> as far as the post that said the bulls dont have enough team chemistry.....are you kidding me, teams that have no chemistry do not play the type of team defense the bulls played, they were probably one of the least talented teams in the playoffs the past 2 years and what got them to the playoffs was defense and team chemistry on both sides of the court.
> 
> ...


Everything in bold is pretty much debatable, and personally I think you dont really have an arguement.


----------



## DaBullz4Sho (Oct 12, 2002)

so pretty much what you're saying is everything that is a pro for the bulls and a con for the nets is debatable, but whatever is a pro for the nets and a con for the bulls is stated fact and basis for an argument... glad I'm clear on that


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

DaBullz4Sho said:


> so pretty much what you're saying is everything that is a pro for the bulls and a con for the nets is debatable, but whatever is a pro for the nets and a con for the bulls is stated fact and basis for an argument... glad I'm clear on that


I think we can all type here and write what we think till we are black and blue. But until this games are actually played, we really cant put a guage on things. I like what the bulls are doing, they are a very nice team. But top two team in the East is very debatable. With the way the East is right now, a couple of teams have a very good shot at making the finals. The Heat might not even be in the finals next year.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Actually, the Bulls perimeter defense being better than the Nets' isn't debateable.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

NJBallas51524 said:


> the nets are a lot better at least for now becasue i just dont see any chemistry at all in the bulls and thats really important in the nba so lets go nets


chesmistry means crap

beleive me, Im a heat fan. I heard that same crap last year and its a myth.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> chesmistry means crap
> 
> beleive me, Im a heat fan. I heard that same crap last year and its a myth.


Says a guy whose team clicked at just the right moment. Chemistry means a lot in my books. The best comparison, the pistons last season and the Knicks last season


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> chesmistry means crap
> 
> beleive me, Im a heat fan. I heard that same crap last year and its a myth.



Oh ok, so you would rather have a team filled with guys who don't like each other and want the ball in there hands. Chemstry means everything. Look at the Knicks, look at there roster on paper, you'd think they'd win the title.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> chesmistry means crap
> 
> beleive me, Im a heat fan. I heard that same crap last year and its a myth.


I disagree.

I saw that Finals series, that team came together when they went down early in the series and rallied. I thought the Heat had great chemistry and played like a team those final games.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

HB said:


> Says a guy whose team clicked at just the right moment. Chemistry means a lot in my books. The best comparison, the pistons last season and the Knicks last season


it might, but saying a team isnt going to be good because of chesmistry is crap. 10 games in and everybody will forget that even existed

the reason it took the heat longer then expected is because they didnt get to play 10 games at full strength until almost the end of the season. The clicking at the right time was more of everybody actually being healthy at the right time, not really chemistry

and Big Ben doesnt need the ball. Nocioni is a perfect role player. Brown knowns his role and doesnt need the ball. Bulls wont have any problems at all.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

Net2 said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I saw that Finals series, that team came together when they went down early in the series and rallied. I thought the Heat had great chemistry and played like a team those final games.


they did. Thats why people saying a team will be worse because of chemistry is crap. It will be like it never even existed a month in.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

wadeshaqeddie said:


> they did. Thats why people saying a team will be worse because of chemistry is crap. It will be like it never even existed a month in.


I don't think a team would be any worse off without chemistry.

But I think it gives a team an extra edge if you have better chemistry.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Improved is different from what you were suggesting before, that you *need* a post scorer to win a title and there is little to no exception to that rule unless you have the greatest player of all-time.
> 
> My point is that you have driven up the value of a post scorer to a level I can't agree with. If there are plenty of very capable perimeter scorers (and there are), and if a team *must* have a post scorer to win a title, combined with the fact that there isn't more than 10 good post scorers in the league right now, then those 10 or less players become extremely valuable if they're a must-have on a title team, like you're suggesting.
> 
> Allen Iverson is a valuable scorer, but there are countless guys in the league who can score 20+ points per game from you guard spot. Eddy Curry on the other hand can get you 20 points in the post. Is he more valuable than Allen Iverson?


This is a very poor straw man argument to use what I'm saying and then to somehow equate that to Eddy Curry somehow being as valuable as Allen Iverson. First of all the comparison is just foolish in that AI is a 30+ ppg with a reasonable efficiency versus Eddy Curry whose never come close to averaging 20 ppg even in a signal season. My argument is not based on comparing the relative value of a permiter versus post player. Put in other words by my count going back 15 years
only 2 title winning teams out of 13 have not had a dominant or a very good post scorer (Bad Boys Pistons and both Bulls threepeats). On the other hand if you want to look at perimeter player the only team that did not have a dominant perimeter scorer to win a title in the same timespan is just as scarce: 2 teams only (Houston's first championship w/o Drexler and the 99 Spurs although Sean Elliott had his moments). Almost all these teams had a single perimeter player that was a All-NBA first team calibre (Wade, Kobe, Magic, Bird, Jordan, Erving) or at the very least a backcourt that together would be considered top 5 in the league easily (Parker/Ginboli, Hamilton/Billups, old Drexler/Smith/Cassell). So even though the numbers of post player versus perimeter players seem on the face value to be unequal and to favor mediocre big men having more value, in reality the quality of perimeter player needed to win a title is so great that excludes all but a few great perimeter players as "championship" calibre. Or you need to spend you're time getting TWO All-Star calibre perimeter players. In the end it's all about balance: you have by far the best chance to win a title when you have a dominant backcourt/MVP-calibre perimeter player *plus* a very good good to dominant post player.

So a far more accurate analogy would be that Eddy Curry for a team that lacks a post presense (ala Phoenix) would be far more valuable to that team then adding a comparable or even more efficient perimeter player. For example, guys like Joe Johnson, Bibby, Terry, and Jefferson have PERs that are higher then Curry but in terms of team makeup Phoenix would benefit and be closer to winning a title with a guy like Curry. What would AI bring to a title that Phoenix or the Nets don't already have? The converse works just as well, my team the Cavs scores an absolutely ridiculous number of there point in the paint but Curry wouldn't do squat for them but AI would do wonders. The sort of value you're trying to get at it only applies to situations where you're basically are starting a team or are bad enough to get a great lottery pick. In these cases where you lack both post/presense, you simply need talent and takes the best available be it small or big (ala draft AI ahead Curry each time). If all things being equal btw big & small (i.e. if you had a chance to draft Lebron or Shaq) you would tend to go big.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Remember when Jason Kidd punched his wife in the face in front of his 3 year old kid?










Remember when Vince Carter quit on the Raptors half way through a season?


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Improved is different from what you were suggesting before, that you need a post scorer to win a title and there is little to no exception to that rule unless you have the greatest player of all-time.
> My point is that you have driven up the value of a post scorer to a level I can't agree with. If there are plenty of very capable perimeter scorers (and there are), and if a team must have a post scorer to win a title, combined with the fact that there isn't more than 10 good post scorers in the league right now, then those 10 or less players become extremely valuable if they're a must-have on a title team, like you're suggesting.
> 
> Allen Iverson is a valuable scorer, but there are countless guys in the league who can score 20+ points per game from you guard spot. Eddy Curry on the other hand can get you 20 points in the post. Is he more valuable than Allen Iverson?


stick to rapping


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

Dornado said:


> Remember when Jason Kidd punched his wife in the face in front of his 3 year old kid?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dont you know we are in the present?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

2dumb2live said:


> Dont you know we are in the present?


hmm... didn't see any games on the schedule today...


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

Dornado said:


> hmm... didn't see any games on the schedule today...


hmm, did kidd punch his wife lately?hmmmm.....
did vince quit on the Nets?hmmmm.....
Point is that though Kidd beat his wife 4 years ago and Vince quit on the raps(except getting traded, but he didnt bring that ****ty attitude along with him) didnt affect the Nets past two seasons at all. And i highly doubt that they will affect next season. How immature that you mention wife beating in a team comparison discussion. Makes no sense.


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

Like i said before, we cant actually determine who is better if they havent played yet.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

Dornado said:


> Remember when Jason Kidd punched his wife in the face in front of his 3 year old kid?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

Net2 said:


> What does that have to do with anything?


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## AJC NYC (Aug 16, 2005)

The bulls are overrated 
that team hasnt done anything yet


----------



## jsuh84 (Oct 16, 2004)

AJC NYC said:


> The bulls are overrated
> that team hasnt done anything yet


The New Jersey Nets are overrated, and we've seen them play.


----------



## VC4MVP (Dec 30, 2005)

jsuh84 said:


> The New Jersey Nets are overrated, and we've seen them play.


By who the media?? The nets are only overrated by SOME nets fans that think they r better than they actually are. U dont see any1 ever talking up the nets in the media, except when the nets went on a 14-game winning streak and the media jumped on our bandwagon. A lot of ppl r making a big deal about ben wallace and their other sightings, so how good the bulls are is very debateable, and we wont know how good they r until the season. So everybody stop talking ****, because in all truth, not 1 of us has a clue how the season will turn out, so no 1 should be talking like their opinions are facts, and that they know whos good and how good they are.

And BTW, sloth, shut up about Thabo "2 good 4 summerleauge" sefolosha. U are acting like 2 good summerleague performances will make him a defenseive stopper in the nba, and an all-star 4 years 2 come.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Pioneer10 said:


> This is a very poor straw man argument to use what I'm saying and then to somehow equate that to Eddy Curry somehow being as valuable as Allen Iverson.


It was a straw man argument, but just for the sake of emphasis and I'm sure you knew that. I just think you're trying to make it too formulaic. If the Lakers had beat the Pistons in 2004, that would have been used as proof that a dominant post scorer beats a team without a post scorer, but since the Pistons won, Rasheed Wallace is a good post scorer. 

Shaquille was almost irrelevant in the post in this years finals. Rasheed's impact on the block was irrelevant in 2004, in my opinion, it was one of the least important factors to them winning the series. Duncan struggled a great deal offensively against the Pistons last year. 

3 of the 4 conference finalists rely very little on post scoring, and the 1 team that does rely on post scoring didn't get any in the series they won to win the title, it was basically a Dwyane Wade show.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

pmac34 said:


> stick to rapping


How about you let the grown-ups talk instead of following me around with three word posts pretending to understand what's going on.


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

VC4MVP said:


> By who the media?? The nets are only overrated by SOME nets fans that think they r better than they actually are. U dont see any1 ever talking up the nets in the media, except when the nets went on a 14-game winning streak and the media jumped on our bandwagon. A lot of ppl r making a big deal about ben wallace and their other sightings, so how good the bulls are is very debateable, and we wont know how good they r until the season. *So everybody stop talking ****, because in all truth, not 1 of us has a clue how the season will turn out,* so no 1 should be talking like their opinions are facts, and that they know whos good and how good they are.
> 
> And BTW, sloth, shut up about Thabo "2 good 4 summerleauge" sefolosha. U are acting like 2 good summerleague performances will make him a defenseive stopper in the nba, and an all-star 4 years 2 come.


 :clap:


----------



## frank9007 (Jul 4, 2006)

Teams in the East with Post players. 

Miami:Shaq + ZO 

Detroit: Sheed + Dice

Cleveland:Gooden + Big Z + *Lebron* He can do everything.

Knicks:Curry + Frye +Butler 

These teams have pretty much everything Point guard, and big men that can score.

Now most of the haters will come in and say the Knicks should not be here, well i disagree.

The last year the Bulls had Curry they were the 4th seed in the East, and he was their leading scorer. The Bulls lost to the Wizards, but that was because Curry din't play in that series. Had Curry played the Bulls would have won that series. 


==================================================================
I don't consider these teams a threat untill they get a post player. 

Nets: None 

Bulls: None 

Wizards: None

===================================================================
I don't consider these teams a threat until they get a point guard.

Indiana:JO 

Milwaukee:Magloire + Bogut + Villanueva

====================================================================


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Ben Gordon and Tyson Chandler were the catalysts for the Bulls getting up to 47 wins. Not Curry. Curry has post moves, but he can't pass out of the post, so what, if Ben Wallace can catch, dunk, and get his freethrows up to 50-60%, than he is almost as valuable on offense as Curry, until Curry learns how to pass, he isn't an overly valuable post player. Chandler didn't show up last year, that was the reason for the Bulls dropoff. Ben Wallace should show up, his PER's gone up each of the last 4 seasons, he's only getting better, and they shouldn't have the problem of Ben doing nothing for 2/3 of the season like Tyson.


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

frank9007 said:


> Teams in the East with Post players.
> 
> Miami:Shaq + ZO
> 
> ...


You know, if they arent threats, then why are all those teams you mentioned are better than the knicks. And as far as i know, krstic is arguably better than any of the bigs in the knicks frontcourt:clown:


----------



## VC4MVP (Dec 30, 2005)

frank9007 said:


> Teams in the East with Post players.
> 
> Miami:Shaq + ZO
> 
> ...


Ok u r so smart, the knicks are a threat, but the nets, bulls, wizards, indiana, and milwaukee arent?
U might just be the next einstein. And wut is with all this sheed being a good post player, he maybe a good post player, but he rarely plays in the post. He has that in his game but he doesnt use it a lot.


----------



## frank9007 (Jul 4, 2006)

sloth said:


> *Ben Gordon and Tyson Chandler were the catalysts for the Bulls getting up to 47 wins. Not Curry*. * Curry has post moves, but he can't pass out of the post*, so what, if Ben Wallace can catch, dunk, and get his freethrows up to 50-60%, than he is almost as valuable on offense as Curry, *until Curry learns how to pass, he isn't an overly valuable post player.* Chandler didn't show up last year, that was the reason for the Bulls dropoff. Ben Wallace should show up, his PER's gone up each of the last 4 seasons, he's only getting better, and they shouldn't have the problem of Ben doing nothing for 2/3 of the season like Tyson.


Thats convenient to say know, but i disagree. The Bulls were much better with Curry and isn't about numbers, its about impact. 

Eddy Curry opened up things for every player on the floor on offense, and defense. Curry doesn't get alot of rebounds but he nullifies the big man on the other team. 

Eddy Curry made the Bulls a better a team it's that simple. You don't drop from 47 wins to a 41 wins with basically the same team for nothing.

Curry is young he is still leanring to play of the double team and triple teams. Poor offensive coaching and schemes has had an effect on that aswell. Under Isiah Thomas Curry will learn how to do the basics like read double and triple teams, being more patient when to go 1 on 1 and when to pass it out. 

These basic things are what stopping Curry from being a top 10 player in the NBA. He will learn these things sooner rather than later.

But if you wan't to deny that it's ok.

On to Ben Wallace, his free throw shooting has been going down for the last 2 years. And in the playoffs he hit rock bottom 27% from the line :nonono: 

When I was watching the playoffs, I was like what if Detroit had big guy that could those free throws at a 60% clip.

There is something wrong with Bens hand and it won't get better. He said himself that he won't have surgery until he retires.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

sloth said:


> Ben Gordon and Tyson Chandler were the catalysts for the Bulls getting up to 47 wins. Not Curry. Curry has post moves, but he can't pass out of the post, so what, if Ben Wallace can catch, dunk, and get his freethrows up to 50-60%, than he is almost as valuable on offense as Curry, until Curry learns how to pass, he isn't an overly valuable post player. Chandler didn't show up last year, that was the reason for the Bulls dropoff. Ben Wallace should show up, his PER's gone up each of the last 4 seasons, he's only getting better, and they shouldn't have the problem of Ben doing nothing for 2/3 of the season like Tyson.


Wow not giving Curry credit sloth. Thats definitely a first. And both me and you know its wishful thinking that Wallace's free throw percentage gets any better. Am of the train of thought that Wallace is actually on the decline.


----------



## VC4MVP (Dec 30, 2005)

frank9007 said:


> Thats convenient to say know, but i disagree. The Bulls were much better with Curry and isn't about numbers, its about impact.
> 
> Eddy Curry opened up things for every player on the floor on offense, and defense. Curry doesn't get alot of rebounds but he nullifies the big man on the other team.
> 
> ...


Wow i ve never seen some1 as smart as u, u say that Isiah F****** Thomas is gonna make curry a better player than larry brown could? Curry is no top 10 player in the NBA and never will be. He is a great center, and is a great player, but at best will go 2 the all-star game a couple of times. U r seriously delusional, if u think Isiah Thomas is going to help curry and get the knicks to the playoffs lol.


----------



## frank9007 (Jul 4, 2006)

VC4MVP said:


> Ok u r so smart, the knicks are a threat, but the nets, bulls, wizards, indiana, and milwaukee arent?
> U might just be the next einstein. *And wut is with all this sheed being a good post player, he maybe a good post player, but he rarely plays in the post. He has that in his game but he doesnt use it a lot*.


See this what people don't get Rasheed Wallace has an all around game. In fact Rasheeds post game is probably his best weapon. 

When Rasheed gets in the post he's basically untoppable and it doesn't matter who's covering him. 

Detroit is jumphooting team but when things get tough they have Rasheed to go downlow to. He can drop 20+ any night + add the fact that he draws a double team and his all NBA post defense you got stud big man.

Rasheed is underrated and not even funny.


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

Ugh, can we stop about the knicks and curry. We are supposed to be focused on the Nets and Bulls with Ben Wallace, not curry.


----------



## frank9007 (Jul 4, 2006)

VC4MVP said:


> Wow i ve never seen some1 as smart as u, u say that Isiah F****** Thomas is gonna make curry a better player than larry brown could? Curry is no top 10 player in the NBA and never will be. He is a great center, and is a great player, but at best will go 2 the all-star game a couple of times. U r seriously delusional, if u think Isiah Thomas is going to help curry and get the knicks to the playoffs lol.


If he made Jermaine O'neal an All Star + Brad Miller who both have less talent that Curry. Than i'm sure he can make Curry become a stud in the NBA. 

At 23 years old Curry's allready a good player but he's got time to become a great player. 

Isiah never missed the playoffs as coach with the Pacers. He molded that team and developed alot of the talent on that team. 

Why do you think JO wanted him to stay as coach? 

Remember those pacers were i belived the youngest team in the NBA if you subtract Reggie Miller. They were 2nd youngest team with Miller.

So yeah the Knicks will the Playoffs under Zeke Thomas. I know it hurts alot of people to here that but get use to it.


----------



## AJC NYC (Aug 16, 2005)

Why are the Knicks even in this conversation


----------



## VC4MVP (Dec 30, 2005)

frank9007 said:


> If he made Jermaine O'neal an All Star + Brad Miller who both have less talent that Curry. Than i'm sure he can make Curry become a stud in the NBA.
> 
> At 23 years old Curry's allready a good player but he's got time to become a great player.
> 
> ...


Damn, u should replace Dave chapelle as funniest man on earth, please continue 2 amuse me. LOL


----------



## jsuh84 (Oct 16, 2004)

VC4MVP said:


> By who the media?? The nets are only overrated by SOME nets fans that think they r better than they actually are. U dont see any1 ever talking up the nets in the media, except when the nets went on a 14-game winning streak and the media jumped on our bandwagon. A lot of ppl r making a big deal about ben wallace and their other sightings, so how good the bulls are is very debateable, and we wont know how good they r until the season. So everybody stop talking ****, because in all truth, not 1 of us has a clue how the season will turn out, so no 1 should be talking like their opinions are facts, and that they know whos good and how good they are.
> 
> And BTW, sloth, shut up about Thabo "2 good 4 summerleauge" sefolosha. U are acting like 2 good summerleague performances will make him a defenseive stopper in the nba, and an all-star 4 years 2 come.


The Bulls were better than the Nets LAST SEASON. Yes, the regular season record may prove otherwise, but by the end of the season, who was the more feared team? I'm willing to bet that more teams would've breathed easier if they were to face the Nets in a playoff series over the Bulls.

Now that our core is older, and we added other players, noteably Ben Wallace, we're the better team.

Yes, we don't know how the other teams will play next season, but c'mon.. Why the hell do we even have these forums in the first place?


----------



## Quis (Jul 7, 2006)

What makes the Bulls good? I'm not seeing it. They have a bunch of average young players, an old never-was power forward, and a rapidly declining, massively overpaid offensive liability at center. I don't see what's so special about that. Any team who's leading scorer is a 6'2" shooting guard who shoots 42% has some serious issues they need to work on.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

jsuh84 said:


> The Bulls were better than the Nets LAST SEASON. Yes, the regular season record may prove otherwise, but by the end of the season, who was the more feared team? I'm willing to bet that more teams would've breathed easier if they were to face the Nets in a playoff series over the Bulls.
> 
> Now that our core is older, and we added other players, noteably Ben Wallace, we're the better team.
> 
> Yes, we don't know how the other teams will play next season, but c'mon.. Why the hell do we even have these forums in the first place?


Wow just wow. The bulls by the end of the season were more feared than the Nets. Come on now. The Nets had their playoff spot wrapped a couple of weeks before the season ended. The Bulls were in a dog fight till the last one or two weeks of the season. Nets also had those two impressive winning streaks during the season. Everyone was saying they would beat the Heat. If not for the lack of a bench, I honestly think they could have. Anyways you can think what you want you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I personally think the Bulls are seriously overrated.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

Why are the Knicks in this conversation?


----------



## Intense Enigma (Oct 22, 2005)

This "frank9007" guy is giving the "sloth" kid a run for his money as the most delusional basketball fan in the face of the earth


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Quis said:


> What makes the Bulls good? I'm not seeing it. They have a bunch of average young players, an old never-was power forward, and a rapidly declining, massively overpaid offensive liability at center. I don't see what's so special about that. Any team who's leading scorer is a 6'2" shooting guard who shoots 42% has some serious issues they need to work on.


Ben's PER has gone up each of the last 4 seasons. He isn't declining.


----------



## eddymac (Jun 23, 2005)

The Bulls look good on paper with Hinrich, Gordan, Nocinoni, Wallace, and Brown. Plus they have a bench that features Duhan, Smith, Deng, Sweetney, Thomas, Allen, Jesus. They have a deep team with a lot of young players only Wallace and Brown are veterans this team has a lot of upside and the future looks bright. 

The Nets have done a good job drafting players that we need like Marcus Williams and Josh Boone. They will get playing time and should help us a lot. Williams was projected as a 10 ten lottery player and Boone will bring athlecism to our front court. We are not done yet we need a shooter and another big man.

But as for right now the Bulls look better on paper but the offseason is not over and there are lots of things that can happen from now til the season starts.

As for the Knicks goes they have a lot of talented players but they could make the playoffs under Isiah I will not rule that out. But tho say that they are better than teams that made the playoffs last year is absurd.


----------



## AJC NYC (Aug 16, 2005)

eddymac said:


> The Bulls look good on paper with Hinrich, Gordan, Nocinoni, Wallace, and Brown. Plus they have a bench that features Duhan, Smith, Deng, Sweetney, Thomas, Allen, Jesus. They have a deep team with a lot of young players only Wallace and Brown are veterans this team has a lot of upside and the future looks bright.
> 
> The Nets have done a good job drafting players that we need like Marcus Williams and Josh Boone. They will get playing time and should help us a lot. Williams was projected as a 10 ten lottery player and Boone will bring athlecism to our front court. We are not done yet we need a shooter and another big man.
> 
> ...



The nets look even better on paper


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Because they have 3 good players? Bulls:Hinrich,Wallace,Deng, Gordon, Nocioni, Duhon, P.J Brown, and now Tyrus Thomas... Bulls look WAY better on paper...


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Zero Hero said:


> Because they have 3 good players? Bulls:Hinrich,Wallace,Deng, Gordon, Nocioni, Duhon, P.J Brown, and now Tyrus Thomas... *Bulls look WAY better on paper*...


That and a buck get you a burger at McDonald's.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Zero Hero said:


> Because they have 3 good players? Bulls:Hinrich,Wallace,Deng, Gordon, Nocioni, Duhon, P.J Brown, and now Tyrus Thomas... Bulls look WAY better on paper...


You forgot Jesus Sefolosha.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Right now, on paper, it's probably the Bulls, the main difference being defense. The Bulls have interior D (and better perimeter for that matter) and the Nets don't.


----------



## CurlyBeast (Mar 12, 2005)

Hey, here's a question: What's going to stop the baby Bulls guards from hoisting up at every chance they get?

RJ and Vince are big 2/3s that drive a lot. That midget backcourt the Bulls have ain't gonna get it done (t'aint easy for little guys to finish inside against the trees). Deng and Nocioni have to provide the inside scoring, with a touch of old man PJ. Don't think that will be enough to elevate the Bulls past the Nets.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

CurlyBeast said:


> Hey, here's a question: What's going to stop the baby Bulls guards from hoisting up at every chance they get?
> 
> RJ and Vince are big 2/3s that drive a lot. That midget backcourt the Bulls have ain't gonna get it done (t'aint easy for little guys to finish inside against the trees). Deng and Nocioni have to provide the inside scoring, with a touch of old man PJ. Don't think that will be enough to elevate the Bulls past the Nets.


Thabo can drive good, well actually he doesn't have a drivers license, but in terms of basketball, he can get in the lane and create and make a layup, distribute, etc.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

CurlyBeast said:


> Hey, here's a question: What's going to stop the baby Bulls guards from hoisting up at every chance they get?
> 
> RJ and Vince are big 2/3s that drive a lot. That midget backcourt the Bulls have ain't gonna get it done (t'aint easy for little guys to finish inside against the trees). Deng and Nocioni have to provide the inside scoring, with a touch of old man PJ. Don't think that will be enough to elevate the Bulls past the Nets.


Nobody actually thinks about what it takes to win in the NBA (strategy, approach & matchups). THey just look at the names on the back of the jerseys, do some 'calculations' and come up w/ an answer.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

sloth said:


> Thabo can drive good, well actually he doesn't have a drivers license, but in terms of basketball, he can get in the lane and create and make a layup, distribute, etc.


You do realize you are counting on a rookie, don't you? Of course, the Nets fans in here have their rookies practically in the ALl-Star game, but you know what they say about 2 wrongs....


----------



## CurlyBeast (Mar 12, 2005)

sloth said:


> Thabo can drive good, well actually he doesn't have a drivers license, but in terms of basketball, he can get in the lane and create and make a layup, distribute, etc.


I know you're really high on "2 Good," but I wouldn't pin my championship aspirations on him. There is no telling how good he'll be in the NBA, or for that matter, in his first year in the NBA. He may be a valuable bench guy (I did not see him play in Summer League, so I don't know much about him), but I'll be surprised if he steals crunch time from Gordon and Heinrich (he'd really be too good if he did that).


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

SeaNet said:


> You do realize you are counting on a rookie, don't you? Of course, the Nets fans in here have their rookies practically in the ALl-Star game, but you know what they say about 2 wrongs....



We don't have to depend on Tyrus and Thabo being good off the bench, Thabgo should be fine, he was a pro in Italy, and looked like a veteran in summer league. Tyrus is still immature though, but has talent. We just need solid bench play out of them, which we'll probaly get, and we have Deng or Nocioni to be the star off the bench, so we should be good, and the remainder of Nocioni/Deng will probaly be 6th man of the year.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

SeaNet said:


> You do realize you are counting on a rookie, don't you? Of course, *the Nets fans in here have their rookies practically in the ALl-Star game*, but you know what they say about 2 wrongs....



I haven't seen one post stating that


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

sloth said:


> We don't have to depend on Tyrus and Thabo being good off the bench, Thabgo should be fine, he was a pro in Italy, and looked like a veteran in summer league. Tyrus is still immature though, but has talent. We just need solid bench play out of them, which we'll probaly get, and we have Deng or Nocioni to be the star off the bench, so we should be good, and the remainder of Nocioni/Deng will probaly be 6th man of the year.


So you are citing your rookies as solutions to problems that people pose wrt/ the Bulls' lineup, and then claiming that the rookies aren't necessary when people point out that a problem in your lineup is your reliance on rookies?


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Jizzy said:


> I haven't seen one post stating that


You should get a dictionary and look up the word 'metaphor.' Its a broad classification, but an important one.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

SeaNet said:


> You should get a dictionary and look up the word 'metaphor.' Its a broad classification, but an important one.



Yes, i know that. I was being sarcastic but I haven't seen one Nets fan overrating any of the rookies. Maybe you just like to beleive that.


----------



## CurlyBeast (Mar 12, 2005)

SeaNet said:


> So you are citing your rookies as solutions to problems that people pose wrt/ the Bulls' lineup, and then claiming that the rookies aren't necessary when people point out that a problem in your lineup is your reliance on rookies?


My brain just exploded.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Jizzy said:


> Yes, i know that. I was being sarcastic but I haven't seen one Nets fan overrating any of the rookies. Maybe you just like to beleive that.


Maybe I just read Nets boards, and I see them overrating them every single day?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

SeaNet said:


> So you are citing your rookies as solutions to problems that people pose wrt/ the Bulls' lineup, and then claiming that the rookies aren't necessary when people point out that a problem in your lineup is your reliance on rookies?


Thabo won't be a problem. He can play point guard, he has great handles, he can pass, so he can do that. He'll be able to defend, he has good foot speed, toughness, and good height and that massive wingspan, and also big hands. Just his physical attributes help him be good, and combine that with our attitude, and team needs he fits our team like a glove, and he's a player that would excel in our system.

Can't say the same about Tyrus, he's going to have to prove more than Thabo about how well he can excel in the league. But at the very least, PJ Brown and Ben Wallace is a heck of a lot better than Othella Harrington, Malik Allen, Michael Sweetney, or whatever the hell that was starting up there at the end of the season.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

SeaNet said:


> Maybe I just read Nets boards, and I see them overrating them every single day?




Or maybe, just maybe, you see a poster post something positive about a rookie and assume the rookie is getting overrated.


----------



## CurlyBeast (Mar 12, 2005)

sloth said:


> Thabo won't be a problem. He can play point guard, he has great handles, he can pass, so he can do that. He'll be able to defend, he has good foot speed, toughness, and good height and that massive wingspan, and also big hands. Just his physical attributes help him be good, and combine that with our attitude, and team needs he fits our team like a glove, and he's a player that would excel in our system.
> 
> Can't say the same about Tyrus, he's going to have to prove more than Thabo about how well he can excel in the league. But at the very least, PJ Brown and Ben Wallace is a heck of a lot better than Othella Harrington, Malik Allen, Michael Sweetney, or whatever the hell that was starting up there at the end of the season.


Ben Wallace is an upgrade at center (of course, that's not saying much when you have no center). I'm not sure PJ is much of an upgrade over Chandler. It's an overall upgrade yes, but very little offensively.

As much as you like "2 Good," he is not going to be the answer to a championship.

Your little guys like to shoot (that includes Nocioni and Deng). Your big guys can't post up. It's trouble. I think you have to rely on Benny Gordon's quickness to draw double teams and break down defenses, and I don't like the thought of pinning your championship hopes on that little chucker. I don't see a whole lot of the Bulls, so correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.

However, if the Bulls develop chemistry like the old Pistons, they will be tough. But I believed the Nets would beat the Pistons, and as I don't think the Bulls can reach that same level, I believe the Nets will beat the Bulls.

P.S. Your old avatar was better.


----------



## magohaydz (Dec 21, 2005)

Bulls easily. Tyrus Thomas ROY. Ben Wallace DPOY. Paxson GMOY. Skiles COY. Hinrich, Gordon and Wallace will make either 1st of 2nd all NBA Team honors. Bulls to make it to the conference finals and be beaten in 6 by the Heat.


----------



## VC4MVP (Dec 30, 2005)

magohaydz said:


> Bulls easily. Tyrus Thomas ROY. Ben Wallace DPOY. Paxson GMOY. Skiles COY. Hinrich, Gordon and Wallace will make either 1st of 2nd all NBA Team honors. Bulls to make it to the conference finals and be beaten in 6 by the Heat.


I'm assuming this is a joke.


----------



## Real (Aug 3, 2005)

_Dre_ said:


> Right now, on paper, it's probably the Bulls, the main difference being defense. The Bulls have interior D (and better perimeter for that matter) and the Nets don't.


Nets were actually one of the best defensive teams in the league last year.

Kidd was first team all defense, RJ is a very good defender, so is Jason Collins in the low post, Clifford Robinson wass always a good defender...


----------



## CurlyBeast (Mar 12, 2005)

Net2 said:


> Nets were actually one of the best defensive teams in the league last year.
> 
> Kidd was first team all defense, RJ is a very good defender, so is Jason Collins in the low post, Clifford Robinson wass always a good defender...


I said it earlier in this thread, and I'll say it again: Collins is a better post defender than Ben Wallace. Wallace is the better tangible defender. Collins is the better positional defender.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

CurlyBeast said:


> I said it earlier in this thread, and I'll say it again: Collins is a better post defender than Ben Wallace. Wallace is the better tangible defender. Collins is the better positional defender.


This is just a dumb statement, there is no way to justify it at all, theres no explanation, its just dumb.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Net2 said:


> Nets were actually one of the best defensive teams in the league last year.
> 
> Kidd was first team all defense, RJ is a very good defender, so is Jason Collins in the low post, Clifford Robinson wass always a good defender...


While the Bulls were overrated defensively. 1-3 last year, they were easily the best defensive team, but there defense from the 4-5 was a joke. They took care of that this year, and strengthened their interior D, which should help them big time.


----------



## CurlyBeast (Mar 12, 2005)

sloth said:


> This is just a dumb statement, there is no way to justify it at all, theres no explanation, its just dumb.


Watch last year's playoffs then, smart guy. Collins frustrated Shaq and forced him to do things he didn't want to do. Ben did not. Shaq works in the post and only the post.

Ben is a better shot blocker, perimiter defender (though Collins, for his size and slowness, is not shabby), rebounder, and (disgutingly enough) scorer. Ben is undersized in the post. He does not have the savvy post defense of Collins. Ben is the better overall defender. He is not the better post defender.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

sloth said:


> This is just a dumb statement, there is no way to justify it at all, theres no explanation, its just dumb.


Now, I don't know whether Collins is a better positional defender than Wallace or not, but he's certainly right up there w/ him on that count, so its not a dumb statement. Its what the man does. And quite frankly, its just about all the man does, but he does it exceptionally well. Truly a class of the league positional post defender. Now, if you want anything else other than a pick or a box out from him, get ready to be disappointed. But as far as positional defense and esp. positional post defense go, Collins is top notch. Its the only reason he's in the league.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Also, rumors of Chris Duhon and Michael Sweetney for Drew Gooden are getting stronger every day...


----------



## JCB (Aug 9, 2005)

sloth said:


> Also, rumors of Chris Duhon and Michael Sweetney for Drew Gooden are getting stronger every day...


 . . . congratulations.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

If the Gooden trade goes through, we'll have too many Jayhawks, since we'll probaly sign Aaron Miles to replace Duhon instantaneously.

So basically, we'd lose Duhon, Smith, and Sweetney and get Drew Gooden for this year.

1. Kirk Hinrich
2. Ben Gordon
3. Andres Nocioni
4. PJ Brown
5. Ben Wallace
6. Thabo Sefolosha
7. Luol Deng
8. Tyrus Thomas
9. Viktar Khryapa
10. Malik Allen
11. Drew Gooden
12. Adrian Griffin

So we'd have 3 roster spots open.

Main candidates would have to be:

1. Luke Schenscher
2. Eddie Basden
3. Aaron Miles
4. Antonio Davis
5. Othella Harrington
6. Howard Eisley (if we were to keep him in a trade)
7. Randy Livingston

I'd say Harrington would probaly be back, and then maybe Davis if he wants to continue playing. Randy Livingston will probaly be brought back as a coach, but I woudln't be surprised if he was brought back as a player too, he works wonders with the young guards. I'd say Aaron Miles would be the candidate to replace Duhon at point guard.


----------



## CurlyBeast (Mar 12, 2005)

^ This isn't the Bulls board. If they get one of the bajillion guys you listed, please feel free to make it reason gajillion and one why the Bulls will win it all.

EDIT: Also, I don't watch the Bulls for 82 games in a season. sloth, could you tell me how good the following guys are at scoring in the paint (not posting up, but just getting points in the paint - and not if they drive a lot, more if they're able to score or draw fouls there). Please try to take the homer goggles off when making these assessments, if they aren't surgically attached to your face:

Hinrich
Gordon
Nocioni
Deng

Thanks.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Hinrich, not so much. He creates good looks in the lane, but he can't finish, he misses the easiest layups.

Ben Gordon is pretty good, he has the giant killer which he makes at about 75%.

Andres Nocioni, really good, when Nocioni started driving more at the end of the year, he became beastly on offense.

Deng is okay, he finishes good, but he doesn't drive enough on a consistent basis.


----------



## VC4MVP (Dec 30, 2005)

sloth said:


> *Hinrich, not so much. He creates good looks in the lane, but he can't finish, he misses the easiest layups.*
> Ben Gordon is pretty good, he has the giant killer which he makes at about 75%.
> 
> Andres Nocioni, really good, when Nocioni started driving more at the end of the year, he became beastly on offense.
> ...


He always scores against us in the paint, probably because he is 2 fast for kidd. How is chicago gonna trade deng and sweetney for drew gooded, when drew gooden is a restricted free agent?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

VC4MVP said:


> He always scores against us in the paint, probably because he is 2 fast for kidd. How is chicago gonna trade deng and sweetney for drew gooded, when drew gooden is a restricted free agent?


Its Duhon and Sweetney

So our salary after signing THomas, Thabo, and Griffin while trading JR Smith would be at 50.69.

That leaves us with about 2.45 million left in capspace.

So trading Michael Sweetney (2.70 million) and Duhon (3.02 million) plus our capspace (2.45 million) Gooden would be able to get 8 million for his first year.

So with max raises, he could get a 58 million 6 year deal, which isn't bad for a big man, and I could see it happening.


----------



## Drop_Dimes (Aug 27, 2005)

sloth said:


> *New Jersey Not Netting A Championship
> By: Sloth*
> 
> 
> ...


Whoa... Anyone else read this gem? I hope this isn't you trying to be funny, because that would be really sad... and a little scary...


----------



## elsaic15 (May 24, 2006)

does anyone else think sloth has a few loose screws in his head. anyways. not even a question, nets are better and will get further this year


----------



## CurlyBeast (Mar 12, 2005)

sloth said:


> Hinrich, not so much. He creates good looks in the lane, but he can't finish, he misses the easiest layups.
> 
> Ben Gordon is pretty good, he has the giant killer which he makes at about 75%.
> 
> ...


Thanks.

It seemed like the Bulls were taking a lot of jump shots in the playoffs. When the jumpers stopped falling it was over for them. How do you think the new additions to the team will prevent this from happening again next post-season (assuming, for now, that Drew Gooden doesn't join the squad)?


----------



## L (Sep 20, 2005)

Drop_Dimes said:


> Whoa... Anyone else read this gem? I hope this isn't you trying to be funny, because that would be really sad... and a little scary...


I think the ben wallace signing has made sloth crazy......crazier.....


----------



## thenetsfan (Sep 3, 2005)

sloth said:


> This is just a dumb statement, there is no way to justify it at all, theres no explanation, its just dumb.


its true watch net games if you want proof


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Drop_Dimes said:


> Whoa... Anyone else read this gem? I hope this isn't you trying to be funny, because that would be really sad... and a little scary...


I LOL when he mentioned my name in his post.


----------



## AJC NYC (Aug 16, 2005)

Jason Collins can defend Shaq better than anyboby else in the league


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

AJC NYC said:


> Jason Collins can defend Shaq better than anyboby else in the league


That doesn't mean that he's the best post defender in the league. Michael sweetney did a swell job on Shaq, is he a defensive beast?


----------

