# Hinrichs Debut



## Bolts (Nov 7, 2003)

Well, what do you think? Will BC give him a chance against Snow or Iverson? Maybe it is a good thing to let the Rook go through the fire by guarding AI

I think he will do good and would like to see a KH/JC combo


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

I'm pumped as well.

Kismet has dropped hints of them (JC/KH) playing together, which I'd like to see. Mainly, I think KH brings more to the table than the 'versatile' Mason Jr. God for all the times we've heard about Mason Jr being versatile and a good shooter, it really hasn't shown up in games.

Not sure he'll be able to play too many minutes right away, but I'm curious to see what we've got. After all, he was the first PG taken after Lebron (I do not consider Wade a PG). TJ Ford has looked great, hopefully KH wasn't a waste of a pick.


----------



## Philo (Feb 13, 2003)

Hinrich will struggle for the first few weeks of the season. I hope the board doesn't jump all over him after his 1-6, 2point, 3 turnover performance tonight.:grinning:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

IF CrawDaddy struggles like he has this season b4 it could be an intresting night for Kirk


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Philo</b>!
> Hinrich will struggle for the first few weeks of the season. I hope the board doesn't jump all over him after his 1-6, 2point, 3 turnover performance tonight.:grinning:


Roger's Mason has set the bar low tonight 
3 games, 1-11FG, 1-6 3pt, 3 assists, 1 steal, 2 TOs in 43 total minutes

I won't jump all over him don't worry


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Yeah he is young and meant as a backup as Jay was suppose to just step in and lead the team


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

He wont get alot of minutes. You guys need JC on the floor as much as possible


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Supposedly, if Hinrich is as good as BC says, the sixers would be the best team to let him loose on. Both the sixers and the hornets run point guard sized back courts.

I hope they put Hinrich on Iverson, as much of a bulls fan as I am, I'm a die-hard Iverson fan from his days at georgetown, and I wanna see him go for 58. Hopefully we can still find a way to win. Or not. I'm really torn about this game. I'll be pleased so long as neither team gets blown out and both teams play hard.


----------



## Butt Cheese (Jun 27, 2003)

You guys might be surprised how WELL Kirk does guarding AI.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Butt Cheese</b>!
> You guys might be surprised how WELL Kirk does guarding AI.


I'll be suprised if he can stay on the floor against Iverson. He seems to pick up fouls really fast, judging by the preseason. And if there's on thing Iverson does really well, it's draw fouls.

I just hope Crawford doesn't have to guard AI. Because he'll end up on a couple highlight reels if he does. I'd rather Hinrich end up on them.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Supposedly, if Hinrich is as good as BC says, the sixers would be the best team to let him loose on. Both the sixers and the hornets run point guard sized back courts.
> 
> I hope they put Hinrich on Iverson, as much of a bulls fan as I am, I'm a die-hard Iverson fan from his days at georgetown, and I wanna see him go for 58. Hopefully we can still find a way to win. Or not. I'm really torn about this game. I'll be pleased so long as neither team gets blown out and both teams play hard.


If Kirk is as good as BC and Pax says he is, then why bother even playing? We will win 15 world championships, have a Hall of Fame induction ceremony for Kirk, and give him a couple of MVP trophies. and it will all be because of Kirk. we ought to just retire his jersey now, why not?

Ok, sarcasm aside, I dont buy BC and Paxs praise in the least bit. More TOs then assts in the preseason but he is the next stockton? His shooting has been off. He did show flashes, works hard and scraps, but he is not a star, nor starter, on this club. I bet he gets off to a good start however but fades in about 5 or 6 games.


----------



## Zeos (Jun 4, 2003)

> If Kirk is as good as BC and Pax says he is, then why bother even playing? We will win 15 world championships, have a Hall of Fame induction ceremony for Kirk, and give him a couple of MVP trophies. and it will all be because of Kirk. we ought to just retire his jersey now, why not?


Wow! What is it with all this hate for Kirk? People are either Hatin' on Kirk, hatin' on Jamal, hatin' on Eddy. They're human, they're young, the season is young, let's give them a chance.

Personally, I love Kirk. He plays hard, plays with passion, has a ton of skills, is very athletic, and thinks pass first. Bulls brass love what they see, and so do I. Let's at least give him a chance.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

not hatin Kirk. hatin the hype that Pax and BC have created on a kid who cant possibly live up to it. He isnt Stockton. and in college, he wasnt pass first. he was an off the ball catch and shoot type. Lets be realistic about him. I like Kirk, but I dont like what Pax and BC are trying to make him be. Since when does the triangle have a "stockton like Point Guard"? Do we even play the triangle? get the picture? its not kIrk, its the morons running our team, Pax and BC


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

I doubt you'll see much of Kirk tonight. He's still 7 or 8 pounds lighter then he was when he was drafted. This is not a guy operating at 100%, trust me.

If BC has any brains (which, now that i think about, I'm not convinced), he'll limit his minutes early. 

See how the off-time due to injury has effected Jalen.... and Hinrich isn't _at all_ experienced with the Bulls sets on offense (or defense for that matter), or even the NBA in general. He has, really, no knowledge or experience to fall back on. 

If Cartwright wants Kirk to come out and play 20+ minutes tonight, he's mistaken. It's not gonna happen... at least not effectively.


----------



## Zeos (Jun 4, 2003)

Well, actually Hinrich wasn't always playing point in college, 'cause Roy needed him to score. But I understand your point. I'm not plugged into the Chicago media, so I don't get bombarded by that hype.

Actually, the triangle really could use a Stockton-like center. That's what the triangle is built for. But :sigh: Eddy doesn't appear to resemble Stockton in the slightest.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> He isnt Stockton.


Nobody said he was. Management, Gill and Pippen have all said that he has all the tools of a young Stockton.

Context is a wonderful thing.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

so which is it? did they or didnt they say it? They said it, and the words Stockton and Hinrich should never be used in the same sentence. Totally different players. Its not fair to Kirk, and it certainly not fair to Stockton. I wonder if that comparison is racially motivated. He is far closer to Joe Dumars and Hersey Hawkins then he is to John Stockton. I would even say Jeff Hornacek. But John stockton? When he has more assts then TOs, then perhaps the geniuses on our team can talk. Dont you think?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I think it's a bit of a tempest in a teapot myself.

As far as I can tell, he looks like almost the perfect "PG" for the Bulls. A very good shooter and a good defender. And above all, a guy who both knows how and wants to create shots for his teammates.

That's what I'm looking and hoping for.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> so which is it? did they or didnt they say it? They said it, and the words Stockton and Hinrich should never be used in the same sentence. Totally different players. Its not fair to Kirk, and it certainly not fair to Stockton. I wonder if that comparison is racially motivated. He is far closer to Joe Dumars and Hersey Hawkins then he is to John Stockton. I would even say Jeff Hornacek. But John stockton? When he has more assts then TOs, then perhaps the geniuses on our team can talk. Dont you think?


Good points.

People have said KH reminds them of a "young John Stockton" or has the tools of a young John Stockton. They never said he _was_ John Stockton. Either way, I think you're right in saying it's not fair to either player.

Is the comparison racially motivated? I think so. Unfortunately, this is just how things work.

Is KH closer to Dumars/Hawkins than Stockton? Probably. But he can distribute and lead considerably better than either Dumars or Hawkins ever could, and he's not a 100% point like Stockton is. I'd put the comparison closer to a Gilbert Arenas/Sam Cassell type of player, kind of an 75% PG/25% SG type. We'll just have to wait and see how he settles in.

You can't judge a player by his preseason stats. Especially when he's a rookie and he's trying to learn the Triangle.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I'm hoping Hinrich scores 20+ PPG with 8 assists per game on 50% or better shooting and shuts down opponents' guards routinely.

I think the odds on what I hope actually happening are slim.

But I can still hope, eh?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Even if KH shoots 0-10 with 0 points, 0 boards, 0 assists, and 0 steals, his enthusiasm and intensity will undoubtedly carry over to the rest of the team. In all my years of watching him play he never gave anything less than full effort, and he never once gave up, even if the game was already decided. He's easily one of the most intense competitors I've ever seen in organized athletics.

Perhaps this will be Kirk's biggest attribute this season. We'll see.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Good points.
> ...


Good conversation Vincent. If he is as good as Arenas, id be happy. I think he is more like Dumars. and that would be great. Dumars is a first ballot hall of famer. Dumars could set up the offense, like Kirk can. But their strengths were intelligent play, defense, making the long shot. Dumars was stronger then Kirk, but Kirk might be more atheletic


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Even if KH shoots 0-10 with 0 points, 0 boards, 0 assists, and 0 steals, his enthusiasm and intensity will undoubtedly carry over to the rest of the team. In all my years of watching him play he never gave anything less than full effort, and he never once gave up, even if the game was already decided. He's easily one of the most intense competitors I've ever seen in organized athletics.
> 
> Perhaps this will be Kirk's biggest attribute this season. We'll see.


This is true. And his work ethic, supposively, is unbelievable. While at Kansas, whenever the topic of who the hardest worker in the offseason is, Hinrich is the name that came out of everyone's mouth without hesitation. I hope he's over his illness, and hope he gets some PT before long, I'd like to see where he's at right now, but I'm confident he'll end up a quality player at the least in the long run.


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

He did not had the best game when comes to points tongiht, and fouled out, but he played solid 25 minutes with 6 assists. Not bad for NOT playing games since the last week of the preseason 3 weeks ago.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

*Hinrich was still feeling the effects of the viral infection that sent him to the injured list in the first place.

"I got tired pretty easy there," he said. "I would get on the break and my legs were starting to feel real heavy. I was getting winded."*

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sports_story.asp?intID=37933120

Anybody that's played the game knows that shooters rely on their legs. When you can't get your normal lift your shots fall short. Then you try to compensate and in most cases it only makes things worse. His shooting accuracy (or should I say, inaccuracy) was to be expected. And as he regains his strength his touch will return as well.

The important thing to note was that every one of his jumpers were taken within the context of the offensive set they were in. He didn't force or rush a single shot. In addition, at least four of those 10 shots came from taking the ball aggressively to the hole. Granted, he didn't do a good job of finishing his drives. But I think a kid who spent the first five games of the season on the injured list recovering from one very nasty virus that cost him more than just 12 pounds should be cut a lot of slack offensively for his first few games back.

Hell, let him get his legs back under him, please. The reports were that he'd only regained 7 of the 12 pounds he'd lost while he was ill. Everyone knows that after a serious illness you're usually weak as a kitten for quite a while. 

The important thing about his performance was that he didn't play like a rookie. He didn't make rookie mistakes. He didn't look tentative or intimidated when most of his floor time was spent going mano a mano at both ends with Allen Iverson. Frankly, had he shot 50% last night and played the same floor game, we'd all be raving about his outstanding rookie debut. Don't forget...6 assists, three steals and only 2 turnovers in 25 minutes. If he'd made half of his shots most of you would have been touting him for ROY honors! Give the kid a break. He's going to make his fair share of shots before the season's over. But if he can turn in performances that include 6 assists and 3 steals all season long, then the scoring (which will come in time) will be the frosting on the cake and Paxson will be applauded for making Kirk his choice in the rookie draft.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> so which is it? did they or didnt they say it? They said it, and the words Stockton and Hinrich should never be used in the same sentence. Totally different players. Its not fair to Kirk, and it certainly not fair to Stockton. I wonder if that comparison is racially motivated. He is far closer to Joe Dumars and Hersey Hawkins then he is to John Stockton. I would even say Jeff Hornacek. But John stockton? When he has more assts then TOs, then perhaps the geniuses on our team can talk. Dont you think?


Lets clear this up once and for all. There's nothing wrong with using Stockton's name in the same sentence as Kirk Hinrich. Last time I checked Mother Theresa was a lot closer to being named a saint than John Stockton was. But for the record, here's what members of the Bulls were saying about Kirk...and yes, some of the statements did include the name of the one and only (choir music from heaven, please) John Stockton.

*From Kendall Gill:* "Too many point guards look to shoot first instead of pass," Gill said. "The whole league is like that. You hear people say they like to play with John Stockton and Jason Kidd, and that's why. They always think pass. Kirk has that potential."

*And from Scottie Pippen:* "He's a very skillful player and has a good knowledge of the game," said Scottie Pippen, another sure-fire Hall of Famer. "He's hard-nosed. He's got a great future ahead of him, and I don't use those words loosely."

*And from Bill Cartwright:* "He's had a terrific preseason so far. When we first got him I didn't know how good he was. I hate to say this, but he's got all the qualities of a young John Stockton. We're excited and pleased with him."

*More from BC:* "Kirk is playing real well. A lot of guys go through the process of learning how to play in this league. You have to learn to be aggressive defensively and not be intimidated by the guys you watched on TV. And you have to run the team and know what to do in NBA situations. He has all those qualities already. He is an assist guy and he can penetrate and he is good at screen-and-roll. He has a chance to be really good.''

I don't see any "irreverence" in any of those statements. No one said Kirk's the next coming of JS. Now something like that would have been inappropriate. More than anything else, it seems the comparisions were being made not so much on skill level as to _style of play._ Kirk seems to be viewed as a "pass first" player with a selfless approach to the game. In my mind, that's very Stockton-like, wouldn't you agree? Now, I will grant you that mentioning Stockton's name, even within the context of comparing playing styles, infers an expectation that Hinrich could become for the Bulls something similar to what Stockton was for the Jazz. And that's setting the bar awefully high for a rookie. But these guys should all know what they're talking about. They've got the credibility that years of success and experience in the league buys you. They've all competed against Stockton for years, even Cartwright. So if they want to use Stockton's and Hinrich's name in the same sentence, I'm going to listen.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> The important thing to note was that every one of his jumpers were taken within the context of the offensive set they were in.
> 
> The important thing about his performance was that he didn't play like a rookie. He didn't make rookie mistakes.


Just finished watching the tape... I agree in part,

Kirk has a good feel for how to control a team. The stretch during the second quarter, though AI being off the floor obviously had something to with this, showcased his ability to push/pull back when the Bulls needed him. I think the organization realizes that the future, sans trade, includesl both Hinrich and Craw on the floor at the same time--Craw playing combo-leaning-2guard guard with Kirk play combo-leaning-point. BC played this formation for an extended stretch during the third and forth.

Despite his numerous mistakes Kirk is our best wing defender (which is much like saying a slap in the face is better then a kick in the balls). There were breakdowns, more noticably when he was garding Snow than AI, but for every lapse there was a good play. He really knows how to give help D.

Though, I thought Hinrich still looks like a rookie on offense. Even taking the injury into account, he was rushing his shot like he did in the preseason. I have a feeling he makes all of those threes in practice--Maybe this is why teammates are heaping the praise. His drives to the bucket were out of control and you could see him thinking on the court. It is apparent now that he doesn't have that innate scorer sense that some players have from day 1. Learning to finish in the NBA takes some players years. Lets hope for a quick learning curve.

I am still high on Kirk's prospects for this season. Since it is ultimately D that gets a player minutes, I think it is not outlandish to predict Kirk starting by all-star break. Let's hope he can step up.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> *Hinrich was still feeling the effects of the viral infection that sent him to the injured list in the first place.
> 
> "I got tired pretty easy there," he said. "I would get on the break and my legs were starting to feel real heavy. I was getting winded."*
> ...


i'm not disagreeing with you on why his shot went bad ....but i dont see why no one brings up what they say about rose and crawford when their shot obviously isn't falling 

that he should work for better shots ,or drive to the basket ,if he is as intelligent as everyone says why did this not pop into his head?


----------



## Athlon33.6 (Jul 31, 2003)

It doesn't matter to me that Kirk shot 1 for 10 from the field. At least in his first game, he played very good defense and worked hard out there.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

He hustled. But he fouled out in 25 minutes. Good defense? Arent we getting carried away here just a bit? No one should be using the term stopper and Hinrich in the same sentence anytime soon. But what he does give us is some spunk, some heart, some hustle. All good qualities. But he isnt a true PG, he isnt John Stockton (racially motivated comparison is my guess), he isnt a stopper, and he isnt a starter right now. He desperately needs to find his shot, and he will. My guess last night was about jitters. He is a rookie and will need atleast 3 years to find his game in the pros. PGs, if that is what the Bulls insist on calling him, dont find their games for the most part for 3 or 4 years. which means Kirk will probably be elsewhere before he becomes a legit starter in the NBA. Sorry to pee in everyones cheerios, but the facts point to this. I will root for him wherever he goes, but its unlikely that he is much of a factor here, and wont be playing unless the Bulls are in big trouble. 

And before arguing with me on this, please pull out some kirk video for his 4 years in college. he started as a PG and to be frank, wasnt that good there. He was beaten out not once, but twice by guys who are probably picking up garbage somewhere. he found his game when he went to the 2 guard spot. his off the ball movement was great, he had a nice shot, and wasnt afraid to take the big shot. Thats his game, and that is not a PG. Will we see him and JC together? Maybe a little. But based on BCs past, does anyone really think we will see it extensively? No. and then the question is, does anyone really think Kirk will ever be as good as JC ended last year? The answer to that is probably not. Not a good pick by Pax. The word uttered by some experts was panic. he lost Jwill, then lost out on Wade and panicked. All this after trying to deal Jwill away. Doesnt make any sense. The blame doesnt lie at the feet of Kirk, cause unlike most Bulls, he will lay it all on the court. The Blame lies with pax first, BC second.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Lucas,

You could say the same thing about Lebron--He played sg in highschool but is obviously a point guard in the NBA. It is not smart for ball distribution to have your best scorer as your point guard. 

From what I have seen on the court, Kirks ability to manage a team is his strongest atribute. Did you see the way he alternatively pushed the ball and relaxed in the second quarter. He controlled the pace of the entire game. More interesting was when he was playing along side JC. It looked like there was supposed to be two combo gaurds, but the team just naturally deffered to him as pg. 

You have obviously watched a lot of ball, but we are at odds on this one.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> Lucas,
> 
> You could say the same thing about Lebron--He played sg in highschool but is obviously a point guard in the NBA. It is not smart for ball distribution to have your best scorer as your point guard.
> ...


Thats legit, and I agree with you. i liked how he hustled. But he really looked for his shot alot. Sure the 6 assts were nice, but KJ got 10 assts per game and shot a ton. and i dont want that on this team. The point is, the triangle doesnt use a PG. i have read the triple post offense by Tex winter and the word PG is not even used in it. When Pip comes back, he will be the primary handler. Kirk played smart, but 10 shots in 25 minutes, some forced by the way, is not "john stockton like". But if he is Steve Nash, or Nick Van Exel, then by all means I like it. However, lets not overrate this kid. Pax and BC have done enough of that already. he isnt Jwill good, and Jwill didnt exactly set the league on fire last year


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!He is a rookie and will need atleast 3 years to find his game in the pros. PGs, if that is what the Bulls insist on calling him, dont find their games for the most part for 3 or 4 years. which means Kirk will probably be elsewhere before he becomes a legit starter in the NBA....


In reviewing the PG development, it looked like most made big strides in the 2nd year. Where does this 3 or 4 year standard come from?

Hinrich will have a shorter learning curve than Crawford and will produce consistantly during his rookie contract.



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>and then the question is, does anyone really think Kirk will ever be as good as JC ended last year? The answer to that is probably not.


I am very confident that Kirk will, in time, contribute more consistantly to a team in terms of winning basketball than Craw did in his late year stretch last year. Hopefully, craw will too.



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>Not a good pick by Pax. The word uttered by some experts was panic.


And other expects felt it was a very savy pick. What happened to the 'experts' that felt that Mason was going to impress this year?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> I will root for him wherever he goes, but its unlikely that he is much of a factor here, and wont be playing unless the Bulls are in big trouble.


The Bulls *ARE* in Big trouble! I mean, let's not kid around here... they are desperate for any energy, any defense, any playmaking for others. The fact that the *BEST* they can do is throw a rookie out there to me says the incumbants deserve a lot more slagging than the rookie.



> And before arguing with me on this, please pull out some kirk video for his 4 years in college. he started as a PG and to be frank, wasnt that good there. He was beaten out not once, but twice by guys who are probably picking up garbage somewhere. he found his game when he went to the 2 guard spot.


:no:

They needed scoring, so he gave them scoring. He always looked pretty effective getting people involved in the offense to me. 



> his off the ball movement was great, he had a nice shot, and wasnt afraid to take the big shot. Thats his game, and that is not a PG.


But aren't you the guy who keeps pointing out that the triangle doesn't require a PG? 

Combine your take on him... good off the ball movement, good shooting, with what pretty much everyone else has said they see- willingness to distribute and push the ball, and you've got the quintessential triangle "PG".

Obviously he's not going to be the pure scorer that a guy like MJ was, but with guys like Curry, Rose, and Crawford to distribute to, he doesn't need to be.



> Will we see him and JC together? Maybe a little. But based on BCs past, does anyone really think we will see it extensively? No. and then the question is, does anyone really think Kirk will ever be as good as JC ended last year? The answer to that is probably not.


But is JC ever gonna be as good as he ended last year? Unless he gets to work with a guy who complements his talents and makes up for his weaknesses, he's not going to. Hinrich at least has the potential to do this in the same ways that JWill did at the end of last year.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> In reviewing the PG development, it looked like most made big strides in the 2nd year. Where does this 3 or 4 year standard come from?
> ...


i think Mason showed as much in the preseason as Kirk did. can that be denied? jamal as allstar level after the break last year, is kirk going to get to that level? probably not. Most pgs take 3-4 years to establish themselves. Sure there are anomolies, and it turns out most fail (mark jackson has never been as good as he was a rookie, neither has the kid from Indy). But Chauncey Billlups is damn good, he has been on 4 teams in 5 years. Steve Nash took 3-4 years. Sam Cassell wasnt a starter for 3 years. Gary Payton, yes Gary payton, took 3 years to establish himself. Tim hardaway took 2-3 years. the list goes on and on. Kirk will take that long atleast based on 2 reason. First off, he hasnt played the point for atleast 2 years. second, he is in some cockamemie offense that doesnt have a PG but he is told to play it. Thats like telling a football player to play goalie. there is no such thing. Its not kirks fault, its the organizations fault. and my guess is he will find his game, somewhere else.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats legit, and I agree with you. i liked how he hustled. But he really looked for his shot alot. Sure the 6 assts were nice, but KJ got 10 assts per game and shot a ton. and i dont want that on this team. The point is, the triangle doesnt use a PG. i have read the triple post offense by Tex winter and the word PG is not even used in it. When Pip comes back, he will be the primary handler. Kirk played smart, but 10 shots in 25 minutes, some forced by the way, is not "john stockton like". But if he is Steve Nash, or Nick Van Exel, then by all means I like it. However, lets not overrate this kid. Pax and BC have done enough of that already. he isnt Jwill good, and Jwill didnt exactly set the league on fire last year


I don't but the triangle doesn't need a pg argument. I'll bet half the points you score come in transition buckets, or broken plays when you are out of your team's offense. Payton seems to be doing just fine in LA using his game control skills.

As far as Kirk shooting--he was shooting because the Sixers were leaving him open. They didn't play him close because they didn't think he would hit his shots, and for the most part, he didn't prove them wrong. I still have no problem with the shots he took. There were even a couple times where he gave up open looks that I thought he should have taken advantage of.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> The Bulls *ARE* in Big trouble! I mean, let's not kid around here... they are desperate for any energy, any defense, any playmaking for others. The fact that the *BEST* they can do is throw a rookie out there to me says the incumbants deserve a lot more slagging than the rookie.
> ...


You got it DC. He can be effective in the triangle playing off the Ball! Perfect. someone gets it. unfortunately BC and pax are telling everyone he is Stockton. and that is a farce. and it sends the wrong message to the kid. he needs to play like he did in kansas. And he wasnt the PG at KU. Thats just a plain and simple fact


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I should also add that I think JC+KH is more likely than JC+JW to occur because of defense. KH at least has a cluebird which makes it more feasible to put him out there.

JC and JW didn't and JC still doesn't. We look like we're getting better at the zone, so hopefully that'll improve the odds in our favor as well, but we need to at least consider the fact that we create a major defensive liability (at least a lot of the time) with these guys manning the guard positions.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't but the triangle doesn't need a pg argument. I'll bet half the points you score come in transition buckets, or broken plays when you are out of your team's offense. Payton seems to be doing just fine in LA using his game control skills.
> ...


and there was some forces. lets be real about it. but he hustled and he gave it 100%. and i like that. he deserves a chance. but lets make him something he isnt. he needs to get his shot back. and i bet he does. then, and only then, will we see the real Kirk. and that Kirk will resemble a 2 guard far more then the PG that BC and Pax are trying to sell us.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> I should also add that I think JC+KH is more likely than JC+JW to occur because of defense. KH at least has a cluebird which makes it more feasible to put him out there.
> 
> JC and JW didn't and JC still doesn't. We look like we're getting better at the zone, so hopefully that'll improve the odds in our favor as well, but we need to at least consider the fact that we create a major defensive liability (at least a lot of the time) with these guys manning the guard positions.


how did we get Kirk as a stopper? he fouled out in 25 minutes. the effort was there. but he looked a step slow and had to reach a lot. lets not overrate the kid. he probably isnt any better a defender then Jwill. Jwill had far more footspeed and lateral quickness then this kid does. Though kirk is an inch taller ( not big deal) and longer (that is a big deal)


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

rlucas, you're way off on a few things in my humble opinion.



> He is a rookie and will need atleast 3 years to find his game in the pros. PGs, if that is what the Bulls insist on calling him, dont find their games for the most part for 3 or 4 years.


True, but most point guards don't come into the league with 4 years of college experience at the highest level, two title rings from the toughest conference in the nation, and two Final Four rings. Compare Kirk's situation to that of, say, Jamal Crawford's. 



> he started as a PG and to be frank, wasnt that good there.


Are you freaking serious? Due to personnel dictations his junior and senior years (ie, because Aaron Miles can only play one position -- PG), Hinrich only played point (his natural position) his first two years at Kansas. His freshman year he didn't get to play much until Roy finally figured out halfway through the season that Jeff Boschee was in fact not a point guard, and Hinrich emerged with a splash. In the NCAA Tournament that year, Hinrich held Duke's All-World-All-Everything Jay Williams to 2-15 FGs and 8 TOs. Hinrich's sophomore year -- his only year he was afforded the luxury of playing the entire season at his natural position -- he was 7th in the nation in assists (6.9 per game), shot 54% from the field, and broke the KU and Big XII records with 51% accuracy from three.



> He was beaten out not once, but twice by guys who are probably picking up garbage somewhere.


What in the hell are you talking about? Seriously, how much college basketball have you watched? Have you even seen Kansas play in the last four years?



> he found his game when he went to the 2 guard spot.


No he didn't. Anyone who has watched more than merely a couple KU games will tell you that Kirk is best at point -- but the only reason he was switched to wing was because of Aaron Miles' limitations as a point guard and point guard only.



> his off the ball movement was great, he had a nice shot, and wasnt afraid to take the big shot. Thats his game, and that is not a PG.


You see, KH can do a lot more things than just lead and distribute from the point guard spot. He can do pretty much everything a SG can do -- shoot, penetrate, create a shot, defend -- but he's got natural point guard instincts as well. You might have heard the term combo guard to describe him. I'd say this is accurate, insofar that the "combo" denotes about an 85%PG/15%SG relationship.



> Not a good pick by Pax. The word uttered by some experts was panic. he lost Jwill, then lost out on Wade and panicked. All this after trying to deal Jwill away. Doesnt make any sense. The blame doesnt lie at the feet of Kirk, cause unlike most Bulls, he will lay it all on the court. The Blame lies with pax first, BC second.


I think 95% of Bulls fans would have rather had Wade. While he's got some great potential, this doesn't erase the fact that Dwyane is shooting 28% from the field at a position the Bulls have plenty of players at.

Sounds to me like you can't come to grips with the possibility that Hinrich might in fact be a damn good ballplayer. That's okay, though -- it took everybody else an extended period of time as well.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

and what is kirks % in preseaon and last night combined? plus wade as a hip pointer. I like Kirk, so dont label me a hater. But he was far more effective off the ball in college then when he was pg his first couple of years. plain and simple. you can question my college game habits, but unless you have season tickets to KU games, you probably didnt see more tape of him than I did. And no one was talking about Kirk has a pro prospect until he moved to the 2. Thats a fact. He can play, but will BC and Pax get off the PG comments. The triangle doesnt even have one. they are trying to sell us fans a lemmon.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> You got it DC. He can be effective in the triangle playing off the Ball! Perfect. someone gets it. unfortunately BC and pax are telling everyone he is Stockton. and that is a farce. and it sends the wrong message to the kid. he needs to play like he did in kansas. And he wasnt the PG at KU. Thats just a plain and simple fact


I agree to an extent, but I really do think the importance of the Stockton comparison might be being overplayed.

Who said this? Pippen and Gill principally, no? Management has hyped him to be sure, but I don't see how one can impute their opinions to be those of Pip and Gill unless the latter were under orders to throw that out there or something. And I'm not willing to buy into that kid of conspiracy theory yet.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I see:
* Looks to push the ball
* Playing tough and with 110% effort
* Getting his teammates involved, or as CCCP said, managing the offense

Those are all qualities that I see
1) Possessed by John Stockton 
2) Not possessed by any other current member of the Chicago Bulls- Pippen might have it for a five minute spurt here and there, but it's gonna be hard to rely on that.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> and what is kirks % in preseaon and last night combined?


Like you said earlier, what was Steve Nash's and Gary Payton's numbers at said point in career?



> plus wade as a hip pointer.


Kirk lost 12 pounds to the flu.



> I like Kirk, so dont label me a hater.


Never said you were a hater. I did say you are having a difficult time realizing that Kirk is a pretty good ballplayer.



> But he was far more effective off the ball in college then when he was pg his first couple of years. plain and simple.


Well, jeez. 11.5 points, 6.9 assists, 4.1 rebounds as a sophomore in his only full season playing point guard isn't effective? Anyone who has watched KU with regularity knows that Hinrich is best suited for, and excelled at, point guard.



> you can question my college game habits, but unless you have season tickets to KU games, you probably didnt see more tape of him than I did.


I have season tickets to KU games. I go to school here. Haven't missed a game in five years. And I tape and archive every single game on VHS (would be DVD, but I'm not that rich).



> And no one was talking about Kirk has a pro prospect until he moved to the 2. Thats a fact.


No, not really. Virtually every single NBA scout, GM and coach disagrees with your sentiment, as Hinrich was always predicted as an NBA point (almost exclusively so). And no one was talking about Kirk as a pro prospect until people started realizing that maybe, just maybe, a white kid from Iowa can in fact be athletic enough to make it in the League.

That, my friend, is a fact.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree to an extent, but I really do think the importance of the Stockton comparison might be being overplayed.
> ...


DC, great points. I also see a step slow and despite max effort, not that great a defender. shown by the foul out. And I see a kid who cant throw it into the ocean, though that will come around. When his shot comes, i doubt he will be the pass first guy everyone says he is. at KU, he certainly wasnt. and to be quite frank, we need him to knock down outside jumpers. a michael redd type would be a better fit for us then a stockton type. good debate however. much respect.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> i think Mason showed as much in the preseason as Kirk did. can that be denied? jamal as allstar level after the break last year, is kirk going to get to that level? probably not. Most pgs take 3-4 years to establish themselves. Sure there are anomolies, and it turns out most fail (mark jackson has never been as good as he was a rookie, neither has the kid from Indy). But Chauncey Billlups is damn good, he has been on 4 teams in 5 years. Steve Nash took 3-4 years. Sam Cassell wasnt a starter for 3 years. Gary Payton, yes Gary payton, took 3 years to establish himself. Tim hardaway took 2-3 years. the list goes on and on. Kirk will take that long atleast based on 2 reason. First off, he hasnt played the point for atleast 2 years. second, he is in some cockamemie offense that doesnt have a PG but he is told to play it. Thats like telling a football player to play goalie. there is no such thing. Its not kirks fault, its the organizations fault. and my guess is he will find his game, somewhere else.


As far as Mason, what can't be denied is that Bulls mgmt don't feel he can help the worst backcourt in the league, right? Or do we have any indication that he is really hurt and has been for some time?

I do agree that PGs take time. Not sure why I made a big deal if it's 2 years or 3-4. So why don't we give Kirk a month or so b/f we set cellings for him that are much lower than what Pax and BC are saying.

Unlike Craw and his expiring contract, Kirk has the luxury of time to find his game. In fact, I would say he is probably the second mostly likely guy to Chandler to be in a Bulls uni next year with or without BC.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Like you said earlier, what was Steve Nash's and Gary Payton's numbers at said point in career?
> ...


doing some part time scouting myself, i can tell you that no one in the NBA took him seriously as a first round pick til he moved to the 2 guard in college during his Jr year. And he played great. if it were anywhere else, most people would play him off the ball. But good scouting report. but its quite plain, due to your tone and your schooling, that you let your loyalties shadow the truth. Thats ok, 99% of the Bulls fans on all of these message boards, including myself, tend to overrate our own.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> how did we get Kirk as a stopper? he fouled out in 25 minutes. the effort was there. but he looked a step slow and had to reach a lot. lets not overrate the kid. he probably isnt any better a defender then Jwill. Jwill had far more footspeed and lateral quickness then this kid does. Though kirk is an inch taller ( not big deal) and longer (that is a big deal)


Have to disagree that Kirk looked a step slow. He looked a step faster than anyone else we have now.

JWill is gone and he isn't coming back. I think the height difference is more like 3 inches, but the main difference was defensive skill, not bility. Although he had superior athleticism, Jay didn't know what to do with it. He was a VERY bad defender. For most of the year he was worse than Jamal, and Jamal is still a Very bad defender.

Kirk, I wouldn't call him a stopper, but he looked good for a rookie in my book. Give him a couple years and I'd say he could be in the upper echelon of guys tasked with defending PGs.

Wade, well, I don't know that he's really gonna be a superstar. He did look like a good fit for us, but I still think it's way too early to tell. I mean, yeah, he's got a hip pointer, but Kirk probably lost ten pounds and a lot of time with that Flu. And what we would have had to give up to get wade is a matter of some question to say the least.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> As far as Mason, what can't be denied is that Bulls mgmt don't feel he can help the worst backcourt in the league, right? Or do we have any indication that he is really hurt and has been for some time?
> ...


johnston, i would actually say he is more likely then Chandler to be here. I would take it that far. But i am pointing out that Kirk isnt a savior. and alot of us are making him out to be. I have heard BC and pax make outlandish statements, and some posters refer to this kid as a good defensive player etc. He hustled last night, but wasnt particularly special. give him some time and he might be very good. but how many people actually make allstar games and go to the Hall of Fame? not many.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> I also see a step slow


You also see skin color.



> shown by the foul out.


Shown by the rookie calls/first NBA game.



> When his shot comes, i doubt he will be the pass first guy everyone says he is. at KU, he certainly wasnt.


At KU he certainly was. He deferred on so many shots, the battle cry of many KU fans throughout his career was "Just SHOOT IT, Kirk!". It was a commonly-held belief here throughout Lawrence that if Kirk had taken more shots (like, say, a true shooting guard takes), he'd have averaged 20 ppg quite easily his last two seasons at KU. He didn't, and the result (for better or worse) was quite successful.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Have to disagree that Kirk looked a step slow. He looked a step faster than anyone else we have now.
> ...


here is the bottom line. Is kirk as good a prospect as Jwill was last year? no. its not even close. and jwill really struggled. to expect Kirk to have an easy transition into the pro game is ludicrous. particularly with the mixed messages that he is recieving. It will take him 3-4 years like it takes every other top PG for the most part. and by that time, he is as likely to be here as he is likely to be elsewhere. 

by the way, the reason he looks a step faster then anyone on the Bulls is cause everyone on the Bulls, sans Chandler, is about 2-3 steps slow. you dont get 6 fouls in 25 minutes without reaching alot, and reaching usually indicates being a step slow. Though his viral illness may have costed him some lateral and foot speed. and his viral illness was far stronger then the flu. I will say that


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> doing some part time scouting myself, i can tell you that no one in the NBA took him seriously as a first round pick til he moved to the 2 guard in college during his Jr year.


How do you reconcile this statement with the fact that you actually believe J-Will was a good defender, that Kirk is "a step slow", that Kirk isn't a point guard, and that Kirk wasn't drafted to be a point guard, *despite glaring observations to the contrary?*

In addition, nobody here is saying Kirk is an All-Star. You're putting words into our mouths. Quit trying to back up your spurious claims by misrepresenting ours.

Does the fact that nearly every single person disagrees with you tell you _anything_?


----------



## Zeos (Jun 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> I agree to an extent, but I really do think the importance of the Stockton comparison might be being overplayed.
> 
> Who said this? Pippen and Gill principally, no?


No, actually. It was Cartwright as well.

Eddy's been compared to "baby shaq" how many times? People have just gotten over it. I imagine this will blow over as well.

People don't say Jason Kidd is like John Stockton. They have different games, but they DO posess many of the same skills and qualities, but there's still plenty of differences. Why not let it be at that? I dunno, I guess people need to get upset about something.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> You also see skin color.
> ...


Vincent, dont be fooled cause your a KU alum or student. and please dont infer racism by me cause I see a step slow. He frankly isnt as quick as you make him out to be. thats not racism. and i dont appreciate you inferring that.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

No offense rlucas, but if you're a part-time scout, I'm a part time astrophysicist.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> How do you reconcile this statement with the fact that you actually believe J-Will was a good defender, that Kirk is "a step slow", that Kirk isn't a point guard, and that Kirk wasn't drafted to be a point guard, *despite glaring observations to the contrary?*
> ...


You in particular are saying that he is going to be great, strongly inferring he will be right now. I am telling you he wont. most bull fans will defend their own to the death. thats not a good or bad thing. but its a fact. look at some of the people who actually said they would turn down a Dirk for Curry trade. maybe you ought to go back and read my posts. I like Kirk, but he isnt as good as Jwill, and Jwill didnt light the world on fire last year


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> No offense rlucas, but if you're a part-time scout, I'm a part time astrophysicist.


personally i dont care what you believe. Your a kid who supports KU people blindly. i can sense that. i guess Mark Randall was a world beater as well. and la frentz should be first team all nba?


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> You also see skin color.


Lets not go here,

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a racist. I think Kirk appeared a little slow at times because you could tell he was thinking on the court. It's not like we are talking about a Ron Artest here.

Your right, Lucas,

I did see Kirk force a couple of shots, but they were more of the driving out of control type. Standard rookie fare...not really bad decisions but just not understanding what is going on. I would like to think there is a deference between these type of shots and a vetran, who knows better, taking a hard shot with a man in his face--maybe theres not a difference...


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> You in particular are saying that he is going to be great, strongly inferring he will be right now.


No, no I am not. Please, for the love of God, quit putting words into my mouth.

Thank you.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> 
> 
> Lets not go here,
> ...


thanks cccp

to infer that i am a racist cause i think he was a step slow, a fact that i said might have been caused by his viral illness, is plain stupidity. read the posts. if anyone is guilty of anything, its guilty of liking someone cause of where you went to school. Kirk will be good, but its going to take him 3-4 years to establish himself. heck, stockton didnt even start til his 3rd year in the nba. and with the way things work now, he is as likely to be in Denver then in Chicago in 4 years. just a thought. last night, i attribute kirks shooting, and the occasional force to jitters. Jitters caused by his first game in the NBA, cause by the clubs struggles and he wanting to help and jitters caused by unrealistic expectations put on him by BC and Pax


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Sorry, but I sold all my old Jayhawk videos of Kirk at my last garage sale. It's a real stitch for me to read these critiques of Hinrich's college career followed by "take it to the bank" projections of how his pro career will turn out!

Michael Jordan averaged 17.7ppg over his three year college career. Sure, he was a helluva player for the TarHeels. But who in their right minds would have projected that he'd eventually be considered by many as the best NBA player of all time strictly off of his performance at North Carolina? 

In four seasons at Gonzaga, John Stockton averaged 12.5ppg and 5.2apg. During his rookie season he played in all 82 games _as a backup_ to starting point guard Rickey Green, and averaged 5.6 points in 18.2 minutes per game. He ended his pro career as the league's all-time leader in both assists and steals. And in '96 he was selected as one of the 50 greatest players in NBA history. Based on his college career and his rookie season could anyone have projected what kind of career he'd have as a pro?

The list of outstanding players who really came into their own *after* they turned pro goes on and on. Anyone who thinks they can project how good a player Hinrich will be long term based on his college career and 25 minutes of regular season experience is totally and completely full of pigeon poop.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

My apologies on the skin color comment. They were not warranted. (On the other hand, this is a legitimate topic, one that is often shyed away from but is worth talking about).



> personally i dont care what you believe. Your a kid who supports KU people blindly. i can sense that. i guess Mark Randall was a world beater as well. and la frentz should be first team all nba?


Nice stab at ad hominem, but it ain't flyin'. You can "sense" that? What are you, a Jedi?

And LaFrentz has loads of talent, but he's soft as ice cream and will never be anything even approaching All-Star level in the pros (even in the East) unless he grows a sac.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

By the way, it wasn't a "racist" insinuaton. That would be completely ridiculous. It was a "perception" or "stereotype" comment. Don't hyperbolize.

Pathos only works on the weak-minded.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

kismet, if that is directed at me, thats fair. but i am trying to lower expectations for this kid. its quite clear that he has skills and he busts his rump. Anyone who passes on a wedding so he can make 2 a days is a winner in my book. But he was far more effective in college as a 2. and he has struggled, not merely but mightily, on the ball, on offense, in the summer league, preseason and 25 minutes of a real game. So lets drop the expectations. Its going to take him a minimum of 3 years to find his niche. and its quite possible that in a what have you done for me lately league, such as we have now, that he might be dropping 25 for Seattle as he is for the Bulls. 

I didnt know that we had so many kansas resisdents here or I would temper my statements. I am not hating on the kid, just being a realist. it will take him a while. he isnt a savior, and likely never will be. he isnt a stopper, though his effort his admirable. and he really isnt a pg, atleast not a pure one like we have been told. and frankly, i am happy about that.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> By the way, it wasn't a "racist" insinuaton. That would be completely ridiculous. It was a "perception" or "stereotype" comment. Don't hyperbolize.
> 
> Pathos only works on the weak-minded.


only the weakminded make idiotic comments like that without reading the posts


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

I've got an idea.

How about we wait until after the game tonight to continue with this discussion? I think a second look at the kid is warranted, given the length of this thread. If Kirk looks less than what I've characterized him as, I'll gladly eat crow. I have no problems with admitting I'm wrong or giving props where props are due. I trust you'll do the same, rlucas.

Disclaimer: I might be too hammered by the end of the game to be able to access this site. I'm quite serious. Gotta lotta liquor to be drinkin' tonight.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Vincent, that is fair enough. It doesnt have to be ugly between us. I like that you support your own. Thats respectable. But to call me a liar and insinuate racism on my half is not fair. I havent said anything about Kirk that isnt true. and i really havent bashed the kid. If you look at any post that I have written about him, i said he could be another Joe Dumars (and Dumars was black if i remember correctly). And there is not too many Gs, not PG, not SGs, that i respect more then Dumars. He was old school. which Kirk is. My problem isnt with kirk, its the way that the club is portraying him. Where i live, you under promise and over deliver. But the bar has been raised so high by Pax and BC that there is a 99% chance he wont deliver. How many stocktons are out there? and he isnt even a stockton type. Its going to take 2 or 3 years for him. and he will be a good player. but if BC and Pax are gone before then, who is to say Kirk will be in Chicago either? again, my beef isnt with you, kirk or anyone from the great state of kansas, but rather with how the Bulls have handled him. Even Kirk was shocked that he was picked where he was.


----------



## Zeos (Jun 4, 2003)

I'm a Kansas resident, which means nothing except that I've probably watched a few more Kansas games than most.

IMO, between Gooden and Hinrich, I think Hinrich is the better player.

Which proves. . . absolutely nothing. I'd still take Paul Pierce over either of those two.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Even Kirk was shocked that he was picked where he was.


That's because, at the time, many analysts thought that Kirk would go to the Heat at #5 or the Bucks at #8. Any shock Kirk had was not because he never thought he was good enough to be in that position.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Miami did have serious interest at 5. I can also tell you that i heard 3 other teams in the lottery seriously considered him, and was prepared to draft him to play a combo 2 guard role. and all of those 3 teams hade GMs that were better then Pax or more established. again, not meant to be a shot at Kirk, cause it isnt, that is just what the rumor mill said about his game


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Miami did have serious interest at 5. I can also tell you that i heard 3 other teams in the lottery seriously considered him, and was prepared to draft him to play a combo 2 guard role. and all of those 3 teams hade GMs that were better then Pax or more established. again, not meant to be a shot at Kirk, cause it isnt, that is just what the rumor mill said about his game


I guess I don't see how drafting him can be considered a mistake then? So four other teams seriously considered him in the lottery, yet it's a mistake for us to? We NEED the skills he brings to the table. With Wade off the board, who else brought playmaking, shooting, and defense to the table?

Hayes is a shooter, but not a playmaker or a defender
Ford is a playmaker but not a shooter or defender
Pietrus is a defender but not a shooter or playmaker
Hinrich has a touch of being all three.

Now, looking in retrospect, what did the Bulls need most? Well, obviously they're shooting like Garbage, but that'll pick up. Rose, Crawford, Gill, Pip, Marshall... those guys all know how to hit open shots. 

Playmaking? Well, we've got a lot of guys who look like auxillary PGs to me, but none of them look very good at really managing a game. So that's a need.

Defense? We're a sieve. And defending against opposing 1s is a problem especially. So that's a need too.

So how do we address those needs? Pietrus very well might be a lock down wing defender, and that's good, but would he help us with initiating the offense at all? And is defense on the wing the key problem? Or less of a problem than letting opposing teams run whatever they want on us and have their way in transition? If it's the latter problem, it seems to me that the more pressing need is defense at the point of attack.

KH was the only guy available that could potentially fill all the needs. Wade is a similar guy, but he was off the board and I'm not going to assume it was given we could have made an acceptable deal to trade up and get him.



> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> The list of outstanding players who really came into their own after they turned pro goes on and on.


I tend to agree with this. Taking the JWill argument a step further, yeah, Jay was widely regarded as a better prospect coming out, and he struggled, but that doesn't mean that KH or anyone is going to follow that pattern.

Squalid El-Amin didn't just get time over Crawford as a rookie because Floyd didn't like Jamal. He got that time because at that point, Squalid was a better ball player and Floyd was doing his mis-guided best to win games. Never mind that with PT, Jamal quickly surpassed him, the point is that just because a guy is a better prospect or even a better player in college doesn't mean there's a linear translation going into the pros.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

It's crazy that Hinrich has only been with us for three years. 

Feels like he's already been a Bull for 5+.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Wow. Did BC or Pax really call KH a Stockton-type?

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=732002&postcount=11
http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=734337&postcount=67


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

This thread is equal parts vindication and embarrassment.


----------

