# Larry Hughes> Jamal Crawford



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Do you guys agree with me on this? Look at last seasons stats:

Hughes- 31 minutes, 13 ppg, 5 rebounds, 3 assists, 47% FG, 37% on 3 pointers, 1.3 spg

Crawford- 25 minutes, 10 ppg, 2 rebounds, 4 assists, 41% FG, 1.0 spg

I'm not just talking about a PG, I'm talking about as a player. Hughes is only one year older than Crawford, and has already had a 22ppg season, and a season of 17 ppg, 5 assists, 5 rebounds. Hughes came off the bench for the second half of the season, and still maintained those stats. It's just funny to me that Chicago fans are talking about Crawford being better than Arenas, but he's not even better than Hughes.


----------



## NorthEast Wiz (Jul 16, 2002)

Ask me who I would want on my team and I would honestly say Jamal. Based on what happened at the end of last year he has nice potential. 

I am a Larry 'Boogie' Hughes fan but I am still not sure of his natural position. Not a good enough shooter to be a starter (at least on the wiz) at the 2, handle not good enough for a full time 1 and not the size for the 3, although I think would be his best position if he had a couple more inches.

As far as Jamal and Arenas. I like Arenas.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

Crawford like Hughes has a ton of talent but rubs people the wrong way. Seems to have an attitude problem both seem to never endear themselves to coaches very strange. 

Crawford I think could become a superstar with a coach that believed in him. He's lightening fast as a 6'7 player. He has good crossover moves and he can shoot it as well as pass it. Crawford's problem is between the ears he seems to have that chip that teammates don't mond but coaches can't stand. Crawford I think is alittle to preoccupied with getting numbers.I love his talent though. 

Hughes isn't as physically talented as Crawford but is as skilled . Hughes is another guy coaches dislike. He's a tweener who is productive. Another guy who wants numbers too much.

Arenas is better than both. He's a competitor who's more interested in winning than anything. He has a nasty streak that coaches love. He's tough and doesn't complain. He's just as athletic as either of the other guys. He attacks all the time. 

He's the far superior player.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Look at Hughes numbers the second half of his sophmore season and compare them to Crawfords minutes post all-star break last year.

Two gunners putting up big numbers on crappy teams that are tanking the year.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

I'd take Crawford. However, if I play Hughes at 2, I'd take him. At 1, I'd take Jamal. But Jamal, IMO has more potential. Hughes has shown zip ability to play 1, but has done well at 2, except for bad shooting.


----------



## local_sportsfan (Jul 24, 2002)

Zip ability to play the 1? Nonsense. Larry played the 1 well last season. He brought the ball up with no problems, ran the break decently, and distributed about as well as he could under our horribly ineffective offense. 

He would be great with on a team like Orlando, Atlanta, or side by side with Crawford in Chicago.

Is he better than Crawford...right now he is. Everyone talks about Crawford's good month and a half of basketball (in March and April), when Larry was putting up 16 points, 7 rebs, and 3 assists in December and 14 points, 6 rebs, and 4 assists in January (in meaningful games). Not to mention Larry is twice the defender at the one than Crawford is.

JCraw is definitely a better prosepct at the 1 than Larry is. he has a very nice stroke from the 3, and great handles. He's not much of a passer though, so Ill be interested in seeing how he plays with Rose Curry who both need the ball in their hands in order to be effective.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>local_sportsfan</b>!
> Zip ability to play the 1? Nonsense. Larry played the 1 well last season. He brought the ball up with no problems, ran the break decently, and distributed about as well as he could under our horribly ineffective offense.
> 
> He would be great with on a team like Orlando, Atlanta, or side by side with Crawford in Chicago.


Sorry but that was funny . Sorry if I was rude there. Just looking at stats themselves, Lue had a A/TO ratio of 3.42, while Hughes' was 1.51. If he WAS so great however, I think he would've started all the games possible (had a right ankle injury though) and the Wiz probably wouldnt have chased Arenas. On top of that, when he was with the Warriors, I watched a lot of him. At first I was hyped,...then I didnt like him anymore, then he lost the job to Arenas (I think, pretty sure it was that year, either way he was benched) and he never really played...


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> Look at Hughes numbers the second half of his sophmore season and compare them to Crawfords minutes post all-star break last year.
> 
> Two gunners putting up big numbers on crappy teams that are tanking the year.


Interesting outlook. But its agreeable. A guy like Ricky Davis, what kind of numbers would he put up on a playoff team?

-Petey


----------



## Ben1 (May 20, 2003)

Larry Hughes is alot more effective and consistant than Jamal Crawford so far IMO. 

But then, JC's got alot more potential than Hughes. And if i'm to pick one of them to be on my team, I'd take Crawford. He can be real good, which he has shown before for a period of time, but just needs to be more consistant.


----------



## hps (Jul 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>local_sportsfan</b>!
> He's not much of a passer though, so Ill be interested in seeing how he plays with Rose Curry who both need the ball in their hands in order to be effective.


I disagree about Crawford not being much of a passer.

In March and April he averaged 6.7 and 6.5 assists to go with 15.9 and 23.0 PPG in 31.4 and 37.0 minutes respectively.


----------



## Nmage (Aug 19, 2003)

Larry Hughes' 2002/03 3pt % is deceptive. He only took 79 Three's to Jamal's 242. Kind of makes a difference.

Larry's career 3pt % (23% or so) is horrible in the Bill Walton tone of voice. And Jamal has taken nearly as many 3pt's in '3yrs. as Larry has in '5yrs. Jamal's career 3pt % = 37%

164 Games Played = Crawford = 417 Three-Pointers Attempted
322 " " " " " " " = L. Hughes = 424 Three-Pointers Attempted

Sad to say, as someone on another site once dubbed, Larry Hughes is a SG who can't shoot. (At least that was their opinio from when he was in Philly and GS.)


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Hughes was our most consistent shooter last year easily in my opinion. He may not have great three point range, but I would count on a mid ranger jumper from him going in moreso than any other player on our squad.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

If Hughes is better than Crawford then why is Hughes playing for his third team? He is playing for his third team because his potential has consisitently exceeded his results. He really is a 2 and not a PG but he doesn't shoot as well as a starter should. He is also inconsistent. No way can anyone say Crawford is as good as Arenas is. This year Crawford has no excuse so we will see how good he really is. At the end of last season Crawford looked like a carbon copy of Arenas. The difference being Arenas did it all year. The Wiz did well getting Gilbert. Hughes is a lifetime #7 player on a good team or perhaps a starter on a not so good team.


----------



## Natty Dreadlockz (Jul 21, 2003)

> Hughes is a lifetime #7 player on a good team or perhaps a starter on a not so good team.


Nah... That's a lil bit of a stretch... Crawford woulda been on his way out if J-Will didn't **** himself up too... Peace


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

We should have a good idea of who is better by the All Star break. My money is on Crawford > Hughes but Arenas > Crawford. J Williams learned a lot last season and probably was going to have a great year. Hope his tragedy makes other people think twice about the dangerous things they do


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

I'm not saying I think Hughes is better than Crawford at all (I think quite the opposite), but you won't be able to judge it by what they put up this year. Hughes will probably play 28 MPG as a backup SG (IE ball not in his hands primarily), whereas Crawford will probably get 34 MPG as his team's primary ball handler. Obviously, Crawford will be putting up better numbers and will be getting more attention.


----------



## DownUnderWonder (May 27, 2003)

I like Larry Hughes. If Eddie Jordan runs a 3-guard rotation (with Arenas and Stack) I think the Wiz will do pretty well this year, especially if Kwame breaks out. He is a good athletic 1/2 and he will be a good "sparkplug" if used wisely. I think Jordan will be able to calm Stacks ego down and I think this will mean nothing but good things for DC.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

You act like Larry Hughes is a complete scrub, when he was at times the best wizard after Jordan last year...and sometimes he was just flat out the best wizard. He took a role last year, and up until Doug Collins kind of lost his mind about things, Hughes was scoring, defending, and rebounding at good rates on a team that was in the thick of things for the playoff race.

You may find out that Arenas isn't all that much better than Hughes.

As far as Hughes and Crawford...isn't Crawford taller than Hughes? And your stats that you showed only have Hughes as being marginally better than Crawford last year. After seeing what he did after the all-star break with some truly monster games, I like Crawfords potential.

It's not like Hughes doesn't have potential either though. I think you're selling him short just because Arenas is the new bright and shiny thing in town. If Hughes plays to HIS potential he can be a very good player. Better than Arenas.


----------



## alchemist (Apr 11, 2003)

Both Hughes and Crawford are listed at 6'5". They're also quite thin, I believe Crawford is 175 and Hughes is 184.

For his size, Hughes is an unbelievable rebounder. For a stretch of games last year, he was out leading rebounder, and averaged 9 a game over about 7 games. That's outstanding, much better than our 7', 270 lb. starting center, Brendan Haywood.


----------



## local_sportsfan (Jul 24, 2002)

Gil is an offensive force. He had a better year last season than Hughes' best season, so I can't really see how Hughes can be any better.


----------



## Natty Dreadlockz (Jul 21, 2003)

> Gil is an offensive force. He had a better year last season than Hughes' best season, so I can't really see how Hughes can be any better.


How'd Crawford have a better season?... Hughes #'s(12.8ppg..1.28stls..3.1ast..4.6rbs.. .467fg%.. .367(3pt-fg%) vs. Crawford's #'s(10.7ppg.. .96stls..4.2ast..2.3rbs.. .413fg%.. .355(3pt-fg%)... And no Crawford hasn't had one season where he put up better #'s than Hughes best season... I ain't even gonna ask ya to look at both's career number's.. Cuz Crawford ain't even close... I understand why peep's are hype'n Crawford but he had what?... A good end to last season?... That don't mean ****... The Wiz were fight'n for the playoffs for the better part of the year, let alone tryin to satisfy two cat's who needed the rock to score in MJ and Stack while he ran the point... IMO... Hughes is the better player and has jus as much potential as Crawford... Peace


----------



## alchemist (Apr 11, 2003)

I agree. I think Hughes can be a real offensive force if he is playing the two, and if he is on a team where he can get significant touches. Last year, anyone outside of Jordan or Stackhouse wasn't getting their hands on that ball.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Well, I'm bumping this thread to get everyone's thoughts on this topic now that we've seen Hughes at his natural posistion.


The numbers are:
Crawford:
PPG	14.5	
RPG	2.6	
APG	5.1	
SPG	1.07	
BPG	.29	
FG%	.418	
FT%	.871	
3P%	.400	
MPG	29.9

Hughes
PPG 17.3
RPG 4.9
APG 2.1
SPG .93
BPG .33
FG % 41
FT% 771
3P% .410
MPG 32.3

Hughes is better in almost every statistical category, plays only 3 more minutes a game, and has already hit a game winner. My original argument was that Hughes could be the better player, not the better pg. What are everyone's thoughts now?


----------



## CP26 (May 8, 2003)

Hughes is playing like an MVP!!


----------



## twinz2gether (May 24, 2003)

dude how can u say crawford is better than hughes! this year hughes is doing way better stat wise there shouldn't even be comparison.


----------



## Nobull1 (Oct 6, 2002)

*Update*

Jamal 
PPG 16.8 
RPG 3.0 
APG 5.3 +
SPG 1.45 +
BPG .35 +
FG% .426+ 
FT% .848 +
3P% .402 +
MPG 32.6 
TO 2.64

PPG 17.7 +
RPG 5.2 +
APG 2.1 
SPG 1.00 
BPG .30 
FG% .407 
FT% .796 
3P% .371 
TO 2.45
MPG 32.8
Hughes loses all but two catagories
Maybe Jamal is better


----------



## Natty Dreadlockz (Jul 21, 2003)

The only stat's that matter are the one's at the end of the season.


----------



## Nobull1 (Oct 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> Well, I'm bumping this thread to get everyone's thoughts on this topic now that we've seen Hughes at his natural posistion.
> 
> 
> ...



Now it is the end of the season when the numbers do not support Hughes.


----------



## Natty Dreadlockz (Jul 21, 2003)

Whatcha talking about dirty?... I didn't post that?... To be honest wit ya... I really don't care for either's game... The main reason I respect Hughes, is because we grew up battling on the hardcourt against one another... At season's end, come holla about Crawford's amazing stat's... Right now, it mean's nothing to me... Other than the fact that Craw's playing better than Hughes right now, which was the other way around when da Kid posted.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Hmm Hughes had 38 points and 4 steals tonight, is Crawford really playing better then him?


----------



## Natty Dreadlockz (Jul 21, 2003)

> is Crawford really playing better then him?


NOPE!


----------



## Nobull1 (Oct 6, 2002)

Yeah right He just got killed last night 42 baby


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Ha I was wondering how long it'd take for someone to bump up this thread after Crawford's game last night.


----------



## Natty Dreadlockz (Jul 21, 2003)

> Yeah right He just got killed last night 42 baby


Congratulation's


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Well Crawford did run off 19 straight points on Juan Dixon, but no doubt Crawford won that individual matchup.

Fact is, Hughes will go back to being the #2 option on Tuesday and Crawford will remain the #1 option on his team.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Hughes is the better shooter, defender, and rebounder. Jamaal is great, but he's inconsistent, and shoots way too much at the PG spot. And if you put Craw at the 2, he isn't affective because his stats are minimal. Hughes is more explosive, and a much sweeter shooter, though neither do much else, I give the nod to Larry.

So...

Hughes > Crawford

P.S. it took forever and about 3 teams for Larry to get some props.

P.S. 2-Eagle, you really played with/against Larry? I just remembered he is from St. Louis....so the story checks out......


----------

