# Have you seen this?! (Rudy Gay video)



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

HYPE THEM UP USING VIDEO! 

Rudy Gay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTfHMilglsk
Video Rating 10!! 
OMG this video just makes me want to take this guy right away lol. 

Damn i hate watching highlight videos so close to the draft because they just totally make me second guess my picks. I also saw the Bargnani video and yes that video also makes him look like a god!


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: OT:Have you seen this?!*

I could put together a video of Juan Dixson that would make him look like the next Reggie Miller...

That same video sold me on Rudy until I saw his full games lol


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

*Re: OT:Have you seen this?!*

that was an awesome mixtape!!!!!!! jaw dropping.

best thing after the highlights, was the music, does anyone know from which movie it is (or title/artist)


----------



## Tommyo22 (Jun 5, 2006)

*Re: OT:Have you seen this?!*

I'm a pretty big University of Louisville fan, so I watched him play UL twice and I kept up with him because he's in the Big East. At the beginning of the year, I would have loved to get him on the Bulls Team. But after watching him, he just doesn't have the consistency. I don't even know a good player to compare him to other than a Lamar Oldom type without the handles or shot. Do you all think he will amount to much in the pros?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

When hes on there is no one in college or at the highschool level that is better then Rudy Gay. It just frustrates me to no end to see him play like Grant Hill one day then play like Ruben Patterson the next day. Gay is right up there with Lebron in terms of potential.


----------



## goblue2525 (May 24, 2006)

Gay seemed to play extremely well until Marcus Williams came back. It was a problem because for the most part both needed the ball in their hands to be productive. I still would like his fit with the Bulls because he has superstar potential, not at the #2 pick but if he drops out of the top 7-8 he is a very good gamble.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

goblue2525 said:


> Gay seemed to play extremely well until Marcus Williams came back. It was a problem because for the most part both needed the ball in their hands to be productive. I still would like his fit with the Bulls because he has superstar potential, not at the #2 pick but if he drops out of the top 7-8 he is a very good gamble.


Good gamble? If he falls out of the top 10 it would be a miracle! No way does gay drop past 5, there is just no way 5 teams are going to pass up on him. I think taking Roy at #2 is more of a gamble then taking Gay at the same spot.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

From that, I learned that he can dunk.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> HYPE THEM UP USING VIDEO!
> 
> Rudy Gay
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTfHMilglsk
> ...


Vince Carter Dominique Wilkens like.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Didn't see hardly anything like that during Bulls' games last season.

Sorely missing.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

The Bulls had to be dead last in dunks last year. We did well offensively without getting a whole lot of easy buckets. Think what a real finisher would do for our offense?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Didn't see hardly anything like that during Bulls' games last season.
> 
> Sorely missing.


The closest thing was Ben Gordon's reverse two handed dunk and that would have scored a 4 out 10 in a dunk contest. If Rudy Gay the stuff he did on the video for the Bulls we are talking about putting an extra 8,000 fans in the seats night after night.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> The closest thing was Ben Gordon's reverse two handed dunk and that would have scored a 4 out 10 in a dunk contest. If Rudy Gay the stuff he did on the video for the Bulls we are talking about putting an extra 8,000 fans in the seats night after night.



I am not sure there are 8000 empty seats at the UC but I agree in principle. The Bulls are boring, both on and off the court. Getting an electrifying player like this helps alot. Getting a guy who can actually talk to the press and deliver a zinger would also be good.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

The last thing I would have in my mind is being an "exciting" team. And whats the definition of that? A team that loses 60 regular season games but gets 20 alleyoop dunks?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> The last thing I would have in my mind is being an "exciting" team. And whats the definition of that? A team that loses 60 regular season games but gets 20 alleyoop dunks?


The Bulls have been relatively successful but there are still a ton of empty seats at the UC. There is very little buzz. Its quite boring really. WGN Ratings were down big time this year. Great teams carry an aura that they can do anything. You dont quite get that with this club. So yes, getting an exciting finisher actually helps the team and it helps business.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> The Bulls have been relatively successful but there are still a ton of empty seats at the UC. There is very little buzz. Its quite boring really. WGN Ratings were down big time this year. Great teams carry an aura that they can do anything. You dont quite get that with this club. So yes, getting an exciting finisher actually helps the team and it helps business.


Getting Duncan would do that for the Bulls and I wouldnt put him in the "exciting" players board. And why is that?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> The Bulls have been relatively successful but there are still a ton of empty seats at the UC. There is very little buzz. Its quite boring really. WGN Ratings were down big time this year. Great teams carry an aura that they can do anything. You dont quite get that with this club. So yes, getting an exciting finisher actually helps the team and it helps business.


Nocioni is the most exciting finisher we have. He dunks when the opportunity is there. It really isn't that exciting. It isn't that exciting to watch him flop, either.

:biggrin:


----------



## SianTao (Jul 11, 2005)

El Chapu said:


> The last thing I would have in my mind is being an "exciting" team. And whats the definition of that? A team that loses 60 regular season games but gets 20 alleyoop dunks?


Yea, definition would be Atlanta. Speaking of which, there's no way Gay is dropping past #5.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

SianTao said:


> Yea, definition would be Atlanta. Speaking of which, there's no way Gay is dropping past #5.


And we dont want that in Chicago.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Nocioni is the most exciting finisher we have. He dunks when the opportunity is there. It really isn't that exciting. It isn't that exciting to watch him flop, either.
> 
> :biggrin:



Seriously the Bulls, sans Eddy Curry, havent delievered a facial in nearly 3 seasons. The last one I can remember was Hinrich actually dunking on Lebron. That generated some buzz. That carried the Bulls to a win that night. I heard that was the loudest the UC had been since the Jordan days. If thats a bad thing, then give me more of it. 

I get a kick out of the flopping actually. I find it amusing. Its an Argentinian thing, no offense to Chapu. If you watch Argentinian soccer, the first time they feel contact they go with the most dramatic dives. Noc clearly comes from the same school. Sometimes it works, Divac and Rodman got away with it, so I hope he continues it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

SianTao said:


> Yea, definition would be Atlanta. Speaking of which, there's no way Gay is dropping past #5.



Or Miami, or Dallas, or Phoenix? Lots of exciting plays, lots of dunks, lots of easy buckets, and not lots of empty seats.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> Seriously the Bulls, sans Eddy Curry, havent delievered a facial in nearly 3 seasons. The last one I can remember was Hinrich actually dunking on Lebron. That generated some buzz. That carried the Bulls to a win that night. I heard that was the loudest the UC had been since the Jordan days. If thats a bad thing, then give me more of it.
> 
> I get a kick out of the flopping actually. I find it amusing. Its an Argentinian thing, no offense to Chapu. If you watch Argentinian soccer, the first time they feel contact they go with the most dramatic dives. Noc clearly comes from the same school. Sometimes it works, Divac and Rodman got away with it, so I hope he continues it.


And how many facials did Curry delivered? Not many for a guy his size. I remember one pretty good against Golden State @ UC.

And the flop thing is no offense, its a fact.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> Or Miami, or Dallas, or Phoenix? Lots of exciting plays, lots of dunks, lots of easy buckets, and not lots of empty seats.


Maybe you would like to take a look:

http://www.insidehoops.com/attendance.shtml


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Didn't see hardly anything like that during Bulls' games last season.
> 
> Sorely missing.


Didn't see hardly anything like that in 10 or so full games that I saw him playing.

Sorely disappointed. :biggrin:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> And how many facials did Curry delivered? Not many for a guy his size. I remember one pretty good against Golden State @ UC.
> 
> And the flop thing is no offense, its a fact.



Curry must have been dunking the ball quite a bit, he was always in the top 10 in FG%. I remember him giving Shaq a facial as well. I cant recall Tyson ever delivering one in the last 3 years, I have to go back to a game against Portland to think of the last one he gave. Deng should be capable of giving them on a regular basis, but we just dont see it for whatever reason. Its one of the issues I have with his game.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> Curry must have been dunking the ball quite a bit, he was always in the top 10 in FG%. I remember him giving Shaq a facial as well. I cant recall Tyson ever delivering one in the last 3 years, I have to go back to a game against Portland to think of the last one he gave. Deng should be capable of giving them on a regular basis, but we just dont see it for whatever reason. Its one of the issues I have with his game.


I dont see players like Manu Ginobili doing it either and I think he is pretty efective when penetrating. As long as the ball gets in, thats all that counts.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> Maybe you would like to take a look:
> 
> http://www.insidehoops.com/attendance.shtml



I know the stat Chapu. But they were also #1 in attendance when they were dead last in the league. How many games do you get to go too? I went to 4 last year. All were sell outs. And all basically had the 3rd level totally empty, Id guess 4000-5000 seats on average. Most of the seats are sold well in advance to corporate ticket holders, but there arent alot of people stepping up to go to the games. I also went to see 4 Knick games this year and for a piss poor team, they always had more capacity filled then the UC. I dont know how you can explain that other then the product on the floor, while technically solid, isnt very entertaining.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> I dont see players like Manu Ginobili doing it either and I think he is pretty efective when penetrating. As long as the ball gets in, thats all that counts.


Manu Ginobili throws them down from time to time. My guess is that he probably had more dunks then the our backcourt did combined x 5. Again, the dunk is the highest % shot in basketball. And its an exciting play. Energizes a crowd, a team, and intimidates the other team. If you dont think thats a good thing to have in your arsenal then I just cant continue on this thread anymore. I look at 3 of the final 4 this year and all play an exciting brand of basketball that creates a ton of easy buckets. So it quite clearly works for them.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> I am not sure there are 8000 empty seats at the UC but I agree in principle. The Bulls are boring, both on and off the court. Getting an electrifying player like this helps alot. Getting a guy who can actually talk to the press and deliver a zinger would also be good.


I hope Paxson is considering wins, not potential dunk contest points, when selecting players in this draft.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> Manu Ginobili throws them down from time to time. My guess is that he probably had more dunks then the our backcourt did combined x 5. Again, the dunk is the highest % shot in basketball. And its an exciting play. Energizes a crowd, a team, and intimidates the other team. If you dont think thats a good thing to have in your arsenal then I just cant continue on this thread anymore. I look at 3 of the final 4 this year and all play an exciting brand of basketball that creates a ton of easy buckets. So it quite clearly works for them.


Manu Ginobili dunks come pretty much in fastbreaks, he is not the same player back at Bologna that would throw it down consistently. 

And regarding attendance, as long as the Bulls sell them out, you can do anything about it. You bring Rudy Gay, for example, and the number will be the same.

I want a winner, not an exciting team. If we can accomplish both of them, the better.

And "exciting" can vary from person to person. Same as boring. There are guys that love watching teams like San Antonio or Dallas, and others that fell asleep within 5 minutes of the 1st quarter.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> I hope Paxson is considering wins, not potential dunk contest points, when selecting players in this draft.



Again, I think people are making it sound mutually exclusive, including this post. It isnt. You can have both. But there is an element that is missing to the Bulls. Easy buckets, a player who can generate buzz, bring excitement back to the city and the stadium etc. Certainly Dallas, Phoenix and Miami play exciting basketball with finishers, dunks and wide open basketball. I dont see them complaining.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> I hope Paxson is considering wins, not potential dunk contest points, when selecting players in this draft.


Both is ideal.

In fact, having a guy who can take it to the rim with authority means easier baskets, more sure baskets, and should translate into more wins.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Both is ideal.
> 
> In fact, having a guy who can take it to the rim with authority means easier baskets, more sure baskets, and should translate into more wins.


Exactly

I cant understand why people dont understand that the dunk is the highest % shot in basketball and brings so much more to a game then just 2 points in alot of cases.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

The gay facial!!!


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Having one dunker on the team does not make the rest of the team better finishers.

Adding Gay would only add as many easy baskets as Gay can score for himself (likely 2-3 per game). Does that small percentage out of 80 or so team FGA justify passing on a better player who does not finish as dramatically?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> The gay facial!!!



Hahaha


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Might I point out that, just these last two seasons, we saw Sweetney over Zo, Deng over Yao, Gordon all over Varejao, Kirk on Ilgauskas, Tyson over an assortment of players many times, even Antonio Davis on Kenny Thomas.

We don't need a huge big time dunker just to have a huge big time dunker. We need effective alla round players. If Gay is this too, then woo, but that's not what's being debated.


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

I think Gay may be underrated on this board. I do buy in the argument that he was in a very talented team and that the ball needed to be distributed between 5 good players. That makes it easier for players to disappear on given nights.

Bottom line, Gay is still a super-athletic player who played in a rigorous system. That may prepare him for the NBA.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

AS long as the ball gets in, thats all that matters for me. A dunk has the same impact as a BG 3 pointer down the stretch. 

Win. Thats all.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Having one dunker on the team does not make the rest of the team better finishers.



Totally disagree. If you, Magic Johnson and James Worthy are working a 3 on one fast break, who do you think they are going to think the pass is going to? Probably not you. Means your going to get a clean look at a shot. Now if its Magic Johnson, Me and You on a 3 on one fast break, your odds of success are going to be far less. A guy who can finish is going to get extra attention. And the more attention one guy gets means the easier it is for the other guys to get open looks.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Totally disagree. If you, Magic Johnson and James Worthy are working a 3 on one fast break, who do you think they are going to think the pass is going to? Probably not you. Means your going to get a clean look at a shot. Now if its Magic Johnson, Me and You on a 3 on one fast break, your odds of success are going to be far less. A guy who can finish is going to get extra attention. And the more attention one guy gets means the easier it is for the other guys to get open looks.


Having a spot-up spread the floor on a fast break also helps finishers. I don't see people clamoring to add another shooter. 

I agree that the team needs to get more athletic. I just don't think that they should draft a dunker when another player is better.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> Totally disagree. If you, Magic Johnson and James Worthy are working a 3 on one fast break, who do you think they are going to think the pass is going to? Probably not you. Means your going to get a clean look at a shot. Now if its Magic Johnson, Me and You on a 3 on one fast break, your odds of success are going to be far less. A guy who can finish is going to get extra attention. And the more attention one guy gets means the easier it is for the other guys to get open looks.


Problem is that in the NBA you are playing against proffesional guys, not me or you.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Having a spot-up spread the floor on a fast break also helps finishers. I don't see people clamoring to add another shooter.
> 
> I agree that the team needs to get more athletic. I just don't think that they should draft a dunker when another player is better.



Your 100% correct. Good shooters help as well. But we have plenty of that already. Thats why no one is talking about that. A good finisher, particularly in transition, is one thing this team is missing. Id also like to have a player we can throw the ball to and who can get the tough buckets in traffic, either through a dunk or just bullying his way to the hoop or by getting to the line. Nocioni might be or already is that player. We just dont know. But sometimes, at the end of the shotclock, in a big game, you need a guy who can generate those difficult sets in a halfcourt game. We saw the Bulls fail in this regard in that game in Miami. Gordon can get his own shot, but not really anything going to the basket. Noc might be the guy. But I would love to get a guy can really finish at the rim, play above the rim, and who can get to the bucket to generate those type of points, either through dunks or at the FT line.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> Problem is that in the NBA you are playing against proffesional guys, not me or you.



Chapu, please tell me you get the point Lets use a real NBA example

Hinrich is in the middle of the fast break and he has Gordon on his left and he wants to get him the ball. Who is going to get him a cleaner look? Songailia OR, and for argument sake, Josh Smith? I would argue Smith gets him the open look. Why? Because Smith can finish at the rim. And the dunk is the highest % shot in basketball. And most teams dont want to concede the dunk because it ignites the home crowd and is a momentum starter. Do you see the point I am trying to make? Gordon clearly gets a much cleaner look with a Josh Smith then he does with a Songailia or a Duhon. Its the exact same example. Who do you think TD wants to run the fast break with? Rlucas or James Worthy? I think the answer is fairly obvious that TD is going to get a cleaner look with Worthy.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I think we need a type of player like Rudy Gay who can just demoralize a team with a dunk. How many times this year have we seen this Bulls team come back from a 10+ point deficit to only go on like a 0-10 slump after the other teams star threw down a nasty dunk.

P.S. Is it just me or does anyone else think the Bulls lead the league in blown fast breaks, Layups and blown Dunks?


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> Chapu, please tell me you get the point Lets use a real NBA example
> 
> Hinrich is in the middle of the fast break and he has Gordon on his left and he wants to get him the ball. Who is going to get him a cleaner look? Songailia OR, and for argument sake, Josh Smith? I would argue Smith gets him the open look. Why? Because Smith can finish at the rim. And the dunk is the highest % shot in basketball. And most teams dont want to concede the dunk because it ignites the home crowd and is a momentum starter. Do you see the point I am trying to make? Gordon clearly gets a much cleaner look with a Josh Smith then he does with a Songailia or a Duhon. Its the exact same example. Who do you think TD wants to run the fast break with? Rlucas or James Worthy? I think the answer is fairly obvious that TD is going to get a cleaner look with Worthy.


But its about knowing who to get the ball to and when. Its not about the player, when we are talking Deng, Nocioni or Gordon. As long as you know how to take advantage of it (and its not about basketball skills), you are going to be succesful. We are talking about 3 against 1 situations. If an NBA player doesnt know how to get the easy points, well...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

If you are going to be finishing in traffic, it sure as hell helps to be able to dunk on someone. 

I hear people complaining about our small guards not taking it to the hole enough and when they do they heave up lame floaters. GIANT KILLER!!! ARRGHGHGHGHGHH!!!!! hack hack reach for lozenge. They put up those lame floaters because they have to. If you can take it up strong and throw it down on someone, you are getting a high percentage shot, much higher than a floater and also you are not having to rely on the ref to bail you out as much...... the hard attack to the basket often results in a clear foul... and sometimes you can still throw it down... with the floater you are avoiding contact.

And, you have the whole psychological impact of the dunk as well. You are invading the other team's lane and ransacking their basket. You are imposing your will on the other team. A pull up jumper does not have the same effect.

We could use a guy like this.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> But its about knowing who to get the ball to and when. Its not about the player, when we are talking Deng, Nocioni or Gordon. As long as you know how to take advantage of it (and its not about basketball skills), you are going to be succesful. We are talking about 3 against 1 situations. If an NBA player doesnt know how to get the easy points, well...


4 on 3, 3 on 2, 2 on 1. 3 against 2 on the weakside. Anyway you look at it, your always better off atleast having the option of throwing a lob or taking it to the basket and finishing with power. Why? Because the dunk is the highest probability shot in basketball. That can not be argued. Even having that option gets guys like Hinrich and Gordon more open looks. Its not rocket science. NBA teams are told not to condede the dunk on the road. But we barely have the option. I cant see how anyone would think we would be better off not having that option.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Certainly Dallas, Phoenix and Miami play exciting basketball with finishers, dunks and wide open basketball. I dont see them complaining.



The only superior, dunk contest level dunkers on those three teams are Wade and Marion. 

I can name you plenty of bad teams with better dunkers.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> If you are going to be finishing in traffic, it sure as hell helps to be able to dunk on someone.
> 
> I hear people complaining about our small guards not taking it to the hole enough and when they do they heave up lame floaters. GIANT KILLER!!! ARRGHGHGHGHGHH!!!!! hack hack reach for lozenge. They put up those lame floaters because they have to. If you can take it up strong and throw it down on someone, you are getting a high percentage shot, much higher than a floater and also you are not having to rely on the ref to bail you out as much...... the hard attack to the basket often results in a clear foul... and sometimes you can still throw it down... with the floater you are avoiding contact.
> 
> ...



For Gods sake, reason has arrived. Thanks

You pointed out something in this thread that I tried to but no one talked about. Guys who can get to the rim and dunk also tend to live at the FT line. What was the biggest complaint from our coaches and players this year, they didnt get to the line enough. Why not? Because the Bulls didnt have a guy who could just power it over people


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> 4 on 3, 3 on 2, 2 on 1. 3 against 2 on the weakside. Anyway you look at it, your always better off atleast having the option of throwing a lob or taking it to the basket and finishing with power. Why? Because the dunk is the highest probability shot in basketball. That can not be argued. Even having that option gets guys like Hinrich and Gordon more open looks. Its not rocket science. NBA teams are told not to condede the dunk on the road. But we barely have the option. I cant see how anyone would think we would be better off not having that option.


Well, 3 is more than 2. Who can argue that? But talking about it as if we must kill to get someone like that...we went from excitment, to attendance, to this.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> The only superior, dunk contest level dunkers on those three teams are Wade and Marion.
> 
> I can name you plenty of bad teams with better dunkers.



TD, I never said anything about dunk contests? That was your comment. All I said was give me a little excitement and a finisher. Phoenix has about 5 or 6 guys who can dunk on people, so does Dallas, Miami has 3 or 4.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> Well, 3 is more than 2. Who can argue that? But talking about it as if we must kill to get someone like that...we went from excitment, to attendance, to this.



No Chapu, it all ties in together. The dunk is an exciting play. Like I said, everyteam in the league tries to deny the dunk on the road? Why? Because its exciting and it gets the crowd going, gets the team going. Thats simply a fact. I have said that because we dont have that in our arsenal might be one of the reasons (the other being that the players we do have are rather boring people in general as well) tat we have a ton of empty seats at the UC. Every time I go to Chicago I am amazed at how little buzz they generate. Why is that? I think its because, though it technically a good product, its not one that is very exciting. And lastly, I am pointing out to TD, a point I believe he agrees with, that having a dunker/excitement and winning, are not mutually exclusive. You can win with good finishers, and good finishers help put people in the seats and can generate excitment, not just from the crowd but from the players as well.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> No Chapu, it all ties in together. The dunk is an exciting play. Like I said, everyteam in the league tries to deny the dunk on the road? Why? Because its exciting and it gets the crowd going, gets the team going. Thats simply a fact. I have said that because we dont have that in our arsenal might be one of the reasons (the other being that the players we do have are rather boring people in general as well) tat we have a ton of empty seats at the UC. Every time I go to Chicago I am amazed at how little buzz they generate. Why is that? I think its because, though it technically a good product, its not one that is very exciting. And lastly, I am pointing out to TD, a point I believe he agrees with, that having a dunker/excitement and winning, are not mutually exclusive. You can win with good finishers, and good finishers help put people in the seats and can generate excitment, not just from the crowd but from the players as well.


No, as you said before, you try to avoid the highest % shot. You dont try to avoid guys going nuts on the crow or whatever way to want to put it. 

Im sure Pax doesnt care about this excitement appreciation as long as we are a winning team. Winning is exciting.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> TD, I never said anything about dunk contests? That was your comment. All I said was give me a little excitement and a finisher. Phoenix has about 5 or 6 guys who can dunk on people, so does Dallas, Miami has 3 or 4.


Who are PHX's 5-6 guys? Marion...? 

Plus Nash is one of Phoenix's better finishers and he's not a dunker. 

Another thing: dunks in traffic are nice but speed and quickness can get you uncontested layups. Therefore someone like Rondo might be a good choice for upping the fast break game. 

Of course getting easy buckets is good -- no one is disputing that. I'm saying that a dunk is not the only easy basket and even the best dunkers don't dunk more than several times per game so their impact is overrated.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> No, as you said before, you try to avoid the highest % shot. You dont try to avoid guys going nuts on the crow or whatever way to want to put it.
> 
> Im sure Pax doesnt care about this excitement appreciation as long as we are a winning team. Winning is exciting.



Whats the highest % shot Chapu? Come on. Its the dunk. You absolutely can not argue that.

Winning is exciting. If you dont think having a true finisher helps in the winning process then its beyond debate from me anymore. And the Bulls have been winning. So why are they not generating that much buzz? Heck, they even had a few empty seats for the playoff game I hear. Why? Why are they not exciting enough for them to have every seat filled for every game? They are winning. Please explain where I am wrong.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Gay doesn't get many dunks off dribble penetration. I saw maybe one or two in that clip. He's exciting all alone on a fast break, but he won't help us with our lack of free-throw attempts. Kid hasn't shown me the ball-handling skills or the mentality to take it to the hoop strong in a half-court offense. 

If we want an exciting dunker, I'd prefer Thomas. At least he'll use his hops to snatch rebounds and intimidate on defense. Or if we really want a dunker to bring more excitement, trade for a later pick and grab James White. Much better dunker than Gay, and would cost a lot less to get him too.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

OMFGGGG JAMES WHITE CAN DO A THROUGH THE LEGS DUNK FROM THE FREE THROW LINE!!!1 

Hey man seriously, James White can dunk too. Better than Rudy Gay. If some of you are so hellbent on dunking, then you should be looking at him with the *16th* pick. 

I think we should use the 2nd pick on someone help our basketball team win the most games. If that's Rudy Gay, then say that, but using his solely his dunking ability as reason to pick him is kind of silly. Elementary school logic for sure. Ability to finish around the hoop is a plus definitely, but flash and dunking shouldn't have a damn thing to do with it. Manu Ginobili is a better finisher than 95% of the dunkers in the NBA, and Ginobili will only dunk once in a blue moon.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Who are PHX's 5-6 guys? Marion...?
> 
> Plus Nash is one of Phoenix's better finishers and he's not a dunker.
> 
> ...



Marion, Diaw, Raja Bell, Barbosa and Tim Thomas can all dunk if they have too. And they have one of the leagues scariest dunkers in Stoudamire coming next year. 

Your right about Nash and Rondo, they can finish at the rim and get easy buckets because of their speed. Not one of the guys on our team however are anywhere as close to as good as Nash is at finishing at the rim. 

The best dunkers get one or two a game, except if your NJ, another good team built on the dunk. The reason they only get one or two is because all the extra attention they get because of their ability to finish. Most of the guys with the most FTA are all guys who know how to finish at the rim with power if need be. We dont have that. Its not all about easy buckets, but what it does for the rest of the game. It creates a buzz, gets the team pumped and sometimes forces other teams to just foul. Its an element of the game that we are sorely lacking.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> OMFGGGG JAMES WHITE CAN DO A THROUGH THE LEGS DUNK FROM THE FREE THROW LINE!!!1
> 
> Hey man seriously, James White can dunk too. Better than Rudy Gay. If some of you are so hellbent on dunking, then you should be looking at him with the *16th* pick.
> 
> I think we should use the 2nd pick on someone help our basketball team win the most games. If that's Rudy Gay, then say that, but using his solely his dunking ability as reason to pick him is kind of silly. Elementary school logic for sure. Ability to finish around the hoop is a plus definitely, but flash and dunking shouldn't have a damn thing to do with it. Manu Ginobili is a better finisher than 95% of the dunkers in the NBA, and Ginobili will only dunk once in a blue moon.



I dont think this thread is so much about Gay anymore as it is about the effect that a dunk can have on a game AND in fan support. And I dont believe there is any denying that being able to dunk on someone helps in both instances greatly.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Marion, Diaw, Raja Bell, Barbosa and Tim Thomas can all dunk if they have too. And they have one of the leagues scariest dunkers in Stoudamire coming next year.
> 
> Your right about Nash and Rondo, they can finish at the rim and get easy buckets because of their speed. Not one of the guys on our team however are anywhere as close to as good as Nash is at finishing at the rim.
> 
> The best dunkers get one or two a game, except if your NJ, another good team built on the dunk. The reason they only get one or two is because all the extra attention they get because of their ability to finish. Most of the guys with the most FTA are all guys who know how to finish at the rim with power if need be. We dont have that. Its not all about easy buckets, but what it does for the rest of the game. It creates a buzz, gets the team pumped and sometimes forces other teams to just foul. Its an element of the game that we are sorely lacking.


I think were closer on this than you think. I agree that it would be good for the Bulls to get more athletic and better finishers. However if I'm Paxson I draft for the best player with dunking being bonus. For example: if it comes down to Carney or Roy, I hope Paxson doesn't draft Carney just because the team needs to get more dunks.

Edit: As you may remember, I've posted that I would not mind if the Bulls drafted Gay with the #2. His athleticism, size, youth and solid skill level lead me to think he has the highest ceiling in the draft.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

Man, that was an impressive display . . . HOWEVER, I'm really not with drafting Rudy, as I think he's not the answer for us. He's one of those guys that needs the ball in his hands quite a bit and I don't know that we can provide that for him here. I think he goes to either Charlotte or Portland . . . and becomes a really good player.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> I think were closer on this than you think. I agree that it would be good for the Bulls to get more athletic and better finishers. However if I'm Paxson I draft for the best player with dunking being bonus. For example: if it comes down to Carney or Roy, I hope Paxson doesn't draft Carney just because the team needs to get more dunks.


We are close on it. My point originally was that if Gay brings the Bulls anything is that he can be a crowd pleaser and someone who can finish in a big way. I think those are things we lack. I also think Tyrus Thomas, assuming he is the pick, can get the occasional rebound dunk and fill a lane and provide us with some real easy points. You obviously are not going to take a dunker over a guy who can really play. I NEVER SAID THAT AT ALL. But I did say the Bulls are boring and part of that is the lack of any real fire on the court, an element a dunker can bring, or any real character off the floor.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Here is the thing, Rudy Gay CAN REALLY PLAY BALL. Hes got a better all around game then almost everyone in the draft, when you talk about all around skills it boils down to Rudy Gay, Brandon Roy and Ronny Brewer. Rudy Gay has height and legnth over Roy, Roy is a better handler but Brewer is the better passer. Overall Gay is the better offensive player , Roy is the better defender and Brewer is the better passer and ball handler. 

But when you talk about upside Gay blows them all out of the water. Gay has superstar writen all over him.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Well one things for sure Rudy would sell a lot of jerseys in south lakeview :biggrin:


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

Those were mostly from his freshman year, too. He had a lot of nasty stuff his second year...probably 2 "wow" plays every game that only a few people can make.

I remember in the tournament he was guarding a Kentucky guy on the perimeter and then jumped about 10 feet in the air to grab a post entry pass. He just snatched that thing and then zoomed down the court for a jam. It was an incredible play, I've only seen LeBron do something like that.

To those who say he doesn't dunk in traffic: teams played zone against UConn 90% of the time. With the short 3 point line, there is almost no room to penetrate.

The guy is a DEMON on the fast break, by far the best transition wing in this draft. He fills the lanes no matter where he is on the floor and can take off from a step inside the line and finish with ease. He is definitely a difference maker in the transition game. Not to mention his defensive potential, unselfishness, and general influx of athleticism.

James White? The guy is *5*...count it, *5* years older than Rudy Gay and almost never dunks in games. He is a good defensive player with legit size, but doesn't have Rudy's shot, lateral quickness, or just pure talent. Totally different players.


----------



## SpartanBull (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Didn't see hardly anything like that during Bulls' games last season.
> 
> Sorely missing.


Haven't seen that in any Bulls games since Jordan and Pippen. Do not be surprised if Paxson drafts Mr. Gay because he sees glimpses of his former teammates in him.


----------



## SpartanBull (Oct 12, 2003)

rlucas4257 said:


> I am not sure there are 8000 empty seats at the UC but I agree in principle. The Bulls are boring, both on and off the court. Getting an electrifying player like this helps alot. *Getting a guy who can actually talk to the press and deliver a zinger would also be good*.


I've never heard Rudy Gay speak to the press before. Does he fit the bill in terms of possibly being a media darling?


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

SpartanBull said:


> I've never heard Rudy Gay speak to the press before. Does he fit the bill in terms of possibly being a media darling?


Rlucas was refferring to a hypothetical person that would be good with the media. I've seen a piece on Rudy Gay and the guy is downright shy. He blushed when asked about who his dream date would be. He's likable, but not much of a talker.


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

Take George Bush's stand on Gay


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Noc should be our media darling. Trust me.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

While there were a lot of nice dunks, I only saw three plays in the entire highlight clips that actually showed Gay driving by his man to get a good shot. Twice was for a dunk and another for a one handed mini hook.

I think that is what is going to separate Gay from a good player from a great player. Does he have the handles to use his athleticism to his greatest advantage.

Especially on the Bulls, that's why I am a bigger fan of Carney. Equally questionable handles but is a much better defender and has a more consistent outside shot. Carney has some basketball fundamentals to rely on to go with his outstanding athleticism while he can work on his penetration game. All Gay has to fall back on is his athleticsim and soft touch. Whether he can use his touch and athleticism on something other than fast break or a good cut is another question.

He would be a great asset to have on an uptempo type team.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

For a guy at 6'9 Gay has some pretty good handles and very good body controll.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

If anyone in this thread still cares about Gay on the Bulls, and not dunking, this post may interest you. If not, just skip this.

As a gigantic UConn fan, I've seen Rudy Gay a million times. All 3 people who actually remember what I claim and such know I more or less creamed myself when Gordon was picked because I knew he was going to be special... and he is.

Rudy Gay would be an awful fit for the Bulls. I was hoping he'd go back for a year with Calhoun, and Calhoun would pull some Silence of the Lambs/Buffalo Bill crap and instill some intensity in him. You'll notice the majority of those dunks come against... ummm... not the best competition. 

Rudy Gay plays like a mouse way more than a lion. He needs the guys around him to pick him up intensity wise, and to keep him completely involved in the game. Otherwise, he completely dissappears on both ends of the court. He was our only guy that could buy a bucket against George Mason, but the rest of the tournament he was quiet, quiet, quiet.

Gay can't take over a game, and with Gordon so inconsistent, that's what would be really nice to see from our next draft pick. Whether that come through someone who can light it up, like Roy or maybe Bargnani, or someone who can start blocking a ton of shots and grabbing a rebound and pushing the fast break, like Thomas and maybe Aldridge, that's what we need. We don't need another guy who feeds off the team and hides when the team is hurting in a game. We've got about 11 of those guys (Chapu, Gordon, and Hinrich being the only players who can bring the intensity needed to turn things around.)

Gay with our 2nd pick would be great, and an amazing addition. But he'll be gone by 4 or 5. I don't think he's the right fit for us with the second pick in the draft...

But then again, Pax says talent over need. If so, Gay is way up there... and comes from the proven college program that Pax seems to prefer... a Gay/Reddick draft wouldn't surprise me, though it'd be dissapointing.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> Marion, Diaw, Raja Bell, Barbosa and Tim Thomas can all dunk if they have too. And they have one of the leagues scariest dunkers in Stoudamire coming next year.
> 
> Your right about Nash and Rondo, they can finish at the rim and get easy buckets because of their speed. Not one of the guys on our team however are anywhere as close to as good as Nash is at finishing at the rim.
> 
> The best dunkers get one or two a game, except if your NJ, another good team built on the dunk. The reason they only get one or two is because all the extra attention they get because of their ability to finish. Most of the guys with the most FTA are all guys who know how to finish at the rim with power if need be. We dont have that. Its not all about easy buckets, but what it does for the rest of the game. It creates a buzz, gets the team pumped and sometimes forces other teams to just foul. Its an element of the game that we are sorely lacking.


We scored 3% of our points on dunks last year. Phoenix scored 4%. When you take into account the fact that Phoenix runs a ton and scored way more on the break than we did (where dunks are common place) I'm not buying that their guys take it up strong and dunk way more than ours do. 

Diaw scored 5% of his points on dunks. Tim Thomas scored 3% of his. Barbosa, who you also specifically earmark as an adept dunker, scored zero percent of his points last season on dunks. Raja Bell scored 1% of his. By contrast, Tyson Chandler scored 24% of his points on dunks. Noc and Deng dunk just about as much as Diaw and Thomas do. Without Stoudamire in the equation I think we finish just as strong around the hoop, and the stats reflect that.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

It would be great to have a player who concentrated on making gratuitous, circus dunks again. 

Maybe we could talk ERob into giving it another try. Those were the good old days.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

There were a couple old Bulls players that I remember being good at dunking.



















Who on this thread is saying they want a player that concentrates on dunking? 

Noone is saying they want Harold Miner or Corey Benjamin.

I remeber EROB concentrating on his mid-range jump shot when he was actually playing for the Bulls... and he hit that shot at a high %.

Being able to dunk on people in NBA games goes right along with the extra athleticism Paxson says the team needs.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

The guy plays one of two positions we are rock solid at. Nocioni is probably the best all around player we have. We need Noc on the court. Deng will get the other minutes. Gay does not fit our roster unless we trade Deng or Noc. Gay would not play, I say. No way. No way will Gay play. No way Paxson drafts Gay, I say. Gay will not come our way.

We don't need a small forward, unless it is the next Lebron and a no brainer. This could be the next Eddie Griffin, next Erob. We need a 4/5. Thomas or Aldridge with 2 pick. Big defensive guard or next best big guy with 16 pick. sign a few free agents.

NO GAY

And sorry, I would not wear the jersey or the Air Gay shoes.

No offense, but that is his name!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Dunks are nice. They have intangible value much like rlucas and K4E are saying. In a rare moment, I agree with them. 

But I think that dunking will simply be a biproduct of this team getting "longer and more athletic". Getting "a dunker" isn't a priority. Getting more athetic, with more length is. The dunks will follow. 

Lets not downplay their psychological impact, but lets not overblow it either. 

To the extent this thread is about Gay, and not dunks, I'll simply say this: I've made my opinion about using the #2 to draft big pretty clear. I basically think its mandatory. But I have one exception to that - if Paxson thinks Gay is the BPA.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Yeah, I seriously doubt Rudy Gay is coming here. J.J. Reddick? not a chance

Good post by airety, he's right, Rudy would rather BLEND in then standout and he NATURALLY stands out. He wants to prove through workouts that he's the #1 pick, but what about during last season? It takes more than a few drills and 2-on-2's to prove you ARE that guy. I like the kid, don't get me wrong, but he's a 3rd option on any NBA team, at best. I'd hate to see him go to Minnesota, both he and KG would litterally duck out of the building in the 4th quarter.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Hey, nothing wrong with a good, strong move to the hole and finishing with a thunder jam. We do need someone who can take it strong to the rim and above the rim. A good dunk is a high percentage shot that is next to impossible to stop without fouling. There is something to be said for the intimidation factor and morale boost as well, as rlucas points out, but I think the dunk resulting in much of either of those is somewhat overblown.

Mostly it amounts to 2 points. But a sure 2 points is a good thing, and if a guy is taking it to the rack with ease, the defense needs to make adjustments to keep him from getting a lane, which opens up other avenues for scoring.

Now McBulls' gripe about circus dunks -- I think that is valid. Few sins are greater to me in the game than someone blowing a dunk because he is showboating with some goofy playground move. That is a chance at 2 points wasted because a guy is thinking SportsCenter.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

airety said:


> If anyone in this thread still cares about Gay on the Bulls, and not dunking, this post may interest you. If not, just skip this.
> 
> As a gigantic UConn fan, I've seen Rudy Gay a million times. All 3 people who actually remember what I claim and such know I more or less creamed myself when Gordon was picked because I knew he was going to be special... and he is.
> 
> ...


Well for one Ben Gordon is not special, hes a very good player but this is the same guy who strugled to pass the great Chris Duhon for a starters spot. Second, Gay is still young and trust me this kids talent far exeeds everyone elses in this draft by leaps and bounds. Gay can learn a thing or two about intensity from Scott Skiles, Kirk Hinrich and Nocioni so IMO I think Chicago is probably the best fit for Rudy Gay. Gay is better off in the Chicago Bulls tough regiment over being the savior of a franchise somewhere say in North Carolina or Portland. 

Gay will not last past the fifth pick, its just not going to happen.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I like the fact that Gay is apparently willing to show his wares against other players in tryouts. It shows he's competitive and confident in his game. Can you imaging Michael Jordon passing up a chance to show he was the better pick?

Hopefully the Bulls can talk Tyrus Thomas into joining Morrison and Gay on the 18th, for a little workout. If the Bulls are going to add a third small forward/pf to the team (fourth if you count Songaila or Al Harrington), at least they should have a chance to compare the ones available up close in competition. 

The winner of that competition might not be the pick over Roy, Aldrich & Bargnani, but they would definitely get consideration if they persuaded Paxson that they were the best player available in the draft.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

In terms of physical abilty and skills, Gay has it all. Can jump out of the gym, quick, good shooter, can handle the ball.

His head/heart aren't into it though. I think Rudy says it pretty well himself: "I think at UConn I played a little more lax, and playing lax won't get you money in the NBA".
http://draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1325

He 's motivationally challenged, and thats a red flag for me. Its possible he could channel his energies to extent that someone like Vince Carter, another motivationally challenged guy, has and be a star, but I wouldn't bet on it.


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

Gay is the best player in the draft. He ideally would fit in a system where he could get plenty of touches and have the ball in his hands a good portion of the game. Having said that. out of all of the teams in the lottery, not many are going to hand the car keys over to Rudy.

Nocioni needs to be moved. He's pretty much reached his ceiling. The Bulls didnt skip out on last years draft to have Deng sit behind Nocioni. Additionally, I cant see the Knicks improving a whole lot next year. Greg Oden, for the win!


----------



## bayoubach (Feb 13, 2006)

If you like Gay you will love Rodney Carney. Carney is a better leaper and a deadly 3 point shooter.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Everyone is knocking Gay for the same reasons they knocked Charlie Villenueva. Gordon also is a bit of a floater at times. Perhaps there is something about the UCONN program.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Man if you put a team full of a bunch of Ex- Ucon guys they would probably be a number 1 or 2 seed in any of the conferences. 

C- Emeka Okafor 
PF-Charlie Villanueva
SF-Caron Butler
SG-Ray Allen
PG- Rip Hamilton

6th Ben Gordon.


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Man if you put a team full of a bunch of Ex- Ucon guys they would probably be a number 1 or 2 seed in any of the conferences.
> 
> C- Emeka Okafor
> PF-Charlie Villanueva
> ...


Here's a complete team with the incoming members and Donyell Marshall

C- Emeka Okafor
PF - Charlie V.
SF - Ray Allen
SG - Rip Hamilton
PG - Marcus Williams

2nd string

C - Hilton Armstrong
PF - Donyell Marshall
SF - Rudy Gay
SG - Caron Butler
PG - Ben Gordon

3rd stringers
PF/C - Josh Boone
SG/SF - Denham Brown
SG - Rashad Anderson

Title contenders!


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Like A Breath said:


> Here's a complete team with the incoming members and Donyell Marshall
> 
> C- Emeka Okafor
> PF - Charlie V.
> ...


Marcus Williams over Ben Gordon?


----------

