# Welcome to Camp Crawford



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...snotes,0,7685275.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


"I know Jerry doesn't want to trade Jamal, but it could be in everybody's best interest," Goodwin said. "They clearly are showing favoritism. Jay is a great player, but he should be allowed to compete like anybody else. Jamal has had to compete to get playing time."

...

"Jamal has outperformed him as a starter and he has from Day 1," Goodwin said. "It's not like the rest of the league isn't watching what's going on. It is."

...

"The way things are, it's like they're putting me against Jay," Crawford said. "The writing's kind of on the wall. The organization is committed to Jay." 






VD


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Thanks VD very interesting read to say the least. All i ask is that Krause PLEASE fix this PG situation by the deadline, suck up your pride and trade one of them at the deadline. Do us bulls fans a favor and put this issue to bed i am so tired of hearing about it


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Thanks VD very interesting read to say the least. All i ask is that Krause PLEASE fix this PG situation by the deadline, suck up your pride and trade one of them at the deadline. Do us bulls fans a favor and put this issue to bed i am so tired of hearing about it


Agreed. This team has many problems, and the PG situation is probably the biggest. With Mason coming back, it only gets worse.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Gotta trade Crawford. Sorry but J-Will is gonna be a hell of a player. I posted in the game thread against the Pistons a lot of basketball is confidence and J-Will lacks it...letting J-Will know he is the man could actually increase his production oh and I come from D.C. and played ball in the same conference as Mason went to high school and the man can ball. Defensively and got some good offensive skills. Watch him last year. I don't know how he slipped.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I like JWill too, but I still think Crawford could be as good or better when it is all said and done. Unfortunately Crawford also has more value right now than JWill since JWill has been stinking things up lately. TheBulls have really given Jamal the shaft. Thats partially Jamal's own fault though because if he had stuck around last summer he would have bulked up and probably be playing sg instead of pg.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>T.Shock</b>!
> Gotta trade Crawford. Sorry but J-Will is gonna be a hell of a player. I posted in the game thread against the Pistons a lot of basketball is confidence and J-Will lacks it...letting J-Will know he is the man could actually increase his production oh and I come from D.C. and played ball in the same conference as Mason went to high school and the man can ball. Defensively and got some good offensive skills. Watch him last year. I don't know how he slipped.


its time to stap babying the primadonna and start making him earn his way. if he cant outplay his backup then maybe he should be the backup. no more excuses


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I like JWill too, but I still think Crawford could be as good or better when it is all said and done. Unfortunately Crawford also has more value right now than JWill since JWill has been stinking things up lately. TheBulls have really given Jamal the shaft. Thats partially Jamal's own fault though because if he had stuck around last summer he would have bulked up and probably be playing sg instead of pg.


no way does jamal have more value then jay, you could get a ray allen for jay right about now.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> no way does jamal have more value then jay, you could get a ray allen for jay right about now.



I'd do it. Who do we call?


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

This is like the 30th time Jamal and his agent has went public against the Bulls in 4 years, so why not do him a favor and trade his underdeveloped, non-playmakin' tail to some place like Denver?

Actually, I don't care where we trade him, as long as it happens... if I spoke out against my employer like that, I'd be on unemployment insurance and eatin' spam before I knew it...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I don't know, I'd do that deal in a heartbeat. Jay isn't showing very much right now. The trick to trading a player is to trade him when his value is high, Crawford's is escalating while JWill's is declining. I think your overestimating what the Bulls can get for JWill right now. 



> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> no way does jamal have more value then jay, you could get a ray allen for jay right about now.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> I'd do it. Who do we call?


No, doubt, get em on the line!

10-10-220... What's the numba?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Jamal has CLEARLY outplayed JWill and he isn't getting a fair shake, I don't blame him one iota for speaking out. 



> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> This is like the 30th time Jamal and his agent has went public against the Bulls in 4 years, so why not do him a favor and trade his underdeveloped, non-playmakin' tail to some place like Denver?
> 
> Actually, I don't care where we trade him, as long as it happens... if I spoke out against my employer like that, I'd be on unemployment insurance and eatin' spam before I knew it...


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> This is like the 30th time Jamal and his agent has went public against the Bulls in 4 years, so why not do him a favor and trade his underdeveloped, non-playmakin' tail to some place like Denver?
> 
> Actually, I don't care where we trade him, as long as it happens... if I spoke out against my employer like that, I'd be on unemployment insurance and eatin' spam before I knew it...


look like someone hasnt been paying attention to jay and his apparent crusade to make krause and BC dump the traingle.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> its time to stap babying the primadonna and start making him earn his way. if he cant outplay his backup then maybe he should be the backup. no more excuses


Ummm, you are talking about JWill being the primadonna...right? Crawford HAS outplayed JWill.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Ummm, you are talking about JWill being the primadonna...right? Crawford HAS outplayed JWill.


yes im talking about jwil and his 'i need the offense to revolve around me' attitude


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Ummm, you are talking about JWill being the primadonna...right? Crawford HAS outplayed JWill.


Can you give me a statistical and rational explaination to backup your statement?


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> yes im talking about jwil and his 'i need the offense to revolve around me' attitude


He's a PG... that is how it generally works. The PG controls and runs the offense.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I don't know, I'd do that deal in a heartbeat. Jay isn't showing very much right now. The trick to trading a player is to trade him when his value is high, Crawford's is escalating while JWill's is declining. I think your overestimating what the Bulls can get for JWill right now.


michael redd has been on a tear and is projected by the Bucks camp to be as good if not better then Ray some day. Since Redd comes alot cheaper, Ray Allen would be the logical choice to trade away. I dont expect Allen to be traded before deadline, more like in a draft day deal if the bucks dont make the playoffs.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> He's a PG... that is how it generally works. The PG controls and runs the offense.


the triangle offense does have a point guard you know.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> the triangle offense does have a point guard you know.


And the triangle offense has won us how many games in the past 4 years?


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> This is like the 30th time Jamal and his agent has went public against the Bulls in 4 years, so why not do him a favor and trade his underdeveloped, non-playmakin' tail to some place like Denver?
> 
> Actually, I don't care where we trade him, as long as it happens... if I spoke out against my employer like that, I'd be on unemployment insurance and eatin' spam before I knew it...


You know the answer to your own question, Retro. The reason he hasn't been dealt is because no one shares Goodwin's impression that Jamal is the better point guard. This is a PG depleated league. Many teams should be willing to pay dearly for an accomplished floor leader with his best years ahead of him. The Bulls are committed to Williams which makes Crawford eminently available...yet he's still a Bull. Why? Because none of these PG starved teams view Crawford as the solution to their problem. How much simpler can it get?


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> 
> You know the answer to your own question, Retro. The reason he hasn't been dealt is because no one shares Goodwin's impression that Jamal is the better point guard. This is a PG depleated league. Many teams should be willing to pay dearly for an accomplished floor leader with his best years ahead of him. The Bulls are committed to Williams which makes Crawford eminently available...yet he's still a Bull. Why? Because none of these PG starved teams view Crawford as the solution to their problem. How much simpler can it get?


Glad to see someone else is on the same page as me. =)


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

and you think BC and krause are about the dump the triangle so some primadonna kid can get his way? do you seriously think BC and JK will budge to jay's demands?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> 
> 
> You know the answer to your own question, Retro. The reason he hasn't been dealt is because no one shares Goodwin's impression that Jamal is the better point guard. This is a PG depleated league. Many teams should be willing to pay dearly for an accomplished floor leader with his best years ahead of him. The Bulls are committed to Williams which makes Crawford eminently available...yet he's still a Bull. Why? Because none of these PG starved teams view Crawford as the solution to their problem. How much simpler can it get?


:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> and you think BC and krause are about the dump the triangle so some primadonna kid can get his way? do you seriously think BC and JK will budge to jay's demands?


You keep insisting Jay is a primadonna. Fine.

Then Jamal is a problem child. If you're not convinced of this yet, I'll provide a bevy of links.





VD


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Just a quick synopsis of the stats...

*Jay Williams* (Rookie) - NBA.com EFF Rating +9.58

9.2ppg, 5.3apg, 2.9rpg, 1.37spg and .23bpg in 28.7mpg

37.3% FG, 27.9% 3PFG, 56.8%FT

Ranks in the Top 20:

Ranks #18 in the NBA in Assists Per Game(5.3) 
Ranks #7 in the NBA in Triple-doubles(1.0) 
Ranks #13 in the NBA in Assists Per 48 Minutes(8.8) 
Ranks #17 in the NBA in Turnovers Per 48 Minutes(4.09) 

*Jamal Crawford* (3rd Season) - NBA.com EFF Rating +7.98

8.4ppg, 3.4apg, 2.0rpg, .88spg and .33bpg in 21.7mpg

39.8% FG, 33.9% 3PFG, 75% FT

Ranks in the Top 20:

None

----

So the numbers lie then... please explain in words how Jamal has outplayed Jay?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Can you give me a statistical and rational explaination to backup your statement?


well, you could start by looking at their stats! JWill is shooting liek a negative percentage for the past 10 games or so! lol! Jamal's stats even show he is performing better right now and you can look it up just as easily as I can. Or, here's an idea, you could watch the game and see how the Bull's cut into the lead with Jamal in the game and get down more with JWill in the game! 

People can hate on Jamal all they want, but Jamal has value in this league. The reason he hasn't been traded is because Krause wants him to bulk up and play sg.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> well, you could start by looking at their stats! JWill is shooting liek a negative percentage for the past 10 games or so! lol! Jamal's stats even show he is performing better right now and you can look it up just as easily as I can. Or, here's an idea, you could watch the game and see how the Bull's cut into the lead with Jamal in the game and get down more with JWill in the game!
> ...


Look above...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

JWill is averaging 7more minutes a a game that Jamal! Besides, JWill played well the beginning of the season, nothing like what he has played the past couple of months. 



> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Just a quick synopsis of the stats...
> 
> *Jay Williams* (Rookie) - NBA.com EFF Rating +9.58
> ...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> The reason he hasn't been dealt is because no one shares Goodwin's impression that Jamal is the better point guard.


I agree. To go one step further, I wonder how many teams even see Crawford as a legit PG. 

The main task for a triangle PG is bringing the ball up court and Crawford really struggles with this against any pressure. It's hard to setup an offense quickly when you bring the ball upcourt with your rear end facing forward.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I still say that all you have to do is actually watch a game to see that Jamal is outperforming JWill right now. No telling what Jamal would be doing by now if he had been the starter from the get go this season like he should have been.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> JWill is averaging 7more minutes a a game that Jamal! Besides, JWill played well the beginning of the season, nothing like what he has played the past couple of months.


I do believe J-Will got injured as well... before that he was a confident starting PG and since Jamal slipped into his spot, his confidence has been shaken.

Also, go back and look at game stats. When J-Will gets 30+ minutes, our team thrives and so does he.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Just a quick synopsis of the stats...
> 
> *Jay Williams* (Rookie) - NBA.com EFF Rating +9.58
> ...



jay plays more minutes so its obvious that he'l put up better numbers. in games where they've played similar minutes or jamal has played more minutes, jamal has outplayed him. you wouldnt expect fizer to have better stats as marshall when he dosent play nearly as much.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the same could be said about jamal. when he ges 30+ minutes, team plays well and so does he. playing time means the opportunity to put up pretty numbers.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

"Changing the offense for a Prima Donna".............


That grabs me because there doesn't seem to be many players who like the Triangle, except those who can break the idea of the Triangle when it fails (i.e. - Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, Kobe). 

IMHO it is very difficult to play the Triangle, no more than ever. The league has seen the Triangle for a number of years now and has learned how to defend it effectively. Additionally, the Triangle is apparently tough to learn. Finally, it requires the absolute perfect personnel and a superstar (or two) to be effective. Unfortunately we have no superstar (Sorry, Rose fans, he's a very good player) and we are very young and very inconsistent. 

It's kind of like football. New schemes are developed, exploit weaknesses of other teams until other teams have enough time to figure out how to defend the new system.

You have to have a system, but at the same time, you have to work to the strengths of your personnel. The Traingle isn't working to the strengths of our guys.

So to me, it's impossible to figure out who's the better players on our team cause one guy always ends up with the ball (Rose) and we end up praying he can come through; and no one comes through all the time, especially when the opponents know where the ball is going.

Change the system and let the players play to their strengths.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Jamal is in his THIRD freaking year and produces the same as a ROOKIE!

HELLO! No sirens going off in your head?


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Can you give me a statistical and rational explaination to backup your statement?


OK.

How about their numbers as a starter:

JC- 29.2 min, 39.2% FG, 32.5% 3's, 78.9% FT, 11.1 pts, 4.5 ast, 1.2 TO, 2.6 reb

JW- 29.4 min, 37.4% FG, 27.0% 3's, 57.1% FT, 9.5 pts, 5.3 ast, 2.6 TO, 3.0 reb

Statistically, JC has been better as a starter in EVERY CATEGORY except assists and rebounds, and his ast/TO ratio is about twice as good. The team still has a better record when JC starts.

I fail to see any reason why Jay should start over Jamal, other than the Bulls wanting to keep Jay's trade value up- after all, if he couldn't beat out Jamal, why would other teams give up very much for him?


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> well, you could start by looking at their stats! JWill is shooting liek a negative percentage for the past 10 games or so! lol! Jamal's stats even show he is performing better right now and you can look it up just as easily as I can. Or, here's an idea, you could watch the game and see how the Bull's cut into the lead with Jamal in the game and get down more with JWill in the game!
> ...


agreed, the game last night went out of hand as soon as jay stepped in for jamal.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I still say that all you have to do is actually watch a game to see that Jamal is outperforming JWill right now. No telling what Jamal would be doing by now if he had been the starter from the get go this season like he should have been.


Jamal's career high in assists is 7. Rebounds 7. Blocks 2. He has played in 132 NBA games. At some point, you have to realize that we aren't looking at a future All-Star PG here. He is not the distributor this team needs at the PG slot.


VD


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Jamal is in his THIRD freaking year and produces the same as a ROOKIE!
> 
> HELLO! No sirens going off in your head?


al harrington took what? 6 years?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Just a quick synopsis of the stats...
> 
> *Jay Williams* (Rookie) - NBA.com EFF Rating +9.58
> ...


So, this is for a numbers guy. These stats are taken from the Bulls web page.

Crawford: 1,043 mins 401 total points
Williams: 1,232 mins 394 total points

Crawford: 40% shooting 34% 3-point shooting
Williams: 37% shooting 28% 3-point shooting

And Williams shooting percentage is not all that accurate as for the last month and a half he's been hitting at a blistering 20 - 25% clip. Yep. That's what I want my starting PG to shoot at. Seems good to me that my STARTING PG has a one-in-four chance of actually making a basket. I also couldn't give a rats *** that he's had ONE triple double which puts him at #7 in the league. So what! Per 48 minutes stats have been argued ad-nauseum as being useless. The only one I'll concede is that J-WIll has been a better than expected assist guy.

Finally, I don't really give a crap who our starting PG is. Krause, Cartwright and the Bulls need to make their choice and live with it.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BullsNews</b>!
> 
> 
> OK.
> ...


Can you provide me a link to where you got your stats for them as a starter?


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal's career high in assists is 7. Rebounds 7. Blocks 2. He has played in 132 NBA games. At some point, you have to realize that we aren't looking at a future All-Star PG here. He is not the distributor this team needs at the PG slot.
> ...


we run the triangle, we dont need a ball-dominating point guard to make it work. we just need the team to buy into the concept of the offense and start sharing the rock, but apparently BC and JK arent budging on the triangle. i would love to ditch the offense but its just not realistic to think we'd drop it for a rookie point guard who has yet to outplay his backup.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BullsNews</b>!
> 
> 
> OK.
> ...


THANK YOU!


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

I still laugh at the CLC because he is in his 3rd year and still is below average... can't outproduce a rookie? Joyous.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Jamal is in his THIRD freaking year and produces the same as a ROOKIE!
> 
> HELLO! No sirens going off in your head?


they are both 4 years out of high school 

and if i remember correctly on the "other site" around the last draft you were saying the exact opposite 

that because JC hadn't played much due to injury and not getting much pt when he was healthy, williams was the much more polished player 

and he doesn't produce the same as a rookie the rookie produces lesss because he is an anemic defender and that takes away from any positives 

and sirens are to signal danger the only danger i see is williams dropping trade value


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>chifaninca</b>!
> "Changing the offense for a Prima Donna".............
> 
> 
> ...



im probably one of the most outspoken people on the dropping of the triangle, but i dont like the idea of doing it to satisfy a rookie who thus far has been given everything on a silver platter. regardless, if i had a choice, i would dump the offense, though realistically speaking? its not gonna happen.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> they are both 4 years out of high school
> ...


Both 4 years out of high school...

Come on, you saying college experience is as valuable as NBA experience?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

I would be curious to see a Jay Williams (pre ankle injury) stat line. If memory serves me correct he was averaging 11ppg / 5.8ast / 3.8reb / 2.5 TOs on about 39% shooting... at least this is what I remember after all those DaJuan/Jay debates I had on the big board.

Jay's stats and confidence really got hurt after trying to play through the injury.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> im probably one of the most outspoken people on the dropping of the triangle, but i dont like the idea of doing it to satisfy a rookie who thus far has been given everything on a silver platter. regardless, if i had a choice, i would dump the offense, though realistically speaking? its not gonna happen.


I don't think the triangle should be dropped either, but I just don't see Jamal as a PG. I'd love to see him as a creating SG.

I wanna see a very uptempo game involving Jay and Jamal pushing the tempo and our bigs ramming the ball down the throat of the opponents.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> agreed, the game last night went out of hand as soon as jay stepped in for jamal.


Yeah, and this happens in SOOO Many games. I watch every game and it seems like the Bulls will get down with Jay running things, Jamal will bring them back a bit when he's in there, and the Jay will come back and the lead balloons again. Did anyone ELSE see Chauncey Billups flat out abuse JWill last night? This is so obvious to me, I have to wonder what everyone else is watching.....


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Both 4 years out of high school...
> ...


just question, if you had a choice between two guys to coach your NBA team, who would you choose, Tim Floyd or Coach K? sure Jamal was in the NBA, but apparently you dont learn much from the bench.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Both 4 years out of high school...
> ...



Lets not forget that Jamal came out of college as a shphomore who only got to play in like 17 games....then there was the ankel injury that sidelined him a whole season. Really Jamal has like 3 years less college experience than JWill and 1 year more NBA experience (when he could actually play)


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> just question, if you had a choice between two guys to coach your NBA team, who would you choose, Tim Floyd or Coach K? sure Jamal was in the NBA, but apparently you dont learn much
> from the bench.


Coach K is a college coach... so was Tim Floyd. However, Jamal had the privy to travel and learn from his teammates and friends, not to mention Jamal spent his downtime with Gary Payton, who Jamal has worked with since 8th grade I do believe.

I wouldn't want either guy coaching an NBA team, but to the have the NBA experience, facilities and lifestyle for 2 additional years without having any other worries, he should be much better.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, and this happens in SOOO Many games. I watch every game and it seems like the Bulls will get down with Jay running things, Jamal will bring them back a bit when he's in there, and the Jay will come back and the lead balloons again. Did anyone ELSE see Chauncey Billups flat out abuse JWill last night? This is so obvious to me, I have to wonder what everyone else is watching.....


You're right. Billups got hot in the first half.

But second half (3rd quarter and part of 4th) Billups was the one blowing by Jamal. Jamal's defense is overrated by many here, sorry to say. It works well against the Mike James of the world, but not against uber quick guards like Billups.

I'm willing to have some patience with Jay's defense. He is a rookie. 95% of rookies don't play good defense. He will learn.




VD


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> I would be curious to see a Jay Williams (pre ankle injury) stat line. If memory serves me correct he was averaging 11ppg / 5.8ast / 3.8reb / 2.5 TOs on about 39% shooting... at least this is what I remember after all those DaJuan/Jay debates I had on the big board.
> 
> Jay's stats and confidence really got hurt after trying to play through the injury.


you are correct, i do believe that jay had a decent statline before the injury, then his FG% just flat out plummets to 25% in january. I just dont think he should be 'given' the starting spot when jamal has been outplaying him. nothing against jay, i just feel he needs to be allowed to fight for what he gets.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> you are correct, i do believe that jay had a decent statline before the injury, then his FG% just flat out plummets to 25% in january. I just dont think he should be 'given' the starting spot when jamal has been outplaying him. nothing against jay, i just feel he needs to be allowed to fight for what he gets.


And you don't think that is happening? Since Jay has come back, he hasn't been handed everything... Jamal has been playing more than Jay.

The whole point is Jamal has again went out into the media and barbed the organization and Jay... so what's the dealio?


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Lets not forget that Jamal came out of college as a shphomore who only got to play in like 17 games....then there was the ankel injury that sidelined him a whole season. Really Jamal has like 3 years less college experience than JWill and 1 year more NBA experience (when he could actually play)


actually he came out after his 'freshmen' season, if you even want to call it a season with only 17 college games under his belt.

.apparently someone is typing in my post  who is it? 

And who's fault was that?

He had his eligibilty taken away because he took money and goods against the rules of the NCAA


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Both 4 years out of high school...
> ...


actually i dont, but you were saying it quite alot before the games counted and the truth was out there for everyone to see you quikly recanted 

i'm using your argument to prove one very important thing ....you are wrong and are just using anything you can think of to prove your point even conflicting exactly what you said before 

since i had to endure last spring and summer rantings about how much better williams was when every step of the way when JC and williams were playing, it proved incorrect i think before you continue you should just admit your bias and move on 

Crawford is the better player at this very moment 
and as the better player he should start & and finish games because he has earned the right to and when you admit that even though JC is better but williams is starting you should then be ready for the truth ,Williams is most likely the trade bait

dont form an attachment


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> actually i dont, but you were saying it quite alot before the games counted and the truth was out there for everyone to see you quikly recanted
> ...


Whatever works for you... not only could I not understand your post, but there was nothing to it when I did decypher it.

Don't dig at me either, don't turn it personal. All I asked for was PROOF that Jamal is a better player than Jay. And nothing has been presented to change my mind.

The fact is Jamal has had 2 solid seasons in the NBA where he was pretty much free to develop and grow and he is still struggling to outperform a rookie... It doesn't add up G.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> And you don't think that is happening? Since Jay has come back, he hasn't been handed everything... Jamal has been playing more than Jay.
> ...



Jamal's gripes are innocent ones, where his only problems are with playing time and being given a fair chance. Jay's quotes have been more damning to the organization and apprently is using the media to get krause and BC to change their ways. Jay has no right to use the media as a weapon when he hasnt payed his dues yet. At least jamal has proven that he can play, jay has yet to prove that he's worth making the organization drop their identity for IMO


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> You're right. Billups got hot in the first half.
> ...


according to espn's play-by play while JC was on the court the piston pg's scored a total of 6 points(2 in the 2nd half and i believe they were ft's)

while williams was on the court 18

if its overrated its overrated but last night's game says it isn't and williams defense is pretty bad even for a rookie


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> Jamal's gripes are innocent ones, where his only problems are with playing time and being given a fair chance. Jay's quotes have been more damning to the organization and apprently is using the media to get krause and BC to change their ways. Jay has no right to use the media as a weapon when he hasnt payed his dues yet. At least jamal has proven that he can play, jay has yet to prove that he's worth making the organization drop their identity for IMO


*Scratches my head*

How on Earth can you say this? 

You Crawford fans completely flabbergast me.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> At least jamal has proven that he can play, jay has yet to prove that he's worth making the organization drop their identity for IMO


To be frank and fair, neither player has proven that they are a consistant NBA PG.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> *Scratches my head*
> ...


http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=18496&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

here is a thread which discussed willams crusade to get his way.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Whatever works for you... not only could I not understand your post, but there was nothing to it when I did decypher it.
> ...


i'm only digging because you're dead wrong

you are using an argument i was using to explain to you JC was better 

and the reason i know for a fact of all this is because i looked up what i said in the draft thread(you remember the draft thread you actually started it , it grew pretty big ) was because someone accused me of changing my story over these past months but when i looked for proof i found your arguments saying exactly the opposite what you are now (in some parts to me directly)

so whats the moral of this story ? i'm right, your wrong but more than being wrong you are showing your bias because though your arguments change and contradict themselves but your purpose stays the same to say Jc is somehow is a lesser a player 

dont take it personal you have just been found out, live with it


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

Well, you can curb stats to say whatever you want. So time to present mine.


*Jamal Crawford as a starter* 

11 games
29.2 mins a game
11.1pts
4.5ast
2.6reb
0.91stl
0.45blk
1.2TO
3.75 A/TO ratio
78.9% FT shooting
39% shooting
32.5% 3pt


*Jay Williams as a starter* 

39 games
29.4 mins a game
9.5pts
5.3ast
3.0reb
1.41stl
0.21blk
2.5TO
2.12A/TO ratio
57.1% FT SHOOTING
37.4% shooting
27% 3pt



Big points of comparison:

JC=4.5ast, JW=5.3ast (adv: JW)
JC=0.91stl, JW=1.41stl(adv: JW)
JC=3.75 A/TO, JW=2.12 A/TO(adv:JC)
JC=78.9% FT, JW= 57.1% (adv: JC)
JC=1.2TO, JW=2.5(adv:JC)

Everything else is relatively close, to the point where Jamals extra point, JWills extra board or Jamals better shooting % don't matter toooo much.

Record with JC as a starter: 4-7
Record with JW as a starter: 13-26
JC and JW have never started together.

The records are relatively similar... Crawford loses one more game as a starter and they've both won 33% of their games (aka AWFUL.)

Crawford as a starter in 2001-2002 (5 or 6 games): "12.2 ppg, 2.7 apg, 1.7 rpg and 1.17 spg, shooting .569 from the floor, an amazing .667 (12-18) from three-point range and .750 from the free throw line."


Jamal is basically in his 2nd year. Last year was a complete wash because of the ACL injury preventing him from really doing much in the offseason. He's only a year older than JWill. He was on a Michigan team with little to no talent and averaged 16pts a game and 4ast in one year. JWill was with multiple greats and averaged 19pts and 6ast over three years.

If anything, Jamal is getting screwed. He's performed just as well, if not slightly better than JWill this season. The insistence of playing JWill over Jamal is simply infuriating to me, nevermind how Jamal must feel. Jammy's agent asks for a trade, and he's villified here. JWill's mommy suggested Jay should be traded because the Bulls lose more than Duke! Are you kidding me? Now I hate the triangle as much as the next guy, but JWill, a ROOKIE, runs his mouth about how terrible it is and how they have to scrap it, while constantly trashing the Bulls, BC, and Chicago while clinging to immature dreams of playing under Coach K at Duke forever. PLEASE. If we're going to criticize the off court whining of our PGs, JWill gets as much blame as Jamal. 

There are tons of reasons why I would not trade Jamal, and would give him more starts: A/TO ratio, better defensive player, more points, better shooter, not a free throw liability (If JWill ever makes it as a star, I can't wait for hack a Jay... he's such a terrible FT shooter!!!)

Secondly, Artest's offseason before his 3rd season is where he made his most stunning improvements. Arguably, the same could be said about Fizer (although his weight gain overshadowed his improvement.) Jamal didn't really have an offseason in the 2001 summer, so 2003 will be his third offseason with us. Look for awesome things to happen.


And on a somewhat related note, what the hell is up with the TERRIBLE shooting % from both of our point guards? Jamal shot fairly well in college, as did JWill. Is ANYONE coaching them? Under 40% for both of them is disgusting, neither of them is JKidd so I'm not gonna tolerate an average that belongs on the White Sox, not the Bulls.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Wow I've seen some interesting arguments here. Let's be reasonable stats tend to lie. Talent is a must. And more importantly Point Guards who win games anywhere tend to win games on the NBA level. How many games has Jamal Crawford won and I hate to say it but at Michigan....JAMAL PLAYED LIKE ****. I am a huge Michigan fan so I saw their games that year. He turns the ball over too much. He looks for himself first and other people second. Good point guards do that right? Here is an accurate comparison Jamal Crawford is Rod Strickland. Jay Williams is Jason Kidd. So hey if you guys would rather have Rod Strickland than Jason Kidd good luck. I wish I had that web article that showed how Kidd's rookie stats almost mirror Jay's. 

Jay Williams - 9.2 ppg/5.3 apg/2.9 rpg/2.4 tpg/1.3 spg/28.7 mpg/37% field goal percentage

Jason Kidd - 11.7 ppg/7.7 apg/5.2 rpg/3.2 tpg/1.8 spg/34 mpg

So in approximately 5 more minutes a game J-Kidd had 2 more points/2 more assists/2 more rebounds/1 more turnover and a half a more steal 

Jamal Crawford - 4.6 ppg/2.3 apg/1.4 rpg/1.4 tpg/0.7 spg/17.2 min/35% field goal

Using mathematics for Jamal to reach Jay's stats his playing time would have to be doubled to reach J-Kidd's rookie level and his field goal percentage is worse. Getting rid of all the stats Jay won how many games at college and Jamal has won how many games past the high school level. Is Jamal better right now....yes. Will he better next year maybe 2 years from now. NO


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> *Scratches my head*
> ...


As do you J-Will worshippers.

This is a kid with the pedigree of a thoroughbred. Ready-made for the NBA they ALL said. Scouts and GM's drooled over the prospect of landing the most NBA ready player out of last years draft. Jerry Krause had the luck of getting the #2 pick. A complete no-brainer right? He's the next (insert great PG name here). Jamal Crawford was (and is) a project. He had nowhere near the expectations that J-Will has/has comming out of college. Where's all the J-Will is a shoe-in for ROY? He's not even in the running anymore! You get "flabbergasted" at the Crawford fans... What about the J-Will apologists? Oh, he's got a bad ankle. Cry me a river. Plain and simple, the NBA ready, hit-the-ground-running, ROY shoe-in, can-do-all college player of the year is a disappointment.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> The fact is Jamal has had 2 solid seasons in the NBA where he was pretty much free to develop and grow and he is still struggling to outperform a rookie... It doesn't add up G.


A season to learn under BRYCE DREW, KHALID EL AMIN AND AJ GUYTON with PINK FLOYD as the coach and another season spent REHABBING AN ACL INJURY constitute 2 solid seasons?

If that's how you think, we should trade for Grant Hill. He's had three of the best years ever!


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>T.Shock</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal Crawford - 4.6 ppg/2.3 apg/1.4 rpg/1.4 tpg/0.7 spg/17.2 min/35% field goal
> ...


You used JC's rookie stats. Completely irrelevant to the arguments put forth but innumerous JWill supporters, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say... JC had a poor rookie year? Ok, grand conclusion.

You then mention you'd have to double JC's mins to get the same production the JWill has this year. Oddly enough, JC's rookie minutes are practically half of JW rookie minutes! What a coincidence!!!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I'll repost this, since this seems to be the popular Jamal thread 

In the long-term, no, but I think it's pretty dumb to sit Jamal when he was playing better than JWill.

Reasons:
1. You can say all you want about "development", but the fact of the matter was that JWill (much like Curry, Fizer, Crawford, ERob) seemed to maybe be developing best by coming off the bench. JWill's defense is not good, and the best spark of defense I've seen from him was was his recent stint coming off the bench. When he had something to prove, he was playing better to prove it. That's development. Not giving a guy minutes because he cried like a girl.

2. Crawford has played better. The Bulls really aren't going to any sort of "development mode" by putting Curry over Blount and ERob over Hassell, because the former two have shown that they're better than the latter two. Crawford, on the other hand, has played better than JWill. Not a lot better, but better. 

And there's nothing wrong with that. Jamal is in his third year. Jay is a rookie. Jamal should be playing better, even if he doesn't have the overall talent that Jay does. The fact that Jay's not that much worse indicates to me that he's the better guy in the long-term (three years from now, he'll be a clear step above Jamal), but I don't see the need to hurry up and make a move right now, when Jay is worse.

3. It does absolutely nothing to help the Bulls get anything for Jamal. Unless they already have a deal lined up, it doesn't make any sense to me to bench a guy you're trying to move right before the deadline when he's played his best as a starter.

No, Jamal hasn't been great, but he's been solid. I think the guys who look at him after three years and see "perinial all-star" aren't looking at the same guy I am, and I don't think he can handle the SG spot without a lot of work that so far he hasn't been willing to put in (and unless Rose is moved for a true SF, it's not available anyway). So I see him has a nice player... A tall PG with sub-ok handle (for a PG), a sweet shot, and good defensive potential for a PG. That's enough to get something nice in return in this league, but he's not a world-beater.

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

So yeah, Jamal should be the starter, until he's traded or until the day JWill beats him out. That day will come fairly soon, I think, but there's no need to rush it.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> As do you J-Will worshippers.
> ...


what gets to me is that people have the nerve o trash jamal for wanting a fair chance while jay gets 'his' on a silver freakin platter and STILL complains.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>T.Shock</b>!
> Wow I've seen some interesting arguments here. Let's be reasonable stats tend to lie. Talent is a must. And more importantly Point Guards who win games anywhere tend to win games on the NBA level. How many games has Jamal Crawford won and I hate to say it but at Michigan....JAMAL PLAYED LIKE S*IT. I am a huge Michigan fan so I saw their games that year. He turns the ball over too much. He looks for himself first and other people second. Good point guards do that right? Here is an accurate comparison Jamal Crawford is Rod Strickland. Jay Williams is Jason Kidd. So hey if you guys would rather have Rod Strickland than Jason Kidd good luck. I wish I had that web article that showed how Kidd's rookie stats almost mirror Jay's.
> 
> Jay Williams - 9.2 ppg/5.3 apg/2.9 rpg/2.4 tpg/1.3 spg/28.7 mpg/37% field goal percentage
> ...



eddy curry's sophomore season stats dont nearly come close to shaquille oneal's rookie season so whats your point?


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I completely agree with the above statement. I have never said Jay is playing better than Jamal, but in three years J-Will will be an All-Star and Crawford will be average to good backup or decent starter. Oh and to whoever said u double J-Craw's minutes and get Jay-Will's minutes. Last time I checked 17.5 times 2 gives you 35 not 28. Hmmm 7 minutes can be huge. Anyways two reasons to trade Jamal now

1.Boost J-Will's confidence back up. He hasn't played the same since this whole who's better controversy got started. Let him know he is the man. A lot of basketball is confidence. And a lot of it is pressure. Double edged sword here.

2.Get a good shooter at 2 or 3 and have E-Rob coming off the bench.

However my ideal situation would be trade Jamal draft day to somebody who needs a point guard for a 3 or possibly 2. J-Will starts out next season undisputed and we get something good in return.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> Well, you can curb stats to say whatever you want. So time to present mine.
> 
> 
> ...


Great post, agreed 100%


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> As do you J-Will worshippers.
> ...


I'm far from a J-Will worshipper... but I do feel he is a better starting PG.

Right now, Jay shouldn't the starter because A) he hit the rookie wall and B) his confidence is shaken. However, before his ankle injury, he was far and away a better point than Crawford.

The bottom line of this thread is Jamal has taken it to the public again, whereas most of Jay's comments have been from interviews when a journalist has ASKED him how he felt.... Jamal feels like he needs it to be known. Yes, Jay probably could have dodged the questions a bit better, but again, he'll learn that in time.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Bottom line, and to the topic of this thread, if Jamal is unhappy here and decides everytime he has a problem he needs to go to the media to talk about it, maybe we should accomodate him... and trade him.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm far from a J-Will worshipper... but I do feel he is a better starting PG.
> ...


i dont undestand this statement, how has jamal 'taken' it to the public whereas jay has not? jamal dosent go up to the media with the intent to air the teams dirty lundry, he dosent have his parents tall everyone how he isnt being given the team like it should be, he dosent tell the media how "we play differently in chicago". what in jamal's quotes suggests that he 'takes' his gripes to the media?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Bottom line, and to the topic of this thread, if Jamal is unhappy here and decides everytime he has a problem he needs to go to the media to talk about it, maybe we should accomodate him... and trade him.


Maybe we should do the same thing for JWill? He seems to complain a lot more than Crawford does and his complaints aren'teven justified where Jamal clearly has a reason to gripe. At least you admitted that Jamal SHOULD be the starter right now...thats progress.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> i dont undestand this statement, how has jamal 'taken' it to the public whereas jay has not? jamal dosent go up to the media with the intent to air the teams dirty lundry, he dosent have his parents tall everyone how he isnt being given the team like it should be, he dosent tell the media how "we play differently in chicago". what in jamal's quotes suggests that he 'takes' his gripes to the media?


Because his agent is talking about it... not Jamal, which to me looks like there are underlying motivations.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe we should do the same thing for JWill? He seems to complain a lot more than Crawford does and his complaints aren'teven justified where Jamal clearly has a reason to gripe. At least you admitted that Jamal SHOULD be the starter right now...thats progress.


I agree... what needs to happen is we need to pick one or the other and move the other guy.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> Well, you can curb stats to say whatever you want. So time to present mine.
> 
> 
> ...


This is probably the best and most comprehensive post on the Jay/Jamal debate and I completely agree with your conclusion, Jamal should be starting.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Bottom line, and to the topic of this thread, if Jamal is unhappy here and decides everytime he has a problem he needs to go to the media to talk about it, maybe we should accomodate him... and trade him.


I'll agree with ya on this one. As I've said before, I don't really care who our PG is. J-Will still has the potential to be a damn fine player. I'm not sold on his being an all-star in two or three years as others have stated, but I don't think Jamal will either.

In the end, I place the complete onus of this lousy situation squarely on the shoulders of Cartwright and Karuse. Cartwright for his seemingly stubborn refusal to even toy with the idea that J-Will and Jamal might actually make up a decent backcourt - even in short 5 minute stints. Krause for assembling this group of players. If Jamal isn't going to work here, he needs to swallow his massive ego and let it go. These two guys are teammates and damn fine ballplayers. Each with a unique, and different, skillset. It's a shame that the powers that be have conspired to put these two players at odds with one another. Instead of them working together for the betterment of the team, they are working against each other for the betterment of the individual.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> Well, you can curb stats to say whatever you want. So time to present mine.
> 
> 
> ...


Here's the problem I have with this post.

The win-loss splits lean to Jay starting, not Jamal.

Why?

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/jay_williams/season_splits.html
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/jamal_crawford/season_splits.html

I posted this about a month ago, and I posted it again using Jalen Rose. 

Here is my guiding principle in looking at the win/loss stats:

*If a team wins when a player plays well, and loses when a player does not, that player has a direct impact on the outcome of any given game.* 

When we look at the season splits, we see that Jay plays well in wins and plays poorly in losses. He averages significantly more points (11.7 in wins vs. 8.1 in losses), significantly more assists (7.3 vs. 4.4), shoots a very good percentage (48% vs 33%, 40% from 3 vs. 22.5%), and averages more in rebounds and steals.

This all happens when Jay is averaging a few more minutes in wins than in losses.

When we look at Jamal, we see an opposite trend. Jamal plays somewhat BETTER in losses than in wins. He scores more points in losses (6.5 in wins vs 9.2 in losses), averages about the same in assists (3.3 vs 3.4), about the same in rebounding, and shoots a significantly higher percentage in losses than in wins (34% in wins vs. 42% in losses, 25% in wins vs 37.5% from the arc in losses).

This is a statement of facts, not an implication. But simply,

When we lose, Jamal typically has good games and Jay has poor ones. Jamal tends to average a few more minutes in these games.

When we win, Jay typically has good games and Jamal has less than average ones. Jamal tends to average less minutes in these games.

I think that this is evidence that Jay helps our team win, and Jamal doesn't contribute to a win as much. Jay's points and assists lead to a Bulls victory, whereas Jamal's increased scoring is futile.

I don't have time right now, but when I looked around the beginning of January, I previously examined this trend GAME BY GAME and I found this all to be very true.

My deduction: Jay looks more like a winner than Jamal does.


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> To be frank and fair, neither player has proven that they are a consistant NBA PG.


Ah, but here we go again...Williams is a rookie and Crawford's a third year player. Whose mistakes are you going to be more tolerant of? 

Why is it so difficult for people to understand that the Bulls have been evaluating JC the man, and JC the basketball player in an NBA environment for 32 months. They've evaluated his character, his work habits, his basketball skills...everything they need to know about what makes a player tick...and they've chosen to turn the PG job over to someone else. Does anyone think they've made a rash or hasty decision after 32 months of evaluation?

Obviously management knows much more about what makes Jamal the man and player he is than any of us could ever hope to or want to know. They've made the decision to not only go in another direction, but as part of their decision they've committed to living with all of the mistakes and development problems they knew Williams would encounter.

If they want better production out of the point guard position right now, this season, then of course they would start Crawford over Williams. He's a third year player...WILLIAMS IS A ROOKIE. Why do so many people ignore that fact when comparing their performances this year? If it was the other way around, wouldn't all of you expect Williams to outshine Crawford this season? Of course you would.

After 32 months of evaluation, the Bulls have concluded that Crawford is not their long term answer at the point. You don't invest the second overall pick in the draft in a PG if you believe you've already got your PG of the future on the roster. That's all there is to it. 

Bottom line, to compare the performances of a rookie to a third year vet is ridiculous and unfair. And those that want to prop up Crawford by comparing him to a rookie are actually doing him a great disservice. Williams is going to make rookie mistakes...he barely knows the favorite moves of most of the players he has to guard while Crawford has had 32 months to study them and absorb information from scouting reports. Williams is experiencing everything associated with playing an 82 game schedule for the first time. Crawford's going through an NBA schedule for the third time. Williams has had a half a season to learn the Bulls offensive and defensive schemes...Crawford's been familiarizing himself with those same schemes for two and a half years.

So why doesn't everybody stop comparing the two players production right now? It's unfair to both players...its unrealistic to expect Williams to perform like a third year vet, and it's very disrespectful to Crawford to point out that as a third year player, at least he's outperforming a rookie. Let's not forget that Crawford, though not as high a pick as Williams, was a lottery selection as well. Developmentally he should certainly be held to a higher standard than to just outperform a 21 year old rookie with 50 games under his belt. The expectations for each player on this date in time are very different. And to hold each of them up to comparision is pointless and without merit.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Welcome to today. There is no team anymore. A team is a combination of individuals. No more team mentality....sorry. How many players have taken less money to stay with a team to build something great. Nobody. Listen I am not a J-Will worshipper. In fact, life has a funny way of screwing with people's minds. We are sitting here on split side...Jay vs Jamal...who should we go with. HOW BOUT THIS FOR AN IDEA....what about

ROGER MASON JR.

A lot of people have failed to mention that this combo guard is a better defender than both, better passer, but scores less and can easily play both 1 or 2. The only concern is his quickness. I'm pulling for Mason to be our all-star point.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> 
> Here's the problem I have with this post.
> ...


No offense dude but I think that whole concept is bullhockey. And I have personally witnessed Jamal having a lot better games than I have seen Jay have and I have seen every game except 1 this season.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>T.Shock</b>!
> Welcome to today. There is no team anymore. A team is a combination of individuals. No more team mentality....sorry. How many players have taken less money to stay with a team to build something great. Nobody. Listen I am not a J-Will worshipper. In fact, life has a funny way of screwing with people's minds. We are sitting here on split side...Jay vs Jamal...who should we go with. HOW BOUT THIS FOR AN IDEA....what about
> 
> ROGER MASON JR.
> ...



Mason should be pretty good, but it's a lot easier to pull for a guy when you've actually seen him perform at this level. Sure, Mason played in the RMR, but I haven't seen enough of him at this level to know what he will do. I do hope I get to see him soon though, I thought he would be ready to go in January.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> No offense dude but I think that whole concept is bullhockey. And I have personally witnessed Jamal having a lot better games than I have seen Jay have and I have seen every game except 1 this season.


What's bullhockey about it?

I don't see how you can disagree now when you just had agreed to the whole split theory that airety posted... it is the same thing with a more in-depth comparison?


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> 
> 
> Ah, but here we go again...Williams is a rookie and Crawford's a third year player. Whose mistakes are you going to be more tolerant of?
> ...


jay was tabbed as the the most NBA ready player since tim duncan, that alone is why we are able compare the two. add that to the fact that Jay has actually played more games at duke then jamal had in the NBA before this season.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> What's bullhockey about it?



It just doesn't jive for me. First off, why is it more important to play well in wins than losses? Who's to say that if a player is playing well when the team loses that it might not be a win if someone else had stepped it up. Also, what happens if they are both playing well or they are both playing poorly? Besides, this is all subjective to the stats and basketball isn't all about the stats. For instance, Robinson had a pretty good game last night, but, he only had 1pt, 6rebs, and 5 steals. He played solid defense and he didn't force any shots...still not a great statline though. Also stats don't always tell who is doing what defensively, thats part of the reason that any scout worth his salt will only put a modest amount of credit into a players stats. I just think the whole thing is a "bag of shells"


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> jay was tabbed as the the most NBA ready player since tim duncan, that alone is why we are able compare the two. add that to the fact that Jay has actually played more games at duke then jamal had in the NBA before this season.


You are really grasping for straws here...

So you are saying Jay's college experience has been more valuable than Jamal's NBA experience? Just a yes or no will suffice...

Also, were you unhappy with Jay's play before he went down with his ankle injury? Yes or no and why?


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> jay was tabbed as the the most NBA ready player since tim duncan, that alone is why we are able compare the two. add that to the fact that Jay has actually played more games at duke then jamal had in the NBA before this season.


And Fizer carried the same tag as Williams did in terms of NBA readiness...and yet it took the 4th overall pick of the 2000 draft until his third year to start to fulfill his promise. And I don't care how long of a college career a player had. The difference between a college season and an NBA season is day and night.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> It just doesn't jive for me. First off, why is it more important to play well in wins than losses? Who's to say that if a player is playing well when the team loses that it might not be a win if someone else had stepped it up. Also, what happens if they are both playing well or they are both playing poorly? Besides, this is all subjective to the stats and basketball isn't all about the stats. For instance, Robinson had a pretty good game last night, but, he only had 1pt, 6rebs, and 5 steals. He played solid defense and he didn't force any shots...still not a great statline though. Also stats don't always tell who is doing what defensively, thats part of the reason that any scout worth his salt will only put a modest amount of credit into a players stats. I just think the whole thing is a "bag of shells"


I think that wins are the object of a basketball team.

You've seen Crawford play better than Jay as you've watched the Bulls almost every game? Lots of times, you say?

Well, in case you've forgotten, we've got lots more losses than wins.

It's not rocket science to say that we should do what we do in wins so that we can continue winning, and try to do less of what we do in losses.

The stats may not tell the truth on any particular game, as you've pointed out in the E-Rob example, but I think that averages over a period of time speak more and more accurately as to what is happening in any given game. In addition, as I originally said, you can look at the game-by-games and see the performance differential between Jay and Jamal in the wins and losses... you don't have to trust the stats themselves.

I understand that wins don't come from one player, but trends are trends. I'm not saying that Jay starting is going to get us all the wins... as someone pointed out, they have the same winning percentage as starters. But when they DO win, it seems like Jay has more of a role in his wins than Jamal does in his.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I just want to point out that in the NBA it seems a lot of the time it is all about players having "a light go off in their head." Once that light goes off they finally start to live up to their potential and deliver. Baron Davis is an example, so is J. O'neal. Gilbert Arenas for that matter. The reason I am so oppossed to trading Jamal or stifling Jamal's development is because I think that the light is starting to go off for Jamal. He has improved his defense, he is attacking the basket more, now when he adds some more strength and can finish better he will be scary good IMO.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> You are really grasping for straws here...
> ...


Yes, Jay's college experience was more beneficial to his game then Jamal's so-called NBA expirience. arent you one of the biggest supporters of playing the kids because of how playing time makes you better moreso then watching off the bench? Forget NBA facilities for a moment, Jay has improved his game by playing with the Best college coach while being a major part of the team. Jamal has been watching from the bench his whole career so far. That is why Jay is SUPPOSED to be better then jamal right now.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> 
> I think that wins are the object of a basketball team.
> ...


Sorry, I just don't buy the whole argument. Plus I think it's very subjective. I've gotten pissed before because I will be watching the game and the Bulls ae cutting into a lead with Jamal running things, Jay comes back in and the Bulls are down by 12 before Jamal comes back in. This is COMMON, I've seen it umpteen times this season. You guys must be watching some other games or something...


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I just want to point out that in the NBA it seems a lot of the time it is all about players having "a light go off in their head." Once that light goes off they finally start to live up to their potential and deliver. Baron Davis is an example, so is J. O'neal. Gilbert Arenas for that matter. The reason I am so oppossed to trading Jamal or stifling Jamal's development is because I think that the light is starting to go off for Jamal. He has improved his defense, he is attacking the basket more, now when he adds some more strength and can finish better he will be scary good IMO.


Ace2K, you just described an NBA 2 guard.

Someone let me know when Jamal gets 10 assists in a game (his career high is 7) and starts to show the qualities the coaching and management want in their franchise PG. Until then, Jamal strikes me as a tweener and scorer in the Larry Hughes mold. Jay brings more to the table.





VD


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> 
> 
> And Fizer carried the same tag as Williams did in terms of NBA readiness...and yet it took the 4th overall pick of the 2000 draft until his third year to start to fulfill his promise. And I don't care how long of a college career a player had. The difference between a college season and an NBA season is day and night.


but thats the reason why you can compare jamal's stats now to jay's. because jay was supposed to be ready and he has had more organized basketball experience then jamal. im not saying that we shouldnt wait for jay, im sayng that you _can compare the two at this point. 

Jay without the NBA readiness is pure upside, after that it just depends on who you feel has a greater upside, the undersized, sort-armed stubby guy or the 6'5, physically underdeveloped guy. its like comparing Tyson Chandler's upside to Marcus Fizer's_


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> Yes, Jay's college experience was more beneficial to his game then Jamal's so-called NBA expirience. arent you one of the biggest supporters of playing the kids because of how playing time makes you better moreso then watching off the bench? Forget NBA facilities for a moment, Jay has improved his game by playing with the Best college coach while being a major part of the team. Jamal has been watching from the bench his whole career so far. That is why Jay is SUPPOSED to be better then jamal right now.


In retro(dreams)spec, we may have all underestimated the challenge that the Bulls offense (triangle & Rose dominated) would hold for JWill. Looking at it now, it should seem pretty obvious that Jamal would have a better handle on the Bulls offense.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> It just doesn't jive for me. First off, why is it more important to play well in wins than losses? Who's to say that if a player is playing well when the team loses that it might not be a win if someone else had stepped it up.


Check out the splits on ESPN. The whole team (at a minimum Rose, JWill, Fizer, Marshall, Chandler)have better stats in the Bulls win. It's either a statistically anomoly or Crawford can't step up and play well when it matters.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> In retro(dreams)spec, we may have all underestimated the challenge that the Bulls offense (triangle & Rose dominated) would hold for JWill. Looking at it now, it should seem pretty obvious that Jamal would have a better handle on the Bulls offense.


he does have a better handle on the tringle then jay right now, which is why he isnt complaining about it. im sure jay will get a better grasp of it soon, but at this point, jay is purely upside like i just stated in my previous post. Jay's upside compared to Jamal's upside is like comparing Fizer's upside to Tyson's. Krause likes his long-armed mutants.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Boy this Jwill/JCraw gets more sensitive and personal by the day. First of all we should probably all calm down a little. We still have 8 more days until the deadline and at this rate this discussion will get way out of hand. There have been some amazing points from both sides of the agruement. I have my personal preference as who the PG should be long term but that doesnt matter. I would like for everyone to agree to disagree and admit that a trade of one of them HAS to be done in order for this team to further the rebuilding process


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> Jay without the NBA readiness is pure upside, after that it just depends on who you feel has a greater upside, the undersized, sort-armed stubby guy or the 6'5, physically underdeveloped guy. its like comparing Tyson Chandler's upside to Marcus Fizer's


You must be kidding me. Jay measured 6'0 3/4" w/o shoes at the predraft camp w/ a 38 inch vertical and 6'3" wingspan. He was the quickest player by far in the timed shuttle run and timed agility drills and repeatedly finished first in group sprints. Most agreed he was the fastest of the 2002 draft class.

So now you're reaching for straws here. Now its a matter of Jay's short arms versus Jamal's 6'5" underdeveloped body? So this height helps him rebound better than Jay (clearly no) and get 15 blocks this year versus Jay's 10? So Jamal, at 6'5" is going to redefine the PG position in the NBA eh? We just need to wait 3 more years, let him fill out, and beat all those other stubby armed guys in the NBA like Kidd, Marbury, Bibby, etc? Eeesh 



VD


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> The reason I am so oppossed to trading Jamal or stifling Jamal's development is because I think that the light is starting to go off for Jamal. He has improved his defense, he is attacking the basket more, now when he adds some more strength and can finish better he will be scary good IMO.


I think the crux of the JWill vs. Crawford holy wars on these boards is the perceived potential of Crawford. 

Seems like everyone agrees that JWill will have some issues on D but will be a very, very solid NBA starter but not a mega-superstar when and if he gets his shot going.

But the Crawford projections range from All-Star PG to average SG to out of the league.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace2K, you just described an NBA 2 guard.
> ...


Hmmm, how many games did Ron Harper have that many assists? The triangle doesn't require the prototypical give me a sozen assists point guard.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> You must be kidding me. Jay measured 6'0 3/4" w/o shoes at the predraft camp w/ a 38 inch vertical and 6'3" wingspan. He was the quickest player by far in the timed shuttle run and timed agility drills and repeatedly finished first in group sprints. Most agreed he was the fastest of the 2002 draft class.
> ...


Actually, Vin, Jay has outrebounded Jamal this year 123-96.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*Where are these nuggets of wisdom you are spitting*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I think the crux of the JWill vs. Crawford holy wars on these boards is the perceived potential of Crawford.
> ...


out here located? I mean, where has this been said other than right here?..okay, here goes mine:

"ahem....I have heard that jamal does not have the skills to be a good pg or sg. I think the reason krause has not traded him until now is because he knows everyone else knows this also. Me thinks JayWill has all the tools to be a perennial allstar." lol...that was fun. NOW, having said that, I believe the Bulls, as an organization, was waiting to see how Mason's healing process was gonna go and I TRULY believe Jamal will be gone in less than 9 days.....just a hunch. I can only hope Jalen goes with him.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Hmmm, how many games did Ron Harper have that many assists? The triangle doesn't require the prototypical give me a sozen assists point guard.


Harper wasn't the real PG on that team. Pippen was. He averaged something like 5.8 assists (this number may be a bit less its just off the top of my head). And yeah, they also had some guy named Michael too.

Comparing this team to that one... is a real stretch. The only thing they have in common is the jerseys. And the triangle? Let's not start with that again either....


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, Vin, Jay has outrebounded Jamal this year 123-96.


I agree, that is what I meant by 'clearly no'. Jamal's height is such a tenet of those seeing his 'potential' to be a great PG one day. I would argue that it hasn't shown to help all that much in his production.




VD


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I think the crux of the JWill vs. Crawford holy wars on these boards is the perceived potential of Crawford.
> ...


Yes! Holy Wars! I like that title  This is a great discussion.

Jamal... well... I predict a less successful career than Larry Hughes.

Jay... well... I see a Kevin Johnson/ Jason Kidd combo one day.

Per Jay's defense, it will improve. He's a rookie for goodness sakes. Once he learns to be more physical, and the refs allow him to do so, there's no reason to think he can't attain a John Stockton type of defensive mentality. He's got the tools to do it.




VD


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*Like I have said in a couple other threads...*



> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree, that is what I meant by 'clearly no'. Jamal's height is such a tenet of those seeing his 'potential' to be a great PG one day. I would argue that it hasn't shown to help all that much in his production.
> ...


I think corey benjamin had more athletic ability than jamal....both are lacking in the mental and intellect department....


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> 
> Here's the problem I have with this post.
> ...


since we are bringing past point i'll bring up mine to that question 

since williams is a worse defender #s dont tell the whole story 

williams has to put up better stats in wins because he is giving up big #s on the defensive end if he didn't the bulls wouldn't win due the the pg spot was just abused and its very hard to win under those circumstances 

whats missing in your findings as well as whoever else posted the stats you are debating is the degree of difficulty a high % of JC's starts are road games(8 of the 11 starts actually) in which the bulls as a whole suck 

JC has had 5 game road trip to just come off of williams hasn't played almost half of his starts on a road swing and before williams hurt his ankle people really want that as an excuse so i'll give it to them 

so in order the margin of defeat in all of the 8 previous road games before williams injury on jan.4th (because we did lose them all(16,15,14,10,13,10,20,13) all by double digits for an avg. of 13.9

It seems to me the bulls played horrible with williams before his injury on the road 

while with JC at the helm in his 8 games on the road at starter the scoring margin is -4.0 (which is not great but at least competitive

thats a 10 point difference add to that the bulls were undefeated at home when JC was the starter(3-0) and its clear even before williams got hurt the bulls were clearly a better team when JC was the starter

and that been my point and my belief all along that crawford is actually the better player that the other players play better with him on the court and that JAMAL in the short run as well as the long run better for the bulls

and when i look at that it makes me think JC is the real winner ...because his team is much more likely to win (even if the record only shows a slight edge)


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> Harper wasn't the real PG on that team. Pippen was. He averaged something like 5.8 assists (this number may be a bit less its just off the top of my head). And yeah, they also had some guy named Michael too.
> 
> Comparing this team to that one... is a real stretch. The only thing they have in common is the jerseys. And the triangle? Let's not start with that again either....


I agree 100%. This is part of the problem. It's great to get Kerr and Harper when you already have Jordan and Pippen at ALL-NBA status.

It's ridiculous to be developing guys like AJ Guyton and Hassel to be Kerr and Crawford to be Harper at the same time you are drafting HS kids as your projected ALL-NBA players.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> You must be kidding me. Jay measured 6'0 3/4" w/o shoes at the predraft camp w/ a 38 inch vertical and 6'3" wingspan. He was the quickest player by far in the timed shuttle run and timed agility drills and repeatedly finished first in group sprints. Most agreed he was the fastest of the 2002 draft class.
> ...


size matters in the NBA, Jay gets posted up by every big point guard in the league, ie. cam cassel, chauncy billups, larry hughes etc... Jamal has the frame that when filled out, can be used in the post, jay will never be able to post someone up. Jamal's size gives an added dimention to the game. Tyson Chandler wouldnt be a bull if size didnt matter, do you dispute this? The wizards and pistons are proving that you dont need an old school traitional, ball-dominating point guard to be successfull.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree, that is what I meant by 'clearly no'. Jamal's height is such a tenet of those seeing his 'potential' to be a great PG one day. I would argue that it hasn't shown to help all that much in his production.
> ...


apparently it has been helping him seeing how he gets his shots off easily(higher FG% and 3FG%), his blocked shots that he gets every now and then, and his opponents inability to take advantage of him in the post. Jay cant get his shoot off in the NBA level as well as he did at duke.


----------



## Potatoe (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> al harrington took what? 6 years?



It took him 6 years to do what exactly?


----------



## Killuminati (Jul 30, 2002)

Krause better trade JC, all he does is complain. He has his chance while Jay was injured but didn't do anything worth noting. If he would have bulked up this summer he wouldn't be on the trade block.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> size matters in the NBA, Jay gets posted up by every big point guard in the league, ie. cam cassel, chauncy billups, larry hughes etc... Jamal has the frame that when filled out, can be used in the post, jay will never be able to post someone up. Jamal's size gives an added dimention to the game. Tyson Chandler wouldnt be a bull if size didnt matter, do you dispute this? The wizards and pistons are proving that you dont need an old school traitional, ball-dominating point guard to be successfull.


Hmm... that's interesting. I can't seem to remember one time in his whole NBA career that Jamal has posted up a 'smaller' PG. Heck I can't even remember him ever posting up for that matter. Maybe he should start doing it then, because 6'5" players should do that... I mean Trent Hassell does it, why can't Jamal?  (please note sarcasm here)

Jamal's offensive game is primarily spot up shooting and pull-up jumpers, something he has done reasonably well. As of late, he has been driving the lane more and is an average distributer. That smacks of being an NBA 2 guard if you ask me. Why he is not getting any burn there, I don't know....

Per the Wizards and Pistons debate, that's really a fallacy of composition. The Wiz have Stack/MJ as point forwards, and Pistons have a veteran team w/ Rip and C.Robinson as good passing forwards as well. I don't see how that compares in any way w/ the Bulls now.

Per the height debate, you are somewhat correct. But height is only important in that it gives a player a competitive advantage versus other players at his position. So as with height, so is quickness, speed, explosiveness, court saavy, intelligence, etc. It is one component of a good player, not the be-all and end-all of comparing players.



VD


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

I see these comparisons to Hughes and Kidd and let me tell you...uhh... no.

Hughes could dream of the day he can shoot like Crawford.
Jay will never be a everynight trip-dub like JKidd. Kidd is the second best player in the NBA. I doubt Jay will ever be that.

What your looking at here is more of a "Penny Hardaway" (pre-injury) vs. "Damon Stoudamire" arguement here. Both soild players, though very very different.

++++++++++++++++++

Let's take a look at some stats here. (Much thanks to Kneepad for them) Take from them what you will.

P.P.I Ratings:
Jamal- #194
(Dali-#229)
Jay- #236

+/- (season):
Jamal- +0.4	
Jay- -9.0

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now, let me just, really quickly, stick a fork in a few arguements before they get out of hand. The theory that the Bulls would not use their #2 if the really believed in Jamal is laughable. They took the consensous "best player avalible." end of story. 

Ex#1: GS took Mike D. when they had PLEANTY of SFs. Does taking him mean they had "given up" on Jamison and Troy? I don't think so. 

EX#2: Does Memphis taking Gooden at #4 means they had clearly stated thier allegiance to him, and given up on Gasol? No, they realized they had a versitile played already on thier roster, that, with a bit of work, could slide to a second position.

The list goes on and on. I laugh out loud, I really do, at any notion that anyone (other then Bill) has "clearly choosen the PG of the future." That a statement borne of hype.

The only thing that is clear is that Bill is willing to ride his pets (Hassell, Blount) on past reputation. It takes a VERY VERY clear victory for him to change his set ways. And I'll be honest here, Jamal has not outplayed Jay by much. _ He CLEARLY has, but not by enough for Bill to change his set ways. _ Just look at the time it took for him to admit Trent needed to be benched... at LEAST 2 months. The Jay/Jamal situation is, not suprisingly, developing in a similar vein.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> What your looking at here is more of a "Penny Hardaway" (pre-injury) vs. "Damon Stoudamire" arguement here. Both soild players, though very very different.


I think this proves my earlier point about view Craws' potential. 

I knew Penny (pre-injury) and let me tell you that Craw is no Penny. Penny was top 5 in the league.

I see Craw as Jalen Rose's mini-me. 

First, he needs to gets his head on straight: 15% likelyhood with the Bulls, and 60% likelyhood after switching team a few times. Then, if he bulks up and finds his shot, he makes a nice combo guard. 7th man on a championship squad.

I see JWill as Stoudamire in the worst case scenerio (20% chance) vs. as good or better than Tim Hardaway (80% chance) in the best. Could be the best backcourt player on a championship squad.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Killuminati</b>!
> Krause better trade JC, all he does is complain. He has his chance while Jay was injured but didn't do anything worth noting. If he would have bulked up this summer he wouldn't be on the trade block.


Yeah Jamal has done nothing except outplay JWill and complain a lot less. Your points are really valid....


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I think this proves my earlier point about view Craws' potential.
> ...


I think Craw is VERY similar to Penny in many ways. He is still in the developmental stages though, Penny had more college experience when he came into the league. I also like the JWill Stoudemire comparison and think it might be very valid.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

ACE man since you have come back you have been posting like crazy and pretty much all i am hearing is this constant dogging of a rookie PG learning a new and complicated offense and praising of Crawford like he is the second coming of Magic or something. Bottom line is both guys havent been far from stellar at the position and their production has been basically equally bad


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

Some more information:

JC in November:
18.3min, 39.4% FG, 33% 3pt, 66.7% FT, 1.2TO, 2.9AST, 6.3PTS in 14 games

JC in December:
17.2min, 38.9% FG, 33% 3pt, 75% FT, 1.3TO, 2.6AST, 7.5PTS in 14 games

JC in January:
27.8min, 41.3% FG, 37.5% 3pt, 77.4% FT, 2.0 TO, 4.1AST, 10.4PTS in 15 games

JC in Feb:
28.5min, 41.2% FG, 33% 3pt, 75% FT, 2.0 TO, 4.8AST, 13.0PTS in 4 games.

Steady improvement. Don't trade him! Gonna perform even better throughout Feb/into March. 

Through all this, I will agree with one thing the JWill lovas proclaim. JWill is going to be our future PG.

I will disagree with another, because Crawford should start right now. Not only that, he should be our starting 2 guard next season... Rose can say hello to the 3 and less minutes for sucking so much.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

JC vs Jay.


We didn't spend the #2 draft pick to draft a backup PG. We drafted a starting PG. If anyone is traded, it will be Crawford. I don't want to see either get traded, Id like to see them start in the same backcourt.

But that wont happen, at least not this year.

Neither Williams nor Crawford have lit it up this season(Im talking about consistantly doing well, not a one night performance). What that says to me is that neither has adjusted to the NBA yet. 

So then, you have a rookie PG who hasn't adjusted and a 3rd year PG who hasn't adjusted.

Which would you bank your future on?
Id bank it on the rookie. At least he is a rookie and can improve drastically. The third year player should be showing some dividends.

Thats not to say Crawford can't become a good player. But before this season, everyone was labeling Fizer a bust. Fizer was a scapegoat, and everyone thought he was a waste of a pick. But yet Crawford has "potential". Both came from the same draft, so why one thing for Fizer, then another for Crawford.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> ACE man since you have come back you have been posting like crazy and pretty much all i am hearing is this constant dogging of a rookie PG learning a new and complicated offense and praising of Crawford like he is the second coming of Magic or something. Bottom line is both guys havent been far from stellar at the position and their production has been basically equally bad


I don't want to dog JWill, I like JWill just fine and I think he could end up being a great pg some day, probably better than Crawford (note the probably). But, the thing that bothers me is I don't want to see the Bulls GIVE the job to JWill and thats what they have been doing since the season started. Jamal has consistently outplayed JWill and EARNED the right to start and finish games. You know, I would be defending JWill too if he had been clearly outplaying Crawford, but he hasn't. I watch the games and the difference between making a run and getting down seems to be playing Crawford or playing JWill, any way you slice it. It is true what you say though, I expect better things out of both of them!


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal has consistently outplayed JWill and EARNED the right to start and finish games.



No, the only thing that is consistent with them is their inconsistency. 

Neither has been consistent. Neither has outplayed the other. Neither is "deserving" of starting. Unfortunelty, someone has to start. Id rather have Jay starting since he is the future PG for us.(why else would we draft him with the #2 spot)


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I think this proves my earlier point about view Craws' potential.
> ...


Actually, I can see the logic behind the Rose/Craw comparision. It's not to far off actually, and it's a comparison I've thrown out thier before. The reason I used Penny other then Rose is because Penny (pre-injury) was a great PG, while I see Rose as a more of a SG who can play PG(or Point Forward) in a pinch. I think at his peak Jamal will be a slightly better passer and shooter then Rose, while a slightly lesser rebounder/post-up player then Rose... but the overall dynamic is very similar.



> First, he needs to gets his head on straight: 15% likelyhood with the Bulls, and 60% likelyhood after switching team a few times. Then, if he bulks up and finds his shot, he makes a nice combo guard. 7th man on a championship squad.
> 
> I see JWill as Stoudamire in the worst case scenerio (20% chance) vs. as good or better than Tim Hardaway (80% chance) in the best. Could be the best backcourt player on a championship squad.


I must say I don't really follow your % logic here, and I'd have to disagree completely with the 7th man/best backcourt player futures for either.
During thier "peak" years (~24-32) I can see both as being soild starters on a contending team. But I cannot really see either being a #1 on thier team. #1A or #2, yes, totally. But I don't think either has an uber-stud,MVP,all-star,Hall-of-fame future in the cards...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I think Craw is VERY similar to Penny in many ways. He is still in the developmental stages though, Penny had more college experience when he came into the league.


Penny played 2 year at Memphis and played great right away in the NBA so Crawford is clearly off this pace. However, Penny is skinny and had some combo guard tentencies, so I can see how someone would hope that Crawford could grow into that type of player.

But, when I watched Penny in college and his rookie year in the pros, it was magical and you knew that he should have the ball in his hands. 

When I look at Crawford, he reminds me much more of a Jalen Rose or Doug Christy whom can handle and distribute well but just not well enough to be a front-line PG. There have been countless attempts to turn these types of SGs into 1s. It just has not worked well. 

This can't be quantify with numbers easily, and if you and Jim and the other Crawford supporters really believe Craw is a true PG, we will have to agree to disagree.



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!I also like the JWill Stoudemire comparison and think it might be very valid.


Stoudemire in his rookie year shot 42%, in his best year shot 43% and in his career 41%. Pretty similar numbers to JWill's December. So yes, this makes sense if you assume that JWill's play in December will be his pro pinnacle. I don't.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My only response to that is that we must be watching different games. I've seen every Bulls game this year except one and I would be surprised if Jay has outplayed Jamal over 10 times all year.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> since we are bringing past point i'll bring up mine to that question
> ...


grinch, this was a good discussion. The win/loss can be deceptive, and margin is a good point.

For the sake of ace and for everyone else on the board, here is where the significance in the stats is:

ace, I understand what you are saying about substitutions when JC would help the team overcome a deficit that happened when Jay was on the court. But to be frank, was that because of the Crawford factor, or was it because Marshall or Rose returned to the floor during that time as well? Because if it was something that Crawford did, it would make SOME kind of blip in the stats, in points, rebounds, steals, or assists. He either scored to help them get back in, grabbed boards to help them get back in it, got into the passing lanes to help the Bulls make a run, or found the open man. 

If none of those things happened, but you contest that the team is better with Crawford on it, one might have to wonder if that is ACTIVELY rooted in Crawford's contribution, or maybe more of a PASSIVE root. Guys like Derek Fisher are good shooters and decent point guards, hustling for the ball and playing above average defense. And I've always liked Fisher as a player, even though I think he has a lot of haters among fans. But I think one would have to admit that Fisher is in the lower echelon of point guards in this league. No one would compare Fisher to Jason Kidd, Stephon Marbury, Steve Francis.... no one would even really compare him to Sam Cassell or Mike Bibby, the second tier PG's. He might be somewhere near Travis Best, except that he lacks that speed and isn't often in situations where he is forced to create.

Crawford is basically Fisher. And ace, with your mention of the "triangle PG", I can't help but think that a triangle PG is basically an inferior one. One that doesn't require emphasis.

Let's put it this way. Would you even WANT a Baron Davis-type on our team? If you are rejecting Williams and advocating Crawford, it seems like you are rejecting the modern-day pure point guard and advocating the good shooting average passer.

If you believe in the triangle, then I can't dispute your claim. The stats really don't matter in that case, because we're not looking for the better PG, we're looking for the better member of the triangle offense.

But many of us don't believe the triangle is a winning strategy for this generation of the Bulls. We believe in adapting a strategy that maximize the talent on our roster, not forcing our players into a strategy. 

If you are going to evaluate the Bulls in relation to their present status, then sure, I can see an argument for Crawford. He seems to be running the team more in line with what Cartwright wants to see, and the players can respond more easily. 

I think a good test is to watch exactly what happens when Crawford brings the ball onto the floor. From my memory of the games, he often evaluates the defense, passes off to Rose, moves around to the perimeter and either waits for a jumper or gets the ball back from Rose, only to pass it to Marshall or Hassell or back to Rose. Once in a while, he'll take his man one on one and try to pop a J over him.

On defense, Crawford does a pretty good job trying to stay in front of his opponent, but just because Williams is a particularly BAD defender at this stage, it doesn't make Crawford a particularly GOOD defender. As someone mentioned, Billups took it hard against Crawford with success, and while Billups has good speed and potential for big games, he's about the average NBA PG.

Williams likes to penetrate-and-kick... it's the bread and butter of most rookie point guards, since that's the way they did it in college. Williams tries to juke his guys, draw double teams, and take tough shots or pass off to the man down low. He doesn't have amazing court vision yet, and he's still getting used to his teammates. He likes to take big 3's, and makes an okay amount of them.

To me, Crawford sounds much more in the mold of the triangle PG, which is fine if that's what you want, ace and everyone else who holds to the triangle.

Jay sounds very much like an aggressive point guard that is finding difficulty adjusting to the NBA game and understanding the offensive talents of his teammates. But I like the direction he goes, and the aggressiveness in his game. 

The point: if you love the triangle, then you can love Crawford. I won't dispute that. But if you're like me and you think the triangle is a supplemental structure to the half-court offense and not a strict offensive scheme, then Williams might be the man you are looking for more.

Some questions for ace and for anyone else that has watched the games with an analytical eye: have we won because of the triangle offense? Or has it been more from the defensive side? Are we scrapping to win games, relying on the talent of the players more than the cohesion of the team?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> 
> grinch, this was a good discussion. The win/loss can be deceptive, and margin is a good point.
> ...


you make some very good comments and I concur with a great many of them. First off, let me address the concept of Jamal coming in and helping the team cut into leads and such. Sure, there have been times when other subs happened as well and times when they haven't. It simply seems to me that the players play with more intensity and cohesion when Jamal is in the game. He makes the players around him better, which in the end is the ultimate definition of a pg IMO. Crawford isn't a stellar defender, but I maintain that he is solid and will improve once he adds some bulk that will help him fight through screens, he also does a very nice job of playing the passing lanes and rotating defensively. 

Jamal is definitley more of a triangle pg (although I am of the opinion that ANY skill set CAN be utilized out of the triangle if you make the necessary adjustments). I am a firm supporter of the triangle. I think it is a very good offense. It does have a steep learning curve though, it takes time to learn. But, once a team learns it then they play much improved ball IMO. While they are still catching on (which the Bulls definitley are) it looks very ugly. Sometimes Crawford defers to Rose too much, I'd prefer to have Crawford handle the ball more, but thats what happens when you have a clear vet leader in the backcourt and everyone else is so young. I think the Bulls have only been running the triangle about 50% of the time, which is about right. It seems to me that Jamal sets up the triangle more often than JWill. 

But, to answer your questions, NO, the Bulls have NOT won because of the triangle offense. In fact, at this stage it's almost fair to say they have won in spite of it sometimes. Still, the Bulls do have an awful lot of points in the paint and most of those come from post feeds performed in the triangle. Most of the time when the Bulls win they play very intense defense and they scrap and fight their way to a win. I have seen the team have a good cohesiveness on a lot of occassions, last night there was NO team coheasion for a change.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!
> JC vs Jay.
> 
> So then, you have a rookie PG who hasn't adjusted and a 3rd year PG who hasn't adjusted.
> ...


This is a completely fallacious argument.

These 2 players are 6 months in age apart. If JC stayed in college and came out after his junior year, he'd be in the same draft class as JW.

One could easily argue the JW had better coaching the 3 yrs he played at Duke with one of the great college coaches, then JC had for the 1st yr JC had in the NBA under one of the worse NBA coaches. JC also didn't play much his second yr.

In theory, before all the excuses, JW was suppose to be "NBA Ready" becuase of all his college development. 

So the real argument is which player at the age of 22 is a better NBA player at the age of 22, and which player by the age of 26 will be the better player.

JW despite his playing at Duke cannot defend at the NBA level. This is partly due to technique, but it is also due to physique. He's short and has short arms. He's not going to grow. And those add 3 inch cures don't work for arms either. Opposing players don't need much space to shoot over him like Billups did last night.

JC's as a 1st yr player weighed 165 lbs. As a 3rd yr player, he's at 192-195. JC can add weight. JC has height advantage. JC defense has improved significantly (though last yr he may have been constrianed by the brace). JC blocks shots. In addition he can get his shot off much easier...and can add a post up game..(again he's only 22). His upside on offense and defense IMO is much greater.

JC also shot better from the NBA arc 23'3 last year demonstrating that he has even a better stroke than this yr when he's been questioned on every shot he takes.

JW's college average from 19'9 was less than 39%. He's a horrible shooter, and teams can easily challenge his shot. He has yet to prove he can finish at the rim with any consistency in the NBA against bigger players, especially since he's rejected frequently at this level. JW's still not going to get any taller to get his shot off. JW is already filled out, so strength isn't a weakness.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> Yeah Jamal has done nothing except outplay JWill and complain a lot less. Your points are really valid....


Ummm, let's see here. Jamal has been thrown out of practice, cursed out by Coach C and has whined incessantly throughout the season. Oh yeah, and here's today's snippet from the Jamal camp.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...snotes,0,7685275.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Jamal: "WA WA WA, the team favors Jay, I'm the better player, my agent tells me so"

Aaron Goodwin: "Jamal is clearly the better player, the Bulls are unfair, I'm not just blowing smoke because he puts money in my pocket, blah blah blah."


Ace, don't walk around and criticize Jay while acting like Jamal's s**t don't stink. Cuz it does. And bad.

Thank god the Bulls are gonna light a match...


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

It's very simple. Jamal Crawford or Jay Williams could play 2-guard as I see Jay as a poor man's Allen Iverson in a couple years. But how about Jamal at the 1, Jay at the 2, Rose at the 3, Fizer at the 4, Curry at the 5. Not a bad squad. But Crawford and Williams won't budge so Crawford's gotta go


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

On another note, JW vs JC...one has to look at how the team performed with either one with the first unit in the first and third quarters.

If you do, you'll note that last night's "slow start" coincidently didn't just coincide with JW being inserted back with the starters.

Simply put the Bulls are a better team with JC on the floor than they are with JAy. This has as much to do with team chemistry as it has to do with player ability. 

Regardless here are some numbers from the 1st and 3rd quarters:

With Jamal in the games in the first and third quarters the Bulls have gotten off to good starts and have played well after half time. 


Bulls/Cavs- 1Q 24/12; 3Q 17/18 (jays plays 4 mins) 
Bulls/Jazz- 1Q 25/24; 3Q 32/18 (Jay DNP) 
Bulls/Bucks- 1Q 21/23; 3Q 16/10 (Jay DNP) 
Bulls/Hawks- 1Q 26/22; 3Q 25/28 (jay IR) 
Bulls/Orlando- 1Q 25/25; 3Q 19/22(jay IR) 
Bulls/Wizards- 1Q 21/19; 3Q 22/28(jay IR) 
Bulls/houston- 1Q 26/28; 3Q 32/20(jay IR) 
Bulls/Clippers- 1Q 24/17; 3Q 21/19(JC starts) 
Bulls/Portland- 1Q 29/31; 3Q 22/29 (JC starts) 
Bulls/Seattle- 1Q 22/21; 3Q 12/25(JC starts) 
Bulls/Phoenix- 1Q 34/27; 3Q 29/26 (JC starts) 
Bulls/Denver- 1Q 22/20; 3Q 23/20 (JC starts) 

Total Stats through Houston game 327 Bulls vs 297 Opponents total points 
(23.4 pts per q) vs (21.2 pts per q) 

During the first and 3rd quarters is when JC got his minutes in the above games- the Bulls were competitive in all of these quarters. 

With Jay, before being put on IR, in the first quarter of games, the Bulls typically have fallen behind in the 1st quarter and have not done well while he was in during the third quater. 

Bulls/nets- 1Q 23/23; 3Q 13/31 
Bulls/Minnesota- 1Q 19/29; 3Q 21/31(jay starts) 
Bulls/Spurs- 1Q 20/34; 3Q 18/26 (jay starts) 
Bulls/Portland- 1Q 34/22; 3Q 20/26 (jay starts) 
Bulls/Wiz- 1Q 20/32; 3Q 19/27 (jay starts) 
Bulls/Wiz- 1Q 27/26; 3Q 17/36 (jay starts) 
Bulls/Knicks- 1Q 17/18; 3Q 25/21(jay starts) 
Bulls/Knicks- 1Q 21/27; 3Q 15/24(jay starts) 
Bulls/Hornets- 1Q 16/29; 3Q 15/27(jay starts) 
Bulls/Pistons 1Q 14/24; 3Q 26/24(JW starts and plays most of 1st, JC plays most of 3rd)

Combined Bulls stats through Hornets game: 360 Bulls vs 489 Opponents 
(20 pts per q) vs(27.2 pts per q) 

Jay got most of his minutes in the 1st and 3rd quarters of the above games, and in the vast majority of these quarters, the Bulls were outplayed. The q's with Jay getting most of his minutes, the Bulls scored less, and gave up more. 

Both Brunson and JC should get minutes before Jay...But it was a forgone conclusion that the annointed one- baby jay- would be given his minutes back eventually after coming off of IR. and the pattern of falling behind in 1st quarters, and not doing well in the 3rd quarters will resume as it already has.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

Ztect, speaking of fallacious arguments....



> JC also shot better from the NBA arc 23'3 last year demonstrating that he has even a better stroke than this yr when he's been questioned on every shot he takes.
> 
> JW's college average from 19'9 was less than 39%. He's a horrible shooter, and teams can easily challenge his shot. He has yet to prove he can finish at the rim with any consistency in the NBA against bigger players, especially since he's rejected frequently at this level. JW's still not going to get any taller to get his shot off. JW is already filled out, so strength isn't a weakness.


Jamal's college 3 pt %: .327
Jay's college 3 pt %: .393

Which is better?

Hmmm, and you COULD argue of course that Jamal's stats are not that telling since it is a small sample (17 games). Fair enough.

BUT WAIT! We have found ourselves caught in a conundrum! The same could be said of Jamal's good 3 pt % last year. It was a small sample.

So which is it ztect? Is college 3 pt % or NBA shooting more telling? And has Jamal's career NBA 3 pt percentage really been that great? (.366)

And couldn't it also be said that if Crawford has improved his shooting since college, that it is fair to expect the same out of Jay? Why don't you afford him this prospect of improvement?

ztect, I think you shouold go back to the drawing board on this argument, because it's just not jiving.

In general you afford Crawford all this room for potential and room for improvement, but none for Jay. Why not? Age aside, there is a much steeper learning curve upon entering the NBA, yet you write off Jay's current performance as if it dictates the future. But god forbid we claim that Jamal has no room for improvement... I mean he is the real talent here obviously


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Brunson over Jay. I dunno that's pretty out there. I mean I for one am not overly impressed with Jay's performance so far but we ain't goin to the playoffs this year and Jay is gonna be great. JC should play equal time with Jay now until (I would prefer end of the season and trade JC on draft night) the trade deadline for like 2 or 3 games. And then trade him for a 2 or 3.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

No trading JC- he's integral for the lineup next year.

PG-JWill
SG-Crawford
SF-Rose
PF-Fizer/Chandler
C-Curry

Best bench in the league with Marshall/E-Rob...

This of course ignores who we draft and the fact that if I keep up my sacrifices to the gods, Rose will be traded during the draft for the #1/#2 pick (and Lebron or Darko.... mmmmmm.) But Crawford will bulk up to 210, become more of a shooter, and come back to score 17 a night, and his presence will make JWill's life a little easier.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> Hmm... that's interesting. I can't seem to remember one time in his whole NBA career that Jamal has posted up a 'smaller' PG. Heck I can't even remember him ever posting up for that matter. Maybe he should start doing it then, because 6'5" players should do that... I mean Trent Hassell does it, why can't Jamal?  (please note sarcasm here)
> ...


My point was that Jamal had the frame that when bulked up, he will be able to post up. Tyson Chandler is projected to bulk up at least 15 more LBs within the next few years, what about jamal makes you think he cant bulk up as well? they were both drafted as projects, nothing has changed since

you say that the Piston and Wizard comprison dont hold up with the bulls, well, last time i checked, jalen rose dished out 13 dimes tonight, if that isnt what you call a point forward then i dont know what is. 

The point of my whole argument is that Jamal's upside is much higher then jay's which is true.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> My point was that Jamal had the frame that when bulked up, he will be able to post up. Tyson Chandler is projected to bulk up at least 15 more LBs within the next few years, what about jamal makes you think he cant bulk up as well? they were both drafted as projects, nothing has changed since
> ...


Johnny, now you are getting annoying.

Jamal can and will put on some weight. But he has never posted up in his NBA career, 133 games in. It is unreasonable to expect him to magically develop a post game if he hasn't at least once, tried to do so in an NBA game. You are making this assumption based on height alone. Very, very incorrect. Cassell, Mark Jackson, Gary Payton, etc are some examples of smallish PGs that have developed a post game. Let me know when Jamal starts doing that too okay? Eesh.

The point, which you've obviously missed is that the direction the Bulls want to take this team is with Jay Williams as the PG of the future. How many assists Jalen had tonight is of little consequence. Now you say that Jamal has more upside than Jay. Fine. But I think I'll leave the decision up to coaches and management, who've seen these players day in and day out. They probably forget more about a player than the average Joe fan will know about him in their lifetime.

Now you are comparing Tyson and Jamal. Hmm... Tyson had 27/17/7 tonight... a reason for optimism. Let me know when Jamal gets his first NBA double double... then we'll talk bud.




VD


----------



## BullsNews (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> The fact is Jamal has had 2 solid seasons in the NBA where he was pretty much free to develop and grow and he is still struggling to outperform a rookie... It doesn't add up G.


C'mon Retro, you're much better at arguing your points than this. Jamal tore his acl before last season and played in only 24 games- if that's a "solid season in the NBA where he was pretty much free to develop and grow"... 

And to answer your question, I got JC and Jay's stats as starters from NBa.com


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> 
> grinch, this was a good discussion. The win/loss can be deceptive, and margin is a good point.
> ...


showtyme i get your point i'm just a believer that you play the guy who helps your team win the most ,and i believe (and the facts do back me up on this one) that JC helps the bulls win more right now, that fact is really kind of indisputable 

I'll take your fisher example and use as a practical reason for my belief 

With fisher the Lakers are at their best, now if they suddenly up and traded him for a more talented player who scored better but defended less the lakers although getting more talent would lose on the trade (if the talent upgrade was reasonable ,like a bobby jackson not an iverson)becuase its not some experiment in lab or a fantasy squad bball team all trades and players aquisitions have to be done with the thought in mind of how it affects the team.

JC clearly affects the team in a more positive way while he's on the court than williams and it doesn't matter if its passive or aggressive because either way it shows up on the scoreboard 

imo williams contributions on off. in most occasions are counterproductive becuase they dont run the triangle the majority of the time he is on the floor ,it a band-aid on a gun shot wound its a little nice but in the end it doesn't really help 

the players playing with williams are having their adaptation to the triangle compromised not only by williams not running it but by his self-serving comments in the press which all but begging for the off. to be scapped.

and the latter is almost as important as the former in the sense that a team gets its cues from its pg. on the court if your floor leader doesn't believe in the play you are running it greatly lessens its ability to work right . 

Kobe& MJ made the off. work even when they didn't believe in it becuase they are clearly special players( a regard i dont hold for either JC or williams) and also because the other players although in many cases skeptical bought in to the system and ran it the way it was supposed to be run 

JC gives the team structure by running the offense the way its suppose to be run williams will always be an ill fit so i dont that will ever happen with him as he tends to think of how the offense being run affects him as opposed to the team 

i think a lot of people are just hoping for the day the bulls will no longer run the triangle and williams is the answer to your prayers ,

he isn't, Mj couldn't get the offense changed when it had no proof in the league as an effective offense.williams has no chance 

the triangle will live on in the league after both williams and crawford are collecting their nba pensions as will the pick and roll and any other effective tried and true play set 

and to the question why do the bulls win ,when they win i think its a combination of factors they dont win every game for the same reason sometimes the young bigs play great as TC did tonight although they didn't win but at least 4 out of 5 times it would have helped greatly and insured a win it is occasionally rose and marshall playing above their normal output becuase there are certain teams they can dominate

they do win a game or 2 here and there because they are more talented(other teams cant shoot over their height or the athletic ability was too much etc.) and just happened not to make the young team mistakes they are very prone to do 

the wins that give me the most hope are the rare occasions their defense stop opponent more than anything else and that happens often enough to make me think it will be the main cause of their victories in a couple of years as it has to be if they are going to be the team we all hope they are going to be


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

grinch

I think you and I are on opposite camps not as much on Craw vs. Jay but on triangle vs. non-triangle, which is the main point of my post.

I agree with most of what you said, if you are a believer in the TRIANGLE equating to long-term wins. I think you have to qualify everything you said with that "long-term" winning, not the recent wins of this season. But, I LIKED the wins from this season... a lot of that on defense, as you said, more on that later.

But I really think that Jay is more than band-aid production on a gunshot wound. I think he challenges the coaching and even though he is demanding a lot of attention to himself, if he DOES succeed in convincing the organization that he's a special player to be maximized and not reduced into a role beneath his talent, it will mean good things for our team.

The triangle needs the superstars. Why couldn't Jay be one of them?

I think that up til recently, I have believed that it is Chandler and Curry who will be the superstars of the team. They were the so-called cornerstones of the team. But remember that neither of them were consensus #2 picks, which Jay Williams certainly was, and that Jay's 2002 draft class is as strong or stronger than 2001's (2001 = Tony Parker, Richard Jefferson, Troy Murphy, J-Rich, Shane Battier, Vlad Rad, Gilbert Arenas, Jamaal Tinsley... 2002 = Yao Ming, Drew Gooden, Dajuan Wagner, Caron Butler, Amare Stoudemire, Nene Hilario, Carlos Boozer). Jay has as high expectations, if not higher, as Chandler and Curry do, and he has as much right to be the superstar.

What I am about to do is not going to be extremely sound reasoning, mainly because I don't claim to be an expert on the triangle offense. But from what I know about the triangle, I think that it's flexible as to who its stars are. The Lakers have really been primarily running it on Shaq's talent, whereas the Bulls ran it with the talent primarily in Jordan and Pippen. We can't restrict the idea of the triangle... if Jay and Chandler end up being the primary points of the triangle, why not? Who says that the triangle REQUIRES a passive point guard? The ball movement and distribution allows ANY player to capitalize on their defensive mismatches, and that player could very well be Jay.

I think that the triangle does not require a Fisher/Harper-like player.

The assertion that the triangle runs better today with Crawford than it does with Jay is a difficult one to swallow, because even you said it yourself, ace said it himself (and I heartily agree)... the Bulls haven't been running the triangle very well these days. Our triangle offense is a gun-shot wound. 

Jay can adjust to it if he becomes the emphasis of it. Make Jay into "just a guard", not the classic boring triangle PG that we've come to stereotype. 

He doesn't need ALL the attention, or the ENTIRE offense to revolve around him, but as he continues to improve and put adjust his game to the NBA, it seems plausible that his best contribution to the triangle offense will be as scorer and finisher and not solely as initiator and distributor.

One thing I will agree with that you said, grinch. Our wins recently have been coming from defense, and I think I applaud Cartwright for his emphasis on it. It makes the offensive scheme altogether less important, and that's a good mentality to bring to the game.

A big stop on D affects the final score just as much as a big bucket on the offensive end. Keeping your opponent from scoring 2 is the same as scoring 2 yourself.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Showtyme*

1st of all we do agree on some points but something i think you missed the point on band aid reference

its nice that williams plays better on sets outside the triangle but ,he needs to run the triangle well playing outside of the triangle well in the long run doesn't help they are only playing the majority of the sets outside of the Triangle when williams is on the court for williams benefit, not the teams

its counterptroductive because regardless on how anyone feels about the triangle thats the set they are going to run, personally i play a lot of pick and roll basketball its easy and its effective and fun but we aren't talking about my perferences and unfortunately for williams his choice in the matter is not being heard either because they wont change their whole way of doing things and their basketball ideologies for a rookie ,that is apparent especially when considering they forced Jordan to play it when he didn't want to when he was a heck of a lot more established than williams is now(in MJ's 5th year they started the triangle) so whether or not the triangle is liked or not its just a way that the bulls are being run like their emphasis on defense its not a strength of williams but they aren't going to change that for jay either

jay has the ability to play well in the triangle i do believe that, but his talents are not really being used correctly in it and i doubt its the coaching staff at fault i put the blame on williams for that (people forget the 1st 3 titles the triangle ran from the outside Cartwright was a player on that team he knows exactly how to use the triangle to get his perimeter players off offensively)and in many cases on the other players on the floor as with alot of young players they dont always execute or know exactly where to be and when to be there

if the only way they can keep jay playing anything close to well enough to keep him on the floor is to run other sets, its a problem.Because then they aren't really teaching him to play as they believe players should be taught and the only reason(i believe) is he is being showcased, every other player is being taught to play within the offense and for jay this changes but it can only be temporary because both JK and BC are stubborn to a fault so either he gets with the program or he's going to be gone

and even if he stays he'll never be the player JC is in the triangle because even though crawford's game is probably not best suited for the triangle its much better suited than wiliams'


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Good points guys. I definitley agree with your line of reasoning Happy Grinch and you made some nice points too Showtyme. I just wanted to point out that last night was the rare game where I actually felt like JWill was outplaying JC.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Bumpitty bump.

Although at first, it seems like Crawford is playing considerably worse and Jay is playing considerably better, the truth is that they are still playing at a very similar level. The difference is that Jay has been improving coming off of his injury, while Crawford is having trouble for no apparent reason.

In the last six games,

Jamal Crawford: 8 ppg, 4.2 apg, 1.5 TO, 1.5 spg, 2.5 rpg.

Jay Williams: 9.3 ppg, 4.6 apg, 2.8 TO, 1.5 spg, 2.33 rpg.

Very similar numbers. 

How much have the Bulls been running the triangle? Are they still hopelessly committed to it?


----------



## Bullsmaniac (Jun 17, 2002)

I tried calling George Karl, no answer, I think he has caller ID and saw my area code is from Chicago. Any other suggestions on who to call to get Ray???


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Bump.

I might reiterate my theory that Crawford has great games in Bulls losses, and Jay has bad games in Bulls losses. Crawford generally doesn't perform well in Bulls wins, while Jay has strong games in Bulls wins.

Crawford continues to average 3 more points in Bulls losses than wins, and shoot a much higher percentage from the field and from behind the arc. Williams averages more than 3 more points in Bulls wins than losses, and shoots much much higher percentages from the field and from 3-point range in wins than in losses.

The anomaly becomes a trend as the sample size grows.

Crawford lit it up tonight, yet the Bulls lost. Jay had a poor game, and even though he played fewer minutes... they lost.

It seems like Jay's good play is more beneficial to the Bulls winning than Jamal's good play. 

I think that the "play them both" faction is beginning to win me over more and more. It's not a bad experiment to try in the beginning of next season (and even the end of this season).

Fred Hoiberg should never get more than 15 minutes in any given game. Even with 7/7/2 and 0 TO's. The fact that he's getting the minutes is unrelated to the fact that he's getting the stats. Eddie Robinson needs to return to the rotation... unfortunately, I'm getting the feeling that he'll have to earn all his minutes back again. Whatever happened to "I'm a starter, start me. I am a great player."? Now it's, "I'm not going to be playing for a while." That's crazy talk.

Members of Camp Crawford, finally your day has arrived. Crawford has really broken out tonight, while Jay showed poor shot selection. Any comments?


----------



## fear7 (Jun 12, 2002)

My heart is with Camp Crawford. But if JWill turns out to be the better choice I accept I'm wrong and continue to cheer the Bulls like always... 

Anywayz, I think JWill was handed the starting position and by in large JC has definitely outplayed him during the season. 

Not that I think JWill will be a bad PG although I don't think he will be an elite one I just think Crawford will fit our team better down the road and combined with the fact JWill has excellent trade value then JC is the best option for the team. 

I hold the JC better for us than JWill for a number of reasons:

* Better size and excellent lenght, able to switch defensively with screens, this will only get better as his body develops. JC given time could defnitiely become one of the new "dobermans on the wing", especially given he will be able to play really tight given EC and TC being able to block and alter shots.

* Ultimately I think we will return to the triangle and JC is a much better suit for the offense. Excellent J, play multiple spots. As has been said many times we don't need a drive and dish PG for that offense we need players able to hit open shots. JWills inconsistant J will hurt when teams start doubling our young bigs.

* JC doesn't have to 'take a game over' to be effective. I think everyone will agree he will never be an all star but I think he can be an excellent role playing PG/G. Clearly our scoring is going to come from Curry and Rose (or more likely a rose replacement). JWill I don't think will ever just fit in and play a role he will want to be the dominant player it's just his personality some see this as a strength and for the early years in our development it probably would be but longer term we need people who will play roles.

* JWill will fetch an excellent player in return for a trade. I think to finish off our team we need:
* a good vet player who can play C and PF
* defensive 3 able to guard the dirk/pierce/mcgrady type SFs
* backup player with potential to assume the 2 spot in 2 or 3 years
* backup vet PG

With JWill, our pick and anyone else not named TC/EC and JC we have enough parts to do this. Bruson and Mason are probably enough cover at PG. The C/PF situation could best be filled by PJ Brown or similar but a vet with lesser ability but good habits would be ok too, this also is less of an issue given TC can play C and Curry is developing nicely. I'm thinking our pick this year should be either to pick a prospect 2 guard or to trade for one, someone who given time could be a good but needs 2 / 3 years of development. The defensive 3 has been spoke of at great lenght but assuming we are going to have Rose or a subsitute wing doing a bulk of our scoring the defensive 3 doesn't necessarily have to be an all star just a defensive machine who has range. I think AK47 or Harrington would be perfect.

Well thats the end of my general rant.

Fear7
Team Crawford Member


----------



## k^2 (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> It seems like Jay's good play is more beneficial to the Bulls winning than Jamal's good play.


Or maybe when Jay plays like crap it hurts the Bulls more then when Crawford playing like crap. Mainly because If Jay plays bad he still plays at least 20 minutes. If Craw plays bad he never gets off the bench.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

That's not necessarily true. There's been lots of occasions when Crawford has played significant minutes off the bench, poorly, and had little impact on the game.

That's the original premise of my theory. *If Jay's upswings help the Bulls win and downswings hurt the Bulls more, and if Jamal's swings are oppositely effective, then Jay is more of an impact when he's on the floor. He can DO something to help this team win. With Jamal... his contribution has less impact on the outcome of the game, it seems.*


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> The point of my whole argument is that Jamal's upside is much higher then jay's which is true.


Not everybody believes this, Johnny. I still think Jay has a little more potential, and I think Crawford has a lot by the way.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> That's not necessarily true. There's been lots of occasions when Crawford has played significant minutes off the bench, poorly, and had little impact on the game.
> 
> That's the original premise of my theory. *If Jay's upswings help the Bulls win and downswings hurt the Bulls more, and if Jamal's swings are oppositely effective, then Jay is more of an impact when he's on the floor. He can DO something to help this team win. With Jamal... his contribution has less impact on the outcome of the game, it seems.*


or maybe its that crawfords game is more well rounded(defending,running the offense etc.) than williams so scoring alone isn't the indicator that it is for jc as williams


----------



## Crawscrew (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> That's not necessarily true. There's been lots of occasions when Crawford has played significant minutes off the bench, poorly, and had little impact on the game.
> 
> That's the original premise of my theory. *If Jay's upswings help the Bulls win and downswings hurt the Bulls more, and if Jamal's swings are oppositely effective, then Jay is more of an impact when he's on the floor. He can DO something to help this team win. With Jamal... his contribution has less impact on the outcome of the game, it seems.*


The reason why the Bulls play better when Jay plays better, is because when Jay plays good, he gets 30 min or more a game. If Craw plays good, he still only gets at most like 25 min a game, because the Bulls are committed to Jay. It is not that Jay has that much more of an impact on a game, as it is that the coach has much more impact on a game. Look at last night, what would have happened if Jamal got 35 min, it was a little like the cavs game for Jay. He played good, and Jamal played bad, and Jay got 36 min. Last night Jamal played good, and Jay played bad, Jamal got 28 min, Jay got 21. The Bulls mad another big run with Jamal in the game, what could have happened if Jamal got 8 more min, and Jay 8 less...sigh...als we will never know, because Jay needs his minutes, that is why Jay impacts the game more.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Showtyme*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> its nice that williams plays better on sets outside the triangle but ,he needs to run the triangle well playing outside of the triangle well in the long run doesn't help they are only playing the majority of the sets outside of the Triangle when williams is on the court for williams benefit, not the teams


When Jay keeps the ball in his hands and drives down the lane (the triangle is predicated on passing, not dribbling; the triangle is all about exploiting a weakness in the defense; Jay is all about forcing the defence into a point of weakness; thus, Jay driving down the lane, in my limited understanding, is to some degree a defiance of the general principles of the triangle), lately the major benefactors have been whatever bigs have been down with him (mostly Eddy of late, and Tyson and Yell as well). He's been getting them easy buckets, which I think is the best thing we could possibly do for the young bigs, and therefore, in my opinion, the team as a whole.

Say what you want, but when Jay plays his way, it's isn't an Iversonian "ME ME ME" offense. Jay's instinct is to play a team game, and personally I love the way he does it.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Crawscrew</b>!
> 
> 
> The reason why the Bulls play better when Jay plays better, is because when Jay plays good, he gets 30 min or more a game. If Craw plays good, he still only gets at most like 25 min a game, because the Bulls are committed to Jay. It is not that Jay has that much more of an impact on a game, as it is that the coach has much more impact on a game. Look at last night, what would have happened if Jamal got 35 min, it was a little like the cavs game for Jay. He played good, and Jamal played bad, and Jay got 36 min. Last night Jamal played good, and Jay played bad, Jamal got 28 min, Jay got 21. The Bulls mad another big run with Jamal in the game, what could have happened if Jamal got 8 more min, and Jay 8 less...sigh...als we will never know, because Jay needs his minutes, that is why Jay impacts the game more.


This irks me to no end. I thought Jay played fine last night, and if you think he is responsible for our third quarter collapse last night, you have got to be kidding me. It seems like every other player we had got totally overwhelmed by bad calls and it led to them jawing with refs and getting irritated over playing basketball. 

Jay did not shoot well, but his all court game looked fine. He was driving and dishing and I loved it. Dixon was hitting shots on him, but Jay was playing him particularly tough. 

Jay's also been in double figures 4 out of the last 6 games. His 21 minutes were not entitlement minutes. Can the "Jamal Crew" admit that Jay has been playing well lately? I hope so, because he has.

That being said, Jamal looked nothing less than awesome in the fourth last night. This is the first time I remember saying to our team "let me lead you back into this game. It's on my shoulders." You know what? Maybe he should say that more often, because he was killin'! He wasn't setting up his teammates, he was just flat out scoring. Which is why I believe he is or should be...

...the 2 guard of our present.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Showtyme*



> Originally posted by <b>DMD</b>!
> 
> 
> When Jay keeps the ball in his hands and drives down the lane (the triangle is predicated on passing, not dribbling; the triangle is all about exploiting a weakness in the defense; Jay is all about forcing the defence into a point of weakness; thus, Jay driving down the lane, in my limited understanding, is to some degree a defiance of the general principles of the triangle), lately the major benefactors have been whatever bigs have been down with him (mostly Eddy of late, and Tyson and Yell as well). He's been getting them easy buckets, which I think is the best thing we could possibly do for the young bigs, and therefore, in my opinion, the team as a whole.
> ...


people make alot of excuses for williams 1st i was the triangle (to which the bulls lowered their use of the triangle)

then it was competing for time JC (even though at the time willams was leading rookies in min. played)

then it was his confidence and then his ankle (for which he got a 5 game rest in the middle of the season which is unheard of for confidence issues unless you are a true mental case like vin baker)

then it was willaims saying it was him just not being aggresive enough (to which BC said he wanted him to be more aggressive all along)

then it was the triangle again (the triangle is used like 20 % of the time now ) 

enough with the excuses

sometimes its just the player not being as ready for the professional level as he believed in which case get use to it because he will continue to struggle no matter what excuse is being used 

not only are the bulls not using the triangle much they are primarily using an offense he supposedly excels in, the screen roll

if he truly needs the ball to be more successful he should come off the bench and play half his minutes(the 10 or so ) when jalen is off the floor til he proves himself ready for more

but i dont think it would matter and apparently neither does the coaching staff


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Showtyme*



> enough with the excuses


What excuses have I made, happy? I said that Jay is great when he's driving and dishing, and he's been doing it lately. I'm making no excuses for him. In fact, I really think he's been playing well of late.

I guess I said something about keeping the ball in his hands being contrary to the triangle, but he's been doing it lately, and if the coaches are cool with that, then that's great. I just want to see more of the same. 

But I didn't make any excuses as to why he's playing badly, because I don't believe he is.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

if it were so needed that he needed the ball more they would give it to him (they have no problem getting the ball to rose do they?)

everyone likes to paint the triangle in a negative light when it comes to jay , but the triangle didn't stop mj from putting up 30 a game nor did it stop pippen and brand from getting 20 a game 

the triangle is about exploiting weakness in opponents and if williams could exploit it in the screen roll he can do it in the triangle if he cant i put the onus on him and experience isn't the that big a reason because brand only played 2 years at duke and managed just fine

the traingle is about creating space and creating options, with spacing williams should have room to drive and create, and he does, its on him to use it ...it is him who has to learn when to pick his spots , when to pass and when to shoot 

and the fact the bulls have changed so much just to suit him is not a good sign

and the excuse you made is that you appeared to say that the triangle in some of its principles are holding jay back


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> everyone likes to paint the triangle in a negative light when it comes to jay , but the triangle didn't stop mj from putting up 30 a game nor did it stop pippen and brand from getting 20 a game


*I thought we weren't running the triangle much anymore, but if you want to argue about the effect of the triangle on JWill, that's an easy one.*

Jordan was the best offensive player in the NBA before the triangle was implemented and Jordan broke the triangle at will w/o no possiblity of being seated on the bench.

Pippen was in similar shoes.

Conversely, JWill doesn't know which of his skills on standard PG plays (i.e. pick and roll, penetrate to the rim and finish or dish) translate to the NBA and is also trying to learn the offense which lacks many of these standard plays (i.e. no iso play for a PG). And if he breaks the offense to make a play, he is concened that he will be benched. 

And I would think we can all agree that the triangle effects a PG more than a PF, right?


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Jamal shows up when no one else does.

Earlier in January-February when he was starting on the road, we were within 7 points of games against the Nuggets, Bucks, Suns, Clippers, Heat, and the Wizards. Our biggest loss with him starting was by 13 against the Blazers. His double figure efforts haven't gone to waste.

Take the Bucks OT loss for example. . .

He played 49, he scored 16, to supplement Jalen's 19, Marcus' 13, and Trenton's 11 points. It's not like he had the benefit of Tyson's 20 points 9 bounds, Eddys 12 and 5, E-Rob's 13 IN ADDITION to Jalen's 28 and Donyell's 10 when Jay had his big game of 20 against. . .the 11-47 Cavs. 

I am starting to see in him a guy to pick up the slack.

On the other hand, Jay's been producing because the big guys have been producing as of late. For the combo of a win and a good game from Jay, it usually takes the other guys not named Jalen or Donyell to produce. 

He's had the 20-point stat pad games in February from the. . .14 pt blowout in Orlando, the shellacking against the Hawks, the super shellacking by the Nets. So it's not really a matter of Jay's upswings. IT'S ABOUT THE REST OF THE TEAM SHOWING UP.

And the rest of the team showing up usually depends on the tone set in the first and third quarters because we are a momentum-based team and that's where we've been beaten lately. It's also when the starters are in the majority of the time. Though he's only a rookie, I haven't seen, heard, or read (save for the Nets game) about him leading the team when everyone else has had to have good games. But with that, I think he'll have a better sophomore year, hopefully DEFENSIVELY SAVVY and TOUGH and fused with a bigger badder Jamal Crawford, and become a Kevin-Johnson clone. . .WITH A RING. Multiple Rings. For the Chicago Bulls.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> *I thought we weren't running the triangle much anymore, but if you want to argue about the effect of the triangle on JWill, that's an easy one.*
> ...


so since the triangle isn't being played and it was the problem ...where is the improvement.

the triangle was not the problem , and people need to stop making the excuse that it is


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> so since the triangle isn't being played and it was the problem ...where is the improvement.
> 
> the triangle was not the problem , and people need to stop making the excuse that it is


since there are no stats kept on % of triangle being played, it's a little tough to correlate his play to the triangle being run.

I don't see all of the games incl. last night, but JWill has been more effective at creating opportunies for others of late with less triangle being run. 

Feel free to bash JWill and his supports until the cows come home. 

But clearly the kid needs to hit his shots a more consistantly and play better D with or w/o the triangle.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> since there are no stats kept on % of triangle being played, it's a little tough to correlate his play to the triangle being run.
> ...


my point is simple if the triangle is holding him back it should be easy to see when he isn't playing in the triangle becuase his play should have improved not just from play to play but overall

because they were playing it most of the time at the start of the season to about 1/5th of the time now so his #s should be a lot better now than lets say in november and you dont need actual facts and figures for that you just need common sense

but he isn't significantly better because the triangle was never the problem its just another excuse and its not bashing its just the truth


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> but he isn't significantly better because the triangle was never the problem its just another excuse and its not bashing its just the truth


Did anyone say that Jwill would hit 50% of his shots if they killed the triangle. Or 80% of his FTs? We all said, including you, that the triangle offense was not the best offense for JWill. Guess what? Looks like everyone was right. The Bulls are not running the triangle nearly as much. 

And despite that fact that JWill is not shooting the ball well, he still is more effective in creating for others now that more iso plays (e.g. pick and roll) are being utilitzed.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i actually never mentioned his shooting although it it still rather poor 

i'm referring to his general positive impact for the bulls ,despite the bulls changing the way they play for his benefit, his game has not really improved .as i said in another thread Jk said the triangle was not meant for kids even though he more than anyone knows it was devised for college kids so its within the bulls grasp to learn and prosper at 

and the proof is in the playing the bulls haven't gotten much better if at all as the triangle has been used less 

my point is its not the offense its the player, and people need to stop making excuses for his play blaming everything under the sun for his play because if a team goes to a 2 man game and the williams is 1 of the 2 men his #s should jump up just like if curry all of a sudden got 20 post ups a game ...but it doesn't despite the team bending over backwards to help him out 

johnson,if williams in a pick & roll offense is best for the team why dont the bulls play better now as opposed to lets say when williams was on the IL?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> johnson,if williams in a pick & roll offense is best for the team why dont the bulls play better now as opposed to lets say when williams was on the IL?


Williams has played better in my opinion. He has really helped us in all of our recent wins so it seems like the team plays better with less triangle, too.

As for improvement from Jan because of this,well, Fizer getting hurt has certainly not helped us one bit as far as putting Ws on the board.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Williams has played better in my opinion. He has really helped us in all of our recent wins so it seems like the team plays better with less triangle, too.


seeing as the bulls have won only 4 of their last 17 i beg to differ about the bulls playing better as they lessen their use of the triangle but if 4 out of 17 is all you ask of the bulls and williams i guess we just have different expectations


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> seeing as the bulls have won only 4 of their last 17 i beg to differ about the bulls playing better as they lessen their use of the triangle but if 4 out of 17 is all you ask of the bulls and williams i guess we just have different expectations


Looks like we are 4 out of last 19 to me. And as far as playing better, it all depends when you start counting. 

The Bulls were 0-7 just before the All-STAR game with Craw starting and playing the same or more mins than JWill in most of the games.

Post All-star break seemed to be when the Bulls let go of the reigns to some extend. Granted, this is subjective. But In the last 12 with JWill starting, we are 4-8. Seems like an improvement to me.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Looks like we are 4 out of last 19 to me. And as far as playing better, it all depends when you start counting.
> ...


And that was BEFORE Tyson and Eddy started picking it up.

And we were on the ROAD. 

And we lost by double digits 3 times in that 10 game stretch.

In 12 games with Jay, we've lost by double digits 5 times with 2 coming at home.

Jamal shows up when no one named Jalen and Donyell do. 

Jay will get better.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>E L D R U H M A I</b>!
> 
> And that was BEFORE Tyson and Eddy started picking it up.


Perhaps going away from the triangle had some effect on this.



> Originally posted by <b>E L D R U H M A I</b>!
> And we lost by double digits 3 times in that 10 game stretch.
> 
> In 12 games with Jay, we've lost by double digits 5 times with 2 coming at home.
> ...


I gotta say that I don't know of any ballplayer whom was proud of the title, "Best player to make sure that the team loses by single, not double, digits"


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> Perhaps going away from the triangle had some effect on this [emergence of Tyson + Eddy].


So it was the triangle's fault we went 0-7 and NOT due to Jamal's lack of gusto ?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Looks like we are 4 out of last 19 to me. And as far as playing better, it all depends when you start counting.
> ...


thats true because i JC's 11 starts the bulls are 4-7 even though 8 of those games were on the road

but the bulls have been gradually using the triangle less so by your argument the bulls would have been showing a slow improvement on offense all year ...which is anything but true


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> thats true because i JC's 11 starts the bulls are 4-7 even though 8 of those games were on the road


If there were a Rick Brunson contingent on the boards, they might argue about how much credit Jamal should get for some of those wins.

Hey, it was Craw's big night last night, enough arguing about triangle issues. 

I missed the game. How did Jamal look? What did you like about his game? Did he look like a PG or a SG?


----------



## Crawscrew (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> If there were a Rick Brunson contingent on the boards, they might argue about how much credit Jamal should get for some of those wins.
> ...


He looked like a combo guard. Running the offense well, and scoring when we needed him. He got his shot off whenever he wanted too...with all that sais he looked a little more like a 2 guard, and a good one at that (21 pts in 28 min)


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

blah blah Crawford or JWill, Crawford or JWill, this is SOOOO two weeks ago


----------



## Bullsmaniac (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> blah blah Crawford or JWill, Crawford or JWill, this is SOOOO two weeks ago


So two-weeks ago, you mean so-November ago!!!
This has gone on all season. I like them both. they have BULLS on their jersey. Each one has it's strengths and weaknesses. This summer hopefully, things will get resolved!


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>E L D R U H M A I</b>!
> Jamal shows up when no one else does.
> 
> Earlier in January-February when he was starting on the road, we were within 7 points of games against the Nuggets, Bucks, Suns, Clippers, Heat, and the Wizards. Our biggest loss with him starting was by 13 against the Blazers. His double figure efforts haven't gone to waste.
> ...


This is an extremely intelligent post, by the way. Welcome to our boards.

We are arguing on the source of a causal link here.

Does Jay play better because everyone else plays better, or does everyone else play better because Jay plays better? 

Is it, as you say, that Jamal just shows up when no one else does? Or does Jay just have a bigger impact, across the board, in wins or losses?

If the former, then the solution is simple: JAMAL, SHOW UP MORE OFTEN. That is something that will definitely happen if he gets a good share of minutes at SG. If it's the latter, then we ought to trade Jamal in the offseason to a point-guard hungry team (Warriors, Sonics, Wolves, Celtics)... although this year's draft has a lot of quality point guards to choose from, so Crawford's value is going to be less than usual.

But it could be just that Craw likes to come up big in games where no one else shows up. I think that's a strange way to contribute to a team, but it's possible.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> If there were a Rick Brunson contingent on the boards, they might argue about how much credit Jamal should get for some of those wins.
> ...


yeah & it happened as they used the triangle less ....

i'm not giving either player a crutch as far as the triangle they are professionals and show be able to play in any offense their coach tells them too because last season they said the same thing about JC and how the triangle was holding him back 

i dont like how people like to blame an offense that has shown it can be successful just because the players dont like running it 

e-rob likes an offense that has him coming off screens for his mid range jumpers

willaims wants a screen roll off.

i'm sure Tc would like a high post off. and curry would perfer a low post off.

its not their job to decide or even to like, its their job to play as they are told 

and yeah i liked how jc played more often then not although i would perfer he try to work himself down a couple of ft. for his j but other than those instances i was ok with it


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

I bet camp crawford has more members now as this season draws to a close than it did 2 months ago when this thread was started


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

REally don't have anything to add to this thread, but every thread I bump knocks another Balla thread back to page 2.:grinning:


----------

