# Official Dallas @ Chicago Friday January 23, 2004, 7:30 p, cst. WGN,FSSW,NBALP



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Post here.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Dallas 148- Bulls 93


----------



## curry_52 (Jul 22, 2002)

Dallas 114
Bulls 94


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Dallas 109
Bulls 96

Walker has a triple double.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Toughie ...

Mavericks 101
Bulls 82


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*156*


















*64*


----------



## Squirrel (Jul 25, 2002)

Mavs 112
Bulls 88


----------



## bullsger (Jan 14, 2003)

Mavericks 132
Bulls 88


----------



## ballafromthenorth (May 27, 2003)

mavs 92
bulls 81

even I can't have wishful thinking for this one..


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*The Official Mavs at Bulls 7:30 Friday Night WGN NBALP Thread*

I thought I would start this since we havent been having too much luck with the others. Ill also put my predicition on it. The Bulls will play inspired ball on this night but will lose to a clearly superior team

Mavs 104
Bulls 99

High scorer for the Bulls, EDDY CURRY, bounces back strong with 22 pts

Jamison will lead all scorers with 24


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73639&forumid=27


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

didnt see it, my bad


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Mavs 102
Bulls 99

Curry leads the Bulls with 21
Jamison leads all scorers with 24


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Mavs 104
Bulls 82

EC 18


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

Mavs 112
Bulls 94


----------



## AL9045 (Nov 27, 2003)

Dallas 100.
Bulls 85.


----------



## Zach (May 11, 2003)

Dallas 100+
Chicago not 100+


----------



## andras (Mar 19, 2003)

dallas 97
chicago 82

calbert cheaney 12 5 5... ah ****, that GS trade was made up, right?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>AL9045</b>!
> Dallas 100.
> Bulls 85.


You have to pick the Bulls. We need a tie breaker!


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Dallas 107, Chicago 91.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Mavericks- 113
Bulls- 110


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

115










86


----------



## SoCar Bullsfan (Dec 24, 2003)

Bulls 125
Dallas 105


I have not gone against the bulls yet


----------



## Infamous 210 (Jan 16, 2004)

Mavs - 115

Bulls - 92

Crawford 23 pts

one step closer to Okafor for the Bulls.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Dallas 120
Bulls 80


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

This prediction will make/break me in the Ribs contest...

Going for the upset!

Bulls - 103
Mavs - 98

Eddy scores 27.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

The Mav -- 247.5
The Bull -- 120


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

If there were ever a team that Eddy could drop 40 on, the Dallas Mavericks are it. And if there is every a horrible perimeter defensive squad that the Mavs could drop 140 on, it's the Chicago Bulls. 

If anyone watched the Mavericks/Lakers game last night, Medvedenko absolutely dominated the inside post of the Mavericks. The Lakers were down like 15 at the half and started the 3rd quarter by attacking the basket. Within 5 minutes, the Lakers not only caught the Mavs, but took a lead. Right after they got the lead, they went back to shooting jumpers and you just don't outshoot the Dallas Mavericks. 

Here is where you can tell if Scott Skiles is a true blue NBA coach or not. If Scott Skiles does not use Eddy, AD, JYD and even our guards to attack the basket, he is ignorant. 

That said, I don't have faith in Mr. Skiles.

Mavericks 140, Bulls 40.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Cubans 108
Reinsdorfs 98


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

116








100

If RLucas and anyone else tied for first right now would please change their predictions to the Bulls, I'd appreciate it.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>airety</b>!
> If RLucas and anyone else tied for first right now would please change their predictions to the Bulls, I'd appreciate it.


Well, you already have your wish. I went with the Bulls tonight. I can't wait to be in first all by my lonesome!:yes:


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

is skiles playing?? 

ribs, schmibs i too am going for the
UPSET!

Bulls 93
Mavs 92

JC buzzerbeater to beat all buzzerbeaters.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Mavs 993

Bulls 190


----------



## RR 823 (Mar 29, 2003)

Mavs 103
Bulls 88


----------



## max6216 (Nov 27, 2002)

mavs cheerleaders-86
cows-20


----------



## Chicago_Cow (Mar 5, 2003)

Mavericks 120
Bulls 90


----------



## Crawscrew (Jul 15, 2002)

Bulls 101 
Mavs 94 

...Da Bull was our bad luck charm, now that he's gone we can start playing for real


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

Mavs 333 Bulls -12


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

the only prediction you can count on is unpredictability.
I don't predict positive effort anymore, because the team doesn't repond to losses, challenges or embarasements with anything but tedious effort, and busted game plans. I guess they are too young and flawed for anything else.
If they represent tonight, it'll shock the world, don't act unsurprised.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 23, 2004)

the bulls are going to frikking lose!! big time.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

memo to fleetwood macbull and chingy:

you guys are new here. i was new here too not long ago. these threads are for game predictions not for opinions etc.

what's the score going to be? pithy comment.

then once the game is on come back to the thread and let it rip.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> memo to fleetwood macbull and chingy.
> you guys are new here. i was new here too not long ago. these threads are for game predictions not for opinions etc.
> 
> ...



not opinions? where does it say that in the rules


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> memo to fleetwood macbull and chingy:
> 
> you guys are new here. i was new here too not long ago. these threads are for game predictions not for opinions etc.
> ...


gee thanks for the memo Stalin
I guess i got your opinion.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

you misunderstand. opinions are what makes this board spin. but that said, the official thread deal is predict THEN opine.

just trying to help out a rookie. i was one once too.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> you misunderstand. opinions are what makes this board spin. but that said, the official thread deal is predict THEN opine.
> 
> just trying to help out a rookie. i was one once too.


i do not conform to knowone


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

maybe the game thread can be whatever i want it to be. Chingy pointed it out. Who's making up the rules here.

Heres some advice, since everybody's giving it: if it don't apply, let it fly


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> gee thanks for the memo Stalin
> I guess i got your opinion.


Stalin? Where did that come from. What the poster meant was, the game thread is predictions first then opinion. Predictions go towards a free rib dinner from Carsons Ribs at the end of the month to the winner. 

Here is the link to the contest rules. Of course during the game any and all talking is done on here. 

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54947&forumid=27

We encourage opinion based on basketball. Name calling will not fall into the category of opinion based on basketball, but you may have misunderstood what the poster was getting at. 

Welcome to the site.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> memo to fleetwood macbull and chingy:
> 
> you guys are new here. i was new here too not long ago. these threads are for game predictions not for opinions etc.
> ...



actually, they are for opinion. Some people do not predict. Game threads are just what the title says they are. We use it in another sense to run the contest. 

Opinions are welcome.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

sorry. just a silly benchwarmer mistake. kinda like a turnover!

  

but thanks for defending me TBF


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

OK i took it as arbitrary criticism. I was used to "other" message boards.

and I see that it says Predictions MAY be posted. Although i'm taking it from the peer pressure, that its strongly encouraged to post score predictions. Los siento ciento cianto or whatever.

(And i don't know, sometimes name calling should have its place IMO, although i can see that this was not warrented by me perhaps. I was wrong
Don't worry i will abide by your administrator TBF edict against)
.............

thanks for the welcome 

so Mavs 99 Bulls 86


----------



## FBarley (Nov 10, 2002)

Bulls win 92-87


Crawford 31 points


----------



## FBarley (Nov 10, 2002)

Yes, sometimes I am reported as dilusional.


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

Bulls 24-16.. Curry playing like an all star with 10 pts, 4 boards, 1-2 blocks.. 

BTW if any of you cant get this and have directv the game is on channel 728 with Dallas announcers


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

Bulls ahead 22-16.

Curry with 10/4 already. Jamal 2-3, Hinrich 1-1, Dupree 1-4


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

League Pass free preview is driving me insane. Can't decide what to watch.

Curry is doing extremely well. We scored 32 this quarter but I don't know if we can keep this up. I'm holding my breath.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Wer'e comntrolling the boards so far.


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

And the roof is collapsing...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

:sigh: 


watching on league pass. dallas announcers showing kendall love. oooh he has a black belt- that kinda stuff. 

eddy was looking more motivated...

44-41 dallas edge.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

We miss a lot of dunks. :nonono:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I don't care what anyone says, Bradley is a pretty effective player in the league when used properly


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Dallas announcers criticizing the length of time Curry spent on the bench.

Now that he's back in the Mavs are keeping the ball away or stealing it from him


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> I don't care what anyone says, Bradley is a pretty effective player in the league when used properly


It's hard to really evaluate a player against the Bulls. Everybody we play against looks good.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> It's hard to really evaluate a player against the Bulls. Everybody we play against looks good.


By this time next week, we will have the worst record in basketball. We make everyone look good


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

If only that weren't true... I've seen him against other teams though. Last year when he got a lot of PT he was a real shotblocking machine.

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

Curry doesn't know what to do in the least :|


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

All we have to do is trade for Bradley, Boris Diaw, and John Bender so we can field a lineup of Bradley, Curry, Chandler, Bender, and Diaw (7'5, 6'11, 7'1, 7, 6'8).

Of course, they'll be the slowest team in the league, but it's really not much different than now


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Any one else notice this trend. When curry starts (example against NY where he scored 19 in the 1st half) the team gets off to a great start. But we have no bench so by the mid 2nd quarter we loss the lead. The starts come back in but can't seem to find curry (no shots in the 2nd quarter).

This team needs some bench players.

david


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

We played OK basketball. Down 8 against the Mavs at the half is not bad.....especially with the way they've been playing and how the refs r screwing us.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> All we have to do is trade for Bradley, Boris Diaw, and John Bender so we can field a lineup of Bradley, Curry, Chandler, Bender, and Diaw (7'5, 6'11, 7'1, 7, 6'8).
> 
> Of course, they'll be the slowest team in the league, but it's really not much different than now


and pick Chirinaev who claims to be a 7-1 PG???


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> and pick Chirinaev who claims to be a 7-1 PG???


I was thinking the exact same thing!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

where does Dirk rank in the league overall? I love this kids game. I mean you have

Duncan
Shaq
Tmac
Kobe
KG
Lebron
Kidd
Pierce

But I would say for sure he is top 10. Right after those guys in the same group with baron davis, ray allen, jermaine oneal, webber, iverson


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

the Bulls went to jacking shots from the outside after Eddy ran out of gas, and Eddy returns to an out of sinc team. Too bad Eddy doesn't clear space or demand the ball. Too bad the Bulls have lousy timing/acuracy on the entry pass and it gets deflected. But thats basketball for daBulls

Defense?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> the Bulls went to jacking shots from the outside after Eddy ran out of gas, and Eddy returns to an out of sinc team. Too bad Eddy doesn't clear space or demand the ball. Too bad the Bulls have lousy timing/acuracy on the entry pass and it gets deflected. But thats basketball for daBulls
> 
> Defense?


HOLY ****

FLEETWOOD MACBULL?

How are you doing my fellow democrat? How have things been


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> HOLY ****
> ...


feeling good Howard Deanster. I'm losing my calluses sitting in the work trailor these days. 

Hey, they still discuss you overdere to this day. Taking potshots. They can't stand the trooth


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> feeling good Howard Deanster. I'm losing my calluses sitting in the work trailor these days.
> 
> Hey, they still discuss you overdere to this day. Taking potshots. They can't stand the trooth


yeah, i see I have some fans. What can i say? 

Dean blew it this week. I hate to say it. i think you and i were on to something with a dean clark ticket. now its looking like Kerry and Edwards perhaps. I cant see that getting it done. But ill still support it


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> and pick Chirinaev who claims to be a 7-1 PG???


There we go- Team Freakshow!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> the Bulls went to jacking shots from the outside after Eddy ran out of gas, and Eddy returns to an out of sinc team. Too bad Eddy doesn't clear space or demand the ball. Too bad the Bulls have lousy timing/acuracy on the entry pass and it gets deflected. But thats basketball for daBulls
> 
> Defense?


Curry doesn't demand it and no one else sets it up for him... pretty awful all around


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

most interesting game has Houston up on Indy 65-60 to start the 4th at indy


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

69-61 w/ 5:37 to go in the third. Hinrich shooting the Bulls back in the game (3 threes this quarter, I believe).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Kirk's shooting the lights out.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

69-64 after another Hinrich three.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 69-61 w/ 5:37 to go in the third. Hinrich shooting the Bulls back in the game (3 threes this quarter, I believe).


He has had some halfs where he shoots as well as anyone I have seen since Mark Price


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Kirk looks like a dead man walking


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

...as in Kirk looks tired as hell?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Who the hell is trying to guard Finley?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Good grief... Curry with a goal tend. Jamal throws it into the stands. Curry is being totally controlled by Jamison... Jamison keeps him out of the post.

Now Curry with the ball finally... he drives and gets no call.

Jamal with a finger roll.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> ...as in Kirk looks tired as hell?


yup, he looks like he hasn't slept in a month


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Probably had some strippers over last night.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Who the hell is trying to guard Finley?


No one.

Theoretically Crawford was trying.

He and JYD it looks like miscommunicated on the inbounds and it was stolen... Mavs score again to end the quarter. Morons.


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

Nice three Howard  :laugh:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Probably had some strippers over last night.


If I were him, id live at the Crazy Horse


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Yao over Jermaine Oneal and one

Whoops, wrong thread


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

The Bulls have three players who can score, and one of them is only good for about five minutes a game.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> The Bulls have three players who can score, and one of them is only good for about five minutes a game.


I agree. we went from a team with alot of fire power and no defense to a team with defense and no firepower. I think your better off before then you are now


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

OMG. I just heard the Ice Cream guy on WGN. Must be quiet at the UC right now.


----------



## hoops (Jan 29, 2003)

kirk is feeling it tonite, he should keep shooting the ball.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

outside of kirks little burst, dallas controlled this game from start to finish. Crazy

Around the NBA, Houston up on Indy 75-73, 45 seconds to go at Indy, yao just fouled out and he was livid

Minnesota beat Detroit in Minny. Terrible call to end the game that cost Detroit the win


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree. we went from a team with alot of fire power and no defense to a team with defense and no firepower. I think your better off before then you are now



For someone who knows so much about basketball that is a dumb thing to say. 9/10 coaches would rather have a team who can play defense than a team that plays offense. Defense keeps you in games with a chance to win it. Teams that just play offense one either get blown out all the time, or can never win the big one. For best example look at Dallas or even UNC, teams that play no defense dont ever win. We jsut need to find some Consistent scorers.



Also Ronald Dupree is awful, anyone who fooled themselves into thinking he is the answer to anything was sadly mistaken.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

According to gametracker, the Bulls have missed more layups tonight than any team in a single freaking game in the history of this league. Every other shot is "misses a layup".


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

Dallas has too much firepower to contend with. We had a shot but we alsways have on bad quarter that hurts us. If we could just stay win half of our quarters and keep the other half within 5 or so points of the other team we would win a lot more. I feel if our team concentrated on winning quarters we wouldnt always quit when we got down.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Hinrich has over twice as many rebounds as both Curry and JYD combined. Interpret that whichever way you want.


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

What stats are you looking at Vega? Hinrich played well but in a loss it is all for naught. Skiles sub patterns with Curry need work, hes a rhythm player, he chould never sitout more than 5 real time minutes at a time. Play him into shape. You are doing no good to him if you sit him for long periods of time. This is the type of game where you tell him to just go out there and leave it on the court. Dont worry about nothing just play.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaFuture</b>!
> What stats are you looking at Vega? Hinrich played well but in a loss it is all for naught. Skiles sub patterns with Curry need work, hes a rhythm player, he chould never sitout more than 5 real time minutes at a time. Play him into shape. You are doing no good to him if you sit him for long periods of time. This is the type of game where you tell him to just go out there and leave it on the court. Dont worry about nothing just play.


Curry: 28 minutes, 4 rebounds.
JYD: 19 minutes, 1 rebound.
Total: 47 minutes, 5 rebounds.

Hinrich: 40 minutes, 11 rebounds.

Like you said, it is all for naught -- but it is food for thought. And I agree 100% with your thoughts on how to play Curry. This team needs a win ASAP.


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

I watched the game and just checked ont he net cbssportsline had EC with 5 and JYD with 2. Whatever


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> OMG. I just heard the Ice Cream guy on WGN. Must be quiet at the UC right now.


No, that vendor is a four-star, unequivical a$$-wipe who shouts "ice cream" at the top of his lungs all night long over and over. The Bulls receive complaints about him all the time but he's union. When fans get on him he just smiles. I'm not kidding, you can hear him from one end of the UC to the other even if its a packed house.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaFuture</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> For someone who knows so much about basketball that is a dumb thing to say. 9/10 coaches would rather have a team who can play defense than a team that plays offense. Defense keeps you in games with a chance to win it. Teams that just play offense one either get blown out all the time, or can never win the big one. For best example look at Dallas or even UNC, teams that play no defense dont ever win. We jsut need to find some Consistent scorers.


Dallas doesn't play as good as defense as us, yet they are much much better.

They went to the WCF last year with an offensive oriented team.

The comparison RLucas was making is that last year the bulls could score but couldn't defense. They won more than this team, which defends(albeit not a great defensive team) but can't score for ****.

There's not one consistent scorer on the team. Our leading scorer averages 16 ppg and routinely finds himself on the bench. That's all you need to know about where our offense stands.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

i swear the only reason i continue to watch this trainwreck of a team is Kirk Hinrich. The kid did everything in his powers to bring this team back with his shooting, rebounding, defense. 

wow just read an interesting stat, Jamal is averaging 6 3 point shoots a game, only converting @ a 31%. 

according to yahoo sports JYD had 1 board and eddy had 4.


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

Offense is a lot easier to find than defense. We ar better than last year, the record doesnt reflect it but injuries/poor coaching have hindered progress record wise. This teams main problem is just playing all 4 quarters. We win 2/4 and always lose one quarter big its been a consistent trend. I just dont know what it is since most of these collapses happen in the third or the fourth. I attribute it to just being young and not knowing what it takes having a legit #1 would help. I cant wait till TC comes back so I can evaluate the team fully.


BTW I believe the biggest mistake this franchise ever made was drafting Jay williams instead of trading the pick. I'll post on that sometime soon. With what could have been/What I would have done.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

cbs sportsline names kirk and dirk players of the game. stats are virtually identical. kirk and dirk. :grinning: 


http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/gamecenter/recap/[email protected]


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

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


I rather have firepower then defense. Sacramento, Dallas and others win without exactly being stoppers. I dont see too many truly great defensive teams with zero firepower on the top. What do real coaches say (like PJ?), sometimes the best defense is a good offense

As for being better this year then last year, all I can say is huh? By this time last year we lost 5 OT games and about 3 or 4 in the last 2 minutes by being dumb. Record wise we were better last year as well. Blame injuries, but we are far healthier then most teams. Thats not an excuse. Sacramento is where they are at with zero minutes from Cwebb. The lakers havent had Kobe, Malone and Oneal. San Antonio didnt have Parker for awhile. Utah hasnt had Harpring. Seattle hasnt had Allen. Cleveland even won a game without Lebron. To say injuries is an issue clearly shows an oversight on your part. So chandler has been hurt. So what? Is Chandler missing games more important then say Iverson missing a ton of games for Philly? I think not. Excuses. This team is not as good as last years team. That team last year couldnt play a lick of D but would still kick the crap out of these guys. So there goes the 9 out of 10 coaches who take defense.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaFuture</b>!
> Offense is a lot easier to find than defense. We ar better than last year, the record doesnt reflect it but injuries/poor coaching have hindered progress record wise. This teams main problem is just playing all 4 quarters. We win 2/4 and always lose one quarter big its been a consistent trend. I just dont know what it is since most of these collapses happen in the third or the fourth. I attribute it to just being young and not knowing what it takes having a legit #1 would help. I cant wait till TC comes back so I can evaluate the team fully.
> 
> 
> BTW I believe the biggest mistake this franchise ever made was drafting Jay williams instead of trading the pick. I'll post on that sometime soon. With what could have been/What I would have done.


hindsight is 20/20


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

Question rlucas? has any of those teams won an NBA championship then I could care less that they win a few games because basically like the 72 win Bulls said "It dont mean a thing without the ring." Hell can you name a team that has won an NBA championship without being a very good defensive team. While balance is required the team that can score and play good defense will in 9/10 times over a team that can score in bunches and plays no D. Cuz face it your in the NBA you can probably score at some level. But not everyone plays defense. Playing offense and no defense gets you win against bad to mediocre teams i.e. the Bulls. You fail to mentiion what happened to Dallas when they faced the Spurs a team with only one real explosive scorer but played GREAT defense. They got smacked. 



BTW all of those teams have significantly more talent that we do across the board and in depth. We cant afford to have injuries like those guys we NEED everyone healthy. So its unfair to compare us to those teams.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaFuture</b>!
> Question rlucas? has any of those teams won an NBA championship then I could care less that they win a few games because basically like the 72 win Bulls said "It dont mean a thing without the ring." Hell can you name a team that has won an NBA championship without being a very good defensive team. While balance is required the team that can score and play good defense willw in 9/10 times over a team that can score in bunches and plays no D. Cuz face it your in the NBA you can probably score at some level. But not everyone plays defense.
> 
> 
> ...


You need to play some D to win. Yes your right to an extent. But Sacramento is the uncrowned champs from 2 years ago without having a stopper outside of Christie. Bad officiating cost them a title. I dont remember the Lakers or Celtics of the 80s as great defensive teams. Yet they won. Phoenix almost won a title not playing a lick of D. You can have your opinion. But the simple fact is, as good a defensive team as you are, you will never, and I mean NEVER, win games unless you make the other guys work on the other end of the floor. So yes, I believe its more important to get your scoring straightened out before you put your defense in place. And I think any intelligent coach will agree with that. Cause I cant think of a team who said, lets grab a bunch of defenders and then get a scorer to complement those guys and won. Its usually, we have guys who can get good shots for us, now we need a Bowen or Horry to round it out. Your going about it backwards. as is Pax. We dont make anyone guard us, as good a D as we play, if noone is going to exert any energy guarding us means we arent going to win any games. And that has been proven this year. WE arent as good as last year. Its not even close. By this time next week, we will have the worst record in basketball. Its not cause of injuries, but its becaue we have zero balance, in terms of offense to defense and in terms of positioning. you can blame Pax and Krause for that.

oh and by the way, both Sacramento and Dallas had real injuries in last years playoffs. Can you say for certain that San Antonio would have beaten Dallas with Dirk or Sacramento with CWebb? I didnt think so.


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

I never said get all defensive players. What I said was get a consistent scorer a real #1. Which could be acquired if you trade our #1 pick this year which in my opinion would be the smart thing to do and see what you can get for it. We already have role scorers. Now what you need is that uber-star. I think he's on this team but may not be ready. 


The Lakers and Celtics of the 80's were great defensive teams for their era. Dont be fooled by the scores, the 80's were an era of poor defense but those two teams were the best defensive teams of their era. Which really isnt saying much nowadays. 



Of course you need offense, but I would take a team that is average at offense, and amazing at D over a team that is amazing at offense and average on defense. Balance is needed always but offense is a whole lot easier to acquire than making or drafting good defensive players. Defense gives you the chance to win at games. Offense comes and go and gets you blown the hell out ofthe water.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> OK i took it as arbitrary criticism. I was used to "other" message boards.
> 
> and I see that it says Predictions MAY be posted. Although i'm taking it from the peer pressure, that its strongly encouraged to post score predictions. Los siento ciento cianto or whatever.
> ...


I am familiar with the other board. 

Welcome by the way. I also understood your reaction. It is normal on some messageboards. It is just here, we see no sense in it because actually, what does it add to any conversation? Name calling is speculative at best and actually is off topic, unless the thread is about the actual poster and we try to discourge them. 

Our goal is make opinions on basketball to be heard. Not what we all think of each other. Because when you think about it, we all have something in common. The bulls. So to vent at a poster has no real purpose, when we should have vented at the bulls and the organization. 

Name calling may serve a purpose when it comes to a team and players and GM's, coaches etc: but to name call another poster? We see no purpose in that. He or she is in the same boat you are in. It is not his or fault that the bulls are losing. 

Anyway, you will be fine. most of the time the mods edit and do not warn unless it gets way out of hand. 

You were right. This thread is for the game. Opinions and all.


----------



## mavsman (Jun 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaFuture</b>!
> Question rlucas? has any of those teams won an NBA championship then I could care less that they win a few games because basically like the 72 win Bulls said "It dont mean a thing without the ring." Hell can you name a team that has won an NBA championship without being a very good defensive team. While balance is required the team that can score and play good defense will in 9/10 times over a team that can score in bunches and plays no D. Cuz face it your in the NBA you can probably score at some level. But not everyone plays defense. Playing offense and no defense gets you win against bad to mediocre teams i.e. the Bulls. You fail to mentiion what happened to Dallas when they faced the Spurs a team with only one real explosive scorer but played GREAT defense. They got smacked.
> 
> 
> ...


Did you even watch the series between Dallas and San Antonio?
Dallas hardly got smacked. Without Dirk the Mavs had a double
digit lead in the 4th quarter of game 6. If they had pulled thier
head out of thier butt and put a guy on Steve Kerr the series 
would have gone to 7. If you think the Mavericks can not play
with the Spurs than you have not watched much basketball. And
if you think there is one coach in basketball (let alone 9/10) that
would not rather have the Mavericks line-up than the Bulls than
you should be institutionalized.


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

You should learn to read go back and see where I said the mavs had WAY more talent than us. Nobody could be that stupid? Well, looking at some of the posts on this board, it could be possible.


I said I would take a team like San Antonio (not offensive juggernaut, but solid, who play good d) over a team like Dallas (offensive juggernaut with no D) 9/10 times and im sure most coaches would. 

Its kind of funny because it was Dallas' lack of D that lost the game, and SA ability to get stops down the stretch that allowed them to make the comback. HAHAHA you proved me right.


----------

