# Is Adam Morrison the guy to build this team around ?



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

We have role players and deferential players ( in attitude ) - bar Gordon 

If Morrison is our man with the Knicks pick we need to draft /trade for highly skilled passing bigmen 

Tyson has shown occasional capacity here but he really needs to develop this better 

Songaila is probably our best passing big man and can screen but he is not a post threat 

Mike Sweetney can do it and if he was conditioned properly he would be ideal as the guy that screen with his bulk and pass from the post to Gordon, Morrison and Hinrich 

In fact running the wing/perimeter with those types of players really opens up the post and also the driving lanes where Ben and Kirk can really start using that option more to attack the rim 

The importance of Morrison though is that he is a natural leader and personality that could gell with this team given the personalities already on board 

Could he gell with Skiles though ?

But if Morrison is our pick I don't think Gooden and Harrington really work nor does Pryzibilla / Mohammed 

We would have two extraordinary wing shooters and we would need to add bulk for screen running and guys who can pass and also defend strongly 

A guy like Rasho Nesterovic comes to mind but I don't see San Antonio trading him unless they go all out to retain Nazr and want to open up playing time for Oberto . Would San Antonio be interested in Darius Songaila in a one for one swap

I would probably more inclined to run with Shelden Williams with our draft pick as well if we were in position to draft him 

Play Luol as an alternating 3/2 and Nocioni as an alternating 3/4 

*

Nesterovic
Chandler
Morrison
Gordon
Hinrich

bench

S. Williams
Sweetney
Nocioni
Deng
Duhon

A.Davis
O.Harrington
Pargo

*


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

What have you seen in Morrison to make you believe he'll be a superstar in the NBA?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

no


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> What have you seen in Morrison to make you believe he'll be a superstar in the NBA?



"IT"


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

smARTmouf said:


> "IT"


Right. Maybe he has "it" at the college level if he doesn't have the ability to get his own shot in the pros all the "it" in the world won't help him. 

The 5'11" shooting guard on my highschool team also had "it".


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> Right. Maybe he has "it" at the college level if he doesn't have the ability to get his own shot in the pros all the "it" in the world won't help him.
> 
> The 5'11" shooting guard on my highschool team also had "it".


 He may have been referencing the ebay commercials, but I could just be crazy/wrong...


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

And as for the actual topic of this thread, I don't particularly care for Morrison myself. Especially not as a guy to build around...


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> What have you seen in Morrison to make you believe he'll be a superstar in the NBA?


Well unless you've been watching him I can't explain it to you


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Machinehead said:


> Well unless you've been watching him I can't explain it to you


I have been watching. And how would my watching him effect your being able to describe his game?


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

what makes you think he won't be able to get his shot off in the NBA? How many lock-down wing defenders are there in the NBA right now, home many teams actually PLAY defense? How could Peja score 24ppg in this league, and people think Morrison won't be able to just on physical ability.


You're right, there are hundreds of 5-11 kids who have "it" and can fill it up on the court, but few turn into AI. So there is something beyond just being about to fill it up, basketball IQ, confidence, the right attituted, hard work, etc. You need something else, and I think Morrison has it. I have watched him plenty this season, and I am convinced that he can put up 20ppg+ in this league. What is amazing is how someone can average 30ppg in college on a top 10 team and still have so many haters? He puts up 43 and no one talks about it, Rudy Gay puts up 15 and 2 spectacular dunks and people say he is the #1 pick. Gay will be a very good NBA player, but I think Morrison is a superstar.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

When I follow my heart, I can understand where Machinehead (and rlucas and others) are coming from -- Morrison is one ballsy bad-*** basketball player. And we could use a good shot of that on the Bulls.

But my head tells me that there is no possible way a guy with his physical and athletic make-up can succeed in the NBA. He'll get chewed up and spit out by NBA defenses.

This is why I'm glad the NBA is just a hobby of mine. If I had to make decisions like whether or not to draft Adam Morrison, I'd have ulcers big enough to drive an Escalade through.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

4door said:


> what makes you think he won't be able to get his shot off in the NBA? How many lock-down wing defenders are there in the NBA right now, home many teams actually PLAY defense? How could Peja score 24ppg in this league, and people think Morrison won't be able to just on physical ability.
> 
> 
> You're right, there are hundreds of 5-11 kids who have "it" and can fill it up on the court, but few turn into AI. So there is something beyond just being about to fill it up, basketball IQ, confidence, the right attituted, hard work, etc. You need something else, and I think Morrison has it. I have watched him plenty this season, and I am convinced that he can put up 20ppg+ in this league. What is amazing is how someone can average 30ppg in college on a top 10 team and still have so many haters? He puts up 43 and no one talks about it, Rudy Gay puts up 15 and 2 spectacular dunks and people say he is the #1 pick. Gay will be a very good NBA player, but I think Morrison is a superstar.


There have been plenty of players who have averaged a ton in college and done nothing in the pros.


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> There have been plenty of players who have averaged a ton in college and done nothing in the pros.


name some players in the last 10 years that averaged 29ppg+ on a top 5 NCAA team? 1996-2006. Can't? I think you are going to have a hard time coming up with "tons of names." I don't think doing that gives him a free pass to being an all-star but i think people write him off quickly because he is doesn't play above the rim. His style is unlike that of a Rudy Gay, but that does not mean it can not be successful. There are "tons of Hall of Famers" who have as much or less athletic ability than Morrison. You need more than to just be able to fill it up anymore, you need "IT" as described earlier. I think if you watch enough of Morrison you start to see him get better in the clutch and really push himself to another level when he needs to. he is only 21 and will get better and continue to learn the game, but he is still putting up 29ppg on a top 5 team, so I think people should give him a little credit.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> I have been watching. And how would my watching him effect your being able to describe his game?


Because I couldn't be bothered 

You either get him or you don't 

I do and you don't


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> When I follow my heart, I can understand where Machinehead (and rlucas and others) are coming from -- Morrison is one ballsy bad-*** basketball player. And we could use a good shot of that on the Bulls.
> 
> But my head tells me that there is no possible way a guy with his physical and athletic make-up can succeed in the NBA. He'll get chewed up and spit out by NBA defenses.
> 
> This is why I'm glad the NBA is just a hobby of mine. If I had to make decisions like whether or not to draft Adam Morrison, I'd have ulcers big enough to drive an Escalade through.



F'k ulcers 

I'm fearless 

Let me at it and damn the torpedos!

Aye!

:laugh:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)




----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

4door said:


> name some players in the last 10 years that averaged 29ppg+ on a top 5 NCAA team? 1996-2006. Can't? I think you are going to have a hard time coming up with "tons of names." I don't think doing that gives him a free pass to being an all-star but i think people write him off quickly because he is doesn't play above the rim. His style is unlike that of a Rudy Gay, but that does not mean it can not be successful. There are "tons of Hall of Famers" who have as much or less athletic ability than Morrison. You need more than to just be able to fill it up anymore, you need "IT" as described earlier. I think if you watch enough of Morrison you start to see him get better in the clutch and really push himself to another level when he needs to. he is only 21 and will get better and continue to learn the game, but he is still putting up 29ppg on a top 5 team, so I think people should give him a little credit.


Ok. I'm just going to state my opinion of Morrison's game even though I feel like I'm being redundent. 

First, he's solely a scorer. He does not and will not make any other substantial contributions on the basketball court and will be a huge liability defensively. 

Now for scoring, his sole skill. At the NBA level he's not quick enough to run around screens all day like Rip Hamilton or Reggie Miller, he's not athletic enough to break his man of the dribble from the perimeter and he's not big enough to constantly operate in the post. How is he going to be a superstar scorer in the NBA?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Morrison's questionable NBA potential scares me. There's too many doubts to draft this guy.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)




----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Machinehead said:


> Because I couldn't be bothered
> 
> You either get him or you don't
> 
> I do and you don't


He's not a postmodern author. 

Is this intuitive, aesthetic player evaluation technique standard player evaluation procedure for you?


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

if we draft Adam Morrison im no longer a bulls fan..


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> When I follow my heart, I can understand where Machinehead (and rlucas and others) are coming from -- Morrison is one ballsy bad-*** basketball player. And we could use a good shot of that on the Bulls.
> 
> But my head tells me that there is no possible way a guy with his physical and athletic make-up can succeed in the NBA. He'll get chewed up and spit out by NBA defenses.


You know they said the same thing about French Lick's finest way back when too

I'm not prepared to put this guy into Bird territory but that big elbowed high release point in his shooting mechanic is eerily similar ... in addition to which , whilst he is more colourful and animated than Bird..this guy is as tough as tough . Mentally tough .

He's a killer 

Give him the right system with offensive bounders, screeners and post passers and shooting support on the perimeter ..and this guy WILL be a legitimate factor in the NBA

I know this much ..for me he's the surest thing there is in this draft


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> The 5'11" shooting guard on my highschool team also had "it".


 And his name was Rusty Larue! 

Dude that makes no sense at all. If you have actually seen Morrison play you would understand where all the hype is comming from, this guy makes IMPOSSIBLE shots hes shooting over 6'9 6'10 guys and making them nothing but net. Hes a great great shooter and an unbelieaveable competitor. 
He may not have the amazing athleticism that most 3's in the NBA have, but hes got one thing that 80% of those 3's dont have have A GREAT JUMP SHOT. Hes going to be a very good player in the NBA.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Machinehead said:


> You know they said the same thing about French Lick's finest way back when too
> 
> I'm not prepared to put this guy into Bird territory but that big elbowed high release point in his shooting mechanic is eerily similar ... in addition to which , whilst he is more colourful and animated than Bird..this guy is as tough as tough . Mentally tough .
> 
> ...


You seem to be hedging your bet. Tyson Chandler is a legitimate factor in the NBA.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> Tyson Chandler is a legitimate factor in the NBA.


But only on one side of the ball and for half a season.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> And his name was Rusty Larue!
> 
> Dude that makes no sense at all. If you have actually seen Morrison play you would understand where all the hype is comming from, this guy makes IMPOSSIBLE shots hes shooting over 6'9 6'10 guys and making them nothing but net. Hes a great great shooter and an unbelieaveable competitor.
> He may not have the amazing athleticism that most 3's in the NBA have, but hes got one thing that 80% of those 3's dont have have A GREAT JUMP SHOT. Hes going to be a very good player in the NBA.


In fact he's got two things

The thing you mention ( jump shot ) is the 2nd thing 

What seperates good from great is mental attitude 

And in this category this guy may rank right up there with all others from year's past that had this type of " I want to rip your heart out and take it home with me in a doggy bag " type of toughness


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> You seem to be hedging your bet. Tyson Chandler is a legitimate factor in the NBA.


Take your semantic baiting elsewhere bud


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Machinehead said:


> In fact he's got two things
> 
> The thing you mention ( jump shot ) is the 2nd thing
> 
> ...


 If his killer mentality is anywhere near Jordans then this is the kid you want to have on your team, hes not going to accept failure and hes never going to get used to winning. Those are trully special players.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> If his killer mentality is anywhere near Jordans then this is the kid you want to have on your team, hes not going to accept failure and hes never going to get used to winning. Those are trully special players.


And extremely rare 

I remember Larry Bird commenting once that he would take a guy with 80% of the talent/athleticism but 100% of the head instead of the guy that had 100% of the talent/athleticism and 80% of the head


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Check out the size of this sausage:


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Machinehead said:


> Take your semantic baiting elsewhere bud


You are really quite defensive about Morrison's ability and yet you offer no evaluation of his play other then to say that he looks intense and can shoot. Perhaps you've been captured by his wild hair, thin mustache and cold stare. Unfortunatly those aren't basketball assets. 

Observing that you've changed your prediction from worthy of building a team around to will be a legitimate factor is not semantical. There are probably 5 times more legitimate factors in the NBA than there are franchise players. That's hardly an issue of semantics.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Check out the size of this sausage:


You missed your rehab meeting again didn't you ?

:wink:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I just thought...

:ttiwwp:

(I don't drink or do drugs)


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Machinehead said:


> You missed your rehab meeting again didn't you ?
> 
> :wink:


 Thats a sausage? 
Really?

I thought it was a picture of Pax stading next to Eddy Curry or standing next to a big piece of crap, heck whats the difference?


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> You are really quite defensive about Morrison's ability and yet you offer no evaluation of his play other then to say that he looks intense and can shoot.


Because its a pointless argument . In the first post to this thread I referenced what he needs to succeed ( IMO ) at the NBA level given his skill sets . I can't and won't keep repeating it 

Look we have different opinions 

That's just dandy

Why don't you just leave it at that instead of dumbing the thread down with smart arsed calls of ice stares and pencil thin mustaches not being basketball assets , and , getting into pissing contests about what I consider to be a legit NBA factor and references from you that this is outside an acceptable context pertaining to your comprehension of what I wrote

Problem's yours cochise .

We disagree

I'm cool with that 

Move on . Nothing to see here


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Machinehead said:


> Take your semantic baiting elsewhere bud


so, three pages later, why do you think we should build around morrison? What do you see in him that makes you say that?

anyway, all I have to say is... I guarantee I can put up double digits on Loyola-Marymount. No matter what the numbers are, SOS is always a factor. when you're about as quick and athletic as a brick wall, you can't do much but hope the people you're playing against are the same way. I want to consistently see Morrison play against top-level competition. I think everyone automatically thinks "everyone's calling him Bird because he's white with long hair, and if he's like Bird, he must be great"...

I actally liked him more last year, before the whole media spent their collective lives on his balls


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Machinehead said:


> Because its a pointless argument . In the first post to this thread I referenced what he needs to succeed ( IMO ) at the NBA level given his skill sets . I can't and won't keep repeating it
> 
> Look we have different opinions
> 
> ...


LOL man you start a thread saying "is he the guy to build around," as if you're saying "who else is?" and then you give absolutely zero evidence to back up your argument while tripledouble is "dumbing down the thread" by making a good argument as to why he thinks he isn't that guy... how does this work?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Machinehead said:


> Because its a pointless argument
> 
> Look we have different opinions
> 
> ...



Fine. We can be gentlemanly. I'll just leave you with this thought: This board would be really boring if posters opinion on a player (or a transaction) were left unchallanged and therefore unexpounded upon. But, I'll leave it at this.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

giantkiller7 said:


> so, three pages later, why do you think we should build around morrison? What do you see in him that makes you say that?
> 
> anyway, all I have to say is... I guarantee I can put up double digits on Loyola-Marymount. No matter what the numbers are, SOS is always a factor. when you're about as quick and athletic as a brick wall, you can't do much but hope the people you're playing against are the same way. I want to consistently see Morrison play against top-level competition. I think everyone automatically thinks "everyone's calling him Bird because he's white with long hair, and if he's like Bird, he must be great"...
> 
> I actally liked him more last year, before the whole media spent their collective lives on his balls


 Yeah and I am pretty sure you can drop 43 on Michigan State and 18 on a very tough long uber athletic Ucon team in a 2 point loss.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

giantkiller7 said:


> LOL man you start a thread saying "is he the guy to build around," as if you're saying "who else is?" and then you give absolutely zero evidence to back up your argument while tripledouble is "dumbing down the thread" by making a good argument as to why he thinks he isn't that guy... how does this work?


Evidence ?

Since when did opinion become evidence in the proof of truth ?


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

thebizkit69u said:


> Yeah and I am pretty sure you can drop 43 on Michigan State and 18 on a very tough long uber athletic Ucon team in a 2 point loss.


no, I can't, but Michigan State isn't too great either. I'm not saying he can't do well against good competition, but don't you think it's natural to put that into question when he's only played two tourney teams all season? Why do you think Gonzaga always folds in the tournament so quickly?


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Machinehead said:


> Evidence ?
> 
> Since when did opinion become evidence in the proof of truth ?


nah just something more than 
"morrison is the guy" 
"why?" 
"you're an idiot"


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

giantkiller7 said:


> so, three pages later, why do you think we should build around morrison? What do you see in him that makes you say that?


Read to achieve


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Machinehead said:


> Read to achieve


All you've said is "he's mentally tough," which we know; that's not it as much as it is that everytime somebody says something as to why they think he's not that guy, you come back with some snide remark that just avoids the question.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

giantkiller7 said:


> All you've said is "he's mentally tough," which we know; that's not it as much as it is that everytime somebody says something as to why they think he's not that guy, you come back with some snide remark that just avoids the question.


Here's a hint 

Its in the first post to this thread and then subsequently on Page 2 I think when I then reference his mental approach 

You entered the thread with the comment " well 3 pages later why do you think Morrison's the guy to build around "

I can only presume you haven't read the thread or can't comprehend what's been offered for opinion


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

giantkiller7 said:


> no, I can't, but Michigan State isn't too great either. I'm not saying he can't do well against good competition, but don't you think it's natural to put that into question when he's only played two tourney teams all season? Why do you think Gonzaga always folds in the tournament so quickly?


 You ever notice that there is allways like only one reall good player on most Gonzaga teams, Morrison is by far the best player on Gonzaga and Batista al be it a nice player is no where near the talent that Morrison is. If Morrison had players around him like say Memphis or Duke or even NC Gonzaga would be the best team in all of the NCAA.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Machinehead said:


> Here's a hint
> 
> Its in the first post to this thread and then subsequently on Page 2 I think when I then reference his mental approach
> 
> You entered the thread with the comment " well 3 pages later why do you think Morrison's the guy to build around "


I was referring to the fact that you've said one thing that doesn't do enough for most people to convince them, and when they asked for more evidence, you either a) came off as an *** with some stupid remark, like "here's a hint," or "read to achieve," and therefore ignored the question entirely or b) said the same exact thing over again. It wasn't your general argument as much as how completely poorly you handled it and how little evidence to support it you actually had. But I digress. It wasn't my problem anyway.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

thebizkit69u said:


> You ever notice that there is allways like only one reall good player on most Gonzaga teams, Morrison is by far the best player on Gonzaga and Batista al be it a nice player is no where near the talent that Morrison is. If Morrison had players around him like say Memphis or Duke or even NC Gonzaga would be the best team in all of the NCAA.


and every one of them would be far better players if they were consistently tested against stronger competition. My main point still remains that it's at least okay to question his numbers when they come against high schools.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

giantkiller7 said:


> and every one of them would be far better players if they were consistently tested against stronger competition. My main point still remains that it's at least okay to question his numbers when they come against high schools.


 I understand what your saying, but its kinda like the whole Lebron thing. Now dont get me wrong here or put words in my mouth I am in no way comparing the two, But nobody questioned Lebrons James when he was just picking on little high school kids. You just have to watch these games, you have to watch how teams are triple teaming Morrison and hes still getting his shot off and scoring almost at will.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

giantkiller7 said:


> I was referring to the fact that you've said one thing that doesn't do enough for most people to convince them


By most people I suppose you mean yourself,TribDub and Jbulls

Yup that's a quorum 

I guess

What's "the one thing" I've said ?

Hey I'm not the enemy - I'm here to help you get your comprehension skills up ..presuming you've read the thread before you waded in on your prejudiced platform by asserting he was an overhyped player by the jock riding pop media


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

thebizkit69u said:


> I understand what your saying, but its kinda like the whole Lebron thing. Now dont get me wrong here or put words in my mouth I am in no way comparing the two, But nobody questioned Lebrons James when he was just picking on little high school kids. You just have to watch these games, you have to watch how teams are triple teaming Morrison and hes still getting his shot off and scoring almost at will.


I understand what you're saying and I agree for the most part. But if they're far less capable defenders, it might not have as much of an effect.

People should have questioned LeBron, as they should have questioned every high schooler to come out. Look at Kwame Brown.

Just throwing the idea out there that it's at least something to consider. I'm not knocking Morrison in any way. Just that any time a player comes out of a HS or a small college, you need to question the level of competition.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> You ever notice that there is allways like only one reall good player on most Gonzaga teams, Morrison is by far the best player on Gonzaga and Batista al be it a nice player is no where near the talent that Morrison is. If Morrison had players around him like say Memphis or Duke or even NC Gonzaga would be the best team in all of the NCAA.


I think for Morrison to be all he can be ( and which he is on the current Collge level ) he needs a school like Gonzaga

He's a lead dog

I don't know how well he would go at Duke , UConn..or even someone like Michigan State that has Ager and Davis being prepared for the show 

And that is a question that needs to be addressed with Morrison ..is he Maverick when he leaves his wingman to do his thing ( pre Gooses death ) or is he Maverick ( post Gooses death ) when he refuses to leave Ice's wing ?

For the fact that we don't have any read leadership structure within our core there is a leadership vacuum that is waiting to be assumed within this team that I believe he could fill - and given his drive it kind of fits the existing cultural blueprint of the team that Pax has been trying to build


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

3 quick things that I couldn't resist and then I'm done.



Machinehead said:


> By most people I suppose you mean yourself,TribDub and Jbulls


1) Yes, that would be most people in this thread. Last I saw that outnumbered you and 4door.



> Yup that's a quorum


2) If you're trying to be slick, that's an awful attempt.



> Hey I'm not the enemy - I'm here to help you get your comprehension skills up ..presuming you've read the thread before you waded in on your prejudiced platform by asserting he was an overhyped player by the jock riding pop media


3a) The reason nobody has listened to you is because you, again, continue to insult people instead of backing up any form of your statement

3b) speaking of reading comprehension, never did I say he was "an overhyped player by the jock riding pop media"...


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

25 against Maryland. 43 against Michigan State. 43 against Washington. 34 against Memphis. A so-so 18 against Connecticut. He's shooting 51.8% from the field and 44.9% from the arc. The guy has diabetes. His alleged off the charts mental toughness (which I believe he has) is a great fit for Skiles, though I think Bargnani is still my choice for the Bulls' first pick.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

giantkiller7 said:


> 3 quick things that I couldn't resist and then I'm done
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Yes, that would be most people in this thread. Last I saw that outnumbered you and 4door.


"Evidence " "Convincing People" added to the doing the numbers in the Caucus ( which you haven't done right anyway ) 

I thoroughly reject the notion , if someone , were to suggest it ; that you are a petty person 




> 2) If you're trying to be slick, that's an awful attempt.


Guffaw !

stop it ! I submit!




> 3a) The reason nobody has listened to you is because you, again, continue to insult people instead of backing up any form of your statement


I promise I won't pull the reading is fundamental card on you again 

Promise 





> 3b) speaking of reading comprehension, never did I say he was "an overhyped player by the jock riding pop media"...





> *by giantkiller7 on page 2 of this thread - post 36 *
> 
> I actally (sic) liked him more last year, before the whole media spent their collective lives on his balls


My apologies .. that's obviously not you


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

Offensive creativity and improvisation, off-the-ball movement, having to face moustache-taunting crowds every road game, constant double and triple teams...

If Gordon can get teardrop floaters over centers, then there's no reason why Morrison can't get it done in the NBA.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

TwinkieTowers said:


> Offensive creativity and improvisation, off-the-ball movement, having to face moustache-taunting crowds every road game, constant double and triple teams...
> 
> If Gordon can get teardrop floaters over centers, then there's no reason why Morrison can't get it done in the NBA.


Its the point of his release in additon to the quickness of it as well 

I mean its a fair point with regard to crappy College comp and seeing how he fares in the pro's but you can't argue that point one way or the other with any proof .. because the proof is in the pudding 

The quickness of that release and its high point of release would , IMO , make it hard to defend at any level - depending if you've got big wide bodies screeners that can disrupt the rushers 

He shouldn't be underestimated putting the ball on the floor either - which his shooting , supported by other "money" wing shooters ( Gordon ) open up driving options or swinging it back inside


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

Heh. If what Morrison is doing is so easy, why isn't everyone doing. The guy just keeps getting it done.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

giantkiller7 said:


> I understand what you're saying and I agree for the most part. But if they're far less capable defenders, it might not have as much of an effect.
> 
> People should have questioned LeBron, as they should have questioned every high schooler to come out. Look at Kwame Brown.
> 
> Just throwing the idea out there that it's at least something to consider. I'm not knocking Morrison in any way. Just that any time a player comes out of a HS or a small college, you need to question the level of competition.


 JJ Redick plays in a major conference so just alone on that does that make him a better player then Adam Morrison? There is never going to be a no question about it College player unless your name is Duncan or Shaq. Even with the questions around Morrison you still have to believe that what hes doing right now would not be impossible for him to do in the next level. Put it this way dont you think Morrison would be droping 30 a night playing against the ACC?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

TwinkieTowers said:


> though I think Bargnani is still my choice for the Bulls' first pick.


 I dont know about that, but for right now the Knicks pick is the most important one of all. Dont forget about Shelden Williams for the Bulls pick that guy is just MR Double Double.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

thebizkit69u said:


> JJ Redick plays in a major conference so just alone on that does that make him a better player then Adam Morrison? There is never going to be a no question about it College player unless your name is Duncan or Shaq. Even with the questions around Morrison you still have to believe that what hes doing right now would not be impossible for him to do in the next level. Put it this way dont you think Morrison would be droping 30 a night playing against the ACC?


I think he would be still dropping as many against great competition. But allI'm saying is that it's natural to wonder about it.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I agree also thats its natural to wonder about it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I may have posted a couple of pictures in jest in this thread, but I was really cheering Machinehead on.

I like what he's getting at with his assessment of Morrison.

Not to be drafted for his "jib" but for both talent and leadership ability. Two things that are actually lacking on the team full of "jib" players.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

Jib is far far overrated; we need talent. Jib is good for team chemistry, but it can only get you so far. Talent, not jib, wins championships.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Morrison as a Bull sounds better and better everytime I see Luol pop one from the left corner, where he takes a ridiculous amount of shots with bad efficiency compared to the rest of his game. Morrison's shot making ability for his size is very intriging, but shooting isn't really what we need.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Talent, not jib, wins championships.


Talent alone can only get you so far. You need a mix of both.



> Morrison as a Bull sounds better and better everytime I see Luol pop one from the left corner, where he takes a ridiculous amount of shots with bad efficiency compared to the rest of his game.


Not really a fan of Deng, I consider pretty much anybody as a upgrade :clown:


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

step said:


> Not really a fan of Deng, I consider pretty much anybody as a upgrade :clown:


Actually I don't want Morrison over Deng. But why does Deng take so many shots from the same spot when he is so much more effective almost everywhere else. Morrison wouldn't have problems with that shot.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Hustle said:


> Actually I don't want Morrison over Deng. But why does Deng take so many shots from the same spot when he is so much more effective almost everywhere else. Morrison wouldn't have problems with that shot.


Morrison doesn't have many problems besides maybe lateral quickness and capitalism.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

step said:


> Not really a fan of Deng, I consider pretty much anybody as a upgrade :clown:


 Jeesh Luol is going to what turn 21 this year?! Hes improved on almost every part of his game. 


2 points average more then last year, lowered down his TO's per game slightly, inches towards 1 stl per game, his ast per game droped a little bit but are still pretty close to where he was last year, hes averaging 1 more rebound, improved his FT%, Improved his 3point FG% by almost 80 points, and his FG% is very very good a 30 point improve ment from last season. By the way hes improving he can be a 20 10 and 5 player when he turns 25.


----------

