# Question for arenas809 re: rookie point guards



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Over the last 10 games, Hinrich and Barbosa have played comparable minutes in starting roles for their respective teams. Kirk is in the midst of the longest season he's ever played and is logging his minutes on tired legs (ie, he's already hit the wall), while Barbosa has had the luxury of starting off at a slower pace, so said wall is not a factor in his performance.

Regardless, here are each player's stats over the last 10 games:

*Hinrich:* 13.5 ppg, 5.2 apg, 3.7 rpg, 1.3 spg, 45% 3PT, 36.6 mpg.

*Barbosa:* 8.8 ppg, 3.3 apg, 1.9 rpg, 1.4 spg, 34% 3PT, 30.2 mpg.

Hinrich dominates the stat line between the two, just like he has all season. I've asked you this before, but you haven't answered. Why are you so certain the Bulls only got the fourth or fifth best point guard in this year's draft?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

4th or 5th best PG?!? Hinrich is the best point guard in the draft. Wade and Lebron are off guards. TJ Ford is 2nd. All those Steve Blake is better type arguments are nonsense. 

Hinrich is the 3rd or 4th best PLAYER for any position out of this draft.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

I know I'm not arenas, but...

TJ Ford is 7.7 ppg, 6.5 apg, 2.7 rpg, .8 spg, 33% from the arc in only 26.0 mpg. The caveat is that Ford is never going to be a huge scorer, and his team is 6-4 over that stretch, and it's not bad for one of his worst stretches in the season, so i dunno...

Dwyane Wade is 16.3 ppg, 4.6 apg, 3.6 rpg, 1.2 spg, 66% from the arc in 35.8 mpg. And wow, whaddya know... his team is also 6-4 over the stretch. And HIS team is the HEAT. And yes, he DOES start at point guard there.

Lebron James? Do I even need to... that's just embarassing. Even in the last games he played before the McInnis trade, when he was still running the point.. sheesh. And by the way, the Cavs are 6-4 over the last 10 games as well. Wow.

I can see why Hinrich is the 4th best point guard in this draft. I don't think that's a bad thing to say, though. This draft is filled with really explosive point guards. Even Ford is doing really well over the whole season, and he's also a big reason why the Bucks are actually winning instead of floundering near the bottom like everyone and their mother expected him to.

Barbosa might belong up there too, although he hasn't done a lot to surpass Hinrich.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> I know I'm not arenas, but...
> 
> TJ Ford is 7.7 ppg, 6.5 apg, 2.7 rpg, .8 spg, 33% from the arc in only 26.0 mpg. The caveat is that Ford is never going to be a huge scorer, and his team is 6-4 over that stretch, and it's not bad for one of his worst stretches in the season, so i dunno...
> ...


Wade and Lebron are not PGs. Fords numbers arent better than Hinrichs, and Ford will probably end up being a Boykins type player who will come off the bench because hes too much of a defensive liability to get heavy minutes.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Wade PLAYS the point guard, even if you don't think his game is that of a point. He scores like a madman, but he creates a lot for his teammates and he handles the ball most of the time. Odom plays PF, Caron and EJ play the swings, and Wade is at the point. If he's not a REAL PG, fine, but that's his position.

Ford is going to get a LOT better. He's a better ball-handler than Hinrich, and if anything, HE'S more the pure point than Hinrich is. Hinrich is a hot shooter, and can take minutes at off-guard much better than Ford ever could.

Lebron isn't a point yet but I think he's going to take that role. Silas' main concern with James running the point was that it was too much too quickly, not that it's not the best position for Lebron to play. True, now that he has a competent guy like McInnis to run it, James has been rejuvenated and the team's started to win, but Lebron will be back at the point guard position again. That kind of playmaking ability is just too much talent.

Would you rather have a guy like McInnis (not a great scorer, an efficient playmaker, decent defender) running with James, or would you rather have James and then a very decent scorer and decent defender at SG, like Dajuan Wagner (whose recent return also coincides with the Cavs recent winnings)?

James IS a point guard, AND he's a shooting guard. He's NOT a combo guard.

And Hinrich is next, in my opinion. He is smart, savvy, quick, and a good defender, but he's not as quick or as good a handler as TJ, nor is he as explosive or athletic as Wade, nor is he really anything resembling James. Hinrich is going to be a great point guard, but he wasn't the best or even second-best PG in this year's draft. That just speaks to the strength of this year's PG; it's no slight to Hinrich at all!


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> Wade PLAYS the point guard, even if you don't think his game is that of a point. He scores like a madman, but he creates a lot for his teammates and he handles the ball most of the time. Odom plays PF, Caron and EJ play the swings, and Wade is at the point. If he's not a REAL PG, fine, but that's his position.


Wade may be a better player than Hinrich, but not a better point guard even if he plays that as his position technically. Theres a difference.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Wade may be a better player than Hinrich, but not a better point guard even if he plays that as his position technically. Theres a difference.


My original remarks weren't a knock on Kirk...

I believe someone posted a list of PGs taken in the first round, and I said out of that list Kirk was like the 4th best.

I think using stats to compare is not always a good way to judge

Ford is the starting PG on a potential playoff team. He's not a scorer, is not needed to score, what they do need him to do, he does very well.

Wade does play the point, but not full time and that's why Alston is there so he can slide to the 2.

He does a really good job of attacking the basket and either scoring himself or getting someone else an easier basket or open look from the outside.

Barbosa I think is a nice player, and he just now has started to get fulltime to play PG...

I originally did not say Barbosa was better than Kirk...

I was saying Kirk was behind Lebron, Wade, and T.J. Ford, making him the 4th best PG that came out of that first round...


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

If we're going to rank point guards, we look at which point guard is the best player, not at which point guard is the best point guard. But that's just a difference of opinion.

But even if we look at Wade, we can say that he IS the point guard because he runs a point guard's game. He is the primary ball-handler. He sets up the offense and initiates it. He creates offense for his teammates, even if it's not always resulting in a direct assist. That IS what a point guard does. Just because he doesn't look to only pass the ball, it doesn't make him a bad point guard.

For instance, let's say it was a fact that Target has better quality clothes than the Old Navy. Old Navy has pretty decent clothes, and they only sell clothes, while Target sells all sorts of crap. Yet, although Target does sell all sorts of stuff and functions in a lot of other ways, it doesn't mean that Target is still not a better clothes store than Old Navy, right?

Similarly, Lebron has all the better qualities of a point guard than Hinrich. And I would argue that Wade may, as well. Not "pure basketball IQ", but in running his team and being the floor general, setting up the offense and initiating plays for his team to be successful, I think he's doing a fantasic job. Yes, he does happen to score a ton of points too, but a good point guard will get the ball to the person who can score the best, and on many occasions it happens to be him. He still made the right PG decision, no?

Maybe Ford is not quite as good a PG as Hinrich, but most people are still very high on him. He took a team that was supposed to get a lottery pick and helped them become a playoff-contender. One might look at last year's team and this year's, and say that TJ Ford, as far as adding new pieces, is the ENTIRE rebuilding project in himself. He's damn good, and will at least rival Hinrich, if not surpass him. He does need to improve the defense, but Boykins? He's not Boykins.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> For instance, let's say it was a fact that Target has better quality clothes than the Old Navy. Old Navy has pretty decent clothes, and they only sell clothes, while Target sells all sorts of crap. Yet, although Target does sell all sorts of stuff and functions in a lot of other ways, it doesn't mean that Target is still not a better clothes store than Old Navy, right?


Using this comparison, my opinion would be that Wade is the Target store that has decent clothes, but sells all sorts of stuff. While Hinrich is the Old Navy that has only clothes, but those clothes are better quality than Targets. 

I think Hinrich has better skills at the point guard, and Wade is the better overall player since he has a lot of 2guard skills.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> I originally did not say Barbosa was better than Kirk...
> 
> I was saying Kirk was behind Lebron, Wade, and T.J. Ford, making him the 4th best PG that came out of that first round...


Complete and utter B.S. 

*"We drafted the 5th best PG out of that group...

Hinrich will only be better than Ridnour and Blake."*

I only searched for a couple minutes:

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=876860#post876860

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=876914#post876914

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=876934#post876934

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=881367#post881367

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=898190#post898190

Seriously, what is it about certain people on this board making stuff up and/or manipulating stats? I'll ask again: does the Haterade taste good?


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

For the record ..

I think Kirk will be the best point guard from this draft followed very closely by Luke Ridnour and then TJ Ford and then Barbosa ... all 4 will be high quality point guards though

Ford is more ahead of Ridnour right now but Ridnour is a nice nice player .. you can just see the quality in him .. well I can at least 

As he matures a bit .. within 2 - 3 years ... he'll be the goods


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

And speaking of Luke Ridnour and given that Pax wants this team to reflect Scott Skiles...

Is it just me or does Luke Ridnour look like Scott Skiles's lovechild playing dress up with a wig ?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> 
> Is it just me or does Luke Ridnour look like Scott Skiles's lovechild playing dress up with a wig ?


I just formed the image of a near-bald Luke Ridnour in my head, and guess what? I agree with you.

5 star observation.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Complete and utter B.S.
> ...


What haterade?

When did I manipulate stats?

I hardly ever use stats in an argument, because honestly I don't care about looking them most of the time.

I think one of my posts that included stats was about how Jamal has improved in PPG, RPG, and APG every year since he's been in the league.

To be honest, what is there to hate on Kirk about?

I call hatin when Jamal has a good game and people rather keep their mouths shut and not acknowledge it, waiting for him to make a turnover or miss a 3 to start yelling again.

Better yet, I call hatin when I hear crap about Jamal making a play of the year type play, then saying the man he was guarding was stroking a 3 as Jamal was celebrating...

What kind of Paul Bunyan tale is that?

I don't hate on Kirk, but I've said all along I'm not going to jump on the build the team around Kirk, Kirk is the PG of the future bandwagon.

He does a lot of good things, but when it comes down it, Wade, Bron, T.J. and possibly Barbosa, and Ridnour will end up being better players.

I think Hinrich has exceeded expectations and that's why everyone is on his love train....

Then again there weren't extremely high expectations of Kirk, yet TC, EC, and JC are supposed to lead us to a title still being young themselves and not being properly coached?

Seriously don't call me out on hatin anyone because I don't...

There are a lot of people who snap as soon as you say anything "bad" about Kirk, and turn any Kirk or Jamal issue into a Kirk vs. Jamal issue...

I'm not the only one who notices this...

I did say what I said, and I'll stand by it, I didn't remember including Barbosa, but I did, I like what I see from him, and Kirk just might be better now, but we'll see in a year or 2.

Honestly, how much better do you guys expect Kirk to get?

I think there are definitely guys who I would bet their games grow more than Kirk's...


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

arenas you are a hater clear and simple. 

I say kirk is the best true rookie pg in the draft. lebron only played PG because wagner was out and they had no other suitable option. Since the cavs have acquired McInnis, lebron has slid over to the 2. 

Yes, Wade is playing the point and doing a good job, however call my crazy, but when Eddie Jones is no longer with the team Wade will move to the 2. But for argument sakes, fine wade is a 1.

im a huge tj ford fan. I go to the bradley center a lot and get to see him play. Comparing him to kirk is just plain silly. First of all, TJ doesnt play the fraction of the defense that kirk does. Damon jones is often brought in to play defense when TJ is struggling. TJ is not a threat to shoot the ball from the outside. he will get lots of open looks thanks to teams doubling on Redd, but TJ just doesnt have the shot yet. This is not taking anything away from TJ who is a hell of a player and has a bright future. He does so many good things out there like running a fast break to perfection, moving the ball around, exploiting his matchup to pressure the defense. 

Depending on how you look at it kirk is the #1 or 2 rookie pg out there. Let's not forget, kirk will only get BETTER!!!!!!!!


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i dont get this pure pg stuff with hinrich. he isn't one he's a combo or tweener or whatever people are calling it now as usually put it simply a guard because he does not have all of the requisite skills for the position and the proof is in two things , one he is occasionally pretty careless with the ball and number two he is pretty bad handling the ball against pressure.

i dont know how you all grew up but when i was a kid, the kid who got stripped too much,or got his handle picked too much couldn't run pg no matter how unselfish he was with the ball. There are players in the draft like ridnour and ford who are pure pg's and there are players like wade and hinrich who are players who have the size and skills to play both guard spots.Wade to me isn't a true pg because he lacks the natural mentality to set people up which is different from being shoot 1st stephon marbury is more of a pure pg than anyone in the last draft but he is a shoot 1st player that can and will set people up just as well as he scores.the need for a pure pg is overrated anyway wade and kirk were drafted ahead of the "pure point guards" in luke an TJ because more than anything else teams need talent, and they were the most talented guys who can play pg in the draft.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I think you touched on something that I see in regards to the kid who gets stripped too much and etc...

I see Kirk when he's pressured often turn the ball over, and it seems to take him forever to make something happen with the ball.

Guys like Jamal, Wade, Ford, can pretty much take a dribble or 2 and get by anyone guarding them and get to the basket which more often than not leads to someone getting an easy layup/dunk.

Kirk just doesn't seem to be able to get around anyone.

As far as Remlover goes, if you believe im a hater, then you feel free to do so, considering that you don't really know me, and I don't think very familiar with my posts, your opinion to me means about as much as what goes down the toilet on a daily basis.

Most of you guys don't even know what a "hater" is...you just use the word to fit anyone who doesn't kiss (fill in person's) butt...


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Wade very really plays a traditional PG and rearly even brings the ball up or plays the point. Rafer Alston plays a lot of point and odom and jones run the offensive. James is not playing PG and they traded for miginnes to get him off the point and james has played much better at SG which is his natural position. Ford is a fine young player but no jump shot and plays awful D.

Sorry but hinrich is the best pg of the draft. Unless 2 plus 2 equals 5 then whatever.

david


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

Im someone who doesnt rely on stats for my arguments, but in this case im breaking out the stats.

kirk averages 34mpg and gets 2.8 TO's a game. 

TJ ford-27mpg...2.6TO's a game
Luke Ridnour-15mpg-1.3 TOa game.
Wade=36mpg -3 To's a game.

seems like all these rookies have problems "handling the ball". 

Arenas, i migiht not know the defintion of being a "hater" but like pornography, i know it when i see it.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> Arenas, i migiht not know the defintion of being a "hater" but like pornography, i know it when i see it.


It's always nice to start your day with a good laugh...

Your post makes plenty of sense...

What you have proven is that you know nothing, especially about me and my posts...

I can feel a certain way because that's the way I choose to feel, are people haters because they aren't fans of someone's game?

I want Kirk to do well, it doesn't matter if I feel he's the best PG, or the worst, I still want him to do well, and I actually acknowledge when he does do well.

The main problem I have (especially here) is when you get on one guy, but not the other. To say oh Jamal had a terrible game defensively against Ray Allen, but not comment on how Luke Ridnour was doing whatever he wanted to on Kirk it's not hating, but its not fair to turn the cheek on one and not the other. 

You can insert different names in there, that is just one example that comes to mind.

Anyway, just like your porno, you can see THIS...

This is the last time I respond to you regarding one of your opinions, thoughts, or whatever...

I have no respect for anyone who judges someone unfairly and incorrectly.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> I think you touched on something that I see in regards to the kid who gets stripped too much and etc...
> 
> I see Kirk when he's pressured often turn the ball over, and it seems to take him forever to make something happen with the ball.
> ...


Arenas809 I’m looking for words to describe my repulsive against you, but I can’t find anything what could be innocent enough to post. You are reminding me a BullHawk, who was targeting Crawford the same way as you are targeting Hinrich now.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Over the last 10 games, Hinrich and Barbosa have played comparable minutes in starting roles for their respective teams. Kirk is in the midst of the longest season he's ever played and is logging his minutes on tired legs (ie, he's already hit the wall), while Barbosa has had the luxury of starting off at a slower pace, so said wall is not a factor in his performance.
> 
> Regardless, here are each player's stats over the last 10 games:
> ...


I wouldn't say he cominates the statline. You say that they are playing comparable minutes, but clearly, Hinrich is playing 6 minutes more. Which is about half of a quarter more. I would say taking that into consideration the numbers are closer than comfort comparing a guy who has been on the bench most of the season to a guy who has been starting all year basically. But I'm not going to argue that Barbosa is better than Hinrich at this stage, because I think Hinrich is a little bit better.

I will say this though. Watching the Bucks play...TJ Ford, better stats or not, is better than Kirk and deserves to be in the rookie game over him. TJ is a major reason why the Bucks are so hard to beat. I saw him take over the game against the Cavs the other night, it was amazing. I don't think he scored a point. But he was a one man fast break. He literally is the next Jason Kidd.

You can't discount the fact that the Bucks were supposed to be worset than the Bulls, yet helmed by TJ Ford they have been FAR better than the bulls. They have homecourt advantage in the East right now. They are playing like one of the elite teams in the East. And I think a lot of that is Ford and Terry Porter and Michael Redd.

I honestly didn't think Ford or Hinrich would be anywhere near this good in the NBA. Both have been revelations.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> Hinrich is the 3rd or 4th best PLAYER for any position out of this draft.



:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> Arenas809 I’m looking for words to describe my repulsive against you, but I can’t find anything what could be innocent enough to post. You are reminding me a BullHawk, who was targeting Crawford the same way as you are targeting Hinrich now.


Honestly, where have I targeted this kid?

You're responding as if I've made some kind of personal attack and Kirk is your son...

PLEASE.

Don't compare me to Bullhawk, I don't start threads to say Kirk sucks, he should never play, play Jamal...

This is all stemming from comments made a while back about PGs in the first round and me responding how I felt.

What is wrong with that?

Did I commit a crime?

If you can honestly show me where I'm targeting Kirk, I would apologize.

I think some of you are taking this in the wrong direction, and that's because you are taking it there, not because I'm trying to make it go there.

I've never heard of anyone saying a good thing about someone that they're "targeting".

Targeting is starting a thread saying see Hinrich just made a turnover, take him out, not posting wow Hinrich's on fire tonight.

As it has been said on this board before, you're a bad guy if you say ANYTHING about someone that goes against what others feel about that person.

I have my opinions just as anyone else, and I have not once crossed the line with those opinions.

Anyway this is ridiculous, when it comes to this topic, I am done...


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> I think you touched on something that I see in regards to the kid who gets stripped too much and etc...
> 
> I see Kirk when he's pressured often turn the ball over, and it seems to take him forever to make something happen with the ball.
> ...


Arenas...Vincent showed you...Give Kirk his due and Vincent. I value your posts and opinions, but he's got you here. I actually think you're a lover ..of JC that is. That's cool.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

impartial view here

Kirk is a good player. But I dont think he would start for most teams playing over 500, with the key word being MOST. he would certainly start for Indiana for instance. But if he were in Sacramento, for example, he would be a DNP. So I see Arenas point. We kind of overrate him a bit. He is a nice, good young player who has played well but looks better then he is cause he has played with a lot of guys who are dogging it. Call it the Purvis Short syndrome. Short regularly put up 25 ppg for the lowly GS Warrious. Is Kirk a good player who would be better on a better team or is he kid who shows supreme effort on a bad team that makes him look better then he is? Right now, all I can say is that only Eddy Curry, of our team, would start on over half the teams in the NBA. And that is because he is a center

Now if we are going to make a legit comparison to Barbosa, lets do it within a relative time frame. I did it from the month that Marbury was dealt. Here are Barbosas stats for the month of Jan (let me point out that he had 2 games where he played about 5 min each backing up Stephon so these stats might be higher otherwise) and the 2 games in Feb

Jan
27.4 Mpg 10.1 PPG, 2.4 TO, 3.4 APG, 1.5 SPG, 1.9 RPG, 44.3% FG 41.2% 3pG

Here are Kirks stats for that same month

37.7 MPG, 11.9 PPG, 2.9TO, 3.5RPG, 6.1APG, 1.4SPG, 38.6% FG 36.5% 3 PG

Now just a quick look at Feb. its only 2 games but lets throw it out there anyway Ill start with Kirk this time

40.5 MPG, 12.5PPG, 36% FG%, 43% 3PG%, 1.5 spg, 2.0 TO, 4.5 RPG, 6.5 APG

Barbosas Feb stats

30.5 MPG, 11.5 PPG, 58% FG%, 50% 3PT%, .5 spg, 4 TOs, 3 RPG, 3.5APG

Now I thought these stats were interesting. Barbosa, statistically atleast, is shooting a tremendous %. And he has one ugly looking hitch in his J. Barbosa is a bit more athletic and long and finishes better at the rim. Kirk takes care of the ball better, but the Bulls dont pace at the pace that Phoenix does. . Kirk seems to be the better passer, getting about 80% more Assists then Barbosa does in about 10 min a night more on a slower paced team. But it all depends on what you want. Its closer then most of us want to admit. Give Kirk the slight nod in terms of total game, but give Barbosa the nod in terms of scoring. Id also like to point out that the Suns have had a much better winning % then the Bulls over the same stretch inspite of gutting out their roster and losing Amare to an injury. Plus they play in the west 

But since its fairly close, the obvious hindsight question is, wouldnt the Bulls have been smart to trade down from 7 and pick up another number 1? Memphis wanted to trade up. So did Boston. We could have taken care of a wingspot with Pavlovic or whomever. And had Barbosa with the other pick. Probably the smarter thing to do. But hindsight is 20/20. 

Now in conclusion. VV and Arenas are 2 of my favorite posters. I am even dedicating my winning the ribs this year to VV. And what I will say is that both of you guys are actually right. Kirk is a GOOD player. He is a GREAT player RELATIVE to what we have. And Arenas is right as well. How? Was Kirk a good value at 7? I dont know, but i think we just proven you could have had a player at 29 that is almost as good as he is AND who has bigger upside (Barbosa played in the brazilian league, he has a ton to learn). Arenas is also right that we, being Skiles, gives alot of credit to Kirk, while alot of blame goes to jamal though, statistically speaking atleast, Jamal is the better player.

Is this a fair argument?


----------



## Natty Dreadlockz (Jul 21, 2003)

> Is this a fair argument?


Yes sir, it is!


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> I think you touched on something that I see in regards to the kid who gets stripped too much and etc...
> 
> I see Kirk when he's pressured often turn the ball over, and it seems to take him forever to make something happen with the ball.
> ...


Here is where I jump in. Your guy, Jamal, was HORRIBLE at handling the ball against any kind of NBA defense his rookie year. You can give me the "oh, but he was younger" reason, but Jamal was a far worse handler than Kirk his rookie year. Kirk had a few games at being flat out horrible himself, but he ended up making some quick corrections, and though he still does have errors in spurts, his turnovers have been reasonable for a rookie. 

There is no reason to believe that Kirk can't improve his handle as he gains experience. Personally, I have much more faith that Kirk will ever have a great handle than TJ Ford ever playing great defense. 

Arenas, why would you believe that Kirk can't improve that much? Despite his pure shooting stroke, he's still shooting next to 40%. Do you really believe that's going to remain so low? Let's not forget that Kirk could dunk in college. Has he ever done it with the Bulls? No, because he doesn't yet know how to master NBA post defenders, but given that I know he has the hops to do it, why should we assume he'll never learn?

Ugh.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> But if he were in Sacramento, for example, he would be a DNP. So I see Arenas point.


I'm not so sure about that. Kirk's main forte -- perhaps even moreso than his shooting -- is his ability to run and push the break. He excelled in a run and gun offense at Kansas where the tempo was high and the passes were fast. I'm not so sure he couldn't get some burn behind Bibby and Jackson.



> kind of overrate him a bit.


Agreed, to an extent. Much of this backlash is based on the extreme amount of underrating KH received in the preseason and last spring/summer.



> He is a nice, good young player who has played well but looks better then he is cause he has played with a lot of guys who are dogging it.


Kirk looked and played like an All-American playing with Drew Gooden and Nick Collison his junior year at Kansas. Many hardcore college bball fans would agree that Kirk's junior year -- the year in which he played alongside two other lottery picks -- he looked the most spectacular.



> Now if we are going to make a legit comparison to Barbosa, lets do it within a relative time frame.


Or we could prorate the Bulls offense to be as efficient as the Suns' to even it up a bit...........



> Now I thought these stats were interesting. Barbosa, statistically atleast, is shooting a tremendous %.


True. But one thing to consider is, Barbosa has had more opportunity to pick and choose his shots than has Hinrich, and he also has much fresher legs.



> Its closer then most of us want to admit.


And it will most likely continue to get closer and closer over time, as Barbosa's a hell of a talent. My premise, as stated in my initial post, was that I did not believe that Kirk was the 5th best point guard taken in this year's draft, as arenas surmises.



> Id also like to point out that the Suns have had a much better winning % then the Bulls over the same stretch inspite of gutting out their roster and losing Amare to an injury. Plus they play in the west


Over the same stretch, Joe Johnson has blown up. And generally speaking, Joe Johnson/Shawn Marion > Jamal Crawford/Eddy Curry, at least up to this point this season -- especially after the Marbury trade.

Also, another thing to consider is rookie Roland Ratings. Outside of rooks who only get time in blowouts (Milicic, Bell, Jones) Kirk Hinrich has the highest +/- rating out of every single player drafted in the first round. Higher than James, Anthony, Bosh, Wade, Ford, Banks, Ridnour, Pavlovic, Howard, and yes, Barbosa.

I think this stat shows quite a bit, actually:

http://www.82games.com/comm17.htm



> I am even dedicating my winning the ribs this year to VV.


I need to find those pics.   



> ...while alot of blame goes to jamal though, statistically speaking atleast, Jamal is the better player.


I agree there's an inordinate amount of blame being put on JC. How did JC get brought into this argument? I didn't bring him up. All I wanted to do was present my point to arenas.



> Is this a fair argument?


Absolutely. Good post.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> There is no reason to believe that Kirk can't improve his handle as he gains experience. Personally, I have much more faith that Kirk will ever have a great handle than TJ Ford ever playing great defense.


Bingo. 



> Arenas, why would you believe that Kirk can't improve that much? Despite his pure shooting stroke, he's still shooting next to 40%. Do you really believe that's going to remain so low? Let's not forget that Kirk could dunk in college. Has he ever done it with the Bulls? No, because he doesn't yet know how to master NBA post defenders, but given that I know he has the hops to do it, why should we assume he'll never learn?
> 
> Ugh.


Exactly.

This is why I don't really take anybody seriously who says, "Kirk Hinrich has no upside and won't improve very much". There are so many things he can improve and work on, and you can bet your bottom dollar he'll bust his a$$ every day in the offseason to get better. Seriously, how can a guy who works as hard as Kirk _not_ improve? It's just a silly argument thrown out by the hopelessly myopic.

These are things that I can almost guarantee will improve with time:

1. Better shooting %
2. Better finishing skills (as described by DMD above)
3. Better handle
4. Better strength and body control
5. A quicker pace in the offense, and efficiency therein
6. Defense as he learns more and more about opposing players
7. Passing and court vision
8. Confidence, which affects everything

P.S. arenas, you never really explained yourself after I provided numerous examples of your dishonesty in this thread.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure about that. Kirk's main forte -- perhaps even moreso than his shooting -- is his ability to run and push the break. He excelled in a run and gun offense at Kansas where the tempo was high and the passes were fast. I'm not so sure he couldn't get some burn behind Bibby and Jackson.
> ...


VV if i could give you a 5 again. I certainly would.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> This is why I don't really take anybody seriously who says, "Kirk Hinrich has no upside and won't improve very much".


Whenever I read this type of argument I think back to Elton Brand. I was confident he wouldn't improve and become a legitimate star... _mea culpa._


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Seriously, I think a couple posters really need to take a look at this ranking:

http://www.82games.com/comm17.htm

Perspective.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Seriously, I think a couple posters really need to take a look at this ranking:
> 
> http://www.82games.com/comm17.htm
> ...


I don't get your point. Are you looking the Roland rating? Because the point of the article, and in almost every statistical category, Hinrich is worse than most rookies out there. Win%, +/-, etc... he doesn't really stand out on these stats.

I don't really understand what they are actually saying in the first place.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't get your point. Are you looking the Roland rating? Because the point of the article, and in almost every statistical category, Hinrich is worse than most rookies out there. Win%, +/-, etc... he doesn't really stand out on these stats.
> ...


*Roland Rating* -- the difference between the player's on court and off court "Net48" ratings, which is just plus/minus scaled to 48 minutes. In other words does the team play better (a positive rating) with the player on the court, or worse (a negative rating) 

The Roland Rating is the far right column. Kirk leads all rookies in this category (outside of the scrubs who get mopup duty).

That's my point.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

To put that Roland rating in laymens terms, basically it's stating that while Kirk is on the floor the Bulls don't get beat as badly as they do when he sits. Yea, his play doesn't directly translate into wins and losses much like Crawford and Curry's play don't directly translate into wins and losses.

It's basically saying that the Bulls would be worse than they are now (god forbid!) if Kirk never played. I'd agree with that.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> To put that Roland rating in laymens terms, basically it's stating that while Kirk is on the floor the Bulls don't get beat as badly as they do when he sits. Yea, his play doesn't directly translate into wins and losses much like Crawford and Curry's play don't directly translate into wins and losses.
> 
> It's basically saying that the Bulls would be worse than they are now (god forbid!) if Kirk never played. I'd agree with that.


there can be no arguing whether he is a positive influence or not. its obvious he is. But the question still remains, would he play anywhere near 20 min a night on a real team? Some places yes, some places no.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> there can be no arguing whether he is a positive influence or not. its obvious he is. But the question still remains, would he play anywhere near 20 min a night on a real team? Some places yes, some places no.


Same can be said for Jamal Crawford, Dwyane Wade, TJ Ford, Leandro Barbosa, etc.

A lot of people thought KH wouldn't get 20 minutes a game for the lowly Bulls at the start of the season.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Same can be said for Jamal Crawford, Dwyane Wade, TJ Ford, Leandro Barbosa, etc.
> ...


100% agree. Like i said, I think only Eddy Curry is the only player on our roster who would actually start on over half the teams in the NBA. And most of that is the fact that the NBA doesnt have alot of centers. Everyone else is pretty much a backup league wide


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> there can be no arguing whether he is a positive influence or not. its obvious he is. But the question still remains, would he play anywhere near 20 min a night on a real team? Some places yes, some places no.


I think on most teams he'd get some decent burn. In Indy he might start. In NJ he'd probably rarely see the floor. It all depends on the situation. I don't think Hinrich is anywhere close to being the player he'll ultimately be. He's got a long NBA career ahead of him and for the time being I'm glad he's a Bull. I think he'll turn out to be like Steve Nash with better defense. That works for me.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> I think on most teams he'd get some decent burn. In Indy he might start. In NJ he'd probably rarely see the floor. It all depends on the situation. I don't think Hinrich is anywhere close to being the player he'll ultimately be. He's got a long NBA career ahead of him and for the time being I'm glad he's a Bull. I think he'll turn out to be like Steve Nash with better defense. That works for me.


Like i said earlier in this thread, Indiana for sure he would start. In sacramento, behind Bibby and Jackson, he would never play. In LA, probably minimally. In San Antonio, he would back up Parker. Minnesota, zero PT. Dallas, probably a little PT. The point is, and its not to pick on Kirk or anyone directly, is that while we all love to throw roses on the ground kIrk walks on, myself included, the fact is only a handful of rookie and only Eddy Curry on the Bulls would actually get consistent minutes anywhere in the NBA.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Like i said earlier in this thread, Indiana for sure he would start. In sacramento, behind Bibby and Jackson, he would never play. In LA, probably minimally. In San Antonio, he would back up Parker. Minnesota, zero PT. Dallas, probably a little PT. The point is, and its not to pick on Kirk or anyone directly, is that while we all love to throw roses on the ground kIrk walks on, myself included, the fact is only a handful of rookie and only Eddy Curry on the Bulls would actually get consistent minutes anywhere in the NBA.


But honestly, this is a totally meaningless comparison if that's the case? 

I mean, it'd be pretty to easy to see that Jamal wouldn't be playing much either if he was behind Finley, Howard, and Nash, or that Chandler wouldn't see much time behind Ben Wallace and Memet Okur.

But I could also arbitrarily say the same thing about Kwame Brown or Steve Francis.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> But honestly, this is a totally meaningless comparison if that's the case?
> ...


And what exactly are you trying to say?

I am saying that its so hard to get pumped about anyone who I doubt would play much for an actual winner. In some instances, Indiana being the most obvious, JC and Kirk would play. But in most instances, they wouldnt. If you read all of my posts, I say only Curry would start for more then half the teams in the NBA, and that is purely based on the shortage of centers league wide. I just dont think its much to be excited about, from 1-12 on this roster as is. Either changes have to be made or players have to grow.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

It is a weird arguement rlucas. I mean of course Kirk would not play in front of Payton or Nash or Parker. Those are established stars in this league. How can you knock Hinrich for that. He is a rookie 45 games into his career. A little unrealistic to think he would be on that level already no?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> And what exactly are you trying to say?
> 
> I am saying that its so hard to get pumped about anyone who I doubt would play much for an actual winner. In some instances, Indiana being the most obvious, JC and Kirk would play. But in most instances, they wouldnt. If you read all of my posts, I say only Curry would start for more then half the teams in the NBA, and that is purely based on the shortage of centers league wide. I just dont think its much to be excited about, from 1-12 on this roster as is. Either changes have to be made or players have to grow.


I'm saying that there's really not much point in stating the obvious. Should we be "excited" about these players? Well, I dunno. I'm pretty sure none of them are done growing yet. And I'd venture that given some time, most of these guys will be in the upper echelon of starters. so I don't see what the argument is other than that they aren't there yet. Something we could know by looking at their ages.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> It is a weird arguement rlucas. I mean of course Kirk would not play in front of Payton or Nash or Parker. Those are established stars in this league. How can you knock Hinrich for that. He is a rookie 45 games into his career. A little unrealistic to think he would be on that level already no?



whoa whoa whoa

Where did I knock Kirk? i said its hard to love anyone on this team when they wouldnt play for a winner. That means Chandler, Kirk, Crawford, Erob, Dupree, Pippen, etc. Brunson wouldnt even be the ball boy at ARCO. Thats a knock on the team, not a player. And no player deserves much praise on this team. kirk, i hate to agree with Arenas, gets a ton of it. He is an easy target, but no one deserves it until we actually win 50 of our games


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Ok how is it a knock on the team that Chandler is not on the level of Webber or Duncan yet? Or Kirk not on the level of Bibby or Parker or Kidd? Pretty unrealistic to think badly of them because they are not there yet. I guess I am not getting your point.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Ok how is it a knock on the team that Chandler is not on the level of Webber or Duncan yet? Or Kirk not on the level of Bibby or Parker or Kidd? Pretty unrealistic to think badly of them because they are not there yet. I guess I am not getting your point.


Your not but thats ok

Everyone has their favorite. me personally, its Curry. The majority, its Crawford or Kirk. But what we have to understand is that as good as we want to argue that these guys are, the reality is that neither would play much on a real team with a few exceptions. Its not just the stars, its players like Eric Snow in Philly, David Wesley in NO, Mau Ginobili and Tony Parker in San Antonio? I dont think so. While all of us want to argue who is better, jamal or kirk, the point is, neither, right now, would play much on contender minus Indiana. so its sort of a moot point. Its like me arguing that Bin Laden is a better guy then Sadamn, its just 2 bad guys in the end. 

Now, thats not to say that Hinrich or Jamal cant become good players. They might. but at some point, they are going to have to have good players around them, I feel, to make the jump. Right now, it doesnt look good. I just dont see either guy has that Lebron James who can rise above the mess around themselves to lead. They could develop into good players, but they are sort of behind the 8 ball because of all the losing they are taking. That has had to wear Jamal down, in particular, a little more. 

My point is, not very many rookies can lead. But I am agree with Arenas that we blow players out of proportion some. I am THE MOST GUILTY OF IT. But I made a resolution to be more of a realist this year. and the reality is that Kirk and Jamal look good stats wise for a team that isnt very good and would probably get little to no run on a real team. If we are going to give as much praise to Kirk, jamal, tyson, jyd whoever as we do, then Josh Howard has to be the second coming of Jordan. here is a guy, picked at the bottom of the first round who STARTS for a contender and Contributes. That is someone to praise. Unfortunately, no praise is going to be given from me until we can prove for a sustainable period of time that we can play atleast 500 ball


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*rlucas*

I really, really doubt KH wouldn't get some decent playing time (10-15 mpg) with the majority of NBA teams at the 1, 2 and/or combo spots.

You honestly think Hinrich would never play in Sacramento? You don't think Adelman wouldn't use him at all in his fast-paced system of breaks, cuts, passes and long range shooting? Keep in mind the Kings only have two small guards (Bibby and Jackson) who can play the point. Peeler, the third guard, is on the waning edge of his career and is strictly a SG. Sacramento's style of play is tailor made for Kirk's hair on fire tempo, and I think if given the chance he'd excel in Adelman's system. I honestly think he'd get at least 10 minutes a game in Sacramento, and he'd probably put up better numbers per minute than he is in Chicago.

You honestly don't think Kirk could get some minutes behind (or with) Parker (who's having the worst year of his career) in San Antonio? Is Charlie Ward really that much better than KH?

As for Minnesota, Cassell plays 36 minutes a game. But who backs him up? Keith freaking McLeod with his 2.7 ppg, 10% 3PT accuracy and Trenton Hassell. Hoiberg gets a lot of burn at SG. You're seriously telling me Kirk couldn't find PT with that group of reserves?

Nash averages 33 mpg in Dallas and is backed up by Travis Best (3.7 ppg, 18% 3PT) and Tony Delk (a 6'1" SG). Kirk couldn't manage some PT with these guys either?

It's not about being "pumped" about a guy or not. Lots of great rookies (or rookies who will be great) don't start their careers being able to get quality playing time on a winning team. Nash didn't, Payton didn't, lots of current star players didn't. A player doesn't have to be able to start or get quality PT on a winning team as a rookie in order for others to be legitimately pumped about him, IMO.

And if a player doesn't merit others being pumped about him because his team won't win 50 games, what happens if that player is Chris Bosh, or Dwyane Wade, or Leandro Barbosa? Do none of them deserve praise? Did a skinny young Michael Jordan playing on a crappy Bulls team deserve attention?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

And this thread has now veered off into another direction than that of my initial post.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: rlucas*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> I really, really doubt KH wouldn't get some decent playing time (10-15 mpg) with the majority of NBA teams at the 1, 2 and/or combo spots.
> 
> You honestly think Hinrich would never play in Sacramento? You don't think Adelman wouldn't use him at all in his fast-paced system of breaks, cuts, passes and long range shooting? Keep in mind the Kings only have two small guards (Bibby and Jackson) who can play the point. Peeler, the third guard, is on the waning edge of his career and is strictly a SG. Sacramento's style of play is tailor made for Kirk's hair on fire tempo, and I think if given the chance he'd excel in Adelman's system. I honestly think he'd get at least 10 minutes a game in Sacramento, and he'd probably put up better numbers per minute than he is in Chicago.
> ...


i seriously doubt he could play any real time on the kings , they have 2 pgs in bibby and bjax and 2 real, 2 guards in peeler and christe there is no way adelman would play him in front of any of the 4some his team is trying to win titles not develop youth 

in minny i agree he would play but i dont think he would get much time in dallas for the same reason he wouldn't get time with the kings too many experienced vets at the position he plays

i've seen what frank williams can do as a starter and it was better than what kirk has done ...if ward can keep him on the bench why couldn't he do the same to kirk ?Tony parker by the way is having a comparable season to last year in most respects and is playing more minutes than ever

the top teams aren't developing players in the middle of a playoff race, look at gerald wallace who gets 10 minutes a game and in barely half of the kings games this season . they aren't giving him development minutes and they traded hedo to get him more time (along with get miller)

hinrich would simply have to be a better player by such a degree his lack of experience wouldn't matter , is he that much better than delk bobby jackson,ward , or best all of whom are good role players , that their coach would trust kirk over them all season long into the playoffs. 

the answer most likely is no 

but i agree the bulls should be happy with kirk as all teams who have good producing rookies , it isn't about what the next team is doing its about making your won team better , if that goes well all the rest will fall into place


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: rlucas*

You have good points about the guard rotation in Sacramento, although I don't agree with them entirely. However...



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> i've seen what frank williams can do as a starter and it was better than what kirk has done ...


...this is why I didn't take your post seriously.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: rlucas*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> the top teams aren't developing players in the middle of a playoff race, look at gerald wallace who gets 10 minutes a game and in barely half of the kings games this season .


Josh Howard.

And Sacramento didn't take anybody in the first round last year, so they don't really have to devote a lot of time to young player development. Wallace is still raw as hell, and Songaila gets decent PT with marginal NBA talent.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: rlucas*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> You have good points about the guard rotation in Sacramento, although I don't agree with them entirely. However...
> 
> 
> ...


yet you replied twice to it.

actions speak louder than words


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: rlucas*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> You have good points about the guard rotation in Sacramento, although I don't agree with them entirely. However...
> 
> 
> ...


That's his opinion about Frank Williams...

I think the problem is that if someone says such and such is better than such and such, then you guys say we're knocking a player.

I'm going to stand by original comments, but my comments weren't to knock Kirk, and I've yet to see anyone show me where I unjustly "knocked" him.

I think he's a great player, and a bright spot on this team, however...

Do I feel the role he plays on the Bulls, the stats he has on the Bulls, he would have that role and stats on most NBA teams? No...

Luke Ridnour who is going to be a good backup PG in this league gets about 15 MPG for the Sonics, he was getting a lot of burn at the beginning of the season, but AD has emerged out there and that's why his minutes have gone down.

I feel he and Kirk are 2 players that you can compare to each other, and Kirk may do more than Luke, but on most teams his stats would be about the same, probably a little better than what Luke's are.

I have no problem having these kind of discussions, because this in fact is a good discussion. What I do have a problem with is people taking opinions as personal attacks, and then judging someone unfairly and unjustly.


VV your argument starts with a list....

From that list, we said those were the 7 PGs taken in the first round of the draft, I said we got maybe the 4th or 5th best, or whatever, and that's what I do believe, does that make Kirk a bad player or change the season he's having?

No...

I will say this, and I think some people will agree with me on this, I think a lot of opinions sometimes are based off wow factor, and I think that comes from guys looking at the games differently.

Just to give examples, I see T.J. Ford flying by defenses nightly, I see Jamal cutting through guys to throw himself a alley off the backboard in a half court offense, or him just taking one dribble and going right by his man and you just go wow, and you see the talent is there.

Kirk is a good fundamental player, and maybe some of the things he does aren't as appreciated, because it's different things. 

Kirk's game is playing good defense, drawing charges, diving on the floor for loose balls. His game is not breaking ankles, nailing J's in guys faces, and penetrating through defenses to get himself or other guys easy baskets.

That's one way I've seen him, especially when I saw him live here in Miami.

He's a good all around player, but I'm not going to say he's anyone franchise player or franchise PG, and a lot of you here want to do that.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: rlucas*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Josh Howard.
> ...


josh howard and songalia provide something kirk wouldn't ...a need , the mavs dont need a pg they have 3 , they needed a small forward who hustled like they always do which is why people like buckner and adrian griffin always play for them.its a missing piece on their team that they feel they can replace whenever and they do.

Songalia only plays because chris webber is out i dont think you'll see much of him after the allstar break..those 2 teams have a need for those players to play where they didn't have an overabundance of depth ...the mavs have 3 pgs and the kings backup was in the running for MVP last year ...yet you think kirk play instead because adelman would have to find time for him he wouldn't ...at least wallace raw or not plays a position the kings could use a back up at and he still gets no burn, kirk would not play on that team. peeler shoots 45% from the field 44% from 3 and 88% from the line numbers i doubt kirk matched in college so he's not doing them in the pro's anytime soon.now one day kirk may be this efficient but maybe not, peeler is there now and the kings aren't playing for tomorrow.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Going through based on the rating system I played with last night, I find that:

PG: Kirk is 14th among PGs and 66th overall
SG: Jamal is 14th among SGs and 60th overall
SF: Dupree is 38th among SFs and 175 overall
ERob 47th among SFs and 201st overall
Jeffries is 57th and 257th overall
Fizer is 59th among SFs (if anyone's noticed, he's basically played there) and 256th overall
Pippen is 84th among SFs and 269th overall

Obviously ERob and Pip have had nice games of late, but by and large this has been an absolutely disasterous position for us.

PF: JYD is 24th among PFs and 117th overall
C: Curry is 13th among Cs and 127th overall

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

You might quibble with these, but it's probably not that far from the truth. Kirk and Jamal have been our most solid overall players. I think they'd be contributing on quite a few other teams, but as far as what they're doing they're still middling compared with guys at their positions.

Our SFs have been a train wreck

Despite having a zillion PFs, they've also been in the bottom tier of the league.

Center has been ok, but when you consider that many teams man their center position with better PFs and you see that Curry isn't even in the top 100 players, you see that we aren't doing that well there either.

Thus, I wouldn't say none of our guys would play, but I think when you put it all together it's clear our best guys are about average for starters and our worst starters really bad compared to others.

Nowhere do we have a way above average guy, and this is a star driven league.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> That's his opinion about Frank Williams...
> ...


its my opinion on frank williams but the facts back it up 

frank williams 58% from the field 55% from 3pts and 1.000 from the line in his starts 12 pts 5ast and 2 steals per also the knicks won all 3 games ...the only reason he is not starting right now is on what was to be his 4th start stephon marbury was on the roster so his prominence as a starter came to an abrupt end.

can VV honestly say kirk as a starter was better than williams as one and sound close to impartial now?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> VV your argument starts with a list....
> 
> From that list, we said those were the 7 PGs taken in the first round of the draft, I said we got maybe the 4th or 5th best, or whatever, and that's what I do believe, does that make Kirk a bad player or change the season he's having?


Quit backpedaling and just say now what you said then:
http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=876914#post876914
Don't "or whatever" to try to get around things. If you believe something, that's fine. That's you opinion, and it means just as much as mine. But when you try to revise what you said, it just muddies the waters, at least for me.



> I will say this, and I think some people will agree with me on this, I think a lot of opinions sometimes are based off wow factor, and I think that comes from guys looking at the games differently.


This is obvious.



> Kirk's game is playing good defense, drawing charges, diving on the floor for loose balls. His game is not breaking ankles, nailing J's in guys faces, and penetrating through defenses to get himself or other guys easy baskets.


Maybe this is why he's the most efficient Bulls starter.



> He's a good all around player, but I'm not going to say he's anyone franchise player or franchise PG, and a lot of you here want to do that.


Who said he was a franchise player? Many (most) here have said that he's a building block for the team and the PG of the future in Chicago, but that's a far cry from what you're implying with this "franchise" stuff.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Quit backpedaling and just say now what you said then:
> ...


I dont think anyone says Kirk is a franchise player. I would agree with this. But i just believe that no one on a team with an under 300 winning % is above blame. But if you read the boards, its 90% how great Kirk is. Then 9% impartial opinions. And then you get Arenas with the 1%. But within that 1% is truth. 

While I do think Kirk can be a great shooter, VV and I have talked about this, he hasnt been. Plus he cant finish at the rim. He is not above blame. And on a good team, at this point in his career he is a 10 mpg player. In sacramento, if he played at all, it would be as a 2 actually. In minny, he wouldnt play at all behind cassell and hudson. When he emerges as an upper echelon pg, Ill be the first one to congratulate him. Its within his reach. But right now, it isnt close. 

Now let me point out, that outside of Curry, we dont have a player who ranks among the top half at his position. So this isnt a Kirk bashing session. This is a bashing session on everyone. And Curry is not above blame because he might be the 10th best center in basketball, maybe, but he should be third right now. 

The point is, there has to be changes made. Jamal is the most likely to go. I am fine with that. But if the right offer came for kirk, deal him. No one is untouchable on a team this lowly. No one is that good. And frankly, I think a legit argument can be made that at 7, we could have gotten more value from dealing down, picking up a swingman and another pg. The difference between Kirk and Ridnour isnt 7 spots and the difference between barbosa and kirk isnt 22 spots. So just in terms of value, purely in terms of value, it wasnt wise. But hindsight is 20/20.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> josh howard and songalia provide something kirk wouldn't ...a need , the mavs dont need a pg they have 3 , they needed a small forward who hustled like they always do which is why people like buckner and adrian griffin always play for them.its a missing piece on their team that they feel they can replace whenever and they do.


On the flipside, just because a player (ie, Kirk) isn't on a team doesn't mean he wouldn't fill (or replace) a need on that team. For example, Bibby is Sacramento's only true point guard, and he doesn't even lead the team in assists. Bobby Jackson is basically a utility man SG. Hinrich would probably fill a void in Sacramento at point guard, IMO, and with his outside shooting he would likely be utilized in a shooting role as well.



> ...the mavs have 3 pgs and the kings backup was in the running for MVP last year ...


Delk is not a point guard, Best is a 15 mpg journeyman and Bobby Jackson, while a great player, is a utility man/shooter.



> yet you think kirk play instead because adelman would have to find time for him he wouldn't


As mentioned above, who says a player can't replace a need or fulfill a need to a greater capacity than the existing conditions dictate? Yes, I think Kirk would find minutes in Adelman's system. That's exactly the system Kirk excelled in at Kansas and exactly the system he's most skilled at.



> peeler shoots 45% from the field 44% from 3 and 88% from the line numbers i doubt kirk matched in college


Kirk shot 49% from the field and 43% from behind the arc during his 4 years in college. He also set Kansas and Big XII records in single season 3PT accuracy (51%). BTW, those numbers are much better than Peeler's while at Missouri against inferior competition (Big 8) to what Kirk faced at Kansas (Big XII).



> so he's not doing them in the pro's anytime soon.


Well, Kirk will probably finish the year shooting about 40% from downtown, which is better than a ton of great shooters in the League, as well as much better than almost all rookies.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> On the flipside, just because a player (ie, Kirk) isn't on a team doesn't mean he wouldn't fill (or replace) a need on that team. For example, Bibby is Sacramento's only true point guard, and he doesn't even lead the team in assists. Bobby Jackson is basically a utility man SG. Hinrich would probably fill a considerable void in Sacramento at point guard, IMO
> ...


In sacramento, max, 10 min a night. And it would be entirely off the ball. But they are loaded there at that spot. 

In san antonio, probably 15 min a night behind Parker, maybe some run at the 2

In LA, against Derek Fisher, maybe 10 min a night. I think he would find his shot here the best.

Dallas. I am not sure. I think he gets 10 min a night behind Nash. He would beat Best

Minnesota, with Hudson and Cassell no PT. 

Now 10 min a night is deep bench where I come from. But those are the best teams. In the east, it looks better. He would start in Indiana right away. In Detroit, he would get maybe 20 min a night behind Billups and Hamilton. In Nj, 10 min a night as Kidds caddie. NO, ironically, he might not play at all behind Davis and Armstrong. 

The point is, at this point, he isnt a starter on a championship team. But then again, no one is. VV is right, he doesnt deserve to be singled out. But then again, I would spread it around equally. I think he feels some ire because of all the best player on the Bulls talk from SKiles. And frankly, from a stat line pt of view, and recently, he hasnt been. That is what I call favoritism. Curry has been the best Bull the last week, how does Skiles reward him? By joking that Currys career high in Assists is "2"


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Well, I think this thread has gone full circle. My initial point was that in my opinion, and contrary to that of arenas809, KH is not the 5th best point guard in this draft, and that Barbosa is not markedly better than KH, if at all.

I could care less if Kirk would or would not get much burn on other teams, because he doesn't play for them.

All this fantasizing is tiring.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Quit backpedaling and just say now what you said then:
> ...


Dude, this is pathetic...

You're trying to put me on trial about the subject, and that's sad...

If you wanted to know my opinion, and honestly I haven't until this point seen you ask me about this, you could have pm'ed me..

Instead this B.S. has become I'm a Kirk hater and all this other nonsense.

I don't have to backpedal about anything, and I haven't once changed my opinion, so if your water is muddy, that's not my problem.

I've said what I've had to say about this, and you can go from that.

It's pretty clear how I feel, and I don't think I'm right or wrong with how I feel, it's just an opinion.

I agree with everything RLucas says, and I have said the same things about if he was on other teams and blah blah, but yet I'm a hater, and knocking on Kirk?

I cheer for him just like all the other Bulls and Bulls fans, just because I'm not going to annoint him the best thing since sliced bread is the reason I'm being chastized.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Well, I think this thread has gone full circle. My initial point was that in my opinion, and contrary to that of arenas809, KH is not the 5th best point guard in this draft, and that Barbosa is not markedly better than KH, if at all.



back on point.

Is Lebron a PG anymore? If not, here is how I see it

Kirk or Wade (i actually go with Kirk)
Ford

I have him at number one. I like Wade but why do I see Kendall Gill redux in him? anyway, he is really a 2. Hinrich really isnt a pure 1 either, but looks more fluid at the 1. In terms of winning games, its hard to argue with Ford. But Kirk gets the slight edge. barbosa is coming up strong. But no, he isnt as good as Kirk. But then again, he isnt 22 spots worse then he is either.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Well, I think this thread has gone full circle. My initial point was that in my opinion, and contrary to that of arenas809, KH is not the 5th best point guard in this draft, and that Barbosa is not markedly better than KH, if at all.
> 
> I could care less if Kirk would or would not get much burn on other teams, because he doesn't play for them.
> ...


That's fine if you feel that way, but you've turned it into I'm a hater on Kirk and all this other crap.

As I said before, regardless of what I feel or you feel or anyone else feel's, it doesn't change that he's a good player, and he's done more than expected.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> On the flipside, just because a player (ie, Kirk) isn't on a team doesn't mean he wouldn't fill (or replace) a need on that team. For example, Bibby is Sacramento's only true point guard, and he doesn't even lead the team in assists. Bobby Jackson is basically a utility man SG. Hinrich would probably fill a void in Sacramento at point guard, IMO, and with his outside shooting he would likely be utilized in a shooting role as well.
> ...


downplaying other player's accomplishments to make kirk seem better doesn't work. Delk has and can play PG very well, best was the pg playing down the stretch for the pacers when they went to the finals so their resume has quite a bit more to it than kirk

and your belief that they need another pg in sactown is well not very sound . the kings run their offense in a way that makes their big man passers as much as their guards bibby has at times been amoung the league leaders at pg he and jackson are quite capable of running point guard if needed ...they aren't , the kings are not waiting for another pg to help them out over there with their ballhandling, they are the best ballhandling team in the league , they dont need kirk's shooting either their guards shoot better than kirk

and the the #s for peeler are for him this year in the pro'sand 70% from the line 40 from 3 and 47 from the field are kirks from college kirk has significantly less this year yet you seem to believe kirk would take time from him ...i dont see it

and speaking of fudging facts ...kirk has been shooting what 40% from 3 pt. for some time now?

40% in nov. 37% in dec. 36% in jan 43% in 2 games in feb....is 2 games really some time now?

c'mon


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

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


This is exactly what I wanted this discussion to entail. Good points, and I agree with all of them.

arenas809, I'm through arguing this topic with you. While I don't necessarily agree with you, I do give you major props for sticking to your guns, even if you don't know the difference between 4th and 5th. 

Good argument.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Let it be stated on one last issue that this crop of PGs is just off the charts

Kirk
Maybe Wade
Ford
Lebron sometimes (he actually is the most pure 1 here but they seem to be pushing him to the 2 or 3)
Barbosa
Ridnour (who i really thought wouldnt make it but seems to be finding it)
Plannicic even looks ok some days
Blake

That is one great crop. So to be the, say 3rd, out of this group means your one heck of a player. I see Kirk higher then third if you take Lebron out.

But when managing a draft, you have to take depth at a position into account. If You could get as good a player at 20 as you could get at 10, trade down. that is a shot at the GM. But he is a rookie, he will learn


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> This is exactly what I wanted this discussion to entail. Good points, and I agree with all of them.
> ...


VV, we really don't need to argue...

I actually agree with a lot of the points you make... 

You didn't do this, but I was really taken back by the "you're Bullhawk" and a "hater" nonsense...that's where the thread went down for me.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> That's fine if you feel that way, but you've turned it into I'm a hater on Kirk and all this other crap.


No I didn't. I pointed out an inconsistency on behalf of yourself in the form of multiple posts, and you have yet to own up to it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

like i said, you 2 are among my favorite posters. And while this argument had some pretty low blows in there, the fact is, both of you guys made EXCELLENT points. Take out the edge, and this is one heck of a thread


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> like i said, you 2 are among my favorite posters. And while this argument had some pretty low blows in there, the fact is, both of you guys made EXCELLENT points. Take out the edge, and this is one heck of a thread


rlucas you are THE DAD of this thread and VV and arenas are like LITTLE BROTHERS arguing over their favorite players. this thread is as entertaining as it is informative!!


----------



## ballafromthenorth (May 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> like i said, you 2 are among my favorite posters. And while this argument had some pretty low blows in there, the fact is, both of you guys made EXCELLENT points. Take out the edge, and this is one heck of a thread


agreed :yes:


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I'm glad you guys enjoyed this, but this it the last time it's free lol...

My agent is going to contact VV and we can debate live at half court of the UC...

Pay-Per-View and you guys can enjoy it for a mere $39.95...

Really this was a great discussion, without some of the personal attacks stuff.

And yes, RLucas is everyone's papi...


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

> Wade may be a better player than Hinrich, but not a better point guard even if he plays that as his position technically. Theres a difference.


If Wade plays a majority of his time at the PG, then he is a PG. There is no difference. Wade might not be a PG for the future, but he certainly is one now.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

haha

Im not the dad. Im just going back to my realgm moderator days. But i admit, I egged both guys on a little.


regardless, if your going to debate someone, VV and Arenas are 2 of the smarter guys here. It makes for interesting discussion. Even if there was a handful of low blows. In the end, my respect grows for both guys cause they are able to walk away from it.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas*

Sorry, gotta throw one last thing in there.



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> downplaying other player's accomplishments to make kirk seem better doesn't work.


Do you seriously think I'm downplaying Delk by saying he isn't a point guard? He wasn't one in college, he wasn't one coming into the league, and he isn't one now. He is quickness, offense and ballhandling off the bench. Or, in the case of the Celtics, a legitimate scoring option.



> Delk has and can play PG very well, best was the pg playing down the stretch for the pacers when they went to the finals so their resume has quite a bit more to it than kirk


Best's best season compares favorably to the first half of Hinrich's rookie season. He's only had one season in which he averaged more than 5 apg, and he's only had one season in which he averaged double digits in scoring. Kirk's current 3PT accuracy is considerably greater than Best's career average; Kirk's 3PT accuracy also dwarfs Best's current 3PT% of 17.6%. This isn't downplaying a player. It's stating the facts.



> and the the #s for peeler are for him this year in the pro'sand 70% from the line 40 from 3 and 47 from the field are kirks from college kirk has significantly less this year yet you seem to believe kirk would take time from him ...i dont see it


The numbers you cite are from Kirk's senior year in college in which he was a co-#1 option on offense (along with Collison) on a team with no other long range shooter who averaged more than a handful of minutes. Needless to say, this was not his optimal position within the offense. Take out his senior year numbers, focus on the three years prior in which he was more of a complementary player playing with consistent, proven talent (Collison and Gooden), and you get well over 50% from the field and 45% from long range.

Back on topic: KH is faster, a better defender and a better passer than Peeler, and Kirk's current 3PT% (38%) is the same as Peeler's career average behind the arc (38%). So yeah, I think Kirk would take some time from him.



> and speaking of fudging facts ...kirk has been shooting what 40% from 3 pt. for some time now?


Point taken. Kirk has been shooting 38% from three for quite some time now.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> You didn't do this, but I was really taken back by the "you're Bullhawk" and a "hater" nonsense...that's where the thread went down for me.


I never referred to you as Bullhawk, but I did once refer to Haterade, the sports drink of every champion hater.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

6 pages of hypothetical discussion about Kirk Hinrich as point guard for Sacramento, Dallas San Antonio or Lakers! This is insane! Gentleman’s all your analyses are worth nothing! This is completely pointless! Can’t you see this? 

Brrrrr…rlucas4257 and arenas809, welcome to my “ignore list”. 
:laugh:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 6 pages of hypothetical discussion about Kirk Hinrich as point guard for Sacramento, Dallas San Antonio or Lakers! This is insane! Gentleman’s all your analyses are worth nothing! This is completely pointless! Can’t you see this?
> 
> Brrrrr…rlucas4257 and arenas809, welcome to my “ignore list”.
> :laugh:


Pointless? Insane? I dont think you read the thread

Your loss


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Pointless? Insane? I dont think you read the thread
> ...


If someone is arguing about how many minutes Kirk Hinrich would play for Sacramento or San Antonio then the discussion is pointless. Because you don’t know, you are guessing only! Rlucas4257, this is so reliable like your trade “rumors” from ghost “neighbor” who is in some sort of “connections” with NY Nicks. You may fool some of the board members and that’s ok, but you are not going to fool me. Anyway, good luck to you and to yours “famous” friends from NY condominiums. 
Boy this is unbelievable…:laugh:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> If someone is arguing about how many minutes Kirk Hinrich would play for Sacramento or San Antonio then the discussion is pointless. Because you don’t know, you are guessing only! Rlucas4257, this is so reliable like your trade “rumors” from ghost “neighbor” who is in some sort of “connections” with NY Nicks. You may fool some of the board members and that’s ok, but you are not going to fool me. Anyway, good luck to you and to yours “famous” friends from NY condominiums.
> Boy this is unbelievable…:laugh:


Did I just read that right? YOUR questioning Rlucas credibility? YOU? The guy who gets on here and spews venom about how much he hates so and so this week and how much he hates so and so the next week? Man, I can summarize pretty much all of your posts...see below:

Jamal Crawford sucks, he always take shot that he should know better by now. he in his 4th year and still no learn to play dfense!!!! Curry is a fat slob that will never be in shape or ever play with any heart. this team sucks!

There ya go, that summarize's every post robert has ever written just about in a few sentences. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones partner.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Did I just read that right? YOUR questioning Rlucas credibility? YOU? The guy who gets on here and spews venom about how much he hates so and so this week and how much he hates so and so the next week? Man, I can summarize pretty much all of your posts...see below:
> ...


Let is go Ace. Sometimes the best response is none at all.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> If someone is arguing about how many minutes Kirk Hinrich would play for Sacramento or San Antonio then the discussion is pointless. Because you don’t know, you are guessing only! Rlucas4257, this is so reliable like your trade “rumors” from ghost “neighbor” who is in some sort of “connections” with NY Nicks. You may fool some of the board members and that’s ok, but you are not going to fool me. Anyway, good luck to you and to yours “famous” friends from NY condominiums.
> Boy this is unbelievable…:laugh:


This is plainly funny. What trade rumors have I come up with? Its called speculation.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Let is go Ace. Sometimes the best response is none at all.


Dave, should we ignore ignorance or sap it in the bud before it gets out of control? I have seen it happen. When you take personal shots at people, that should be eliminated before it continues


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Man, I can summarize pretty much all of your posts...see below:
> 
> Jamal Crawford sucks, he always take shot that he should know better by now. he in his 4th year and still no learn to play dfense!!!! Curry is a fat slob that will never be in shape or ever play with any heart. this team sucks!
> ...


Tell me which sentence isn’t true…


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> Tell me which sentence isn’t true…


How about I just tell you when you say something that IS true, assuming of course I am still alive when that eventually happens.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> How about I just tell you when you say something that IS true, assuming of course I am still alive when that eventually happens.


hahahaha

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> How about I just tell you when you say something that IS true, assuming of course I am still alive when that eventually happens.


And of course you Ace are always unbiased and open minded… :laugh:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> And of course you Ace are always unbiased and open minded… :laugh:


Ace, dont waste your time. Cant we just give him his supporting member dues back and send him on his merry way?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> And of course you Ace are always unbiased and open minded… :laugh:


Thats me, thanks for the compliment!


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace, dont waste your time. Cant we just give him his supporting member dues back and send him on his merry way?


He's entitled to his opinion, no matter how far off the mark he is.

BTW, speaking of supporting members  How come a wealthy fellow like you hasn't signed up for the $10 a year supporting membership deal huh? Your one of our best posters, make me look good and become a supporting member! :grinning:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> He's entitled to his opinion, no matter how far off the mark he is.
> ...


what do i have to do?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rlucas*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Sorry, gotta throw one last thing in there.
> 
> 
> ...


you have to remember some things about delk for one he has at times played pg very well in fact last year most of the games he played in He started at pg , he is just a better scorer than he is a distributor and like kirk plays well off the ball so he's versatile , 

with best all he did was be very productive on a finals team with more points assists and half the the To's than kirk currently does, and remember best almost always plays on good teams with very good pg's so the reason his stats aren't better is because he is playing behind someone ...yet in his best season statswise in fewer minutes he was superior to kirks ...but his effectiveness lies in the fact he was on the court when the games were decided ...a level of play kirk has not reached yet and his experience(which is almost always the most important factor as far as coaches are concerned in these situations) as well as delk's makes me believe hinrich would get no time there.

as for peeler we aren't talking about his career 3 % we are talking about this year and he is shooting better than kirk in every aspect and by a considerable margin in every aspect(free throws and from the field), also its very debateable kirk is a better defender given the reason the kings wanted peeler in addition to his shooting was his defense (specifially on kobe) has kirk done that great a job on 2 guards this year? ...the amount of posts blaming JC whenever they are switched (detroit comes to mind) says otherwise,kirk is not strong enough to defend 2 guards on a regular basis yet he may be quicker but peeler is stronger.

and yes kirk shot alot better from his 1st thru 3 years and yeah its very impressive. but last he shot less and this year he's shot lower than that ....do you think adelman would give him time based on what happened 2 years ago with a 3 point line that 3 -4 farther in?

i dont. i think he wants results now and now peeler is clearly superior


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace, dont waste your time. Cant we just give him his supporting member dues back and send him on his merry way?


You got your wish rlucas4257.
Dear moderators, please suspend me. I don’t want to have any refunds, because deep in my heart I believe that BBB.net existence is necessary and any form of financial support is needed. Thank you people for the wonderful “ride” it was amazing experience and you will always have a warm place in my memories.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> You got your wish rlucas4257.
> Dear moderators, please suspend me. I don’t want to have any refunds, because deep in my heart I believe that BBB.net existence is necessary and any form of financial support is needed. Thank you people for the wonderful “ride” it was amazing experience and you will always have a warm place in my memories.


The guy takes personal shots at people and then cries like this? Real mature


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> what do i have to do?


This link should give you all the 411 rlucas.


http://basketballboards.net/forum/misc.php?action=faq&page=7


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> You got your wish rlucas4257.
> Dear moderators, please suspend me. I don’t want to have any refunds, because deep in my heart I believe that BBB.net existence is necessary and any form of financial support is needed. Thank you people for the wonderful “ride” it was amazing experience and you will always have a warm place in my memories.


I won't ban you or suspend you. If you want to come around come around, if you don't...don't.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> This link should give you all the 411 rlucas.
> ...


I will read this this weekend and get on top of it


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I will read this this weekend and get on top of it


Awesome, once you become a supporting member you can get you an avatar too man.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> The guy takes personal shots at people and then cries like this? Real mature


Rlucas4257 there is a difference between “cries” and good manners, but it must be to hard for you to understand. But that’s ok; I wish you good luck and say “hello” to your “ghost friend” with “connections” from me.:laugh:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> Rlucas4257 there is a difference between “cries” and good manners, but it must be to hard for you to understand. But that’s ok; I wish you good luck and say “hello” to your “ghost friend” with “connections” from me.:laugh:


That was a quick retirement

Lets talk about manners for a second. You come out and personally attack me. What have I dont to you? Personal attacks are grounds for banishment where I come from. You crossed that line

Now lets talk about cries. So someone has a different opinion from you. What does a mature person like you do? You say, "keep your money, Im never coming back here, bye to all". That is what I call crying.

There is a lesson to learn here for you. Its called humility. Either be a grown up and chat, debate, even argue. But dont call others out and make accusations and then run and hide. Be a man or dont come around. The board will certainly not lose anything if you did really retire


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

well this thread has certainly lost some of it's original flavor...too bad.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> well this thread has certainly lost some of it's original flavor...too bad.


Its too bad that personal attacks do happen to people who just like to talk basketball


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

This is a load of crap. Both of you ought to knock it off.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> That was a quick retirement
> ...


Our discussion at this moment is just pointless rlucas4257. If you feel offended by any of my posts, let me apologize. I wish you best luck only.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> This is a load of crap. Both of you ought to knock it off.


There is no place for personal attacks on this board.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> There is no place for personal attacks on this board.


That either.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*well ok then*

Since the thread is about rookie point guards how about we go back to it and broaden the discussion abit.

by my count there are 15 or so rookie point guards or players who manage to play pg of note (i could be be missing one or 2 feel free to add any on if I missed someone) 

Kirk hinrich
Dwayne wade
barbosa
raul lopez
planinic
ridnour
banks 
zimmerman
Lebron James
troy bell
McLeod( the guy from minny i believe his name may be misspelled)
steve blake
boris diaw
T.J.Ford
reese gaines
mo williams

how would you rank these players now ...and their future potential?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: well ok then*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> Since the thread is about rookie point guards how about we go back to it and broaden the discussion abit.
> 
> by my count there are 15 or so rookie point guards or players who manage to play pg of note (i could be be missing one or 2 feel free to add any on if I missed someone)
> ...


Interesting list. Gaines looks like a lost cause right now in orlando. maybe a change of scenery or a year would help him. 

James is obviously the man here. But its so hard to give him a spot. He plays the PG, and the PF in the same possesion sometimes. 

Wade is a really good 2. and he is ok at the 1. But if his game doesnt expand beyond what it is now, he could be a Kendall Gill

Boris Diaw and Zoran Plannicic are the 2 most interesting guys here. While NBA.com may list both guys as 2 guards or SFs, the fact is that these 2 guys are really the purest 1s in the draft. And as you guys know, I am not a fan of pure 1s. Diaw has some crazy stat lines. He has had a handful of games where he has 7 assts, 6 bds, 2 stls, ZERO pts. Its like he takes the pass first mentality too far sometimes. But that can be a european thing. In soccer, everyone thinks the great pass is prettier then the actual goal. it might apply to basketabll. Plannicic is a 6-7-6-8 player who is also a pass first player. Id give him a year to find himself. he came off a nasty motorcycle accident from 2 years back and is only getting back into game shape

Kirk, certainly is the most solid pg, of the real or alleged pgs here. But why is it that I think he actually takes over games when JC moves to the top of the key and hits Kirk for Js on the curl screens? Kirk is a combo guard, which i tend to prefer over a true Pg or Sg

Ridnour and Barbosa, the sky is the limit for them. Ridnour is a stockton type. Really. I thought he would be a bust but he seems to be finding his game now. barbosa had the door open for him with marburys departure. and he has done really well. 

Let me focus here on Barbosa some away from a paragraph with Ridnour. Barbosas knock coming into the NBA was lack of English speaking skills. I suppose NBA types dig deep to find reasons to not like a player. This kid can flat out shoot. He defends very well. his body is kind of freaky. Super long. Very athletic. Finishes at the rim well. But a bit wild and Turns the ball over frequently. i can live with Turnovers however as long as they are aggressive turnovers. This kid makes those kind of plays. take into account that he has had to play subpar competition and had not the greatest coaching in the world from brazil, put me down in his camp as the one who will be the best PG out of this crop of the truer PGs. Lebron obviously doesnt count

TJ Ford, quick note. The kid is a winner. He might not be as good as Kirk or Barbosa or Wade, but somehow is game translates more into wins than any PG in this crop. So far he hasnt been exposed for his lack of J and size. But he gets into the lane and is in the perfect environment for him. Lets give Porter some credit for succeeding with him


----------



## girlygirl (Dec 6, 2003)

I personally think that only T.J. Ford, Steve Blake and Raul Lopez are PURE point guards among the rookies this season. Kirk is a combo guard, but among all the combo guards (Wade, James, Banks, Bell, Ridnour, Barbosa, etc....), he probably leans towards the PG pass-first mentality the most. James and Wade are both terrific passers, but are more shoot first, pass later types, as are Barbosa and Banks. Ridnour is probably the closest to Hinrich in the pass-shoot ratio, although his minutes have been so erractic it is hard to get a real handle on him.

I also think it's silly to try and rate guys who have played little to not at all this season (this group would include Gaines, Bell and Planinic). Otherwise, it would be too tempting to write Gaines and Bell off as busts, since neither has been able to crack his team's rotation, piling up DNPs by the dozens. It may be 2004-05 or later before we can get a real read on what type of NBA player they will be.


----------



## Jim Stack (Sep 4, 2003)

humm personal attacks this is like some other boards that i thought this place was better then.... but as far as pgs go kirk is awesome he is probably the best one in the centeral division and second in teh east coast behind kidd. his hustle and poise more then makes of for his lack of talent.. and his shooting erases the fact that he is not the best creator for his team mates. just look at how many assist he gets from passing to jamal and jamal hitting a 3... or gill or pippen.... those allys to curry and tyson are just show boat passes that are not nessicery. in short i cant really think of a better pure pg then kirk in last years draft... and probably soon the league


----------

