# Crawfords' Ceiling



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

I am very interested in seeing what everyone thinks Jamal Crawfords' ceiling is as a player? In his prime what kind of player will Crawford be? Will he be a PG or a SG(in terms of where he starts in the lineup and how he plays)? Will he be a perennial allstar, an occasional all star, solid role player, etc? What kind of numbers will he be putting up? I am not going to comment myself. I just want a feel for what you guys think he will become. 90% of you seem to think we wait it out with Crawford, be patient, because the reward will be worth it. SO what kind of reward are we looking at?


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

Are we looking at a Kerry Kittles, a Michael Redd, a Chauncey Billups, or a Steve Francis, or maybe you think even better than that? Share your thoughts.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bullhawk</b>!
> I am very interested in seeing what everyone thinks Jamal Crawfords' ceiling is as a player? In his prime what kind of player will Crawford be? Will he be a PG or a SG(in terms of where he starts in the lineup and how he plays)? Will he be a perennial allstar, an occasional all star, solid role player, etc? What kind of numbers will he be putting up? I am not going to comment myself. I just want a feel for what you guys think he will become. 90% of you seem to think we wait it out with Crawford, be patient, because the reward will be worth it. SO what kind of reward are we looking at?


Derek Anderson/Larry Hughes/Chauncy Billups/Antonio Daniels/Alvin Williams with better offense and worse defense? Maybe Vashon Leonard?


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

Are you serious Mike? You think the ceiling for Crawford is Voshon Lenard? WOW!!! I did not expect to see that name.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bullhawk</b>!
> Are you serious Mike? You think the ceiling for Crawford is Voshon Lenard? WOW!!! I did not expect to see that name.


No, don't go taking what I said out of context.

I don't "think the ceiling for Crawford is Voshon Lenard" and more than I think it's Larry Hughes or Chauncy Billups. So why didn't you quote me as saying he's the next Chauncy Billups?

I don't see why saying he's going to be like Leonard is much different than saying he's going to be like Kerry Kittles.

There's a whole range of guys who might turn into, and I really have no clue which he'll be. Leonard/Kittles is probably on the bottom end of the scale, with a guy like Billups or Steve Francis on the upper end.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

If Crawford hits his ceiling? I think he'd be a top 20 player. He's got all the tools. The question that is raised ad-nauseum is whether he'll ever get there. I'm not going into that argument.

If you want a comparision, how about an in-his-prime Jalen Rose. A guy capable of putting up 20-5-5 on a nightly basis. Those aren't eye-popping stats but there aren't a whole lot of players who can attain those averages. Multiple (not perennial) all-star.

That's IF he attains his ceiling.


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

Jalen Rose never made the all star team if I remember correctly. I sure hope if we keep Crawford he does not turn into Rose. Mike sorry I misinterpreted your posts. Billups and Hughes are two names I have heard a lot in reference to Crawford. I like Billups, don't like Hughes. Thing about Billups though is it took him a long while to "get it". I hope it does not take Crawford that long. Oh wait it already has and he still ain't there. Oh sorry that is a whole other thread.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

I've always thought he'll end up like a *healthy* Penny Hardaway.

93-94 ORL (23 years old)
82 36.8mpg .466% .267 3pt% .742 ft% 5.40rpg 6.6apg 2.32spg 16.0ppg 

94-95 ORL (24)
77 37.7 .512 .349 .769 4.40 7.2 1.69 20.9 

95-96 ORL (25)
82 36.8 .513 .314 .767 4.30 7.1 2.02 21.7 

96-97 ORL (26)
59 37.6 .447 .318 .820 4.50 5.6 1.58 20.5 

97-98 ORL (27)
19games 32.9mpg .377% .300 3pt% .763 ft% 4.00rpg 3.6apg 1.47spg 16.4ppg

98-99 ORL (28)
50 38.9 .420 .286 .706 5.70 5.3 2.22 .46 15.8 

99-00 PHO (29)
60 37.6 .474 .324 .790 5.80 5.3 1.57 .63 16.9 

And... Then the injuries got to him. Actually, they started earlier, but once he got in the orange and purple... ouch. ouch. ouch.


But when healthy, Penny was at about 20 ppg/4.5 boards/ 7assists/2 steals.


Penny could play either guard position, set up his teamates, shoot the 3. His defense was soild, not spectacular. He made the game look easy, effortless, much like Jamal does, and this lead to a lot of "lazy & lax" rumors, when that really wasn't the case at all.

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

FWIW, Jamal is 23 right now. Penny's first year in the NBA, he was 23.

So Stats from 23 years of age are:

Jamal- 03/04 CHI (23 Years old)
49games 34.8mpg 
.390% .316 3pt% .834 ft%
3.40rpg 5.4apg 1.47spg 17.1ppg

Penny- 93-94 ORL (23 Years old)
82games 36.8mpg 
.466% .267 3pt% .742 ft% 
5.40rpg 6.6apg 2.32spg 16.0ppg 

Clearly Jamal isn't quite as Penny's level yet, But IMO it's pretty close, pretty comparable.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Bullhawk, you are so transparent it isn't even funny anymore.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I think he can be a 20 p scorer.but i don't think he'll ever be a good defensive player(maybe avrege),and never a guy to pull a team.maybe a 3rd string scorer on a good team(and a 1st on the worst team).

probably his numbers will always be more then he actually gives the team.

good player,not great.


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

I really was not trying to be funny. It appears JC is not being traded at the deadline. Hence we will go into the summer either trying to sign him to a deal or deciding whether to match a deal he signed with someone else. If we are going to give him a big contract it is important to try and figure out what kind of player we have long term and whether it is worth the wait. Sorry if it seemed I was trying to start something.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> I think he can be a 20 p scorer.but i don't think he'll ever be a good defensive player(maybe avrege),and never a guy to pull a team.maybe a 3rd string scorer on a good team(and a 1st on the worst team).
> 
> probably his numbers will always be more then he actually gives the team.
> ...


Funny.

That sounds like Jalen Rose to me. Although Rose did help carry the Pacers when he was there. If Jamal could ever average 20-5-5 I'd be extremely happy, especially if he could do it while averaging 45% from the field.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Funny.
> ...


The shooting is the real killer. Jamal is about as consistent a shooter as I am. If he was really a 45% shooter, he's be ever so much more palatable.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i think the ceiling of crawford's game is really at that kobe,t-mac ,AI level of scorer , he's just so raw there is so much room for improvement. But he creates shots at will ...its just the kind of shots he creates are a main source of concern.

People on this thread seem to make the mistake of saying what they think he'll be instead of what at best he could be ,I doubt very much he attains the level i mentioned and see him in his prime being 20-22 point a game scorer and maybe a # 2 guy on a contending team or maybe a #3 depending on who else is on his team with him


----------



## WXHOOPS (Jan 15, 2004)

I think Gilbert Arenas is a good analysis. If Crawford plays better defense, he'll be an Arenas clone. Jamal is a better shooter though. I'll call them even in a year or two.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Funny.
> ...


Yup,45%+ could really upgrade his level,his 40% isn't to good.maybe if we had some other guys to score,he'd get some open shots.

If we do keep Jamal i seriously think his best position could be 6th man playing like 30 minutes replacing both gaurds.he is an instant scorer.head has always been his problem,not talent.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> Yup,45%+ could really upgrade his level,his 40% isn't to good.maybe if we had some other guys to score,he'd get some open shots.
> ...



Before he was moved to sg he was shooting 43% from 2 and close to 39% from 3 .

I also think alot of posters are blind to the reality that their are few in the league shooting a good percentage .

There are 8 players in the top 20 in scoring who shoots over 45% right now and only ONE plays in the backcourt and thats Sam Cassell.

If you look at what we asked jamal to after to do after the trade after telling him the entire summer to do the opposite he has done a solid job for it being his first time on the wing .

Still a ways to go but not nearly as bad as everyone thinks .


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Arenas is already that 20,5,5 guy at the age of 21. Arenas last year was better than Crawford this year. He's also much more competitive than Jamal and has a better work ethic. Arenas is quicker, MUCH stronger, and gets to the freethrow line alot more while still having as good of handles as Jamal. Arenas has more upside than Jamal, and has an MJ like will to win. 

Hmm...I think I'll take Arenas now and for the future.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> Arenas has more upside than Jamal, and has an MJ like will to win.


What have your been drinking ? :rofl: 

Silly Wiz fan You have about as much credibilty as Arenas playoff GUARANTEE he made when he first signed :laugh:


----------



## Bolts (Nov 7, 2003)

JC has reached his ceiling.

Comparisons to TMac are a big stretch by fans more interested in style over substance. Oh yeah, JC=McGrady, Chandler=Shaq etcetera. The same reasonable fans think that Pau Gasol could be had for Dupree and a re-signed Linton Johnson. Yeah right!

I cry BS. Put him in a situation where he is the complete focal point and he will shrivel. Sure he can beat his defender but he can't consistantly beat a double team. And, he refuses to learn the defense that would make him a very good player. Put him in Pierces place in Boston - NO HELP - and he would have only half of PP's numbers. Same with Orlando and McGrady.

He is a piece of the puzzle that thinks he's the whole darn Puzzle. Since he isn't a premier player but only a good player, that attitude is killer to a team.

NOW, he has played better at times lately. I wish him success, elsewhere. I just don't want to strap the franchises salary cap to this Acme rocket.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

If he goes to a team where he can play point guard and that has a proven post scorer to play off of, the sky's the limit.

I think Penny Hardaway is about right. Maybe a not quite that good. But similiar numbers and a similiar role. That was a good name to drop.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bolts</b>!
> He is a piece of the puzzle that thinks he's the whole darn Puzzle. Since he isn't a premier player but only a good player, that attitude is killer to a team.


Really? Did he tell you that?

He sure has never acted like it...

Sounds like you're speaking for him...



> Originally posted by <b>Bolts</b>!NOW, he has played better at times lately. I wish him success, elsewhere. I just don't want to strap the franchises salary cap to this Acme rocket.


You're right, he sucks, which is why many teams will go after him and he will get paid this offseason.

Whether it's by us or not remains to be seen...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> So Stats from 23 years of age are:
> 
> Jamal- 03/04 CHI (23 Years old)
> ...


It's not close at 23. Just wait till JC is 24. Penny was 1st team NBA.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> It's not close at 23. Just wait till JC is 24. Penny was 1st team NBA.



um, so that's next month. ok. we can wait.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> It's not close at 23. Just wait till JC is 24. Penny was 1st team NBA.


It's not close? 
It looks pretty close to me.

Penny was the better player at 23, I said that. But JC isn't far off, espeically considering he's still learning.

Penny has 2 boards, a steal, and a dime on Crawford in 2 more minutes a game.
JC has a better 3 pt % and a point on Penny.

Again, '94 Penny is better, but this isn't a huge gap we are talking about here.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> It's not close?
> It looks pretty close to me.


I wish it was close, but it's only wishfull thinking.

Penny came into the league and as a rookie shot 47%. He upped that to 51% his second year in the league when he was first team all-nba. 

Will JC be third team all-NBA next year? Considered for the all-star game? Will he start converting a decent percentage of his shots?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I wish it was close, but it's only wishfull thinking.
> ...


If he was playing with Shaq instead of Curry. Penny obviously was helped a great deal by O'Neal prescence. He was a second option to one of the most dominating forces of nature of all-time...that helps things quite a bit.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I wish it was close, but it's only wishfull thinking.
> ...


I was going to say that 8% shooting is a huge gap! 

Jamal is career, 40%. Includes this season. If he raises that 5, 6% next season, then the comaparisons can be made. He is solid at some parts of his game now. Other parts need work. I do not think he has reached the ceiling and I do think, some day if he really wants it, Jamal can be top 20. Just not now.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

You guys are such ridiculous Crawford homers.

His ceiling is nowhere near the likes of any of the scorers mentioned. Why? HE CANNOT GET TO THE RIM. HE DOESN'T GET TO THE LINE. You cannot score 20 ppg in this league without doing that, let alone 25. Put it this way -- he averages 17 ppg right now under the most optimal circumstances. He plays on a team devoid of scoring where he's basically given the green light to shoot 20 times a game. When else will this ever happen for him on a quality team? He'll be lucky to score 13-15 ppg during his prime, on whatever team that might be (certainly not the Bulls)

Jamal Crawford sucks. Just get over it already.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Michael Billy Ray Cyrus Richardson 

Jo Jo English also comes to mind


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> If he was playing with Shaq instead of Curry. Penny obviously was helped a great deal by O'Neal prescence. He was a second option to one of the most dominating forces of nature of all-time...that helps things quite a bit.


You guys really underestimate Hardaway. Penny was a nightmare back in the day. He gave the Bulls fits when Pip and MJ were basically in their prime.


----------



## Killuminati (Jul 30, 2002)

Yea Penny was awesome back in the day, people seem to forget how good he was before injuries piled up on him.

As for Jamal, Kittles sounds like a good comparison though he doesn't have Kittle's shot. Likewise Kerry doesn't have JC's penetration.

If Craw ever gets his shots to start falling and taking it to the rim (instead of those dumb floaters) he has All-Star written all over him.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

oK, I'll bite on this post since I am obviously one of Jamal's most vociferous supporters and since I probably know his game as well as anyone. 

First, let me just say that the term "ceiling" I assume to be the typical scouting jargon basically meaning Just how good can this player be? It relates to the MAXIMUM level a player can reach. I want to take it a litte further and mention a few players Jamal could be like assuming he DOESN'T maximize his potential. And anyone who think Jamal has already hit his ceiling seriously needs to take up another sport. The kid has only played organized ball for 6 1/2 years and one of those years was as a middle school kid. He wasn't a coaches son who started playing ball at an early age. He self trained himself basically on a rim in his father's driveway. Oh yeah, and one of those 61/2 seasons was lost to an ACL injury as well.

Now, on to talking about Jamal's comparisons, his ceiling. I'm not a huge fan of player comparisons because no two players are exactly alike. But, there are some similarities between Jamal and several players. I supposse, if we want to talk about Jamal's "ceiling" I would have to sort that into two catergories. The first being his ceiling as a pg. I think his ceiling as a pg is extremely similar to a healthy Penny Hardaway. I actually think he could be slightly better than Penny was in his prime if given the point and allowed to run with it. That seems unlikely in Chicago with the emergence of Hinrich. Chauncey Billups is also a decent comparison as to what Jamal could evolve into. I think, at worst, Jamal ends up like Alvin WIlliams without the injuries (which is unlikely).

At Sg, I think Jamal has a very high ceiling, but he is YEARS away from reaching his potential as a sg. I think he is most apt to be a paul pierce type of player as a sg, probably with more assists though. One of the misnomers about Jamal is that he "doesn't finish at the rim". Well, it's not really a misnomer but there is a reason why Jamal doesn't finish at the rim, he's too skinny! Too weak. If he drove the lane and tried to finish at the rim the way some of you want him to his career would be over before he came anywhere near a ceiling. After adding some bulk and muscle next season don't be surprised if he starts to finish at the rim with more regularity and becomes more reminiscent of what your looking for in a shooting guard. At worst, Jamal becomes Larry Hughes as a sg.


----------



## Bulls42 (Jul 22, 2002)

*The Next...*

Jamal has top 15 talent in the league. His game will mature. In two years, with the proper coaching, which he is receiving, he will become a top player.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

I think everyone's perception of what a ceiling is is entirely misguided. Why do people always think that if a player takes up basketball LATE (or organized basketball, in this case) that this should somehow RAISE their ceiling???

Let me clue you in. It doesn't. Learning basketball late puts you at a disadvantage for your entire career. The player you are today is the product of years of development, and you can't just undo poor development, or make up for years lost. Just doesn't happen. Think about every player you've ever heard this label attached to ... "his potential is limitless, because he's only been playing ball for a couple of years." Where did this get Michael Olowokandi?

Let me make an analogy for you. Let's assume you are going to build two buildings using the same amount of raw materials or resources. For one building you lay down solid foundation, for the other you decide to just start building from the ground. Which building do you think can be built taller?

It's not the one without the foundation. Even though you may have more raw materials to use for the above ground structure, and THEORETICALLY it can be built higher, we all know that the reality is that the structure just can't stand. Building the foundation, on the other hand, requires the expense of materials. However, in the end, this allows a strong, tall structure to be built -- not as tall as is THEORETICALLY possible, but still quite tall and certainly taller than the other building.

Now let's apply this analogy to two players -- oh let's say Kirk Hinrich and Jamal Crawford -- and you can see why, despite Crawford's greater natural "resources", Hinrich has the higher ceiling.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> I think everyone's perception of what a ceiling is is entirely misguided. Why do people always think that if a player takes up basketball LATE (or organized basketball, in this case) that this should somehow RAISE their ceiling???
> 
> Let me clue you in. It doesn't. Learning basketball late puts you at a disadvantage for your entire career. The player you are today is the product of years of development, and you can't just undo poor development, or make up for years lost. Just doesn't happen. Think about every player you've ever heard this label attached to ... "his potential is limitless, because he's only been playing ball for a couple of years." Where did this get Michael Olowokandi?
> ...


no one gives you a higher ceiling for a late start ...the higher ceiling is for more a talent ...people give you more time with a late start ...thats all 

crawford has a higher ceiling than hinrich because he is taller ,quicker, longer wingspan etc. and creates shots easier for himself...a ceiling is a best case scenerio and all of those things are facts of their player development ....which is why one player's ceiling is higher than another, basketball knowledge is attainable for instance some guy named micheal jordan only really played 2 years of organized ball before college and his head for basketball turned out pretty good dont you think ...he didn't need to be a coaches' son or to be in basketball leagues or AAU to be basically the smartest player of his era


----------



## andras (Mar 19, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> Let me make an analogy for you. Let's assume you are going to build two buildings using the same amount of raw materials or resources. For one building you lay down solid foundation, for the other you decide to just start building from the ground. Which building do you think can be built taller?


assume one architect can built a building exactly as tall as the one built by another architect. difference is one of the two laid down a solid foundation, the other one didn't. don't you think the latter guy can build a taller building after being taught the principles of foundation? IF he gets it?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> basketball knowledge is attainable for instance some guy named micheal jordan only really played 2 years of organized ball before college and his head for basketball turned out pretty good dont you think ...he didn't need to be a coaches' son or to be in basketball leagues or AAU to be basically the smartest player of his era


MJ was always smart from freshman year in college on.

It's hard to know how much Craw can improve in basketball IQ. There are so few players that came in the league at such a young age and so far away from being ready. I am not holding my breath however.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> MJ was always smart from freshman year in college on.
> ...


michael jordan in year 4 of his nba career was considered a player who did not understand the concept of team ball and didn't really understand the concept until the 90-91 season as a freshman he was simply a role player ,playing in a system that hides many flaws


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> michael jordan in year 4 of his nba career was considered a player who did not understand the concept of team ball and didn't really understand the concept until the 90-91 season as a freshman he was simply a role player ,playing in a system that hides many flaws


MJ's problem in his first 3 years in the league were his teammates not his BB IQ..


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> MJ's problem in his first 3 years in the league were his teammates not his BB IQ..


actually he was quoted in The Jordan Rules during the 90-91 season saying the team from his rookie year was more talented than the team that won the title that year(his bulls), Jordan's big problem was trust in his team and the belief that he could overcome any team by himself, later on he figured out different ,trusted his teammates more ,and learned how to use his team,offensive sys. to improve his game and make himself more difficult to stop.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> which is why one player's ceiling is higher than another, basketball knowledge is attainable for instance some guy named micheal jordan only really played 2 years of organized ball before college and his head for basketball turned out pretty good dont you think ...he didn't need to be a coaches' son or to be in basketball leagues or AAU to be basically the smartest player of his era


This is a little off topic, but I hate when I read this garbage. MJ had as much or more schooling than any other player in his era. Only two years of organized ball?????? Excuse me? He played organized little league hoops, and played 4 years of high school ball. Just because it wasn't varsity ball doesn't mean it wasn't organized.

And, for the record, Jamal is no MJ. In case that wasn't obvious already.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I think Crawford and Hinrich have high ceilings and I want to keep both because anyone who is watching this game against the pacers see that they compliment each other well.Just imagine what these two could do with a sf with some skills .If they had another perimeter guy that knew how to get open and make shots thse two would find him .

We should all be very happy to have both .


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> actually he was quoted in The Jordan Rules during the 90-91 season saying the team from his rookie year was more talented than the team that won the title that year(his bulls),


How does this make MJ the problem? It was that guys like Orlando Woolridge and Theus were knuckleheads.



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> Jordan's big problem was trust in his team and the belief that he could overcome any team by himself, later on he figured out different ,trusted his teammates more ,and learned how to use his team,offensive sys. to improve his game and make himself more difficult to stop.


MJ was the NBA MVP in his 3rd season. 

This is well before this 'transformation' you claim.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> How does this make MJ the problem? It was that guys like Orlando Woolridge and Theus were knuckleheads.


I am pretty sure that Theus and Jordan didn't play for the Bulls at the same time. Theus left the Bulls the summer Jordan was drafted.

I'm also pretty sure that Woolridge won at least one championship with the Lakers.

Player for player, the old Bulls teams may have actually been better. At least at one point in their careers. We did have guys like Gilmore and Gervin and Kenon and Theus and Wilkerson and Quinton Dailey. In fact, in Jordan's rookie season, the Bulls had Jordan, Woolridge, and Dailey - a better trio of scorers than any of the Bulls' championship teams.


Peace!


----------



## DontBeCows (Apr 22, 2003)

I don't think that Craw's ceiling is that high. 

As bulls fans, we overrate him A LOT.

Crawford is the No.1 scoring option on this team until a few games ago (when Eddy decided to show up), and he shoots a whopping 39%?! He is a streaky shooter and doesn't know how to defend a soul. And he's not young anymore (he's almost 24 and has been in the league for 4 years). Guards usually reach their prime a lot earlier than big men and I doubt that Jamal will improve much more than what is now. He will never be an all-star level player.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

EDIT... eh.. forgetit


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DontBeCows</b>!
> I don't think that Craw's ceiling is that high.
> 
> As bulls fans, we overrate him A LOT.
> ...


omg, prepare to be flamed! By the end of this thread I predict the Crawford crowd will have you tarred and feathered for blasphemy.

But I tend to agree with you. Jamal has gained league wide notoriety for some of his flashy moves and "pretty" offensive aresenal, but never has he garnered attention for his all-around game. It's hard to say how good Jamal will end up, but his career so far has me thinking Billups, Terry, or Mercer. Maybe even Jalen Rose. At some point in time, all these players had potential where the sky was the limit, but after a couple benchings and ill-advised shots, no longer were these players spoken of in that regard. Billups and Rose have had a few good seasons in which they might have been awarded a spot on the all-star team, but that's about it. 

However, I disagree with your assessment that Crawford is old. I think he still might be able to string everythign together, but no way do I think he even has the potential to be as good as Maggette. For fun, here are a list of guards that I predict will be better than Jamal in the next 3 years (not taking into account players not yet drafted):

LeBron James
Kobe
TMac
Billups
Andre Miller
Maggette
Mobley
Francis
Starbury
DaJuan Wagner
Kidd
Bibby
JRich
Ray Allen
Allen Iverson
Flip Murray
Michael Redd
Dwayne Wade
Joe Johnson
Ron Artest

Feel free to argue with some of these selections, but no way can you include Jamal in the top 10. Also take note that I've excluded any future drafts picks and some other notables such as Allen Houston, Sam Cassell, Gary Payton, and QRich, just off the top of my head.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> 
> Billups
> ...


I would say it is very debateable whether or not in 3 years Jamal is better or worse than these guys you listed.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DontBeCows</b>!
> I don't think that Craw's ceiling is that high.
> 
> As bulls fans, we overrate him A LOT.
> ...


So now 23 is old in the Nba ? so what is Shaq like ancient and Duncan and KG as well ?Yeas in the league dont mean much anymore when it come to players coming out because they come out so young now .hes not a college senior who has played 4 nba seasons and is now 26+ . :no: Because no one improves after the age of 23 

How many top 20 sg are shooting 50% ?

How many are shooting 45%? 

There is ONE top 20 nba sg shooting 45% or better .

Corey Maggette ?

let me add you to the uninformed hater list youre definitely in the right place though


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I'm also pretty sure that Woolridge won at least one championship with the Lakers.


Jack Haley has more championship rings.

Cheers!


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> 
> omg, prepare to be flamed! By the end of this thread I predict the Crawford crowd will have you tarred and feathered for blasphemy.
> ...


Besides the fact that jamal is already more productive than some of them right now and younger also I love ahow everyone says he wont get better but even the older players will stay at their current production. 

Jamal is the only player in the nba that wont get better becauses 23 about to turn 24. I love jow Bulls fans can just come up with their own little logans Run :laugh: .Quick Jamal must be sacrificed becauses not an all star at 24 and everyone knows the Bulls dont keep draft picks past the age of 24 no matter how good they are . :laugh: 

Ohhhhhhhhhhh Bulls fans you gotta luv them


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> How many top 20 sg are shooting 50% ?
> 
> ...


You missed a few....

Brent Barry
Dwayne Wade
Doug Christy


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Jamal's value lies in that he can play point. not shooting guard. I agree though that, as bulls' fans, we do overrate him. He will not be a good-to-very good player playing shooting guard unless he improves a lot.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Let me make a point about talent.

Specifically, there's a lot of folks resting on the argument that Crawford has "top 15" talent or something like that.

But you know what? The NBA probably has 100 players with "top 15" talent in terms of their pure physical and coordinational skills. The top 15 get there not because of their talent but because of their mentality.

So does anyone think Jamal has the work ethic, basketball IQ, experience, wisdom, and emotional stability to be a top 15 player?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> How does this make MJ the problem? It was that guys like Orlando Woolridge and Theus were knuckleheads.
> ...


what transformation ? He got smarter as he got older and the consensus amongst his peers say better too or do you now doubt the people he was playing against too?You said Jordan's problem were his teammates and Jordan from his own mouth said otherwise ,but you want to dispute it . Do you think you know MJ's Teams better than he did?If so I doubt there is anymore that could be said .


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Let me make a point about talent.
> 
> Specifically, there's a lot of folks resting on the argument that Crawford has "top 15" talent or something like that.
> ...


i do, the things I've always questioned most was his body which has had an ACL tear and is still pretty thin,most of the criteria you put up in my mind he's shown in the past he is capable of , or will most likley get in time


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Let me make a point about talent.
> 
> Specifically, there's a lot of folks resting on the argument that Crawford has "top 15" talent or something like that.
> ...


What is for sure is he's a top 3 player on the Bulls, but only after we traded away two guys who were our top 2 players.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> What transformation ? He got smarter as he got older and the consensus amongst his peers say better too or do you now doubt the people he was playing against too?You said Jordan's problem were his teammates and Jordan from his own mouth said otherwise ,but you want to dispute it . Do you think you know MJ's Teams better than he did?If so I doubt there is anymore that could be said .


Find the quote.... It doesn't exist. At least in the way that you are trying to use it.

Sure, MJ's rookie team was more talented than the championship team. Quetin Daily was more talented that John Paxson. So what? Daily could never harness that talent.

Let's say Donyell Marshall wins a championship in 3 years. He might say that last year's Bulls roster had more raw talent. Again, so what?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Find the quote.... It doesn't exist. At least in the way that you are trying to use it.
> ...


I'm using the quote in a very simple manner which you apparently aren't getting ,Jordan was one type of player in the beginning who had a head for the game but didn't make the most use of it or his teammates which he has said numerous times since in comparing the early years version of himself compared to later years (early 90's and beyond)The team he was on was more talented in the beginning and yes it wasn't harnessed correctly in part by Mj himself because he had to learn how to do this, and yes in part to the other players themselves, If you "transformed" the later years jordan onto that team there could have been a positive difference because he was better in mentality (and probably skills as well) to deal with it.

Now in scope of how all this started is also simple before you began to make this all about MJ ,JC is not the best player he can be mentally(or skills wise) ,no one disputes this , but there is ample room for improvement as much room as there was for young extremely talented player in the mid 80's, who was hard headed, who fought management tooth and nail and was considered a coach killer to become the most cerbral player of his time.This is a discussion about jamal crawford's ceiling as a basketball player after all and that encompasses more than how well he can do a crossover, by all accounts of the man he is a student of the game pretty coachable and very talented.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

were MJ's early teams really more talented than the first 3peat team in particular? I think the presence of Scottie and Horace alone (one of the best SFs/defenders of alltime and a perenial near-allstar PF) gives those teams the edge, then add in Cartwright and Armstrong, both very solid pros, and a serviceable bench. I'm not disputing your argument about Jordan's learning curve, just wondering about that part of the discussion.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> Now in scope of how all this started is also simple before you began to make this all about MJ ,JC is not the best player he can be mentally(or skills wise) ,no one disputes this , but there is ample room for improvement as much room as there was for young extremely talented player in the mid 80's, who was hard headed, who fought management tooth and nail and was considered a coach killer to become the most cerbral player of his time.This is a discussion about jamal crawford's ceiling as a basketball player after all and that encompasses more than how well he can do a crossover, by all accounts of the man he is a student of the game pretty coachable and very talented.


See there you go again.

MJ's coaches from top to bottom loved him. Dean Smith, Knight, Kevin Loughery, Albeck, Doug Collins, PJ. And you are calling him a coach killer.

MJ got more knowledgeable about the games as he got older. Most smart players do. 

But this is a bad example to use in showing that JC will be a lot better as he gets older due to better mentality. 

MJ was already arguably the best player in the league before this magical improvement in mentality. He was 1st team all NBA in his 3rd season after losing his 2nd to his foot injuy. In his 3rd seaons, he averged 37 ppg on 48% shooting. Plus 5 apg, 5rpg, 3 spg, 1.5 bbg. 

In his fourth season, still 2 years b/f the Bulls won a championship, he was the NBA MVP and defensive player of the year.

So MJ already brought more to the table than all but a handful of players to ever play the game.

Terrible example to compare JC to considering what JC is bringing to the table right now.


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

I would say his ceiling with a GM who is an enabler would be about $2 million per stunt that gets on the Sports Center highlights. Contract average of $6-$8 mil. I guess.

Fools gold.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> See there you go again.
> ...


mj was a coach killer because well he did go through his share of coaches until phil....and it wasn't scottie's or horace's fault, It went down to MJ because for all of his personal acheivements his teams underacheived , I compare him to JC because MJ went a complete 180 and by the end of his tenure with the bulls he was keeping his coach hired and his teams overacheived. Saying if it can happen for him as it did for mj ...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> mj was a coach killer because well he did go through his share of coaches until phil....and it wasn't scottie's or horace's fault, It went down to MJ because for all of his personal acheivements his teams underacheived


MJ's first coach, Kevin Loughery, was fired after one season b/c he was the coach when Reinsdorf bought the team and put in Krause and they wanted their own coach.

MJ's second coach, Stan Albeck, was fired after a season b/c Reinsdorf and Krause were upset that Albeck broke his promise to only play MJ a certain amount of minutes when he was returning from his broken foot.

MJ's third coach, Doug Collins, was fired after a season in which the Bulls got the the Division Finals for the first time (ever?) b/c Reinsdorf and Krause didn't think he could get the team from Point B to Point C.

MJ's fourth coach, Phil Jackson, finally left b/c he could not put up with Krause anymore.

IF anyone is a coach killer, I would have to nominate Krause.




> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> , I compare him to JC because MJ went a complete 180 and by the end of his tenure with the bulls he was keeping his coach hired and his teams overacheived. Saying if it can happen for him as it did for mj ...


Anything is possible but I sure don't buy any parallel between MJ and JC.


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

Earl Boykins could not walk under Crawford ceiling without bending over.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bullhawk</b>!
> Earl Boykins could not walk under Crawford ceiling without bending over.


Actually, Jamal and Kirk were over at my house the other day playing on my trampoline. Jamal bumped his head on my ceiling while Kirk came no where close.

Thought you'd like to know!


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, Jamal and Kirk were over at my house the other day playing on my trampoline. Jamal bumped his head on my ceiling while Kirk came no where close.
> ...


Kirk and Jamal drove out to Indiana to play on your trampoline?!?! That is too cool! :rock:


----------



## Bullhawk (Sep 8, 2003)

Kirk does not and will not hang out with Jamal.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bullhawk</b>!
> Kirk does not and will not hang out with Jamal.


Why not?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bullhawk</b>!
> Kirk does not and will not hang out with Jamal.


:laugh: So now youre Hinrichs offical spokesperson


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bullhawk</b>!
> Kirk does not and will not hang out with Jamal.


Sounds like a mature team minded attitude 


And if Crawford's ceiling is so low, how is it he had 27, 7, & 4 last night while holding Pierce down?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bullhawk</b>!
> Earl Boykins could not walk under Crawford ceiling without bending over.


Grow up...

Didn't you say you were leaving?

Hasn't the time away given you a chance to reflect?

We're all Bulls fans here and we want the Bulls to succeed, in case you have missed it, we all know Kirk has been great all year, but there isn't anyone here who can tell me that Jamal hasn't had a great season either.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

JC is at his best now wont get any better and i have live 04 to back me up LOL:yes:


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bulls</b>!
> JC is at his best now wont get any better and i have live 04 to back me up LOL:yes:


lol...

I have Live too, and I'm having the hardest time in my Bulls Dynasty but JC is performing well.

Anyway if you're going to use a video game to support your argument, you might as well quit now.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> lol...
> ...



Dood i was jokein about the live 04 thing... 
i wish they would make live's Francse like maddens,im so sick of signin players to points i want to play with money  

also have you noticed that when there is big FA in the pool if you wait untill after the season begins you can get them for the MIN @1yr and that just kills that part of the game for me its to ez to have a ton of great players..that game is the best BBall game out but man it needs alot of work...


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

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


If you get it for PC, you can fix that problem...

The game is incredible on PC...

I'm still "updating" everything...


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Some of you know that I've been one of the Crawford critics on this board for the last few years. His improvements are making me change my tune.

First off, he's a Bull, and I'd rather that all the Bulls succeed, as opposed to getting new players (even though trade scenarios are fun :yes: ). But with such a young team, it is very important that our four key youngsters make dramatic improvements if we are to succeed from within. Jamal has been making steady and impressive improvement this year.

As I watched the game last night, he seemed more and more comfortable with the trappings of being a shooting guard. He's become a much more adept catch and shoot scorer. Early in the game, he was very off balance, but now he has learned how to take his time when he has it. His defense is clearly improved. He did a very impressive job on Pierce last night, although the Celts just looked demoralized.

I'm willing to stick with the Crawford/Hinrich backcourt long term. If we have a better option, we should explore it, but I was all for moving JC earlier in the year, and his improvement has changed my opinion.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> I'm willing to stick with the Crawford/Hinrich backcourt long term. If we have a better option, we should explore it, but I was all for moving JC earlier in the year, and his improvement has changed my opinion.


Despite my misgivings about any MJ comparisions of any type, JC sure looked good last night. I am coming around on him, too. 

At this point, I would probably be dissapointed if the Bulls traded him esp. given the rumored packages coming back our way. A low first rounder and a guy like Brent Barry doesn't seem to cut it.

But if Pax ain't trading him, Pax better be ready to pay him this summer. :upset:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> As I watched the game last night, he seemed more and more comfortable with the trappings of being a shooting guard. He's become a much more adept catch and shoot scorer. Early in the game, he was very off balance, but now he has learned how to take his time when he has it. His defense is clearly improved. He did a very impressive job on Pierce last night, although the Celts just looked demoralized.


The celtics defense was softer than melted butter last night.

That applies to KH and his 23 and 14 too.


----------



## Bulls42 (Jul 22, 2002)

*I have always been in JC's corner*

However, even I admit he frustrates me so much. Case in point, I was in Chicago for the holidays. I went to the Heat game. I was all excited to see JC and the Bulls. JC put up 42 points in a win the previous game. When I went he had 5 and the Bulls blew a huge lead and lost. He is so frustruating because you expect to see great performances every night, because he has it in him. This second half of the season, he needs to be more consistent in his performances. With Eddy being in shape, and Tyson coming back, I think we should expect KH and JC to have more performances like last night in the second half of the season. The more games they get under their belt, the more consistent they will be. We should expect this given the way both of them have steadily improved on the areas of their games that needed work (Crawford-driving to the rim, catch and shoot; KH- 3 point shot).


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bullhawk</b>!
> Kirk does not and will not hang out with Jamal.





> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Why not?


I'm still interested in hearing an answer to this...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


KH doesn't hang out with anyone from the team.


Mebbe doesn't want to be infected with the losing mentality...


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> But if Pax ain't trading him, Pax better be ready to pay him this summer. :upset:


What kind of $$ will he get offered and by whom? I know this partially depends on how well he plays the rest of this season, but assuming the other GMs watch the same games as we've seen, I can't imagine any of the few teams with cap space offering "star" money.

What are we really talking...$5-7MM?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> What kind of $$ will he get offered and by whom? I know this partially depends on how well he plays the rest of this season, but assuming the other GMs watch the same games as we've seen, I can't imagine any of the few teams with cap space offering "star" money.
> ...


I think that is a good guess. But a contract at $7 per starting over 6 years can be a $55M+ contract. That might be too rich and too long for Pax's blood.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I think that is a good guess. But a contract at $7 per starting over 6 years can be a $55M+ contract. That might be too rich and too long for Pax's blood.


Agree. Who would be both in a position to offer the $7MM/$55MM to Crawford?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> Agree. Who would be both in a position to offer the $7MM/$55MM to Crawford?


It's a much tougher year than most to figure out who will have cap space b/c of the expansion draft. 

Example: Heat would have a ton of room if the Bobcats took Grant or Jones off their hands.

Without something like that happening, teams like Utah, Clips, Denver, SA (but then need to resign Gino), and the Suns will have space. Could be more. Clips seem like the best fit of all of these teams but you never know.

It only takes one team to really roll the dice on JC.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> The shooting is the real killer. Jamal is about as consistent a shooter as I am.


Ouch.


----------

